Table of Contents

1. Above Scale salaries – calculations for merits

2. Extramural letters – those that are acceptable

3. Home Department – how to determine if joint appointment

4. Increments in salary scale (Academic Administrators & Unit 18 appointees)

5. Mid-year appointment effective January 1 or 2 (fiscal yr)

6. Mid-year appointment effective November 1 or March 1 (academic yr)

7. Retroactive actions – approval authority

8. Five-Year review that coincides with 3rd year Deferrals

9. Pay Periods/Service Period

10. Peer Review of Teaching - Required for promotions only

_______________________________________________________________

1. Above Scale Salaries

First Above Scale
Consult your dean’s office.

Subsequent Above Scale
The default increase in salary for each Above Scale increment after the first merit is 5% increase. Justification (beyond that needed for the additional Above Scale advancement) is required if a higher percent increase is requested by the department. Round to nearest 100 to get Above Scale salary.

Back to top

2. Extramural Letters

1. Per email from Vice Provost Horwitz dated 9/8/03, it is acceptable to use extramural letters sent via email with a “pdf signature” attachment. However, the department must send an email to the reviewer acknowledging receipt of his/her letter.

2. Faxes of extramural letters are acceptable.

3. Requests for extramural letters for appointments need only include rank, not step. However, these requests should describe the criteria for the level of appointment. [For example, if the appointment is at the Associate rank, the solicitation letter should indicate if it is tenured; if the appointment is at Professor VI or above, the expectations for that level should be included in the solicitation letter.].

Back to top

3. Home Department---how to determine for new faculty hires

The department with the largest percentage of the faculty member’s appointment would be the home department. However, if the faculty member’s percentage is 50/50---this determination should be made in consultation with the new faculty member as well as both departments and dean(s).

Back to top

4. Increments in salary scale. Academics paid on the Academic Standard Table including-- Academic Administrators (Table 38), Unit 18 Lecturers (Table 19-1 and Table 19-2)

Each salary level (i.e. increment) is considered to be ½ step. Normal merit for an Academic Administrator with a 2-year cycle is 1 step (i.e. 2 increments).

Back to top

5. Mid-year appointments and effect on review cycle: January 1 or January 2 effective date for fiscal year appointees

A person who is appointed during the period July 1 through January 1 will receive one year’s credit at rank and step.

A person who is appointed during the period January 2 through June 30 will not receive credit for that year at rank and step, although that time will count in the 8-year service limit.

Back to top

6. Mid-year appointments and effect on review cycle: November 1 or March 1 effective date for academic-year appointees

A person who has served just one quarter in any fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) will not receive credit for that year at rank and step, although that time will count in the 8-year service limit.

A person who has served at least two full quarters or one full semester in any fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) will receive one year’s credit at rank and step.

Back to top

7. Retroactive effective dates

The Vice Provost-Academic Personnel has approval authority for all retroactive actions. For a fiscal year appointee, a retroactive action is defined as any action more than 30 days after the effective date of the action. For academic year appointees, a retroactive action is defined as any action more than 30 days after the beginning of the service period.

Back to top

8. Five-year review / 3rd year deferral eligibility at the same time

Each year that a faculty member is eligible but is not considered for advancement, a deferral occurs (unless the faculty member is at Professor Step V or above). Moreover, regardless of rank/step, each faculty member must be reviewed at least once every 5 years.

Back to top

9. Pay Period/Service Period

Basis/Paid Over Chart for Academic Appointees

Definitions:

9/9 employees work quarter-by-quarter during the academic year. Their monthly salary is based on 1/9 of the annual rate.

9/12 employees work all three quarters of the academic year. Their salary is pro-rated to allow for 12 monthly paychecks – the monthly rate is based on 1/12 of the annual academic-year rate. These employees are pre-paid for service each quarter.

11/12 employees work all four quarters of each fiscal year. Their salary is pro-rated to allow for 12 monthly paychecks – the monthly rate is based on 1/12 of the annual fiscal-year rate. Their pay period equals their service period. Vacation is earned based upon percent of appointment. Service period start and end dates are based on current academic calendar.

Back to top

10. Peer Review of Teaching - Required for promotions only

The fundamental purpose of peer evaluation of teaching is to augment student evaluations by attending more to scholarly content and competence than to teaching style and delivery. It is the chair's responsibility to make sure that the processes and outcomes of peer evaluation do not infringe on the academic freedom of the person being evaluated. The procedures used and the extent to which the candidate participated in the process should be described in the departmental letter. In addition, the departmental letter should include an explanation of how and why a specific peer reviewer was selected.

Peer evaluation of teaching is analogous to peer evaluation of research and other creative work. In order to enhance reliability, validity, and integrated understanding of the candidate's entire record, intramural peer evaluation of teaching should be undertaken by the same colleagues who evaluate the candidate's other academic achievements. Adjunct extramural or extradepartmental evaluation should be considered when there is an insufficient number of peers with the credentials or specific knowledge necessary for properly evaluating a candidate's teaching.

There is no single, optimal method of peer evaluation that can be applied satisfactorily to all of the diverse teaching duties and circumstances found in the UCD curriculum. Peer evaluation may include such things as classroom visits or videotaping, commentary on course syllabi, reading assignments, and examinations. Qualitative descriptions and opinions are more desirable than quantitative ratings or comparative rankings in peer evaluations of teaching. When specific reviewers are used, they must be members of the Academic Senate and must write an individual letter. These letters should relate the nature and extent of specific observations of the reviewer regarding the candidates teaching performance.

Policy mandates that peer evaluation is essential in promotion cases. If departments have not adopted an official policy on peer evaluation, they should do so immediately. All promotion cases that do not include peer evaluation of teaching will automatically be returned to departments through the respective dean's office.

Back to top

Rev. 1/4/06

Back to top

_______________________________________________________________