Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Concerning the Personnel Review Process for
Academic Coordinator
Titles at UC Davis
I. Introduction: FAQ Aims
II. Terms, Abbreviations and Definitions
III. FAQs for Each Academic Federation (AF) Title Series
IV. Managing Data for Your Personnel File
V. Quick Reference Guide to AF Personnel Information
1. As a member of the Academic Coordinator series, where do I find information on the personnel review process for my series?
Academic Personnel procedures are outlined in the Academic
Personnel Manual (UCD 220AF). The review process is summarized in
the Delegation
of Authority Chart. For all academic titles, the Vice Provost-Academic
Personnel sends an Annual Call to the deans which is updated and issued
after the end of each academic year. It outlines information on changes
in the APM and a timeline for submitting documentation for merit and promotion
dossiers to the Office of the Vice Provost. Since these actions must pass
through the deans’ offices, each dean provides his/her deadlines
for specific types of actions. The Annual Call, APM, and Delegation of
Authority Chart are available on the Vice
Provost- Academic Personnel web page. Academic Coordinators should
review the specific criteria for advancement outlined in APM
375 and UCD 220AF.
2. What is the normal time between merit and promotion reviews, i.e., how often will I be reviewed?
The normal period between merit reviews is two years at Academic Coordinator I and II, and three years for Academic Coordinator III. Promotion between the levels would involve significant changes in the scope and complexity of the program being administered. In the absence of a reappointment, a merit, or a change in level review, a performance review shall take place at least every two years for an Academic Coordinator I and II and at least every three years for an Academic Coordinator III. Promotion to level II entails a career review of the period since appointment in the series. Promotion to level III entails a review of the whole period spent appointment or promotion to level II. The specific salary range and years at rank/step are listed on the Academic Salary Scales, Tables 40, 41, located on the Vice Provost--Academic Personnel webpage.
3. When will I be notified that I am up for a merit or promotion review and that I am expected to prepare a dossier?
In the spring/early summer each dean's office sends to department/program chairs a list of individuals who are eligible to be reviewed for merit and promotion during the next academic year. The chair (or his/her delegate) then notifies each eligible individual. Due dates for dossiers span the period November to April, and the specific dates for file submission to the office of the Vice Provost-Academic Personnel are listed in the Annual Call. The dean’s office sets earlier deadlines to allow time for his/her review. NOTE: There are no redelegated actions for this series.
4. On what criteria will my work in the review period be evaluated?
Each AF title series has its own criteria for merit/promotion based on the specific responsibilities delineated in the position description. For Academic Coordinators these include the following:
• Coordination of academic programs
• Professional competence
• University and public service
These criteria on which merits and promotions are evaluated are specified in the APM 375-11.
5. Specifically, what is in the dossier and who puts it together?
Departments often have a designated staff member who works with the chair and the candidate in assembling the dossier. The candidate’s performance in each of the designated categories in question #4 (coordination of academic programs, professional competence, university and public service) will be described by the candidate, either in a Candidate's Statement (UCD 220-IV F. 2) to be optionally included in the dossier, or in a separate document that is not included in the dossier, but does go to the chair and the approved Voting Group. The candidate’s Annual Report of Professional Activities can be very helpful in assembling information for the dossier.
Based on information on the candidate’s performance in the various categories supplied by the candidate, the approved Peer Group, and supporting documents (program evaluations, syllabi, etc.), the approved Voting Group in the department votes and the chair writes the departmental letter (APM 220AF, Exhibit C) which summarizes the departmental evaluation of the candidate’s record, the results of the vote, and a recommendation for or against the advancement. In the case of promotions, a list of extramural reviewers who have been contacted and their confidential letters in response are part of the dossier voted on by the department voting group and submitted as part of the dossier going forward. Also included is a list of all of the external reviewers solicited, with notation as to whether they were suggested by the candidate or the department, and whether they responded. This list is a confidential document and is therefore not reviewed by the candidate.
Also included in the dossier is a position description, organizational chart, and a list of honors and awards or projects (if any). Please refer to the checklist at: http://academicpersonnel.ucdavis.edu/forms/forms.cfm.
6. How is the performance record documented for evaluation?
The performance record is assessed according to the candidate’s position description and the criteria for review listed above (question #4). Documentation (supplied by the candidate or the department) is needed to support performance descriptions in each category, and it can consist of the following:
Coordination of academic programs (describe the following):
• Academic program planning and development
• Assessment of program and constituency needs
• Evaluation of academic program activities and functions
• Development of proposals for extramural funding of campus programs
• Liaison representation with other agencies and institutions in the public and private sectors
• Supervision of other academic appointees or staff
Professional Competence:
• Academic Coordinators will provide intellectual leadership and scholarship to their programs; describe how this has been accomplished.
University and public service:
Describe any activities which show:
• Participation in administration of the unit and the University
• How as an Academic Coordinator they represent the University in
their special capacity of scholars
7. Are awards, prizes, and commendations considered in the merit or promotion review?
Yes. They should be fully described in the department letter and the Candidate’s Statement. Letters of thanks/appreciation for service to the University, the government, a professional society, etc., while not included in the dossier, can be discussed in the departmental letter as indicators of the impact of the candidate’s service. A list of honors and awards is included as part of the dossier.
8. Once the candidate, or the department, assembles all of the above information, how is it presented in the dossier?
The candidate may send the above information to the Chair with/without further commentary; or the candidate may include a Candidate’s Statement (UCD 220-IV F.2) which would then be considered by the peer group and the voting group. It may also be included in the dossier that goes forward for review outside the department. The following examples describe the kinds of information that may be included in the Candidate’s Statement, the Peer Group Report, and the Department Letter.
Candidate’s Statement (UCD220-IV F.2): Each candidate may include a personal statement in the file (up to 5 pages), describing their perspective on any or all aspects of their performance during the period of review. Although optional, it is an opportunity for the candidate to describe: significant accomplishments during the review period; philosophy of service; and any unusual circumstances, both good and bad, that have affected performance in the various areas. For example:
• Description of the significance of the program;
• Problems which have occurred with an aspect of the program, and
any successful solutions the candidate has developed;
• Explanation of the significance of any recognition awards or honors
received during the review period;
• Description of any particularly noteworthy achievement relating
to a particular aim of the program.
Peer Group Report (Optional inclusion in dossier): The
Peer Group which was specifically selected according to the department
plan, evaluates the candidate’s performance, reviews the written
materials and advises the department on the merits of the personnel action.
Department Letter: The letter is written by the chair (or a senior designate) and reflects the department’s evaluation (not merely the chair’s) of the adequacy of performance of the candidate -- i.e., whether he/she meets departmental expectations and goals in the various areas of responsibility. In addition to the analysis of accomplishments in the required areas (coordination of academic programs, professional competence, and university and public service), the letter includes the views of the peer group reviewing the dossier, as well as the official vote (i.e., that of the approved Voting Group) including the number of yes, no, and abstention votes and any reasons expressed for the no or abstention votes. There are Sample Departmental Letters in the APM.
9. When are extramural letters and clientele letters needed?
For promotions, evaluation of the quality of the work or service is sought from extramural contacts that would have the expertise/knowledge to provide an objective evaluation of the candidate’s accomplishments during the period of review. Such external reviewers could include administrators of government programs or agencies with whom the candidate has interacted, scientists, researchers or other experts in the field, administrators of agricultural or consumer groups, comparable administrators at other universities who have worked on similar programs, etc. The candidate provides the chair with a list of extramural reviewers and their qualifications to serve as reviewers. The chair, sometimes after consultation with senior members of the department, generates another list that is not revealed to the candidate. The chair then selects names from each list and solicits the letters. The combined list of reviewers who were contacted is included in the dossier, with notation as to whether the names were suggested by the candidate or the department. Letters can be requested from individuals on other UC campuses holding comparable positions. The confidential letters in response to the solicitation are added to the file by the chair.
10. How many extramural letters are needed?
A minimum of five letters is usually expected in the review dossier for promotion. Extramural referees will be asked to comment on your performance with regard to the three criteria listed above (question #4). Campus reviewers will look to see if the extramural referees:
• Are well respected in their field;
• If university employees, are at least of a rank comparable to
the position being sought;
• Discuss the impact of the candidate’s research/service/administration;
• Consider the candidate’s career to be on an upward trajectory;
• Discuss the context in which they have known the candidate (below
their signature line).
11. Does the candidate see the department letter?
The candidate must be provided an opportunity to review the materials before they are reviewed by the Peer Group. The Departmental Letter, which contains the vote is also provided to the candidate before the file goes forward to the dean’s office for review. This gives the candidate an opportunity to alert the chair to any factual errors.
12. What can the candidate do if he/she doesn’t agree with the department letter?
Although the content of the letter is not negotiable, the candidate should alert the chair to factual errors. Once these errors are corrected, the candidate can write a rebuttal if he/she still disagrees with the department’s recommendation or wants to clarify statements made in the letter. Any rebuttal letter must be submitted within 10 calendar days from the candidate’s receipt of the departmental letter and his/her signature on the disclosure form (indicating that she/he has read the file and certifies that it is complete and factually correct). A rebuttal may be sent directly to the dean or Vice Provost-Academic Personnel if the candidate does not want to submit it via the departmental chair.
13. What is the Candidate’s Disclosure Certificate?
This is a standard form which the candidate reviews and signs, verifying that he/she has seen the non-confidential content of the file and that it is complete and free of factual errors, and also that a summary or redacted copy of confidential materials has been provided.
14. In summary, what documents are in the dossier, or appended to it, when it leaves the department?
The Academic Coordinator candidate can use the Checklist for Merits and Promotions form on the Vice Provost-Academic Personnel’s website, to determine whether they have included all the necessary information in the dossier. The Candidate’s Disclosure Certificate is also on the Vice Provost-Academic Personnel website (Forms and Checklists).
Dossier Inclusions:
Department Letter (including the vote)
Peer Group Review (optional)
Candidate’s Disclosure Certificate
List of Invited Extramural Reviewers (for promotion actions)
Extramural Reviewer Letters (for promotion actions)
Candidate’s Statement (optional)
Position Description
Organizational Chart
List of Honors and Awards, or Projects (if any)
Appended Materials (To be returned to the candidate):
This will vary according to the position description, but it might include a brief example of a proposal developed by the candidate, or evaluations of a training session conducted by the candidate, etc.
1. What is the dean’s letter?
After the dossier leaves the department, it goes to the dean’s
office. The dean (or Associate Dean for Academic Affairs) reviews the
whole file and writes a letter of support or non-support for the action.
The dean’s letter becomes part of the file that then goes forward
for further review by the AF
Administrative Series Personnel Committee (ASPC) and then to the Vice
Provost-Academic Personnel for final decision.
2. What is the process by which dossiers are reviewed, how long
does it take, and who does it?
The process is summarized in the Delegation of Authority Chart.
• Department: Once the dossier has been assembled, it is reviewed within the department by a Peer Group that will provide evaluative comments to the voting members of the department (i.e., the Voting Group). The latter will review the entire file, including the Peer Group comments and vote on the action. Votes are tallied and reported in the department letter. The chair may include comments from the Peer group review. The complete dossier is then forwarded to the dean.
• Dean/Associate Dean for Personnel: The dean reviews the materials after receipt from the department, evaluates the record, and makes a written recommendation (with justification) that is added to the materials sent forward to the office of the Vice Provost—Academic Personnel.
• Vice Provost-Academic Personnel: All materials are sent to ASPC, the members of which evaluate the materials and add their written recommendation to the file. All of these materials are then reviewed by the Vice Provost, who makes the final decision based on all the information in the file.
• Process/Time Frame: The length of
time necessary for the whole process varies with the complexity of the
review. Staff check the file at all stages (Department, Dean’s Office,
and Vice Provost’s Office) to ensure that all necessary documents
are included and that the correct processes have been followed; every
effort is made to expedite the file through the process. While all personnel
actions which only have to go to the Dean for final decision (i.e., redelegated)
may need only a few months, these are non-redelegated actions which have
to also be reviewed by a personnel committee and the Vice Provost, may
take several months longer. Most final decisions are made by the end of
the academic year (June), but any that are not completed and had met the
deadline leaving the department, will be completed during the summer or
early fall and are made effective retroactive to July 1st.
3. What personnel committee has responsibility for reviewing Academic
Coordinators?
Academic Coordinators are reviewed by the:
AF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERIES PERSONNEL COMMITTEE (ASPC): The committee reviews the complete
dossier. The file is then returned to the Vice Provost-Academic Personnel
who makes the final decision based on the entire file including all recommendations.
REVIEWER’S CONCERNS:
The following topics are typical of the concerns of the various reviewers (Peer Group, Department Chair, Voting Group, Dean, Personnel Committee, and Vice Provost-Academic Personnel) who will evaluate the file. A candidate’s performance will be evaluated with respect to the specific areas of responsibility in the criteria listed in APM 375-11 and in the position description.
COORDINATION OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
1. What is meant by “coordination of academic programs”?
Academic Coordinators have the responsibility for coordinating one or more academic programs. This may include responsibility for directing the activities of other academic appointees or staff. These activities may include:
• Academic program planning and development;
• Assessment of program and constituency needs;
• Evaluation of academic program activities and functions;
• Development of proposals for extramural funding of campus programs and identification of support services;
• Liaison representation with other agencies and institutions in the public and private sectors;
• Supervision and leadership of other academic appointees and staff.
PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE
1. What is meant by “professional competence”?
The candidate's professional activities should be scrutinized for evidence of achievement and leadership in the area of responsibility and of demonstrated progressiveness in the development or utilization of new approaches and techniques for the solution of professional problems.
UNIVERSITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE
Service is assessed in two categories: that performed for the University and that for the public sector. Expectations for service for Academic Coordinators are defined in APM 375-11-c and should be specified in each candidate's position description.
1. What type of University service is expected of Academic Coordinators?
University service includes participation in the activities of the Academic Federation and department, college, campus, and, systemwide committees. In addition to committees, other service activities include: advising students associated with the programs being administered, attending campus functions associated with the programs being administered, etc.
2. What kinds of public service are usually included?
To the extent applicable to their area of expertise, the appointees in the Academic Coordinator series are expected to use their expertise to participate in governmental or public committees and activities related to their job function.
3. Are some activities more important than others; i.e., do reviewers
give more credit for some activities?
Yes. Reviewers recognize that there are hierarchies of activities and
that the most important assignments are those requiring lots of time,
effort, and/or expertise. Specific credit is given for extraordinary activities
like chairing committees/panels/public service organizations, acting as
an expert witness, representing the University, organizing a large meeting,
giving invited lectures or keynote speeches, etc.
The review considerations that apply are summarized in the Academic Personnel Attribute Chart. For specific procedures see UCD 220AF Academic Federation Review and Advancement. In addition to normal merit and promotion actions, Academic Coordinators are eligible to be considered for the following:
Acceleration: Acceleration is a merit or promotion action that occurs prior to eligibility for normal advancement; i.e., the candidate can be considered for review if the record of performance has been exceptionally strong in at least one major aspect of the candidate’s position description since the last advancement and there was at least normal progress (i.e., very good to excellent) in all other categories. Accelerations are not granted if any component of the record is below expectation. All AF series are eligible to be considered for accelerations. See Delegation of Authority.
Appeal: An Academic Coordinator has the right to appeal his/her denied personnel action within 30 calendar days of notification of denial by submitting an appeal letter via the chair, to the dean, addressing each of the specific criticisms which led to the denial recommendation by the reviewer(s). Since the action is non-redelegated, the dean evaluates the appeal, writes a recommendation, and forwards all of the material to the office of the Vice Provost-Academic Personnel. These materials are then referred to the ASPC for review and recommendation. The Vice Provost-Academic Personnel makes the final decision after reviewing all materials including the recommendation from ASPC.
Term Appointment: A term appointment is an appointment
for a specific period that ends on a specified date. An appointment with
an established ending date is self-terminating subject to the notice requirements
of APM
137-32. The University has the discretion to appoint and reappoint
non-Senate academic appointees with term appointments; reappointment is
not automatic. All appointees in the Academic Coordinator series have
term appointments.