Home / Policy / CAPM / 406.220

406.220 - Merit Increase

UCSC:APO:CAPM rev:07/24/20

GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. Definition
2. Deadlines
3. Policy references
4. Eligibility and review period
5. Procedures

BEFORE THE REVIEW FILE IS ASSEMBLED

BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED

THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW

PROGRESS OF THE REVIEW FILE AFTER THE DEPARTMENT AND DEAN REVIEW

6. Procedures for short-form reviews

7. Variations for Step 6 and Above-scale reviews
8. Procedures for review of delegated actions

9. Authority for decisions

10. Deferrals

COMPILING THE REVIEW FILE

Explanation of Document Inventory for Merit Increase

1. Definition

Merit Increase: Advancement in step within a given rank; advancement to an Above-scale salary at the Professor rank; or advancement to a further Above-scale salary at that rank. For Assistant Professors, a merit review is usually conducted in conjunction with a reappointment review. Merit increases are normally effective July 1.

2. Deadlines

Refer to the Annual Call and Calendar for Academic Personnel Actions, usually issued in May by the Academic Personnel Office ( APO). The CALL provides a list of faculty who are eligible for merit review.

Department chairs are responsible for ensuring that faculty submit a complete set of required materials no later than the first day of fall quarter or an earlier deadline established by the department. [Eligibility & Deadlines CAPM 400-220]

3. Policy References
APM 200 Appointment and Promotion
APM 220-80 Recommendations and Review, General Procedures
CAPM 400-220 Professor Series General (eligibility for review and deadlines)
APM 610 Salary Increases/Merit

4. Eligibility

Candidates are listed on the CALL as eligible for merit review according to the schedule established by University policy on the normal periods of service at rank and step. [CAPM 400.220-H] Candidates for advancement from steps with an indefinite duration are included on the CALL when required by the mandatory review process (every faculty member shall be reviewed at least every five years [CAPM 402.200]). In addition, each department chair is responsible for making certain that within the department there is an annual examination of the status and performance of each faculty member. Cases of possible eligibility for formal review for advancement shall be examined. Likewise, cases of unsatisfactory performance and less than desirable excellence shall be examined. [APM 075]

5. Procedures

Refer to section 406.220.7 for procedures for merit to Professor, Step 6 and Above-scale, and section 406.220.6 for details on use of the "short form." Refer to section 406.220.8 for procedures for Delegated Merit Actions. Refer to flow charts for stages of the review process for delegated and non-delegated personnel reviews.

BEFORE THE REVIEW FILE IS ASSEMBLED

  • a. The chairperson shall document the review by completing the Checklist to Assure Fairness with the candidate. The applicable procedures outlined in the checklist should be followed in the order indicated, with the candidate initialing each number to indicate these obligations have been completed. The candidate may annotate any item as necessary. Signatures of both the candidate and department chair are required.

  • b. The chairperson shall notify the candidate of the impending review and make certain that the candidate is adequately informed about the entire review process; the deadline for submission of materials; and the review period. The review period for merit actions commences with the last approved movement in step or salary and ends with the established due date for the candidate's submission of materials. The candidate is given the opportunity to ask questions and made aware of APM 210-1, 220, and 160.

  • c. The chairperson shall inform the candidate that past personnel actions may be viewed during the current review process. Refer to the campus policy on access to prior reviews (CAPM 202.160) for more information.

  • d. The chairperson shall inform the candidate that copies of publications (evidence of research and creative work) submitted to the department may be forwarded for review by all review agencies. Publications for merit to Step 6 and merit to Above-scale must be forwarded with the review file.

  • e. The chairperson shall ask the candidate to supply pertinent information:

    • 1. updated cumulative biobibliography. It is the candidate's responsibility to provide current information. Information on research, teaching (what courses), and professional and public service must be included.

    • 2. copies of publications (and other materials related to research and creative activity) since the last approved action; for Step 6, since advancement or appointment to full Professor; for Above-scale, since advancement or appointment to Step 6;

    • 3. copies of materials related to research and creative work in progress which the candidate wishes to submit for review;

    • 4. candidate's optional personal statement: it is often helpful for the reviewers if the candidate submits a statement of their research plans and progress, teaching and service contributions. The candidate may include any information the candidate desires in this statement, e.g., courses developed, problems encountered, extenuating circumstances. [sample candidate's optional personal statement] The department must review this statement before making a final recommendation and evaluation.

    • 5. unsolicited material (optional): this is material that has not been solicited by any university agency. It might include unsolicited letters to the candidate or department concerning the candidate, published reviews of the candidate's work, or any relevant material the candidate wants to include in the review file. All unsolicited material normally is nonconfidential; the candidate has direct access to it. If the material is received by the university, and not from the candidate, with the understanding that the identity of the author will be held in confidence to the extent permissible by law, then it is should be marked 'unsolicited confidential' and redacted for the candidate.

    • 6. names of persons (external and internal) who, for reasons set forth in writing by the candidate, might not objectively evaluate the candidate's qualifications and performance. Any names and the reasons shall be included in the review file.

    • 7. sabbatical leave report (if leave was taken during period since last advancement): sabbatical leave reports are to be completed in accordance with APM 740-97 and submitted to the dean or their designee within 90 calendar days of return from the leave.

  • f. The chairperson should be helpful in responding to the candidate's questions and in considering whether additions to the file by the candidate are needed. The chairperson has an obligation to consider the interests of both the candidate and the University, and to see to it that the department review is fair to the candidate and rigorous in maintaining University standards.

  • g. Student evaluations collected by the department from the beginning of the last approved action should be submitted with the review file. Briefly explain any abnormal course loads and identify new courses taught, or old courses with substantial reorganization of approach or content. Evaluations should be gathered from other departments or committees for whom the candidate has taught, as well as from the candidate's department. If no evaluations are available for some courses, please include an explanation in the department letter. Also include the number of students enrolled and percent of returned evaluations.

  • h. Publications and creative work that have been reviewed by the department must be annotated and numbered on the biobibliography; the original publications and creative work are numbered correspondingly. Materials that are forwarded are marked with the letter 'F' on the biobibliography. Courses for which student evaluations have been submitted are annotated on the biobibliography. By annotating the biobibliography with the courses for which evaluations have been submitted and the publications reviewed and forwarded by the department, a record is created of what has been used as documentation in the review.

  • BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED

  • i. The chairperson shall provide the candidate the opportunity to inspect all nonconfidential documents to be included in the review file. The chairperson shall provide the candidate with a redacted copy (as defined in APM 160 and 200.160 B) of the confidential academic review records which will be included in the review file. Refer to section 200.160 for further information concerning confidential documents. The identities of the persons who were the sources of the documents shall not be disclosed. A copy of the redacted confidential documents shall be included in the original copy of the review file.

  • j. The chairperson shall provide the candidate with the opportunity to submit a written statement to comment upon material in the file. The candidate has ten working days from receipt of the redacted confidential documents in which to comment. The candidate's written comment, if any, must be included in the review file and is considered by the department before the department recommendation is completed. The candidate is encouraged to notify the chairperson if the candidate declines to comment, so that the chairperson can immediately continue the review.

  • THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW

  • k. The department's recommendation is made in accordance with Bylaw 55 of the Academic Senate and the written voting policy of the department. Each department should have a copy of its voting procedures on file in the division and the Academic Personnel Office. [Departmental Review Procedures]
    The vote of the eligible faculty must be reported in the department's letter.

    See also Senate by-laws 13.4.3, 13.4.4 and 13.4.5.

  • l. The department letter shall discuss the proposed merit increase in light of the criteria set forth in APM 210-1. Any significant evidence or differences of opinion shall be included. The letter must be an evaluation of the evidence, not merely an enumeration or list of accomplishments. All references to confidential letter writers must be by alpha code.

    The recommendation should include the rank, step, and salary desired. A recommendation for off-scale salary (see section APM 620) must be accompanied by a justification for the salary, e.g., the market place, to match competing offers, special problems in a discipline, or exceptional performance.

    The departmental letter contains:

    • (1) name, current rank, step, and salary of the candidate;
    • (2) number of years at rank and step;
    • (3) rank, step, and salary recommended;
    • (4) the vote specifying the number in favor, opposed, and abstained;
    • (5) and an evaluation and analysis of the candidate's performance based on the criteria in APM-220 and 210 -1. See Suggestions for Letters of Evaluation, for additional information on documenting the evaluation.
    • (6) When an eligible department faculty member believes that the department letter does not adequately represent the faculty member's views, the department member may submit a written minority opinion directly to the department chair for inclusion in the department letter. In the same way that specific views of individual faculty members are not identified in the department letter nor are faculty required to reveal their votes, the author of the minority opinion need not be identified. The chair may incorporate the minority language or attach the minority opinion to the department's letter.

    The department shall adopt procedures under which the department letter 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.

  • m. The chairperson provides the candidate with a copy of the department evaluation and recommendation. The identities of the sources of confidential documents shall not be disclosed in the department letter except by alpha code.

  • n. The candidate is given an opportunity to submit a written comment on the department letter. This comment may be sent to the department or dean, at the option of the candidate. If the candidate chooses to send the comment directly to the dean, it shall be confidential from the department. The candidate has ten working days from receipt of the department letter in which to comment. The candidate's comment, if any, shall be included in the review file.

  • o. The chairperson may write a separate and distinct letter presenting their recommendation and evaluation as chairperson. This letter is confidential and is not part of the documents redacted by the chairperson for the candidate, nor must it be made available to other department members eligible to vote on the action. The chair's letter comments on the review and may not introduce new material. The division shall identify the chairperson's letter with an alpha code on the list of letter writers. Subsequent reviewers shall refer to the chairperson's letter by the assigned alpha code. The confidential chair letter, in redacted form, will be provided to the candidate upon the candidate's request for access to the review file after the final decision has been issued. [CAPM 200.160]

  • PROGRESS OF THE REVIEW FILE AFTER THE DEPARTMENT REVIEW

  • p. The review file and documents specified in the Document Inventory for Merit Increases shall be forwarded to the dean for review. (See paragraph 8 below for procedures for actions that have been delegated to the dean.) The dean may request additional information or clarification from the chairperson. The dean shall review the file, add a written recommendation, and forward the file to the Academic Personnel Office.

  • q. The review file shall be reviewed for completeness and forwarded to the Senate Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) by the Academic Personnel Office.

  • r. Normally an AD HOC review committee is not appointed to consider normal merit increases, but may be appointed for advancement to Step 6 or Above-scale. However, the executive vice chancellor, after consultation with CAP, may refer any file to an AD HOC committee. The AD HOC committee shall proceed according to APM 210-1.

  • s. The Committee on Academic Personnel shall review the file and add a written recommendation.

  • t. If, during Academic Senate or administrative review, the review file is found to be incomplete or inadequate, additional information shall be solicited through the Academic Personnel Office. Additional information normally shall be requested in writing from the department through the dean. The chairperson shall provide the candidate with the opportunity to inspect any nonconfidential additional information and shall provide a redacted copy of any confidential additional information. All such documents shall accompany the additional information for inclusion in the review file. Include a redacted version of the confidential documents in the original review file. The candidate has ten working days from receipt of the redacted copies to comment upon the file material. The candidate's comment, if any, shall accompany the additional information for inclusion in the review file. The department shall review the additional information and submit a recommendation or comment. The candidate is provided with a copy of the department comment and has ten working days in which to comment. The candidate may choose to send their comment directly to the dean, or the department. If the candidate comments to the dean, the comment is confidential from the department. The additional information shall be forwarded to the dean, accompanied by a completed Checklist to Assure Fairness for the Submission of Additional Information The dean shall add their comment and forward the material to the Academic Personnel Office. The review shall then be based upon the review file as augmented.

  • u. The executive vice chancellor, unless the action has been delegated [delegation chart], shall make the final decision, based upon the review file. The candidate shall be notified of the decision in writing with copies to the dean and department. In delegated actions, the dean shall notify the candidate of the decision in writing with copies to the executive vice chancellor and department.

  • v. After the decision, the candidate shall have the right, upon written request, to receive from the executive vice chancellor (or dean, if delegated), a written statement of the reasons for the decision, including a copy of nonconfidential documents and a redacted copy of the confidential academic review records (as defined in APM 160) in the personnel review file.

  • w. Student evaluations and publications/creative work will be returned to the department following the decision.

6. Procedures for Use of Short-Form Merit Documentation 
Policy Section Under Revision - Short Form Process Not Available

A Short Form for certain merit actions is available, and is to be used only in straightforward merit increases at some steps of Assistant, Associate, and Professor (including the In-Residence and Adjunct series). The Short Form is made up of three pages: a Personnel Action Summary Sheet ; a Department Evaluation Sheet which replaces the department letter with concise summaries of the candidate's performance in teaching, research, professional activities, and service; and a Vote/Recommendation Page . The Summary Sheet includes a document inventory of the contents of the dossier, which is essentially the same as a regular merit file.

The Short Form may be used for the following advancements:

Assistant Professor 1 to 2; 2 to 3; 3 to 4
Associate Professor 1 to 2; 2 to 3
Professor 1 to 2; 2 to 3; 3 o 4; 4 to 5

The short form may also be used for "normal" one-step merits for off-scale advancements in these steps; e.g., Assistant Professor Step 1 off-scale to Step 2 off-scale, at the same off-scale salary amount.

It should not be used for acceleration or initial off-scale recommendations, which requires proper justification. If the department vote is divided, use of the short form is not appropriate; the explanation should be presented in a department letter.

Normal review procedures are followed. The department vote is entered on the Vote/Recommendation Page, and the department chair and dean/director indicate a yes/no decision, rather than write an evaluating letter.

7. Step 6 and Above-scale

Refer to APM 220-18-b., Normal Periods of Service for merit increase to Professor, Step 6, 7, 8, 9 and Above-scale for information. The general rules of the Professor Series, Merit Increase section above apply. In addition:

  • a. For the Step 6 review, the chair shall ask the candidate to supply copies of publications or evidence of creative activity since advancement or appointment to professor rank. For the Above-scale review, the chair shall ask the candidate to supply copies of publications or evidence of creative activity since advancement or appointment to Step 6.

  • b. External letters of evaluation are normally solicited for merits to Above-scale. Effective with the 2020-21 review year, external letters shall not be solicited for merits to Step 6, except when the candidate is requesting a Career Equity Review (see CAPM 412.000.D.3).

  • c. In reviews where external letters are to be solicited:

    1. The department chair shall ask the candidate to supply names (internal and external) of others who might reasonably be asked to evaluate the candidate's work. The candidate should also provide brief comments on the academic standing of each proposed reviewer and relationship, if any, to the candidate. A candidate is not required to supply such names. If the candidate decides not to suggest names, please indicate this in the review file.

    2. The department chair shall ask the candidate to supply names of persons (external and internal) who, for reasons set forth in writing by the candidate, might not objectively evaluate the candidate's qualifications and performance because of personal or professional reasons. Any names and the reasons shall be included in the review file.

      The reasons given need not be detailed--examples are "My work has just proved that John Smith's work of the last 40 years is completely wrong" or "My work is of the Green School, while hers is of the Smith School." Naming someone as possibly not being objective does not mean that the person will be excluded from participating in the review, but will allow reviewers to place comments in the file in the proper context.

    3. The chairperson shall solicit letters of evaluation from qualified persons, including a reasonable number of persons suggested by the candidate. All such letters shall be included in the review file and are confidential documents. Letters from students are not required. See Instructions for Soliciting Letters for procedures to be followed in obtaining and including solicited letters in a review file. Also see sample solicitation letters.

8. Procedures for Delegated Merit Actions

  • a. The department prepares the merit review file in the normal manner (may be either short form or regular documentation). The department chair forwards the file to the dean's office.

  • b. The staff in the dean's office reviews the file for conformity to applicable policy and procedures; they may consult with the dean and staff in the Academic Personnel Office as necessary.

  • c. The dean's office forwards the file to CAP for review.

  • d. CAP reviews the file and forwards its recommendation to the dean. If deemed necessary, prior to making its recommendation to the dean, CAP may recommend to the executive vice chancellor that an AD HOC review committee be constituted. If the executive vice chancellor agrees, normal procedures for AD HOC review will be followed (see APM 210-1).

  • e. The dean must consult with CAP before a final decision if their decision disagrees with CAP's recommendation. If deemed necessary in making a decision, the dean may also recommend to the executive vice chancellor that an AD HOC review committee be constituted. If the executive vice chancellor agrees, normal procedures for AD HOC review will be followed (see APM 210-1).

  • f. The dean has authority for the final decision.

  • g. Any consideration of requested additional information follows the same review process, i.e., department, dean's office review, CAP, and dean.

9. See delegation chart for delegated authority for merit review and for special requirements for off-scale merits at Step 5 and salaries above Step 6.

10. Deferral of Merit Review

See Deferral, section CAPM 402.200.

Explanation of Document Inventory for Merit Increase

The top section of the Document Inventory for merit or Step 6 or Above-scale should be completed by the Department Assistant. Questions about how to complete this form, may be directed to the division office or the Academic Personnel Office.

Materials to be included with the Document Inventory for Merit Increase are listed below by the party responsible for their submission. Items are submitted at different stages of the review process as indicated.

CANDIDATE

BEFORE THE REVIEW FILE IS ASSEMBLED:
  • List of names of persons (external and internal) to be solicited for letters of evaluation (if Above-scale or  Career Equity Review to Step 6)
  • List of names (external and internal) who might not objectively evaluate candidate and explanation
  • Publications
  • Unsolicited material (optional)
  • Sabbatical leave report (if leave was taken during period since last major action)
  • Optional personal statement
  • Cumulative biobibliography

BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED
Response to confidential document (optional)

AFTER THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED
Comment to department letter (optional)

DEPARTMENT

BEFORE THE REVIEW FILE IS ASSEMBLED:
  • Checklist to Assure Fairness (first section)
  • Annotated Cumulative Biobibliography
  • Student evaluations
  • Student letters (if any)
  • Confidential letters (if Above-scale or Career Equity Review to Step 6)
  • Sample copy of solicitation letter
  • List of all persons from whom letters were sought; identifies those suggested by the candidate
  • Brief comments on academic standing of each letter writer and relationship, if any, to candidate
  • Declining letters (including report of declinations by phone)

BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED
Provides the assembled review materials to the candidate for inspection and comment Checklist to Assure Fairness (second section)

AFTER THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED
Checklist to Assure Fairness (last section)

DEPARTMENT CHAIR

AFTER THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED
  • Department letter (nonconfidential document)
  • Department chair letter (optional, confidential document)

DEAN

AFTER THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED
  • Dean's letter (nonconfidential document)