The Departmental Executive Officer must inform the candidate in writing at several points in time of the material that the candidate must compile and submit for the promotion dossier. The notice must also inform the clinical faculty member that the promotion dossier is due by September 1 of the review year (or an earlier date established by the department). These times of required notification by the DEO are

• at the time of appointment to a clinical track position,
• in the year of any contract renewal, and
• by April 15 of the year in which the promotion decision will be made.

1. September 1 submission deadline. It is the candidate’s responsibility, with the advice of the Departmental Executive Officer, to compile and submit substantive material for inclusion in the promotion dossier (the core of the Promotion Record) by September 1 of the academic year in which the promotion decision is to be made or by an earlier date established by the department.
2. It is the responsibility of the Departmental Executive Officer to advise the candidate in compiling material for the dossier, to complete the compilation of the dossier (and subsequently to complete compilation of the Promotion Record by adding materials to it throughout the departmental decision-making process), and to ensure to the greatest extent possible that the Promotion Record serves as a fair and accurate evaluation of the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, and is not purely a record of advocacy for the candidate. The responsibility to advise the candidate in compiling the dossier material is not limited to the immediate period of the promotion review, but rather is an ongoing responsibility that begins when the faculty member is appointed to the department.

3. Materials to be included in the candidate’s dossier.
   By September 1, or an earlier date specified in the departmental procedures, the candidate submits to the DEO the materials described below. If the department requires additional documents, these must be described in the departmental procedures for clinical-track promotion decision-making.

   The dossier will contain the following, in the order listed, except that information on a CV that follows the College's P&T CV need not be repeated elsewhere.
   a. the “Recommendation for Faculty Promotion” cover sheet, which will be routed in workflow by the Departmental Administrator (see Appendix B);
   b. the position description (basic functions and specific duties) developed at the time of the appointment or in effect at the time of the previous successful promotion review, with any subsequent revisions;
   c. [on the model CV] a record of the candidate’s educational and professional history, including:
       i. a list of institutions of higher education attended, preferably from most to least recent, indicating for each one the name of the institution, dates attended, field of study, degree obtained, and date the degree was awarded;
      ii. a list of professional and academic positions held, preferably from most to least recent, indicating for each one the title of the position, the dates of service, and the location or institution at which the position was held; and
     iii. a list of honors, awards, recognitions, and outstanding achievements, preferably from most to least recent.
   d. a record of the candidate’s teaching at The University of Iowa, including:
        i. the candidate’s personal statement on teaching consisting of a summary and explanation--normally not to exceed three pages--of the candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning teaching, comments on these accomplishments and plans, and comments on other items included in the dossier related to teaching;
       ii. [on the CV] a list of the candidate’s clinical teaching, as it occurs in the context of the delivery of professional services to individuals, patients, or clients, preferably from most to least recent;
      iii. [on the CV] a list of the candidate’s teaching assignments on a semester-by-semester basis, preferably from most to least recent;
      iv. [on the CV] a list of graduate students, fellows, or other postdoctoral students supervised, if any, including each student’s name, degree objective, and outcomes;
       v. [on the CV] a list of residents for whom the faculty member has provided substantial and prolonged supervision throughout all or most of their training, including each student’s name and post-residency position;
      vi. a list of other contributions to instructional programs;
     vii. electronic versions of course materials, including syllabi, instructional Web pages, computer laboratory materials, and so forth (see I.B.4);
    viii. and, as an appendix to the dossier, electronic versions of teaching evaluation scores and comments from students (the candidate will include all student teaching evaluations in her or his custody for each course taught);
   e. a record of the candidate’s professional productivity, including:
        i. the candidate’s personal statement on professional productivity consisting of a summary and explanation—normally not to exceed three pages—of the candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning professional productivity, comments on these accomplishments and plans, and comments on other items included in the dossier related to professional productivity;
       ii. [on the CV] a list of lectures and conference presentations, with invited lectures or presentations listed separately;
      iii. [on the CV] a list of symposia, workshops, and so forth organized by the candidate (e.g., in conjunction with conferences or other professional meetings);
      iv. [on the CV] a list of journals for which the candidate has been a member of the editorial board or served as editor;
       v. [on the CV] a list, preferably from most to least recent, of the candidate’s publications, multi-media materials, or other productions with, for each multi-authored work or coherent series of multi-authored works, a brief statement of the candidate’s contribution to the work or series of works; peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications and productions must be listed separately;
   vi. for any book in the dossier, a copy of the College’s checklist (see Appendix F), to show where the book is in the production process;
     vii. for any books that are not yet in print, the letter from the publisher making the final commitment to publish the book, with a copy of the final contract (see also: Timing of Reviews.)
    viii. [on the CV] a list of attained support including grants and contracts received by the candidate;
      ix. [on the CV] a description of any other products and activities demonstrating professional productivity as defined by the department’s written policy on promotion decision-making or by the CLAS Policy on Clinical Faculty Appointments;
      x. [on the CV] a list of pending decisions regarding the candidate’s professional productivity that might affect the promotion deliberations; and,
     xi. as an appendix to the dossier, copies of materials documenting the candidate’s professional productivity. Research or creative scholarship is not required for promotion on the clinical track; however, publications, grants, and other types of research and creative activity may provide evidence of professional productivity.
   f. a record of the candidate’s clinical and other service to the department, college, university, profession, community, and State of Iowa, including:
      i. the candidate’s personal statement on service including both his/her clinical service and other types of service (consisting of a summary and explanation--normally not to exceed three pages--of the candidate’s accomplishments and future plans concerning service, and comments on these accomplishments and plans and on other items included in the dossier related to clinical and other service);
     ii. [on the CV] a list, preferably from most to least recent, of clinical service activities in each of the years since the last promotion;
    iii. [on the CV] a list, preferably from most to least recent, of other departmental, collegiate, or university service positions;
     iv. [on the CV] a list, preferably from most to least recent, of relevant community involvement and service to the State of Iowa;
      v. [on the CV] a list, preferably from most to least recent, of offices held in professional organizations;
     vi. [on the CV] a list, preferably from most to least recent, of service on review panels; and
    vii. [on the CV] a list, preferably from most to least recent, of any service contributions not listed elsewhere.
   g. the following materials from the candidate’s most recent review for contract renewal: the DEO’s letter, the Dean’s letter, and the candidate’s response(s) to the DEO’s and/or Dean’s letter;
   h. within the appropriate section(s) of the dossier as listed above, other information relevant to the candidate’s record in teaching, professional productivity, or clinical and other service that is deemed to be important in the candidate’s judgment and relevant to the candidate’s position description (e.g., contributions to curriculum and program development, contributions to faculty research programs, professional consultations, service on state or regional licensing/certification boards) and other material required by the department’s written policy on promotion decision-making or by the CLAS Policy on Clinical Faculty Appointments.

4. Where the volume of material of a particular kind which is required to be included in the dossier is large and potentially unmanageable, a candidate, in consultation with the Departmental Executive Officer, may select and identify representative portions of the required material for special attention. Only the material selected as representative will become part of the Promotion Record and will be transmitted to successive participants in the promotion decision-making process.
   Required materials segregated from the representative material will be available for review and will be located in a readily accessible location under the Departmental Executive Officer’s custody. If any participant in the promotion decision-making process relies upon initially segregated material in preparing a written evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications, that material should be added to the Promotion Record, the fact of that addition should be noted in the written evaluation, and the candidate should be notified in writing of the addition at the time it is made.
5. The candidate’s work in progress that is not completed by the specified date but that is anticipated to be completed in the fall--early enough for full and deliberate evaluation, as determined by the Departmental Executive Officer--may be identified at the time the dossier is submitted and added to the dossier if and when it is completed.
6. Other materials (including updated CVs and personal statements) that could not have been available by the specified date but which are completed early enough for full and deliberate evaluation may be added to the promotion dossier by the candidate through the Departmental Executive Officer. Materials added to the original dossier or materials in the original dossier that are amended, should be labeled as such, including the date when added or amended and with any amendments clearly marked.

It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, professional productivity, and clinical and other service as described in the following sections, D, E, and F.

In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the DEO appoints a promotion committee for each clinical-track candidate, consisting of at least four faculty members, including both tenure-track and clinical-track faculty eligible to vote on the decision. Where necessary, eligible individuals may be appointed from outside the departmental faculty. The DEO also appoints a chair for each promotion committee from among its members. The DEO may not be a member of the promotion and tenure committee.

(Note: Some departments have established additional requirements for the formation and composition of the departmental promotion committee. 

This committee performs the peer evaluation of the candidate’s teaching, professional productivity, and clinical and other service, following the procedures described below (D, E, and F). These peer evaluations will be contained in one or more reports that analyze the relevant materials in the Promotion Record as detailed in the respective sections that follow, and shall be signed by each member of the departmental promotion committee. These reports are intended to go beyond a mere description of what the candidate has included in the dossier and provide a thorough evaluation of the quantity and quality of the candidate’s teaching, professional productivity, and clinical and other service from a departmental perspective.

By the first working day of November, the promotion committee submits their evaluations in light of the University’s, the College's, and the department’s criteria for clinical faculty rank. The Committee should utilize the CLAS report template.

Within 5 working days of the submission of these evaluations, the DEO places the reports in the Promotion Record and transmits a copy of the report to the candidate, who may submit a letter within another 5 working days correcting any factual errors in the evaluations.

It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluation of the candidate’s teaching by participating in the following process.

1. The departmental promotion committee performs the peer evaluation of teaching according to the procedures described below. The evaluation must incorporate various types of evidence—including at a minimum review of syllabi and other teaching materials, peer observation of classroom teaching, peer evaluation of clinical teaching to the extent practicable, confidential evaluations solicited from faculty members with whom the candidate has team-taught courses and who are at or above the rank (tenured, tenure track, or clinical) to which the candidate seeks promotion, and evidence of successful supervision of students.
   The method chosen for peer evaluation of clinical teaching must, where necessary, address teaching that occurs in a privileged setting.
   The peer evaluation of teaching draws on materials and raw data considered in annual reviews and reappointment reviews since the clinical faculty appointment began or since the previous successful promotion review. The promotion committee may use only the materials and data considered in those earlier reviews, not the review report itself. For example, the peer evaluation of teaching in a review for promotion to clinical associate professor will draw on the student evaluations of teaching from each class and the record of each classroom observation conducted for annual reviews since the appointment as clinical assistant professor.
2. At a minimum, one teaching occasion (e.g., classroom teaching, supervision of clinical practice) must be observed as part of every peer evaluation of a clinical faculty member’s teaching—that is, in each annual review, each reappointment review, and each review for promotion. Departmental procedures may require more frequent observations of teaching occasions, and must insure that a sufficient number of observations is required to cover the range of teaching performed by clinical faculty in the department. In each peer evaluation, a written record of the observation must be submitted. Under Regents' rules, the evaluation of teaching must explicitly consider the oral communication competence of the candidate. (Note: A list of departments and the number of classroom observations each requires in a review for promotion and/or tenure is available on the College's website.)
   The observation must be undertaken by one or more members of the departmental promotion review committee--or appropriate designee(s) of the committee, with approval of the DEO—and the written record of the observation must be included in the report referred to in part I.D.6, below. In circumstances where the observation cannot be made entirely by faculty peers, the candidate must receive written approval for the selection of non-faculty peer reviewers and they can constitute only a minority of the evaluators specified by Collegiate policy. The request for approval must be justified by and contained in a written request from the Dean to the Provost.
   Departments may conduct teaching observations for the promotion review in the spring and/or the fall semester of the calendar year in which the review takes place. These must be specifically designated as observations for the promotion review and may not be the same observations that are conducted for an annual review or a reappointment review.
3. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the members of the promotion committee designated to perform the teaching observation(s) will discuss with the candidate possible dates for the observation(s), in order to avoid inopportune times. Observations must produce as little disruption as possible.
4. If expressly agreed to by both the candidate and the departmental promotion committee, video observation may be substituted for actual observation of teaching.
5. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the departmental promotion committee solicits confidential evaluations of teaching from faculty members with whom the candidate has team-taught courses and who are at or above the rank (tenured, tenure-track, or clinical-track) to which the candidate seeks promotion. The Departmental Executive Officer adds these solicited evaluations as an appendix of the Promotion Record.
   The departmental promotion committee solicits confidential evaluations of teaching from faculty members with whom the candidate has team-taught courses and who are at or above the rank (tenured, tenure-track, or clinical-track) to which the candidate seeks promotion. The Departmental Executive Officer adds these solicited evaluations as an appendix of the Promotion Record.
   No unsolicited letters evaluating the candidate's teaching, whether signed or anonymous, will be entered into the Promotion Record.
6. The internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s teaching will be contained in a report that analyzes and evaluates the relevant materials in the Promotion Record, and will include:
   a. a comparative analysis of the quality of the candidate’s teaching in the context of the candidate’s department or unit;
   b. a summary analysis of the student teaching evaluation data contained in the Promotion Record, including departmental average comparison data where possible;
   c. a description, where appropriate, of the balance between the candidate’s undergraduate, graduate, and clinical teaching;
   d. a description and assessment of the candidate’s academic advising responsibilities, if any; and
   e. a consideration of any special circumstances concerning the faculty member’s teaching performance.
   In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the report is due the first working day of November. The report must include a summary of the student evaluations obtained in each course taught by the candidate. The appendices containing the student evaluations are not submitted to the Dean’s Office with the promotion record but are available to the Dean and the College’s Committee on Faculty Promotion and Tenure upon request.
   The departmental promotion committee will enter their peer evaluation of the candidate’s teaching, as described in I.D.6 above, into the section of the Promotion Record that is dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s teaching.

It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity by participating in the following process.

1. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity will be carried out by the departmental promotion committee.
2. The peer evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity will be contained in a report that analyzes and evaluates the relevant materials in the Promotion Record, and will include a statement concerning the norms for professional productivity in the relevant field, a brief description of the quality of conference, institutions, journals, or other fora in which the candidate’s work has appeared or been presented, and statements concerning any other activities representing professional productivity that would be helpful in understanding the nature and quality of these activities. If the dossier contains published reviews of the candidate’s professional work, the College asks that the written internal peer evaluation refer to the assessments contained in these reviews.
3. The departmental promotion committee will enter their evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity into the section of the Promotion Record that is dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity.
4. Section I.G of these procedures specifies how the review of professional productivity carried out within the candidate’s department will be supplemented by reviewers external to the department, college, and/or university.

It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining peer evaluation of the candidate’s clinical and other service by participating in the following process.

1. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the internal peer evaluation of the candidate’s clinical and other service will be carried out by the departmental promotion committee.
2. The peer evaluation of the candidate’s service will be contained in a report that analyzes and evaluates the relevant materials in the Promotion Record, and will include a comparative analysis of the quality of the candidate’s clinical and other service in the context of the expected service contributions in the department and the profession.
3. The Departmental Promotion Committee will enter their peer evaluation of the candidate’s clinical and other service into the section of the Promotion Record that is dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s service.
4. In soliciting external evaluations, as described under part I.G, the department may solicit evaluations of service outside the department. See especially part I.G.3.
5. No unsolicited letters evaluating the candidate’s clinical and other service, whether signed or anonymous, will be entered into the promotion record.

It is the candidate’s responsibility to cooperate in obtaining external peer evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity and/or clinical and other service by participating in the following process:

1. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the process of selection of external evaluators of professional productivity will begin no later than September 1 of the academic year in which the promotion decision will be made and must be completed by September 30. Departments may establish an earlier timeline, beginning as early as the preceding January.
2. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, departments must obtain for the promotion record no fewer than 4 and no more than 8 external evaluations for each candidate. Each department must specify a number within this range that the department will work to obtain. Every evaluation solicited and obtained must be included in the promotion record. No unsolicited letters, whether signed or anonymous, may be entered into the promotion record.
   Numbers of external evaluations specified by units for which these Guidelines are relevant:
   —Communication Sciences & Disorders: 4
   —Music: 4
   —Psychological and Brain Sciences (promotion to associate): 4 
   —Psychological and Brain Sciences (promotion to professor): 4
   —Social Work: 4
3. The DEO will solicit from the candidate a list of appropriate external reviewers from peer institutions (e.g. AAU, Big Ten, major public, Carnegie Research I) or institutions, organizations or professional bodies in which the corresponding department or individual evaluator is of peer quality.
4. The DEO will add suggestions to the list and give it to the departmental promotion committee, who will add other potential external reviewers to the list, and return the completed list to the DEO.
5. The DEO will share the completed list of potential external reviewers with the candidate. The candidate shall identify any potential external reviewers with whom s/he has worked in any capacity and describe the nature of the relationship. If the candidate feels that any potential external reviewer on the list might be unfairly biased, the candidate may prepare a written objection and give it to the DEO, who will take the objections into consideration when selecting the external reviewers.
6. In identifying potential external reviewers, all participants in the selection process will take into account the standing of the prospective reviewer in the discipline, the likely knowledge of the reviewer of the material to be reviewed, the apparent impartiality of the reviewer, and the contribution of the reviewer to achieving an overall “balanced” review among the reviewers on any criterion for which there might be a range of perspectives. To the extent that it is possible, it is critical to avoid any situation in which a personal and/or professional relationship between the candidate and a prospective reviewer is such that it could undermine the reviewer’s apparent impartiality.
7. The College expects that the potential external evaluators will not include any individual who served as a reference at the time the candidate was appointed nor any individual who was approved to serve as an evaluator in an earlier review for promotion. If the DEO feels there are extraordinary circumstances that make it desirable to extend an invitation to such an individual, the DEO must write to the Area Associate Dean to formally request a waiver of this guideline and to explain the circumstances.
8. The DEO will determine, in accordance with these procedures, which of the potential external reviewers will be asked to provide a letter of evaluation. The DEO will then submit the proposed names, along with a one-paragraph biographical sketch of each, to the Dean and Executive Associate Dean. No letter of invitation may be sent until the DEO has received approval from the Dean’s Office.
9. The DEO, using a form letter that substantially conforms to the sample letter contained in Appendix C, will ask the reviewers approved by the Dean to provide an assessment of the quality and quantity of the candidate’s professional productivity and/or clinical and other service.
10. After, or in anticipation of, an invitation to an external reviewer to evaluate the candidate’s work, neither the candidate nor any other faculty member other than the DEO will communicate with the reviewer concerning the subject of the review or the review process.
11. The DEO will keep a record of:
    1. the list of suggested reviewers,
    2. the names of persons invited to review,
    3. the names of the actual reviewers,
    4. comments submitted by the candidate, the DEO, and the internal faculty reviewers, and
    5. correspondence and other communications between the DEO and invited reviewers and actual reviewers.
12. All letters received from external reviewers will be entered by the DEO into the Promotion Record in the sections dedicated to the history and evaluation of the candidate’s professional productivity or clinical and other service, along with
    1. a list of invited reviewers, indicating whether the reviewer was suggested by the candidate, the DEO, or the internal faculty reviewers and a brief explanation of why any invited reviewer declined;
    2. the candidate’s written objection to any potential external reviewer on the basis of unfair bias, if a letter was solicited from that reviewer over the candidate’s written objection;
    3. a copy of the letter or letters of solicitation to external reviewers;
    4. a brief description of each external reviewer’s qualifications;
    5. a statement of how the reviewer knows the candidate’s work, if it is not obvious from the reviewer’s letter;
    6. a statement that identifies and addresses circumstances that might call into question the impartiality of the reviewer; and
    7. an explanation of why the choice of a reviewer was made, if the reviewer is not from a peer institution but from an institution, organization or professional body where the corresponding department of individual evaluator is of peer quality.
13. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, some evaluators may be asked to address only professional productivity or only service, or some may be asked to make assessments in both categories. For promotion to Clinical Professor, at least half of the letters must be obtained from individuals external to the institution; other letters may be from individuals within the institution but external to the department. For promotion to Clinical Associate Professor, departmental procedures must specify whether any of the evaluators will be external to the institution; all must be external to the department.

14. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the candidate in consultation with the DEO and the departmental promotion committee determines what materials related to his or her professional productivity and/or clinical and other service are to be sent to each of the external evaluators. The external evaluator also receives the position description (basic functions and specific duties) from the promotion dossier, the candidate's current curriculum vitae, and the candidate's statement regarding his or her accomplishments and future plans in professional work and/or clinical and other service (as appropriate to the evaluation the evaluator is being asked to make).

    The promotion record forwarded to the Dean contains the same sample(s) of work. The candidate in consultation with the DEO and the departmental promotion committee determines whether any work not part of the sample should be placed in an appendix which is forwarded to the Dean.

The candidate will be given an opportunity to respond to the internal peer evaluations as follows:

1. Within 5 working days of the submission of the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service, the Departmental Executive Officer will send the candidate a copy of the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, professional productivity, and clinical and other service that have been entered into the appropriate sections of the Promotion Record.
2. The candidate will have 5 working days from the date of receipt of the internal peer evaluations of his/her teaching, scholarship or creative work, and service to submit in writing any corrections to factual errors in the internal peer evaluations.
3. If the candidate submits a letter correcting errors in the internal peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching, professional productivity, and clinical and other service, the Departmental Executive Officer will enter it into the Promotion Record before the Departmental Consulting Group makes its recommendation.

The Departmental Consulting Group (see definition) will participate in the promotion decision-making process as follows:

1. Following the principle that each individual participating in the promotion decision-making process may vote for or against the granting of promotion to a candidate only once, Departmental Consulting Group members who are also members of the Collegiate Committee on Faculty Promotion and Tenure will participate in the promotion decision for a candidate from their department at the departmental level and may not participate in the deliberations or voting of the Collegiate Committee in regard to that candidate.
2. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the Departmental Executive Officer attends the meetings of the Departmental Consulting Group and ensures procedural correctness. The DEO may not vote, participate in the discussion other than to provide factual information, or contribute to the written report summarizing the discussion of the Departmental Consulting Group.
3. The Promotion Record available to the Departmental Consulting Group will consist of the candidate’s dossier with appendices (materials documenting professional productivity and student teaching evaluations, including those student teaching evaluations added to the Promotion Record by the Departmental Executive Officer); confidential evaluations from those faculty members with whom the candidate has team-taught courses and who are at or above the rank (tenured, tenure track, or clinical track) to which the candidate seeks promotion; solicited evaluations of the candidate’s professional productivity and service, as specified in section I.G; the internal and external peer evaluations of professional productivity, teaching, and service, entered into the appropriate sections of the Record; and the candidate’s letter correcting errors in the internal peer evaluations, if any.
   The promotion record must be available only to the DEO and to those faculty eligible to participate in the discussion, all of whom must have made a careful study of the promotion record. All those eligible to participate in the decision have an ethical duty to participate unless disqualified by a conflict of interest or unless prevented from studying the promotion record and participating in the discussion of the record (e.g., by an off-campus developmental assignment).
4. The DCG will meet to discuss the candidate’s qualifications, to vote by secret ballot for or against the granting of promotion.
   In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the chair of the departmental promotion committee is responsible for leading the discussion of the DCG, preparing a summary report of the discussion, documenting the final vote, and entering that information into the Promotion Record.
   The chair of the promotion committee will see that those attending meetings of the Departmental Consulting Group sign in, so that there is a record of who were present for the discussion and therefore voted. The summary report of the meeting must list those eligible faculty who were not present for the discussion and therefore did not vote, with the reason for the absence.
   The chair of the promotion committee is responsible for submitting the report summarizing the discussion of the Departmental Consulting Group. The report must record the number voting to grant promotion and the number voting to deny it. The summary report will contain a recommendation for or against the granting of promotion based on the criterion that a 60% majority of those present for the DCG discussion defines a positive recommendation for promotion.
   The summary report shall not reiterate the details of the internal and external peer reviews or restate other material already in the dossier; rather, it shall identify those specific aspects of the dossier that formed the basis of the DCG recommendation. The report must reflect the range of opinions expressed in the meeting and must analyze the external evaluations of the candidate’s professional productivity and clinical and other service. The report must be written in a way that does not violate the expectation of confidentiality on the part of members of the Departmental Consulting Group, students who submitted letters of evaluation, or others who wrote in expectation of confidentiality.
   A draft version of the summary report must be made available to the members of the Departmental Consulting Group. Individual faculty members will forward any comments and requested changes to the chair of the departmental promotion committee, who will then prepare a final version of the report and make that version available to members of the DCG. Any faculty member eligible to participate in the promotion decision may submit a further confidential comment that will be appended to the report. (These comments may be made available to the candidate after redaction, under the conditions specified in section K.) The College publishes an optional form for the confidential evaluation on its website.
5. The results of the Departmental Consulting Group's vote and the summary report of its discussion (with any appended confidential evaluations from individual faculty) will be transmitted to the Departmental Executive Officer as part of the candidate's Promotion Record using the CLAS report template (to Clinical Associate Professor, to Clinical Full Professor).  A copy of the DCG vote and summary report is also provided to the candidate. In the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, the candidate does not receive a redacted version of the summary report, but a duplicate of the report submitted for the Promotion Record. The report must therefore be prepared in a way that protects the confidentiality of any individual contributions, whether from external reviewers or University of Iowa faculty members. The DCG report must not attribute comments to identifiable members of the faculty or external evaluators.
6. The candidate will be allowed five working days after receiving the DCG’s report to submit to the DEO a letter correcting factual errors about the candidate’s record in the DCG’s summary report of its discussion.
7. If the candidate submits a letter correcting factual errors about the candidate’s record in the DCG’s summary report, the DEO will enter it into the Promotion Record before making a recommendation to the Dean.

The DEO will participate in the promotion decision making process as follows:

1. Should the Departmental Executive Officer receive any correspondence concerning a candidate for promotion from individual members of the Departmental Consulting Group, that correspondence will be entered into the section of the Promotion Record that contains the Departmental Consulting Group’s vote and report.
2. Based on the Promotion Record, including the candidate’s response, if any, to the report of the DCG, the DEO will recommend that promotion be granted or denied in a separate letter to the collegiate Dean for each candidate utilizing the CLAS DEO letter template.
3. As with the DCG report, the DEO’s letter to the Dean should not reiterate the details of material that already is in the dossier. Rather, it will explain her or his reasons for recommending for or against promotion, stating how the candidate has or has not met the relevant criteria for promotion. When the recommendation of the DCG is not followed, the DEO’s letter will explain why a contrary recommendation is being made and will address any disagreement between the DEO’s evaluation and the evaluation of the DCG as reflected in the summary report of the DCG’s discussion.
   In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the DEO’s letter must be prepared in a way that protects the confidentiality of external reviewers and University of Iowa faculty members. The DEO’s letter must not attribute comments to identifiable members of the faculty or external evaluators.
4. Even if the Departmental Executive Officer recommends that the candidate be promoted, the Departmental Executive Officer’s letter to the Dean will address any negative aspects of the Promotion Record.
5. The Departmental Executive Officer’s letter will be transmitted to the Dean as part of the candidate’s Promotion Record. The department must complete its review process and transmit the promotion record to the Dean’s Office by deadlines in early December established annually by the Dean’s Office. The College announces these deadlines in April so that departments can plan the schedule of review meetings.

The candidate will be given the opportunity to respond to a recommendation against promotion by the DEO as follows:

1. At the same time that the Promotion Record is submitted to the Dean, if the DEO’s recommendation is negative, the DEO will provide the candidate with a copy of the letter of recommendation to the Dean.
2. If the DEO’s recommendation is negative, the candidate will, upon request, have access to the promotion record. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the candidate will be allowed 3 working days after receiving the DEO’s letter to submit a request to the Dean for access to the Promotion Record. The following provisions apply:
   1. the external reviews of the candidate’s professional productivity and/or clinical and other service must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers; and
   2. any comments in the Promotion Record referring to external reviews of the candidate’s professional productivity and/or clinical and other service must be redacted as appropriate to protect the confidentiality of reviewers.
3. In the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the candidate will be allowed 5 working days after receiving access to the Promotion Record to submit to the Dean
   1. a written response to the DEO’s negative recommendation and
   2. additional information to be included in the Promotion Record.
4. If the candidate submits a written response to the Dean for inclusion in the Promotion Record, the candidate also shall give the DEO a copy of the response.