Faculty ARPT Guidelines

1. Letter of recommendation from Head(s)/ Director(s)
2. Addenda to the candidate’s Curriculum Vitae or Record of Publications
3. Curriculum Vitae and Record of Publications
4. For Promotions: Summative Peer Review of Teaching (SPROT) OR for Appointments: Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness. 
5. Peer Teaching Evaluations 
6. Referee summary
7. Sample letter of referee solicitation
8. Letters of Reference (placed in the same order as listed in the referee summary)

If applicable, placed after #1 in the list above: 

• Head(s)/Director(s) Letter to the Candidate (if the Departmental Committee(s) had serious concerns)
• Candidate’s response to the Concerns of the Departmental Committee(s) (if concerns were raised)
• Letter(s) of Recommendation from Head(s)/Director(s)
• Head(s)/Director(s) Letter to the Candidate, inviting a response to the Dean (if recommendation to the Dean was negative)
• Candidate’s Response to the Dean on the Recommendation of the Head(s)/Director(s) (if recommendation was negative)

• Research Stream – Sample of the candidate’s work (normally publication reprints, to a maximum of 3)
• Educational Leadership Stream – Educational Leadership Dossier

• Contains updates to the candidate’s record which wasn’t previously captured in the original CV which was viewed by the referees.
• Promotion / Tenure files require the CV to be presented in UBC format, and initialed by the candidate as validation of accuracy; all CV formats are accepted for New Hire files.
• Must be dated appropriately.

• Presented in UBC format, and hand initialed by the candidate as validation of accuracy.
• The CV should be identical to the one examined by referees, and the timing appropriate.
• The List of Grants includes dates, amounts, co‐investigators and the grants for which they are principal investigator.
• Follows the correct bibliographic style, including pagination.
• Refereed papers are clearly identified and the candidate’s most significant papers are asterisked.

• Please do not forward the Teaching Dossier except for appointment or promotion cases in the Educational Leadership Stream.
• The SPROT is a two‐three page document that contains a peer review assessment of the candidate’s entire teaching contribution. The peer review team should be conducted by teams of at least two peer reviews selected by the Head/Director or delegate.
• As indicated in the Summative Peer Review of Teaching for Heads/Directors: the candidate’s entire teaching contribution at the undergraduate, graduate and post‐graduate levels should be reviewed, and this review may include information on the context of teaching (e.g. teaching workload, numbers of students and range of courses taught, etc.), teaching process, outcomes and impact.
• As per the SAC Guide, the SPROT is not necessary for new appointments. However, for new appointments, please provide as much evidence and information as possible on teaching effectiveness.

• Copies of two teaching observations conducted by peer evaluators.
• As per the SAC Guide, Peer Teaching Evaluations are not necessary for new appointments. However, for new appointments, please provide as much evidence and information as possible on teaching effectiveness.

• Two or three of the candidate’s scholarly publications they wish to be reviewed.
• In the case of candidate’s whose scholarly activity is comprised of ‘professional contributions’, the candidate may wish to distribute an alternate sample or work that was of impact to the profession.
• In the case of Associate Professor of Teachings and Professors of Teaching, scholarly activity is encouraged but is not a requirement. Therefore, the candidate might not have publications they wish to distribute.
• Note: Reprints are not forwarded to SAC.

• For Associate Professor of Teaching and Professor of Teaching promotion and tenure decisions, one copy of the candidate’s full teaching dossier is required.
• Note: A redacted version of the Teaching Dossier is forwarded to SAC.

• List of referees with brief biography including:
  • Position
  • Expertise
  • Reasons for selection – The referee selection should reflect all aspects of the candidate’s scholarly activity and the candidate’s renowned in their field.

• In the case where a Head has been a co-author or received research funds with the candidate, an Acting Head should be put in place for the entire review process including soliciting the referee letters.
• It is recommended that Heads contact potential referees to determine whether the referee is willing to provide a letter of assessment and if so, to do so by the deadline provided, using Template A. They should also confirm at this time whether or not they are at arm’s length. If they are or have been a collaborator and declare that they are still at arm’s length, it is helpful to know the reasons why so that a potential referee is not precluded unnecessarily.
• If the potential referee is willing to provide a letter of assessment by the deadline, then Template B can be used. The referees are to receive a copy of the candidate’s CV, two or three samples of scholarly work, such as publication reprints, unless the referee has alternate access to them, relevant criteria from the Collective Agreement and SAC Guide. The Teaching Dossier is not sent to referees except in the case of Professor of Teaching Stream reviews (please use the Referee Solicitation Letter specifically for the  Educational Leadership Stream).
• For New Hires, arm’s length letters of reference solicited during the recruitment process can be used; however, a follow-up letter is often required to obtain an explicit recommendation regarding the appointment at X rank and tenure.
• Note that cases can be based on one or a combination of these forms but the form of scholarly activity must be determined in advance in discussion between the Head and the candidate so that the appropriate referees are chosen and appropriate criteria are applied at all stages of the review.
• One sample of a letter of solicitation is to be included in the file that moves forward to the President.
• Include a “sample” of the letter used to solicit references. The letter should have been prepared using the SAC template and:
  • Asked the referee to comment explicitly on promotion and tenure
  • Asked the referee to assess as a blended case, if appropriate
  • Included a copy of:
    • The relevant UBC criteria
    • The candidate’s current C.V.
    • Selected publications of the candidate’s worl
• Note: Do not send the Teaching Dossier to the referees except in the case of candidates in the Educational Leadership Stream

• Promotions: 4 letters are required to assess the candidate’s quality and significance of scholarly achievements. 2 referees are derived from the candidate’s list; 2 referees from Departmental list:
  • Include a deadline for the referee to respond
  • These must be at arm’s length, except in the case of Associate Professors of Teaching and Professors of Teaching.
    • Check their publication record, list of research grants, and PubMed
    • If the language in their letter suggests that a personal relationship exists, send a follow up question inquiring about the nature of their relationship
    • Make sure that they are not a former supervisor, or from the candidate’s current or former institution.
  • The dates of the referee letters must be consistent with timing of judgment
  • The referee selection should reflect all aspects of the candidate’s scholarly activity and the candidate’s renowned in their field.
  • They are normally expected to be a rank above the candidate (except for Professors)
  • They must make an explicit statement regarding ranks and, if applicable, tenure
• New recruitments: There must be at least 4 arm’s length letters of reference external to UBC and to the individual’s current institution with the exception of the scenario outlined below. A maximum of 2 arm’s length letters as part of the recruitment process can be counted towards the four arm’s length letters necessary. In the event letters of reference are used from the recruitment process, and tenure is a subject of the appointment, the referees will need to be further consulted and provide their recommendation on the specific question of tenure.

• If serious concerns about the candidacy are raised by the Departmental Committee(s), the Head(s) / Director(s) must provide the candidate with a summary of the concerns and be given the opportunity to respond in writing and introduce further relevant evidence before the Departmental Standing Committee votes.
• The Head must provide the candidate with a written summary of the concerns in sufficient detail to enable the candidate to understand the concerns fully and enclose copies of the external letters of reference modified to the extent necessary to protect the identity of the external referees.
• SAC Guide – Section 6.2.9
  • Serious Concerns: In all cases other than initial appointment, if serious concerns about the candidacy arise in the departmental standing committee, the Head must provide the candidate with a written summary of the concerns in sufficient detail to enable the candidate to understand the concerns fully and with a summary or copies of the external letters of reference modified to the extent necessary to protect the identity of external referees. The candidate must be given the opportunity to (i) respond in writing and (ii) to introduce further relevant evidence before the vote is taken (Article 5.06 of the Agreement). After considering the candidate’s response, the departmental standing committee will vote at a subsequent meeting.

• If serious concerns about the candidacy are raised by the Departmental Committee, the Head / Director must provide the candidate with a summary of the concerns and be given the opportunity to respond in writing and introduce further relevant evidence before the Departmental Committee votes.
• The response by the candidate to the serious concerns raised by the Departmental Committee(s), and any supplemental information provided by the candidate, is to be included in the file.

• A statement of the Head’s / Director’s recommendation (template).
• A statement of the consideration:
  • Appointment, promotion, or seventh‐year tenure consideration
  • Do not distinguish between grant tenure/track and tenure/track.
• Background for the case, outlining any special conditions of the appointment.
• The process of the Departmental Committee meeting, including,
  • A summary of what occurred
  • The date of the Departmental Committee meeting
  • Number of members present and an explanation of absences, for
  • Number of votes for, against, and abstentions with explanation
  • Note: a minimum of 3 eligible members must vote.
• The basis for the recommendation:
  • Assessment of the candidates’ demonstrated activities under the headings of Teaching, Scholarly Activity, and Service to the University and Community, including:
    • Information on Departmental norms at the rank being considered with regard to teaching load, graduate supervision, administrative responsibilities, dissemination of research, or other scholarly work and external funding.
    • The research impact & significance of journal publications
    • Referee comments
• State that the letter has been circulated for review by the Departmental Committee.
• In the case of Joint Appointments, letters from both academic units must be included.

• If the recommendation of the Head / Director is negative, the Head / Director must provide the candidate detailed reasons in writing. This letter is to be included in the file.
• SAC Guide – Section 6.4.2
  • If the recommendation of either the Head and/or the departmental standing committee is negative, the Head must provide the candidate detailed and specific reasons in writing for any negative recommendation, including respects in which the candidate is deemed to have failed to satisfy the applicable criteria. Where the Head’s recommendation is negative but that of the standing committee is positive, the Head must also provide detailed and specific reasons for the positive recommendation.
• Note: The candidate will be asked to respond to the Dean. Faculty Affairs is responsible for including the candidate’s response to the negative recommendation of the Head / Director.

• The response by the candidate to the negative recommendation of the Head(s)/ Director(s) is to be included in the file. As the candidate will be responding to the Dean, Faculty HR is responsible for including the candidate’s response to the file as per the SAC Guide.
• SAC Guide – Section 6.4.5
  • The Head may provide reasons by giving the candidate a copy of the letter of recommendation being forwarded to the Dean. However, if that is done, the letter will be modified to the extent necessary to protect the confidentiality and identity of the referees. The candidate should be invited to make a timely written response to the Dean, which will be added to the file (Article 5.08(d) of the Agreement).