The transmittal letter introduces the candidate, requests the appointment, and states the proposed date of appointment.

To help prevent a delay in processing, the letter may also point out any unusual circumstances about the appointment — for example, the rationale for an accelerated tenure request or an explanation of an asymmetrical evaluation that is heavier on research than on teaching. 

The Provost is asking that additional information be added to the Chair’s transmittal letter to the Dean for appointments of associate research professor/research professor.  Each letter from the Chair must include a paragraph that describes the search process leading to the candidate’s selection (including nature of the search, e.g., open or targeted; composition of the pool; information about candidates at each stage of the search) and a separate paragraph justifying the recommendation for the appointment at the relevant rank.  

This letter endorses the faculty member for promotion and states the faculty member's proposed new rank.  

To help prevent a delay in processing, the letter may also point out any unusual circumstances about the promotion — for example, the rationale for an accelerated tenure request or an explanation of an asymmetrical evaluation that is heavier on research than on teaching. 

Scholarly Impact Statement

The Scholarly Impact Statement is required on all promotion transmittal letters.  2-3 sentences on what specific substantial impact the faculty member's research/scholarly work has had on their field.  

Examples:

• Dr. Snow’s expertise in platelet biology and the cellular and molecular mechanisms of thrombosis and hemostasis has had a major impact in the fields of cardiovascular disease and bleeding disorder research.
• This work has had significant impact in the field of clinical genomics; defining new paradigms in prostate and breast cancer through assessment and targeting of altered genes using large data analyses. 
• His studies have yielded exciting insight into how lipid precursors can be used in platelet signaling and more importantly how they can be manipulated to generate potent platelet inhibitors.  His work has made important contributions in the understanding of complex pathophysiology of thrombosis in cardiovascular disease and bleeding disorders.
• Dr. Snow’s greatest impact to the field is her findings of the initiation and progression of COPD and the identification of novel potential therapeutic targets.  In recognition of her impact, she was awarded the Early Career Achievement Award from major society. 

Professionalism/DEI Statement:

The Michigan Medicine core values of caring, innovation, inclusion, integrity, and teamwork are demonstrated through professional conduct and behaviors from our faculty members. Please include an individualized statement within the Chair’s transmittal letter confirming that the promotional candidate exhibits a high level of professionalism. If there are any previous or ongoing professionalism issues, summarize the issues and provide details of remediation and improvement in professionalism. Please also include a separate individualized statement that describes how the candidate contributes to strengthening an environment that supports and promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Examples of a these statements in a Chair transmittal letter is as follows:

Dr. X always exhibits a high level of professionalism in all of her/his/their roles. She/he/they always demonstrate civility, empathy, and respect for others, and have outstanding communication skills with others.

Dr. X contributes to strengthening an environment that supports and promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion. She/he/they serve on the departments’ DEI Committee, and Promotions Committee, and participated in a workshop on how to recruit a diverse faculty group.  Dr. X has mentored other department faculty and fellows on the importance of DEI in clinical and academic teams.

Or,

Dr. Y always has had acceptable professional behavior as a faculty member with the exception of staff interactions when she/he/they first started in the laboratory. Some staff members felt that Dr. Y was short-tempered and did not listen well or communicate with staff. This was reported to Dr. Y and she/he/they were appropriately concerned and worked to improve these behaviors. Dr. Y was provided mentorship from a senior physician, was provided on-line resources, and attended faculty development workshops on improving communications. Staff were queried after these interventions, and noted that Dr. Y’s behavior had improved and there were no ongoing issues. Since that time Dr. Y has exhibited excellent professionalism in the laboratory and academic environments.

Dr. Y contributes to strengthening an environment that supports and promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion. She/he/they care for a diverse group of patients, and have worked with members of the community to improve food security for patients of lower socioeconomic status. Dr. Y also participated in a one day program to provide information to high school students from diverse backgrounds on careers in medicine. 

The Dean's office would like to see the effort called out in the heading line of all Chair's transmittal letters for every appointment totaling 1.0 FTE.  Here are some examples:

• Bruce Banner, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor, with tenure, Department of Neurosurgery (1.0 FTE), Research Associate Professor, Department of Pathology (0.0 FTE)
• Minnie Mouse, M.D., Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical School (0.5 FTE), and Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health (0.5 FTE)
• James Bond, Ph.D., Research Associate Professor, Department of Radiology, Medical School (0.5 FTE)
• Willie Wonka, M.D., Ph.D., Professor, with tenure, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical School, University of Michigan (0.8 FTE), Adjunct Professor, without tenure, Department of Internal Medicine, Oregon State University (0.2 FTE)

• Example may be used for either appointments or promotions by changing the language within accordingly
• Research Track Appointment Transmittal Letter 

Candidates' service contributions should be described in terms of quality and quantity. These activities may include administrative or committee work for departmental, school, University, or national organizations.

Describe and evaluate the quality, originality, and significance of the candidate's research. Include a description of work in progress. Note publications as a practical way of documenting the nominee's contributions. Note service on study sections or membership on editorial boards. Remark on ability to compete successfully for external research funding.

Research Professor Track: Teaching is a required component of the Research Professor Track duties. Include documentation of quality and quantity of teaching and mentoring activities.

These activities may happen within the context of one or more research programs (e.g., laboratory bench science, social science, or other disciplinary setting) with postdoctoral fellows, junior research colleagues, or students at any level.

Evidence to illustrate teaching and mentoring may include:

• Letters of evaluation from students or mentees.
• Evidence of co-authorship with students or mentees.
• Career placements/career/professional outcomes of for the individual's students or mentees.
• Letters from colleagues describing the individual's teaching, mentoring or advising.
• Service on dissertation or thesis committees.
• Sponsorship of student projects of grants.

Relevant activities to be discussed in the narrative may include:

• Formal courses.
• Student summer programs.
• Professional programs.
• Organizing and participating in seminar series that include students.
• Educational outreach programs.
• Research supervision of students, such as through participation in the University of
• Michigan's Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP).
• Independent study courses for students.

Research Track: Include the five most significant publications of the candidate since their appointment or last promotion. If the candidate is not the first or the senior author, briefly explain his or her role.

Summarize the comments of all peer reviewers. To maintain the confidentiality of peer reviewers, use designations such as "Reviewer A," "Reviewer B," etc.

In choosing quotes from letters, look for sections that will be clear to readers who aren't specialists in the field. Comparisons with other scholars in the field and estimated rankings, nationally and internationally, are especially helpful. Avoid references to the age of the candidate.

The career development should be listed in promotion Form B's.  

1. A clearly defined pathway specific to the faculty member in his/her/their major areas of faculty effort – clinical care, education, research, service.
2. The mentors, advisors, and sponsors who will help the faculty member achieve success in their first few years, why they are suited to guiding the specific faculty member, and the planned logistics for mentoring activities.
3. The protected time, research space and/or funding that will be provided for the faculty member to achieve academic success.
4. Educational or other training programs, leadership development plans, or other resources that will be utilized to advance the faculty member.

This plan is required for:

• Research Assistant Professor
• Assistant Research Scientists

• Example may be used for either appointments or promotions by changing the language within accordingly.
• Research Scientist Form B
• Research Professor Form B

If you're seeking promotion, state whether the evaluating committee should assess your teaching as a central or secondary component of your responsibilities. Indicate the proportion of your FTE devoted to teaching and other education.

Section 1

Summarize teaching activities and approximate time commitment. Emphasize your activities since appointment to UMMS faculty or your last promotion. Consider separate learner categories if you teach at multiple levels, such as medical students, graduate students, allied health students, residents/fellows, continuing medical education.

Section 2

List your most important teaching contributions, identified under such headings as:

• Curriculum Design and Development (e.g., new course or revision, course integration).
• Teaching Responsibilities.
• Instructional Materials (e.g., syllabi, web-based materials).
• Educational Administration or Service (e.g., course, sequence or clerkship director; residency program director; advising; curriculum committee membership).
• Educational Scholarship (e.g., presentations or published manuscripts related to education; creative products of educational activity that have been reviewed for quality by peers and made available for others).
• Professional Development in Education (e.g., participation in workshops; fellowship; specific efforts to advance skills in teaching).

The evidence of quality and the impact of your contributions — as displayed through evidence of learning, program improvement, skills development, etc. — is more important than the number of contributions you list.

For each contribution:

• Briefly describe your role.
• Provide evidence of the quality or the impact of your activity. This can include: evaluations by students, peers, and course directors; adoption of your work by other schools; teaching awards; or presentations of your work at meetings.

• Basic Science Educator's Portfolio

• Type of learner taught (e.g. undergraduates, graduates, medical students, house officers, fellows, continuing medical education learners, etc.).
• Number of learners in the course or activity.
• Years that the learner evaluations were completed. Do not send evaluations used in a previous packet for appointment or promotion. These should be new evaluations.

• Summary of undergraduate or graduate evaluations of a lecture course.
• Summary sheets of labs or courses taught to medical students.
• Summary sheets and numeric ratings from house officers, available from MedHub.
• Summary evaluations of CME lecturers — but only include if this is the main part of your teaching, in aggregate format, and for this individual.
• Individual previous mentee letters.  
• • Click and open Mentee Feedback Template
  • Click the blue "Make a Copy Button"
  • Modify the template prior to sending it to former mentees.   
• If you are giving a lecture and evaluations are unavailable, use the seminar feedback template to solicit your own evaluations for talks.
  • Seminar Feedback template 
  • Click and open this link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1eO1T0AaWVko-inK85i6lcxacAnvILVkhF-eOvQjUQjI/copy
  • Click the blue “Make a copy” button
  • Google will then make a copy and open the form
  • Immediately save to your google drive for you to find and access later
  • Instructions for creating your own evaluation in Qualtrics
  • Qualtrics QSF File

• Checklist Summary of Evaluations cover form

18.Wang SC, McGuire EJ, Bloom DA: A bladder pressure management system for myelodysplasia – clinical outcome. J Urol 140:1499-1502, 1988.

This paper articulates a new paradigm for managing children with spina bifida using clean intermittent catheterization and anticholinergics with surveillance based on the leak point pressure concept. These methods were pioneered here in Ann Arbor and this paper illustrates the best outcomes reported in terms of preservation of upper urinary tract structure and function.

22. Zoubek J, Bloom DA, Sedman AB: Extraordinary urinary frequency. Pediatrics 85(6):1112-1114, 1990.

This paper was the largest report of an experience of a common but generally misunderstood and over- investigated pediatric difficulty which we named, “Extraordinary urinary frequency.” Jerri Zoubek was the resident who collected the data. The idea for the paper, the writing of the paper, and the patient base were all my contribution. Aileen Sedman was my pediatric nephrology colleague who helped with the manuscript and design of our study. As a result of this paper, this terminology is generally used for this problem and the management follows the guidelines herein reported.

23. Bloom DA, Knechtel JM, McGuire EJ: Urethral dilation improves bladder compliance in children with myelomeningocele and high pressure bladders. J Urol 144:430-433, 1990.

This paper showed that lessening of outlet resistance in children with spina bifida provides a durable improvement in bladder compliance. This data had a somewhat serendipitous origin. We had shown that urethral dilation lowers leak point pressure in children with myelomeningocele (paper #21) and a few years later we decided, for the fun of it, to see how the calculated initial detrusor compliance changed immediately and late after the dilation. The outlet resistance and long term detrusor characteristics were discovered to be linked inextricably. This data leaves one to speculate that the end stage bladder of myelodysplasia may be a pathophysiologic situation similar to that seen in posterior urethral valves and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Citation survey: cited references 16, times cited 27.

27. Bloom DA: Two-step orchiopexy with pelviscopic clip litigation of the spermatic vessels. J Urol 145:1030-1033, 1991.

This was the first use of laparoscopy in the urological arena for a therapeutic procedure.

116. Baru JS, Bloom DA, Muraszko K, Koop CE: John Holter’s Shunt. J Am Coll Surg 192:79-85, 2001.

The Holter Shunt is a cardinal tool for management of children with spina bifida. John Holter, an industrial technician, innovated the shunt for use in his own child in the 1950’s. The first author of our paper, Josh Baru, was an undergraduate student we sent to interview John Holter in Pennsylvania and collect materials for this work. The idea for the paper was mine and I shared the design and writing of the paper with Josh. Karin Muraszko is our pediatric neurosurgeon who provided critical background necessary for this paper. C. Everett Koop had been Chief of Staff at the hospital in which the shunt was first used and helped us not only with some factual information and insights but also with the final proofreading of the manuscript.

• Bibliographic Notes

• The faculty member's scholarly niche and type of scholarship
• Professional expertise
• Contributions to the field
• Special skills
• Instructional contributions
• National leadership
• DEI Efforts
• Etc.

This narrative acts as a self-assessment that may help a chair understand the candidate and that candidate’s self-image. The committees that review the packet also find the Talking Points to be a helpful document in understanding the candidate’s work. A copy of the Talking Points must be submitted with the promotion package.

• Talking Points

Team scientists may also ask fellow team members to provide letters that attest to their contributions to the project. These letters do not replace the requirement for evaluation letters (Arm’s Length or Non-Arm’s Length), but they do provide critical information in evaluating scientific accomplishments.

Team science reference letters are solicited outside of Meridian. Once received, they should be PDF into one document and uploaded into Meridian.  

• Team Science solicitation letter template

• Team Science Example
• Independent Research Portfolio Example

• Innovation, Discoveries and Entrepreneurship Example #1
• Innovation, Discoveries and Entrepreneurship Example #2
• Innovation, Discoveries and Entrepreneurship Example #3
• Innovation, Discoveries and Entrepreneurship Example #4
• Innovation, Discoveries and Entrepreneurship Example #5
• Innovation, Discoveries and Entrepreneurship Example #6
• Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship Example #1