Policy References

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).

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Early in the course of a personnel review, before departmental consideration of a case, the chair shall 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

The full policy language is available in the Academic Personnel Manual, Section 220.

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.

The full policy language is available in the Academic Personnel Manual, Section 220.

Access by the Individual

When an individual requests access to confidential academic review records (as defined in APM - 160-20-b(1)), the records shall be subject to redaction as follows:

• For a letter of evaluation or statement from an individual evaluator, redaction shall consist of the removal of name, title, organizational/institutional affiliation, and relational information contained below the signature block of the letter of evaluation.

• For reports or recommendations of an ad hoc committee, redaction shall consist of the removal of the names of individual members of the committee.

• For information that references the scholarly credentials or relationship to the candidate of the authors of letters of evaluation, no access shall be provided to the individual.

• (Note: For confidential documents (including individual, departmental, and administrative letters, as well as committee reports and recommendations) placed in an academic personnel review file prior to September 1, 1992, campuses may either (a) redact such documents to remove the identifiers such as name, title, date, and organizational/institutional affiliation, or any relational statement or comment that would serve to identify the author(s) of the document, or (b) prepare a comprehensive summary.)

The full policy language is available in the Academic Personnel Manual, Section 160.

Criteria for Appointment, Promotion, and Appraisal

The review committee shall judge the candidate with respect to the proposed rank and duties, considering the record of the candidate’s performance in (1) teaching, (2) research and other creative work, (3) professional activity, and (4) University and public service. In evaluating the candidate’s qualifications within these areas, the review committee shall exercise reasonable flexibility, balancing when the case requires, heavier commitments and responsibilities in one area against lighter commitments and responsibilities in another. The review committee must judge whether the candidate is engaging in a program of work that is both sound and productive. As the University enters new fields of endeavor and refocuses its ongoing activities, cases will arise in which the proper work of faculty members departs markedly from established academic patterns. In such cases, the review committees must take exceptional care to apply the criteria with sufficient flexibility. However, flexibility does not entail a relaxation of high standards. Superior intellectual attainment, as evidenced both in teaching and in research or other creative achievement, is an indispensable qualification for appointment or promotion to tenure positions. Insistence upon these standards for holders of the professorship is necessary for maintenance of the quality of the University as an institution dedicated to the discovery and transmission of knowledge. Consideration should be given to changes in emphasis and interest that may occur in an academic career. The candidate may submit for the review file a presentation of his or her activity in all four areas.

The University of California is committed to excellence and equity in every facet of its mission. Teaching, research, professional and public service contributions that promote diversity and equal opportunity are to be encouraged and given recognition in the evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications. These contributions to diversity and equal opportunity can take a variety of forms including efforts to advance equitable access to education, public service that addresses the needs of California’s diverse population, or research in a scholar’s area of expertise that highlights inequalities. Mentoring and advising of students or new faculty members are to be encouraged and given recognition in the teaching or service categories of academic personnel actions.

The criteria set forth below are intended to serve as guides for minimum standards in judging the candidate, not to set boundaries to exclude other elements of performance that may be considered.

1. Teaching

   Clearly demonstrated evidence of high quality in teaching is an essential criterion for appointment, advancement, or promotion. Under no circumstances will a tenure commitment be made unless there is clear documentation of ability and diligence in the teaching role. In judging the effectiveness of a candidate’s teaching, the committee should consider such points as the following: the candidate’s command of the subject; continuous growth in the subject field; ability to organize material and to present it with force and logic; capacity to awaken in students an awareness of the relationship of the subject to other fields of knowledge; fostering of student independence and capability to reason; spirit and enthusiasm which vitalize the candidate’s learning and teaching; ability to arouse curiosity in beginning students, to encourage high standards, and to stimulate advanced students to creative work; personal attributes as they affect teaching and students; extent and skill of the candidate’s participation in the general guidance, mentoring, and advising of students; effectiveness in creating an academic environment that is open and encouraging to all students, including development of particularly effective strategies for the educational advancement of students in various underrepresented groups. The committee should pay due attention to the variety of demands placed on instructors by the types of teaching called for in various disciplines and at various levels, and should judge the total performance of the candidate with proper reference to assigned teaching responsibilities. The committee should clearly indicate the sources of evidence on which its appraisal of teaching competence has been based. In those exceptional cases when no such evidence is available, the candidate’s potentialities as a teacher may be indicated in closely analogous activities. In preparing its recommendation, the review committee should keep in mind that a redacted copy of its report may be an important means of informing the candidate of the evaluation of his or her teaching and of the basis for that evaluation.

   It is the responsibility of the department chair to submit meaningful statements, accompanied by evidence, of the candidate’s teaching effectiveness at lower-division, upper-division, and graduate levels of instruction. More than one kind of evidence shall accompany each review file. Among significant types of evidence of teaching effectiveness are the following: (a) opinions of other faculty members knowledgeable in the candidate’s field, particularly if based on class visitations, on attendance at public lectures or lectures before professional societies given by the candidate, or on the performance of students in courses taught by the candidate that are prerequisite to those of the informant; (b) opinions of students; (c) opinions of graduates who have achieved notable professional success since leaving the University; (d) number and caliber of students guided in research by the candidate and of those attracted to the campus by the candidate’s repute as a teacher; and (e) development of new and effective techniques of instruction, including techniques that meet the needs of students from groups that are underrepresented in the field of instruction.

   All cases for advancement and promotion normally will include: (a) evaluations and comments solicited from students for most, if not all, courses taught since the candidate’s last review; (b) a quarter-by-quarter or semester-by-semester enumeration of the number and types of courses and tutorials taught since the candidate’s last review; (c) their level; (d) their enrollments; (e) the percentage of students represented by student course evaluations for each course; (f) brief explanations for abnormal course loads; (g) identification of any new courses taught or of old courses when there was substantial reorganization of approach or content; (h) notice of any awards or formal mentions for distinguished teaching; (i) when the faculty member under review wishes, a self-evaluation of his or her teaching; and (j) evaluation by other faculty members of teaching effectiveness. When any of the information specified in this paragraph is not provided, the department chair will include an explanation for that omission in the candidate’s dossier. If such information is not included with the letter of recommendation and its absence is not adequately accounted for, it is the review committee chair’s responsibility to request it through the Chancellor.

2. Research and Creative Work

   Evidence of a productive and creative mind should be sought in the candidate’s published research or recognized artistic production in original architectural or engineering designs, or the like.

   Publications in research and other creative accomplishments should be evaluated, not merely enumerated. There should be evidence that the candidate is continuously and effectively engaged in creative activity of high quality and significance. Work in progress should be assessed whenever possible. When published work in joint authorship (or other product of joint effort) is presented as evidence, it is the responsibility of the department chair to establish as clearly as possible the role of the candidate in the joint effort. It should be recognized that special cases of collaboration occur in the performing arts and that the contribution of a particular collaborator may not be readily discernible by those viewing the finished work. When the candidate is such a collaborator, it is the responsibility of the department chair to make a separate evaluation of the candidate’s contribution and to provide outside opinions based on observation of the work while in progress. Account should be taken of the type and quality of creative activity normally expected in the candidate’s field. Appraisals of publications or other works in the scholarly and critical literature provide important testimony. Due consideration should be given to variations among fields and specialties and to new genres and fields of inquiry.

   Textbooks, reports, circulars, and similar publications normally are considered evidence of teaching ability or public service. However, contributions by faculty members to the professional literature or to the advancement of professional practice or professional education, including contributions to the advancement of equitable access and diversity in education, should be judged creative work when they present new ideas or original scholarly research.

   In certain fields such as art, architecture, dance, music, literature, and drama, distinguished creation should receive consideration equivalent to that accorded to distinction attained in research. In evaluating artistic creativity, an attempt should be made to define the candidate’s merit in the light of such criteria as originality, scope, richness, and depth of creative expression. It should be recognized that in music, drama, and dance, distinguished performance, including conducting and directing, is evidence of a candidate’s creativity.

3. Professional Competence and Activity

   In certain positions in the professional schools and colleges, such as architecture, business administration, dentistry, engineering, law, medicine, etc., a demonstrated distinction in the special competencies appropriate to the field and its characteristic activities should be recognized as a criterion for appointment or promotion. The candidate’s professional activities should be scrutinized for evidence of achievement and leadership in the field and of demonstrated progressiveness in the development or utilization of new approaches and techniques for the solution of professional problems, including those that specifically address the professional advancement of individuals in underrepresented groups in the candidate’s field. It is responsibility of the department chair to provide evidence that the position in question is of the type described above and that the candidate is qualified to fill it.

4. University and Public Service

   The faculty plays an important role in the administration of the University and in the formulation of its policies. Recognition should therefore be given to scholars who prove themselves to be able administrators and who participate effectively and imaginatively in faculty government and the formulation of departmental, college, and University policies. Services by members of the faculty to the community, State, and nation, both in their special capacities as scholars and in areas beyond those special capacities when the work done is at a sufficiently high level and of sufficiently high quality, should likewise be recognized as evidence for promotion. Faculty service activities related to the improvement of elementary and secondary education represent one example of this kind of service. Similarly, contributions to student welfare through service on student-faculty committees and as advisers to student organizations should be recognized as evidence, as should contributions furthering diversity and equal opportunity within the University through participation in such activities as recruitment, retention, and mentoring of scholars and students.

   The Standing Orders of The Regents provide: “No political test shall ever be considered in the appointment and promotion of any faculty member or employee.” This provision is pertinent to every stage in the process of considering appointments and promotions of the faculty.

   The full policy language is available in the Academic Personnel Manual, Section 210.

Restriction

A member of the University staff shall not participate in the processes of review and decision-making on any matter concerning appointment, promotion, salary, retention, or termination of a near relative.

The full policy language is available in the Academic Personnel Manual, Section 520.