417.220 - Joint Appointments for Senate Faculty

UCSC:APO:CAPM rev:04/16

A. OVERVIEW

At UCSC, “Joint appointment” refers to the situation in which a Senate faculty member is an official member of more than one academic department on this campus. The FTE split of the joint appointment may be any combination of percentages, including 100/0. Faculty with joint appointments have Bylaw 55 rights in all departments in which they are members (including those where the appointment percentage is zero).

Each unit must allocate their portion of a ladder rank faculty FTE to the appointment. The FTE percentages are encumbered to each department and are counted as part of each department's total FTE.

The rank and step of the joint appointment must be the same in all departments; however, the faculty salary rate corresponds proportionately to the FTE. This could result in two different annual salary rates if the joint appointment involves both the Business/Engineering/Economics (B/E/E) scale and the regular ladder faculty salary scales (e.g., an 80/20 split in Computer Engineering and Art would result in 80 percent of the salary paid from the B/E/E salary scale and 20 percent of the salary paid from the regular ranks salary scale).  See sections D and E below for additional information related to salary rates.

Throughout this policy, “home department” refers to the department with the largest FTE percentage. The home department is responsible for initiating and coordinating all academic personnel actions and requests (merit reviews, APM 025 reports, leaves, etc.). In those cases where the FTE is split 50/50, the involved parties will agree on what department will be the home department. The dean overseeing the home department will have primary decanal responsibility. In this policy, “host department” refers to the proposed new department where a faculty member is requesting an appointment (although it is understood that there may be cases in which a faculty member requests a greater than 50% appointment in the new department). The Bylaw 55 members of the host department have the right to vote on the acceptance of the faculty member into their department.

This policy describes the procedures for current Senate faculty who want to establish a joint appointment (see Section G ). Joint appointments may also be initiated at the time of a search authorization for tenured ladder rank faculty or faculty with security of employment (SOE). Search and appointment approval procedures for joint appointments are subject to the normal campus procedures for ladder rank and SOE recruitments (see CAPM 100.500, Academic Recruitment Procedures).

B. AUTHORITY

Deans have authority to approve joint appointments with a 100/0 percent split, and the Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor (CP/EVC) has authority to approve all other joint appointments. In all cases, consultation with the Academic Senate is required.

C. ELIGIBILITY

Due to the critical need of providing consistent oversight, mentoring, and advising during the tenure trajectory, joint appointments are generally found to be disadvantageous to untenured faculty. Therefore, joint appointments are reserved for faculty with tenure or security of employment.

If a situation arises where the CP/EVC determines, following appropriate Senate consultation, that it is in the best interest of the untenured faculty member to hold a joint appointment, the CP/EVC may approve such an appointment.

Faculty who are undergoing an academic personnel review cannot initiate a joint appointment request until the review has been concluded.

D.  SETTING THE INITIAL ANNUAL SALARY RATE

If the joint appointment involves a department covered by the regular ranks (REG) salary scale and one that is covered by the Business/Economics/Engineering (B/E/E) salary scale, the initial total annual salary rate (on-scale rate plus off-scale increment, if any, combined) will be the same in both departments. In no event will the total annual salary rate of faculty be decreased solely as a result of establishing the joint appointment; however an existing off-scale increment may be decreased or entirely absorbed into the initial total annual salary rate proportionate to the appointment percentage in the new department. The initial annual salary rate in both departments will be set according to the following principles.

  1. A joint appointment involving both the REG scale and the B/E/E scale must have an annual salary rate at least equal to the B/E/E on-scale salary rate that corresponds to the appointee’s rank and step.

    (a) If the annual salary rate on the REG scale does not include any off-scale increment, the annual salary rate must be increased so that it matches the published salary rate for the corresponding rank and step on the B/E/E scale.

    (b) If the joint appointee’s annual salary rate on the REG scale includes an off-scale increment, the off-scale increment will be entirely or partially absorbed into the B/E/E annual salary rate, with the result that the initial total annual salary rate could have no off-scale increment or a lesser one.

    (c) If the joint appointee’s current annual salary rate is on the B/E/E scale, the new total annual salary rate under the REG scale will have an off-scale increment

    (d) If the joint appointee’s current annual salary rate on the B/E/E scale included an off-scale increment, the amount of that off-scale increment will be increased under the REG scale.

E.  ADVANCEMENT ACTIONS INVOLVING THE REG AND THE B/E/E SALARY SCALES

In all joint appointments, the rank and step of the faculty member must be the same in all involved departments.  The final decision in all advancement actions for joint appointments must also be the same; however, the total annual salary rates resulting from advancement actions are calculated on the applicable salary scale and can be different in joint appointments that involve both the REG salary scale and the B/E/E salary scale. 

F. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

( See Appendix A for a sample MOU )

As the purposes and expectations associated with joint appointments may vary widely, a written memorandum of understanding (MOU) that addresses the particular terms and conditions is required for all joint appointments other than 100/0 splits. However, an MOU is strongly encouraged in all cases so that expectations associated with joint appointment can be made clear to all parties. Although this policy does not require an MOU in 100/0 splits, the dean has authority to require one as s/he determines is appropriate.

Deans should work with the involved department chairs and the faculty member to write the MOU, which becomes part of the joint appointment proposal material. The MOU must be approved by the dean, who is also responsible for coordinating MOU review as needed and resolving disputes as necessary.

Issues that should be considered in drafting the MOU include but are not limited to the following:

  • Effective date of the split FTE (and for 100/0 splits only, may include an ending date with or without possibility of renewal)
  • FTE percentage allocated to each department
  • Identify the home department and outline the procedures to be followed in academic personnel reviews*
  • Salary rates if there are different salary scales involved
  • Teaching, research, and service expectations in each department; specify teaching arrangements such as workload-courses/yr., course assignments, graduate student mentoring, and service responsibilities
  • Leave request and approval process and coordination
  • Allocation of overhead, indirect costs and grant administration; dean's support on grant proposals where there is more than one dean
  • Office, lab and/or studio space; also shared equipment and “ownership” where start-up funds were used to make initial purchase
  • Administrative and technical support and training
  • Responsibility for laboratory/studio safety, disposal of wastes and hazardous materials, and
  • MOU review and dispute resolution procedures

(* See Appendix B for guidance on how to conduct an academic personnel review for a joint appointment. See also Section H of this policy, ACADEMIC PERSONNEL REVIEW PROCEDURES for JOINT APPOINTMENTS )

G. JOINT APPOINTMENT PROCEDURES

a) Procedure for Establishing All Joint Appointments Other than 100/0 Splits

These actions should normally be effective July 1 to minimize impact on the curriculum, department business, and campus reporting. Therefore, deans should forward joint appointment proposals by mid-February to ensure sufficient time for required Senate and administration review.

  1. A written statement is prepared by the faculty member (candidate) who is seeking a joint appointment, which indicates the percentage of appointment desired in the host department; outlines the reasons for the requested appointment and the candidate's proposed activities and contributions; and identifies the candidate's qualifications for membership in the host department.
  2. The candidate provides this statement and a current biobibliography to the dean and chair of the proposed host department, with a copy of the statement to the candidate's home (i.e., current) department chair (and current dean, if it is an inter-divisional appointment) so that the current chair (and dean) is aware of the request. The chair or designee of the proposed host department is responsible for preparing the file (including the Checklist to Assure Fairness), and submitting it to the dean of the proposed host department.

    The dean of the proposed host department is responsible for coordinating the drafting of the required MOU as outlined above in section D, and for determining the appropriate timing of this drafting. The MOU shall become part of the joint appointment file.

  3. The materials submitted by the candidate include her/his written statement (as described above in point #1), and an updated biobibliography, at a minimum; however, other items may be included by the candidate as desired. Further, the host department chair may request additional information directly from the candidate as needed to aid in the host department's evaluation of the proposed appointment (e.g., copies of student evaluations, publications, etc.). Any such information submitted by the candidate shall become part of the file.
  4. The members of both the home and the host departments will be consulted regarding the proposed action. Each department chair shall prepare a letter to the dean(s) presenting an analysis of the expected impact the proposed appointment would have on his/her department, along with a recommendation on the proposed action. The letter shall report the nature and extent of consultation on the matter within the department, and present any significant evidence and differences of opinion which would support a different recommendation. The chair of the current home department shall forward the department letter to the chair of the proposed host department to be included in the file.

    Additionally, as the proposal involves a new appointment in the host department, the members of the host department have the right to vote on the acceptance of the candidate into their department; the results of the vote shall be included in the department letter.

  5. The file shall be forwarded to the dean of the host department for review. The dean may request additional information or clarification from the department chair. The dean shall review the file, add a written recommendation, and forward the file to the Academic Personnel Office (APO). The dean's recommendation shall address the following issues

    (a) What is the justification for the proposed joint appointment?

  6. (b) What is the impact of the proposed action on the workload, research activities, and programmatic needs of each department?

    (c) Will the department losing a portion of an FTE receive a replacement?

    (d) What is the impact of the proposed action on the resources of the department losing a portion of the FTE?

    (e) What courses must be immediately covered for the department losing a portion of the FTE, and how will the courses be replaced?

    (f) How will existing graduate students working with the professor be impacted, both in research and resource capacities?
  1. The dean forwards the file to APO where staff ensures that the dossier is complete before submitting it to the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs (VPAA), who coordinates Senate consultation on behalf of the CP/EVC. The VPAA transmits the file to the Academic Senate Chair. The Senate Committees on Academic Personnel and Planning and Budget are asked to review the proposal, as well as the Graduate Council in cases affecting graduate programs and the Committee on Education Policy in cases affecting undergraduate programs. The Senate submits its recommendations directly to the VPAA, who in turn makes a recommendation and forwards the file to the CP/EVC.

  2. The joint appointment proposal and recommendations will then be considered by the CP/EVC, who has authority for these actions. The CP/EVC notifies the candidate, the two departments, the dean(s), the Senate, and others as appropriate (e.g., VPAA, Planning and Budget, etc.) of the final decision.

b) Procedure for Terminating All Joint Appointments Other than 100/0 Splits

As the establishment of a joint appointment (other than the 100/0 split) involves the permanent transfer of a portion of the FTE involved, there is no simple discontinuation of such an appointment. The termination of a joint appointment where there was an actual transfer of some portion of the FTE requires the establishment of another joint appointment, or an FTE transfer back to the candidate's original department. In either case, the procedure outlined above in section a), Procedure for Establishing All Joint Appointments Other than 100/0 Splits, must be followed.

c) Procedure for Establishing 100/0 Percent Joint Appointments Only

Since there is no actual change to the FTE involved, the procedures for establishing this type of joint appointment are abbreviated (e.g., an MOU may not be required, Senate review is limited to the Committee on Academic Personnel, and the dean has final authority). However, as stated previously in section F , the dean may require an MOU in these cases, which is strongly encouraged so that joint appointment expectations can be made clear to all parties.

  1. A written statement is prepared by the faculty member (candidate) who is seeking a joint appointment, which outlines the reasons for the requested appointment and the candidate's proposed activities and contributions; and identifies the candidate's qualifications for membership in the host department.
  2. The candidate provides this statement and a current biobibliography to the dean and chair of the proposed host department, with a copy of the statement to the candidate's home (i.e., current) department chair (and current dean, if it is an inter-divisional appointment) so that the current chair (and dean) is aware of the request. The chair or designee of the proposed host department is responsible for preparing the file (including the Checklist to Assure Fairness), and submitting it to the dean of the proposed host department.

    If the dean of the proposed host department requires an MOU, s/he is responsible for coordinating the drafting of the MOU, and for determining the appropriate timing of this drafting. The MOU shall become part of the joint appointment file.

  3. The materials submitted by the candidate include her/his written statement (as described above in point #1), and an updated biobibliography, at a minimum; however, other items may be included by the candidate as desired. Further, the host department chair may request additional information directly from the candidate as needed to aid in the host department's evaluation of the proposed appointment (e.g., copies of student evaluations, publications, etc.). Any such information submitted by the candidate shall become part of the file.
  4. The members of both the home and the host departments will be consulted regarding the proposed action. Each department chair shall prepare a letter to the dean(s) presenting an analysis of the expected impact the proposed appointment would have on his/her department, along with a recommendation on the proposed action. The letter shall report the nature and extent of consultation on the matter within the department, and present any significant evidence and differences of opinion which would support a different recommendation. The chair of the current home department shall forward the department letter to the chair of the proposed host department to be included in the file.

    Additionally, as the proposal involves a new appointment in the host department, the members of the host department have the right to vote on the acceptance of the candidate into their department; the results of the vote shall be included in the department letter.
  5. The file shall be forwarded to the divisional academic personnel coordinator of the host department who reviews the file for conformity to applicable policy and procedures; s/he may consult with the dean or staff in APO as necessary. The divisional coordinator forwards the file to CAP for review. CAP returns the file to the dean with a recommendation on the proposed action. Prior to making her/his decision, the dean may request additional information from the department chair. Any consideration of requested additional information follows the same review process, i.e., department, divisional coordinator, CAP, and dean.
  6. The dean notifies the candidate of the final decision, with copies to the host and home departments (and other dean, if any), APO, CAP, VPAA, and other offices, as appropriate.
d) Procedure for Discontinuing 100/0 Percent Appointments Only

If the MOU or the dean's appointment letter includes an end date, the joint appointment shall terminate on that date. If no end date is identified, and the candidate wishes to discontinue the joint appointment in the host department, he or she must provide a written notice to the chair of the host department with a copy to the home department chair and dean (or deans if an inter-divisional appointment).

If the MOU or the dean's appointment letter does not include an end date, and the host department wishes to discontinue the joint appointment, the chair convenes the eligible voting members to discuss and vote on the proposed discontinuation in accord with the department's Bylaw 55 voting procedures. If the majority vote is to discontinue the joint appointment, the chair shall notify the faculty member in writing with copies to the home department and dean(s), and those offices that were copied when the joint appointment was established (see G.c.6 above).

H. ACADEMIC PERSONNEL REVIEW PROCEDURES for JOINT APPOINTMENTS

a) For All Joint Appointments Other than 100/0 Percent
  1. Based on the established criteria for advancement in the professor series and the expectations delineated in the MOU, each department must evaluate the performance of the faculty member. Therefore, while only one department is designated as the home department, it is expected that the host department will be substantively involved in the review process.

  2. Typical review procedures for a joint appointment should provide the host department with the opportunity to review all materials included in the file so that a thorough departmental evaluation can be made. This evaluation would involve faculty consultation, including a vote, and would result in a separate department recommendation, which would be included in the review file. In addition, for actions that involve solicited external letters, the host department would be included in the selection of referees. Because of the extra steps caused by this dual review, it is likely that a separate calendar for personnel actions will need to be created by the home department so that the review file can still meet the deadlines established by the campus.

    (See Appendix B for guidance on how to conduct an academic personnel review for a joint appointment.)

b) For 100/0 Percent Appointments Only
  1. For this type of joint appointment, the only required procedural modification to the standard academic personnel review process is that the home department must solicit a non-confidential letter from the host department to include with the file materials. As is standard practice with all non-confidential documents to be added to the file, the candidate shall be provided the opportunity to review the host department's letter.

  2. The host department is not provided access to the file materials during or after the review, and is not copied on the final decision letter. It is the candidate's responsibility to update the host department about any change in rank or step.