|
Faculty Handbook
Chapter IV: Faculty
POLICY REGARDING ALLOCATION TO TENURED FACULTY
- Introduction
The School confirms its commitment to its tenured faculty
and the principles of tenure set out elsewhere in this Handbook.
The School further recognizes that decisions regarding the
allocation of resources to tenured faculty must be made from
time to time.
-
Criteria for the Evaluation of Tenured Faculty
Set forth below is an outline of criteria to be used in
the ongoing evaluation of tenured faculty. The criteria are
designed to enable the institution to recognize that each
member of the tenured faculty plays a unique role in the academic
community and that that role changes from time to time. These
criteria also reflect the view that the imposition of standard
criteria is necessary to assure that all members of the faculty,
including tenured faculty, are treated fairly and consistently
and that decisions regarding resource allocation are made
based on appropriate objective criteria which reflect the
mission of the School, and the legitimate goals of the particular
department. The criteria are divided into four groups which
reflect the School's mission: teaching, research, patient
care, and service to the institution and community.
- Teaching:
1.1. Local teaching contributions:
- Course, Clerkship, Department
- Extra-departmental at Mount Sinai School of Medicine
- Leadership positions (e.g., Course Director, Residency
Director)
- Educational committees
- Advisor activity
- Self improvement
1.2. Regional, national, international
- Invited lectures
- Membership and leadership in societies
- Unsolicited letters of quality
- Extramural teaching
1.3. Evidence from learners
- Students: undergraduate and/or graduate
- Residents and Fellows
- Other teaching programs
- Learner achievement
- Awards
1.4. Excellence in service and teaching
- Leadership (e.g., Division Chief, Course Director)
- Ability to attract fellows and record of those attracted
- Development of new clinical or teaching programs
-
Research:
2.2. Excellence in scholarship
- Publications in respected peer review journals and presentations
credible organizations in the academic community of original
work and data
- The receipt of grant support, especially peer-reviewed
grant support
- The invention of new technology as evidenced by patents,
patent applications, and inventions
2.3. Publication of outstanding review articles, chapters,
textbooks, and so on
2.4. Extramural service such as service on a study
section or editorial board
-
Clinical Service:
3.1. Ability to care for patients
- Excellence in patient care
- Malpractice, risk management, and quality assurance experience
- Successful Board recertification
3.2. Teaching of clinical practice
- Time spent teaching undergraduate students
- Time spent teaching graduate students
- Participation in rounds and conferences
- Staying current with the literature
- Writing of clinical case reports
- Attendance at regional and national societies
3.3. Management of clinical practice
- Clinic attendance
- Clinic administration
- Participation in clinical committees
- FPA participation
- Number of patients seen
-
Service to the Institution and Community:
- Administrative position in School or Hospital (e.g., Dean,
Department Chair, Division Head, course director, clinic director,
clinic attending)
- Participation in departmental and institutional activities
including departmental meetings and grand rounds
- Participation in departmental committees (e.g., Quality
Assurance, Appointments and Promotions, peer review committees,
etc.)
- Participation in search committees and various institutional
and departmental ad hoc committees
- Participation and involvement in School activities,
(e.g., Appointments and Promotions Committee, Admissions Committee,
etc.)
-
Medical Board activities
- Participation on Executive Committee
- Participation on the Medical Board
- Participation on Medical Board standing and ad hoc committees
-
Participation in professional organizations (e.g., American
College of Surgeons, American Physiological Society, lay organizations
devoted to medicine such as the American Cancer Society, and so on)
-
Advisory participation in governmental matters (e.g.,
testifying before Congress)
- Procedure
- Decisions regarding resource allocation have always been
in the discretion of the Department Chair or Center Director
and the Dean. The Chair or Center Director and the Dean remain
responsible for making resource allocation decisions regarding
all faculty, including tenured faculty, as frequently as is
necessary. These should be based on the institutional criteria
contained in this policy taking into account the available
resources.
- In addition, the Dean shall perform a formal evaluation
of the resource allocation decisions made by the Department
Chair or the Center Director with respect to each tenured
faculty, such evaluation shall take place no more often than
once every three years and no less frequently than once every
five years.
- Prior to the outcome of the formal evaluation of the resource
allocation decisions becoming final, the Chair, Center Director
or the Dean shall advise any adversely affected faculty member
of the preliminary conclusions. If the outcome of this initial
formal evaluation is premised on concerns about the faculty
member's performance or productivity, at the request of the
faculty member and prior to the outcome of the review becoming
final, the review will be referred to an ad hoc Tenured Faculty
Review Committee to review the matter and make recommendation
to the Dean and Chairperson or Center Director. Requesting
review by the ad hoc Tenured Faculty Review Committee is in
addition to, and not a substitute for, any other rights the
affected faculty member may have including for example, submission
of the matter to the Faculty Relations Committee.
- The ad hoc Tenured Faculty Review Committee shall be comprised
of three members of the tenured faculty:
- one appointed by the Dean,
- one appointed by the Chair or Center Director and the
Dean from a list of four tenured faculty submitted by the
faculty member; and
- one appointed by the Chair or Center Director.
- Because of the nature of these proceedings, it is essential
that a request by the faculty member for review be prompt
and that the review of the Tenured Faculty Review Committee
proceed within reasonable time limits.
- The report of the Tenured Faculty Review Committee must
be in writing and include the reasons for its findings and
recommendations.
- The affected faculty member must be given an opportunity
to provide a written submission to the Tenured Faculty Review
Committee prior to the Tenured Faculty Review Committee concluding
its review. He or she must also be given an opportunity to
review the Committee's report and comment on it in writing,
which comments must, if requested by the faculty member, be
submitted to the Dean along with the Tenured Faculty Review
Committee's report prior to any action becoming final.
- The ad hoc Tenured Faculty Review Committee will conduct
its review anonymously.
- If indicated by the outcome of the review process, the
Chair or Center Director and Dean should develop a plan in
conjunction with the faculty member which will enhance the
faculty member's performance and productivity.
|