This Annual Call summarizes the principles, policies, and procedures governing the evaluation and review of academic performance (for merit or promotion) of members of the Academic Senate, as well other academic titles as noted below. The directions provided in this document address the form and content of an employee's review file (Note: A separate call is issued for titles reviewed by the Academic Federation.) References are made to the APM for specific policy and may be accessed through the web sites that are provided.
- ELIGIBILITY
There are established, normal periods of service at each rank and step that indicate the normal intervals between advancement to the next step. Refer to the Academic Salary Scale Notes for detailed information. Please note that, although these time periods indicate the usual intervals between advancements; they do not preclude more rapid advancement in the case of exceptional merit, or more gradual advancement when warranted.
Departments should maintain accurate records for eligibility for advancement for their faculty members. The Dean's offices also prepare an Eligibility List for all faculty that is used to determine the advancement actions that should occur in the next review cycle.
Five-year review: The following series (Professor, Professor-in-Residence, and Professor of Clinical ____) are subject to a five-year review if there is no advancement for five years. See UCD 220-E Exhibit A.
Deferral: Those not ready for advancement within the normal period of review must submit a Deferral, except for Professors, Step V and above. UCD 220-E, Exhibit B.
- Professor series
- Adjunct Professor series
- Professor in Residence series
- Agronomist series
- Professor of Clinical ___ series
Deferrals are NOT required for Lecturer SOE, Step V and Senior Lecturer SOE, Step IV and V.
- PERIOD COVERED BY REVIEW
Appraisal: This is an assessment of assistant professors in the fourth year at rank (for Acting Assistant Professors in the fifth year) to evaluate their prospects for eventual promotion to tenure rank. It serves to identify appointees whose records of performance and achievement are below the level of excellence required for tenure, and it provides input to the candidate as to where such deficiencies lay. The period covered for the appraisal is from initial appointment to date. The CPC/SPC/DPC conducts the assessment prior to the appraisal being forwarded to the office of the provost.
Merit Increase: This is an advancement in salary rate and step (or to an Above-Scale salary) without a change in title or rank. The period covered by the review is as follows:
- Assistant Professor, Step I, through Professor, Step V: since the advancement to the current step.
- To Professor, Step VI: the entire period since advancement to the rank of full professor; does not usually occur until at least three years at Step V.
- To Professor, Step VII, VIII, or IX: since advancement to the current step.
- To Above-Scale: the period since advancement to Professor.
- Subsequent Above-Scale: since advancement to the current salary level.
- Note on Merits to Associate Professor, Step IV and Step V:
- The title of Associate Professor, IV should be reserved for faculty who enter the rank of Associate Professor at Step II or above, and who may, therefore, need additional years at rank to establish a record appropriate to the title of full Professor. This action does not require prior approval from the Vice Provost before submitting the merit action.
- Faculty who enter the rank of Associate Professor at Step I or who have served six or more years as an Associate Professor should be considered for promotion to full Professor; consideration for merit to Associate Professor Step IV or Step V is by exception only. Such an exception must be requested in writing via the Dean for consideration by the Vice Provost prior to submitting the merit action.
All such cases described above are reviewed by CAP, not by its subcommittees at the College/School/Division level, with the final decision made by the Vice Provost.
Promotion: This is advancement from one rank to a higher rank within the same academic title series. The period covered by the review is as follows:
- To Associate Professor: since acquisition of the terminal degree, i.e. Ph.D., M.D., D.V.M., etc. to date
- To Full Professor: since promotion to Associate Professor
- To Senior Lecturer SOE: since appointment to Lecturer SOE
Note: See the special instructions regarding seventh-year cases at the assistant professor level, APM UCD-220C, Exhibit A.
- ADVANCEMENT OF JOINT APPOINTEES
- When a candidate holds an appointment in two separate departments and/or Colleges, the two units should work closely to coordinate the process. If policies and procedures differ in the units, the review should follow the policies and procedures of the home department: UCD-220H.
- When a candidate holds both Academic Senate and Academic Federation titles:
Note: For appointees holding professorial and ___ in AES (Agronomist Series) appointments, the entire review is conducted by the committee on Academic Personnel.
- DEPARTMENT'S INITIAL CONSULTATION WITH CANDIDATE
Department Chair* responsibilities include:
- advising the candidate about the process
- explaining rules and guidelines for the action under consideration
- soliciting information from the candidate
APM 220-80-C
Chairperson's Sequential Checklist (Word document)
For actions requiring an ad hoc (see below) the chair should inform the candidate that he/she may provide names of persons who, in the view of the candidate, for reasons noted, might not objectively evaluate the candidate's qualifications or performance and hence should not be invited to serve on an ad hoc committee. This request must be in writing. The candidate shall be informed that any such information must be forwarded with the personnel review file, APM 220-80-c.
Ad hoc committees generally are appointed for the following actions:
- Promotion to Associate Professor
- Promotion to Professor
- Advancement to Professor, Step VI
- Advancement to Professor, Above-Scale
* The Associate Dean serves as the department chair for purposes of personnel actions in the following units so that the Dean can then review the files independently:
- Division of Education
- School of Law
- Graduate School of Management
- CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT (Optional)
Candidates are strongly encouraged to include a brief statement in the review file (no more than 5 pages) describing, and putting into perspective, their teaching, research and creative work, professional activity, and University and public service.
The candidate's statement may:
- Systematically list accomplishments
- Focus on particular areas of achievement, including honors and awards
- Discuss the unique aspects or special significance of different career accomplishments
- Not include attachments
- Discuss teaching which may include some or all of the following:
- Philosophy of teaching
- Aims of specific courses
- Choice of teaching strategies
- Improvements that have been implemented
- Reasons for problems that may have arisen in the candidate's teaching
- Reasons for particular course formats
- Criteria for selecting reading materials
- Explanation of how student performance is assessed
- Any other information related to teaching
- LETTERS OF EVALUATION
Extramural Letters: Extramural letters from distinguished extramural informants are required for:
- Promotions
- To Associate Professor
- To Full Professor
- To Senior Lecturer with Security of Employment
- Merits to Professor, Step VI and Senior Lecturer with Security of Employment, Step V
- Initial advancement to Professor, Above-Scale, APM UCD 220D V.
Extramural letters are optional for appraisals.
Solicitation of extramural letters:
- Sample format, APM UCD-220A, Exhibit B.
- Revised Confidentiality Statement
- All solicited letters must be included in the file
- Normally, five to eight letters are adequate for the review file
- Letters are to be obtained both from reviewers recommended by the candidate AND from reviewers selected independently by the chair (with the advice of other colleagues)
- At least half of the extramural letters should be from the department's list rather than the candidate's list
- Mark each extramural letter CONFIDENTIAL
- Identify each letter separately by a letter or number to ensure confidentiality of reviewers, APM 160.
- Signed facsimiles are acceptable
- E-mail letters may be submitted with dossier, but MUST be followed up with signed, original letter
Reviewers should be:
- Selected from academic or research institutions with standards comparable to the University of California
- Associate or full professors, or the equivalent
- Familiar with the academic standards that are appropriate when making promotion decisions or who have the necessary expertise to make promotion decisions
Letters from mentors and collaborators, while valuable, should be supplemented by letters from sources without personal connections to the candidate (i.e., "arms-length" evaluations).
Reviewer Information must include:
- Names of extramural reviewers to whom the solicitation letter was sent
- Academic title and expertise
- Which reviewers were suggested by candidate and which by department
Intramural Letters:
The only intramural letters accepted are those solicited by the department chair for providing
- Peer evaluation of teaching performance
- Evaluation of clinical activities, if applicable
- The specific role of the candidate in collaborative research
- Evaluation of Graduate Group Chair service
Letters from departmental colleagues or from colleagues in other departments on campus should NOT be included in the candidate's file.
- CONSULTATION IN THE DEPARTMENT
Academic Senate Bylaw 55
- Defines the rights of department members to vote or consult on academic personnel actions within the department
- Only Academic Senate members vote (Acting Assistant Professors are not Academic Senate members)
- Requires each department to develop its own CAP approved voting procedures
- Requires that these procedures, as well as any changes, be submitted to CAP prior to use, Exhibit D of APM UCD-220A.
- No conditions can be placed on those eligible to vote (e.g. attendance at meetings).
Process of Consultation, APM 220-80-e, requires that the department chair report the consultative process used within the department in the departmental letter including:
- Actual vote totals, even if the vote is unanimous; include numbers that were positive, negative, abstentions, and failures to vote.
- Reasons for negative votes and any significant evidence and differences of opinion that would support a contrary recommendation
The departmental letter of recommendation must be made available to all members of the department eligible to vote, APM 220-80-e.
- This does not diminish the authority of department chairs to make the final determination of the contents of departmental letters.
- Chairs should not negotiate the contents of letters with department members or designated committees.
- Departmental colleagues may suggest but may not demand changes in the chair's departmental letter.
- It is the chair's responsibility to report departmental opinion; unsolicited letters from other departmental colleagues will not be forwarded to review committees.
- DOCUMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
Criteria for Merit, Promotion, and Appraisal:
Reviewers shall:
- Evaluate the candidate with respect to the proposed rank and duties.
- Consider the record of the candidate's performance in teaching and advising; research and creative work; and professional activity and University and public service.
- Exercise reasonable flexibility, balancing (when the case requires) heavier commitments and responsibilities in one area against lighter commitments and responsibilities in another; such flexibility does not entail a relaxation of high standards.
- Evaluate superior intellectual attainment, as evidenced both in teaching and in research or other creative achievement, is an indispensable qualification for appointment or promotion to tenure positions. APM 210-1-d
Advancement to Professor, Step VI or Senior Lecturer with Security of Employment, Setp V:
- Will be granted on evidence of highly distinguished scholarship, highly meritorious service, and evidence of excellent University teaching.
- Reviewers should require evidence of excellence and high merit in original scholarship or creative achievement, teaching, and service, as well as great distinction, recognition nationally or internationally, in scholarly or creative achievement or in teaching, APM 220-18-b(4).
Advancement to Professor, Step VII, VIII, IX, or Above Scale
- Calls for continuing great distinction, national or international recognition, highly meritorious service, and excellent teaching performance.
- The record should continue to show superior achievement in all the normal categories of performance (teaching, research, University and public service, and professional competence)
- Inferior performance in one area cannot be compensated for by superior performance in another area, APM 220-18-b(4).
For description of how to evaluate the following criteria, click on noted website:
- DEPARTMENT LETTER
The Department letter should be a concise analytical evaluation of the candidate's performance in teaching, research, and service. See sample letter, Attachment #1
- Begin with a brief paragraph stating
- Current rank and step
- Current title
- Candidate's department
- Details of recommended action
- Rank and Step, indicate if acceleration
- Effective Date
- Departmental vote on recommendation; ensure individual faculty members cannot be identified by the vote
- The teaching section should comprehensively summarize the candidate's teaching and advising activities during the review period. The letter should then remark on the quality of teaching, referring to formal evaluations (both those included and those not included in the review file) and other available evidence as appropriate. Note: For promotions, peer evaluation of teaching is required.
- The research section should concisely state the main subject matter or sub-disciplinary area of the candidate's main line(s) of research. It should:
- Specify precisely the progress in the candidate's research record during the review period.
- Discuss work published and accepted for publication during the review period.
- Contain a thorough analysis and evaluation of the work, emphasizing the impact of the work
- The professional activity and University and public service section should begin with a statement of the precise nature of such activity carried out during the review period. This should be followed by an evaluation of the quality of the contributions in these areas.
References may be made to the extramural letters (Letter A, Letter B, etc.), but chairs must not identify the individual writing the letter or their institution, and extensive quotations from the letters are inappropriate and unnecessary since the letters are included in the packet.
- NOTIFICATION OF THE CANDIDATE
Procedures for communicating with the candidate before the departmental recommendation is determined are outlined in APM 220-80-d and 220-80-e
- Prior to faculty vote, and before the departmental recommendation is forwarded to the dean, the chair shall provide the candidate the opportunity to inspect all non-confidential documents in the personnel review file (as defined in APM 160-20-b-2) and shall provide a redacted copy of the confidential records.
- The candidate may comment on or refute the departmental recommendation as established by APM 220-80-e. The candidate's comments can be transmitted either to the chairperson, dean, or Vice Provost--Academic Personnel and will be included in the personnel file. The time limit for such comment is ten calendar days from the date of receipt of the departmental letter.
- Department chairs are not to negotiate the contents of departmental letters with candidates, but they should correct any errors of fact pointed out by the candidate.
- Since candidates have an opportunity to participate in the original selection of extramural referees, candidates do not have the privilege of requesting additional extramural letters after the entire review file has been compiled and the chair's letter has been written.
- ACCESS TO RECORDS
The following are deemed "confidential academic review records" and will be redacted for the candidate. See APM 160-20-b-1 for instructions on redacting letters.
- Extramural letters
- Intramural letters by clinical supervisors, service chiefs, and residents
- The chairperson's confidential letter
- Ad hoc committee reports (including reports by CPC, SPC, or DPC when serving as an ad hoc)
The following are deemed "non-confidential academic review records" and will be provided to the candidate if they are part of the file. APM 160-20-b-2
- Departmental letter
- Letters from directors and associate directors in Veterinary Medicine
- Dean's letter
- Letter from Dean--Graduate Studies
- Comments by Committee on Academic Personnel
- Comments by CPC, SPC, or DPC
- Comments by Vice Provost--Academic Personnel
- Letters from colleagues regarding peer review of teaching
Candidates have access to records at two points in the merit and promotion process:
- Candidates will be given redacted versions of extramural letters and a copy of the department letter prior to the file going forward to the dean's office after the department review.
- After the decisions are made and reported to the department, the following items, if applicable, will be given to the candidate in their entirety or in their redacted form:
- Chairperson's confidential letter (redacted)
- Ad hoc Committee Reports, including reports by CPC, SPC, or DPC when acting as the ad hoc (redacted)
- Dean's Letter (entirety)
- Comments from Committee on Academic Personnel (entirety)
- Comments by CPC, SPC, DPC (entirety)
- Comments by Vice Provost-Academic Personnel (entirety)
Candidates under review are required to sign and date a "Candidate's Disclosure Certificate," to indicate that the department has followed all required procedures and to show that the candidate has been consulted with regard to the contents of their review file.
Chairs should write a letter informing candidates who are unavailable during the time of departmental review of the general nature of the department vote and provide them with an inventory of the non-confidential items in the file. A copy of this letter should be included in the review file.
- CHAIR'S CONFIDENTIAL LETTER (Optional)
- Department chairs may, but need not, write a separate letter to make an independent evaluation and recommendation that may differ from the departmental recommendation (APM 220-80-e).
- In accordance with APM 160-20(b), a letter from the chairperson (or equivalent officer) setting forth a personal recommendation in connection with an academic personnel action concerning the individual, such as promotion, merit increase, appraisal, reappointment, non-reappointment, or terminal appointment is classified as "confidential academic review records" and shall be accessible, upon request, in redacted form, APM 160-20-c(1)
- ASSEMBLING THE DOSSIER
Order of assembly should adhere strictly to the order of the checklist for the appropriate action. Refer to appropriate Checklist under Table of Contents.
Departments are responsible for ensuring that all appropriate supporting documents are listed correctly and forwarded with each candidate's review file. On occasion, candidates may wish to submit valuable or irreplaceable books, art objects, recordings, etc., which will require special handling. These items should be clearly marked (i.e., a bright colored sticker) as "Inventory Control Items" and a separate receipt form should accompany the item.
Inventory Control Receipt Form, APM UCD-220A, Exhibit F.
Submission of additional materials after the review file has been forwarded to the Office of the Provost is discouraged. In order to keep late submission of additional materials to a minimum, a deadline date of December 31, 2002, has been established for submitting additional materials for the review file. Materials will not be accepted after that date unless the person undergoing review is an Assistant Professor in his/her seventh year of service and the information is critical to the review.
All late submissions--items submitted after the file has initially gone forward--should show that the candidate knows about the forwarding of the material, either by:
- Initialing the cover note from the department chair
- By forwarding a copy of a letter informing the candidate that such material is going forward
- By signing another disclosure statement
- DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
APM 220-80-h, outlines the departmental role in adding information to the original recommendation.
- If, during Academic Senate or administrative review of a departmental recommendation, the review file is found to be incomplete or inadequate, additional information shall be solicited through the Vice Provost--Academic Personnel.
- Such new material shall be added to the review file, and the department shall be invited to comment on the new material.
- The candidate shall be informed by the chair of the substance of the new material that has been added to the review file (without disclosing the identities of sources of confidential documents), and shall be provided the opportunity to make a written statement of inclusion in the review file.
- A Candidate's Disclosure Certificate should be signed by the candidate at this time.
- The review shall then be based upon the review file as augmented.
- PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT (Promotion to Associate Professor only)
A Preliminary Assessment is required if the Vice Provost intends, after review of all recommendations in the dossier, to make a negative decision contrary to positive recommendations at the department or dean level. The Preliminary Assessment is designed to provide an opportunity to recommending units to determine if supporting documents might have been inadvertently omitted from the file or, if the file were complete, to identify points that reviewers appeared to have overlooked or evidence submitted in support of the recommended action that reviewers misunderstood.
- Preliminary assessments will be sent to departments only in cases of promotion to Associate Professor and termination of appointment, APM 220-80-j.
- Candidates are provided with comments from reviewing bodies, APM 160-20-b and 160-20-c.
- Intramural letters (excluding those defined in Section 6 above) are not appropriate documents to be submitted in response to preliminary assessments.