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

University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel. It is agreed that the University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel as set out in Appendix A shall encompass the review of decisions which do not result in advancing the candidate to the status of Writing Instructor II. A member of the Panel may not participate in a review originating in a Writing Centre with which 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. When a review is requested, the Panel shall be provided with: • The candidate’s original application (including curriculum vitae, writing instruction dossier, and statement; any student evaluations and other documentation relied upon during the initial proceedings) • The 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 status of Writing Instructor II. 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. It is agreed that the University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel as set out in Appendix A shall encompass the review of decisions which do not result in advancing the candidate to the status of Writing Instructor II. A member of the Panel may not participate in a review originating in a Writing Centre with which 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. When a review is requested, the Panel shall be provided with: •  The candidate’s original application (including curriculum vitae, writing instruction dossier, and statement; any student evaluations and other documentation relied upon during the initial proceedings) •  The 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 status of Writing Instructor II. 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. It is agreed that the University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel as set out in Appendix A shall encompass the review of decisions which do not result in advancing the candidate to the status of Writing Instructor II2. A member of the Panel may not participate in a review originating in a Writing Centre with which he/she 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. When a review is requested, the Panel shall be provided with: • x The candidate’s original application (including curriculum vitae, writing instruction dossier, and statement; any student evaluations and other documentation relied upon during the initial proceedings) • x The Committee Co-chairs’ 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. 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 status of Writing Instructor II2. 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. It is agreed that the University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel as set out in Appendix A shall encompass the review of decisions which do not result in advancing the candidate to the status of Writing Instructor II2, except that three (3) Writing Instructor 2 (priority)s will be included in place of the three (3) Sessional Lecturer IIIs. A member of the Panel may not participate in a review originating in a Writing Centre with which he/she 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. When a review is requested, the Panel shall be provided with: • The candidate’s original application (including curriculum vitae, writing instruction dossier, and statement; any student evaluations and other documentation relied upon during the initial proceedings) • The Committee Co-chairs’ Director’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. 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 status of Writing Instructor II2. 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.