APM 220-80 Recommendations and Review: General Procedures
The statements in this section set forth general procedures applicable in circumstances described in each of the five following sections (APM - 220-81 through 220-85).
a. Formal considerations of appointments and reappointments, merit increases, appraisals, non-reappointments, and promotions are normally initiated by the department chair, after appropriate consultation with members of the departmental faculty. For actions affecting the chair, the vice chair, the Dean or Provost, or an appropriate officer may take the initiative.
b. The department chair is responsible for making certain that within the department there is an annual review of the status and performance of each faculty member in the department. Cases of possible eligibility for merit increase or promotion shall be examined. Likewise, cases of unsatisfactory performance and of less than desirable excellence shall be examined. Special attention shall be given to ending dates of all appointments of Instructors and Assistant Professors, to provisions governing notices not to reappoint, and to procedures for formal appraisal of Assistant Professors. For the more substantive review of each faculty member at least every five years, see APM 200-0
c. Early in the course of a personnel review, before departmental consideration of a case, the chairshall notify the candidate of the impending review and in one or more conferences with the candidate make certain that the candidate is adequately informed about the entire review process and is given the appropriate opportunity to ask questions, to supply pertinent information and evidence to be used in the review, and, where relevant, to suggest names of persons to be solicited for letters of evaluation. Each campus shall develop guidelines and checklists to instruct chairs about their duties and responsibilities in connection with personnel reviews. The chair has an obligation to consider the interests of both the candidate and the University, and to see to it that the departmental review is fair to the candidate and rigorous in maintaining University standards.
The candidate should be made aware of APM - 210-1 and 220, of the University’s policies about academic personnel records (APM - 160), and of the candidate’s rights to make any desired addition to the personnel review file. The chair should be helpful in responding to the candidate’s questions and in considering whether additions to the file by the candidate are needed. In accordance with established policy applicable to the personnel action under consideration, the chair shall solicit letters of evaluation of the candidate from qualified persons, including a reasonable number of persons nominated by the candidate. All such letters received shall be included in the file; unsolicited letters that are used shall also be included in the file. In soliciting or receiving unsolicited letters of evaluation, the chair should include, attach or send a statement regarding the confidentiality of such letters. The Provost and Senior Vice President—Academic Affairs shall issue guidelines for the contents of statements.
The candidate may provide in writing to the chair names of persons who, in the view of the candidate, for reasons set forth, might not objectively evaluate the candidate’s qualifications or performance. Any such statement provided by the candidate shall be included in the personnel review file.
d. Before the departmental recommendation is determined, the chair shall provide the candidate the opportunity to inspect all documents in the personnel review file other than confidential academic review records (as defined in APM 160-20-b(1)), and shall provide to the candidate upon request a redacted copy (as defined in APM 160-20-c(4)) of the confidential academic review records in the file. The candidate may submit for inclusion in the personnel review file a written statement in response to or commenting upon material in the file.
e. The departmental recommendation is made in accordance with the procedural regulations of the Academic Senate and established governance practices of the department. The chair initiates a personnel action for an appointment, promotion, merit increase, appraisal, reappointment, non-reappointment, or terminal appointment by addressing a letter setting forth the departmental recommendation to the Chancellor (or to the Dean, Provost, or Vice Chancellor, according to the applicable campus procedure). This departmental letter shall discuss the proposed personnel action in the light of the criteria set forth in APM 220-10, and shall be accompanied by supporting evidence. The chair shall report the nature and extent of consultation on the matter within the department (including any vote taken) and present any significant evidence and differences of opinion which would support a contrary recommendation. The chair should ensure that individuals who have provided confidential letters of evaluation are not identified in the departmental letter except by code. The department shall adopt procedures under which the letter setting forth the departmental recommendation shall be available, before being forwarded, for inspection by all those members of the department eligible to vote on the matter or by a designated committee or other group of such members. Pursuant to campus procedures, the chair may also, in a separate letter, make an independent evaluation and recommendation, which may differ from the departmental recommendation.
Before or at the time of forwarding the departmental letter and the personnel review file, the candidate shall be informed orally or, upon request, in writing of the departmental recommendation and of the substance of departmental evaluations under each of the applicable University criteria (teaching, research and creative work, professional competence and activity, and University and public service). If the chair provides this information to the candidate in writing, a copy of the written statement is to be included in the personnel review file. Upon request, the chair shall provide to the candidate a copy of the letter setting forth the departmental recommendation. As stated above, the identities of persons who were the sources of confidential documents are not to be disclosed in this letter. The candidate has the right to make a written comment on the departmental recommendation. The candidate should in such a case request a written statement from the chair as described above, and the candidate’s comment shall be transmitted, at the option of the candidate, either to the chair, Dean, or Provost. This should be done within a time limit prescribed by the Chancellor. This written comment shall become part of the personnel review file as the review proceeds.
f. The departmental recommendation and the accompanying file will be referred to one or more administrative officers (of a college, division, or school) and to the appropriate Academic Senate Committee (Committee on Academic Personnel or equivalent committee). For possible abbreviation of the review process, see APM 220-80-k.
g. The case may also be referred by the Chancellor to an ad hoc review committee. If such referral occurs, the review committee is appointed by the Chancellor or designated representative, upon nominations provided by the Committee on Academic Personnel. The members of the review committee will normally be of rank at least equal to that proposed for the individual to be reviewed. The Chancellor shall transmit to the review committee the recommendation file, including any information received subsequent to the department review, and a copy of the latest version of the President’s Instructions to Review and Appraisal Committees (see APM 210-1). In accordance with these instructions, taking into account all the available evidence, the review committee shall make its evaluation of the case and submit its recommendation to the Chancellor who thereupon forwards the report and accompanying file to the Committee on Academic Personnel. The latter committee, on the basis of all available evidence, submits a comprehensive report and recommendation to the Chancellor. The ad hoc review committee and the Committee on Academic Personnel reports should not identify individuals who have provided confidential letters of evaluation except by code.
h. If, during Academic Senate or administrative review of a departmental recommendation, the personnel review file is found to be incomplete or inadequate, additional information shall be solicited through the Chancellor’s Office. Such new material shall be added to the personnel review file, and the department shall be invited to comment on the new material. The candidate shall be informed by the chair of the new material which has been added to the personnel review file (without disclosing the identities of sources of confidential academic review records), and may be provided access to the new material in accord with APM 220-80-d. The candidate shall be provided the opportunity to make a written statement for inclusion in the personnel review file. The review shall then be based upon the personnel review file as augmented.
i. After the final administrative decision has been communicated to the candidate, the candidate shall have the right, upon written request, to receive from the Chancellor, or other designated administrative officer, a written statement of the reasons for that decision, including a copy of non-confidential documents and a redacted copy of the confidential academic review records (as defined in APM 160-20-b(1)) in the personnel review file.
j. If the Academic Vice Chancellor’s (or designee’s) preliminary assessment in a case of appointment, reappointment, formal appraisal, non-reappointment, or promotion is contrary to the recommendation of the department, Dean or Provost (or comparable officer), or the Committee on Academic Personnel, the Academic Vice Chancellor shall notify the Dean or Provost and the Committee on Academic Personnel, indicating the reasons and asking for any further information which might support a different decision. When additional information is furnished, the Dean or Provost and the Committee on Academic Personnel will be given opportunity to comment on the augmented file before the Chancellor makes the final decision.
k. By agreement on procedures reached at the campus level between the Chancellor and the Committee on Academic Personnel, the review process may be abbreviated in certain cases. For example, the campus procedures may provide in certain situations for the omission of referral to an ad hoc review committee. Further, the Committee on Academic Personnel may waive its review in cases which are by agreement with the Chancellor regarded as particularly uncomplicated. An example of an action when one or both abbreviated procedures may be utilized is an advancement in step after a normal period of service in the previous step of the same rank as defined in APM 220-18-b. Other examples are given in APM 220-81 and 220-82. The Chancellor shall communicate the substance of the agreements on procedures to Deans or Provosts (or comparable officers) and department chairs.
l. At the San Diego and Santa Cruz campuses, where the administrative structures are significantly different from those on other campuses, the Chancellors shall establish in writing review procedures which are in principle equivalent to those described in this and other parts of APM - 220.