Common use of Review Process Clause in Contracts

Review Process. 7.5.1 All material received and considered in making recommendations regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, at any level becomes part of the candidate's dossier. All material added to a candidate's dossier after it has been submitted for review by the Academic Unit RPT Committee shall be copied to the candidate at the time said material is added. 7.5.2 The candidate, Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, or Appropriate Administrator may add to the dossier material bearing on the substance of a prospective decision until the Xxxxxxx renders his or her recommendation. 7.5.3 The candidate shall be permitted to review the dossier throughout the process. The candidate shall be provided with a copy of any material added to the dossier at the time the material is added to the dossier. He/she shall have fourteen (14) days following receipt of the copy to review and respond in writing to the material. Reviewer responses to the candidate’s response are not permitted. 7.5.4 All responses shall become part of the dossier. Any new material and any responses from the candidate shall be provided to all RPT committees and administrators who have participated in the review and made a recommendation. 7.5.5 Reviewers shall read and consider the recommendations of the preceding committees or appropriate administrators, but each review level shall make an independent determination based on the same RPT Criteria. Reviewers shall not otherwise consult on pending RPT cases with other levels of review, nor are levels of review permitted to file responses to other levels of review. 7.5.6 Reviewers are not permitted to serve on more than one level of review during the same review cycle, nor are they permitted to serve as a reviewer while also a candidate. Reviewers must recuse themselves from the consideration of a particular dossier or dossiers where a conflict of interest exists. Reviewers shall not meet, converse or otherwise communicate with a candidate during the pendency of his/her review process for purposes of discussing anything relevant to the review. 7.5.7 The recommendation from the Academic Unit RPT Committee shall be given serious consideration, and no committee or administrator shall make a different recommendation except for substantial reasons stated in writing. When a review committee, Xxxx, or administrator recommends contrary to the Academic Unit, the Academic Unit shall be notified of the reasons for the contrary recommendation within fourteen (14) days. 7.5.8 A copy of each review level’s recommendation letter shall be transmitted to the candidate at the time the letter is added to the dossier. A copy should also be transmitted to all prior levels of review at that time. Any negative recommendation must be accompanied by a written statement of reasons. 7.5.9 A candidate shall be guaranteed the right to reconsideration at the first level at which a negative recommendation occurs. Within fourteen (14) days after receiving notice of the negative recommendation, the candidate has the right to request reconsideration and may submit supporting substantive or procedural information. The candidate shall be informed of the result of the reconsideration within twenty 7.5.10 Unless the candidate, within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notification of a recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, withdraws from candidacy by written notice to the Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, or Administrator, the process will continue. 7.5.11 Procedure for Tenure-track Faculty in the College of Medicine. In the penultimate year of his/her probationary period, a Faculty Member in the College of Medicine may request tenure (with or without promotion). A Faculty Member in the College of Medicine also may request tenure, with or without promotion, prior to his/her penultimate year, as per Article

Review Process. 7.5.1 All material received and considered in making recommendations regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, at any level level, including the recommendation letters of the various levels of review, becomes part of the candidate's dossier. All material added to a candidate's dossier after it has been submitted for review by the Academic Unit RPT Committee shall be copied to the candidate at the time said material is added. 7.5.2 The candidate, Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, Head or Appropriate Administrator Xxxx may add to the dossier material bearing on the substance of a prospective decision until the Xxxxxxx renders his or her a recommendation. 7.5.3 The candidate shall be permitted to review the dossier throughout the process. The candidate shall be provided with a copy of any material added to the dossier at the time the material is added to the dossier. He/she shall have fourteen (14) days following receipt of the copy to review and respond in writing to the material. Reviewer responses to the candidate’s response are not permitted.time 7.5.4 All responses shall become part of the dossier. Any new material and any responses from the candidate shall be provided to all RPT committees and administrators who have participated in the review and made a recommendation. 7.5.5 Reviewers shall read and consider the recommendations of the preceding committees or appropriate administratorsprior recommendations, but each review level shall make an independent determination based on the same RPT Criteria. Reviewers shall not otherwise consult on pending RPT cases with other levels of review, nor are levels of review permitted to file responses to other levels of review. 7.5.6 7.5.5 Reviewers are not permitted to serve on more than one level of review during the same review cycle, nor academic year. Reviewers who are they permitted to also candidates in the same academic year may not serve as a reviewer while also a candidateuntil all dossiers seeking the same RPT action have passed his/her level of review. Reviewers must recuse themselves from the consideration of a particular dossier or dossiers where a conflict of interest exists. Reviewers shall not meet, converse or otherwise communicate with a candidate during the pendency of his/her review process for purposes of discussing regarding anything relevant to the review. 7.5.7 7.5.6 The recommendation from the Academic Unit RPT Committee shall be given serious consideration, and no committee or administrator shall make a different recommendation except for substantial reasons stated in writing. When a review committee, Xxxx, or administrator recommends contrary to the Academic Unit, the Academic Unit shall be notified of the reasons for the contrary recommendation within fourteen (14) days. 7.5.8 7.5.7 A copy of each review level’s recommendation letter shall be transmitted to the candidate at the time the letter is added to the dossier. A copy should also be transmitted to all prior levels of review at that time. Any negative recommendation must be accompanied by a written statement of reasons., except for certain Xxxx recommendations as set forth in Article 7.5.9 7.5.8 A candidate shall be guaranteed the right to reconsideration at the first level at which a negative recommendation occurs. Within fourteen (14) days after receiving notice of the negative recommendation, the candidate has the right to request reconsideration and may submit supporting substantive or procedural information. The candidate shall be informed of the result of the reconsideration within twenty 7.5.10 Unless the candidate, within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notification of a recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, withdraws from candidacy by written notice to the Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, or Administrator, the process will continue. 7.5.11 Procedure for Tenure-track Faculty in the College of Medicine. In the penultimate year of his/her probationary period, a Faculty Member in the College of Medicine may request tenure (with or without promotion). A Faculty Member in the College of Medicine also may request tenure, with or without promotion, prior to his/her penultimate year, as per Articlesupporting

Review Process. 7.5.1 All material received The Operating Committee will meet and considered review all such Proposals within [*] after the end of Phase I or Phase II, but not to exceed [*] after the completion of Phase I development under this CDP. Proposals which by mutual agreement meet the criteria defined in making recommendations regarding reappointmentSection 18.1.1 will be identified as “Valid Proposals.” (a) Valid Proposals shall be reviewed, promotiondiscussed and decided upon as a whole by the Operating Committee within [*] after the end of Phase I, or tenureof Phase II, at any level becomes part but not to exceed [*] after the completion of the candidate's dossierPhase I development under this CDP. All material added to a candidate's dossier after it has been submitted for review Determination by the Academic Unit RPT Operating Committee shall and by the parties of whether a proposal constitutes a Valid Proposal will be copied to the candidate at the time said material is added. 7.5.2 The candidate, Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, or Appropriate Administrator may add to the dossier material bearing on the substance of a prospective decision until the Xxxxxxx renders his or her recommendation. 7.5.3 The candidate shall be permitted to review the dossier throughout the process. The candidate shall be provided with a copy of any material added to the dossier at the time the material is added to the dossier. He/she shall have fourteen (14) days following receipt of the copy to review and respond made in writing to the material. Reviewer responses to the candidate’s response are not permitted. 7.5.4 All responses shall become part of the dossier. Any new material and any responses from the candidate shall be provided to all RPT committees and administrators who have participated in the review and made a recommendation. 7.5.5 Reviewers shall read and consider the recommendations of the preceding committees or appropriate administrators, but each review level shall make an independent determination good faith based on the same RPT Criteriatechnical and commercial feasibility of the proposal. Reviewers An affirmative decision of the Operating Committee regarding specific Valid Proposals may result in an extension of the existing CDP, the creation of additional CDPs, or the agreement that a party may proceed independently of the alliance to develop the application; with new CDP Field definitions, development resource and timeline commitments, subscriptions for use of IM HPC Systems (if applicable), CDP fees, revenue sharing terms or royalties, and other terms to be agreed upon in writing by the parties. Disagreements of the Operating Committee regarding Valid Proposals may be submitted for escalation to the chief executive officers of the parties pursuant to the Agreement. If after escalation from the Operating Committee to senior management of the parties pursuant to the Agreement, the parties cannot in good faith agree on whether a specific proposal constitutes a Valid Proposal, either party may submit the determination of whether a proposal constitutes a Valid Proposal to arbitration as set forth in the Agreement. If the parties agree that a Valid Proposal has been presented, but do not agree on cooperating for that Valid Proposal and do not agree on royalty or revenue share terms for one party to proceed independently, then a determination of the revenue share or royalty amounts may be decided by an arbitrator as expressly set forth in the arbitration provision set forth in Section 21 below. (b) proposal that is not a Valid Proposal, once so identified, shall not otherwise consult on pending RPT cases with other levels of review, nor are levels of review permitted to file responses to other levels of review. 7.5.6 Reviewers are not permitted to serve on more than one level of review during be further considered in the same review cycle, nor are they permitted to serve as a reviewer while also a candidate. Reviewers must recuse themselves from the consideration of a particular dossier or dossiers where a conflict of interest exists. Reviewers shall not meet, converse or otherwise communicate with a candidate during the pendency of his/her review process Review Process for purposes of discussing anything relevant to the review. 7.5.7 The recommendation from the Academic Unit RPT Committee shall be given serious considerationthis CDP, and no committee default licenses will be granted and no default revenue sharing or administrator shall make a different recommendation except royalty terms will apply for substantial reasons stated in writing. When a review committee, Xxxx, or administrator recommends contrary to the Academic Unit, the Academic Unit shall be notified of the reasons for the contrary recommendation within fourteen (14) dayssuch Proposals. 7.5.8 A copy of each review level’s recommendation letter shall be transmitted to the candidate at the time the letter is added to the dossier. A copy should also be transmitted to all prior levels of review at that time. Any negative recommendation must be accompanied by a written statement of reasons. 7.5.9 A candidate shall be guaranteed the right to reconsideration at the first level at which a negative recommendation occurs. Within fourteen (14) days after receiving notice of the negative recommendation, the candidate has the right to request reconsideration and may submit supporting substantive or procedural information. The candidate shall be informed of the result of the reconsideration within twenty 7.5.10 Unless the candidate, within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notification of a recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, withdraws from candidacy by written notice to the Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, or Administrator, the process will continue. 7.5.11 Procedure for Tenure-track Faculty in the College of Medicine. In the penultimate year of his/her probationary period, a Faculty Member in the College of Medicine may request tenure (with or without promotion). A Faculty Member in the College of Medicine also may request tenure, with or without promotion, prior to his/her penultimate year, as per Article

Review Process. 7.5.1 All material received and considered in making recommendations regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, at any level becomes part of the candidate's dossier. All material added or attached to a candidate's dossier after it has been submitted for review by leaves the Academic Unit RPT Committee candidate's hands shall be copied to the candidate at the time said material is addedadded or attached. 7.5.2 The candidate may inspect the dossier in accordance with University policies on access to personnel files and must be given the opportunity to review and respond in writing to any material in or added to the file. 7.5.3 If new material bearing on the substance of a prospective decision becomes available during the review process, the candidate, Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, or Appropriate Administrator appropriate administrator may add such material to the dossier material bearing on the substance of a prospective decision until the appropriate Xxxxxxx renders his or her recommendation. 7.5.3 The candidate shall be permitted to review the dossier throughout the process. The candidate shall be provided with a copy of any material added to the dossier at the time the material is added to the dossier. He/she . 7.5.4 The candidate shall have the opportunity to review and respond in writing to the material within fourteen (14) days following receipt of the copy to review and respond in writing to the material. Reviewer responses to the candidate’s response are not permittedcopy. 7.5.4 7.5.5 All responses shall become part of the dossier. Any new material and any responses from the candidate shall be provided to all RPT committees and administrators who have participated in the review and made a recommendation. 7.5.5 Reviewers shall read and consider the recommendations of the preceding committees or appropriate administrators, but each review level shall make an independent determination based on the same RPT Criteria. Reviewers shall not otherwise consult on pending RPT cases with other levels of review, nor are levels of review permitted to file responses to other levels of review. 7.5.6 Reviewers are not permitted to serve on more than one level of review during the same review cycle, nor are they permitted to serve as a reviewer while also a candidate. Reviewers must recuse themselves from the consideration of a particular dossier or dossiers where a conflict of interest exists. Reviewers shall not meet, converse or otherwise communicate with a candidate during the pendency of his/her review process for purposes of discussing anything relevant to the review. 7.5.7 The recommendation from the Academic Unit RPT Committee shall be given serious consideration, and no committee or administrator shall make a different recommendation except for substantial reasons stated in writing. When a review committee, Xxxx, or administrator recommends contrary to the Academic Unit, the Academic Unit shall be notified of the reasons for the contrary recommendation within fourteen (14) days.Academic 7.5.8 7.5.7 A copy of each review level’s recommendation letter shall be transmitted to the candidate at the time the letter is added to the dossier. A copy should also be transmitted to all prior levels of review at that time. Any negative recommendation must be accompanied by a written statement of reasons. 7.5.9 7.5.8 A candidate shall be guaranteed the right to reconsideration at the first level at which a negative recommendation occurs. Within fourteen (14) days after receiving notice of the negative recommendation, the candidate has the right to request reconsideration and may submit supporting substantive or procedural information. The candidate shall be informed of the result of the reconsideration within twenty 7.5.10 7.5.9 Unless the candidate, within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notification of a recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, withdraws from candidacy by written notice to the Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, or Administrator, the process will continue. 7.5.11 Procedure for Tenure-track Faculty in the College of Medicine. In the penultimate year of his/her probationary period, a Faculty Member in the College of Medicine may request tenure (with or without promotion). A Faculty Member in the College of Medicine also may request tenure, with or without promotion, prior to his/her penultimate year, as per Article

Review Process. 7.5.1 7.4.1 The candidate has primary responsibility for the development of the dossier submitted for review. Each dossier shall be covered by the approved "File Checklist". 7.4.2 All material information received and considered in making recommendations regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, at any level becomes part of the candidate's dossier. All material added or attached to a candidate's dossier after it has been submitted for review by leaves the Academic Unit RPT Committee candidate's hands shall be routinely copied to the candidate at the time said material is addedadded or attached. The candidate may inspect the dossier in accordance with University policies on access to personnel files and must be given the opportunity to review and respond in writing to any material in or added to the file. 7.5.2 The candidate, Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, or Appropriate Administrator may add to the dossier 7.4.3 If new material bearing on the substance of a prospective decision until becomes available during the Xxxxxxx renders his or her recommendation.review process, the 7.5.3 7.4.4 The candidate shall be permitted have the opportunity to review the dossier throughout the process. The candidate shall be provided with a copy of any material added and respond in writing to the dossier at the time the material is added to the dossier. He/she shall have within fourteen (14) days following receipt of the copy to review and respond in writing to the material. Reviewer responses to the candidate’s response are not permittedcopy. 7.5.4 7.4.5 All responses shall become part of the dossier. Any new material and any responses from the candidate shall be provided to all RPT committees and administrators who have participated in the review and made a recommendation. 7.5.5 Reviewers shall read and consider the recommendations of the preceding committees or appropriate administrators, but each review level shall make an independent determination based on the same RPT Criteria. Reviewers shall not otherwise consult on pending RPT cases with other levels of review, nor are levels of review permitted to file responses to other levels of review. 7.5.6 Reviewers are not permitted to serve on more than one level of review during the same review cycle, nor are they permitted to serve as a reviewer while also a candidate. Reviewers must recuse themselves from the consideration of a particular dossier or dossiers where a conflict of interest exists. Reviewers shall not meet, converse or otherwise communicate with a candidate during the pendency of his/her review process for purposes of discussing anything relevant to the review. 7.5.7 7.4.6 The recommendation from the Academic Unit RPT Committee an academic unit shall be given serious consideration, and no committee or administrator shall make a different recommendation except for substantial reasons stated in writing. When a review committee, Xxxx, or administrator recommends contrary to the Academic Unitacademic unit, the Academic Unit academic unit shall be notified of the reasons for the contrary recommendation within fourteen (14) days.fourteen 7.5.8 A copy 7.4.7 Copies of any written recommendation made at each step in the review level’s recommendation letter process prior to the Board's consideration shall be transmitted to candidates for reappointment, promotion, or tenure, simultaneously with transmittal of the candidate at the time the letter is added dossier to the dossier. A copy should also be transmitted to all prior levels next level of review at that timereview. Any negative recommendation must be accompanied by a written statement of reasons. 7.5.9 7.4.8 A candidate shall be guaranteed the right to reconsideration at the first level at which a negative recommendation occurs. Within fourteen (14) days after receiving notice of the negative recommendation, the candidate has the right to request reconsideration and may submit supporting substantive or procedural information. The candidate shall be informed of the result of the reconsideration within twentytwenty (20) days following submission of the request. When a candidate exercises this right to reconsideration, the review process shall remain at the level at which 7.5.10 7.4.9 Unless the candidate, within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notification of a recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, withdraws from candidacy by written notice to the Academic Unit Headacademic unit head, Xxxx, or Administrator, the process will continue. 7.5.11 Procedure for Tenure-track Faculty in the College of Medicine. In the penultimate year of his/her probationary period, a Faculty Member in the College of Medicine may request tenure (with or without promotion). A Faculty Member in the College of Medicine also may request tenure, with or without promotion, prior to his/her penultimate year, as per Article

Review Process. 7.5.1 All material received and considered in making recommendations regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, at any level level, including the recommendation letters of the various levels of review, becomes part of the candidate's dossier. All material added to a candidate's dossier after it has been submitted for review by the Academic Unit RPT Committee shall be copied to the candidate at the time said material is added. 7.5.2 The candidate, Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, Head or Appropriate Administrator Xxxx may add to the dossier material bearing on the substance of a prospective decision until the Xxxxxxx renders his or her a recommendation. 7.5.3 The candidate shall be permitted to review the dossier throughout the process. The candidate shall be provided with a copy of any material added to the dossier at the time the material is added to the dossier. He/she The candidate shall have fourteen (14) days following receipt of material added to the copy dossier to review and respond in writing to the material. Reviewer All written responses to from the candidate’s response are not permitted. 7.5.4 All responses candidate shall become part of the dossier. Any new material and any responses The reviewer at the level in which the response is filed is prohibited from filing a response to the candidate shall be provided to all RPT committees and administrators who have participated in the review and made a recommendationcandidate’s response. 7.5.5 7.5.4 Reviewers shall read and consider the recommendations of the preceding committees or appropriate administratorsprior recommendations, but each review level shall make an independent determination based on the same RPT Criteria. Reviewers shall not otherwise consult on pending RPT cases with other levels of review, nor are levels of review permitted to file responses to other levels of review. 7.5.6 7.5.5 Reviewers are not permitted to serve on more than one level of review during the same review cycleacademic year. RPT candidates, nor are they permitted to except Academic Unit Heads, may not serve as a reviewer while also a candidatein the same academic year they are applying. Academic Unit Heads may review dossiers for all candidates except those seeking the identical RPT action as the Unit Head. Reviewers must recuse themselves from the consideration of a particular dossier or dossiers where a conflict of interest existsexists as approved in writing for good cause by the University Contract Administrator. Reviewers shall not meet, converse or otherwise communicate with a candidate during the pendency of his/her review process for purposes of discussing regarding anything relevant to the review. 7.5.7 7.5.6 The recommendation from the Academic Unit RPT Committee shall be given serious consideration, and no committee or administrator shall make a different recommendation except for substantial reasons stated in writing. When a review committee, Xxxx, or administrator recommends contrary to the Academic Unit, the Academic Unit shall be notified of the reasons for the contrary recommendation within fourteen (14) days. 7.5.8 7.5.7 A copy of each review level’s recommendation letter shall be transmitted to the candidate at the time the letter is added to the dossier. A copy should also be transmitted to all prior levels of review at that time. Any negative recommendation must be accompanied by a written statement of reasons., except for certain Xxxx recommendations as set forth in Article 7.5.9 7.5.8 A candidate shall be guaranteed the right to reconsideration at the first level at which a negative recommendation occurs. Within fourteen (14) days after receiving notice of the negative recommendation, the candidate has the right to request reconsideration and may submit supporting substantive or procedural information. The candidate shall be informed of the result of the reconsideration within twenty 7.5.10 Unless the candidate, within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notification of a recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, withdraws from candidacy by written notice to the Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, or Administrator, the process will continue. 7.5.11 Procedure for Tenure-track Faculty in the College of Medicine. In the penultimate year of his/her probationary period, a Faculty Member in the College of Medicine may request tenure (with or without promotion). A Faculty Member in the College of Medicine also may request tenure, with or without promotion, prior to his/her penultimate year, as per Article

Review Process. 7.5.1 All material received and considered in making recommendations regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, at any level level, including the recommendation letters of the various levels of review, becomes part of the candidate's dossier. All material added to a candidate's dossier after it has been submitted for review by the Academic Unit RPT Committee shall be copied to the candidate at the time said material is added. 7.5.2 The candidate, Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, Head or Appropriate Administrator Xxxx may add to the dossier material bearing on the substance of a prospective decision until the Xxxxxxx renders his or her a recommendation. 7.5.3 The candidate shall be permitted to review the dossier throughout the process. The candidate shall be provided with a copy of any material added to the dossier at the time the material is added to the dossier. He/she The candidate shall have fourteen (14) days following receipt of material added to the copy dossier to review and respond in writing to the material. Reviewer All written responses to from the candidate’s response are not permitted. 7.5.4 All responses candidate shall become part of the dossier. Any new material and any responses The reviewer at the level in which the response is filed is prohibited from filing a response to the candidate shall be provided to all RPT committees and administrators who have participated in the review and made a recommendationcandidate’s response. 7.5.5 7.5.4 Reviewers shall read and consider the recommendations of the preceding committees or appropriate administratorsprior recommendations, but each review level shall make an independent determination based on the same RPT Criteria. Reviewers shall not otherwise consult on pending RPT cases with other levels of review, nor are levels of review permitted to file responses to other levels of review. 7.5.6 7.5.5 Reviewers are not permitted to serve on more than one level of review during the same review cycleacademic year. RPT candidates, nor are they permitted to except Academic Unit Heads, may not serve as a reviewer while also a candidatein the same academic year they are applying. Academic Unit Heads may review dossiers for all candidates except those seeking the identical RPT action as the Unit Head. Reviewers must recuse themselves from the consideration of a particular dossier or dossiers where a conflict of interest existsexists as approved in writing for good cause by the University Contract Administrator. Reviewers shall not meet, converse or otherwise communicate with a candidate during the pendency of his/her review process for purposes of discussing anything relevant to the review.the 7.5.7 7.5.6 The recommendation from the Academic Unit RPT Committee shall be given serious consideration, and no committee or administrator shall make a different recommendation except for substantial reasons stated in writing. When a review committee, Xxxx, or administrator recommends contrary to the Academic Unit, the Academic Unit shall be notified of the reasons for the contrary recommendation within fourteen (14) days. 7.5.8 7.5.7 A copy of each review level’s recommendation letter shall be transmitted to the candidate at the time the letter is added to the dossier. A copy should also be transmitted to all prior levels of review at that time. Any negative recommendation must be accompanied by a written statement of reasons., except for certain Xxxx recommendations as set forth in Article 7.5.9 7.5.8 A candidate shall be guaranteed the right to reconsideration at the first level at which a negative recommendation occurs. Within fourteen (14) days after receiving notice of the negative recommendation, the candidate has the right to request reconsideration and may submit supporting substantive or procedural information. The candidate shall be informed of the result of the reconsideration within twenty 7.5.10 Unless the candidate, within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notification of a recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, withdraws from candidacy by written notice to the Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, or Administrator, the process will continue. 7.5.11 Procedure for Tenure-track Faculty in the College of Medicine. In the penultimate year of his/her probationary period, a Faculty Member in the College of Medicine may request tenure (with or without promotion). A Faculty Member in the College of Medicine also may request tenure, with or without promotion, prior to his/her penultimate year, as per Article

Review Process. 7.5.1 7.4.1 The candidate has primary responsibility for the development of the dossier submitted for review. Each 7.4.2 All material information received and considered in making recommendations regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, at any level becomes part of the candidate's dossier. All material added or attached to a candidate's dossier after it has been submitted for review by leaves the Academic Unit RPT Committee candidate's hands shall be routinely copied to the candidate at the time said material is addedadded or attached. The candidate may inspect the dossier in accordance with University policies on access to personnel files and must be given the opportunity to review and respond in writing to any material in or added to the file. 7.5.2 The candidate, Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, or Appropriate Administrator may add to the dossier 7.4.3 If new material bearing on the substance of a prospective decision becomes available during the review process, the candidate, academic unit head, Xxxx, or appropriate administrator may add such material to the dossier until the appropriate Xxxxxxx renders his or her recommendation. 7.5.3 The candidate shall be permitted to review the dossier throughout the process. The candidate shall be provided with a copy of any material added to the dossier at the time the material is information or document added to the dossier. He/she . 7.4.4 The candidate shall have the opportunity to review and respond in writing to the material within fourteen (14) days following receipt of the copy to review and respond in writing to the material. Reviewer responses to the candidate’s response are not permittedcopy. 7.5.4 7.4.5 All responses shall become part of the dossier. Any new material and any responses from the candidate shall be provided to all RPT committees and administrators who have participated in the review and made a recommendation. 7.5.5 Reviewers shall read and consider the recommendations of the preceding committees or appropriate administrators, but each review level shall make an independent determination based on the same RPT Criteria. Reviewers shall not otherwise consult on pending RPT cases with other levels of review, nor are levels of review permitted to file responses to other levels of review. 7.5.6 Reviewers are not permitted to serve on more than one level of review during the same review cycle, nor are they permitted to serve as a reviewer while also a candidate. Reviewers must recuse themselves from the consideration of a particular dossier or dossiers where a conflict of interest exists. Reviewers shall not meet, converse or otherwise communicate with a candidate during the pendency of his/her review process for purposes of discussing anything relevant to the review. 7.5.7 7.4.6 The recommendation from the Academic Unit RPT Committee an academic unit shall be given serious consideration, and no committee or administrator shall make a different recommendation except for substantial reasons stated in writing. When a review committee, Xxxx, or administrator recommends contrary to the Academic Unitacademic unit, the Academic Unit academic unit shall be notified of the reasons for the contrary recommendation within fourteen (14) days.fourteen 7.5.8 A copy 7.4.7 Copies of any written recommendation made at each step in the review level’s recommendation letter process prior to the Board's consideration shall be transmitted to the candidate at the time the letter is added to the dossier. A copy should also be transmitted to all prior levels of review at that time. Any negative recommendation must be accompanied by a written statement of reasons.candidates for reappointment, promotion, 7.5.9 7.4.8 A candidate shall be guaranteed the right to reconsideration at the first level at which a negative recommendation occurs. Within fourteen (14) days after receiving notice of the negative recommendation, the candidate has the right to request reconsideration and may submit supporting substantive or procedural information. The candidate shall be informed of the result of the reconsideration within twenty 7.5.10 Unless the candidate, within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notification of a recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, withdraws from candidacy by written notice to the Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, or Administrator, the process will continue. 7.5.11 Procedure for Tenure-track Faculty in the College of Medicine. In the penultimate year of his/her probationary period, a Faculty Member in the College of Medicine may request tenure (with or without promotion). A Faculty Member in the College of Medicine also may request tenure, with or without promotion, prior to his/her penultimate year, as per Article

Review Process. 7.5.1 7.4.1 The candidate has primary responsibility for the development of the dossier submitted for review. Each dossier shall be covered by the approved "File Checklist" (see Appendix). 7.4.2 All material information received and considered in making recommendations regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, at any level becomes part of the candidate's dossier. All material added or attached to a candidate's dossier after it has been submitted for review by leaves the Academic Unit RPT Committee candidate's hands shall be routinely copied to the candidate at the time said material is addedadded or attached. The candidate may inspect the dossier in accordance with University policies on access to personnel files and must be given the opportunity to review and respond in writing to any material in or added to the file. 7.5.2 The candidate, Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, or Appropriate Administrator may add to the dossier 7.4.3 If new material bearing on the substance of a prospective decision becomes available during the review process, the candidate, academic unit head, Xxxx, or appropriate administrator may add such material to the dossier until the Xxxxxxx appropriate xxxxxxx renders his or her recommendation. 7.5.3 The candidate shall be permitted to review the dossier throughout the process. The candidate shall be provided with a copy of any material added to the dossier at the time the material is information or document added to the dossier. He/she . 7.4.4 The candidate shall have the opportunity to review and respond in writing to the material within fourteen (14) days following receipt of the copy to review and respond in writing to the material. Reviewer responses to the candidate’s response are not permittedcopy. 7.5.4 7.4.5 All responses shall become part of the dossier. Any new material and any responses from the candidate shall be provided to all RPT committees and administrators who have participated in the review and made a recommendation. 7.5.5 Reviewers shall read and consider the recommendations of the preceding committees or appropriate administrators, but each review level shall make an independent determination based on the same RPT Criteria. Reviewers shall not otherwise consult on pending RPT cases with other levels of review, nor are levels of review permitted to file responses to other levels of review. 7.5.6 Reviewers are not permitted to serve on more than one level of review during the same review cycle, nor are they permitted to serve as a reviewer while also a candidate. Reviewers must recuse themselves from the consideration of a particular dossier or dossiers where a conflict of interest exists. Reviewers shall not meet, converse or otherwise communicate with a candidate during the pendency of his/her review process for purposes of discussing anything relevant to the review. 7.5.7 7.4.6 The recommendation from the Academic Unit RPT Committee an academic unit shall be given serious consideration, and no committee or administrator shall make a different recommendation except for substantial reasons stated in writing. When a review committee, Xxxx, or administrator recommends contrary to the Academic Unitacademic unit, the Academic Unit academic unit shall be notified of the reasons for the contrary recommendation within fourteen (14) days. 7.5.8 A copy 7.4.7 Copies of any written recommendation made at each step in the review level’s recommendation letter process prior to the Board's consideration shall be transmitted to candidates for reappointment, promotion, or tenure, simultaneously with transmittal of the candidate at the time the letter is added dossier to the dossier. A copy should also be transmitted to all prior levels next level of review at that timereview. Any negative recommendation must be accompanied by a written statement of reasons. 7.5.9 7.4.8 A candidate shall be guaranteed the right to reconsideration at the first level at which a negative recommendation occurs. Within fourteen (14) days after receiving notice of the negative recommendation, the candidate has the right to request reconsideration and may submit supporting substantive or procedural information. The candidate shall be informed of the result of the reconsideration within twentytwenty (20) days following submission of the request. When a candidate exercises this right to reconsideration, the review process shall remain at the level at which reconsideration is being requested. No further evaluation of or recommendations concerning the individual's candidacy shall be made until the requested reconsideration process has been completed. This restriction shall not prevent administrative action to meet the appropriate notice requirements of Subsection 7.4.10 herein. 7.5.10 7.4.9 Unless the candidate, within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notification of a recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, withdraws from candidacy by written notice to the Academic Unit Headacademic unit head, Xxxx, or Administrator, the process will continue. 7.5.11 Procedure for Tenure-track Faculty in the College of Medicine. In the penultimate year of his/her probationary period, a Faculty Member in the College of Medicine may request tenure (with or without promotion). A Faculty Member in the College of Medicine also may request tenure, with or without promotion, prior to his/her penultimate year, as per Article

Review Process. 7.5.1 7.4.1 The candidate has primary responsibility for the development of the dossier submitted for review. Each dossier shall be covered by the approved "File Checklist". 7.4.2 All material information received and considered in making recommendations regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, at any level becomes part of the candidate's dossier. All material added or attached to a candidate's dossier after it has been submitted for review by leaves the Academic Unit RPT Committee candidate's hands shall be routinely copied to the candidate at the time said material is addedadded or attached. The candidate may inspect the dossier in accordance with University policies on access to personnel files and must be given the opportunity to review and respond in writing to any material in or added to the file. 7.5.2 The candidate, Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, or Appropriate Administrator may add to the dossier 7.4.3 If new material bearing on the substance of a prospective decision becomes available during the review process, the candidate, academic unit head, Xxxx, or appropriate administrator may add such material to the dossier until the appropriate Xxxxxxx renders his or her recommendation. 7.5.3 7.4.4 The candidate shall be permitted have the opportunity to review the dossier throughout the process. The candidate shall be provided with a copy of any material added and respond in writing to the dossier at the time the material is added to the dossier. He/she shall have within fourteen (14) days following receipt of the copy to review and respond in writing to the material. Reviewer responses to the candidate’s response are not permittedcopy. 7.5.4 7.4.5 All responses shall become part of the dossier. Any new material and any responses from the candidate shall be provided to all RPT committees and administrators who have participated in the review and made a recommendation. 7.5.5 Reviewers shall read and consider the recommendations of the preceding committees or appropriate administrators, but each review level shall make an independent determination based on the same RPT Criteria. Reviewers shall not otherwise consult on pending RPT cases with other levels of review, nor are levels of review permitted to file responses to other levels of review. 7.5.6 Reviewers are not permitted to serve on more than one level of review during the same review cycle, nor are they permitted to serve as a reviewer while also a candidate. Reviewers must recuse themselves from the consideration of a particular dossier or dossiers where a conflict of interest exists. Reviewers shall not meet, converse or otherwise communicate with a candidate during the pendency of his/her review process for purposes of discussing anything relevant to the review. 7.5.7 7.4.6 The recommendation from the Academic Unit RPT Committee an academic unit shall be given serious consideration, and no committee or administrator shall make a different recommendation except for substantial reasons stated in writing. When a review committee, Xxxx, or administrator recommends contrary to the Academic Unitacademic unit, the Academic Unit academic unit shall be notified of the reasons for the contrary recommendation within fourteen (14) days.fourteen 7.5.8 A copy 7.4.7 Copies of any written recommendation made at each step in the review level’s recommendation letter process prior to the Board's consideration shall be transmitted to candidates for reappointment, promotion, or tenure, simultaneously with transmittal of the candidate at the time the letter is added dossier to the dossier. A copy should also be transmitted to all prior levels next level of review at that timereview. Any negative recommendation must be accompanied by a written statement of reasons. 7.5.9 7.4.8 A candidate shall be guaranteed the right to reconsideration at the first level at which a negative recommendation occurs. Within fourteen (14) days after receiving notice of the negative recommendation, the candidate has the right to request reconsideration and may submit supporting substantive or procedural information. The candidate shall be informed of the result of the reconsideration within twenty 7.5.10 Unless the candidate, within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notification of a recommendation regarding reappointment, promotion, or tenure, withdraws from candidacy by written notice to the Academic Unit Head, Xxxx, or Administrator, the process will continue. 7.5.11 Procedure for Tenure-track Faculty in the College of Medicine. In the penultimate year of his/her probationary period, a Faculty Member in the College of Medicine may request tenure (with or without promotion). A Faculty Member in the College of Medicine also may request tenure, with or without promotion, prior to his/her penultimate year, as per Article