The Provost’s Advisory Council on Tenure and Promotion (PACTP) advises the provost on whether recommendations for tenure and promotion at the academic unit level are consistent with the criteria and standards of the University of Pittsburgh.
Implementation of PACTP was endorsed by the Council of Deans (on January 10, 2020) and approved by the Faculty Assembly (on March 4, 2020) based on the Promotion & Tenure Ad Hoc Committee Final Report and Recommendations, dated December 29, 2019.
The ad hoc committee recommended institution of a University-wide tenure and promotion committee based on its beliefs that “a University-level committee would ensure consistency in — as well as strengthen and elevate — the standards for tenure and promotion across the University” and would serve to “make the promotion and tenure process more transparent to the faculty, and be helpful in calibrating standards within the schools and campuses.”
- Membership
View the current roster of PACTP members. Lu-in Wang, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, oversees and facilitates the work of PATCP as its non-voting chair.
2025-2026 Roster
Pittsburgh Campus Subcommittee Name School/Campus Karen Arndt Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences Heather Bachman School of Education Aaron Barchowsky School of Public Health Alvaro Antonio Bernal-Reyes University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown Jerome Branche Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences Clark Chilson Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences Michael Deem School of Public Health Dan Ding School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences Robert Gibbs School of Pharmacy Osea Giuntella Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences Philip Hackney School of Law Leah Jacobs School of Social Work James Joshi School of Computing and Information Ariadne Letra School of Dental Medicine Huafang Li School of Public and International Affairs Pat Loughlin Swanson School of Engineering Fengyan Tang School of Social Work Stacey Triplette University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg Jeremy Weber School of Public and International Affairs Susan Wesmiller School of Nursing Regional Campus Subcommittee Name School/Campus Kevin Ewert University of Pittsburgh at Bradford Sean Garrett-Roe Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences Jill Henning University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown Giuseppe Intini School of Dental Medicine Martha Koehler University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg Alexis Kwasinski Swanson School of Engineering Alexandros Labrinidis School of Computing and Information Read the Conflict of Interest and Recusal Rules that apply to PACTP (below).
- Conflict of Interest and Recusal Rules
PACTP members are expected to recuse themselves from review, discussion, and voting on all cases that come before PACTP in which they have a conflict of interest (COI) or that might give rise to the appearance of a COI. (Hereinafter, “COI” will encompass all such situations.) No member may abstain from voting when PACTP votes on a case; full recusal from review, discussion, and voting is the way we will handle COI within PACTP.
PACTP members are expected to participate in the promotion and/or tenure processes in which they are eligible to participate in their home units. Accordingly, being a member of the same academic division or department as the candidate whose case is under review—or being a member of the same school in the case of academic units that are not organized by division or department—is automatically considered a COI. If you have already voted on a case at the division, department, or school level, you may not discuss or vote on the case as a member of PACTP. Additional conflicts include past or planned collaborations in teaching or research, formal or informal mentoring, service on long-standing committees with the candidate, or personal relationships.
A COI also might occur in other situations where a PACTP member feels that they might not be able to be objective in evaluating a case. Besides the more obvious reasons for recusal noted above, any prior connection can be a reason if the PACTP member might feel conflicted about anything negative in the review. PACTP members must be able to voice negative opinions if they are warranted.
At the start of our work for the year, or as soon as it becomes apparent to you, PACTP members should communicate to the PACTP Chair or Faculty Affairs staff in the Office of the Provost any possible COI with respect to any of the cases to be reviewed. Consistent with the automatic bases for COI above, PACTP members who are members of the same division, department, or school as the candidate or who appear in the candidate’s materials as having voted on the candidate’s case at the division, department, or school level will be excluded from access to the candidate’s materials when those materials are placed into the shared information system. Faculty with a COI may not be present in the meeting room when the case with which they are in conflict is discussed, and they may not discuss the case with any other member of PACTP. When possible, cases will be scheduled so that a committee member with a conflict can arrive late or leave early to avoid being asked to leave the meeting room while the committee discusses that particular case.If you are ever unsure whether you will be in conflict on a particular case, please consult the Chair. It is better to be conservative, and declare a conflict, than to discover that you are feeling conflicted halfway through the discussion of a case, or for your fellow PACTP members to feel uncomfortable about a colleague’s objectivity.
- Phased Implementation of PACTP
The ad hoc committee recommended that PACTP comprise four subcommittees, with one subcommittee handling each of the following types of cases:
- tenure/tenure stream (T/TS) cases for the Pittsburgh campus (excluding School of Medicine (SOM) cases);
- appointment stream (AS) cases for the Pittsburgh campus (excluding SOM cases);
- T/TS/AS cases from the regional campuses; and
- T/TS/AS cases from the SOM.
The ad hoc committee addressed the timing of implementation on page 9 of its report. First, the committee recommended that the process of transition to a University-level review committee be phased in, with the first year to serve as a “pilot test” of the new process using promotion cases from tenured associate to full professor. The ad hoc committee cited two reasons for selecting these cases for the pilot: the manageable volume of such cases and the fact that these decisions do not affect individuals’ employment status. Second, the committee recommended that, “[a]fter the pilot test, an assessment of the University-level review process can occur, and adjustments can be made as needed to strengthen the process and ensure it is transparent, fair, consistent, and timely” (p. 9).
In 2020-2021, the Office of Faculty Affairs began to phase in the review committee as recommended by the ad hoc committee. In order to maintain status quo during the development of a collective bargaining agreement with the faculty union, PACTP continued to review promotions from tenured associate to full professor from the Pittsburgh and regional campuses (excluding the School of Medicine) until a collective bargaining agreement was finalized, and continued during that time to review all other promotions under pre-PACTP processes. In 2025-2026, PACTP expanded to review tenure cases from the Pittsburgh and regional campuses (excluding the School of Medicine).
- tenure/tenure stream (T/TS) cases for the Pittsburgh campus (excluding School of Medicine (SOM) cases);