Checklist to Assure Fairness for Postdoctoral Scholar Titles (Postdoctoral Scholar Employee, Postdoctoral Scholar - Paid Direct, Postdoctoral Scholar - Fellow)

UCSC-APO: 06/11


Name:
Division:
Dept/Unit:
PI/Faculty Mentor:
Review Period:
Type of Action:
Effective Date:
   

Candidate's initials indicate that these obligations have been fulfilled in her/his current academic personnel review. Make annotations as necessary. Signatures of both the Candidate and the PI/Faculty Mentor are required.

BEFORE THE PERSONNEL REVIEW FILE IS ASSEMBLED:

  Candidate Initials Date  
1. _______ _______ The Candidate was notified by the PI/Faculty Mentor of the purpose, timing, criteria and procedures for evaluation.
2. _______ _______ The Candidate was made aware that past personnel actions may be viewed during the current review process.
3. _______ _______

The Candidate was asked to provide the following information as appropriate. Submit to PI/Faculty Mentor according to deadline. Check those items the Candidate provided.

    Updated Curriculum Vitae/Biobliography with current home address.
    Other information which the Candidate wishes to have included in the review file (optional)

BEFORE THE PI/FACULTY MENTOR RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED:

4. _______ _______ The Candidate was provided the opportunity to inspect all NON-CONFIDENTIAL documents to be included in the file.
5. _______ _______ The Candidate was provided a redacted copy of the confidential documents which are included in the file. Include a copy of the redaction with the original file.
6. _______ _______ The Candidate was given the opportunity to submit a written statement in response to or commenting upon material in the file within five (5) working days from receipt or inspection of non-confidential documents. Response due by _______________ (date).
7. _______ _______ The Candidate declines to submit a written statement.
8. _______ _______ The Candidate's written statement, if any, must be included in the file.

AFTER THE PI/FACULTY MENTOR RECOMMENDATION IS MADE:

9. _______ _______ The Candidate was given a copy of the PI/Faculty Mentor recommendation.
10. _______ _______ The Candidate was given the opportunity to submit a written comment on the recommendation. The Candidate has five (5) working days from receipt of copy in which to respond. Response due by _______________ (date).
11. _______ _______ The Candidate declines to submit a written statement.
12. _______ _______ The Candidate's written comment, if any, must be included in the file, and may be submitted to the PI/Faculty Mentor or directly to the Dean. If submitted directly to the Dean, it shall remain confidential from the PI/Faculty Mentor.

X____________________________________ __________ X____________________________________ __________
Signature of the Candidate Date Signature of PI/Faculty Mentor Date

RIGHTS OF ALL ACADEMIC APPOINTEES IN THE UNIVERSITY
The Checklists to Assure Fairness have been designed to ensure the following rights are protected:

  1. The right that the University maintain records containing information pertaining to individuals only to the extent necessary and relevant for official University purposes.
  2. The right to privacy with respect to such records maintained by the University.
  3. The right to have access to non-confidential documents in such records, and the right to obtain a redacted copy of confidential academic review records.
  4. The right to request corrections of fact or deletions of errors in such records and to make additions to such records.
  5. The right of individuals to contribute meaningfully to the review process in academic personnel actions affecting them.
  6. The right that final administrative decisions concerning appointment, promotion, merit increase, appraisal, reappointment, non-reappointment, and terminal appointment be based solely upon relevant materials contained in individuals' personnel review files
  7. The right to have safeguards in the academic personnel process, including an effective grievance mechanism, which will provide opportunity for inquiry into alleged procedural improprieties in that process.