Woman with red umbrella walking past red phone booth

Annual Call

Download 2026-2027 Annual Call for Academic Personnel Advancement Actions (PDF)

July 31, 2026

RE:     2026-2027 Annual Call for Academic Personnel Advancement for Academic Senate and Academic Federation Actions

Dear Colleagues:

With this Annual Call for the 2026-2027 academic year, I am pleased to remind you of changes in policies, procedures, and interpretations that have taken place over the past year.

We strongly recommend that department chairs review this information and distribute it to all academic appointees. We also encourage department chairs to discuss important new items and reminders with academic appointees at a department meeting.

Please pay close attention to the deadlines for both non-redelegated (central campus) and redelegated (dean) actions in Appendix A of this Annual Call.

Please contact our office if you have any questions on any of this information/guidance. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in continually improving the complex advancement process at UC Davis.

Sincerely,
Philip H. Kass
Vice Provost—Academic Affairs
Distinguished Professor of Analytic Epidemiology,
Population Health and Reproduction (Veterinary Medicine), and Public Health Sciences (Medicine)

  • SPECIAL ITEMS

  • New – Employee Disclosure and Tentative Offer Letters: 
    After consultation with the Academic Senate, we are requiring that the following language be added back into tentative offer letters just under the signature from the selected candidate:

    • “By signing this letter, the undersigned represents that they are not currently the subject of any disciplinary proceeding (investigations, hearing, etc.) at any and all academic institutions, places of employment, academic/professional societies, and/or professional licensing bodies, nor that they had in the past seven (7) years been formally disciplined at any of the following: any and all academic institutions, places of employment, academic/professional societies, and/or professional licensing bodies. If there are questions about this attestation, please contact Sandi Glithero ([email protected].) Note: The candidate may append a statement of explanation regarding any information or materials shared.”


    Additional guidance and process information is available on our Employment Disclosure Requirement Process webpage.

    New – STEAD Training Update: STEAD workshops will not be offered in the 2026-27 academic year. For faculty whose STEAD certification will expire between July 1, 2026 and August 31, 2027, certification will be extended, providing one additional year of certification. Please review additional details below, under ACADEMIC RECRUITMENTS. 

    Clarification – Online Instruction: The Committee on Courses of Instruction’s Virtual and Hybrid Courses policy requires that courses in which an average of one or more contact hours per week are conducted online be classified as hybrid or virtual via the Integrated Curriculum Management System (ICMS). Instructors must teach their courses via the learning activities and modalities as they appear in ICMS and the General Catalog. Instructors found to be teaching courses in disagreement with the ICMS approved course forms may not be meeting the requirements of II.B. of the UC Davis Good Standing Policy.

    Reminder – Importance of always including Disability Management Services for faculty accommodations: Disability Management Services (DMS) is available to help academics and their departments explore possible reasonable accommodations that allow them to continue to perform their job duties. DMS can provide support by facilitating the interactive process, reviewing disability related limitations or restrictions, exploring accommodation options, helping the department implement and formally document the temporary or permanent accommodation, and providing guidance on medical related leaves, including APM 715 (Family Medical Leave). DMS is also a resource to help review the effectiveness of the accommodation, and, if needed, re-engage in the interactive process.  While Chairs and supervisors can independently manage a good faith interactive process and work with academics to determine and implement accommodations, DMS support helps to establish that the University followed its typical process, which is critical if an accommodation ultimately doesn’t work out for either the employee or the University. Additionally, Academic Affairs created the following page several years ago that describes the Accommodation Process. 

    Reminder – Commencement requirements: Per Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor Croughan, all undergraduate colleges are expected to have every department send a minimum of two faculty to each undergraduate commencement ceremony in the fall and spring.   Participating faculty are encouraged to be recognized for their attendance in MyInfoVault under “University Service.” 

    Clarification – UC Davis Good Standing Policy: UC Davis issued its Good Standing Policy in Fall 2025 following several rounds of consultation and revisions with our academic community over the last year.  To be considered in good standing within the UC Davis Good Standing Policy, an Academic must:

    • A. be meeting expectations of the department chair and dean with regard to carrying out academic duties as commonly understood (e.g., fulfilling responsibilities with respect to research, teaching, and service, and/or criteria depending on academic title, as specified in the relevant section of the UC Academic Personnel Manual);
      B. be up to date on their training and reporting requirements;
      C. be in compliance with all applicable University policies;
      D. have a completed Oath and Patent Acknowledgement form on file;
      E. not be under a current sanction imposed either by a formal disciplinary process or an informal agreement with the University of California in lieu of formal disciplinary action, except to the extent that the sanction or agreement explicitly includes the provision of not being in good standing for a defined period of time; and
      F. satisfy the good standing requirements of APM 670 and the current UC Davis School of Medicine and School of Nursing Health Sciences Compensation Plan Implementation Procedures if those requirements apply to the Academic.
    •  

    The Policy can be found at the following site: https://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/uc-davis-good-standing-policy-academics.  Note that maintaining Good Standing is required for many opportunities, including forthcoming range adjustments on off-scale salary components and above scale salaries (if applicable) to be effective on the adjustment start date. For Academics not in good standing, adjustments which will not be applied retroactively, and will be commenced once good standing is achieved. 

  • ACADEMIC RECRUITMENTS

  • New – Full-Time Administrators: Full-time faculty administrators and deans need to have an exemption submitted in UC Recruit for their underlying faculty appointment starting in the 2026-2027 academic year.

    Updated – Required STEAD-certification for Members of Faculty Recruitment Committees (*see requirement for UC Davis Schools of Human Health recruitments below): All members of faculty (ladder, Academic Senate, including Professor of Teaching series) and endowed chair (external searches) recruitment committees must be STEAD-certified before the evaluation of applicants ends. Department Chairs should ensure that all recruitment committee members who will be serving on faculty recruitment committees register for this training as early as possible. Accessing certification information is described and available here: https://aadocs.ucdavis.edu/training/stead-faculty-search-committee-workshops/Stead-Certification-Finder-Instructions.pdf. The STEAD workshop schedule can be found at: https://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/stead. 

    For the 2026/27 academic year:

    • • No STEAD workshops are being offered in the 2026-27 academic year.

      • For the 2026/27 year, faculty whose STEAD certification would have expired this year will receive one additional year of certification. Their new expiration year will be 2027/28. Example: A faculty member who participated in STEAD or SOM workshops in 2021-2022 academic year will retain certification until June 30, 2027. 

      • Each search committee may include one member who is not yet STEAD certified.

      • Up to two other faculty hired in the last three years (e.g., since July 1, 2023) who have not yet had the opportunity to attend STEAD training may participate in search committees as ex-officio members. 

      *SOM/SON faculty recruitment committees (for Academic Senate searches): 
      • SOM/SON Faculty search committee chairs are required to participate in STEAD workshops. It is expected that the search committee chairs will in turn provide leadership on mitigating bias in the recruitment process for their committees. NOTE: Priority for STEAD Workshops offered via Zoom will be given to SOM/SON search committee chairs. 
      • SOM/SON Faculty recruitment committee members may satisfy the STEAD requirement by participating in the online module “Enhanced Training for Faculty Search Committee Members” offered by the Schools of Human Health and can register here, https://health.ucdavis.edu/belonging/education/offerings. These committees should also review the one-page guidance document with reminders about managing bias in the faculty search process (prepared by STEAD, as noted above.)

    NOTE: In some years, the STEAD committee also provides this additional workshop: 

    • • “Setting the stage” aimed at deans, associate deans, chairs, and staff on preparing for a faculty recruitment and provided at the end of each academic year to prepare for upcoming recruitments.
    •  

    While this workshop is not mandated, if offered, attendance for those groups is encouraged. This training cannot be taken in lieu of the Faculty Recruitment Workshops held by STEAD. For more information, please review the STEAD webpage.

    Reminder – Approving Shortlist Reports in UC Recruit: There are two reminders related to approving Shortlist Reports in UC Recruit:

    • • The hiring authority, or potential hiring authority, should not be the approver of the Shortlist Report.
      • Search committee chairs must ensure that either the Faculty Recruitment Conflict of Interest (COI) Statement and Form or the Non-Faculty Recruitment Committee Conflict of Interest (COI) Statement and Form is completed and uploaded to the recruitment at the same time the Shortlist Report is submitted for review and approval routing. Both documents were updated in 2021 and can be accessed on our Forms and Checklists webpage. The statement and form should be uploaded to the “Documentation” tab, under the “Letters and memos” section of the recruitment. Shortlist Reports should not be reviewed or moved forward to the final decision authority until the COI Statement and Form is added to the recruitment. 
    •  

    Reminder – Resolve UC Recruit Change Requests: Please remember to resolve your UC Recruit change requests. If you do not resolve your change request, the recruitment will not be added back to the to-do list of the approver/reviewer who sent the request.

    Reminder – Employment Disclosure Requirement Process: Effective January 1, 2025, UC Davis implemented a new procedure for Employment Disclosures required for hiring of all employees per new laws and policy. All guidance and process information is available on our Employment Disclosure Requirement Process webpage. This process also encompasses the existing Reference Check process. Please check the Employee Disclosure webpage regularly as any changes or updates to the process will be made on that page. 

  • ACADEMIC REVIEWS

  • New – Accessibility Impact in Candidate Statements: As of April 20, 2026 UC Davis became responsible for meeting the ADA Title II deadline on April 24, 2027 and the Section 504 New Rule deadline on May 11, 2026.  This meant that academics needed to begin putting workflows into place to bring into accessibility compliance the following: public-facing content and large classes, internal content and medium classes, department/program-specific content and smaller classes, and communications and content for individuals and small groups.  For many of our academics this became an urgent and time-consuming priority. Academics seeking advancement in 2026-2027 and later are encouraged to document in their dossiers the efforts they undertook to bring their content into compliance.  Academic Affairs recommends this be done either in the Candidate’s Statement, particularly in the section devoted to teaching if major curricular changes were required, and in the Statement of Achievements Relative to Opportunity to provide a more expansive narrative for reviewers of the efforts undertaken, including time spent, to achieve compliance with the accessibility policies.

    New – Items to include with Extramural Letter Requests for Professors of Teaching: Superior intellectual attainment, as evidenced particularly in excellent teaching and secondarily in professional and/or scholarly achievement and activity, is an indispensable qualification for promotion to security of employment. When requesting extramural letters for advancement actions for Professors of Teaching, please send reviewers materials (e.g., publications, conference proceedings, weblinks to performances, public reviews of works and creative activities, etc.) that specifically highlight the professional and/or scholarly achievements and activities that are particularly relevant to this series, especially those that demonstrate impact on pedagogy outside of UC Davis.  Examples from APM 210 include, but are not limited to, the following: 

    • (a) Documentation of the development of or contributions to:

      • (i) Original materials designed to improve learning outcomes;
        (ii) Evidence-based design and evaluation of educational curricula or pedagogy;
        (iii) Administration and evaluation of a teaching program or a learning center;
        (iv) Systematic quality improvement programs and evaluation of their implementation;
        (v) Discipline-specific information systems;
        (vi) Development and evaluation of community outreach or community-oriented programs.
      •  

      (b) First, senior, or collaborative authorship of scholarly or professional publications;
      (c) Accomplished performance, including conducting and directing;
      (d) Accomplished artistic or literary creation, including exhibits;
      (e) Accepted invitations to present seminars or lectures at other institutions or before professional societies.

    New – Redelegated Director appointments in APHID: Starting in 2026-2027, all Director and administrative appointments that are redelegated to the Dean need to be added to Academic Personnel History Information Database (APHID) on the Administrative Appointments tab under the Current Administrative Appointments section. Redelegated administrative appointments and reappointments do not need to be included on the action tracking tab at this time. This update will help track the eligibility for the reappointment of these titles as well as track who holds these titles campuswide.

    New – Temporary administrative appointments in Dossier: Temporary administrative appointments, such as "interim chair," should include a description of the duration of the appointment and the nature of the work performed as well as details about any compensation taken.

    Clarification – Eligibility in APHID will be reset for Appointment via Change in Title (AVCIT) actions: AVCITs are to be treated as new appointments and will reset the academic’s eligibility in APHID on the effective date. As the dossier should be prepared following the appointment checklist for the requested title series, reviewers should evaluate the candidate’s full record and be provided the opportunity to vote on the appropriate rank and step consistent with the proposed title series. Also, the department letter for the AVCIT should explain why the change is being requested.

    Reminder – Late Submission of Actions: Due to the continuing problem of late actions, Academic Affairs is instituting the following guidelines: 

    • • Review deadlines can be found here: https://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/review-deadlines
      • Academics should be strongly encouraged to write their optional candidate statements as early as possible, including over the summer for actions due to their department in fall quarter.  Please ask faculty to have their dossiers completed by September 1, 2026 for fall actions, even if they are academic year faculty, including statements and information that they are responsible for uploading into MIV.
      • If a dossier is not submitted within a month of the due date to the VP’s Office, then the action will become an administrative deferral. Eligibility will be updated to the following year’s review cycle unless an exception with strong justification is approved by the Vice Provost.
      • In the case of joint appointments, extensions should be requested by the home school/college only.
      • Accelerated promotion actions are voluntary and not eligible for extensions. Accelerated promotion actions submitted late because the candidate did not provide materials by the deadline will not be reviewed.
      • Departments should identify and receive acceptances from extramural reviewers as early as February or March of the year preceding the advancement action, even if the extramural letters are not due until fall.  Many extramural letter writers will only agree to writing a certain number of letters in an academic year, so the earlier the departments can obtain commitments, the better. Departments need to give clear deadlines to candidates for when they expect to know if they will pursue an advancement action and when updates need to be completed in MIV. They also should remind candidates that if these deadlines are not made, their action may be administratively deferred.
      • Departments are encouraged to conduct preliminary votes well in advance of the deadline for actions that could trigger the need for extramural letters (e.g., promotion or advancement to Step 6 or Above Scale).  Earlier voting should minimize delays.
      • Deans should work with their chairs to ensure that departments meet their deadlines for submitting actions to deans’ offices.  This may require departments to hold additional meetings in the fall to discuss advancement actions prior to voting. Extension requests and administrative deferrals must be submitted for all reasons at all levels of review. 
      • Any non-redelegated action received after May 31, 2027 may be subject to administrative deferral and can be submitted in the next review cycle. Administrative deferrals are for non-represented academics only.
    •  

    Reminder – Dean’s Signature on Promotions: Reminder that Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Croughan would like the deans to sign or co-sign the letters for promotion actions for the following series: Professor, Professor of Law, Professor in Residence, Professor of Clinical, Professor of Teaching, Acting Professor, and Specialist in Cooperative Extension.

    Reminder – Accelerated Promotions: Academics who believe they are ready to promote to a higher rank have the option to forgo evaluation under Step Plus and may instead seek a promotion that is accelerated in time (one year to the associate rank, and either one or two years to the full rank). When evaluating such proposed actions for a positive recommendation, reviewers should first evaluate whether teaching and service meet expectations for the abbreviated time period. Reviewers should then specifically evaluate if the research/creative activity work performed in the abbreviated period of time is commensurate with what would be expected in the normative time period. For example, an academic who aspires to accelerate their advancement by one year to the associate rank should have a research/creative activity record in the one year since last review that is consistent with the record that would be expected in a two-year period, and at minimum a teaching and service record that meet expectations for the review period since their last advancement action. Additionally, an academic who aspires to accelerate by two years to the full rank should have a research/creative activity record in the one year since last review that is consistent with the record that would be expected in a three-year period, and at minimum a teaching and service record that meets expectations for the review period since their last advancement action. Candidates are encouraged to discuss accelerated promotion with their Department Chair, taking into account not only the merits of the current case but also the long-term implications for subsequent advancement.

    Reminder – Advancement to Step 6: As a reminder, APM 220 states that “Advancement to Professor Step 6.0 usually will not occur after less than three (3) years at Step 5.0.” In addition, APM 220-18.b.(4) specifies that Professor Step 6 is a barrier step: 

    • “This involves an overall career review and will be granted on evidence of sustained and continuing excellence in each of the following three categories: (1) scholarship or creative achievement, (2) University teaching, and (3) service. Above and beyond that, great academic distinction, recognized nationally, will be required in scholarly or creative achievement or teaching.” 
    •  

    National recognition of scholarship and/or teaching must be documented in the dossier and fully described in the department letter. Additionally, the review period for this high-level advancement is the time since promotion to Professor—some of the dossiers for advancement to Professor Step 6 this past year failed to provide sufficient evidence that these criteria had been met. Optional extramural letters from national and international authorities may be valuable to demonstrate national scholarly impact and recognition, and for these cases, extramural letters may be required by the Dean, CAP, or Vice Provost following a department recommendation. 

    CAP often finds that extramural letters for Step 6, while not required, are often helpful, particularly for faculty who:

    1. 1. Produce highly interdisciplinary scholarship and may not publish in traditional venues where national stature can be more easily established; or
      2. Provide specific expertise in collaborative work, where their intellectual contribution and leadership may be harder to discern.
    2.  

    Soliciting external letters may be particularly appropriate where a candidate's scholarly work is (considered) unusual in the discipline. Letters may help contextualize the following: highly interdisciplinary or collaborative work in disciplines where single-authored publication is more prevalent; work that bridges technical and humanistic disciplines, such as work in the Digital Humanities; scholarly outputs distinct from publications, such as data visualizations; open-source software, databases, or research or teaching tools; and/or scholarly research highly oriented toward shaping and enriching professional practice as well as advancing pedagogy or extending knowledge.

    Reminder – Advancement from Step 8/8.5 to Above Scale: Faculty merits that are proposed to go from step 8.0/8.5 to above scale should be based on APM 220-18, “Except in rare and compelling cases, advancement will not occur after less than four years at Step IX. Moreover, mere length of service and continued good performance at Step IX is not justification for further salary advancement.” When invoked, these reasons must be clearly articulated by the reviewing body (department letter, FPC, Dean, and/or CAP) as to whythey are “rare and compelling.” Compelling reasons may include national academy recognition since last advancement and other extraordinary achievements recognized nationally or internationally through awards. It is insufficient to state that the criteria of evaluation are “outstanding” for Step Plus purposes because outstanding efforts are recognizednumerous times each year under Step Plus, hence are not “rare,” and outside letter writers will also likely be unaware of the “rare and compelling” requirement under theAPM.  Chairs should advise department faculty of this guidance prior to voting in order to help avoid unrealistic expectations that may lead to disappointment by candidates seeking advancement.

    Reminder – Part-time Faculty Administrator Position Descriptions: Files need to include position descriptions for any part-time faculty administrator appointments held by the candidate so reviewers can understand the distinction between their administrative service and service related to their academic title, particularly if they are being recommended for extra half-steps for service. Details on compensation (i.e. any course release and/or amount of stipend) should also be included. Applicable policy is APM 241.

    Reminder – Redelegated Part-time Faculty Administrator Letters: Please send all appointment and reappointment letters for redelegated part-time faculty administrators to the Vice Provost - Academic Affairs Office as we are the office of record.

    Reminder – Step Plus Advancements: Department and Dean’s letters should identify the categories being recommended for Step Plus advancements and highlight the achievements that justify such recognition in each category. Departments are strongly encouraged to include in the department letter background on the faculty member’s prior Step Plus actions, if any, since the last promotion, as this may affect eligibility for further Step Plus advancement. For instance, a service activity recognized with an additional half step in service in a prior merit is unlikely to be rewarded again with an additional half step. Recommendations for 2.0-step advancements should follow the Step Plus Guidelines, which state: “In most cases, one of those areas will be scholarly and creative activity; however, achievement in two other areas (teaching, university and public service, professional competence and activities) might warrant such unusual advancement.” Faculty are not required or encouraged to ask for additional half steps in their Candidate Statements. All files are considered for additional half steps if eligible.

    Reminder – Student Evaluations: Now that the revised APM 210 has been issued, our campus needs to bring its practices/procedures regarding teaching evaluations in line with the current language.  Per APM 210-1.d.1.c.a: “All cases for advancement and promotion normally will include (but not be limited to): (a) evaluations and comments solicited from students for most, if not all, courses taught since the candidate’s last review.”  This supersedes the current practice of only providing comments from two courses per review cycle. Checklists have been updated to reflect this new practice.

    Reminder – Student Evaluations for Fall 2022: Because the strike had a manifest impact on instructors and courses in Fall 2022, faculty may voluntarily remove their student evaluations from this specific quarter in future dossiers. It is entirely up to the individual faculty member if they want to do this or not, but the option will now be afforded to them.

    Reminder – Evidence of Teaching: All faculty wishing to advance in the Professorial and Clinical X series, including part- and full-time faculty administrators, deans, and center directors, must provide sufficient evidence of successful teaching in the review period. This should include (but not be limited to) evaluations and comments from students or trainees. Mentoring, however successful or extensive, does not substitute for teaching. Files should include information about any teaching releases granted during the review period.

    Reminder – Guidance for Optional Statements in MIV: A new webpage has been created to provide guidance for the various optional statements available in MyInfoVault to supplement the advancement review process. These statements include the Candidate’s Statement, Statement of Public and Global Impact, and Statement of Achievements Relative to Opportunities.  All other current statements will be subsumed into these. There is a section dedicated to each optional statement outlining the purpose of the statement, page limits, if any, and additional resources available. 

    Reminder – Linking Actions in MIV: Linking of Merits and Appraisal actions is no longer available. Each action has its own packet created based on the review period of the corresponding action. Career Equity Reviews are now going to be connected to a specific merit or promotion action that is already underway in MIV, similar to how appeals are connected to a specific action.

    Reminder – Non-Peer-Reviewed Publications in MIV: Publications that are not peer-reviewed, editorials, introductions to books, etc. should not be included with peer-reviewed articles in MIV.  They may be instead placed in the other publication sections in MIV like abstracts, books reviewed, letters to the editor, limited distribution, preprints, and if needed publications: additional information. Unrefereed books should not be listed under books but rather under limited distribution.

    Reminder – Explanation for Appointment via Change in Title: The department letter needs to include explicit information about the reasoning for the change in series. 

    Reminder – Service in MIV: The dossier should clearly identify the candidate’s role in service activities and address time commitments including number of meetings, preparation work, etc. Please provide months in the description in addition to years when entering service into MyInfoVault. Please clarify as well whether/how service was compensated (e.g. course release, stipend, or neither). Teaching activities that serve the community should be categorized under "service" rather than "teaching" in the dossiers (e.g. continuing education courses, webinars to outside disciplinary organizations and societies).

    Reminder – Grants in MIV:  All academics who have significant roles in current grants and other forms of extramural funding should note their role in the Grants section of MIV and explain the nature of their role and responsibilities in their Candidate’s Statement. 

    Reminder – Contributions to Scholarly Works: For advancement, candidates should identify work and products only relevant to their UC Davis appointment or responsibility. Work or activities that received external compensation and were unrelated to UC Davis appointment or responsibility, such as paid consulting, should be excluded.  In addition, per APM 210-1.d.(2), “Publications in research and other creative accomplishment should be evaluated, not merely enumerated…When published work in joint authorship (or in other product of joint effort) is presented as evidence, it is the responsibility of the department chair to establish as clearly as possible the role of the candidate in the joint effort.” Candidates should use the appropriate section of MIV to describe in detail their contributions to each jointly authored publication.

    Reminder – Work in Progress or Submitted: To provide reviewing bodies with a full perspective on candidates’ research record, candidates are encouraged to include in MIV links to drafts of articles and book chapters that are under review, submitted, or in progress. This is especially important in book disciplines or when particular publications may be in progress for multiple review cycles. Per APM 210-1.d.(2), “Work in progress should be assessed whenever possible.”

    Reminder – Peer-Reviewed Proceedings: Candidates who have full length proceedings that are both peer-reviewed and published are encouraged to mark them separately from published proceedings that are not peer-reviewed or proceedings where only the abstract or summary was peer-reviewed. A link to a copy of the acceptance letter and other appropriate documentation to highlight the venue at which the publication was accepted, the acceptance rate and the peer review practice used by the venue and acceptance rate are also helpful.

    Reminder – Terminal Degrees: For candidates with multiple terminal degrees (e.g., Ph.D. and M.D.), the review period for promotion to the Associate rank is since the first terminal degree awarded.

    Reminder – Extramural Letter Solicitation: Extramural letters should be solicited from academics at comparable institutions of a rank equal to or above the rank sought by the academic member. (APM UCD 220 V4.b.)Any exceptions to this must have extremely strong justification included in the department letter, and failure to provide such justification could result in a delay in processing an advancement if CAP requests additional letters. Also, there has been confusion about what an arm’s length letter writer means. Arm’s length letter writers should have:

    • • no close personal or professional connection to the candidate
      • not be a former or current mentor, dissertation or thesis advisor
      • not be a recent (within the last seven years) collaborator or coauthor
      • not be a family member, business partner, or close personal friend of the candidate
    •  

    Reminder – Breaches of Confidentiality: The list of reviewers is considered confidential. All extramural letters received are redacted so as not to breach confidentiality of the references. If the identity of the reviewers has been revealed, the department must write to each of the named reviewers and explain that there has been a breach of confidentiality and that the candidate not only knows that they served as a reviewer but also has a sense of their letter. The reviewer should be informed that they have the option of declining any future request from UC Davis with the explanation that their confidentiality had previously been compromised. It is a violation of the system-wide Faculty Code of Conduct (APM 015 Part II D. 5.) to breach established rules governing confidentiality in personnel procedures. If a breach of confidentiality occurs, departments should immediately contact their Dean's Office who will work with the Vice Provost - Academic Affairs Office on how to manage the breach. 

    Reminder – Department Letter Requirements: For those academic employees in series that do not have a formal position description, where the department has set expectations on percent of time/effort in a given domain (e.g., teaching or clinical work), please state the percentage of time and expectations in the first paragraph of the department letter as context for academic reviews. This includes series such as Professor of Clinical ____ which have been highlighted in similar messages in past annual calls; however, it also expands to include others without formal position descriptions. 

    For the Adjunct Professor series, the department letter must clearly describe the balance of research versus teaching expected of the candidate, including the percent of time/effort to help reviewers understand Adjunct Professors’ advancement actions better.

    Reminder – Department Ad Hoc Committee Reports: Reminder that if an ad hoc report is presented in writing to the Department faculty during their vote, it must also be given to the candidate in writing (redacted) to allow them the opportunity to submit a Rebuttal (UCD APM 220, Section II).  Additionally, the report would need to be included in the dossier. It can be either appended to the Department letter or incorporated into the text of the Department letter.

  • OTHER ITEMS

  • Clarification – UC OATS Help Desk: The UC OATS Help Desk is only for technical issues and updating approver and reviewer roles. For policy questions and how to use UC OATS, please work with your academic personnel staff. For additional information on how to use UC OATS, please visit the UC OATS Online Training and the Academic Affairs UC OATS websites.

    Reminder – Housing of Grants: Academic Affairs has learned that some faculty have been advised that the academic unit where their grants and contracts are housed/administered, such as in a department, center, research program, or Organized Research Unit can potentially affect the outcome of their advancement actions. This is incorrect because where a grant or contract is managed and administered is not a valid criterion for evaluation of academic advancement in the UC Academic Personnel Manual. Faculty should consult with their chairs, directors, deans, etc. about where their extramural funds are housed/administered without concern that this could have an adverse impact on their merit and promotion actions.

    Reminder – Academic Year Retirement Dates: The prime retirement date for an academic-year appointee is at the end of spring quarter. Retiring at the end of any other quarter will result in pay and service impacts. For example, a retirement date of 12/31/2025 could be possible for fall quarter. However, the academic-year appointee’s last day on pay status would be 10/31/2025 and they would be required to provide service through finals. They would not receive pay checks for December 1, 2025 and January 1, 2026 because they received pay checks on August 1, 2025 and September 1, 2025 as prepayment for fall service. We strongly recommend reviewing information about retirement dates for Academic-Year Appointees on the Academic Affairs website. 

    Reminder – Conflict of Commitment Policies (APM 025 and APM 671) and Conflicts of Interest in Research: Whether paid or unpaid, faculty members must disclose all Category I and II Outside Professional Activities. Faculty members are required to obtain prior approval before engaging in Category I activities. Approval of Category I activities is not guaranteed, so each Category I request must be submitted for consideration in advance of the commencement of the activity. Failure to include all the required details, including consultation documentation, appointment letters, etc., may result in the request being returned and cause further delays of the review and approval process. Final approval from the Provost must be received in advance of engaging in the activity or a violation of university policy concerning Conflict of Commitment could result. Faculty members must use UC OATS for obtaining prior approval. 

    In addition, there are financial Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure requirements that research faculty must observe to ensure that all the Federal, State, and UCD Policy COI disclosure rules and regulations are satisfied. For more information, please go to the Financial Conflicts of Interest webpage. Also, if you are involved in international research, collaborations with researchers outside of the United States, or other international activities, there are COI disclosure rules, grant reporting obligations, and/or export control licensing requirements that may be triggered by these activities. For complete details and guidance, please go to the International Research Partnerships & Engagement website.

    Reminder – Outside Professional Activities (OPA): As a best practice, Faculty members and Specialists in Cooperative Extension (CE) subject to Conflict of Commitment policies APM 025 and APM 671 should be entering their OPA in the UC Outside Activity Tracking System (UC OATS) as they occur rather than waiting until the yearly notice for submitting annual certification reports. When reporting effort on OPA, activities done during nights/weekends should be counted toward time limits. Category I activities require prior approval and should be submitted as soon as faculty become aware of the potential engagement. Delays with review and approval may occur if details, required consultation(s), and required documents are missing. Full and complete requests should route routinely with less chance of delays when all involved in the review and approval process engage as timely as possible. However, complex requests may take eight weeks or longer. **Note: The final approval resides with the Provost and must be received before engaging in a Category I activity.

    Reminder – Annual Certification Reporting of Outside Professional Activities (OPA): As of July 1, 2026 Faculty members and Specialists in Cooperative Extension (CE) are now able to submit their 2025-2026 OPA Annual Certification reports in the UC Outside Activity Tracking System (UC OATS). Annual certification reporting that is not fully completed is considered non-compliant and could result in a violation of university policy concerning Conflict of Commitment and could cause the academic to not be in good standing. This underscores the importance of submitting annual certification reports in UC OATS well in advance of the deadline. There are many resources available on the Academic Affairs UC OATS webpage. 

    Notes: Faculty and Specialists in CE who will be resigning or retiring from the University must complete an annual certification report prior to their last day of employment. For them to be able to report, department staff need to send an email to the UC OATS help desk ([email protected]) with the following details: first and last name of the person, reason for their separation (e.g., resignation, retirement, etc.) and the effective date. Providing this information allows us to manually enable the annual certification report for them. Recall appointments will be impacted if retired faculty have outstanding annual certification reports.

  • ACADEMIC PERSONNEL POLICIES – NEW AND REVISED

  • SYSTEMWIDE

    2025-2026 Systemwide Academic Personnel Policy Issuances

    Revised – Issued October 16, 2025:
    APM – 230, Visiting Appointments

    Revised – Issued October 28, 2025:
    APM – 110, General/Academic Personnel Definitions
    APM – 112, General Academic titles
    APM – 115, General/”Equivalent” Titles and Ranks
    APM – 130, General/Tenure
    APM – 133, General/Limitation on Total Period of Service with Certain Academic Titles
    APM – 135, General/Security of Employment
    APM – 160, General/Academic Personnel Records/Maintenance of, Access to, and Opportunity to Request Amendment of
    APM – 210, Appointment and Promotion/Review and Appraisal Committees
    APM – 220, Appointment and Promotion/Professor Series
    APM – 410, Appointment and Promotion/Student Teachers
    APM – 570, Recruitment/Travel Expenses for Short Term Appointees on Extramurally Financed Projects
    APM – 672, Negotiated Salary Program
    APM – 740, Benefits and Privileges/Leaves of Absence/Sabbatical Leaves

    Revised – Issued December 19, 2025; Effective January 1, 2026:
    APM – 710, Leaves of Absence/Paid Sick Leave/Paid Medical Leave
    APM – 758, Leaves of Absence/Other Leaves with the Possibility for Pay

    Revised – Issued January 29, 2026:
    APM – 015, The Faculty Code of Conduct
    APM – 016, University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline

    Revised – Issued February 13, 2026:
    APM – 036, Academic Employment

    Additional details regarding these revised policies can be found on the Systemwide Academic Personnel website. 

    CAMPUS

    Local campus academic personnel policies

    There were no new or revised local policies issued during the 2025 – 2026 academic year.