Annual Memo from CP/EVC and CAP Chairs on Academic Advancement-2018

October 08, 2018

By Marlene Tromp, Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor 
By Marilyn Westerkamp, Chair, Senate Committee on Academic Personnel 
By Carla Freccero, Chair, Senate Committee on Academic Personnel (2017) 


 Dear Colleagues:

As the new academic year begins, we write to provide information about new policies, address frequently asked questions, and emphasize priorities and expectations.


The campus special salary practice will continue for the 2018-19 review year with the same parameters that applied in 2017-18. 

A joint senate-administration task force will launch this fall to examine issues of faculty salary equity and competitiveness. This task force will provide analysis and recommendations to campus leadership regarding the future of the special salary practice.

For major actions, please distinguish between accomplishments in the most recent review period and accomplishments over the full review period for the action. Special salary practice is based only on accomplishments since the last review, even for major actions. Please correctly annotate the bio-bibliography and include the annotated bio-bibliography from the most recent review.

When describing research and creative work, faculty and departments should make sure to distinguish between “research activity” (work that is incomplete or has not yet resulted in a publication or its equivalent) and “research accomplishment” (completed and published work or its equivalent). Research activity cannot be used to justify application of the special salary practice.

It is helpful, when recommending G1, G2, or A1, to state clearly the areas (research, teaching, service) in which the performance merits a greater-than-normal award.



The Academic Personnel Office publishes deadlines by which departments and deans must submit files to subsequent reviewers. These deadlines ensure that all files can be completed during the academic year. Late submission of files results in faculty not receiving critical performance feedback in a timely way; delays pay increases for faculty; increases workload for faculty and staff; and has a negative effect on morale. We ask that you always strive to meet these deadlines.

We thank departments and divisions for their attention to deadlines in 2017-18 and ask all chairs and deans to continue to make faculty personnel reviews a top priority in the upcoming year.  CP/EVC Tromp will receive regular updates on timeliness, and deans can work with divisional academic personnel coordinators to track progress within the division. Deans and chairs should keep candidates apprised of the progress of their reviews, particularly when there has been a delay. Likewise, we will ensure that files proceed in a timely manner through the CAP and central administrative review stages.



Every department should periodically review its Bylaw 55 voting rights policy, which can be modified by the department faculty. If changes are made, the new voting policy should be documented in writing with a copy to CAP and the Academic Personnel Office.

We encourage all departments to consider extending participation or voting rights to assistant professors. The senate Committee on Career Advising (CCA) contends that allowing assistant and associate faculty to participate in review proceedings helps these faculty better understand the relevant process and requirements, and thus allows them to be more informed and successful when their own review comes up. (CCA 2016-17 Annual Report , p.8)  Studies have shown that extending voting rights to assistant professors can also positively impact institutional diversity.



Candidates are encouraged to submit statements addressing their contributions to diversity at UCSC through their research, teaching, and service. Such contributions should be explicitly recognized, in accordance with policy on criteria for advancement (see policy excerpts at Evaluating Contributions to Diversity for Faculty Appointment and Promotion).

In February 2018, the Committee on Affirmative Action and Diversity published revised Contributions to Diversity Statement Guidelines. Though aimed at candidates, it is useful information for all faculty who participate in assessing colleagues’ contributions.   



A waiver of open recruitment for a senate faculty position may be requested in order to take advantage of two specific opportunities: Target of Excellence (TOE), and Spousal/Domestic Partner. When preparing a waiver request, departments and divisions should carefully review CAPM 101.000: Waivers of Open Recruitment for Senate Faculty Positions as well as the recently updated Committee on Planning & Budget’s Guidelines. Failure to provide required documentation, to consult thoroughly, or to follow established protocols may lead to requests being returned and/or significantly delayed.

Although the profile of the candidate is an important part of the waiver and budgetary requests, these do not substitute for the appointment review process. A waiver justification should focus on the impact of the opportunity hire on the established plans of the division and department. TOE waivers must also demonstrate that the proposed candidate could not be hired via an open, competitive recruitment.  The subsequent appointment file should focus on the candidate’s qualifications in order to determine the appropriate rank, step, and salary.

Finally, in requesting waivers of open recruitment, please briefly state the candidate’s qualifications in all areas of review (research and creative activity, teaching and mentoring, university service and professional activities). The appointment file should also be sure to address all areas of review. Waiver requests and appointment files should assess the candidate’s past and potential future contributions to diversity, including the candidate’s self-statement.



In appointment and retention cases, departments and deans have the ability to recommend the salaries they deem appropriate. If the department or dean is privy to information that influenced its salary recommendation, it is helpful to pass that information on to subsequent reviewers. For example, a candidate may have expressed a particular salary requirement that you are trying to meet; or there may be equity considerations with current faculty in the department (do not include names). It is important that salaries falling outside the norm be explained and justified in appointment and retention files.

When negotiating salary with faculty candidates, please refer to these Guidelines for Compliance with AB168.  Effective January 1, 2018, AB168 prohibits California employers from inquiring about or relying upon salary history as a factor in determining salary or whether to offer employment.



Divisional appointees are faculty who are not affiliated with an existing department, and instead report directly to a dean. Because of the traditional role that departments play in structuring both service and teaching responsibilities, divisional appointment files are rare and should be accompanied by information about expectations in these two critical areas to give subsequent reviewers a sense of how and where the candidate will contribute to the campus beyond research. Specific assignments do not need to be determined before a candidate accepts an offer.



Faculty may be affiliated with a department but teaching courses in and providing significant service contributions to a different department, or an interdepartmental program, even without a formal joint appointment. In most cases, the regular review process is sufficient to assess such contributions. However, when a candidate for review has made substantial contributions to a department/program outside of the purview of the voting faculty, such that they feel additional information would be helpful, the department chair or representative may solicit feedback from the other department or group. Such feedback should be in writing and made available to the candidate for review and response before the department vote is taken. Procedural questions may be directed to the divisional academic personnel office.



Departments and faculty should be sure to evaluate not only classroom teaching but also the quality and extent of mentoring outside the classroom (of undergraduates and especially graduate students).

Files must include more than one form of evidence of excellence in teaching. The CITL Guide to Providing Evidence of Excellence in Teaching is a helpful resource.

The Faculty Instructional Technology Center (FITC) is rolling out a new online course evaluation system called What•Do•You•Think campuswide in fall 2018. The system is sponsored and endorsed by the Vice Provost of Academic Affairs and the Senate Committee on Teaching (COT). Questions about the new evaluation system may be directed to the FITC.

Departments that piloted the new system in spring 2018 should ensure that the evaluation reports are uploaded to the online review files of faculty undergoing review in 2018-19. For faculty who also piloted the new survey instrument designed by the COT, the evaluation system will produce reports designed for the personnel process, which include only the core questions and omit the instructor-designed formative portion of the survey. APO will continue to oversee an automated load process to capture the correct reports from FITC/WDYT and archive them in Biobibnet. Departments retain responsibility as the offices of record to ensure these records are complete and accurate.


10.       SERVICE

It is helpful to provide information describing and contextualizing department (or other) service that may not be readily obvious to higher levels of review.



In major actions requiring outside letters, the file must contain a confidential list of letter writers. The list must include the professional relationship of the writer to the candidate, such as: former colleague, PhD advisor, former student, or current co-author.



CAP’s Tips for Faculty, Chairs, and Deans

CITL Guide to Providing Evidence of Excellence in Teaching

Senate Committee on Career Advising

Academic Senate Bylaw 55: Voting Rights

CAAD’s Guidance on Contributions to Diversity Statements

Evaluating Contributions to Diversity for Faculty Appointment and Promotion

Cumulative Biobibliography Preparation Guidelines

Summary of Review Eligibility Policies

Div Data Review Help & Open Lab Schedule