- Ensuring that there were no procedural or due process violations during the first and second level reviews, as well as ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the dossier to this point in the review. If there are significant deviations from the expected elements of a dossier, or the conduct of the review, the Campus APT Committee may remand the case back to the lower level for reconsideration and corrective action.
- Conducting an independent review of the candidate’s accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, mentoring, service, and if applicable, Extension -- informed by the assessments of the first and second level reviews.
- Meeting to discuss and vote on the candidate’s case for tenure and/or promotion.
- Ensuring that discussion and evaluation of the candidate is impartial, fair, and unbiased.
- Sending questions in writing to the lower level APT representatives to seek clarification via written responses.
- Seeking a meeting with lower level APT representatives to seek further clarification based on the answers to the initial questions submitted, or initially based on the review of the dossier by the committee, or when there is a possibility that a negative recommendation will be made.
- Requesting additional materials for review and consideration as per University policy (APT Policy Section IV.F.1).
- Writing a report with an evaluation of the candidate’s accomplishments and potential for future contributions, a record of the vote, the Committee’s recommendation, and the date of the decision meeting