Provost

Electronic Reappointment Promotion and Tenure (eRPT)

The eRPT system was developed to facilitate the Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure process for UC faculty. Candidates from all colleges can create and submit their dossier digitally and the eRPT system automates the review process.

Dossiers, except for those eligible for Expedited Review, are to be submitted electronically.

User Resources

Information, guides, and resources are being developed to assist eRPT users throughout the Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure (RPT) review process. Please check back often, as resources are added when available.

Negative Recommendation Guidance

This is a short description on the functionality of the eRPT system in the event that a candidate receives a negative recommendation. As a reminder, a candidate should consult the AAUP staff of their rights and responsibilities in the event that they receive a negative recommendation.

In accordance with the AAUP contract, the eRPT system is designed to allow the candidate to add relevant new material to the dossier at any time. This is especially important to remember should s/he receive a negative letter of recommendation.

Should this occur, the candidate will receive an automated e-mail notification and will be able to login to the eRPT system and view their dossier. There are two options should a negative review occur: Reconsideration or Response.

For Reconsideration per the AAUP contract, “within fourteen days after receiving notice of the negative recommendation, the candidate has the right to request reconsideration” (7.5.9). After the 14 day window has elapsed, the eRPT system will not automatically move the dossier without the candidate’s action; however the date/time at which the candidate received the automated notification is logged in the Routing History of the dossier.

The candidate has the right to a reconsideration “at the first level which a negative recommendation occurs (7.5.9)”. If the candidate waives reconsideration at an earlier level, s/he may request reconsideration at a subsequent level; however the decision to grant the request is at the discretion of the current level reviewer.

Alternatively, the candidate may address the negative recommendation in a response letter (7.5.3) addressed to the next level of review.

In either case, the candidate “may submit supporting substantive or procedural information” (7.5.9) together with a request for reconsideration, or add “new material” (7.5.2), with or without a response letter, by uploading documents into the Faculty Reconsideration, Faculty Response, or Other folders.

To continue the review process after a negative review, a candidate must log in and choose to waive or request reconsideration. Any materials (letters, or additional documents) must be uploaded before pushing either the “Request Reconsideration” or the “Waive Reconsideration” buttons. If the candidate pushes the “Request Reconsideration” button, the dossier will be immediately routed back to the level of review where the negative recommendation occurred. If the candidate pushes the “Waive Reconsideration” button, the dossier will be immediately routed to the next level of review, members of which will have access to view the response letter in the “Faculty Response” folder.

The decision to respond or request reconsideration involves a complex analysis of many factors. We therefore strongly recommend that the candidate consult with a senior colleague or an AAUP staff person as mentioned above, before making that decision.

The above narrative is information on how the eRPT system functions in accordance with the AAUP contract. This information is in no way meant to advise the candidate on responding to or waiving reconsideration in the event of a negative recommendation. On the small chance that the eRPT system does not function as described above, the documents within the dossier are expected to stand on their own by articulating the RPT procedures that were followed. Thus, the intent by which the users add documents to the dossier should be clearly stated.