Home / Policy / CAPM / 410.220

410.220 - Promotion

UCSC:APO:CAPM rev:09/11

GENERAL PROVISIONS BEFORE THE REVIEW FILE IS ASSEMBLED THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW PROGRESS OF THE REVIEW FILE AFTER THE DEPARTMENT AND DEAN REVIEW

6. Deferral of Promotion Review

See Deferral, section 402.200

Explanation of Document Inventory for Promotion/Summary of Process

GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. Definition

Promotion: Advancement from one rank to a higher rank, e.g., from Assistant professor to Associate Professor, or from Associate Professor to Professor. Promotions are normally effective July 1.

2. Deadlines

Refer to the Annual Call and Calendar for Academic Personnel Actions, usually issued in May by the Academic Personnel Office (APO). The CALL provides a list of faculty who are eligible for promotion review. Department chairs are responsible for ensuring that faculty submit a complete set of required materials no later than the first day of fall quarter or an earlier deadline established by the department. Eligibility & Deadlines CAPM 400.220

3. Policy References
  • APM 160 Academic Personnel Records/Maintenance of, access to and Opportunity to request Amendments
  • APM 210 Review and appraisal committees
  • APM 220-10 Criteria
  • APM 220-80 Recommendations and Review: General Procedures
  • APM 220-82 Procedure for Appointment, Reappointment, or Promotion to the Rank of Assistant Professor
  • APM 220-84 Procedure for Non-Reappointment of an Assistant Professor
  • APM 220-85 Procedure for Appointment or Promotion to the Rank of Associate Professor or Professor
  • CAPM 400.220 Professor Series General (eligibility for review and deadlines)
4. Eligibility

Candidates are listed on the CALL as eligible for promotion review according to the schedule established by University policy on the normal periods of service at rank and step. [CAPM 400.220]. (See section [402.200] for policies and procedures concerning deferral and mandatory review.) In addition, each department chair is responsible for making certain that within the department there is an annual examination of the status and performance of each faculty member. Cases of possible eligibility for formal review for advancement shall be examined. Likewise, cases of unsatisfactory performance and less than desirable excellence shall be examined. [APM 075]

Newly appointed assistant and associate professors are expected to undergo at least one positive review before being put forward for promotion. This is intended to provide sufficient time for these appointees to establish a record of excellence on this campus in teaching, research and creative activity, and service.

Refer to flow chart for stages of the process for promotion review.

5. Procedures

BEFORE THE REVIEW FILE IS ASSEMBLED

a. The chairperson shall document the review by completing the Checklist to Assure Fairness with the candidate. The applicable procedures outlined in the checklist should be followed in the order indicated, with the candidate initialing each number to indicate these obligations have been completed. The candidate may annotate any item as necessary. Signatures of both the candidate and department chair are required.

b. The chairperson shall notify the candidate of the impending review and make certain that the candidate is adequately informed about the entire review process; the deadline for submission of materials; and the review period. The review period for promotion actions commences with the previous approved major action and ends with the established due date for the candidate's submission of materials.

c. The candidate is given the opportunity to ask questions and made aware of APM 210-1, 220, and 160.

d. The chairperson shall inform the candidate that past personnel actions may be viewed during the current review process. Refer to the campus policy on access to prior reviews (section 202.160) for more information.

e. The chairperson shall inform the candidate that copies of publications (evidence of research and/or creative work) submitted to the department will be forwarded for review by all review agencies.

f. The chairperson shall ask the candidate to supply pertinent information:

  • 1. Updated cumulative biobibliography. It is the candidate's responsibility to provide current information. Information on research, teaching (what courses), and professional and public service must be included;

  • 2. Copies of publications (and other materials related to research and creative activity) since promotion or tenured appointment. Promotion to tenure cases may include publications from entire career;

  • 3. Copies of materials related to research and creative work in progress which the candidate wishes to submit for review;

  • 4. Candidate's optional personal statement: it is often helpful for the reviewers if the candidate submits a statement of their research plans and progress, teaching and service contributions. The candidate may include any information the candidate desires in this statement, e.g., courses developed, problems encountered, extenuating circumstances, etc. [sample candidate's optional statement] The department must review this statement before making a final recommendation and evaluation;

  • 5. The department chair shall ask the candidate to supply names (internal and external) of others who might reasonably be asked to evaluate the candidate's work. The candidate should also provide brief comments on the academic standing of each proposed reviewer and relationship, if any, to the candidate. A candidate is not required to supply such names. If the candidate decides not to suggest names, indicate this in the review file;

  • 6. The department chair shall ask the candidate to supply names of persons (external and internal) who, for reasons set forth in writing by the candidate, might not objectively evaluate the candidate's qualifications and performance because of personal or professional reasons. Any names and the reasons shall be included in the review file.

    The reasons given need not be detailed--examples are "My work has just proved that John Smith's work of the last 40 years is completely wrong" or "My work is of the Green School, while hers is of the Smith School." Naming someone as possibly not being objective does not mean that the person will be excluded from participating in the review, but will allow reviewers to place comments in the file in the proper context;

  • 7. Unsolicited material (optional): this is material that has not been solicited by any university agency. It might include unsolicited letters to the candidate or department concerning the candidate, published reviews of the candidate's work, or any relevant material the candidate wants to include in the review file. All unsolicited material normally is non-confidential; the candidate has direct access to it. If the material is received by the university, and not from the candidate, with the understanding that the identity of the author will be held in confidence to the extent permissible by law, then it is should be marked 'unsolicited confidential' and redacted for the candidate;

  • 8. Sabbatical leave report (if leave was taken during period since prior promotion or appointment): sabbatical leave reports are to be completed in accordance with APM 740-97 and submitted to the dean or their designee within 90 calendar days of return from the leave.

g. All student evaluations from the review period must be considered by the department and asterisked on the biobibliography. Please annotate with the letter "F" and forward only those student evaluations since the last approved action. Briefly explain any abnormal course loads and identify new courses taught, or old courses with substantial reorganization of approach or content. Evaluations should be gathered from other departments or committees for whom the candidate has taught, as well as from the candidate's department. If no evaluations are available for some courses, please include an explanation in the department letter. Also include the number of students enrolled and percent of returned evaluations.

h. Publications and creative work that have been reviewed by the department must be annotated and numbered on the biobibliography; the original publications and creative work are numbered correspondingly. Materials that are forwarded are marked with the letter 'F' on the biobibliography.

By annotating the biobibliography with the courses for which evaluations have been submitted and the publications reviewed and forwarded by the department, a record is created of what has been used as documentation in the review.

i. The chairperson shall solicit letters of evaluation from qualified persons, including a reasonable number of persons suggested by the candidate. All such letters shall be included in the review file and are confidential documents. Letters from students are not required. See Instructions for Soliciting Letters for procedures to be followed and for link to sample solicitation letter. There is no set number of letters required, usually five are adequate.

j. The chairperson should be helpful in responding to the candidate's questions and in considering whether additions to the file by the candidate are needed. The chairperson has an obligation to consider the interests of both the candidate and the University, and to see to it that the department review is fair to the candidate and rigorous in maintaining University standards.

BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED

k. The chairperson shall provide the candidate the opportunity to inspect all non-confidential documents to be included in the review file. The chairperson shall provide the candidate with a redacted copy (as defined in APM 160-20-c(4) and 200.160) of the confidential academic review records which will be included in the review file. Refer to section 200.160 for further information concerning confidential documents. The identities of the persons who were the sources of the documents shall not be disclosed. A copy of the redacted confidential documents shall be included in the original copy of the review file.

l. The chairperson shall provide the candidate with the opportunity to submit a written statement to comment upon material in the file. The candidate has ten working days from receipt of the redacted confidential documents in which to comment. The candidate's written comment, if any, must be included in the review file and is considered by the department before the department recommendation is completed. The candidate is encouraged to notify the chairperson if the candidate declines to comment, so that the chairperson can immediately continue the review.

THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW

m. The department's recommendation is made in accordance with Bylaw 55 of the Academic Senate and the written voting policy of the department. Each department should have a copy of its voting procedures on file in the division and the Academic Personnel Office. [Departmental Review Procedures]

n. The vote of the eligible faculty must be reported in the department's letter. See also Senate by-laws 13.4.3, 13.4.4 and 13.4.5.

o. The department letter shall discuss the proposed promotion in light of the criteria set forth in APM 210-1. Any significant evidence or differences of opinion shall be included. The letter must be an evaluation of the evidence, not merely an enumeration or list of accomplishments. All references to confidential letter writers must be by alpha code.

p. The recommendation should include the rank, step, and salary desired. A recommendation for off-scale salary (see section APM 620) must be accompanied by a justification for the salary, e.g., the market place, to match competing offers, special problems in a discipline, or exceptional performance.

q. The departmental letter contains:

  1. name, current rank, step, and salary of the candidate;

  2. number of years at rank and step;

  3. rank, step, and salary recommended;

  4. the vote specifying the number in favor, opposed, and abstained; and

  5. an evaluation and analysis of the candidate's performance based on the criteria in APM 220-10 and 210 -1. See Suggestions for Letters of Evaluation, for additional information on documenting the evaluation.

  6. When an eligible department faculty member believes that the department letter does not adequately represent the department member's views, they may submit a written minority opinion directly to the department chair for inclusion in the department letter. In the same way that specific views of individual faculty members are not identified in the department letter nor are faculty required to reveal their votes, the author of the minority opinion need not be identified. The chair may incorporate the minority language or attach the minority opinion to the department's letter.

r. The department shall adopt procedures under which the department letter shall be available, before being forwarded, for inspection by all those members of the department eligible to vote on the matter, or by a designated committee or other group of such members.

s. The chairperson provides the candidate with a copy of the department evaluation and recommendation. The identities of the sources of confidential documents shall not be disclosed in the department letter except by alpha code.

t. The candidate is given an opportunity to submit a written comment on the department letter. This comment may be sent to the department or dean, at the option of the candidate. If the candidate chooses to send the comment directly to the dean, it shall be confidential from the department. The candidate has ten working days from receipt of the department letter in which to comment. The candidate's comment, if any, shall be included in the review file.

u. The chairperson may write a separate and distinct letter presenting their recommendation and evaluation as chairperson. This letter is confidential and is not part of the documents redacted by the chairperson for the candidate, nor must it be made available to other department members eligible to vote on the action. The chair's letter comments on the review and may not introduce new material. The division shall identify the chairperson's letter with an alpha code on the list of letter writers. Subsequent reviewers shall refer to the chairperson's letter by the assigned alpha code. The confidential chair letter, in redacted form, will be provided to the candidate upon the candidate's request for access to the review file after the final decision has been issued. [200.160]

PROGRESS OF THE REVIEW FILE AFTER THE DEPARTMENT REVIEW

v. The review file and documents specified in the Document Inventory for Promotion shall be forwarded to the dean for review. The dean may request additional information or clarification from the chairperson. The dean shall review the file, add a written recommendation, and forward the file to the Academic Personnel Office.

w. The Academic Personnel Office shall review the file for completeness and forward it to the Senate Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP).

x. The Committee on Academic Personnel reviews the dossier to recommend an Ad Hoc committee, if applicable.  Ad Hoc committee review is only required if: 1) the department and/or dean recommend denial of promotion, or 2) the department and/or dean recommend acceleration of two or more steps.  The Ad Hoc committee shall proceed in accordance with APM 210-1 and shall base its recommendation and evaluation on the review file.

y. The Committee on Academic Personnel shall review the file and add a written recommendation.

z. If, during Academic Senate or administrative review, the review file is found to be incomplete or inadequate, additional information shall be solicited through the Academic Personnel Office. Additional information normally shall be requested in writing from the department through the dean. The chairperson shall provide the candidate with the opportunity to inspect any non-confidential additional information and shall provide a redacted copy of any confidential additional information. All such documents shall accompany the additional information for inclusion in the review file. Include a redacted version of the confidential documents in the original review file. The candidate has ten working days from receipt of the redacted copies to comment upon the file material. The candidate's comment, if any, shall accompany the additional information for inclusion in the review file. The department shall review the additional information and submit a recommendation or comment. The candidate is provided with a copy of the department comment and has ten working days in which to respond. The candidate may choose to send their response directly to the dean, or the department. If the candidate responds to the dean, the response is confidential from the department. The additional information shall be forwarded to the dean, accompanied by a completed Checklist to Assure Fairness for the Submission of Additional Information. The dean shall add their comment and forward the material to the Academic Personnel Office. The review shall then be based upon the review file as augmented.

aa. The final decision shall be based upon the review file.

  • (1) If the executive vice chancellor's preliminary assessment is contrary to the recommendation of the department, the executive vice chancellor will notify the department and dean and CAP indicating the reasons and asking for any further information which might support a different decision. If the preliminary assessment agrees with the department but is contrary to the dean or CAP, the executive vice chancellor shall notify the dean and/or CAP indicating the reasons and asking for any further information which might support a different decision. If additional information is provided, the dean and CAP will be given an opportunity to comment on the augmented file before the final decision is made. The candidate shall be notified of the decision in writing with copies to the dean and department.

  • (2) If, during review for promotion of an Assistant Professor, the executive vice chancellor's preliminary assessment is not to promote, or is to make a terminal appointment, or is contrary to the department recommendation, the chair and the candidate shall be notified of this in writing by the executive vice chancellor. The candidate shall be provided with access to the records placed in the personnel review file subsequent to the department review in accordance with APM 160-20-c and CAPM 200.160. When the candidate is provided access to such records, the department chair and dean also shall be provided with copies. The candidate and the chair, after appropriate consultation within the department, shall then have the opportunity to respond in writing and to provide additional information and documentation. The candidate has ten days to respond to, or comment upon, the preliminary access material. In accordance with campus policy, the candidate may send their comment on the extradepartmental review records to the department or dean at the option of the candidate. If the candidate chooses to send their comment directly to the dean, it shall be confidential from the department. Any new material or documentation, however, must be submitted to the department in order that it may comment.

    The department has twenty days after receipt of the preliminary assessment of an assistant professor in which to respond to or comment on the preliminary access material, as well as any new material or commentary submitted by the candidate. The candidate is provided with a copy of the department's response to these materials and the candidate has five days in which to comment. This comment may be sent to the department or directly to the dean at the option of the candidate. If the candidate chooses to send their comment directly to the dean, it shall be confidential from the department. The additional information shall be forwarded to the dean, accompanied by a completed Checklist to Assure Fairness in the Preliminary Assessment Process. The dean shall add their review and forward the material to Academic Personnel.

bb. After the decision, the candidate shall have the right, upon written request, to receive from the executive vice chancellor a written statement of the reasons for the decision including a copy of non-confidential documents and a redacted copy of the confidential academic review records (as defined in APM 160) in the personnel review file.

cc. Student evaluations and publications/creative work will be returned to the department following the decision.

6. Deferral of Promotion Review

See Deferral, section 402.200.

DOCUMENT INVENTORY FOR PROMOTION IN PROFESSORIAL TITLES Explanation of Document Inventory for Promotion/Summary of Process

The top section of the Document Inventory for promotion should be completed by the Department Assistant. Questions about how to complete this form, may be directed to the division office or the Academic Personnel Office. Materials to be included with the Document Inventory for Promotion are listed below by the party responsible for their submission. Items are submitted at different stages of the review process as indicated.

CANDIDATE

BEFORE THE REVIEW FILE IS ASSEMBLED:
  • List of names of persons (external and internal) to be solicited for letters of evaluation.
  • List of names (external and internal) who might not objectively evaluate candidate and explanation.
  • Publications
  • Unsolicited material (optional)
  • Sabbatical leave report (if leave was taken during period since last major action)
  • Optional personal statement
  • Cumulative biobibliography
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED
  • Response to confidential document (optional)
AFTER THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED
  • Comment to department letter (optional)

DEPARTMENT

BEFORE THE REVIEW FILE IS ASSEMBLED:
  • Checklist to Assure Fairness (first section)
  • Annotated Cumulative Biobibliography
  • Student evaluations
  • Student letters (if any)
  • Confidential letters
  • Sample copy of solicitation letter
  • List of all persons from whom letters were sought; identifies those suggested by the candidate
  • Brief comments on academic standing of each letter writer and relationship, if any, to candidate.
  • Declining letters (including report of declinations by phone)
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED
  • Provides the assembled review materials to the candidate for inspection and comment
  • Checklist to Assure Fairness (second section)
AFTER THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED
  • Checklist to Assure Fairness (last section)

DEPARTMENT CHAIR

AFTER THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED

  • Department letter (non-confidential document)
  • Department chair letter (optional, confidential document)

DEAN

AFTER THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED

  • Dean's letter (non-confidential document)