Bylaws 2015

Welcome to the Bylaws 2015 Draft and Approval

In April, Dr. Canterbury asked for volunteers to serve on an ad hoc committee to revise the SOM bylaws. Dr. William Brady led a group of focused, thoughtful individuals who worked hard on a compressed timeline to prepare a draft for you to review.

Here is a prepared draft for you to review:

Our current bylaws — PDF here — stipulate that you will have a minimum of 10 days to review the proposed revision. The draft will be available for you to review and comment on from today, July 1, through 5 PM on Tuesday, July 21, when the site will be closed to comments. (The site will remain live, however, so you can continue to review the bylaws and the comments.)

All posted comments will have attribution. If you prefer to provide feedback privately, please reply to this message to send your written feedback to this address. I will ensure the committee receives every question or comment you send.

We plan to post the final draft from Monday, August 10, through 5 PM on Monday, August 24. During this period, you can vote whether to accept or reject the proposed revision.


  1. Robert A. Bloodgood says:

    Section 5.A.1. (lines 78-79) refers to faculty membership in “the Faculty Senates of the School and the University”. There is a UVa Faculty Senate; I was not aware of the existence of a School of Medicine Faculty Senate.

    Section 5.B.1 (lines 193-195) states: “The dean shall recommend any policy or action that he or she deems necessary for the proper conduct and development of the School and its programs.” This statement does not make clear what happens after the Dean recommends a Policy. Is there any mandatory review by the Faculty? Is there any higher approval needed (Executive VP for Health Affairs)?

    Lines 282-283 states: “Each department shall undergo a comprehensive review in accordance with School policy”. I note that there is nothing stated in the By-Laws about periodic reviews of Chairs and of senior administrators (including the Dean) or who would be involved in such reviews

    Section 5.C.10 Promotion and Tenure Committee – Minutes (lines 971-974) states that “A summary of the committee’s discussion and the recommendation of the committee regarding the advancement of the candidate (including a tally of the committee vote and conflicts of interest) is sent to the dean and to the senior associate dean for faculty affairs and faculty development.” I think it is very important that this same summary also be automatically and consistently sent to the Chair of the faculty candidate’s primary department. How else can the Chair properly mentor the faculty member? Indeed, the review template for the P&T Committee members includes a section asking for comments about what the candidate needs to do/improve for the NEXT P&T action; this is critical information for the faculty member and his/her Chair and is lost if the Chairs do not receive copies of the P&T summaries for their faculty.

  2. Chris Moskaluk says:

    Section 6D, Line 265: There should be some specification as to the expected or minimum number of faculty meetings conducted by a Department per year.