UC Davis: Academic Personnel

A. ACADEMIC DUTIES

1. Academic Planning

2. Faculty Recruitment, Selection, and Appointment

3. Academic Personnel Actions

4. Faculty Retention

5. Faculty Relations

6. Student Relations

B. ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES

1. Governance

2. Department Budget/Financial Affairs

3. Faculty Leaves

4. Space and Facilities

5. Health and Safety

6. Staff/Faculty Failure to Meet Performance Responsibilities

C. CAMPUS SERVICES

1. Sexual Harassment Education Program

2. Campus Violence Prevention Program

3. Conflict Management Programs

4. Whistleblower Policy

D. QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE TO UC/UCD RESOURCES

1. General Information

2. Policies, Procedures, and Programs

3. Resource Organizations

4. Collegial Advice

Academic department chairs and directors serve critical roles as leaders of their units. Chairs are not only faculty members and the academic leaders of their units; they are the liaisons between their departmental members and the higher administration. Outstanding chairs advance the research, teaching, and service missions of their units and help foster a collegial academic environment to support these missions. Being an effective chair involves a variety of skills and an understanding of University policies and procedures; and, although departments vary in their “needs” at any given time, successful chairs share numerous common skills, despite having diverse styles.

To assist chairs in acquiring the tools to successfully lead their units, the Vice Provost-Academic Personnel sought the advice of an ad hoc committee of present and former chairs. This Advisory Committee for Department Chair Development met several times early in the 2001-02 academic year and made several suggestions for strengthening the leadership skills and knowledge base of department chairs. Among their recommendations were frequent meetings of chairs to discuss specific topics and a continuously-available and up-to-date reference source for chairs, preferably as a web site, that would serve both recently-appointed and experienced chairs.

The first recommendation led to the development of a monthly “Brown Bag Series” of noon meetings for chairs and the second to the development of this Handbook for Chairs and Directors. This Handbook is not intended to capture the “spark” of leaders who can build involvement, consensus, and a positive academic atmosphere. Rather, it is intended to provide guidance and resource information in a number of areas that the Advisory Committee felt were especially important. Thus, this handbook deals with the “nuts and bolts” of being a chair and provides a core of information on “best practices” and web resources to assist chairs in effectively managing a department, recognizing that, regardless of the degree to which the chair may delegate, the “buck stops” at the desk of the chair. Many of the web resources cited here relate to the Academic Personnel Manual ("APM"), both the university-wide policies in the APM and related UC Davis procedures and guidelines in the “UCD” manual; the UC Davis Policy and Procedure Manual ("PPM”) is also frequently cited. The UC Davis Administrative Responsibilities Handbook has a wealth of information on policies and procedures for administrators at all levels, including department chairs. In addition, the web page of the UC Davis Vice Provost—Academic Personnel has links to documents on many different topics related to academic affairs.

It is recognized that there are difficult situations that arise in a department which are not addressed here and for which there may not be easy solutions. Chairs should seek the advice of their deans when they are faced with a difficult management problem. The deans and their staffs have had experience with many departments and many types of problems over the years. Seeking early advice of the dean for a difficult problem is a prudent course of action because it alerts the dean to the issues involved, stimulates discussion that can benefit both the dean and the chair, and results in a solution that is often more comprehensive and effective.

1. Academic Planning

a. Chair’s Responsibilities (APM 245, Appendix A)
• The chair is in charge of planning the programs of the department in teaching, research, and other functions, e.g., clinical services in the medical or veterinary schools, or agricultural outreach in CAES.
• The chair is expected to keep the curriculum of the department under review, and to maintain a climate that is hospitable to creativity and innovation.

b. Best Practices
(1) Annual Planning of the Curriculum and Teaching Schedule
It is the chair’s responsibility to review the department’s teaching plan every year, including the curriculum and programs, the need for teaching faculty (both Senate and non-Senate) for specific courses, the need to accommodate sabbatical leaves or long-term absences of the faculty, and the need for facilities (i.e. lecture halls, lab space, seminar rooms for use at specific times, etc.). This is often done in consultation with department curriculum committees so the chair has faculty input in performing this function.
• Contract provisions apply to non-Senate faculty covered by the union contract (i.e. Unit 18 Lecturers, Supervisors of Teacher Education, and Child Development Demonstration Lecturer). For more detailed information, see section (3) on: Planning for Unit 18 Contract Employees. Questions regarding Unit 18 contract employees should be referred to the dean’s office or Academic Personnel.

(2) Long Range Academic Planning
The department chair guides the department in developing a long range academic plan for instruction/teaching and research. Academic Plans may be requested of new chairs or new departments, or they may be requested at specific times of all departments within a college/school, using prescribed formats and addressing specific questions. They may become the basis for the college’s Mission Statement which the dean uses to project programmatic requirements and overall faculty recruitment needs. Even when there is no formal call for a new Academic Plan, each department is expected to keep academic programs up to date by reviewing and updating where necessary the department’s plan. An Academic Plan should set goals and assess availability of resources. In addition, it should develop a realistic strategy to attain those goals and a methodology for measuring the success of the Plan. The Academic Plan is a responsibility of the chair and in some departments he/she is assisted by a Curriculum Committee; but in all departments it requires discussion and consultation with the departmental faculty. Although the Academic Plan is the chair’s opportunity to make known his/her plans for the department, he/she needs to be reasonable and creative in what is requested in the way of resources. An Academic Plan is expected to:
• Include a statement on undergraduate/graduate teaching, research/creative activity, and clinical responsibilities where appropriate; and an assessment of the need for revision or development of courses and facilities/resources; it should relate how well they interface with other related courses/majors;
• Outline programmatic strengths and target areas for development;
• Assess projected retirements (if known) and develop priorities for FTE and other academic personnel to implement the plan -- i.e., recruitment need;.
• Include potential opportunities for collaborative efforts within the department or with outside individuals, programs, or departments;
• Indicate how success of the plan will be assessed -- e.g., numbers of grants, rates/venues of publication by the faculty, numbers of undergraduate majors, student contact hours per FTE, numbers of graduate students, course selections in a new area, national profile and ratings, etc.; and,
• Anticipate changes in emphasis or direction occurring in academic fields important to the department’s teaching and research mission. In departments where service and outreach are important facets of its mission -- e.g., Schools of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, those aspects should also be included.

(3) Planning for Unit 18 Contract Employees
This is the Non-Senate Instructional Unit which includes the following titles at UC Davis:
• Lecturers/Senior Lecturers (not with Security of Employment)
• Supervisors of Teacher Education
• Child Development Demonstration Lecturer (formerly Nursery School Teachers)

(a) Unit 18 Characteristics
There are two types of Unit 18 employees:
• Pre-Six: those with less than six years of service.
• Continuing Appointment: those appointed after six years of service in the department in Unit 18 titles.
• Service in a Unit 18 title is counted separately by each department.
• This service counts toward a 4th year salary increase as well as toward a Continuing Appointment.
• An individual can hold a Continuing Appointment in one department, and a pre-six appointment in another.
• There is merit review for Continuing Appointees only.
• Courses taught by Lecturers have pre-approved value (Instructional Workload Credit).
• Percentage of appointment is set by the value of the Instructional Work Credit.

(b) Importance of Planning/Assessing Departmental Instructional Needs
• Planning begins with annual department determination of instructional delivery for all undergraduate courses.
• Needs Assessment: If annual determination of instructional delivery reveals a need for non-Senate faculty (NSF), then NSF performance (Teaching Assessment) is evaluated for possible reappointment.
• Planning begins with annual determination by the department that an instructional need exists that is not met by (1) Senate faculty, (2) Graduate Students (ASE), (3) Visiting or Adjunct Professors, or (4) when faculty determine that the academic programmatic needs require rotation to satisfy intellectual diversity.

(c) Pre-Six Reappointments
• Needs Assessment and Teaching Assessment must precede any reappointment for Unit 18 employee in their first 6 years in a department.
• Each College/School has developed Pre-Six Assessment Guidelines for their units. Contact your dean’s office for specific information.

(d) Continuing Appointments
During the fifth year of a Unit 18 employee’s service within a department, the department must conduct the Instructional Needs Assessment (for instruction that will occur in the seventh year of the Unit 18 employee’s appointment.) If this Assessment determines that need exists for instruction that could be met by the individual, then the department conducts a review of the individual to determine if his/her performance has been excellent and thus appropriate for appointment as a Continuing Appointee.

Need for a Continuing Appointment exists when:
• Course(s) to be taught are in same area as those previously taught by the NSF;
• Courses are in the same area of NSF’s expertise; and,
• Courses are expected to be taught by that NSF.

Need for a Continuing Appointment of an individual does not exist if:
The courses they have been teaching will be taught by Academic Senate faculty or by Graduate Students (ASE), or by a Visiting or Adjunct Professor; or,
• Academic programmatic needs require instructional rotation to satisfy intellectual diversity; or,
• There are no other courses that would be appropriate for the individual to teach.

Each College/School has developed the Continuing Appointment Assessment Guidelines for their units. Contact your dean’s office for specific information.

(e) Ending a Continuing Appointment
A Continuing Appointment can only be changed or ended in the following ways:
• Resignation
• Layoff – due to (a) lack of work, (b) budgetary exigencies, or (c) programmatic changes where classes taught by NSF are no longer offered, or are being taught by others – e.g., Academic Senate faculty.
Layoff protections for Continuing Appointees (Article 17)

Dismissal may be based on:
• Dereliction of Duty
• Just Cause
• Lack of Excellence

When the teaching of a Continuing Appointee is less than excellent a remediation plan must be instituted to ameliorate performance. If teaching performance remains less than excellent, dismissal will follow. Contact the dean’s office for additional guidance on Discipline and Dismissal matters.

a. Chair’s Responsibilities (APM 245, Appendix A)
• The chair is responsible for the recruitment, selection, and evaluation of both the faculty and the staff personnel of the department; in most instances the MSO handles the staff recruitment/evaluation for the department. In consultation with colleagues, the chair recommends appointments, promotions, merit advances and terminations. The chair is expected to make sure that faculty members are aware of the criteria prescribed for appointment and advancement and to make appraisals and recommendations in accordance with the procedures and principles stated in the President’s Instructions to Review and Appraisal Committees in APM 210 (Appointments and Promotions) (pdf)
• As academic leader of the department, the chair is responsible for assigning teaching to the faculty (both Academic Senate and non-Senate members). The faculty (APM 210--pdf) of the Davis campus consists of members of the following personnel series:

b. Academic Titles
(1) Faculty
(a) Academic Senate titles
• Acting Professor
• Lecturer (full time) with Security of Employment (SOE)
• Professor (Assistant, Associate, Full)
• Professor of Clinical __ (e.g., Medicine)
• Professor in Residence
• Senior Lecturer (full time) with SOE
(b) Non-Senate faculty titles (not in Unit 18)
• Adjunct Professor
• Clinical Professor
• Supervisor of Physical Education
• Visiting Professor
(c) Unit 18 Non-Senate faculty titles
• Lecturer
• Supervisor of Teacher Education

Although the chair may be responsible for the appointment and oversight of graduate student TAs and post-doctoral teaching fellows, they are not considered to be part of the faculty of the University (as defined in APM 110--pdf). Child Development Demonstration Lecturer and Lecturer in Summer Session are not included in the University definition of faculty, but they are covered by the Unit 18 contract.

(2) Other Academic Appointees
In addition to the faculty, there are other academic appointees in the department. They hold Academic Federation titles as listed below.

• Academic Administrator***
• Academic Coordinator
• Agronomist
• Assistant/Associate Law Librarian
• Assistant/Associate University Librarian
• Continuing Education Specialist
• Librarian
• Professional Researcher
• Project (e.g., Scientist) Series
• Specialist in Cooperative Extension
• Specialist Series
• University Extension Teacher

Anyone holding an Academic Federation title (***excluding Academic Administrators whose responsibilities may include teaching duties) who is required to teach in addition to other duties, must be appointed to an appropriate teaching title (e.g., Lecturer, Adjunct Professor).

c. Best Practices

(1) Recruitment Process
In response to department needs, the dean may authorize recruitment for a permanently budgeted FTE (for Professorial Series appointments):
• In a specific research/teaching area;
• At a specific level (i.e., series, rank and salary);
• With a specific start-up financial package to support the position; and,
• Located in specific office and lab space

The chair, after consultation with the department, initiates recruitment for a faculty position by developing a search plan in concert with the department faculty (see below). Although a dean’s office staff member may monitor the day-to-day progress of the committee, it is the responsibility of the chair to see that the whole recruitment process is conducted according to University policies.

(2) Faculty Diversity
In recruiting new faculty, it is important that both the search committee and the applicant pool are diverse, if at all possible, with respect to women and underrepresented groups. Strategies for obtaining a diverse applicant pool are discussed in APM 500 (pdf), UCD 500, and the University of California Recruitment and Retention of Faculty Affirmative Action Guidelines.

(3) Search Plan
The chair of the department, his/her delegate, or the search committee that is appointed by the dean writes a search plan that describes the position and the criteria to be used in selecting candidates, the underutilization and availability of women and minorities in the field (information obtained from the Office of the Vice Provost--Academic Personnel), the methods of recruitment and advertising, and the role that the Search Committee vs. the voting faculty in the department will play. UCD 500 describes the requirements for the search plan.
• Every effort should be made to conduct a thorough search and advertise widely before filling any faculty position, using national publications, personal contacts, listservs, mailing lists, professional and academic conferences, and Web sites.
• All advertisements for faculty positions should state at a minimum, "The University of California is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer.” UCD 500 provides alternative language for position announcements, such as, “The University of California, Davis, and the [department/program] are interested in candidates who are committed to the highest standards of scholarship and professional activities, and to the development of a campus climate that supports equality and diversity. The University of California is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer”.
• It is recommended that the position description, which is more extensive than the advertisement, include the following wording: “The University of California, Davis is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer. UC Davis is dedicated, as specified in its Strategic Plan, to the goal of building a culturally diverse faculty committed to working in a multicultural environment. In this spirit, UC Davis strongly encourages applications from women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, covered veterans, and all meet the qualifications for this position.”
• Advertisements may also state that although applications will be accepted until the position is filled, evaluation of applications will begin on [date].
• Federal affirmative action regulations require every campus to collect data regarding the race and gender of all job applicants. This is reported on the Interim Recruitment Report.
• If, after review, it is determined that women and minority applicants are not present in the pool at or near the rate of their estimated availability in the field, the department should review whether recruitment and outreach procedures were sufficiently broad, and if not, consider reopening the search with more inclusive recruitment efforts. The dean reviews and approves the Interim Recruitment Report before candidates are invited to campus for an interview.

(4) Search Committee
The department should make every effort to recommend a composition for the Search Committee to the dean that represents a diverse cross section of the faculty.
• The department chair should submit a slate of names (usually 5-7) to the dean; the dean appoints the committee. It is important to have a search committee that is diverse in terms of people and viewpoints.
• Faculty from outside the department should be included on the committee to provide a fresh perspective to the search.
• The chair of the Search Committee should attend a meeting organized by the office of the Vice Provost--Academic Personnel where campus recruitment goals and policies are discussed.
• The dean’s staff will meet with the committee to clarify and agree on recruitment goals, search process, search plan, and procedures in compliance with UCD 500.

(5) Getting to a Short List
Procedures should require that applications be read by more than one person. The Search Committee must write the reasons for rejecting candidates on the deselection form, and the reasons must be consistent with the stated selection criteria.
• Department chairs should review the documents and examine the committee’s selections to ensure that they meet the selection criteria listed in the position announcement and the Search Plan.
• Deans will review the race and gender of short list candidates to compare representation to availability and to ensure that the selection criteria were properly and consistently applied in the review.
• If selection problems are identified, the search can be reopened to conduct additional outreach or revisit the pool of all qualified applicants and create a new list of potential short list candidates.
• In many departments there is a meeting to discuss the candidates selected for campus interviews. Before such a meeting, faculty are invited to look through the files of all applicants (not only those on the Search Committee’s list). At the department meeting, these applicants as well as those on the Search Committee’s list are discussed, and the faculty vote for those whom they would like to interview on campus.
• The dean must approve the candidates selected for campus interviews -- i.e., the short list.
• The chair then may invite the short list candidates for a campus visit. This visit should be well organized beforehand; the department should send each visiting candidate information about the department, campus, and city of Davis, etc., (as websites or hard copy; such information is available from the dean’s office or the Vice Provost-Academic Personnel website).
• During the campus visit, the chair should ensure that the candidates meet graduate students and faculty from the department, as well as related departments if appropriate; and that it is made clear that all department faculty are expected to make every attempt to attend the candidates’ seminars/lectures and participate in the interviews.
• It is important to remember that the candidate is making a judgment about the department/campus, just as the department is making a judgment about the candidate.

(6) Conducting the Interviews and Choosing Candidates for the Position
The department chair should meet with each candidate initially to give an overview of the position, answer general questions, and orient the candidate to the schedule, the department, and the campus. In some cases, the department chair may wish others to be present at this initial meeting (e.g., the Search Committee chair, the dean).
• The seminar should be scheduled early in the visit if possible (with some one-day visits this may not be possible), so that faculty can hear it before their interviews with the candidate. Each faculty member scheduled to visit with the candidate should be provided with the candidate’s CV and statement about why he/she is interested in the job. It is highly recommended that the candidate meet with the dean at some point during the visit.
• At the end of the visit, the department chair should again meet with the candidate to answer questions, clarify issues that may have arisen during the visit, assess the candidate’s needs for space and facilities, assess the candidate’s teaching experience, and let the candidate know the approximate time frame for the department to make its decision.
• After the candidate’s visit, the department chair should solicit input from the voting faculty. This can be done in a number of ways, but the process should be agreed upon by the voting faculty as part of the development of the Search Plan (and it should be included in the Search Plan).
• One effective procedure is to ask each person with whom the candidate met during the campus visit to provide comments with respect to the seminar, the interview, the candidate’s CV, etc., right after the candidate’s visit rather than waiting until all of the candidates have visited.
• Voting faculty should meet as a group to discuss the various candidates and have an opportunity for the department chair to share the comments from non-department (and thus, non-voting) individuals that met with the candidates.
• The department faculty should then vote on the candidates and decide to whom offers should be made. This should be done by confidential ballot. It may be done at the end of the meeting if all faculty who are eligible to vote and wish to vote are present at the meeting; or it can be done after the meeting so as to include all faculty eligible to vote.
• While the above procedures are considered Best Practices, it is understood that departments vary across the campus and other policies may be appropriate. However, it is important to remember that Academic Senate Bylaw 55 gives all Senate members in the department (except emeriti members) the right to vote on all Senate faculty hires. Non-Senate faculty/academic appointees are not eligible to vote on Senate personnel actions, including hiring. However, the department may consult with these individuals.

(7) Making the Offer
• The chair will consult with the dean regarding the department’s selection and obtain the dean’s approval to contact the selected candidate and let him/her know of the department’s decision to recommend the appointment and that a Tentative Offer Letter (TOL) will be forthcoming from the dean.
• For this letter, the chair should provide the dean with information on proposed appointment rank and step, required salary (including any need for an off-scale supplement with justification for such a supplement), anticipated appointment/start date, research support needed, amount of start-up package, teaching assignment expectations, need to be recommended for the Mortgage Origination Program, etc. The chair and the dean should come to agreement on the above issues. Note that off-scales above one step must be recommended by the dean to the Vice Provost--Academic Personnel, who has approval authority. The final TOL should include the above information (except appointment step – see below) as well as information about removal expense reimbursement and a “respond by” date. Because offers involve institutional commitments beyond the department, the TOL may be sent by the dean or by the department chair, but if sent by the chair, the letter should be co-signed by the dean.
• While the TOL should indicate the title series and rank for which the candidate will be nominated, the step should NOT be included because the step is not assured until review by the FPC/dean (for appointments at Assistant Professor III and below) or by CAP/Vice Provost--Academic Personnel (for appointments above Assistant Professor III) is completed. Therefore, committing to a step in the TOL is inadvisable. For School of Medicine appointments, the negotiated salary should be in compliance with the department’s compensation plan.
• An off-scale supplement can be used if there is a specific need to meet a certain salary level when the appropriate step is insufficiently high to provide that salary.
• Requests for off-scales must be justified by market conditions and are governed by the policy described in UCD 620.
• If the chair believes that the selected candidate would qualify for a higher rank than the one advertised (i.e., the candidate is overqualified for the advertised rank), he/she should discuss it with the dean before proceeding. However, in no case can the candidate be appointed at a rank higher than that which was advertised.
• After the TOL has been sent, the chair may wish to contact the candidate to see if he/she has any questions about the offer.
• After the candidate accepts the TOL, the department will put together an appointment packet (see below). The chair should let the candidate know that the appointment process will take several weeks. It is also advisable for the chair to keep in contact with the candidate (i.e., at least once a week) to let him/her know where the process is and that there are no problems, etc.
• As soon as the candidate has accepted the TOL, the chair should personally notify the other short-listed candidates to let them know a final decision has been made. While it is natural for non-selected candidates to be disappointed, it is important that they feel that they were fairly considered and well treated throughout the process.

(8) Appointment
Candidates for appointment shall be judged by criteria appropriate for their series. These criteria are outlined in the APM under the sections applicable to the specific faculty title.
• It is the policy of the University of California that no appointment shall be made to a tenure track position (i.e., professorial series) unless there is an appropriately budgeted provision (FTE) for the appointment.
• Each appointment at the Assistant rank is limited to a maximum term of two years at a time, and total service in this title (including that at a sister UC campus) cannot exceed eight years, except for those individuals granted an extension of the clock. See APM 133 (pdf). All appointments to the positions of Associate Professor and Professor are continuous in tenure until terminated by voluntary separation, retirement, demotion, or dismissal.

(9) Conditions of Appointment
• After the appointment has been made, the chair can contact the candidate to see if he/she has any questions about the details of the appointment and to determine when the candidate will arrive on campus and if he/she has any special needs with which the department can assist.

(10) Facilitating the Success of New Faculty
To ensure that new faculty are not immediately overwhelmed by the new teaching, research and service duties, the chair should be ready to give guidance in these three areas to make the transition as easy as possible. This is particularly important for faculty for whom the UC Davis position is their first university position.
• It is the responsibility of the chair to make teaching assignments for all new faculty. Some departments have found it valuable for new faculty to audit a course (during their first year) that they will eventually teach. During this first year it may be appropriate for new faculty to consult with the Teaching Resources Center (TRC) on course design and use of technology in the classroom, particularly if they have never taught before coming to UC Davis.
• TRC has an on-line teaching handbook, ‘Teaching at UC Davis: Suggestions and Resources’ that may be helpful for new faculty members. It has useful suggestions on such subjects as: preparing course materials, making the course interesting and stimulating, handling examinations, using media in the classroom, and course evaluations, etc.
• In many departments, there is course reduction for new faculty during their first year or two – this is particularly true of departments where new faculty are expected to submit a grant application for extramural research funding during the first year in their faculty position.
• New faculty, particularly those at the Assistant rank, need time to establish their research and teaching programs; committee work should be limited and carefully monitored.
• In some units, Senate faculty may have been hired primarily to develop a specific program or clinic, or to fill some immediate teaching need. In these cases, the department chair should closely monitor the progress of the new faculty member to ensure that excessive time is not consumed by the special duties and that the faculty member has sufficient time for the scholarly work needed for a successful career at UC Davis.
• Mentoring is an effective strategy in facilitating the success of new faculty. The chair may choose to serve in this role, may appoint a senior faculty member to mentor, or, in consultation with the new faculty member, may select a senior faculty member of the department to mentor. Additionally, the new faculty member may seek informal mentoring from senior faculty in other academic units. The important part of effective mentoring is that the mentor and mentee develop a relationship that allows the mentor to provide information, advice, support, and constructive criticism.
• The Benefits Representative in the department should provide information/ brochures regarding health, dental, vision and other benefits to new appointees.

(11) Faculty as Supervisors of Employees
The chair, with the help of the MSO, should discuss with all new faculty their responsibilities as supervisors and principal investigators before they hire staff/academics and begin their research programs. They should be told that they have a responsibility to carry out fair and honest (i.e. not over-inflated) staff evaluations. It is important that faculty understand that they are the stewards of University resources in their role as administrator of research programs and grant funds. This includes oversight and supervision of people (technicians, GSRs, SRAs, computer analysts, etc), space, and equipment. They should be aware of the policies governing the employees and students they supervise (including the fact that some employees are covered by union contracts), and they should be aware of resources such as the department MSO, assistant dean, Director of Faculty Relations (in the Office of the Vice Provost--Academic Personnel), Labor Relations, etc. that are available for assistance with problems that arise with employees. Relevant policies relating to academic employees include APM 137 – Term Appointments (pdf), APM 140 – Grievance, APM 145 – Layoff (pdf), and APM 150 – Discipline and Dismissal (pdf). Policies related to staff employees can be found at Human Resources-- Policies and Contracts.

a. Chair’s Responsibilities (APM 245, Appendix A (pdf))
• One of the chair’s most important duties as academic leader of the department relates to his/her role in assuring that new faculty understand the university’s evaluative process and that this process is conducted fairly and is consistent with campus policy for all faculty in the department.

b. Best Practices
(1) Informing New Senate Faculty about the Academic Personnel Process and Departmental Expectations
Most new faculty who have had no previous academic appointment have no concept of how they will be evaluated for merit and promotion, and those who have joined the faculty after having served on the faculty of another university are often surprised at how different and complex the process is at the University of California. A time-effective approach to initiating new faculty into the system can be accomplished by the chair in the following three ways:
• The chair should strongly urge all new faculty to attend the Vice Provost’s Workshop for New Faculty. This one-day workshop is held in September the week before classes begin. It covers the basics of the personnel process, as well as general strategies for building a successful academic career at UC Davis.
• After the campus-wide workshop, the chair should meet with new faculty in single or group sessions, shortly after they arrive. Covering the entire review process in detail is unnecessary (since the FAQ document listed below under Resources does that), but new faculty should be made aware of the basis for evaluation soon after they arrive, the time lines involved, the expectations for advancement in their discipline, and the process that the department follows in evaluations for merit/promotion advancement (since the latter may differ among departments). It is also prudent to discuss issues that relate to the Faculty Code of Conduct/faculty misconduct (APM 015--pdf) and Conflict of Commitment (APM 025--pdf).
• The Vice Provost--Academic Personnel office sponsors a lunch time ‘Brown Bag Series for New Faculty’, consisting of monthly talks on topics relating to teaching and research. See the New Faculty Brown Bag schedule (Word), or contact Binnie Singh, Director of Faculty Relations and Development, at 530.752.0963.

(a) With respect to departmental expectations and standards (which will differ by department), the chair should discuss the department’s expectations regarding:
• Teaching quality (student/peer evaluations are usually based on a numerical scale [e.g. 1-5] and each department expects a faculty member to attain some minimum average score [e.g. 2.5, 3 or 4] in order to fulfill the APM requirement for ‘superior intellectual attainment in teaching’. The expected score will differ by department;
• Teaching workload (including a designation of the expected balance between lower and upper division teaching load, and/or the balance between undergraduate and graduate courses in colleges/schools where these are important factors);
• Graduate/undergraduate research training;
• Research productivity (not just total number of publications/review period, but also quality; and how well it fits together as a cohesive research program, rather than as isolated, unrelated publications);
• Writing of books vs. journal articles as the expected medium for publication of research;
• Having extramural grant support for research program/creative activity;
• National vs. local or regional reviews of creative work;
• Need to develop, over time, national/international reputation;
• Participation in University committees at various levels, i.e., department, college, Graduate Group, campus, UC system, as well as participation in public/professional committees for state/federal government, research societies, journals, etc.; and,
• Clinical responsibilities, where appropriate.

(b) The chair should also refer new faculty to two documents listed on the website of the Vice Provost--Academic Personnel, which explain the campus personnel process in detail, answer questions about it, and give collegial advice:
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Concerning the Academic Personnel Review Process at UC Davis (references linked to APM); and,
• Collegial Advice for Assistant Professors.
• In addition to the two documents, it might be helpful to refer new faculty to the Teaching Resources Center teaching handbook, Teaching at UC Davis: Suggestions and Resources.
(c) The chair should emphasize the importance of keeping track of activities (classes taught, committees, academic society participation, advising of individual students, etc) throughout the year(s). Currently, this is most easily done with a computer file for Academic Activities, which if kept updated, makes it easier to report various activities in future merit/promotion dossiers and to make additions of some of the information to the Curriculum Vitae.

(2) Annual Review of Each Faculty Member’s Record
The chair should meet with each faculty member at least once a year to review his/her progress in teaching, research, service, and professional competence, and to suggest ways to improve particular problem areas and thereby anticipate and correct problems before they become evident at a merit or promotion review (APM 220-80b--pdf).
• An annual review is particularly important for Assistant Professors and for others who are new to the campus or who have not been making normal progress, i.e. those who have deferred in the recent past. If such faculty hold offscales, the chair should discuss the ramifications of deferral or denial of merits. An annual assessment of teaching is required for each pre-six Unit 18 Lecturer prior to reappointment (See Academic Planning, section (3): Planning for Unit 18 Contract Employees).
• The chair might ask the faculty member to list his/her accomplishments in the areas of teaching, research, service, and professional competence (in the review period), and then use the list to begin the discussion. Chairs should encourage new faculty members to review the files of their colleagues as they come up for merit/promotion (even if departmental policies do not allow them to vote), so they can see what is expected for advancement in the system.
• For senior faculty who have been performing satisfactorily for years, the chair may feel that an annual review is unnecessary, and that the one preceding a merit/promotion action every two or three years is sufficient. But chairs should keep in mind the fact that high performers should not be overlooked for possible acceleration opportunities.
• In large departments, the task of performing annual reviews may have to be shared with a vice chair or a senior member of the faculty.

(3) Peer Teaching Evaluation/Teaching Committee
The evaluation of teaching effectiveness includes not only evaluation by students, but also evaluation by faculty colleagues for those faculty who are due for promotion review. Some department chairs delegate peer evaluation to a departmental teaching committee; others appoint one or two senior faculty members to conduct the assessment of teaching. As mentioned previously, there is also a need to perform an annual review of the teaching effectiveness of Unit 18 Lecturers. The evaluation process should include attendance of the reviewer(s) at selected lectures, labs, or discussion sessions for in-class assessments of the effectiveness of the person’s style, interaction with students, appropriate level, and information content. It should also include a review of syllabi, assignments, exams, or other materials prepared by the faculty member for the class.

(4) Voting on Senate Faculty Personnel Actions
Academic Senate Bylaw 55 defines the rights of faculty to vote on personnel actions of their departmental Senate colleagues. Voting is confidential, and Bylaw 55 enfranchises all Senate faculty at or above the rank of the candidate (including WOS, but not emeriti faculty). The bylaw outlines the method whereby department Senate faculty enfranchised by Bylaw 55 can extend the voting privilege to Senate faculty below rank. In many departments, the vote has been extended to all non-retired Senate faculty. If this is proposed and voted on by the normally eligible faculty, the department must submit their new voting procedures to CAP to determine if they are consistent with Bylaw 55. Once approved by CAP, the extended voting procedures become the operating voting procedure in the department.

The actual review/voting process differs among departments.
• Some departments present the dossier at a faculty meeting (without the candidate present) and discuss the various aspects of the teaching, research and service records as they appear in the file. A confidential vote then follows. It is recommended that this vote not be taken at the meeting. Waiting a day or two after the meeting gives faculty time to digest what was said at the meeting and to re-review the dossier if needed. Moreover, some faculty may not be able or willing to participate in a departmental meeting. Nonetheless, they still have the right to vote.
• Other departments ask the faculty to review the file individually (i.e., no departmental meeting), and then vote by confidential ballot, either paper or via email. The campus is currently in the process of developing a system for on-line dossier preparation and review.
• Still other departments have an ad hoc committee review the file and write a report that is presented to the faculty (along with the dossier) for their consideration.
• Joint appointees with Senate titles are allowed to vote, consistent with Bylaw 55 or the approved changes in voting procedures.
• Non-Senate academic members of the department are not eligible to vote on Senate members, but they can be asked for opinions which the chair may provide to the faculty before they vote and/or may quote in the department letter.

(5) Voting on Academic Federation Personnel Actions
There must be a formal review with a vote for each personnel action. Peer review and voting by members of the Academic Federation involve Academic Federation Peer and Voting Group Plans which are submitted to the Vice Provost—Academic Personnel office for approval.

Peer Group: The department chair, in consultation with the candidate, must identify a Peer Group (at least 5 members, with at least 2 from the same title/function) for each Academic Federation employee being considered for merit/promotion actions. The same Peer Group can be used for a number of candidates, or a department may prefer to appoint a standing Peer Group which will be used for all candidates in the department, and perhaps in other departments. This collegial group of employees (not necessarily all from candidate’s department) should include people with similar titles/ responsibilities as those of the candidate. The Peer Group is a review body for the candidate and it will provide feedback to Academic Federation candidates; it also provides advice to the voting members of the department. That is, at the time of a merit/promotion action, the peer group will provide their evaluation of the accomplishments of the candidate to the chair; and the chair will make this evaluation available to the voting members of the department before the vote.

Voting Group: A vote on an Academic Federation personnel action could be a vote of all academic members of the department (i.e., Senate and Federation); it could be a vote of the Senate members plus those Academic Federation members in the same or similar title series (e.g., if the candidate is a researcher, then Project Scientists, Specialists, and Professional Researchers, but not Academic Administrators or Coordinators may comprise the Voting Group); or the Peer Group may also serve as the Voting Group. Preferences in this regard will vary by department and will depend on the number of Academic Federation employees in the department, or in the college/school itself. It is recommended that the Voting Group included one or more Academic Federation members. Files without a description of the nature of the voting group/procedure will be returned to the dean’s office without further review. Sample Peer and Voting Group applications can be reviewed in the Vice Provost--Academic Personnel office.

(6) Extramural Letters
Confidential letters from referees reviewing the candidate’s qualifications for promotion to Associate Professor or full Professor, or advancement to Professor Step VI or Above Scale are only to be requested by the chair, or the chair’s designate (not by the candidate). Departments differ in what they consider an appropriate number of letters to request for these actions; however CAP expects to see 5-8 letters in a dossier, mostly from academics. CAP will look to see if extramural reviewers:
• Are well-known/respected in their field;
• Are at a rank at least comparable to the rank being sought;
• Are cognizant of the candidate’s research and its impact;
• Have a national/international reputation (i.e., for faculty being considered for advancement to Professor Step VI or Above Scale).

(7) Avoiding Conflict of Interest in Selecting Extramural Referees
The APM stipulates that the candidate should submit a list of potential extramural reviewers to the chair, and that the chair should add other appropriate names (either from his/her own knowledge of the field or in consultation with department members). The chair solicits letters from each list, usually seeking about half from the candidate’s nominees and half from the chair’s nominees. (The list of solicited reviewers is not made available to the candidate at any stage of the process – the reviewers are confidential).

It is most efficient to contact each extramural reviewer via e-mail and, if he/she agrees to serve as a reviewer, send an “official” letter and appropriate materials (usually a list of publications, a list of grants if applicable, the scholarly material, and the candidate’s statement).

To assure that reviewers don’t have a conflict of interest, all extramural letters are expected to be ‘arm’s length’ - i.e., the reviewer is expected to be qualified to evaluate the work, but to have had no recent (the last 5 years) connection with the candidate, such as mentor, advisor, or collaborator.

Sample language when letters of evaluation are solicited or received is posted at UCD 220 Exhibit B.

(8) Extramural Letters from Other UC Campuses
Extramural letters can include those from other UC campuses. In fact, these can be very helpful for evaluating the qualifications of candidates for Professor, Steps VI and Above Scale; because universities outside the UC System don’t usually have comparable steps in the Professor rank and their faculties are sometimes unfamiliar with the significance of these reviews.

(9) Extramural Letters for Academic Federation Members (UCD 220AF)
The list of appropriate referees is assembled in the same way for Academic Federation as for Senate members (i.e., a combination of candidate’s and chair’s nominations. The review committees (Joint Academic Federation/Senate Committee on Personnel, Administrative Series Personnel Committee, and Academic Federation Personnel Committee) also expect at least five letters, requested from individuals who can evaluate the various aspects of the candidate’s record and/or who have interacted with the candidate in his/her research/service capacity.

(10) The Departmental Letter
The departmental letter, written by the chair or a designee, is an evaluation of a faculty member’s record as presented in the dossier. It reflects the views of the eligible voting Senate faculty in the department, not just those of the chair. It discusses whether the candidate meets/exceeds departmental standards and expectations with regard to teaching, research/creative activity, service (university and public), and professional competence. The letter should include the proposed rank or step change and the period of review, so that it will be absolutely clear what was presented to the faculty for a vote. The vote tally must also be included -- i.e., the number of yes, no or abstention votes, as well as any reasons expressed for the no or abstention votes. The letter should contain no names or other identifiers associated with specific faculty or external reviewers (the latter can be referred to as Reviewer A, B, or C, etc.)

(11) Chair Disagrees with Faculty Vote/Opinion
Regardless of whether the chair agrees with the opinions of the faculty concerning the quality or significance of the teaching, research, professional competence, or service of a candidate being considered for merit/promotion, he/she is obligated to construct the departmental letter to reflect the department’s views. However, the chair may also write a separate confidential letter explaining his/her differing viewpoint. This letter is confidential in the sense that it is not made available to either the voting faculty or the candidate before it goes forward -- although after the administrative decision on the action has been completed, the candidate (but not the voting faculty), upon request, would receive chair’s confidential letter in redacted (i.e., without any names of other individuals that might have been referred to in the letter) form APM 160-20-c (1) (pdf).

(12) Reviewing Departmental Letter with the Candidate
Departments handle the review of the letter with the candidate in different ways, all of which are satisfactory.
• Some give a copy of the departmental letter to the candidate to read
• In other departments, the chair reads the letter to the candidate and they discuss it.
• The candidate is allowed to request correction of facts that he/she considers to be inaccurately stated in the letter.
• If there are disagreements about other aspects of the document (e.g., emphasis), the candidate may write a confidential “rebuttal” letter explaining his/her different point of view. This letter, may be transmitted at the option of the candidate to the chair, the dean, or the Vice Provost—Academic Personnel. It will become part of the candidate’s dossier.

(13) Reviewing Faculty With Joint Appointments
When a candidate has appointments in two or more departments, each department is responsible for reviewing him/her for merit/promotion, even though only the primary (home) department has the responsibility of preparing the dossier. In some instances, the joint appointee may only teach in the secondary department, (i.e., has little or no research or service there). Nonetheless, the faculty in the secondary department should review the dossier prepared by the home department and vote on the action. The letter from the secondary department should describe the faculty vote and the extent and quality of the candidate’s participation in the department. See UCD 220 Procedure 3.

(14) Counseling Faculty After A Negative Appraisal
Assistant Professors are usually evaluated in their 4th year to determine if they are on track for promotion. The premise is that, if there are deficiencies in the record, there will be time to ‘correct’ them before the person is considered for tenure. The appraisal dossier describes the faculty member’s accomplishments in teaching, research and service, their professional competence (most applicable to the professional schools), presents the vote of the department faculty, and summarizes their department views on the candidate’s progress. It is then forwarded to the dean to be reviewed by the Faculty Personnel Committee. The latter gives detailed evaluative feedback (i.e., collegial advice) on performance in all the review categories. The dean, CAP and the Vice Provost--Academic Personnel also review the dossier. After the review is completed, the faculty member gets a copy of all the written comments. In cases where deficiencies are mentioned, the chair should review all of the recommendations with the faculty member to be sure he/she understands what corrective measures need to be taken to improve performance and the need to develop a timeframe for instituting changes. If the teaching is not up to department standards, the person may need a mentor or a referral to the Teaching Resources Center. If the research needs bolstering, the chair should discuss with the faculty member how best to solve the problem(s) - options might include some release time from service/teaching, temporary technical and/or financial research assistance, etc. In many instances the candidate has two years to make appropriate changes, but in some instances the results of an appraisal may come just a year before a candidate prepares their promotion packet, so in this instance the time for correction will be very short. This highlights the importance of early and regular discussions with young faculty.

(15) Counseling Faculty Before Promotion to Associate Rank/Tenure Review
The ‘Best Practices’ detailed for all merit/promotion actions also apply to the promotion from Assistant to Associate rank. It is important however, that the chair keep candidates informed as to their progress toward promotion even titles that are not tenure track have a limit to the time that can be spent at the Assistant rank (see the Attributes chart on the website of the Vice Provost--Academic Personnel). The Annual Review by the department chair and the 4th year Appraisal by the Faculty Personnel Committee should both provide feedback to candidates as to whether they are on track for promotion. It is imperative that a candidate have a clear idea what the department’s standards and expectations are with regard to quantity and quality of teaching, research and service activity, e.g.
• the expected minimum teaching evaluation scores;
• the number/type/quality of publications expected for the review period;
• the expectation that there is major financial support for the research program;
• the expectation that at least one major publication, i.e., a book, be published and reviewed before tenure, or that a major creative project be exhibited/reviewed regionally or nationally;
• the expectation that a candidate has participated in some level of service for the university, and for public or professional groups.

In addition, it should be clear by the time a candidate comes up for Appraisal that his/her research constitutes a cohesive body of related works (a program, rather than isolated papers), that a candidate is an independent researcher (i.e., his/her contributions to multi-authored papers are distinct and identifiable), and that he/she is the principal author (whether first or last) on a majority of the publications during the review period.

While it is advisable that faculty at the Assistant rank keep their service commitments to a minimum, some university service is expected, mostly at the department, college or Graduate Group level. It is advantageous for faculty to start to participate in professional activities like reviewing manuscripts for journals, volunteering for professional society committees, and sitting on government committees when asked, because researchers outside the university should start to associate the candidate’s name with a specific research field. Candidates should be made aware that they will need 5-8 extramural (‘arm’s length”) letters of support when they are considered for promotion, and that such letters will come from researchers outside the UC Davis campus.

If a chair perceives that there are deficiencies in the teaching, research, service, or professional competence records, he/she should advise the candidate as early as possible about ways to correct the deficit.

(16) Counseling Faculty After Denial of a Merit or Promotion
If, before submission of a dossier, the chair believes that the action is not likely to succeed, the most prudent advice to the faculty member may be to request a deferral. However, the candidate has the right to go forward even in the face of a negative department vote. Regardless, if the action is denied, the chair should discuss the decision with the candidate with respect to next steps. These may include:
• appealing the decision by refuting it or by providing more information in answer to the criticisms posed by the reviewers. If it is a negative tenure decision which occurs at the end of the 7th year, the candidate can appeal it during the 8th year, which becomes the terminal year if the appeal is unsuccessful.
• instituting corrective changes.
• advising on how to improve teaching results, perhaps by referring the faculty to a senior member of the department who is considered to be a good teacher or to the Teaching Resources Center.
• advising on how to strengthen the candidate’s scholarly record by referring him/her to someone working in a similar field or using similar techniques.
• having the individual develop a writing partnership with another faculty member (not necessarily in the same department) with whom he/she meets periodically to review and critique each other’s writing projects. This technique is most applicable to the humanities. It may work well with a group of faculty. The premise is that they can keep each other on track with the pressure to produce a certain amount to present to the partner or group by the next meeting.

(17) Counseling Faculty with Multiple Deferrals and Five-Year Reviews
Faculty who request successive deferrals (deferral = one year delay in a scheduled merit or promotion) may need collegial advice from the chair on how to restore their enthusiasm and effectiveness in teaching and/or research.
• When a faculty member is eligible to be considered for a normal merit/promotion action declines to do so, a deferral must be requested by the chair to the dean. The letter of request should discuss the reasons for the delay in advancement and any plans the faculty member has for getting back on track (UCD 220: Procedure 2).
• At a third consecutive deferral (i.e., the third year deferral), the chair’s letter requesting a deferral must contain a specific plan (including a schedule) for correcting the faculty member’s “deficiencies” such that advancement will ensue. This will require a discussion of the issues with the faculty member and a determination of what the faculty member needs to do to get back on track. Note that when the third year deferral coincides with the fifth year since the faculty member has been reviewed by either the school/college faculty personnel committee or by CAP, the third year deferral is superseded by a 5 year review (see UCD 220: Deferral Requirement, II.A).

All Senate faculty must be reviewed at least once every five years, regardless of whether they want to be put forward for merit or promotion (APM 200 (pdf)). This is a full review that must indicate the progress the faculty member has made with respect to the plan that was put forward in the third year deferral request and why this has not been sufficient to get him/her back on track. The five year review involves the department’s evaluation of whether or not the faculty member’s teaching, service, and scholarly activity are commensurate with his/her current rank and step. (It may be conducted by the chair in accordance with department procedures on voting, depending on the chair’s preference. The process is described in UCD 220: Procedure 4). If not, the review should put forward a plan to deal with the deficiencies, including the possibility of changing to a different series where advancement would be possible. Continued failure to advance could be evidence of “incompetence” as defined by APM 075 (pdf) and be a prelude to dismissal.

Note: Because Step V and above in the full title rank (e.g., Professor, Professor In Residence, Professor of Clinical ____) have indefinite periods at which the faculty member can stay without being considered for advancement, no deferral requests are needed. However, these faculty are still subject to a five year review.

It is the responsibility of the chair to insure that faculty are:
• appointed at the appropriate rank and step consistent with their academic accomplishments (education and experience).
• assigned teaching according to their expertise and experience.
• given the space, facilities, and time to perform their research.
• integrated into the department community.
• invited to participate in academic planning, where appropriate.
• invited to review dossiers of faculty who are up for merit/promotion, where appropriate.

Even when these basic conditions are met by the department, difficulties arise, and faculty are sometimes unable to meet the department’s expectations. “Retention” refers not only to efforts to help faculty meet departmental/university expectations with regard to teaching, research and service when there have been problems, but also to the efforts that are made to keep excellent faculty from leaving the university. With regard to the retention of excellent faculty, it is the responsibility of the chair to be proactive in making sure that their value is appropriately recognized and rewarded. One way to do this is to insure that faculty are considered for accelerated advancement when their record supports it. Another is to nominate department members for campus, professional society, and/or national/international awards (see below). And a third is to publicize information about department members to the department/school, campus, dean) when these members have:
• won prizes and awards for outstanding teaching, research, or service;
• been elected/appointed to professional society office/editorial boards, etc.;
• received large important grants/contracts;
• made important breakthroughs in research, etc.; or,
• been selected to participate in important review groups.

(1) Nominating Department Members for Awards
There are campus awards for teaching, for research, for graduate mentoring, and for service that are presented by the Academic Senate and by the Academic Federation. There are also awards for excellence in mentoring undergraduate research, for outstanding teaching by graduate students, etc. In addition, numerous campus divisions, schools, colleges sponsor teaching awards; and many professional societies grant awards in a variety of areas. Because a competitive nomination packet requires considerable thought and preparation, it is a good practice to have a list of potential awards, the approximate date of the “call” for nominations and the approximate deadline (information from previous years), and the criteria. Some departments have an awards committee; in others, the nomination process is ad hoc. If possible, the chair should develop a mechanism for identifying department members that would be appropriate for specific awards and facilitate (e.g., with department staff assistance) putting together these nominations.

(2) Counseling Faculty With Low Teaching Evaluations
If a faculty member is having difficulty with teaching assignments, as indicated by teaching evaluations or student/faculty complaints, it is the responsibility of the chair to discuss it with the faculty member and to make appropriate suggestions as to how he/she can improve either the substantive aspects of the teaching or its presentation. Two well-used methods for approaching teaching problems are the use of:
• Mentors: Suggest that the faculty member work with a mentor or a senior, experienced member of the department to reorganize his/her lectures, change the content or emphasis, change the presentation of the information, improve the quality of syllabi, audiovisuals, or exams, etc.
• Teaching Resources Center (530.752.6050): Suggest that the faculty member contact the Teaching Resources Center to have one of their specialists work closely with him/her. The specialist will attend class, lab, or discussion sessions and review teaching materials; he/she may videotape presentations and review the tapes with the faculty member to make suggestions for teaching improvement. In addition, the TRC provides a number of special programs and workshops for improving teaching techniques and updating instructional technology skills.

(3) Counseling Faculty with Low Research Productivity
When a faculty member is in a research “slow period”, it may be due to any number of problems including:
• unfunded grant applications.
• difficulty getting papers or books either written (“writer’s block”) or published (reviewer’s criticisms).
• difficulty getting creative projects exhibited/reviewed.
• difficulties with lab personnel (staff or students).
• difficulty in gathering or analyzing data.
• inappropriate time management or department assignments
(i.e. over-load).

The faculty member may only need encouragement to break out of this slow period, or he/she may need more concrete help, such as new resources, time, or technical assistance. A referral to the Office of Research for information on funding sources or names of colleagues knowledgeable in that research area who could provide technical assistance or advice might give some new direction to the research.

Sometimes lack of research productivity is due to a departmental assignment over-load (i.e., clinical duties, service, and teaching. Thus, the chair should periodically reevaluate the workload, to determine if it is negatively impacting the faculty members’ ability to accomplish their research goals. Reevaluation may lead to the recognition that the department needs to increase their personnel and/or redistribute the workload among other faculty.

When the problem appears to be intractable and long-term (e.g., a faculty member has had a period of low research productivity for a significant period of time, and it has resulted in successive denials or deferrals of merit/promotion), the chair has the option of increasing the faculty member’s teaching assignments to compensate for the time not being used for productive research.

If the faculty member is an excellent teacher and does not foresee improving his/her research, the chair should suggest that he/she change from the Professorial series to the Lecturer with SOE or Senior Lecturer with SOE series. Both are Senate titles with heavy teaching responsibilities, but no research component. (In the School of Medicine, it may be appropriate for faculty to move from the Professor or Professor In Residence series to the Clinical ____ series where there is less emphasis on research and more on clinical/instructional responsibilities.)

(4) Counseling Faculty with Low Service Records
Both university and public/professional service are required for advancement in the university. Faculty have been denied promotion and merit for lack of significant service. Although the university expects minimal service from faculty at the Assistant rank, it does expect that, with promotion to Associate rank, faculty will start to seriously participate in the governance of the university, and begin receiving appointments to professional society committees, government panels, editorial boards, etc. It is especially important that faculty being considered for Professor Step VI and above have evidence not only of service, but also of leadership in university and public service committees. When faculty receive a warning from review committees that service is inadequate, or that lack of service is the reason for a merit/promotion denial, the chair should advise the faculty member to take the criticism seriously and discuss with him/her ways to remedy the situation, starting with department, college, and campus committees which take volunteers. The Academic Senate sends out a notice in January asking for volunteers for Senate committees (responses due by early February); see the Academic Senate Committee Volunteer web page for a description of the committees and the application form. Volunteers for the Chancellor’s Administrative Advisory committees should refer to the description and the application form (pdf) (due in early March).

(5) Faculty Development
If you have a faculty member who appears to be falling far behind in research due to a heavy teaching, service, or clinical load, then relief for a quarter or more from the heavy commitment may be helpful in turning the situation around. This requires the department to rearrange the teaching or service schedules for a quarter and strong determination on the part of the faculty to use the extra time wisely. If the department does not have the resources (financial support) to make such changes, then the faculty member may have to use other resources to buy time, such as a sabbatical leave. For those who have been overloaded with service commitments to the detriment of their research, there is the Faculty Development Award Program, sponsored by the office of the Vice Provost--Academic Personnel. This supports a quarter of teaching relief for those faculty who have been burdened by heavy service loads to the detriment of their research programs. In addition to teaching relief, each recipient receives $1000 for supplies and expenses associated with their research. For those who need to ‘retool’ their teaching, rather than their research, the Teaching Resources Center gives courses and tutorials on a number of topics related to improving classroom teaching, and improving technology training. For those who need to upgrade their research or educational technology skills, IT Express provides computing, communications and digital media services to the campus in support of research and instruction.

(6) Matching Offers from Other Universities
When a valued faculty member is considering leaving the department for employment at another institution, the chair may want to encourage him/her to stay. The chair should discuss the outside offer with the faculty member to discern the reasons for his/her wanting to leave and what it would take for him/her to remain at UC Davis. The chair should then obtain a written copy of the outside offer and meet with the dean to discuss possibilities. An essential role of the chair in retentions is to make sure the faculty member realizes how valued and appreciated he/she is in the department and on campus by proactively insuring that he/she is rewarded for excellence, and also to signal the importance of the retention to the dean when they have received outside offers. Remember also, that it is equally as important to signal the dean if there are reasons not to be terribly aggressive with a retention.

a. Chair’s Responsibilities (APM 245, Appendix A) (pdf)
• In performing his/her duties, the chair is expected to seek the advice of faculty colleagues in a systematic way and to provide for the conduct of department affairs in an orderly fashion through department meetings and the appointment of appropriate committees.
• The chair should be receptive to questions, complaints, and suggestions from members of the department, including faculty, staff, and students, and should take appropriate action on them.

b. Best Practices
(1) Maintaining Good Faculty Relations
Maintaining good relations with the faculty requires the chair to be open and fair, to keep the faculty informed, to listen to their ideas and concerns about department issues, and to act on them in a timely manner. The most effective way to do this is to encourage their participation in departmental meetings where problems, except for confidential issues, can be openly discussed. A thank you note or telephone message to faculty who have accomplished some specific task for the department is always a good policy; additionally, a public thank you (e.g., at a departmental meeting or in a departmental newsletter, etc.) is another way to show the department’s appreciation.

(2) Departmental Meetings
The chair usually schedules regular meetings of the faculty to discuss departmental business related to teaching, research, college