The purpose of the appointment, reappointment or promotion evaluation is to appraise, on the record to date, the candidate’s standing in his or her field. Decisions on appointment, reappointment and promotion are subject to the exercise of professional and scholarly judgment and discretion by departmental faculty and academic leadership at the School level. The criteria and guidelines outlined in Chapter 3.2 of this Handbook should be read and applied by all those who cast a vote on an appointment, reappointment or promotion action.
The University recognizes that there are significant variations in how candidates qualify for and secure appointment according to field and discipline. Candidates come from different backgrounds and receive different educational training. In addition, there may be great variation in emphasis among the components of activity (i.e., clinical care, teaching and, if applicable, institutional service and/or scholarly activity). Nevertheless, all appointments have in common the requirement of excellence, however measured.
Procedures for the evaluation process at the department and School levels are described below. Departures from these guidelines should be rare and for good reason. Procedural questions should be addressed to the Office of Academic Affairs.
Instructions for assembly of each component of the appointment, reappointment or promotion form, including the process for compiling a list of proposed evaluators (referees and trainees) is available on the Office of Academic Affairs website http://med.stanford.edu/academicaffairs/CEs.
The entire appointment, reappointment or promotion proceedings during which specific candidates are discussed are to be held in strict confidence by all participants. The opinions expressed by the school or department faculty or by internal or external referees shall not be discussed with the candidate or with other parties. This policy ensures that the candidacy of each person is treated with utmost confidentiality. It also provides an opportunity for those making the evaluation to have the freedom to provide written evaluation or to discuss the candidates during committee meetings without fearing that their comments will be shared outside the deliberations.
A breach of confidence by a participant in an appointment, reappointment or promotion case is a serious breach of professional ethics and may subject the individual to discipline.
The Vice Dean of the School of Medicine or the Chair of the department (or his or her designate) will convey whatever information needs to be transmitted to the candidate.
C. Role of the Department Chair
The department chair is responsible for compliance with School guidelines regarding faculty appointments, reappointments and promotions. He or she is to ensure that those conducting Clinician Educator evaluations are fully informed about these guidelines in order to avoid delays and other problems due to deficiencies in procedure and documentation.
The ultimate decision on whether to forward the appointment, reappointment or promotion to the Vice Dean of the School of Medicine with a positive or negative recommendation is made by the department chair in his or her judgment and discretion.
D. Timing of Evaluations
After a candidate has been identified, the department chair, or his or her designate, is responsible for seeing that the appointment file is completed in a timely manner. Departments are advised to allow a minimum of thirty days in advance of the effective date for completion of school review and to be informed of special submission deadlines posted on the Office of Academic Affairs’ website. For this reason, under normal circumstances, reappointment and promotion reviews for Clinician Educators are initiated approximately six months in advance of the appointment end date.
Consultation between the department chair and the Vice Dean of the School of Medicine is essential prior to initiating a review process leading toward early promotion. The process can only be initiated with the consent of the candidate and with approval of the Vice Dean.
E. Departmental Review
Departments vary in their practices regarding preparation and approval of Clinician Educator appointment, reappointment and promotion files. Several departments have established a departmental Clinician Educator Appointments and Promotions Committee that advises the department chair. At a minimum, a recommendation must be approved by the department chair and division chief, if applicable.
F. Review by the Office of Academic Affairs
The appointment, reappointment or promotion file is submitted by the department chair to the Office of Academic Affairs for review by the Vice Dean of the School of Medicine (or a designate). The Vice Dean may, in his or her judgment, make a negative recommendation on the file or take such other action as deemed appropriate, including request additional information or remand the action to the department.
After having received such review by the Office of Academic Affairs and after any suggested revisions have been incorporated or other issues have been resolved, the file is then submitted to Academic Affairs for distribution to the Clinician Educator Appointments and Promotions Committee. The Committee considers all actions with the exception of Clinical Instructor appointments and reappointments, which are approved by the Vice Dean for Academic Affairs (or his or her designate).
G. The Clinician Educator Appointments and Promotions Committee
The School of Medicine Clinician Educator Appointments and Promotions Committee is a standing committee, advisory to the Vice Dean of the School of Medicine, and appointed to review and assess the academic credentials for appointment, reappointment and promotion to the ranks of Clinical Assistant Professor, Clinical Associate Professor and Clinical Professor, including (Affiliated), in the Clinician Educator line.
Appointed by the Vice Dean of the School of Medicine, the Committee is composed of eight Clinician Educators at the rank of Clinical Professor and is chaired by an Associate Dean for Academic Affairs.
3. Terms of Service
The chair serves on the Committee concurrent with his or her appointment as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs. The other Committee members serve for staggered three-year terms, and each appointment is renewable for additional terms.
For each appointment, reappointment or promotion considered by the Clinician Educator Appointments and Promotions Committee, the Office of Academic Affairs provides the Committee with the file comprised of all of the required evidence, the requirements for which are posted on the Office of Academic Affairs website. To aid in the assessment of candidates’ credentials the Academic Affairs staff assigns Committee members to review each file.
Upon request by a Committee member (and with the concurrence of the Committee chair), the discussion of a candidate may be deferred until a future meeting. An action may also be tabled by the Committee members for a variety of reasons: in their discretion, the Committee members may agree to request from the department and consider any other material or information to complete the evaluation of the candidate’s credentials for the action recommended or make a recommendation that the Vice Dean of the School of Medicine pursue an alternate strategy with the department. It is inappropriate for the Committee or the Committee Reviewers to individually seek other material or information about the candidate or to consult with or receive advice from the candidate.
5. Meetings and Quorum
Normally, the Committee convenes once a month. Consideration of a recommendation by the Committee requires the presence of more than half of the current voting Committee membership, including either the primary or secondary committee reviewer assigned the file. Members who are absent, on leave, or who are recused are not counted toward the current Committee membership for purposes of quorum.
6. Voting and Recusal
Members of the Committee do not vote or contribute to the Committee’s consideration of a candidate if they have (a) overseen, or participated in, preparation of the documentation on behalf of the candidate (including submission of letters of evaluation); (b) attended a departmental or divisional meeting during which the candidate’s currently proposed appointment, reappointment or promotion was discussed; or (c) voted on the recommendation at the divisional or departmental level. Members of the Committee are expected to notify the Committee chair or OAA staff regarding such situations or other possible circumstances that might make appropriate their recusal from consideration of a recommendation.
All members present at a meeting are required to provide a voice vote. To carry affirmatively, a yea vote must be cast by a majority of Committee members in attendance. The same number of nay votes (a majority) is required for a negative recommendation.
Abstentions are inappropriate, except under extraordinary circumstances. Absentee votes are not allowed; however, Committee members who cannot attend a meeting may submit written comments to be reviewed by the Committee.
7. Decision by the Vice Dean of the School of Medicine
Upon receipt of a recommendation (whether positive or negative) from the Clinician Educator Appointments and Promotions Committee, the Vice Dean of the School of Medicine, in his or her judgment and discretion, will make his or her decision as whether to approve or overturn a positive recommendation, approve or overturn a negative recommendation, remand the file with further instructions, or take such other action as in his or her judgment is deemed appropriate.
If the Vice Dean’s decision (and hence the School’s decision) is positive, then notification of that positive decision is provided to the department and an appointment letter is prepared for the candidate.
If the Vice Dean’s decision (and hence the School’s decision) is negative, then notification of that negative decision is provided to the department and, for reappointment or promotion actions, to the candidate.
Reconsideration of a negative decision by the Vice Dean will occur only if the department provides convincing evidence that new and material information bearing on the case exists, such as information that could not have been available in the original evaluation. Reconsiderations are rare and may be avoided by consultation between the department chair and the Vice Dean at appropriate intervals in the process.
Printable version of this section of Chapter 8 (pdf)