418.000 - Reconsideration of Senate Faculty Personnel Reviews

UCSC:APO:CAPM 9/08

*NOTES: Personnel reviews of Assistant Professors involving non-reappointment and promotion to tenure are not covered by this policy but are subject to the preliminary assessment process, which is described in CAPM 404.220.C and 410.220.5.bb.2.

Career Equity Reviews are not covered by this policy (see CAPM 412.000).

The reconsideration process for all other Senate faculty personnel reviews is described below.

A. ELIGIBILITY

After a candidate has been notified of the decision in a personnel review action, the candidate may initiate a request for reconsideration only when there is clear evidence of a factual error in the academic personnel review file, which could reasonably be found to have influenced the final decision.

Requests for reconsideration will not be considered when they are based on other types of evidence. For instance, the following types of evidence, among others, cannot be used to support a request for reconsideration: (a) differences in academic judgment; (b) evidence that the impact of the candidate's accomplishments in research, teaching, or service during the review period was not fully realized at the time of the review (such evidence should be submitted in the next normal review); (c) a reviewer's alleged failure to have emphasized or sufficiently addressed a candidate's accomplishments; and (d) the candidate's failure to submit complete and accurate information (e.g., current bio-bibliography) at the onset of the review.

B. TIME LIMIT AND PROCEDURES

Requests for reconsideration must be made by the candidate to the department chair in writing by the end of the subsequent quarter following the date of the decision letter (e.g., for a decision letter dated May 4, 2008, the request would need to be submitted by the end of December 2008). Evidence of the significant factual error(s) shall be provided by the candidate, and is most often based on the documents contained in the completed file, a copy of which may be obtained by submitting an Access Request for Material in Academic Personnel Action Review Files (or available online at: http://www.ahr.ucsc.edu/forms_and_data/Access_Request_Form.htm ).

It is the responsibility of the department chair to determine whether there is clear evidence of a factual error in the file, which could reasonably be found to have influenced the final decision. If the determination is positive, the department chair shall inform the candidate and initiate the Checklist to Assure Fairness for Submission of Additional Information . However, if the department chair does not find evidence to support the request, the file will not move forward for reconsideration under this policy. 1

Departmental practices regarding reconsideration cases may vary (e.g., a new vote may be taken but is not required). However, the department's Bylaw 55 faculty must be consulted, and the form of this consultation, as well as the comments expressed by faculty consulted, must be reported in the department letter.

The reconsideration file (i.e., the original file, the candidate's written request for reconsideration, evidence of the error, and the new department letter) follows the standard review process of the original action. The candidate has the same access rights as in the original case.

Once an academic personnel review has gone through this reconsideration process, no further reconsideration under this policy is possible. 2


1 Academic Senate members' rights of Privilege and Tenure, including many aspects of the academic personnel process, are protected and addressed by the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. Every Senate faculty member has recourse both to informal consultation concerning these rights and formal address of these rights.

2 ibid