Resources

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO FACULTY COMPENSATION
(Approved February 16, 2001)
(Revised May 2008)

In carrying out its missions in medical education, biomedical research and service to patients and to the community, the Miller School of Medicine assumes a variety of responsibilities to the students who come to it seeking professional education, to the patients who come to it in need of care and to the community which provides resources and support in a variety of ways. In addition, the School also assumes important responsibilities to the clinicians, researchers, teachers and administrators that together make up its academic community.

The effects on academic medical centers of major changes in the economics of health care in recent years require that all of these responsibilities be re-examined, including those implied in the mutual expectations and obligations that exist between faculty members and the School of Medicine. Unprecedented fiscal pressures now raise ethical and legal issues concerning performance, accountability, equity and the financial and academic implications involved in faculty appointments generally and in appointments with tenure specifically. Many of these issues have not been specifically addressed or defined in the past, largely because, in a setting of overall growth or at least stability of fiscal support for the academic enterprise, it has been possible either to avoid confronting them or to deal with them on the basis of long-standing tradition and good faith alone. In particular, the possibility of a decrease in compensation, while always vexing, has seldom been a contentious issue in the past, since clinicians understand and accept variations in the patient care delivery-based portions of their salaries; and decrements in compensation for the non-clinical activities of faculty in both clinical and non-clinical departments have rarely been considered.

In an environment of constrained resources, however, the possibility of decreases in compensation becomes more imminent. While the prospect of a decrease in compensation is troublesome to all faculty, the implications of such changes for the financial status and psychological well-being of non-clinicians is likely to be especially harmful and merit particular sensitivity. In the interests of fairness and collegiality, a rational, deliberate basis and process for implementing changes in compensation must be clearly spelled out and understood by all those involved, both in making such decisions and in bearing their consequence.

At the request of the Senior Vice President and Dean, the Faculty Council has deliberated at length on a number of proposals dealing with faculty compensation. The area of faculty compensation is one that the Faculty Council would have preferred not to deal with. Since policies and procedures for implementing decreased compensation were being instituted, however, the Council felt a responsibility and opportunity to provide representation of the faculty viewpoint. While the most urgent and delicate of the guidelines to be developed related to assuring appropriate measures for deciding on and implementing decreases in compensation, it was agreed early on by the Council and the Dean that specific plans should also be implemented to assure provision of appropriate incentives and recognition for faculty who are successful in developing new resources and initiatives in research and in education.

The following principles have guided the development of these recommendations:

Compensation for all faculty at the School should be related to a significant degree to measures of performance and productivity.

Specific guidelines and instruments for assessing performance should be developed by the faculty in each department.

Evaluations of faculty performance in light of these guidelines should be carried out at least annually and serve as a basis for decisions concerning changes in compensation.

Fairness, sensitivity and consideration in implementing decreases in compensation should be assured, to the extent possible, by providing for timely evaluation of faculty, for appropriate advance notice of planned changes, and for limitations in the extent of decreases.

Departmental fiscal constraints as a basis for decreased compensation should be imposed uniformly on all involved faculty and not selectively on individual faculty.

The recommendations generated as a result of the Council’s deliberations and ongoing interchanges with the Dean are embodied in the attached statements, separately dealing with “Procedures for Implementing Changes in Faculty Compensation,” “A Plan to Provide for Compensation Recognition of Faculty Research Activities,” “Procedures for Implementing Faculty Compensation Decreases” and “Policies Relating to Appointments of Clinical Educator Faculty.” The office of the Senior Associate Dean for Faculty and Professional Affairs, has served as an invaluable resource throughout this process, providing very helpful information concerning institutional policies and practices and offering his counsel whenever solicited.

The School’s clinical group, the University of Miami Medical Group (UMMG), has in place a compensation plan which is department specific and is reviewed annually by the UMMG, the Office of Medical Finance and the Dean. Additional programs and policies that provide for faculty incentives and recognition; for faculty development and retraining; and for dealing with the challenges and opportunities presented by the changes in faculty composition to more senior and more junior cohorts, will surely be developed and should be considered part of the School’s overall plans for relating to the members of its academic community with collegiality, with dignity and with sensitivity. Beyond such specific policies and programs, the Faculty Council believes that every individual member of our academic community, from junior faculty to Department Chairs, should take it as a personal responsibility to enhance the professional and personal welfare of colleagues and the development of a supportive environment of encouragement, caring and compassion.

PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING CHANGES IN FACULTY COMPENSATION GUIDELINES:

The following principles relating to compensation and to evaluation of performance and productivity apply to faculty at the Miller School of Medicine:

(1) Compensation for all faculty at the School of Medicine shall be related to a significant degree to measures of performance. Compensation may be adjusted upward or downward, based on evaluation of performance and productivity and on incentive plans. National guidelines such as provided by the AAMC may be used as a standard for comparison.

(2) Performance and productivity guidelines for faculty shall be developed by the faculty and Chair of each department, based upon general guidelines recommended by the School Council and approved by the Dean. The written guidelines for evaluation of faculty performance and productivity shall annually be submitted by each department to the Dean for his approval.

(3) Each faculty member will annually submit to the Chair a summary of his or her activities and achievements over the prior academic year. Evaluations of each faculty member shall be conducted by the Chair or division chief or laboratory chief annually in all departments, based in part on the prepared summary. The annual evaluation will also provide a basis for the Chair’s recommendations for compensation for the next fiscal year. The evaluation may include review by a committee of other faculty of the department, who may advise the Chair regarding salary and other issues relevant to a faculty member’s performance. Taking into account the departments approved performance and productivity guidelines; the summary prepared by the faculty member will also serve to establish a set of goals and objectives for the faculty member for the coming year.

(4) Disputes between a faculty member and the Chair in the evaluation process or in the subsequent recommendations shall be reviewed by a faculty committee external to the department, appointed by the Dean from a list of faculty recommended by the School Council. If the dispute involves compensation, financial data necessary for review of the dispute will be made available to the members of the review committee, who shall treat such information as confidential.

(5) Decreases in faculty compensation shall ordinarily not exceed 10% of the previous year’s figure exclusive of amounts designated as ‘at-risk clinical income’ (bonus, incentive, etc) or in recognition of specific administrative responsibilities. All recommendations by Chairs are reviewed by the Senior Associate Dean for Faculty and Professional Affairs. If decreases in compensation are recommended by Chairs, the faculty member may request a review by a faculty committee external to the department appointed by the Dean from a list of faculty recommended by the School Council. The results of these reviews will be reported to the Dean, who will make the final decision regarding faculty compensation.

A PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR COMPENSATION RECOGNITION OF FACULTY RESEARCH ACTIVITIES GOAL:

The goal of this plan is to develop sound fiscal guidelines to encourage and enhance the research activities of faculty and to reward those individuals who show high scholarly productivity.

POLICY

Each department (basic science or clinical) will develop a policy to provide for bonus payments from University funds at the end of the fiscal year to faculty who have shown levels of scholarly productivity above the standards defined in the department’s policies. Department policies should take into account all indices of scholarly productivity, including publications and a faculty member’s efforts in support of his or her research and other academic activities in particular, teaching. In developing and implementing these policies, departments should be guided by the consideration that an active research program in the biomedical sciences can only proceed on a secure basis with the availability of extramural funds (i.e., funds not generated within the School of Medicine), most frequently subject to a peer review process. Accordingly, a minimal requirement for the award of a bonus payment at the end of any fiscal year will be demonstrated ability to compete effectively for extramural support.

The allocation of funds for bonus payments to an individual in recognition of research productivity will be based on a written plan, developed by the department, approved by the Dean and supported by department-based funds. The plan must include the setting aside first, before allocation of a bonus payment, of a prudent sum to provide for interim funding for the faculty member’s compensation during possible future periods of loss of support for research effort from extra-mural sources.

Bonus payments can only be provided for faculty members on an individual, merit basis. Distribution of funds at the end of the fiscal year will only occur upon approval by the Dean of the award, justified on a case-by-case basis. Bonus payments will not be considered in the calculations of increases in annual compensation or in the tenured salary guaranteed by the ‘limited financial tenure’ provisions of the Faculty Manual.

PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING FACULTY COMPENSATION DECREASES:

The procedures outlined here do not apply to the clinical component(s) of UMMG faculty compensation paid through departmental clinical incentive plans or to faculty on the research track.
Each Chair will annually recommend in the department’s budget an expected compensation figure for each of the department’s faculty. This recommendation will be based on an evaluation of the performance and productivity of each faculty member, as described elsewhere, that encompasses the broad definition of scholarly achievements associated with teaching, research and service.
The Chair may recommend that compensation be decreased as a consequence of a decrease in a faculty member’s productivity. Every effort will be made to avoid precipitous decreases in faculty compensation, which shall ordinarily not exceed 10% of the previous year’s figure (exclusive of amounts designated as bonuses or in recognition of specific administrative responsibilities). All recommendations by Chairs for decreases will be reviewed by the Senior Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and, if requested by the faculty member, by a faculty committee external to the department, appointed by the Dean from a list of faculty recommended by the School Council. The results of these reviews will be reported to the Dean, who will make the final decision regarding faculty compensation. Compensation paid to a tenured faculty member may not, in any case, fall below that defined as the ‘limited financial tenure’ guaranteed salary.

If the sole reason for a recommendation by the Chair for a decrease in a faculty member’s compensation is departmental financial hardship, then this hardship must impact, to some degree, all members of the department.

A Chair’s recommendations for compensation decreases for the next fiscal year should be discussed with the faculty member and submitted to the Office of Faculty Affairs no later than January 1, so as to provide an opportunity for review of such recommendations. Should there be a disagreement between the Chair and faculty member a review by the Senior Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and by an external faculty committee, as described previously, will be carried out. The results of this review will be reported to the Dean, who will make the final decision regarding faculty compensation.

If a decrease in the compensation of a faculty member is approved, the faculty member should be notified prior to February 1, so as to allow for four months ‘notice time’ prior to the start of the fiscal year on June 1. During this notice time, the faculty member’s compensation will be maintained at the pre-existing level.
If a recommendation to decrease compensation is received after January 1 or if the review of such a recommendation is delayed, faculty notification may not occur by February 1. Such delay will not preclude a decrease in compensation during the next fiscal year. Rather, the
faculty member will be notified as soon as possible and, provided that notice is given before the start of the fiscal year on June 1, the annualized compensation decrease will begin four months after official notification in writing has been provided. Should the faculty member’s productivity improve during the four months notice period, the Chair may amend the prior recommendation for a compensation decrease.

POLICIES RELATING TO APPOINTMENTS OF CLINICAL EDUCATOR FACULTY MULTI-YEAR CONTRACTS:

Faculty on the Clinical Educator track with three or more years of faculty service at the University and who are at the rank of associate professor are eligible to receive appointments of up to three years. Faculty on the Clinical Educator track with more than three years of faculty service at the University at the rank of professor are eligible to receive appointments of up to five years. Multi-year appointments must be approved by the Senior Vice-President for Medical Affairs and Dean. Guidelines for awarding multi-year appointments shall be recommended by the School Council and approved by the Senior Vice President for Medical Affairs and Dean.
Written performance and productivity guidelines for the award of multi-year appointments to Clinical Educator faculty shall be developed by the faculty and Chair of each department with Clinical Educator faculty, based upon general guidelines recommended by the School Council and approved by the Dean. These guidelines shall take into account the criteria established by the
Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee for use in evaluating candidates for promotion in the Clinical Educator track.

During the annual evaluation of faculty members in each department, eligible faculty in the Clinical Educator track may request consideration for award of multi-year appointments. When a request for an appointment of three or more years is received by the Chair, the Chair will arrange for department review of the candidate, which will include consideration of the performance and productivity guidelines and of a written summary prepared by the faculty member describing his or her activities, achievements and contributions to the academic programs of the School and the profession. Consideration of such appointments shall thereafter proceed as for nominations for promotion and tenure, with a formal vote of the department faculty and recommendations by the Chair and by the Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee to the Dean, who will make the decision on the appointment.

Recommendations for promotion in rank in the Clinical Educator track will be considered independently of requests for multi-year appointments and undergo consideration as already prescribed by the Faculty Manual and the procedures of the School.

TERMINATION

Annual faculty appointments in the Clinical Educator track at the School of Medicine may be terminated by written notice, either by the University of intention not to reappoint or by the faculty member not to return. A decision not to reappoint needs no justification. Written notice by the University not to reappoint a faculty member in the Clinical Educator track shall be given in accordance with the following standards, as prescribed in the Faculty Manual:

(1) Not later than March 1 of the first year of service, if the appointment is to expire at the end of that year.

(2) Not later than December 15 of the second year of service, if the appointment is to expire at the end of that year.

(3) After two or more years of service, at least twelve months before the expiration of the appointment.

Faculty members with multi-year appointments in the Clinical Educator track may be terminated for cause before completion of the term of the appointment. The definition of cause in this p<>. circumstance is as prescribed in the Faculty Manual

INTRODUCTION

The Miller School of Medicine University of Miami (hereafter called the School) has three full-time faculty tracks:

(1) the TENURE-EARNING or TENURE track. The Faculty Manual refers to the faculty in this track as the regular faculty;

(2) the CLINICAL EDUCATOR track;

(3) the RESEARCH track;

As explained in the Faculty Manual, within the Tenure-Earning, Clinical Educator or Research Tracks, three ranks are available:

(1) ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

(2) ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

(3) PROFESSOR

In the Clinical Educator Track, INITIAL appointments may also be made at the rank of Instructor.

For the progressive advancement of faculty within each track, evaluation of merit is undertaken at the Department, School and University level. A key is whether there has been significant and continuing growth, productivity and excellence in the activities relevant to the candidate’s track during the candidate’s time at his/her present rank.

To accomplish this evaluation, the candidate must provide updated curriculum vitae and suggest a minimum of five1 external referees to the Department Chairperson. These referees should be neutral to the candidate and should not be former mentors, preceptors, colleagues or collaborators. Rather, they should be leaders in the candidate’s field who can fairly and accurately evaluate the candidate’s performance and academic recognition. Candidates may also indicate to the chair individuals who the candidate believes is inappropriate as an external referee. Reasons should be given for this belief the Chairperson may choose among the suggested and other referees and then solicit letters from a minimum of five referees. Unless otherwise specified, these evaluators should hold a rank at least equal to which the candidate aspires, should never have been 1) UM Procedure Rev 2008 2) formally affiliated with the University, and should never have been explicitly responsible for the candidate’s training.

Letters from former colleagues, mentors, sponsors, or former students may also be submitted to supplement the three external letters. The Chairperson must certify that ALL evaluation letters received are included in the candidate’s file. Documentation of teaching activities: particularly when teaching is a major portion of a candidate’s application for promotion and/or tenure, deliberations may benefit from including an educator’s portfolio with the candidate’s CV. If submitted by a candidate, an educator’s portfolio will be included with the candidate’s CV as a means to assess teaching performance and other educational accomplishments as well as the candidate’s commitment to teaching, and his/her efforts to improve teaching. A Guide to constructing a teaching portfolio is available at the UMSM educational development office or its website: http://www.mededu.miami.edu/edo/

The evaluation process requires the Chairperson to oversee a Department review and vote and then to provide the necessary documentation to the School’s Appointment, Promotion and Tenure (APT) Committee.

This documentation must include:

a) evaluation of teaching

b) an independent evaluation of the candidate and recommendation;

c) the results and explanation of the departmental vote;

d) all evaluation letters;

e) copies of the letters soliciting reviews from the external referees;

f) an explanation of the relationship of the referees to the candidate;

g) an assessment of the stature and qualifications of each referee;

New appointments at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor and/or new appointments with the award of tenure require review by the Appointment, Promotion and Tenure (apt) committee before approval of this rank or tenure by the University. Promotions to these ranks and/or the award of tenure also require APT Committee Review. Therefore, during evaluation of a candidate for appointment or promotion on any track above the Assistant Professor level, the APT Committee serves an important advisory role to the Senior Vice President for Medical Affairs and Dean. The following guidelines for appointment, promotion and the awarding of tenure were written and are practiced by the APT committee.

It should be emphasized that these guidelines provide only a basis for APT Committee evaluations. Final decisions result from the current experience and intentions of the faculty who comprise the APT committee as well as other considerations represented by the relevant administrators of the School and University. Also, each candidate’s application is considered on an individual basis consistent with the Faculty Manual.

TENURE-EARNING (TENURE) TRACK:

Faculty members in this track should be those who demonstrate excellence in teaching and service and who strive to make significant and original contributions to the body of knowledge in their medical specialties or scientific disciplines.

2Faculty members appointed in this track after 2008 may be considered for, and be awarded tenure, at any time after their appointment; but they must be considered for tenure no later than their eighth year of service in this track. Assistant Professors must be considered for promotion in their sixth year of service. If the sixth year review for promotion to Associate Professor is unfavorable, the seventh year shall be considered a terminal appointment.
.
Early consideration has no prejudicial effect on reconsideration through the eighth year of the ‘probationary period’.
Untenured faculty in the tenure-earning track may seek a one-year extension of their probationary period for child care or other reasons as specified in the Faculty Manual. (C5.5f)
Appointment to the tenure-earning track signifies that the candidate has demonstrated excellence through contributions to at least one of the three focus areas of academic achievement listed below, and competence in all assigned areas of responsibility including:

a) teaching (pre- and/or postgraduate);

b) research (basic and/or scientifically based clinical); and

c) service (patient care, administration, committee duties).

In addition, other evidence of peer recognition may be presented. A-1. TENURE TRACK:

1. Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor or Appointment as Associate Professor and/or the Award of Tenure
Promotion or appointment at the Associate Professor level and/or the Award of Tenure generally requires a candidate to demonstrate national recognition in his/her field. In addition, there must be evidence of scholarship supported by publications or similar communications in at least one focus area. A-1a. Teaching Activities (tenure track)
If teaching is a major portion of the candidate’s application, evidence must be presented that the candidate has developed and/or conducted teaching programs of high quality.
Three types of teaching may be distinguished;

2 Faculty Manual C5.5g rev 2008 4

a) classroom teaching that includes lectures, seminars, laboratories, discussion sections, workshops, etc;

b) graduate-student teaching including personal training, workshops, seminars and other graduate-program duties (e.g. directing a journal club); and

c) clinical teaching that involves lectures, demonstrations, individual or group teaching in a clinical setting, and postgraduate education. Documentation of teaching activities must include:

1) a synopsis of teaching assignments including conferences, student teaching, laboratories, etc;

2) evidence of contributions to educational administration, curriculum planning and development, or analysis

3) department or other peer evaluation of teaching abilities. Examples of instructional materials such as handouts used in the candidate’s teaching, authored textbooks, software, or audiovisual aides, are helpful and may be provided. A description of the application of new or improved teaching methods should be provided, if appropriate;

4) evaluations of teaching by medical and/or graduate students, house staff, and postdoctoral fellows, or evidence of teaching awards.
The chair must provide a summary of all teaching evaluations and include all comments written on individual evaluation forms which pertain to the candidate’s teaching efforts. Individual evaluation forms must be available, if requested, but these may not be substituted for the summary statement. A-1b. Research Activities (tenure track):
If research is a major component of the candidate’s application, evidence must be presented that the candidate has had major involvement in a research program that is of high quality and significance, and is extramurally funded. Documentation must include:

1) a bibliography and statement that describes the research program, accomplishments to date, and future goals (maximum: 2 pages);

2) a record of independent funding as a principal investigator. This should be submitted as a chronology of research support listing its source, principal investigator, candidate’s role, and annual and total direct costs;

3) three letters of evaluation of the research programs from recognized authorities in the candidate’s field. These letters should assess the quality of the candidate’s research. If other letters are provided attesting to the candidate’s excellence in other activities (e.g. clinical service, teaching, committee service, etc) also comment on research productivity, they may provide the relevant documentation in the research category;

4) an evaluation of the quality of the journals in which the candidate has published, and the number of citations by others in the field; A-1c. Service (tenure track): (1) Clinical Activities:
If clinical activity is a major portion of the candidate’s application, evidence must be presented describing the candidate’s accomplishments in this and related activities, such as the number of clinics attended, type of patients seen, procedures performed inpatient responsibilities, and outreach activities including community service. Other areas of clinical activity may be considered. Evidence of excellence in performing clinical responsibilities should include:

1) evaluations of the candidate’s clinical activities and performance by three recognized authorities in the candidate’s field. Ideally, these letters should come from external evaluators, but at least one may come from a referee inside the University community. These evaluations should review whether the candidate has attained a national reputation and compare the candidate with other faculty of similar rank and experience. If it is impossible to obtain at least one outside letter, an explanation of the special-case status must be provided, and a letter from a colleague in another department within the School may suffice.

2) additional letters may be provided from colleagues whose primary appointment is in other University department, or from graduates of resident-physician training programs;

3) a scholarly approach to patient care as demonstrated by: a) knowledge and/or use of current concepts and techniques, or development of new programs; and b) national dissemination of this
knowledge, as evidenced by the presentation of seminars or written materials [e.g. a continuing medical education (CME) syllabus] and a bibliography of publications. Copies of CME written materials and publications, which support a scholarly approach to patient care, should be included with the candidate’s file;

4) documentation of clinical activities (e.g. yearly statistics describing referral numbers, clinics attended, procedures performed, number of private patients, etc). (2) Committee Activities/Administrative Duties:
If professional service to the Department, School, hospital or University is an important aspect of the candidate’s application, this service should be documented as:

1) major committee assignments with the candidate’s role on the committee and time commitment;

2) administrative assignments or projects with end product, the candidate’s role and time commitment;

3) professional administration and program development with end product, the candidate’s role and time commitment. If supervision of a clinical or administrative unit is involved, this unit should be identified and its mission described together with the duties and responsibilities of the candidate and evidence of program growth that includes its regional and national reputation;

4) professional service to local, regional, state, or national associations or governmental units should be listed with the candidate’s role and time commitment;

5) appointments or election to office in county, state or national medical and health-care societies and/or professional scientific societies;

6) for clinicians, service as an examiner for a specialty-certifying board.
At least three letters should be solicited from the beneficiaries of the services described above in order to document the significance of the candidate’s contributions. In addition, evidence of the esteem in which the candidate is held by peers at local and national levels is helpful to the APT Committee. Such evidence may include:

1) positions of leadership or responsibly in organizations, agencies, and professional societies;

2) responsibilities as manuscript reviewer for scientific journals or appointments to editorial boards;

3) participation on study sections, consultant panels, and advisory boards or the equivalent, of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), Veterans Administration (VA), American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, etc;

4) visiting faculty appointments or invited lectureship presentations at other institutions.

2. Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor or Appointment as Professor with the award of tenure:
Promotion or appointment as Professor with Tenure at that rank requires that the candidate has continued to grow in stature and has exhibited further excellence and continued productivity in at least one of the teaching, research or service areas since initial appointment or promotion to Associate Professor. Professors must have attained widespread recognition in their major areas of success (teaching, research, service). The candidate’s contribution to his/her field should include continued scholarly publications, and continued funding of peer-reviewed research.

Supporting evidence may include:

1) service as an invited speaker at national and international conferences;

2) service as visiting professor;

3) preparation of books, chapters, or reviews;

4) service on editorial boards;

5) service as officer of a national or international professional societies;

6) awards or honors;

7) appointments to government review and advisory panels and/or committees;

8) appointments to major committees of national and international professional societies;

9) other types of recognition.

B. CLINICAL EDUCATOR TRACK:

This track may be selected for full-time members of the faculty (physicians) whose primary professional activities are teaching and clinical service. However, a tangible contribution to academic scholarship is expected.

Physicians are often appointed initially to the CE track even though they may have a significant commitment to research. Faculty on CE track may subsequently transfer to the tenure-earning track, with appropriate agreements and evaluations. Faculty on the CE track is given academic titles with the word ‘Clinical’ inserted before the name of the discipline (e.g. Assistant Professor of Clinical Pediatrics).

Promotions in the CE track are based on evaluation of the candidate’s contributions toward advancement of clinical knowledge through scholarly endeavors, including published clinical reviews, reports of innovative treatment, case reports, outcome studies and authorship of reports by major commissions or committees on health-care issues, etc.
Promotion in the CE track signifies that the candidate has made significant contributions in more than one area of academic life and a tangible contribution in the other. these areas include:
1) clinical and/or administrative service;

2) teaching; and

3) clinical research

In general, promotion or appointment at the Associate Professor level requires a candidate to demonstrate recognition within his/her referral area (i.e. local, regional, state) whereas promotion or appointment to Professor requires a national reputation. Time-in-grade is a minor criterion for promotion in the CE track, and is not in itself a sufficient prerequisite. B-1 CLINICAL EDUCATOR TRACK:

1. Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor or Appointment as Associate Professor (CE Track)

B-1a. Clinical and Administrative Service (CE Track): 1) Clinical Activity:

If clinical activity is a major portion of the candidate’s application, evidence must be presented describing the candidate’s accomplishments in this and related activities, such as the number of clinics attended, type of patients seen, procedures performed inpatient responsibilities, and outreach activities including community service. Other areas of clinical activity may be considered. Evidence of excellence in performing clinical responsibilities should include:

1) evaluations of the candidate’s clinical activities and performance by three recognized authorities in the candidate’s field including at least one letter from outside the School. Ideally, these letters should review the candidate’s regional reputation and compare the candidate with other faculty of similar rank and experience. If only one outside letter is provided, the writer must not have been responsible for any portion of the candidate’s training. If it is not possible to obtain at least one outside letter, an explanation of the special-case status must be provided, and a letter from a colleague in another department within the School may suffice;

2) a scholarly approach to patient care as demonstrated by: a) knowledge and/or use of current concepts and techniques, or development of new diagnostic and/or treatment programs; and b) local and regional dissemination of this knowledge to students and/or patients, as evidenced by the presentation of seminars or written materials, CME programs, Department conferences, and a bibliography of publications. Copies of CME written materials and publications, which support a scholarly approach to patient care, should be included with the candidate’s file;
3) documentation of clinical activities (e.g. yearly statistics describing referral numbers, clinics attended, procedures performed, number of private patients, etc). 2) Administrative Activity:
If present or past professional service to the Department, School, Hospital, University or community is an important aspect of the candidate’s application, such service must be documented in one or more of the following areas:

1) major committee assignments with the candidate’s role on the committee and time commitment;

2) administrative assignments or duties with end product, the candidate’s role and time commitment;

3) professional administration and program development with end product, the candidate’s role and time commitment. If supervising a clinical or administrative unit, this unit should be identified and its mission described together with the duties and responsibilities of the candidate and evidence of program growth including its regional and state reputation;

4) professional service to local, regional or governmental units should be listed with the candidate’s role and time commitment;

5) appointment or election to office in city, county or state medical and health-care societies;

6) service as an examiner for a specialty certifying board.

Letters should be solicited from beneficiaries of the services described to document the significance of the candidate’s contributions. B-1b. Teaching Activities:
If teaching is a major portion of the candidate’s application, evidence must be presented that the candidate has developed and/or conducted teaching programs of high quality. Two types of teaching may be distinguished; a) clinical teaching that involves lectures, demonstrations, individual and group teaching in a clinical setting, and postgraduate and continuing education; and b) classroom teaching that includes lectures, seminars, laboratories, discussion groups and workshops etc.

Documentation must include:

1) a synopsis of teaching assignments including conferences, student teaching, laboratories, etc;

2) Department and other peer evaluation of teaching abilities. Examples of instructional materials, such as handouts used in the candidate’s teaching, are helpful and may be provided. A description of the application of new or improved teaching methods should be provided, if appropriate. In addition, copies of instructional textbooks, software, or audiovisual aides should be made available to the APT Committee;

3) evaluations of teaching by medical students, house staff, fellows and other health professionals. A summary of all teaching evaluations should be provided. Individual evaluations must be available, if requested, but these may not be used as a substitute for the summary statement. B-1c. Clinical-Research Activities:

If clinical research is a major component of the candidate’s application, evidence must be presented that the candidate has had major involvement in the research, and that the research is of high quality and significance. Even if research is not a major component, a tangible contribution to academic scholarship through research is expected.

Documentation must include:

1) a statement from the candidate that describes the research efforts, accomplishments to date, and future goals (maximum: 2 pages);

2) three letters of evaluation of the research programs from recognized authorities in the candidate’s field, with at least one letter from outside the School. Letters should assess the quality and productivity of the candidate’s research. If letters provided as documentation of excellence in other activities (clinical or administrative service, teaching, etc) include comments on research, they may suffice in this category;

3) a bibliography including case reports and clinical reviews resulting from this research;

4) chronology of research support listing source, the principal investigator, candidate’s role and annual and total direct costs

2. Promotion from Associate to Professor or Appointment as Clinical Professor (CE track)

Promotion or appointment as Professor requires that the candidate has continued to grow in stature and has remained productive with respect to service, teaching and clinical research.
Documentation of further excellence since initial appointment or promotion must be provided. Promotion or appointment to Professor requires national recognition in the candidate’s field and must include scholarly clinical publications.

Supporting evidence may include:

1) service as a speaker at state, regional or national conferences;

2) promotion of relationships with Pan-American and/or other international professional medical societies;

3) service as a visiting professor;

4) preparation of books, chapters, or reviews;

5) service on editorial boards, or as officer of a national professional society;

6) awards or honors;

7) appointment to government-review panels or committees;

8) appointment to major committees of state or national professional societies;

9) other types of recognition;

10) documentation of funds raised by clinical service or clinical research;

B-2. EDUCATOR TRACK:

MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE EDUCATOR TRACK PROPOSAL EDUCATOR TRACK:
Appointments to the Educator Track are permitted in all departments of the Miller School of Medicine. The numbers of faculty appointed in this track shall be limited to 20% of the tenured and tenure track faculty in the department in which they are appointed. The total number of faculty in this track shall not exceed 15% of the tenured and tenure track faculty of the School.
This track would represent a community of academic scholars with terminal degrees, physicians or non-physicians, who devote their major effort to educational activities including teaching, research in instructional methodology, and/or educational administration,. Members of the faculty may elect to be considered for promotion in the educator track in the School, following appointment at the rank of Assistant Professor or Associate Professor. They shall use the following titles: Assistant Professor, Educator Track, Associate Professor, Educator Track and Professor, Educator Track. Except as required by the University or granting agencies the modifier “Educator Track” need not be indicated. Scholarly contributions related to teaching are expected for advancement in this track.
Promotion in the educator track signifies that the candidate has performed outstanding teaching, performed creative instructional/research contributions, and has provided evidence of continued professional growth. In accord with the Faculty Manual (C9.7) the rank of Associate Professor “requires a record of substantial success in both teaching and scholarship” although “in unusual cases an outstanding record in one of these activities and an adequate record in the other may be considered sufficient”. “Appointment to the rank of Professor requires national recognition in the profession.”
1.
Promotion to Associate Professor or Appointment as Associate Professor, Educator Track:
Evidence must be presented describing the candidate’s accomplishments in his/her area of clinical or teaching activity. Evidence of excellence in performing clinical or teaching duties shall include:
1)
Five letters of evaluation of the candidate’s performance from individuals based either outside or within the School. At least two letters should be from outside the institution and represent an unbiased evaluation of the candidate. Letters should compare the candidate with other faculty of similar rank and experience. The Chairperson must specify the relationship of the evaluator to the candidate, provide the reviewers with a brief description of the stature and qualifications of the evaluators and a copy of the letter requesting the evaluations. The chair shall certify that all letters of evaluation received are included in the candidate’s file.
2)
Evaluation Criteria for promotion
12
Candidates will be evaluated with respect to significant performance in the areas of administrative and creative work, and teaching activity. When major contributions are in one area, candidates should also have made a tangible contribution to the other. Because of the broad scope of the work of an educator, documentation shall be provided in the format of an Educator Portfolio. Portfolios are increasingly used as tools to assemble evidence to justify promotion. Examples of the Educator Portfolio may be found on the Educational Development Office of the UMMSM website.
a)
Teaching:
Evidence of high quality teaching is an important criterion for promotion. Evidence shall be presented affirming the candidate’s command of the subject(s), continuous growth in the candidate’s field(s), and a capacity to stimulate student thinking and professionalism.
Such evidence could include, but not be limited to:

letters from colleagues who are familiar with the candidate’s teaching

evidence of continued education completed

evidence of scholarship in creation of courses and resources

students mentored and/or supervised

structured peer review of teaching

student teaching evaluations

awards or special recognitions
In addition to these principal criteria, faculty are expected to present evidence of continued professional competence and engagement. Evidence shall be presented attesting to the candidate’s continued professional competence in the subject(s), and continued work within the professional area(s). This evidence could include, but not be limited to:

quality of professional work

participation in professional association conferences

presentations to local, regional, or national audiences
b)
Administrative and creative work:

The faculty play an important role in the administration and shared governance of the University and in the formation of its policies. Recognition should be given to faculty who prove themselves to be able administrators and who participate effectively and imaginatively in administration and in the formulation of program policies. Such evidence could include, but not be limited to:

number and quality of new educational programs and/or courses created 13

participation in medical education creative projects within and outside the institution

mentoring of students in medical education projects

mentoring of faculty engaged in medical education research

creation of faculty development and research tools

positions of leadership or responsibility in organizations and professional societies

appointment to major committees and/or advisory panels

service on editorial boards or as manuscript reviewer for education journals and conferences

evidence of scholarship in the arena of medical education and administration

letters from colleagues, who are familiar with the candidate’s administrative responsibilities

evaluations from external professionals who have worked with the candidate

awards or special recognition

c. Additional contributions to the mission of the School in the form of contributions to basic scientific and clinical research and general support of the clinical enterprise shall also be considered.
2.
Promotion to Professor or Appointment as Professor on the educator track:
In addition to the documentation required for promotion or appointment as Associate Professor, Educator Track, evidence must be presented that the candidate has continued to grow in stature in his/her teaching-activity, has contributed creative work and administrative skills for the educational mission . Documentation of further excellence since the initial appointment or promotion must be provided.
Promotion to Professor requires national recognition in the area of medical education.
Supporting evidence may include:

continued service as presenter at local, regional, or national meetings

service as visiting professor

continued evidence of scholarship in the arena of medical education and administration through preparation of books, chapters, medical education reviews

service on editorial boards or as manuscript reviewer for education journals and conferences
14

awards or special recognition

appointment to major institutional or external committees and/or advisory panels

documentation of funds raised by medical education grants
Faculty members in this track are those (physicians or non-physicians) with a terminal degree, who devote virtually all of their effort to teaching. Members of the faculty may elect to be considered for promotion in the educator track at the School, following appointment at the rank of Assistant Professor of Associate Professor.
Promotion in the educator track signifies that the candidate has performed outstanding service and/or teaching and has provided evidence of continued growth in the current position. In general, promotion or appointment at the Associate Professor level requires local recognition, whereas promotion or appointment to Professor requires a regional reputation.
1. Promotion to Associate Professor or Appointment as Associate Professor on the educator track:
Evidence must be presented describing the candidate’s accomplishments in his/her area of clinical or teaching activity. Evidence of excellence in performing clinical or teaching duties should include:
1) three letters of evaluation of the candidate’s performance from individuals based either outside or within the School. Letters should compare the candidate with other faculty of similar rank and experience. As noted above, the Chairperson must specify the relationship of the evaluator to the candidate, provide the APT committee with a brief description of the stature and qualifications of the evaluators and with a copy of the letter requesting the evaluations, and certify that all letters of evaluation received are included in the candidate’s materials.
2. Promotion to Professor or Appointment as Professor in the educator track:
In addition to the documentation required for promotion or appointment to Educator Associate Professor, evidence must be presented that the candidate has continued to grow in stature in his/her teaching-activity area. Documentation of further excellence since the initial appointment or promotion must be provided.
C. RESEARCH TRACK:
Faculty members in this track should be those who devote virtually their entire effort to research.
1. Promotion from Research Assistant Professor to Research Associate Professor or Appointment as Research Associate Professor:
15
In general, promotion or appointment at the Research Associate Professor level requires demonstration of the national reputation of the candidate’s research and a record of independent funding.
C-1a. Research Activities (Research Track):
Evidence must be presented that the candidate has had major involvement in an extramurally funded research program that is of high quality and significance. Documentation must include:
1) the candidate’s description of the research program, accomplishments to date and future goals (maximum: 2 pages);
2) a record of independent funding as a Principal Investigator (PI) on a federal/national-level research grant. In some instances, this can be as a PI on a sub-project of a multi-investigator-initiated research program (e.g. Center Grant, Program Project);
3) three letters of evaluation of the candidate’s research program from recognized authorities in the candidate’s field from outside the School. Letters should assess the quality and productivity of the candidate’s research;
4) a bibliography itemizing high-quality publications resulting from the candidate’s research;
5) a detailed chronology of present and past research support describing the PI, role of the candidate and funding amounts.
C-1b. Committee Service/Administration: (Research Track)
Although committee and administrative service is not a major component of the duties in this faculty track, evidence of being a responsible citizen of the School is helpful such as through service on committees relevant to research endeavors (e.g. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee).
C-1c. Teaching Contribution (Research Track):
Although teaching is not a major component of the duties in this faculty track, evidence of participation in the School’s teaching mission, either at the graduate/medical-school student or postgraduate-fellow level should be noted.
C-1d. Peer Recognition (Research Track):
Additional information that would be of assistance to the Committee relates to evidence of the esteem in which the candidate is held by peers at regional and national levels. Such evidence may include:
16
17
1) positions of leadership or responsibility in organizations, agencies, and professional societies;
2) responsibilities as manuscript reviewer for scientific journals, or appointments to their editorial boards;
3) participation on NIH or NSF study sections, consultant panels, and advisory boards, or the equivalent;
4) visiting faculty and/or the presentation of invited lectures.
2. Promotion from Research Associate Professor to Research Professor or Appointment as Research Professor:
Promotion or appointment to Research Professor requires that the candidate has continued to grow in stature and has gained international recognition for his/her research. Documentation of further excellence since initial appointment or promotion must be provided. Grant support from federal programs must have been essentially continuous through the present appointment, and evidence of continued productivity through the publication of high-quality reports must be provided. Other supporting evidence may include:
1) service as a speaker at national and international conferences;
2) service as a visiting Research Professor at other institutions;
3) preparation of books, chapters, or reviews;
4) service on editorial boards;
5) service as an officer in national or international professional societies;
6) awards or honors;
7) appointment to governmental review and advisory panels and/or committees;
8) appointment to major committees of national and international professional societies;
9) other types of recognition;
10) evidence of continued independent funding.
Faculty Resources

    Policies and Procedures - Faculty Compensation
    Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Guidelines
    Faculty Manual 2017-2018
    Searches for Department Chairs

The Faculty Manual sets forth principles and procedures which protect our academic freedom, specifies our rights to participate in the governance of the University, and establishes the Faculty Senate. Its provisions are part of a faculty member’s contract with the University.

Section “A” is the Faculty Government Charter, and for over a half century represents the Constitution of faculty governance. It specifies governing principles which can only be amended by the Senate with the agreement of the President and the Trustees and an affirmative vote of the voting REGULAR FACULTY of the University.

Section “B” contains the Bylaws, which translate Charter provisions into practice and set forth the mandates for the Senate’s standing committees.

Section “C” details numerous governance matters, including:

• The categories of faculty and voting rights associated with each;
• Types of appointments, and tenure policies, rights, and procedures;
• Grounds and procedures for deciding allegations of unprofessional conduct and for termination for cause; and
• Sabbaticals and faculty benefits.

The Faculty Manual also contains the Faculty Handbook, which describes additional policies governing life at the university, such as consulting, ethics, conflicts of interest, harassment, outside speakers, discoveries and inventions, and classroom duties.