Annual CAP/EVC Memo on Academic Advancement

To: SENATE FACULTY

Annual CAP/CPEVC Memo On Academic Advancement - 2022

Dear Colleagues:

As the new academic year begins, we write to provide new information, clarify some frequently asked questions, and emphasize priorities and expectations related to the Senate faculty merit and promotion review process.

COVID Impacted Reviews and Achievement Relative to Opportunity (ARO) Principles

We acknowledge the continuing impact of the global pandemic on faculty performance in all areas. We encourage the use of personal and departmental COVID-19 Opportunities and Challenges Statements (also known as COVID Impact Statements) that provide a comprehensive report of how an individual’s performance has been impacted. These statements will be taken into account by all campus reviewers. We remain committed to a flexible and holistic academic review, as described in the May 2021 memo, consistent with the systemwide Joint Senate-Administration Mitigating COVID-19 Impacts on Faculty Working Group (MCIF-WG) Final Report issued on April 12, 2022. In response to that report, President Drake has charged Provost/EVP Michael Brown with convening a workgroup to develop guidelines on how to equitably assess acceptable levels of performance and apply Achievement Relative to Opportunity (ARO) principles. The May 2021 guidance may be updated or amended as a result of future guidance from that workgroup, but it remains unchanged for 2022-23.

*NEW* Preemptive Retention Offers

Our campus policy on retention-based salary increases (CAPM 400.220.9.c.) requires written evidence of an outside offer from a competing institution. This is typically, but not always, an offer letter, and evidence of a specific salary offer is expected. In compelling circumstances, on a case by case basis, we are willing to consider retention-based salary increase requests in which the candidate is at a late stage of the hiring process but has not yet received a formal offer. Our goal is to support departments in retaining outstanding faculty in a very competitive hiring environment. Please be sure to consult with your dean before initiating a retention review.

Contributions to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (C2DEI) Statements

C2DEI statements will continue to be required of all applicants to Senate faculty positions and all Target of Excellence cases. They are strongly encouraged for Spousal/Partner Hire cases and President’s Postdoc hires. All search committees are encouraged to conduct a first-round screening based on a limited number of components, including the C2DEI statements and excluding the CVs. A proposal to make applicant C2DEI statements a permanent requirement is with the Senate for consideration in the fall.

C2DEI statements are not required for advancement review files; however, candidates are encouraged to use their personal statements to discuss their contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion in the context of research, teaching, and service.

Special Salary Practice

The campus practice of awarding standardized off-scale salary increments in outstanding merit and promotion cases will continue for the 2022-23 review year for all Senate faculty. As a reminder, the components are:

Normal advancement: Files that demonstrate excellence in all three areas will be considered for advancement of one step with no additional off-scale salary component.
Greater-than-normal advancement: Files that meet and exceed the criteria for normal advancement, but do not reach the threshold for accelerated advancement, will be considered for a one-step advancement plus an additional off-scale salary component.
- G1: Greater-than-normal files that are closer to a normal action will be considered for an off-scale salary increase of one-third of a step. These are typically files where one area is outstanding and the other two are excellent.
- G2: Greater-than-normal files that are closer to an accelerated action will be considered for an off-scale salary increase of two-thirds of a step. These are typically files where two areas are outstanding and the other one is excellent.
Accelerated advancement: Files that demonstrate outstanding performance that is significantly beyond expectations in all three areas will be considered for a two-step advancement.
- AC: A standard acceleration file will be considered for a two-step advancement with no additional off-scale salary component. Most accelerations are expected to be in this category.
- A1: In rare and exceptional circumstances, acceleration files that significantly exceed the standard for a two-step advancement will be considered for an off-scale salary increase of one-third of a step.

According to the May 2021 Guidance for COVID-Impacted Reviews, Senate faculty whose productivity was impacted by COVID may be awarded an off-scale salary increase equal to one step, in lieu of a merit increase, based on reasonable and effective performance on any balance of research, teaching, and service. To justify an increase in step, a review file must be holistically meritorious, in that the total collection of work justifies advancement of a step or more. For greater than normal advancement, there can be some increased fungibility between the categories due to the impacts of COVID.

The special salary practice does not apply to Above Scale faculty; please see the 2020 Annual CAP/CPEVC Memo for further guidance on above scale advancements.

For guidance on evaluating Teaching Professors under the special salary practice framework, see the October 2020 CAP/CPEVC Memo.

For a “G1” advancement, there is no requirement that the outstanding area be research (for ladder rank) or teaching (for Teaching Professors). For an “A1” advancement, the file will demonstrate achievement well beyond the standard for an acceleration in one or more areas: research, teaching, and service.

In response to many questions about what constitutes excellent or outstanding service at different ranks, CAP has provided some detailed examples of expectations in its 2021-22 annual report, which will be included in the fall 2022 Senate Meeting Agenda.

Change of Series Between the Ladder Rank and Teaching Professor (LSOE) Series

We have received inquiries about whether and how an appointee might transfer from the ladder rank Professor series to the Teaching Professor series or vice versa. Change of series might be appropriate if a faculty member’s interests and emphasis has evolved over time, and if the change is consistent with the needs and plans of the department. Change of series is addressed by systemwide policy APM 285-9.b.

Change of series is not appropriate as a remedy or substitute for a negative tenure or security of employment review, since time in both series count toward the eight-year limit of service at the assistant rank.

A change of series at the associate and full ranks is possible. A change of series requires the written consent of the faculty member. To move from the Teaching Professor to the ladder rank series, recruitment compliance is required, either through an open search or an approved waiver under CAPM 101.000. In both directions, an academic review is required. The campus does not have established procedures for a change of series review, as these have historically been exceptionally rare. However, if a department is interested in proposing a change of series for a tenured/SOE faculty member, it may work with the division and APO to develop an appropriate review process that includes Senate consultation.

External Letters

Sample solicitation letters are posted online at https://apo.ucsc.edu/policy/capm/sample-solicitation-letters.html and now include a sample for Teaching Professor promotion cases. See the 2021 Annual CAP/EVC Memo for additional guidance on external letters in Teaching Professor cases. All solicitation templates have been updated to include language asking reviewers to acknowledge the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Please make sure your department is using the latest templates.

As a reminder, outside letters are not required and should not be solicited for step 6 files, unless there is a Career Equity Review component. The criteria for step 6 remain the same as stated in policy. Campus reviewers are expected to address the step 6 criteria without relying on outside letters to assess the candidate’s performance, distinction, and breadth of impact in the field.

Review files for tenured and SOE level appointments require a minimum of 3 department-suggested, independent letters, or however many letters are needed to make the case for appointment at the recommended rank, step, and salary. If the applicant is coming from an open search that included letters, those must be added to the appointment file. When there are no letters, either because the search did not require them or because there is a search waiver, there should be at least 3 department-suggested letters. Candidate suggestions for letters are never required for an appointment file. Letters from UC faculty who are familiar with the UC rank and step system can be especially helpful in appointment files, major actions where there is a request for a Career Equity Review, and advancement to Above Scale. The information on all letter writers, regardless of how they were solicited, should be included.

Book Disciplines vs. Book-Based Files

In some fields, a book is generally expected for promotion. At UCSC, we recognize that even within a “book discipline”, the promotion file of an individual faculty member may not be based on a book, and may be based on other scholarly work. Alternatives include, but are not limited to, community-engaged scholarship, public-facing digital scholarship, or a sufficient collection of journal articles. When a file is based on community-engaged or public facing scholarship, it is helpful for the candidate and the department to discuss the scholarly content of the work, the reach of the dissemination of the work, and the impact of the work. When a file is based on a book, guidance is provided: https://apo.ucsc.edu/policy/communications/docs/evc-cap-to-faculty-book-disciplines-may-2020.pdf.

CAP Recusal Policy

A UC-wide comparison of CAP practices showed that many CAPs on other UC campuses have members participate in the CAP discussions of files from their department so that they may provide valuable discipline-specific expertise and knowledge. In response to this finding, UCSC’s CAP recusal policy was changed in fall 2021. CAP members are now able to participate in the general discussion of files of their departmental colleagues, but continue to be recused from the CAP vote if they have already voted at the department level. When last year’s CAP voted in spring 2021 to institute the new recusal policy, members agreed to review the policy at the end of 2021-22 and then to issue a formal recusal policy.

Continuing existing practice, in fall 2022, both the case presenter and second reader of the file will not be faculty members from the candidate’s department. Department members from the file being discussed will be recused from voting and will not take part in the discussion specifically leading to the CAP recommendation votes. Department members will be present for the general discussion of the case, and will have access to the file, including letters added to the file after the departmental vote. Questions addressed to the department member by CAP will be confined only to standards in the discipline, e.g., which publication venues have greatest visibility, which fields are high profile, changing or emerging foci in the discipline, etc. The department member will be recused and excused from the meeting when the vote takes place, or will be recused from the entirety of the discussion if the department vote is not unanimous, or there are any other questions or appearances of conflict of interest, as identified by the department member, the chair, or any CAP member. Any CAP member may choose to be self-recused from any case, including those from their home department.

Importance of Mentorship of New and Junior Professors

Departments are expected to provide mentorship to all new and junior professors, either from the chair or a designated mentor. Guidance should be provided on the timing of reviews, expectations for reviews, and how to put together an informative file. This mentorship expectation is in addition to, and may not be replaced by, the mentor program run by the Senate Committee on Career Advising.

Contextualizing Venues

As each discipline has its own set of book publishers, journals, and other venues for presentation and dissemination, it is important for the department letter to contextualize these venues. A brief assessment of the quality and impact associated with each venue can be helpful for reviewers. Is this one of the top journals in the field? An important journal for the sub-field? An impactful interdisciplinary journal? Is this book publisher known as the place to go for a particular topic? How prestigious is this theater hall? How competitive are these conference proceedings?

Resources

For additional tips and recommendations, please see the Committee on Academic Personnel webpage on the Academic Senate website: https://senate.ucsc.edu/committees/cap-committee-on-academic-personnel/index.html.

Prior communications about academic personnel reviews:

https://apo.ucsc.edu/policy/communications/index.html#appointment-and-advancement

The Academic Personnel Office offers regularly scheduled workshops related to the academic personnel process, as well as ad hoc meetings by request:

https://apo.ucsc.edu/training/index.html

cc:

Vice Provost Lee, Academic Affairs

Academic Personnel Office

Academic Senate Office

Committee on Academic Personnel

Deans

Department Chairs

Department Managers