Common use of University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel Clause in Contracts

University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel. A University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel (ARP) shall be established to review decisions which do not result in advancing the candidate to the rank of Sessional Lecturer III. The Panel shall be composed of eight (8) full-time faculty members of the University of Toronto, each from a different Department, and one (1) Sessional Lecturer III. The Union and the University shall each propose the names of prospective members until nine (9) mutually-agreeable names have been identified. A member of the Panel may not participate in a review originating in a Department with which the member is affiliated. The Director of the Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation may be requested to serve in an ex-officio advisory capacity. The parties shall by mutual agreement designate a Panel Chair. The Panel Chair shall have the responsibility of selecting three (3) members from the agreed list of members to comprise the ARP Committee for a given appeal. It is understood and agreed that the University and the Union shall have the right to raise with the Panel Chair any concerns of a potential conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. The Panel Chair shall give due consideration to such concerns in comprising the ARP Committee. The final composition of the ARP Committee in a given appeal shall be determined by the Panel Chair. It is understood and agreed that the Panel Chair may select a designate to act as the Panel Chair should the Panel Chair be in a conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. When a review is requested, the ARP Committee shall be provided with: • The candidate’s original application (including curriculum vitae, teaching dossier, and statement; any student evaluations and other documentation relied upon during the initial proceedings) • The Chair’s letter to the candidate • A written submission from the candidate • The Division Head’s (or designate’s) written response to the candidate’s submission • All evidence the Advancement Committee had before it in making its original decision In addition, the candidate may include a response to the Division Head’s response. The ARP Committee shall consider the material and submissions, and shall either confirm the Advancement Committee’s decision or determine that the candidate is to be advanced to the rank of Sessional Lecturer III. The ARP Committee’s considerations will be arranged without undue delay, and its written decision, with reasons, shall be made in as expeditious a manner as possible. Discussions or representations occurring during this process are without precedent or prejudice, and may not be relied upon in any subsequent proceeding. Its decisions shall be final and binding. Normally, decisions shall be issued within ten (10) working days of finalizing the decision.

University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel. A It is agreed that the University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel (ARP) as set out in Appendix A shall be established to encompass the review of decisions which do not result in advancing the candidate to the rank status of Sessional Lecturer III. The Panel shall be composed of eight (8) full-time faculty members of the University of Toronto, each from a different Department, and one (1) Sessional Lecturer III. The Union and the University shall each propose the names of prospective members until nine (9) mutually-agreeable names have been identifiedWriting Instructor 2. A member of the Panel may not participate in a review originating in a Department Writing Centre with which the member is affiliated. The Director of the Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation may be requested to serve in an ex-officio advisory capacity. The parties shall by mutual agreement designate a Panel Chair. The Panel Chair shall have the responsibility of selecting three (3) members from the agreed list of members to comprise the ARP Committee for a given appeal. It is understood and agreed that the University and the Union shall have the right to raise with the Panel Chair any concerns of a potential conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. The Panel Chair shall give due consideration to such concerns in comprising the ARP Committee. The final composition of the ARP Committee in a given appeal shall be determined by the Panel Chair. It is understood and agreed that the Panel Chair may select a designate to act as the Panel Chair should the Panel Chair be in a conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. When a review is requested, the ARP Committee Panel shall be provided with: • The candidate’s original application (including curriculum vitae, teaching writing instruction dossier, and statement; any student evaluations and other documentation relied upon during the initial proceedings) • The Chair’s Committee Co-chairs’ letter to the candidate • A written submission from the candidate • The Division Head’s (or designate’s) written response to the candidate’s submission • All evidence the Advancement Committee had before it in making its original decision In addition, the candidate may include a response to the Division Head’s response. The ARP Committee shall consider the material and submissions, and shall either confirm the Advancement Committee’s decision or determine that the candidate is to be advanced to the rank status of Sessional Lecturer IIIWriting Instructor 2. The ARP Committee’s considerations will be arranged without undue delay, and its written decision, with reasons, shall be made in as expeditious a manner as possible. Discussions or representations occurring during this process are without precedent or prejudice, and may not be relied upon in any subsequent proceeding. Its decisions shall be final and binding. Normally, decisions shall be issued within ten (10) working days of finalizing the decision.

University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel. A University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel (ARP) shall be established to review decisions which do not result in advancing the candidate to the rank of Sessional Lecturer IIIII. The Panel shall be composed of eight (8) full-time faculty members of the University of Toronto, each from a different Department, and one (1) Sessional Lecturer III. The Union and the University shall each propose the names of prospective members until nine (9) mutually-agreeable names have been identified. A member of the Panel may not participate in a review originating in a Department with which the member he/she is affiliated. The Director of the Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation may be requested to serve in an ex-officio advisory capacity. The parties shall by mutual agreement designate a Panel Chair. The Panel Chair shall have the responsibility of selecting three (3) members from the agreed list of members to comprise the ARP Committee for a given appeal. It is understood and agreed that the University and the Union shall have the right to raise with the Panel Chair any concerns of a potential conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. The Panel Chair shall give due consideration to such concerns in comprising the ARP Committee. The final composition of the ARP Committee in a given appeal shall be determined by the Panel Chair. It is understood and agreed that the Panel Chair may select a designate to act as the Panel Chair should the Panel Chair he/she be in a conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. When a review is requested, the ARP Committee shall be provided with: • The candidate’s original application (including curriculum vitae, teaching dossier, and statement; any student evaluations and other documentation relied upon during the initial proceedings) • The Chair’s letter to the candidate • A written submission from the candidate • The Division Head’s (or designate’s) written response to the candidate’s submission • All evidence the Advancement Committee had before it in making its original decision In addition, the candidate may include a response to the Division Head’s response. The ARP Committee shall consider the material and submissions, and shall either confirm the Advancement Committee’s decision or determine that the candidate is to be advanced to the rank of Sessional Lecturer IIIII. The ARP Committee’s considerations will be arranged without undue delay, and its written decision, with reasons, shall be made in as expeditious a manner as possible. Discussions or representations occurring during this process are without precedent or prejudice, and may not be relied upon in any subsequent proceeding. Its decisions shall be final and binding. Normally, decisions shall be issued within ten (10) working days of finalizing the decision.

University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel. A University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel (ARP) shall be established to review decisions which do not result in advancing the candidate to the rank of Sessional Lecturer IIIII. The Panel shall be composed of eight (8) full-time faculty members of the University of Toronto, each from a different Department, and one (1) Sessional Lecturer III. The Union and the University shall each propose the names of prospective members until nine (9) mutually-agreeable names have been identified. A member of the Panel may not participate in a review originating in a Department with which the member is affiliated. The Director of the Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation may be requested to serve in an ex-officio advisory capacity. The parties shall by mutual agreement designate a Panel Chair. The Panel Chair shall have the responsibility of selecting three (3) members from the agreed list of members to comprise the ARP Committee for a given appeal. It is understood and agreed that the University and the Union shall have the right to raise with the Panel Chair any concerns of a potential conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. The Panel Chair shall give due consideration to such concerns in comprising the ARP Committee. The final composition of the ARP Committee in a given appeal shall be determined by the Panel Chair. It is understood and agreed that the Panel Chair may select a designate to act as the Panel Chair should the Panel Chair be in a conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. When a review is requested, the ARP Committee shall be provided with: • The candidate’s original application (including curriculum vitae, teaching dossier, and statement; any student evaluations and other documentation relied upon during the initial proceedings) • The Chair’s letter to the candidate • A written submission from the candidate • The Division Head’s (or designate’s) written response to the candidate’s submission • All evidence the Advancement Committee had before it in making its original decision In addition, the candidate may include a response to the Division Head’s response. The ARP Committee shall consider the material and submissions, and shall either confirm the Advancement Committee’s decision or determine that the candidate is to be advanced to the rank of Sessional Lecturer IIIII. The ARP Committee’s considerations will be arranged without undue delay, and its written decision, with reasons, shall be made in as expeditious a manner as possible. Discussions or representations occurring during this process are without precedent or prejudice, and may not be relied upon in any subsequent proceeding. Its decisions shall be final and binding. Normally, decisions shall be issued within ten (10) working days of finalizing the decision.

University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel. A University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel (ARP) shall be established to review decisions which do not result in advancing the candidate to the rank of Sessional Lecturer IIIII. The Panel shall be composed of eight (8) full-time faculty members of the University of Toronto, each from a different Department, and one (1) Sessional Lecturer III. The Union and the University shall each propose the names of prospective members until nine (9) mutually-agreeable names have been identified. A member of the Panel may not participate in a review originating in a Department with which the member he/she is affiliated. The Director of the Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation may be requested to serve in an ex-officio advisory capacity. The parties shall by mutual agreement designate a Panel Chair. The Panel Chair shall have the responsibility of selecting three (3) members from the agreed list of members to comprise the ARP Committee for a given appeal. It is understood and agreed that the University and the Union shall have the right to raise with the Panel Chair any concerns of a potential conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. The Panel Chair shall give due consideration to such concerns in comprising the ARP Committee. The final composition of the ARP Committee in a given appeal shall be determined by the Panel Chair. It is understood and agreed that the Panel Chair may select a designate to act as the Panel Chair should the Panel Chair he/she be in a conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. When a review is requested, the ARP Committee shall be provided with: •  The candidate’s original application (including curriculum vitae, teaching dossier, and statement; any student evaluations and other documentation relied upon during the initial proceedings) •  The Chair’s letter to the candidate •  A written submission from the candidate •  The Division Head’s (or designate’s) written response to the candidate’s submission •  All evidence the Advancement Committee had before it in making its original decision In addition, the candidate may include a response to the Division Head’s response. The ARP Committee shall consider the material and submissions, and shall either confirm the Advancement Committee’s decision or determine that the candidate is to be advanced to the rank of Sessional Lecturer IIIII. The ARP Committee’s considerations will be arranged without undue delay, and its written decision, with reasons, shall be made in as expeditious a manner as possible. Discussions or representations occurring during this process are without precedent or prejudice, and may not be relied upon in any subsequent proceeding. Its decisions shall be final and binding. Normally, decisions shall be issued within ten (10) working days of finalizing the decision.

University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel. A University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel (ARP) shall be established to review decisions which do not result in advancing the candidate to the rank of Sessional Lecturer III. The Panel shall be composed of eight (8) full-time faculty members of the University of Toronto, each from a different Department, and one (1) Sessional Lecturer III. The Union and the University shall each propose the names of prospective members until nine (9) mutually-agreeable names have been identified. A member of the Panel may not participate in a review originating in a Department with which the member is affiliated. The Director of the Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation may be requested to serve in an ex-officio advisory capacity. The parties shall by mutual agreement designate a Panel Chair. The Panel Chair shall have the responsibility of selecting three (3) members from the agreed list of members to comprise the ARP Committee for a given appeal. It is understood and agreed that the University and the Union shall have the right to raise with the Panel Chair any concerns of a potential conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. The Panel Chair shall give due consideration to such concerns in comprising the ARP Committee. The final composition of the ARP Committee in a given appeal shall be determined by the Panel Chair. It is understood and agreed that the Panel Chair may select a designate to act as the Panel Chair should the Panel Chair be in a conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. When a review is requested, the ARP Committee shall be provided with: • x The candidate’s original application (including curriculum vitae, teaching dossier, and statement; any student evaluations and other documentation relied upon during the initial proceedings) • x The Chair’s letter to the candidate • x A written submission from the candidate • x The Division Head’s (or designate’s) written response to the candidate’s submission • x All evidence the Advancement Committee had before it in making its original decision In addition, the candidate may include a response to the Division Head’s response. The ARP Committee shall consider the material and submissions, and shall either confirm the Advancement Committee’s decision or determine that the candidate is to be advanced to the rank of Sessional Lecturer III. The ARP Committee’s considerations will be arranged without undue delay, and its written decision, with reasons, shall be made in as expeditious a manner as possible. Discussions or representations occurring during this process are without precedent or prejudice, and may not be relied upon in any subsequent proceeding. Its decisions shall be final and binding. Normally, decisions shall be issued within ten (10) working days of finalizing the decision.

University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel. A University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel (ARP) shall be established to review decisions which do not result in advancing the candidate to the rank of Sessional Lecturer IIIII. The Panel shall be composed of eight (8) full-time faculty members of the University of Toronto, each from a different Department, and one (1) Sessional Lecturer III. The Union and the University shall each propose the names of prospective members until nine (9) mutually-agreeable names have been identified. A member of the Panel may not participate in a review originating in a Department with which the member is affiliated. The Director of the Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation may be requested to serve in an ex-officio advisory capacity. The parties shall by mutual agreement designate a Panel Chair. The Panel Chair shall have the responsibility of selecting three (3) members from the agreed list of members to comprise the ARP Committee for a given appeal. It is understood and agreed that the University and the Union shall have the right to raise with the Panel Chair any concerns of a potential conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. The Panel Chair shall give due consideration to such concerns in comprising the ARP Committee. The final composition of the ARP Committee in a given appeal shall be determined by the Panel Chair. It is understood and agreed that the Panel Chair may select a designate to act as the Panel Chair should the Panel Chair be in a conflict of interest in respect of certain members in a given appeal. When a review is requested, the ARP Committee shall be provided with: • x The candidate’s original application (including curriculum vitae, teaching dossier, and statement; any student evaluations and other documentation relied upon during the initial proceedings) • x The Chair’s letter to the candidate • x A written submission from the candidate • x The Division Head’s (or designate’s) written response to the candidate’s submission • x All evidence the Advancement Committee had before it in making its original decision In addition, the candidate may include a response to the Division Head’s response. The ARP Committee shall consider the material and submissions, and shall either confirm the Advancement Committee’s decision or determine that the candidate is to be advanced to the rank of Sessional Lecturer IIIII. The ARP Committee’s considerations will be arranged without undue delay, and its written decision, with reasons, shall be made in as expeditious a manner as possible. Discussions or representations occurring during this process are without precedent or prejudice, and may not be relied upon in any subsequent proceeding. Its decisions shall be final and binding. Normally, decisions shall be issued within ten (10) working days of finalizing the decision.