UC Davis: Academic Affairs

A. ACADEMIC DUTIES

1. Academic Planning

2. Faculty Recruitment, Selection, and Appointment

3. Academic Affairs 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 Affairs 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 Affairs 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 Affairs.

(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 Affairs 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 Affairs), 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 Affairs 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 Affairs 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 Affairs (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 Affairs), 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 Affairs 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 Affairs, 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 Affairs 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 Affairs 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 Affairs). 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/school issues, newly proposed policies on which there will be a future vote, personnel matters, budget issues, etc. The frequency of the meetings depends on the size of the department and the number of business items to be discussed, but in many departments they are scheduled once a month. If only part of the meeting is to be devoted to personnel matters, it is best to schedule those discussions at the end of the regular meeting and excuse those department members who are not involved in the actions. Minutes of the open meeting should be kept (in many instances this is done by the MSO) and made available to the faculty for additions or corrections by the next meeting. Because discussion of individual personnel actions is confidential, such discussions may be summarized and kept in the department files but are generally not distributed. If minutes of confidential issues are taken, then it is advisable not to identify by name, the individuals with specific comments.

(3) Departmental Committees
Depending on size, many departments have both ‘standing’ and ‘ad hoc’ committees through which they organize department business. Some of these are advisory to the chair who has decision authority (i.e. course assignments, staff personnel, budget, facilities/instrumentation, space, etc.). Committee reports can be presented and discussed at department meetings. This system allows the participation of all faculty. In selecting faculty for committee assignments, the chair is well advised to:
• try to include all academic appointees in the operation of the department, where appropriate.
• select not only from those who volunteer, but also from those who have special expertise, interest, or experience in the area.
• avoid letting individuals become entrenched on a committee for many years by having a set time limit for service on each committee. This ensures that committees will have a variety of input and continuous renewal, as well as some yearly carryover of experience.
• start the junior faculty in their university service by having them serve on one or two committees at the departmental level.

(4) Rewarding Excellence in Teaching, Research, or Service
If a faculty member is extremely good at teaching and does a consistently excellent job over the years, he/she should be nominated for a teaching award. As indicated above, there are numerous such awards on campus. Some are college-based, others are campus-wide. They all have different requirements for nomination, but many ask for letters of support from the department chair, faculty, and/or from students. There are also research awards for outstanding research/creative activity campus-wide, and in some disciplines; there are fellowships for junior faculty (e.g., Sloan Fellowships; Humanities Institute) for outstanding faculty research. The chair should be proactive in nominating excellent teachers or researchers in the department, and in supporting departmental nominees with strong letters of endorsement. The same can be said for service recognition. If a faculty member has an outstanding service record, he/she may be eligible for college-based and/or campus-wide recognition awards. The chair’s strong support for an outstanding departmental member can make a significant contribution in the award selection process.

(5) Rewarding Outstanding Faculty by Accelerated Advancement
To reward outstanding faculty for excellence in teaching, research and service, the chair can suggest an accelerated merit or promotion. In cases where the faculty member has made outstanding progress in one category (teaching, research, or service) and good progress in the other two, the case can often be made for an acceleration. The department letter should clearly state which category is characterized by outstanding progress and justify it. It is important to put forward only those who are truly outstanding and who have made significant contributions, because review committees (i.e., FPC, CAP, or the Academic Federation personnel committees) tend to view negatively those departments that indiscriminately put everyone forward for acceleration and make no distinction between the whole group of faculty and those who are truly outstanding. See: CAP’s Criteria for Accelerations.

(6) Using the Career Equity Review (CER) Process
When there is a faculty member whose rank and/or step appears to be inappropriately low, i.e., the candidate’s rank/step are not commensurate with his/her record of research, teaching, professional activity and service, then a CER may be in order. The purpose of the CER is to recalibrate rank and step, which may be low for a number of reasons – they are not intended simply to raise someone’s salary, but to place them on the “ladder” at a level consistent with their academic record/accomplishments. A CER can be requested by the candidate (not the chair) at the time of a normal merit or promotion review. Only faculty who have held an eligible title (Senate members at the Associate rank and above, including Lecturers SOE and Senior Lecturers SOE) for at least four years and have not been reviewed by CAP during the previous four years can be considered for a CER. The candidate’s written request for a CER must provide justification for the review. Examples of justification are: 1) the cumulative record warrants an acceleration, even though no one review period did; 2) the rank/step was inappropriately low at the time of initial hiring and there has been no correction since; 3) work and contributions have been overlooked or undervalued by the department and/or other reviewing agencies. This personnel action needs to be voted on by the department, but it can come forward even if the department vote is negative.

(7) Dealing With “Non-Collegial” Faculty
Faculty who continually exhibit “non-collegial” behavior toward their colleagues (e.g., showing disrespect, rudeness, physical or verbal abuse, refusal to cooperate, refusal to participate in department meetings or committee work, or refusal to work with other faculty members on teaching assignments, etc.) create a negative and tension-filled atmosphere in the department which can be disruptive to normal professional relations and the department’s mission. This behavior may be exhibited toward other faculty and/or directed at staff and students.

A number of departments have avoided confronting such problems and have allowed them to go uncorrected for long periods of time, to the detriment of the department. One reason may have been that the chairs have been concerned that setting limits on the behavior of a “non-collegial” faculty member might be viewed as an abridgement of the person’s academic freedom. However, academic freedom does not include abusive behavior or neglect of the faculty member’s campus/professional responsibilities.

The current view is that academic freedom is not the only issue to be considered and that such behavior may actually violate both the campus Principles of Community and the Faculty Code of Conduct. Because such behavior can become so disruptive to the academic environment of a department, it is prudent to take corrective action as soon as it is identified as a problem. The chair should discuss the behavior with the dean to explore options for rectifying the problem.

a. Chair’s Responsibilities (APM 245, Appendix A) (pdf)
• The chair is expected to seek student advice on matters of concern to students enrolled in the department’s programs.
• The chair should be receptive to questions, complaints, and suggestions from members of the department, both faculty and staff personnel, and from students, and should take appropriate action on them.
• The chair should make arrangements and assignments of duty for the counseling of students and for the training and supervision of Teaching Assistants and other student teachers and teacher aides.

(1) Chair’s Interactions with Departmental Students
In some majors/departments, undergraduate or graduate students may be organized with elected officers who interact with the department on their student members’ behalf when there are problems. Because the chair represents the authority of the department to the students, it is important that he/she listens to student problems, complaints, and concerns, whether they come from student organizations or individual students. Since psychological and health problems are often related to academic problems, students should be reminded that there are services available in those areas that may be helpful.
• It is incumbent upon the chair to see that appropriate faculty/administrators are made aware of problems reported by students and that solutions are sought in a timely manner.

The functions of the student service committees listed below are described in the UC Davis General Catalog as follows:
a) For conflicts arising between faculty and students, students can petition through the Office of the University Registrar regarding contested grades.
b) The ASUCD Student Advocacy Grievance Center (530.754.4131; 530.752.6101; 530.752.3339) has counselors who assist students in filing both academic (including those against faculty) and non-academic grievances with the appropriate office.
c) The Academic Senate Committee on Grade Changes (530.752.4749) reviews requests for grade changes on the basis of documented clerical or procedural error.
d) The Committee on Student-Faculty Relationships (530.752.2013) is advisory to the offices that are considering student grievances.
e) Student Judicial Affairs (530.752.1128) responds to alleged violations of university or campus regulations by students. It can also help with conflict management and provide interpretations of university policies and regulations.
f) Counseling and Psychological Services ("CAPS") (530.752.0871) offers confidential psychological, psychiatric, or peer counseling services to students having problems that affect their academic progress and sense of well-being.
g) Cowell Student Health Center (530.752.2300) is located on campus and provides students with wellness, illness, and injury care.

(2) Attaining a Diverse Student Population
In addition to diversity in the faculty and staff, university policy seeks to encourage a diverse student population, both undergraduate and graduate. This means not only diversity in admission of new students, but also in the retention of advanced students. It is sometimes difficult, however, for individual departments to affect the diversity of their incoming students: graduate admissions are handled, in many instances, by Graduate Groups rather than by departments; and undergraduate admissions are handled on a campus-wide basis, with departments not having much input into the selection of students who will be their majors. Be that as it may, the department can influence whether advanced students decide to continue in the department and, indeed, whether they will continue in the university. The atmosphere of the department is one of the key elements in the successful retention of students -- i.e., whether it is welcoming, helpful, and supportive, particularly for students from groups underrepresented because of race, ethnicity, and gender. The university’s diversity policy is based on the premise that diversity in the student population encourages intellectual diversity which increases the appreciation of various viewpoints on controversial issues. The chair sets the tone for the department by his/her actions. The chair’s leadership in projecting a welcoming attitude to all students helps to develop faculty and staff support for the university’s diversity policy. Whether a faculty member expresses a welcoming and caring attitude toward all students should be taken into account when selecting faculty and staff academic advisors for the department.

(3) Selecting Master Advisors and Academic Staff Advisors
Many departments have faculty undergraduate master advisors, as well as graduate advisors (sometimes the latter work with a Graduate Group, rather than a department), to assist students in their academic progress, meeting department and degree requirements, and meeting requirements for graduate/professional schools and specific careers. In addition, many departments hire academic staff advisors to monitor and advise students about course requirements in their academic programs. The faculty and staff advisors who are selected by their department chair should not only be knowledgeable of regulations and course and major requirements, but they should also project a positive image of the department and have skills that help to foster pleasant interactions with students. A policy of “everyone must take a turn as master advisor” doesn’t take into account the fact that some faculty are more skillful and effective as advisors than others.

(4) Training Teaching Assistants (TAs)
Since TAs are part of the department’s teaching force, it is the responsibility of the chair to see that they are well trained and effective. Because TA-ing is a learning experience, all graduate students selected to be TAs for the department should undergo training before assisting with a class to insure that the quality of instruction is high -- i.e., that they have a good knowledge base and are using appropriate techniques to convey information and interact with their students. TA training should also include discussion of appropriate and inappropriate interactions between the TA and his/her students (the latter would include romantic relationships and sexual harassment).

Also, TAs project an image of the department to undergraduate students, and the department should want that image to be one of competence and quality. For the same reason, after initial training, the TAs should be effectively supervised by the Instructors of Record during the courses to insure that high quality is maintained throughout the term. All complaints from students about their TAs should be taken seriously. All such charges should be discussed with the Instructor of Record, investigated immediately, and if there is a need, appropriate action taken to correct the problem(s). Because the TAs are represented by a union and therefore covered by a contract, the chair needs to insure that all actions taken by the department, including teaching assignments and actions regarding employment conditions (i.e., corrective action, termination, etc.) are consistent with the terms of the systemwide contract and the local agreement. The Teaching Resources Center has a one week fall quarter TA training program which is mandatory for all TAs. It also has a TA Consultant Program (peer advising, teaching workshops, videotaping, mid-quarter evaluation, and a Teaching Partners Program. The latter is an intensive mentoring program to improve TA performance.

(5) Student Misconduct and Discipline
Misconduct for which students are subject to discipline (e.g. plagiarism, cheating, sexual or other physical assault, harassment, forgery, use or sale of drugs or alcohol, alteration of university documents, forgery and theft, etc.) is subject to sanctions ranging from a warning to dismissal. Student Judicial Affairs is the office to which all complaints of student misconduct should be directed. While the individual faculty member involved in such an incident is likely to be the one to file the complaint, the chair should be made aware of the details of it before it is reported and should keep track of the progress of the case while it is being investigated and adjudicated. If the department has not received a final report on the case by the end of the academic year, inquiries should be made to the Student Judicial Affairs office.

a. Chair’s Responsibilities (APM 245, Appendix A) (pdf)
The most important administrative duties of the chair relate to developing a productive department environment, overseeing the professional development and the performance of the staff, administering the budget, allocating space, maintaining facilities and department equipment, overseeing the observance of university health and safety standards, and notifying the appropriate administrator (i.e., dean, Vice Provost--Academic Affairs, Associate Vice Chancellor--Human Resources) when dealing with inappropriate behavior of faculty or staff.
• In large departments, the chair may be assisted in the tasks involved in carrying out the responsibilities of the chair by a vice chair or other colleagues, and, when desired, by an executive committee chosen in an appropriate manner. However, the responsibilities themselves may not be delegated.

b. Chair’s Responsibilities as outlined in the UCD Administrative Responsibilities Handbook
The UC Davis Administrative Responsibilities Handbook was created to define the principles by which administrative officials, including department chairs, maintain consistency and integrity in business practices in the midst of an ever-changing academic and legal environment.

Chairs are responsible for implementing policies and procedures to ensure that the university is well managed and in sound financial condition.
Chairs also are responsible for:
• Implementing policies and procedures that allow the university to comply with applicable laws and regulations;
• Upholding the public trust; and
• Reflecting appropriately the diversity of our society.

Chairs may delegate certain administrative and financial duties to others. In these instances, written goals and objectives that define accountability and responsibility should be established in order to make clear the expectations and standards against which performance will be evaluated. Employees delegated these duties should receive timely feedback on their performance as measured against established expectations and standards.

While chairs may delegate many of their responsibilities, they cannot delegate accountability. They retain accountability for the following activities in their area of responsibility:
• Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, university policies, collective bargaining agreements, and the terms and conditions of gifts, contracts and grants.
• Maintenance of a sound financial condition and good business practices for the department or business unit.
• Establishment of an effective system of internal controls consistent with the UC Davis Principles of Accountability and Regulatory Compliance, as stated in the Administrative Responsibilities Handbook.
• Adherence to ethical business standards.
• Safeguarding and accounting for university assets.
• Administration of human resource activities in a manner that fosters diversity in the work force and ensures due process.
• Ensuring appropriate access to, and use of, university information and systems, including the integrity of data and transactions input and/or modified by staff in their area of responsibility.

c. The Department Structure
An academic department office is usually organized with a Management Services Officer (MSO) or a Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) that oversees the administrative structure. Depending on the size and special functions of the department, there may be various other office staff, such as receptionist, analysts, administrative assistants, programmers, and others who take care of specific tasks for the department -- e.g., financial affairs/accounting, grants management, personnel actions, purchasing, student services, and preparation of manuscripts, grant proposals, syllabi, course materials, exams, etc. The chair and dean’s office hire the MSO following the campus MSO recruitment protocol, and often the MSO (sometimes with input from the assistant dean of the College/School/ Division) then hires and supervises the office staff.

d. Role of the MSO
The ultimate responsibility for the operation of the department according to university policies and regulations is given to the chair of the department; but the day-to-day administrative operation is under the direct supervision of the MSO. It is important that the MSO is not only competent in all of the requisite tasks and university policies, but also that there are rapport and trust between the MSO and the chair. The MSO is responsible for making many day-to-day decisions in the office and for keeping the chair informed on all important issues, particularly those for which the chair is held accountable. This requires frequent and easy communication between them on all matters of importance to the department. At the more advanced ranks of the classification, MSOs also participate in long range and strategic planning to help achieve the department’s goals.

e. Best Practices
(1) Vice Chair
Many large or complex departments have a vice chair, selected by the chair/dean and approved by the Chancellor, to assist with specific tasks, such as preparing departmental letters for personnel actions, helping with annual reviews of individual faculty, directing the department’s clinical or teaching programs, overseeing the department when the chair is away from campus (having signature authority), etc.

(2) Faculty Executive Committee
Many large departments also have a Faculty Executive Committee that advises the chair in important areas, such as priorities for budget and space or acquisition of equipment, monitoring and reviewing the teaching or clinical program, etc. The committee may assist with responsibilities that don’t occur on an annual basis (e.g., writing the academic plan or responding to accreditation committee questions) or it may oversee progress of departmental ad hoc or standing committees. The Executive Committee may be selected in a number of equally appropriate ways. A chair may select a group of faculty representing the variety of expertise and opinions in the department to serve as a sounding board; or department faculty may nominate/elect faculty representatives for such a committee. Most chairs prefer the former and if chosen appropriately (i.e., faculty who are considered fair and without their own agenda) can work quite well.

a. Chair’s Responsibilities (APM 245, Appendix A) (pdf)
• To prepare the budget and administer the financial affairs of the department, in accord with University procedures.

b. Chair’s Responsibilities for Financial Management in the UCD Administrative Responsibilities Handbook
• The Administrative Responsibilities Handbook (pages 35-36) sets down principles for financial management of a university unit (i.e., departments, centers, programs).

c. Best Practices
(1) Budget Allocation
The budget may be handled somewhat differently in the various colleges, but essentially it is allocated by the dean’s office to the department, often after consultation with the chair. In many departments, budget priorities/distributions are discussed with the faculty; in others, however, it is handled entirely by the chair and MSO. A large portion of the budget covers ongoing expenses for staff salaries, the cost of running the department office, and the cost of delivering department courses and services.

While some departments may assume the cost of faculty telephone charges, photocopying, etc, it is a more common practice (and to many, fairer) for departments to provide a modest allocation to each faculty member for use in paying for individual telephone or photocopying bills, journal subscriptions, travel to meetings, society dues, etc. The chair decides if unexpended allocations to faculty will carry over to the next year or revert to the department.

Regardless of which system is used to allocate the funds, it should be done in a fair and open manner, so all faculty know the priorities, how the funds were allocated and what changes have occurred since the previous year’s budget.

(2) Budget Advisory Committee
Some departments have a standing budget committee of senior faculty appointed by the chair to advise on such subjects as:
• budget cuts.
• changes in the allocation process -- i.e., accommodating new projects, eliminating out-dated projects.
• changes in the teaching, clinical, or research program requiring increased support.
• prioritizing the use of discretionary funds -- i.e., gifts and grant overhead.
• obsolete equipment funds, etc.

a. Chair’s Responsibilities (APM 245, Appendix A) (pdf)
The chair is expected to schedule and recommend to the Chancellor sabbatical leaves and other leaves of absence for members of the department. (The chair may approve a leave of absence with pay for seven calendar days or less for attendance at a professional meeting or for the conduct of University business without submitting a leave of absence form.)

When an academic appointee requests a leave, the department chair must ensure that the proper policies are followed. Leaves may be recommended by the chair and the dean, with final approval by the Vice Provost’s office, taking into consideration how classes and the other responsibilities of the appointee are to be covered. Listed below are common forms of leaves. If you encounter a leave situation that you are uncertain how to handle, contact your dean's office for advice.

It is important that the chair emphasize that requests for leaves be filed early enough to allow all the approvals prior to departure. Without approval, the faculty member is at risk with regard to health benefits, accidental death benefits, and other benefits because the leave is not properly approved. Requests should be filed using form UPAY 573.

b. Best Practices
(1) Short Term Leave (seven calendar days or less)
For professional meetings or for University business: Leaves for fewer than seven calendar days may be approved (or disapproved) by the department chair. For these short leaves, the faculty member is expected to arrange for his/her university responsibilities to be appropriately covered. The chair is responsible for ensuring that these arrangements have been made.

(2) Short Term Leave (between eight and 30 calendar days)
These leaves are now delegated to the Deans for approval. To attend professional meetings or for University business: Leaves greater than seven days and less than 30 days are approved by the Dean. All such requests must be submitted to the Dean via the chair well before the actual leave dates on a UPAY 573 Special Leave of Absence Form for pre-approval. (See APM 752) (pdf). Per APM 752-6 (pdf), if an appointee is granted this type of leave, the appointee’s department chair shall be responsible for adequate replacement of the faculty member during the period of the leave, except that the appointee receiving the leave shall be responsible for the submission of any course reports, etc., required during the period of the absence. Thus, as with shorter leaves, approval of the leave requires that the faculty member’s university responsibilities are covered. Signature of the chair on the approval leave form verifies that this is the case. All leave over 30 days are considered exceptions and require the approval of the Vice Provost—Academic Affairs.

(3) Research Leaves Greater Than 30 Days (APM 758) (pdf)
There has been considerable discussion in recent years regarding requests for extended leaves from campus and whether such requests constitute sabbatical leaves, change-of-duty station, or leaves with pay via exception to policy. The policies regarding such leaves are summarized on the web at: (http://academicpersonnel.ucdavis.edu/leaves.cfm). Leaves for 30 days or less are within policy, but require approval by the department chair, the dean, and the Vice Provost—Academic Affairs. Leaves proposed for longer than 30 days that are not sabbatical leaves require the same approval process but constitute an exception to policy. Justification is needed for the latter; and it is often is not clear on the UPAY 573 whether the leave actually qualifies as an exception to policy.

Chairs should be aware that the campus has begun to operate under the following guidelines with regard to leaves greater than 30 days:
• If the leave is a one-time event, allowing one to focus on scholarly pursuits, it will be considered a sabbatical leave.
• If the leave is being requested in order to carry out a sponsored research project approved by the Office of Research or is an approved Hatch project and if the approved research project contains objectives that explicitly require extended off-campus travel (e.g., to study sediment loads in different parts of the Colorado River), and is a recurring feature of the approved research project (e.g., requiring two or more seasons to complete), then it would qualify as an exceptional leave. Approval of such leaves will require a clear description on the UPAY 573 to differentiate the leave from a sabbatical. The burden of proof rests with the researcher.
• In some cases, a faculty member may need to be away from campus for an extended period of time (e.g., to live near the headwaters of the Colorado River for six weeks) to carry out extensive research that involves his/her graduate students or others. Such leaves (occurring during the academic year for an academic year employee or anytime during the year for a fiscal-year employee) may qualify as a “change-of-duty-station” if the individual is able to carry out his/her normal faculty duties (student mentoring, research and service) in the remote location. Modern communication technologies make this feasible, but this requirement remains difficult to meet. Again, the burden of proof rests with the researcher and in the absence of a clear description of how the faculty member’s duties will be carried out, the leave may be classified as a sabbatical.
• In all cases, (normal or exceptional leaves) the leave forms (UPAY 573) must be submitted early enough to allow the appropriate, thorough review by the department chair, dean and vice provost before the traveler departs. Requests that are received late may be denied. If late requests are approved, the increment of time between actual departure and the date of final, official approval will be charged as vacation or unpaid leave. Travelers should be aware that it is not unusual for the approval process to take up to one month for completion, depending on how the forms are transmitted and the availability of key individuals. Travelers should file the leave request forms before making travel arrangements.

(4) Sabbatical Leaves (APM 740) (pdf)
The chair is responsible for scheduling and recommending sabbatical leaves such that the mission of the department is not compromised. Although chairs should extend every effort to accommodate the scheduling of sabbatical leaves for faculty, such scheduling cannot compromise the department’s teaching responsibilities. Sabbaticals are granted to faculty for the purpose of enhancing their scholarly activities which in turn enhance their academic value (in terms of teaching/research) to the University. It is advisable for chairs to set a deadline each year for receipt of sabbatical requests from their faculty. This deadline should be early enough in the academic year so that the chair can decide how the faculty member’s teaching and other departmental responsibilities will be met.

(5) Other Extended Leaves
With the exception of those fiscal-year academic appointees listed in APM 710-14 (pdf), academic appointees do not accrue sick leave. In the case of illness of appointees who do not accrue sick leave, Chancellors may approve leave with or without pay.

If the department chair or MSO learns that a faculty member may have a serious illness/medical condition requiring either time away for recovery (i.e., a leave) or a temporary change of duties (e.g., reduction in teaching) the chair should contact their dean’s office or the Office of the Vice Provost-Academic Affairs to discuss the next steps. Once receiving information from the treating physician concerning the faculty member’s functional limitations, the dean’s office or the Office of the Vice Provost—Academic Affairs can assist the department in working through possible steps for resolution. Such steps could include one or more of the following: temporary reduction in teaching or temporary modified duties, FMLA leave, quarter-long sick leave, leave covered by employee-paid disability insurance; in all cases the focus would be to eventually get the faculty member back to full duties.

When it is possible to do so, it is the responsibility of an instructor granted a sick leave to make necessary arrangements for submission of any course reports or other materials that may be required during the period of absence. The department chair is responsible for obtaining an adequate replacement for the appointee, in accordance with Academic Senate and University personnel regulations; and financial arrangements for the appointment should be discussed with the dean before commitments are made.

• Disability Insurance: Department chairs and managers should advise academic appointees to purchase disability insurance. The campus Benefits Office will advise academic appointees on the waiting period options.

Non-ladder Senate faculty members (Clinical X, and In Residence) are granted paid leave for the period of temporary disability before, during and after childbirth, normally six weeks. In addition, for a reasonable period before and immediately after childbirth, a faculty member, upon her request, shall be relieved of regularly scheduled teaching assignments, but shall continue other duties such as research and advising. Duties during this period and its duration shall be determined by joint agreement between the chair and the appointee. The total period of modified duties plus paid leave for childbirth will not normally exceed 12 weeks. In addition, upon request the faculty member shall be granted leave without pay for a reasonable period. As a spouse or domestic partner, a faculty member may also be granted unpaid parental leave for up to a year to care for a child after each birth, adoption or placement for foster care.

Ladder faculty members (including Lecturers, SOE and Senior Lecturers, SOE) who have a new child (birth, adoption, foster placement.) are eligible for the Provost’s Work Life Program. Highlights of this program include: funding from the Office of the Provost to allow teaching release for the female faculty member who bears a child; funding for teaching release for the faculty member who carries substantial responsibility for a newly adopted/placed child age 4 or under; funding for partial teaching release during a quarter of Active Service Modified Duty (ASMD) for a faculty parent who has substantial responsibility for a new child (two quarters in the case of twins or more, or two or more adopted children). These leaves must be requested via the Request for Teaching Release Form (Word).

In addition to the above leaves for faculty (ladder and non-ladder), faculty who have substantial responsibility for the care of a newborn child or newly-adopted child under age five, are eligible for an extension of the 8 year rule for remaining at the Assistant rank. This clock can be extended up to one year for each event of birth or adoption during the probationary period (i.e., Assistant rank) provided that all time off the clock totals no more than two years. This extension also applies to Assistant Researchers. See the Vice Provost--Academic Affairs website on Work/Life.

Unit 18 Faculty (Lecturers and Supervisors of Teacher Education): For those faculty who have a Continuing Appointment, see Leaves, in Article 12, Appendix C of the MOU (Union Contract) and contact Binnie Singh, Director of Faculty Relations & Development in the Vice Provost--Academic Affairs office: telephone 530.752.0963 or e-mail binsingh@ucdavis.edu.

• Family Medical leave Act (FMLA): In accordance with applicable State and Federal law, family and medical leave provides eligible employees with entitlements to paid or unpaid leave for up to a total of 12 work weeks during a calendar year, continuance of health plan coverage as if on pay status, and reinstatement rights. Eligible academic appointees are entitled to take unpaid leave or to substitute accrued vacation or accrued sick leave (as set forth in APM 715-20) (pdf) for the following reasons: a) the appointee’s own serious health condition; b) to care for the appointee’s child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner (same-sex or opposite-sex) with a serious health condition; c) to care for the appointee’s newborn child or a child newly placed with the appointee for adoption or foster care.

(6) Holidays
Official holidays for both academic-year and fiscal-year appointees are those administrative holidays annually in the University Calendar. Periods of academic recess are not holidays. For both academic-year and fiscal-year appointees, periods of academic recess are only a recess from meeting formal classes. They are not a recess from research, committee, or other administrative duties/ University obligations.

(7) Leaves Without Salary
In addition to the special types of leaves listed above, leaves of absence without pay for other good cause may be granted to academic appointees. Such leaves shall not exceed one year in length and shall not extend beyond June 30 of the academic year in which the leave is granted. The department chair is responsible for obtaining an adequate replacement for the appointee, in accordance with Academic Senate and University personnel regulations. Current campus policy is that leaves will not be approved for employees who have accepted permanent positions at another institution or at a company.

(8) Military Leaves (APM 751) (pdf)
The department chair is responsible for obtaining an adequate replacement for the appointee, in accordance with Academic Senate and University personnel regulations.

a. Chair’s Responsibilities (APM 245, Appendix A) (pdf)
• To be responsible for the custody and authorized use of university property charged to the department, and for assigning departmental space and facilities to authorized activities in accordance with University policy and campus rules and regulations.

b. Chair’s Responsibilities for Space and Equipment in the UCD Administrative Responsibilities Handbook (see pages 37-39):
• The Administrative Responsibilities Handbook outlines the appropriate use of space and equipment, responsibility of chairs (and the PI if a contract/grant is involved) for the care, maintenance and control of material in their custody.

c. Space Allocation
• Each department is allotted a certain amount of space in which to operate; it is the chair’s responsibility to allocate the space for offices, labs, service areas, etc. In some departments no specific process for allocating space is defined, other than when space is vacated, it is reassigned according to need. If new space is needed and there is none available in the department, sometimes space is assigned by the dean in other areas or buildings. In some colleges/schools space allocations are made according to a formula which takes into account the total research space available, the number of faculty in the department, the number of students and staff each faculty member has to accommodate on the various projects, and the grant/contract funds available to support each faculty member’s research program. In such a system, a faculty member who loses significant grant support over a number of years is subject to reduction of his/her research space to accommodate expanding research programs of others.

d. Best Practices
(1) Space Advisory Committee
Some departments have a standing Space Advisory Committee to advise the chair in allocating departmental space. This arrangement assures that there is faculty input into those decisions.

(2) Maintaining Departmental Facilities
In many departments, there are conference rooms, shared equipment, and service areas for such functions as dishwashing and autoclaving, machining/fabricating workshops, darkrooms, etc. for use by departmental faculty, students, staff and, in some instances, for use by individuals in other departments.
• If the service areas are controlled by the department, rather than the college, the best practice is for the chair to appoint a faculty member to oversee a specific area to assure that it is maintained properly.
• Similarly, for shared equipment owned by the department, it is prudent for the chair to appoint a faculty member who uses the equipment frequently to oversee its use. This could involve establishing the “rules” for using the equipment, sign-up sheets, selecting and supervising staff to assist users of the equipment, making decisions about service (keeping service records), maintaining the department’s service agreements on the equipment, replacing equipment when the need arises, preventing misuse of departmental property, etc.

(3) Facilities or Equipment Committee
In addition to (or instead of) assigning individual faculty to oversee space or equipment, some departments have standing Facilities or Equipment Committees to advise the chair on subjects such as: general operations, setting policies for usage, buying service agreements, buying new equipment, responding to dean’s office requests for replacement of obsolete equipment, lending or removing departmental equipment, etc. Even if this is the case, however, there needs to be an individual who oversees the actual day-to-day use of the equipment – this may be a staff or faculty member.

a. Chair’s Responsibilities (APM 245, Appendix A) (pdf)
• To be responsible for departmental observance of proper health and safety regulations in coordination with the campus health and safety office.

b. Chair’s Responsibilities for Health and Safety in the UCD Administrative Responsibilities Handbook (see pages 39-40): The Administrative Responsibilities Handbook outlines the principles and responsibilities of departmental chairs with regard to health and safety issues, including animal use and care. (Chairs, rather than EH&S [i.e., ARS], currently are responsible for maintaining animal facilities that are departmental.)

(1) Assuring the Health and Safety of the Department
The Office of Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) is the main resource for chairs and departmental personnel who want to know the specific university rules and policies for keeping the workplace safe and healthy and for information on implementation of the UCD Safety Management Program. While most UC Davis employees are aware of EH&S’ oversight of research laboratories, including inventories of hazardous chemicals and hazardous conditions, animal care, injury and illness prevention, etc., there are other programs that apply to all departments whether or not they operate laboratories. Every department is required to have a Safety Coordinator trained by EH&S who is responsible for the department’s fire prevention plan, an emergency evacuation plan, a removal of hazard conditions plan, an Injury and Illness Prevention Program, an Ergonomic Awareness Program, a prevention of violence in the workplace program, and other health and safety programs.

(2) Selecting the Safety Coordinator
The chair’s responsibility with regard to maintaining the health and safety of departmental employees generally requires appointment of a responsible department employee to serve as Safety Coordinator (faculty or staff). This individual must undergo EH&S training and is required to keep the appropriate records related to operating a healthy and safe work environment in the department. Because part of the responsibility of the position is to educate the departmental staff, faculty, and students about the safety issues and rules, the person selected should be generally knowledgeable, respected, and able to interact well with colleagues in the department.

a. Chair’s Responsibilities (APM 245, Appendix A) (pdf)
• To report any failure of faculty or staff members to meet their responsibilities and to recommend appropriate corrective actions.

(1) Failure of Staff to Meet Responsibilities (Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM): 62 Corrective Action)
Some of the typical reasons for taking corrective action against a staff member are: poor performance, insubordination, absenteeism, violating a law or policy, dishonesty, theft, fighting on the job, and acts that endanger others. Corrective actions include written warnings, corrective salary decreases, demotions, and suspensions. At least one written warning must precede any other more serious corrective action. The chair has a responsibility to respond quickly to grievances and to investigate allegations of improper behaviors. The staff member’s immediate supervisor (i.e., a faculty member, a senior researcher, the MSO, or another supervisory staff member, etc.) is likely to be the one who reprimands or actually writes a warning notice, but, because staff discipline is one of the chair’s responsibilities, he/she should be kept apprised of all happenings with regard to the staff person’s inappropriate performance, state of the investigation, if any, and the proposed corrective actions. Since the handling of many of these issues is outlined in union contracts, it is best to check with the dean’s office or Employee and Labor Relations to answer questions of proper procedure before any action is taken. If the supervisor or the chair meet with the employee to discuss deficiencies in performance, there should be a follow-up memo sent to that employee that summarizes what was discussed at the meeting. This type of documentation is important to prevent any misinterpretation of what was said in the meeting.

(2) Failure of Non-Senate Academic Appointees to Meet Responsibilities
The policy for discipline of non-Senate academic appointees is contained in APM 150 (pdf). However, APM 140 (Non-Senate Academic Appointees/Grievances) (pdf), and Standing Orders of the Regents 103.9 are also applicable. Discipline may be instituted for instances of (including but not limited to) misconduct, unsatisfactory work performance, dereliction of duty, or violation of University policy. Academic employees are expected to maintain a standard of academic responsibility which requires service consistent with the objectives of the University. Non-Senate faculty members are also subject to the standards set forth in the Faculty Code of Conduct (APM 015) (pdf). Corrective action is intended to give the academic employee an opportunity to improve and/or correct conduct or performance and should be progressive in nature, depending on the circumstances involved. The types of discipline outlined in APM 150 (pdf) include: written warning, written censure, suspension without pay, reduction in salary, or demotion for good cause. Dismissal, the termination of an appointment for good cause initiated by the University prior to the ending date of appointment, may be instituted and implemented by the department chair according to campus procedures.
• It is prudent to gather the facts of a case as soon as allegations are made known. However, gathering the facts should not delay any reporting requirements as outlined in certain policies – e.g., UCD Policy and Procedure Manual 330-95 Misuse, which requires immediate reporting of “known or suspected misuse of University resources.” The best approach is to seek advice of the dean’s office as soon as possible.
• It is always good policy to try to resolve the issues, if possible (resolving issues before they become too complicated is often a best practice). However, certain University policies outline immediate reporting on certain issues [e.g., Whistleblower policy (P&P 380-17), Misuse P&P 330-95) long before they reach a crisis stage where corrective action or dismissal are the only alternatives. All such attempts at resolution should be documented in the file.

Supervisors should address performance deficiencies early, and consult with the department chair and the department manager to develop an appropriate course of action. Prior to instituting corrective action for inadequate performance, the supervisor should provide verbal and/or written explanations to clarify the nature of the performance expectations and to establish standards of performance or conduct that must be met, and shall attempt to resolve the problem informally, for example through coaching, training, a letter of expectation, or other action. The appointee shall receive a copy of written counseling. Verbal counseling shall be documented by the supervisor in writing. A written or verbal explanation of performance expectation (coaching, training, letter of counseling, verbal counseling, letter of expectation) does not constitute corrective action.
• The employee can be put on paid investigatory leave during fact-finding if the Chancellor feels that his/her removal from the scene is necessary during this period.
• APM 150-32 (pdf) outlines the procedure for proceeding with correction or dismissal. If dismissal is contemplated for a non-Senate faculty member, the employee must be notified that he/she is entitled to a hearing before the properly constituted Senate advisory committee (Privilege and Tenure).

(3) Failure of Senate Faculty to Meet Responsibilities
The procedures for dealing with Senate faculty who are alleged to have violated the Faculty Code of Conduct are outlined in APM 015 (pdf), UCD 015, APM 016 (pdf), and UCD 016. Any faculty member, University employee, or student may lodge a complaint with the Chancellor charging a faculty member with violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct -- i.e., failure to meet responsibilities of instruction, discrimination, violation of University policy, entering into a romantic or sexual relationship with a student for whom the faculty member has (or would be expected to have in the future) academic responsibility; intellectual dishonesty including research misconduct; unauthorized use of University resources, discrimination against University employees, etc. The chair is obligated to promptly report all suspected/alleged violations of the Faculty Code of Conduct through the dean to the Chancellor. The Chancellor reviews such complaints and may request a full investigation before making a decision on the complaint. If the Chancellor decides on discipline and the faculty member chooses not to accept the discipline, he/she is entitled to a hearing before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. However, the final decision on discipline is made by the administration – by the Chancellor for written censure, reduction in salary, demotion, suspension, and/or denial /curtailment of emeritus status and by the Regents (upon recommendation of the Chancellor) for dismissal (UCD 016).
• In all such matters, it is prudent for the chair to deal with allegations as soon as they become known, so that unsubstantiated allegations do not fester for years, with nothing done to resolve them.
• The use of a mediator should be considered, if at all possible, during the early stages of a matter.
• The department should consult with the dean to be sure that appropriate procedures are being followed, that the right investigative questions are being asked, and that all informal ways of resolving the issues have been attempted.
• Appropriate precautions should be taken to safeguard the confidentiality of investigative and disciplinary proceedings.

(4) Termination for Incompetent Performance
APM 075 (pdf) describes the procedure for termination of a tenured faculty member for incompetent performance. This is expected to be used only in rare cases. Performance refers to both teaching and research/creative activity. Because faculty undergo performance evaluations at their merit and promotion actions every two or three years, serious problems should become known at these reviews. Additionally, when departments undertake annual reviews of faculty, performance problems should become apparent prior to becoming serious enough to be considered evidence for application of APM 075 (pdf), and it is at those initial stages of the problem where the chair can have the most positive influence. Senate committees, both CAP and Privilege & Tenure, are involved in the processes outlined in APM 075 (pdf). Since untenured faculty in the professorial series are hired with ending dates, APM 075 (pdf) applies only to tenured faculty. Teaching can be deemed incompetent if the intellectual content is far below the professional standards of university instruction or the pedagogical skills of the faculty member are far below the professional standards of the university. Research/creative activity can be deemed incompetent if, by the standards of the discipline, there is a lack of activity for a number of years or research activity doesn’t meet current standards. The faculty member is to be given a period of not less than one year for improving performance, starting with written notification that the possibility of termination is being considered. It is important that the chair discuss this problem with the dean as soon as allegations are made that the faculty member is incompetent.

(5) Conflict of Commitment and Outside Activities
The policy regarding Conflict of Commitment and Outside Activities is described in APM 025 (pdf) and Appendices A-C; and UC Davis procedures are described in UCD 025. The University considers teaching and research/creative activity to be the primary activities of Senate faculty, and therefore they are expected to receive the largest commitment of effort and energy. Those obligations entail a number of activities requiring faculty presence on campus -- e.g., meeting classes, keeping office hours, holding scheduled exams, being accessible to students, staff and faculty colleagues, and participating in academic service activities. In addition, the University expects Senate faculty to use their professional expertise to contribute to their profession and to the community. Thus, while fulfilling his/her University obligations, Senate faculty may pursue compensated outside professional activities (amount of time and type of activity are defined) that advance or communicate knowledge through interaction with industry, the community, or the public, as well as through consulting or other professional activities. Regent’s Standing Order 103.1(b) states, however, that faculty members shall not allow outside employment (either compensated on non-compensated) to interfere with their primary University duties. Compensated outside professional activities are most likely to cause real or apparent conflicts of commitment, and that is why University Guidelines (APM 025 (pdf) and UCD 025) specify the amount of time allowed for such activities.
• The chair must remind faculty annually of the requirement to request and receive prior approval for Category I outside activities. A request for written approval must be submitted to the department chair at least 30 days prior to the beginning of the activity. Requests must be approved by the department chair and by the dean. The request form is available at APM 025, Appendix B. (pdf)
• Faculty members shall not have such approval withheld arbitrarily, nor on the basis of the political or substantive content of their proposed outside activities, nor on any other basis that would be inconsistent with the principles of academic freedom. The dean retains (for five years) copies of requests and approvals (or denials) of Category I activities.
• Annual reports of Categories I and II compensated outside professional activities must be submitted to the department chair by June 30 each year. The report form is available at APM 025, Appendix C (pdf). After the department chair approves the report, it is forwarded to the dean for approval according to the established deadline.
• The chair must seek additional relevant information if there is concern as to whether a faculty member is meeting the standards of this policy.
• The chair must seek advice from the dean if satisfactory resolution cannot be reached.

(6) Conflict of Interest Created by Consensual Relationships
A consensual relationship, for the purposes of the policy defined in APM 015 (pdf), is one in which two individuals are involved, by mutual consent, in a romantic, or physically intimate, or sexual relationship. These relationships pose a potential conflict of interest when one individual has power or authority over the other, such as responsibility for supervising, directing, overseeing, evaluating, advising, or influencing the employment or educational status of the other. Such consensual relationships may lead to an abuse of power, coercion, exploitation, favoritism, or unfair treatment of others. The recent revision of the Faculty Code of Conduct includes a specific provision prohibiting a faculty member from engaging in a romantic or sexual relationship with a student for whom the faculty member has academic responsibility or should reasonably expect to have such a relationship. Conflicts of interest created by consensual relationships in employment or education may lead to charges of sexual harassment brought by third parties who believe the consensual relationship creates a discriminatory work or educational environment. Because of the potential for a conflict of interest, the individual who has supervisory, managerial, decision-making, oversight, evaluative, or advisory responsibilities shall take effective steps to remove himself/herself from any professional decisions concerning that individual as soon as practicable. Conflict of interest may be eliminated by transfer of either individual to another position, or transfer of supervisory decision-making, oversight, evaluative or advisory responsibilities to another employee, etc. Even if the consensual relationship existed prior to the time when one of them assumed supervisory authority, the conflict of interest must still be eliminated.
• If a chair becomes aware of such a consensual relationship in the department, he/she must address the issues involved. As a first step, he/she should discuss the University policy with the faculty member, or both parties. Be aware that the conflict of interest must be removed.
• If a chair becomes aware of such a consensual relationship in the department where the conflict has not been removed, he/she is obligated to investigate the allegation(s).
• The chair should document (with dates) all discussions with the individuals and inform them that violations of this policy may subject them to disciplinary procedures.
• The chair should consult with the dean’s office to be sure that appropriate procedures are being followed.

(7) Faculty or Staff Violations of Other UC Policies
In addition to the policies/situations discussed above, there are a number of other UC policies that are important for maintaining an appropriate standard of conduct by all members of the campus community. Among these are two that can result in disciplinary measures if violated.

• University Policy on Substance Abuse (alcohol and other drugs). APM 190--Appendix C (pdf) outlines the goal of keeping the campus worksite free from illegal use, possession, or distribution of alcohol or of controlled substances (schedules I-V of The Controlled Substances Act 21 of the U.S. Code 12, etc.) and prohibits the use of illegal substances in a manner that impairs work performance. Employees and students violating the policy may be subject to corrective action, up to and including dismissal, or may be required to participate satisfactorily in an Employee Support Program.

• University Policy on Integrity in Research. APM 190--Appendix B (pdf) reaffirms the University’s commitment to integrity in research by requiring that all persons engaged in research at the University be responsible for adhering to the highest standards of intellectual honesty and integrity. Policies apply to faculty, staff and students and there are procedures for addressing allegations of misconduct, as well as disciplinary measures for those found to be violating the policy. If allegations are made against any department member with regard to either of these policies, the chair should consult with the dean to determine the best way to proceed. The campus policy regarding research misconduct is outlined in UCD Policy and Procedure Manual Section 240-01.

The Sexual Harassment Education Program (SHEP) has two main functions: to prevent sexual harassment from occurring on the campus by educating the campus community about the issues; and by assisting individuals and campus units to resolve sexual harassment conflicts if and when they occur. The office serves students, staff, and faculty and maintains an Anonymous Call Line which individuals can use to report incidents of sexual harassment; on campus: A-CALL (2-2255), and off campus (530.752.2255; 916.734.2255).

Department chairs and program directors are considered "designated officials", which means they are responsible for reporting or responding to sexual harassment incidents. Any manager, supervisor or other designated official who knows of a harassment incident and takes no action to stop it or who had failed to report the prohibited harassment may be subject to disciplinary action. Chairs should be prepared to do the following if there is such an incident(s) in the department:

The chair should report as soon as possible after the incident, optimally within one year. See the SHEP "Resources" section below for Sexual Harassment Officer contact information. The chair can also request at any time that the Sexual Harassment Education Program set up an educational session to reacquaint department members (faculty and staff) with university policy on sexual harassment.

NOTE: California State Assembly Bill 1825, signed into law in 2004, mandates that all supervisors receive two hours of interactive training in sexual harassment presented by trained instructors. (Supervisors hired after Jan. 1, 2005 must be trained within six months of hire, and supervisors already employed by January 1, 2005, must be trained not later than January 1, 2006. After January 1, 2006, each supervisor must be trained every two years.) The UC Office of the President has determined that faculty members are considered supervisors and will, therefore, need to receive this training. The Office of the Vice Provost – Academic Affairs will be involved in coordinating this training.

The Campus Violence Prevention Program, a unit of the campus Police Department, is concerned with prevention of sexual violence, relationship violence, and hate related activity through education. It provides services to survivors (victims) by intervention, education, training and policy. Immediate, confidential, and supportive responses to survivors are a priority, as is advocating for victims of violence with initial medical evaluation, legal and police procedures, and concern for academic and housing issues. Confidential crisis intervention and advocacy is available to both recent and recovering survivors.
• In cases where a violent incident has occurred in the department, the campus police must be called immediately to investigate, and emergency medical care must be sought for the victim as needed (dial 911).
• The CVPP can provide appropriate supportive response to survivors. Training is provided to university staff and faculty that addresses both the issues themselves and the effects of the incident on survivors, friends, and families. Response teams (victim advocates) are trained to deal sensitively and effectively with persons affected by an assault or violent incident.
• The chair should make a report of the alleged incident to the CVPP, even though the Police Department has investigated and reported it.

Resources

Emergency Information (If immediate assistance is needed, faculty, staff, students can call 911)

a. Managing Conflict
When there are conflicts in the department between faculty members, staff, and/or students, it is the chair’s responsibility to see that they are resolved as quickly as possible so that they do not negatively affect the work environment in the department. There are many resources available on campus to help resolve conflicts.
• The deans’ offices have staff who can advise chairs on ways to handle conflict situations that occur in the department.
• Vice Provost--Academic Affairs Office can provide advice to the dean’s office when conflicts are related to academic issues.
• If there is a need for confidential counseling of faculty or staff, the Academic and Staff Assistance Program (ASAP) provides that service.
• Any member of the campus community (students, staff, faculty) can file a complaint accusing a faculty member of violating the Faculty Code of Conduct (UCD 015).
• Non-Senate academic employees may file a grievance under the conditions outlined in APM 140 (pdf) if they feel that there was a violation of University rules or policies that adversely affected their appointment.

b. Mediation Services
Intractable problems between individuals in the department, which last for long periods of time, are detrimental to the department and impact its mission. It is the chair’s responsibility to assess the situation and suggest ways to resolve the issues, if possible when they are in the early stages and can be solved by using a common sense approach in talking to the individuals, suggesting confidential counseling, rearranging teaching schedules or departmental research facilities, etc. When there are problems (among faculty, staff, and/or graduate students) that cannot be resolved by appropriate informal and formal means, mediation may be the next logical step. If all parties agree to submit the problem to mediation, then the specially trained mediators meet with them individually to hear all sides of the problem. Then the parties come together with the mediators to discuss the concerns and work toward a mutually agreeable outcome. If they reach agreement, the mediators will help them create a written agreement listing the specifics of the agreement, which the parties sign.
• It is important that the chair be made aware of conflicts in the department sooner, rather than later, no matter if they are made known by one of the involved parties, the MSO, faculty, staff, or students.
• It is equally important that informal means of solving the problem be applied in the early stages, as well as using formal advisory services like Student Judicial Affairs, the dean’s office, the Vice Provost--Academic Affairs.
• Where conflicts relate to represented staff covered by an MOU, the chair is advised to consult with the dean’s office and with the Office of Employee and Labor Relations in Human Resources.

c. The UCD Administrative Responsibilities Handbook
The UCD Administrative Responsibilities Handbook outlines principles and responsibilities regarding informal conflict management in an administrative unit. (see pages 40-41)

4. Whistleblower Policy

The University of California has a Whistleblower Policy on reporting and investigating allegations of suspected improper governmental activity, including misuse of University resources (APM 190 (pdf), Appendix A-1 (pdf) and Appendix A-2 (pdf)), such as cash and other assets, intellectual property rights, facilities and the rights to use of University facilities, the University name, University records (including student and patient records), and other violations of University policies and state law. A whistleblower making a protected disclosure (confidential) may be a university employee, applicant for employment, students, patients, vendors, contractors, or the general public. Normally, a report by a University employee of allegations of a suspected improper University activity should be made to the reporting employee’s immediate supervisor or other appropriate administrator, or to the Locally Designated Official (LDO), the person designated by the campus as the official with responsibility to receive reports of allegations of suspected improper use of University resources. APM 190 (pdf) describes the protection of whistleblowers, and the method of reporting allegations. On the Davis campus, the LDO is the Assistant Executive Vice Chancellor (in the Offices of the Chancellor and Provost) and all downloaded forms are to be forwarded to that official (Telephone: 530.752.6550; FAX: 530 .752.2400).

Academic & Staff Assistance Program (ASAP) (530.752.ASAP) (Confidential consultation and referral services for faculty, staff, and their immediate families)