Annual Memo from CP/EVC and CAP Chair on Academic Advancement-2016

DEANS
DEPARTMENT AND PROGRAM CHAIRS
DEPARTMENT AND PROGRAM MANAGERS
DIVISIONAL ACADEMIC PERSONNEL COORDINATORS

            Re:  Annual Memo from CP/EVC and CAP Chair on Academic Advancement-2016

Dear Colleagues: 

As the new academic year begins, we write to provide you with updates and reminders regarding the academic personnel process and policy. This communication contains a compilation of items that were identified during the 2015-16 review cycle as requiring attention. In addition, recent process changes and the schedule of upcoming workshops are included.

1. Salary Considerations

This past year, we saw several variations on the campus special salary practice being presented as departmental recommendations in review files. As a reminder, the special salary practice provides a specific set of parameters, which are provided below for your review. The Senate Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) and the deciding authorities apply the special salary practice to faculty advancement reviews. In all cases, an important role of the department chair is to correctly set and manage expectations for a candidate.

Campus “Special Salary Practice”
The campus special salary practice will continue through the 2016-17 review year. Initially implemented with 2008-09 reviews, this practice (known to some as the “merit boost plan” or “more generous salary practice”) was implemented in response to the finding that UCSC faculty salaries lagged those at other UC campuses. The special practice provides a mechanism to increase senate faculty salaries through the academic advancement process. It allows advancement to be coupled with a greater number of possible salary increases, more than simply one- or two-step movements. The criteria for merit advancement and promotion at all ranks and steps have not changed.

As always, academic advancement continues to be based on the record of accomplishments during the review period in teaching, research/creative activity, and service as presented in the file. A faculty member is considered for a normal advancement (advancement of one step) when the review file demonstrates excellence in all three areas. A greater-than-normal advancement (one step plus an additional off-scale salary component) is considered when performance is outstanding in two of the three areas or, on rare occasions, when performance is unusually outstanding in only one of the three areas as long as performance in the remaining two areas meets the criteria for normal advancement. An acceleration (advancement of two steps) is considered when the review file demonstrates outstanding performance in all three areas, meaning that performance in each of the areas is significantly beyond expectations.

To increase faculty salaries in conjunction with recognizing and rewarding academic performance, the following practices remain in place for the 2016-17 review year.

• Greater-than-normal files that are closer to a normal action will be considered for a one-step advancement plus an additional off-scale component equivalent to a half-step.
• Greater-than-normal files that are closer to an acceleration, but which do not demonstrate outstanding performance in all three areas, will be considered for a one-step advancement plus an additional off-scale component equivalent to $100 less than the next step.
• Accelerations will be considered for an additional off-scale salary component equivalent to a half-step where merited.

Advancement to Above Scale or to Further Above Scale

As you are aware, there is no salary scale for faculty who advance to Above Scale status or are advanced to Further Above Scale. The following campus practice is intended to assist you in consideration of such cases:

• Step 9 and Above Scale are considered indefinite steps, and a minimum of four years must be served between reviews, although some faculty may require additional time to achieve an appropriate record for such advancement.
• Further Above Scale advancement must be justified by new evidence of merit and elevated distinction; maintaining excellence in all three areas is not an adequate justification.
• Standard advancement from Step 9 to Above Scale is an increase in salary equal to 11% of the Step 9 salary scale rate. This amount is added to the candidate’s total salary (on-scale plus off-scale component) to yield the new Above Scale salary rate.
• Standard advancement for Further Above Scale actions is a specific dollar amount rather than a percentage increase applied to the candidate’s current salary. For 2016-17, the increase remains a flat rate of $16,000, which is added to the current salary rate for those files that meet the criteria of elevated level of achievements expected for advancement. If these criteria are not met, requests for less than $16,000 could be justified for continued distinguished work.
• The campus guidelines for the “Special Salary Practice” do not apply to Above Scale actions. A recommendation greater than 11% of Step 9 at time of initial advancement or greater than $16,000 for Further Above Scale can only be justified in extraordinary cases that meet the criteria for advancement combined with, for example, a new major award in recognition of career accomplishments.
• NEW - In unusual cases where the file is judged to support either a lesser or greater salary increase than the standard 11% or the $16,000, it is recommended that 25% or 50% decrease or increase in that amount be considered in order to provide consistency across the campus.

Salary Limits for Professors, Step 9

When advising professors at Step 9 and considering recommendations for such professors who request a salary increase in lieu of an Above Scale review, please keep this in mind that professors at Step 9 who are eligible for review, but who choose not to undergo an Above Scale review are limited in the amount of salary increase. (CAPM 803.620^[1])

The off-scale salary of a Professor, Step 9, shall not be higher than $100 less than the published salary scale for Professor, Step 9, plus 11 percent, barring exceptional circumstances. It is not appropriate for a faculty member to receive an above-scale salary without an Above Scale review. A candidate with an excellent record who chooses not to proceed with such a review, but requests review for a salary increase, may be considered for a modest off-scale increase, such as a quarter or a half step. If the faculty member’s performance continues to be excellent, the department may wish to recommend a further modest salary increase in recognition of the faculty member’s overall performance during the review period.

2. Content of Department Letter and Materials Included in Advancement Files

Campuswide Standard Review Period for Senate Faculty Advancement Reviews
As a reminder, effective with files submitted for the current 2016-17 review year, the review period for all senate faculty academic personnel review files is July 1 through June 30. Please refer to the June 4, 2015 announcement^[2] for details.

Decision not to put forward a major action
In cases where normal advancement would have been a major action (promotion, advancement to professor, Step 6 or Above Scale), but the action put forward is not this action, it is very helpful for reviewers to understand the reason for the delay in advancement. The department should explain the deficiencies in the file that lead to the decision not to pursue the major action. Such explanations can serve to reduce the number of files that may be returned to the division/department for additional information.

When advising faculty at associate professor Step 4 or professor Step 5 and considering recommendations for such faculty who request a salary increase in lieu of a promotion to full professor or Step 6 review, respectively, please bear this in mind that faculty at these junctures who are eligible for review, but who choose not to undergo the associated major action are limited in the amount of salary increase. As set out in CAPM 803.620 C.1:^[3]

Associate Professor, Step 4: A faculty member who is on the CALL for promotion may not present a record of performance in all three areas of teaching, research/creative activity, and service sufficient to warrant promotion to the rank of Professor. In those cases where the faculty member's performance, apart from the deficiency, is extraordinary, the Department may wish to recommend a modest off-scale salary increase such as a quarter or a half step in recognition of the faculty member’s overall performance during the review period. This recommendation must be accompanied by an assessment of the faculty member’s future prospects for promotion.

Professor, Step 5: It is not appropriate for a faculty member to receive a salary increase only to a rate equivalent to Step 6 or higher without undergoing a Step 6 review. A candidate at Professor, Step 5 with an excellent record who chooses not to proceed with a Step 6 review, but requests review for a salary increase only, may be considered for a modest off-scale increase such as a quarter or a half step in recognition of the faculty member's overall performance during the review period.

Salary justification for new hires and retentions

When recommending a salary for a new hire or retention, a justification should be provided if the reason for the salary is not clear. In retention actions, this is particularly important if the salary recommended does not directly correlate with the competing offer.

Acceleration terminology

Normal advancement is movement of one step on the ladder after the normative time at rank and step. Movement of more than one step is an acceleration. An acceleration is also movement of one or more steps in less than the normative time. An acceleration in step or in time requires evidence of unusual achievement. In cases where movement is greater than one step, the amount of acceleration is equated to movement that is beyond the normal one step. Below are common examples:

Merit from Professor, Step 2

• Professor, Step 2, after three years→ Professor, Step 3 = normal advancement
• Professor, Step 2, after three years→ Professor, Step 4 = acceleration of one step
• Professor, Step 2, after three years→ Professor, Step 5 = acceleration of two steps

Promotion from Associate, Step 3

• Associate, Step 3, after two years→ Professor, Step 1 = normal advancement
• Associate, Step 3, after two years→ Professor, Step 2 = acceleration of one step
• Associate, Step 3, after two years→ Professor, Step 3 = acceleration of two steps

Promotion from Associate, Step 4: Overlapping Step

• Associate, Step 4, after three years→ Professor, Step 2 = normal advancement
• Associate, Step 4, after three years→ Professor, Step 3 = acceleration of one step
• Associate, Step 4, after three years→ Professor, Step 4 = acceleration of two steps
• Associate, Step 4, after two years→ Professor, Step 1 = normal advancement (two years of credit)
• Associate, Step 4, after two years→ Professor, Step 2 = acceleration of one year
• Associate, Step 4, after two years→ Professor, Step 3 = acceleration of one year plus acceleration of one step

The Evaluation of Teaching
The Academic Personnel Manual (APM) requires more than one kind of evidence of teaching effectiveness (see APM 210-1.d.1^[4] – Criteria for Appointment, Promotion, and Appraisal, Teaching). Types of evidence of teaching effectiveness include: student evaluations; the assessments of faculty members based on class visitations or attendance at public lectures; departmental review of syllabi, exams, assignments, and other materials; the number and caliber of students mentored by the candidate; and the development of new and effective techniques of instruction, including techniques that meet the needs of students from groups that are underrepresented in the field of instruction. Numerical student evaluations alone ought never be the sole means of evaluating teaching. Because mentoring of students at all levels is a critical aspect of teaching, mentorship should be explicitly evaluated by the department as a form of teaching.

Teaching and mentoring at every level appropriate to the program should be addressed in the department letter. Candidates and departments are particularly encouraged to evaluate graduate teaching and mentorship and to contextualize departmental practice with regard to the teaching and supervision of graduate students. Because expectations differ from department to department (and even within departments), the department letter should delineate departmental expectations with regard to teaching and advising. In cases where a very limited number of students are taught over the review period, the department letter should address the reasons for this situation. Additionally, successful mentoring is not simply a matter of numbers; the department letter should address both the quantity and the quality.

In Press/In Progress Work

It is assumed that faculty are engaged in ongoing research activities, some of which are intended to produce research accomplishments (such as published articles and books, performances and exhibitions). Items that candidates identify on their biobibs as In Press or Published/Completed are fully credited in the review process as research accomplishments. An item is credited as a research accomplishment during the review period in which it is first identified as either In Press or Published/Completed, but not both. Items in other stages of development, e.g., In Progress or Submitted, are noted as research activities but not credited as research accomplishments. Refer to the Biobibliography Guidelines^[5]on scholarly and creative work - publication status annotations, for a list and description of the status options.

While research activity is considered in the review process, only under exceptional circumstances does research activity alone warrant a merit increase. Candidates should avoid submitting work that is still in its formative stages. At the rank of Assistant Professor, and especially for midcareer reviews, candidates who are working on book projects should submit some portion of their in-progress work so that reviewers can adequately assess their progress. All candidates are encouraged to describe work in progress in their personal statement.

Research activity alone—without research accomplishments—cannot be used to invoke UCSC’s Special Salary Practice.

For promotions, if the decision hinges on the publication of a book, but the book is still in progress, the expectation is that the review file will contain a copy of the completed book manuscript with documentation from the publisher that the book is ready for publication as is or with only minor revisions. The external letter writers must be provided the manuscript for review. In cases where the book manuscript is complete, but has not yet been accepted for publication, the review file must contain: 1) the completed draft manuscript; 2) an explanation with accompanying documentation of the current publication status of the manuscript; and 3) letters from external reviewers who were provided a copy of the completed manuscript. Please see the EVC/CAP memo^[6]dated August 5, 2014, listed under Communications on the APO web site.

Faculty Contributions to Collaborative Works
To assist reviewers with assessing a faculty member’s contribution to jointly-authored publications or other scholarly works, it is important for the review file to document clearly the faculty member’s contributions to those works. Academic Personnel Policy (APM 210-1.d(2)^[7]) states that it is the “responsibility of the department chair to establish as clearly as possible the role of the candidate in the joint effort” and to “make a separate evaluation of the candidate’s contribution” to this work. Department chairs may need input from the faculty on their individual contributions. The Campus Academic Personnel Manual (CAPM) provides guidelines to faculty^[8] on how to address their contributions to joint work, and faculty should be encouraged to provide a description of their contributions to joint efforts.

Confidential Letters
Advancement to Professor, Step 6. It is recommended, although not required, the departments solicit and receive an external letter from at least one UC colleague who is familiar with the UC ladder-rank system and who can comment on advancement to professor, Step 6.

Redaction. When redacting confidential letters, careful attention must be paid to ensure that identifying information is removed (see CAPM 200.160 B.3[9] for redaction guidance), including metadata from the original letter that may remain in the redacted letter. Please be certain that your support staff are aware of metadata and have the knowledge on how to redact so as to remove this information.

Department Chair Separate Letter (formerly referred to as confidential chair letter)
When a department chair submits a letter separate from the department letter, the candidate will be able to access that letter at the end of the review. The letter is only “confidential” in the sense that it is not provided to the candidate or the voting faculty before the file leaves the department, and only the candidate is provided access to it after the final decision has been made. The letter is seen by all subsequent levels of internal reviewers, including the final authority.

New - While current campus policy calls for the redaction of the department chair letter before access by the candidate, it is obvious to the candidate that the letter is from the chair as no other such document can be added to the dossier. Therefore, redaction, alpha coding, and adding the separate chair letter to the list of letter writers is no longer required.

Service Expectations
Departments with established service requirements are encouraged to contextualize the evaluation of service in light of such requirements.

Career Equity Review
New - The process for requesting a Career Equity Review (CER) is now tied to the major post-tenure actions of promotion to full Professor, advancement to Professor, Step 6 and advancement to Professor Above Scale rank. Please refer to the revised CAPM policy 412.000 Career Equity Review^[10] and memo Update to the Career Equity Review Process^[11] dated May 18, 2016 for detailed information.

When addressing a CER in the department letter, it is helpful to evaluate the overall professional standing of the candidate based on a review of the candidate’s career with emphasis on the time since appointment to a ladder-rank position at UCSC. In addition to advancement in rank and/or step as part of the CER, any increase in the off-scale salary amount should be based on activity since the last personnel advancement review. 

CAP Tips
In spring 2015, CAP revised its Top Ten Tips for Faculty. This year (2016) CAP revised its Top Ten List of Tips for Personnel Files for Chairs, offering suggestions both for reviewing the files as well as writing effective letters. Both lists may be found on the CAP webpage^[12].

3. Upcoming Workshops 

Department Chair Workshops on the Personnel Review Process
The annual workshops were held at the start of fall quarter and provided a detailed walk-through of the policies and procedures for processing a review file for a ladder-rank faculty member’s professorial advancement. The dates for the next year’s workshops will be posted in the spring on the APO web site, and department and program chairs and managers will be contacted directly in the summer with the dates for the fall 2017 workshops.

DivData Review - Open Labs for 2016-17
Academics and staff welcome!
All DivData Open Labs are held in the Kerr-8 Computer Lab.
See the DivData Help & Training^[13] web page for dates or send an email inquiry to divdata-training-group@ucsc.edu

Assistant Professor Workshops
In May of each year, sessions are offered to help Assistant Professors understand many of the policies and procedures in academic personnel reviews, including leaves of absences and impact of leaves on advancement. The sessions are informal and faculty will be able to ask questions pertinent to their own mid-career review, tenure review, eight-year limit, leave eligibility, etc. Assistant professors will be contacted directly by APO and invited to attend. 

Your role as a department chair or dean is critical to the effective functioning of the campus, and we appreciate all you do to insure that the academic personnel review process is conducted in a timely and accurate manner. We look forward to working with you in the new academic year.

Sincerely, Carla Freccero Chair Senate Committee on Academic Personnel

Sincerly, Allison Galloway Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

cc:

Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Lee
Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel Peterson
Academic Personnel Office Analysts
Academic Senate Office