Information and common errors with PUEC and Chair’s letters

See VCAC Checklist/Description of VCAC Checklist Requirements for teaching professor rank faculty (under "process" links) or ttt faculty for information on what should be included in PUEC and Chair's letters.

PUEC letter

• PUEC letter shold be about 4000 words and should contain
  • 1) an introductory summary paragraph that provides relevant details about the faculty member (e.g., degrees, experience, tenure clock, scholarly and creative expertise, etc.);
  • 2) a description of the review process;
  • 3) substantive descriptions and evaluations of the faculty member’s (a) Teaching or Librarianship, (b) Scholarly and Creative Work, and (c) Leadership and Service (to the university, profession, and the public) based on the primary unit criteria for reappointment, tenure, and promotion; and
  • 4) the PUEC’s recommendation with clear and substantive justifications. For institute-rostered faculty, the institute and department typically form a combined PUEC and conduct one review
• should explain research, service and teaching to others outside department.  PUEC letter is vital - should explain impact of faculty member's work.
• PUEC needs to make case for unusual publishers (international, etc.)
• any deviations from tenure clock should be described in PUEC letter (leave, etc.)  Document if process has taken longer than usual.  Also include if faculty member started with time towards tenure.
• should include vote. (e.g. "The PUEC met on September 12, 2015 and voted 3 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.)
• PUEC letters should be addressed to the department chair.

Chair's letter

• should mention a vote that includes the voting faculty and PUEC (e.g. "The department met on September 12, 2015 and voted 7 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.  This tally includes my vote and the votes of the PUEC.")
• should refer to introductory pararaph in PUEC letter for information on tenure clock, etc.
• Chair's letter for ttt faculty should be addressed to Dean of Division and A&S Dean
• Chair's letter for teaching professor rank faculty should be addressed to Dean of Division

Common Errors

•Votes don’t match or not explained (e.g. 8 votes for research and 7 votes for teaching). Abstentions should always be listed even if “0.” The format for describing votes should be “For-Against-Abstention” (5-0-0, for example).

•Important tenure clock information missing (COVID clock stoppage, parental leaves, waiving first semester of service, credit towards tenure).

•Identifying external reviewers by description (e.g. “Chair of the largest English department of the Ivy League Colleges).

•Identifying advisees and students by name.

•The terms “reappointment” and “comprehensive review” are used interchangeably. Chair should use the same term that was used in the candidate’s offer letter (usually “comprehensive review” for TTT faculty, and “reappointment” for instructors/teaching professors).

• for ttt comprehensive review, both PUEC and chair letter should state if faculty have voted in favor of reappointment.  Example:  By a vote of # to # (# abstentions) the PUEC/faculty votes in favor of reappointment and agres that NAME is making adequate progress to tenure.

•Chair letter only: Description of voting process (and whether chair participates) missing (this information is in GSLL bylaws).