Annual Call

Download 2017-18 Annual Call for Academic Personnel Advancement Actions (PDF)
Download 2017-18 Annual Call Appendix A (PDF)
Download 2017-18 Annual Call Appendix B (PDF)
Download 2017-18 Annual Call Appendix C (PDF)


UC DAVIS: OFFICE OF THE PROVOST AND EXECUTIVE VICE CHANCELLOR

August 9, 2017

DEANS, EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE DEANS, ASSOCIATE DEANS, ASSISTANT DEANS, VICE PROVOSTS, VICE CHANCELLORS, DEPARTMENT CHAIRS AND ACADEMIC PERSONNEL EXPERTS

RE: 2017-2018 Annual Call for Academic Personnel Advancement for Academic Senate and Academic Federation Actions

Dear Colleagues:

With this Annual Call for the 2017-18 academic year, I write to remind you of changes in policies, procedures, and interpretations that have taken place over the past year. These changes are in the process of being incorporated into the relevant UC Davis policy sections of the Academic Personnel Manual (APM UCD). They are summarized below.

We believe that it is beneficial to distribute the Annual Call to all academic appointees. 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. We intend to adhere to the deadlines given in this document. Requests for extensions to the deadlines must be submitted to the Office of the Vice Provost, via the Dean’s Office, for Vice Provost approval. Any request for extension of a deadline will require strong justification, and if granted, will not extend the deadline beyond a few days to a few weeks (depending on the cause). All actions that are normally delegated to the dean for approval and that are not finalized by August 31, 2018 must be submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs for review and final decision.

NOTE: Two major changes associated with deadlines for merits and promotions are effective in Academic Year 2017-2018. Both are explained in this year’s Annual Call, under the section “New Practices in Academic Reviews”:

  1. Administrative Deferrals
  2. New Deadline for Submitting Materials to Review Files

NEW VICE PROVOST ADVISORIES

Vice Provost Academic Advisories (AA) are issued during each academic year to describe changes and provide clarification on policies and practices. The following Advisories have been issued since the 2015-16 Annual Call. A complete list of Vice Provost Advisories is accessible on the home page of the Academic Affairs website or by entering this website address: http://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/policies/vp-advisories/index.html

  • AA2016-09 – Reminder on Step Plus clarification (10/31/16)
  • AA2017-01 – Rescission of Delegation for Search Plans and Search Waivers for Junior Specialist
    positions (4/10/17)
  • AA2017-02 – Addendum to AA2015-06 – Use of Academic Enrichment Fund Accounts for Recalled
    Appointees for First-Year Seminar Program (5/12/17)
  • AA2017-03 – Updated Review Process Deadlines and Phased Implementation of Administrative
    Deferrals (06/14/17)

NEW PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC RECRUITMENTS

New – Position Descriptions for Junior Specialists.  We recognize that there continues to be confusion on hiring and appointing into the Junior Specialist series. We offer in Appendix B some guidance on the hiring criteria for the series and on writing the position description. Employees who are not as deeply involved in the academic evaluative parts of the research program are likely to be a better fit for the Staff Research Associate (SRA) or Lab Assistant series, and in such cases, departments should consider reclassifying the position descriptions for current Junior Specialists into the appropriate staff title. This guidance is also available on our website at: http://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/local_resources/docs/forms_and_checklists/jr_specialist/Junior_Specialist_Position_Description_Guidance.pdf.

To ensure compliance with system-wide policy and labor contracts, deans’ offices must review the position descriptions for all Junior Specialists that have not yet been archived in MyInfoVault (MIV) using the Junior Specialist guidelines that Academic Affairs has developed. Please contact your Academic Affairs analyst by August 31st with requests to archive or return these actions. There should be a resolution on all of these actions by September 30th. For appointments that began in 2016, if it is determined that the position description does not contain sufficient academic duties, it can be revised at the time of reappointment. As always, the duties listed in the position description must be an accurate reflection of the duties that are actually assigned to the Junior Specialist.

New – Faculty Recruitment Start-Up Approval: Review and approval from the Office of the Provost is required before transmitting any tentative offer letter (TOL) to a faculty candidate in a recruitment that meets either of the following criteria: 1) resources have been promised that total $1M or more; or 2) the candidate’s program may require a significant renovation or capital expense need. Prior to negotiating or finalizing negotiations with a candidate, please submit a draft of the TOL, start-up offer or resource letter with an explanation of your expected funding source and/or space plan. Timing is critical in these negotiations, and so the Provost commits to responding within two business days. Please submit these requests for approval to hexter@ucdavis.edu. All requests should be copied to semangum@ucdavis.edu.

New – Exemptions from Search/Search Waivers: According to the new UC-wide guidelines, there are a few types of academic hires that do not require an open recruitment or a search waiver; these are called “exempt hires.” Effective July 1, 2017, all exempt hires must be processed using UC Recruit following all guidelines and delegations. Staff members processing these requests should review the 6-minute training video offered by the UC Recruit development team, available at: http://cast.nacs.uci.edu/ucirec/exemptions.mp4.

Many exempt hires have, until now, been processed using Forms Online. The following forms in Forms Online became inactive after June 30, 2017:

  • Requests for Courtesy Without Salary appointments
  • Requests for Recall to Active Service after retirement for academic appointees
  • Requests for Visiting appointments
  • Requests for Volunteer Clinical Faculty appointments (Medical Center)

CLARIFICATIONS AND REMINDERS FOR ACADEMIC RECRUITMENTS

Clarification – Target of Excellence (TOE) Recruitments: There are four stages to a TOE recruitment process: (1) the Consultation stage that includes concept development and nomination, (2) the Search Waiver stage that is completed in UC Recruit, (3) the Recruitment stage, and (4) the Appointment stage. Only at the fourth stage are departments allowed to solicit extramural letters or formal application statements from the potential candidate. The TOE recruitment process and steps are described in detail on the Academic Affairs website: (http://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/programs/target-excel/index.html).

Clarification – Academic Appointments Requiring UC Recruit: All academic appointments, including appointments via change in department or change in title, adding a joint WOS appointment, etc., must be pre-approved through UC Recruit prior to submitting the action in MyInfoVault by utilizing one of the following options:

  1. an open recruitment,
  2. an appropriate search waiver, or
  3. an appropriate exemption

Please review the Guiding Principles: Search Waiver for Academic Appointees document to make certain that an appropriate category is selected based on the definitions provided in this document before submitting a search waiver or exemption request in UC Recruit. If there is uncertainty about a category, please consult with the dean’s office analyst first. If additional guidance is needed, the deans’ analysts are asked to consult with their assigned Academic Affairs manager. If any type of appointment action comes forward and there is not a corresponding item in UC Recruit, then the appointment action may be delayed until one is completed.

Reminder – Required STEAD-certification for Members of Faculty Recruitment Committees: All members of faculty recruitment committees must be STEAD-certified, or certified through participation in School of Medicine (SOM) recruitment workshops, before the evaluation of applicants begins. The STEAD workshop schedule can be found at https://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/training-and-development/stead/index.cfm. Registration for the School of Medicine workshops can be found at: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/facultydev/faculty-search-committee-training.html

  • STEAD certification expires after three academic years. A faculty member who participated in STEAD or SOM workshops during the 2014-15 academic year will retain certification until June 30, 2018. The certification for faculty members who attended one of Vice Provost Stanton’s recruitment committee workshops in 2013-14 expired on June 30, 2017.
  • SOM/SON faculty may also participate in the STEAD program to become certified.
  • Non-UCD members of a search committee must also be certified.

Reminder – “Statement of Contributions to Diversity” in recruitments – see Advisory #AA2016-08 (Supersedes #AA2015-05): Effective July 25, 2016, all Senate recruitments require the “Statement of Contributions to Diversity” to appear as a required document upload for applicants. The applications for Senate recruitments will not be considered complete unless a “Statement of Contributions to Diversity” is received by the review date; incomplete applications will not be available for review by the search committee. Contributing to diversity and equal opportunity is an important criterion for excellence at UC Davis. For non-Senate recruitments, the “Statement of Contributions to Diversity” must appear as an optional document upload for applicants. Submitted diversity contributions statements must be reviewed and evaluated by the recruitment committee, regardless of whether or not every applicant submitted a diversity statement.

Reminder – Upgrade Requests – see Advisory #AA2016-08: Effective July 25, 2016, upgrade requests for Senate recruitments are no longer required. The department chair should discuss with the dean the rank(s) of the recruitment prior to submitting the search plan, based on the five-year academic plan for the department. Also, effective July 25, 2016, every search plan for a Senate recruitment must include a list of at least eight women and/or members of under-represented groups who would be attractive recruitment targets for the faculty position or who may be asked to suggest names of other qualified potential applicants who are women and/or members of underrepresented groups. Individuals on the list should be contacted personally by members of the search committee.

Reminder – Search Waiver Criteria: As of July 1, 2016, UC Davis has adopted the new, system-wide DRAFT search waiver criteria for academic appointees as campus practice with two exceptions:

  1. The duration of appointment for Junior Specialists hired under the search waiver criteria for emergency hires is limited to 2 months.
  2. The Non-Senate Faculty and Other Academics search waiver criteria for Spousal/Partner Hire is also available if the successful recruitment and retention of Specialists in Cooperative Extension is ultimately dependent on an academic appointment for his or her spouse/partner.

The DRAFT Guiding Principles: Search Waivers for Academic Appointees is available at http://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/policies/recruitment/index.html. All search waiver requests based on these criteria are supported by UC Recruit, and Forms Online is no longer available for academic search waivers. Once the Guiding Principles: Search Waivers for Academic Appointees is finalized by the Office of the President, we will send it out to the campus and update the document on our website. We have also created a delegation of authority chart to help outline the criteria (see http://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/local_resources/docs/doa/Recruitment_SearchWaiver_Exemptions.pdf).

Reminder – Family-friendly Recruitment Update: In 2012, UC Davis implemented a family-friendly recruitment practice to make it easier for recruited candidates who are parents of very young children to participate in on-campus interviews for faculty positions. This practice allows the reimbursement of travel and hotel expenses for a second person to accompany the prospective faculty mother (or single parent of either gender) of a breast- or bottle-feeding child under the age of two. Reimbursable hotel expenses may also include the costs associated with providing a crib in the hotel room (up to $200). Deans are responsible for approving and paying these reimbursements. However, all reimbursement approvals under the Family-friendly Recruitment practice must trigger the issuance of a 1099 tax form to the candidate. In addition, as an interim measure until UC-wide policy is revised, all reimbursement approvals must be routed to Academic Affairs for final approval by the Vice Provost as an exception to policy.

Reminder – Two-stage Interviews during faculty recruitments: Two-stage interview processes are becoming increasingly common in faculty recruitments. If the department plans to conduct preliminary interviews, either in person or remotely, the process must be described in their approved search plan prior to accepting applications. If preliminary interviews are to be conducted, a Shortlist Report must be approved at two stages: (1) prior to preliminary interviews; and (2) prior to inviting candidates for on-campus interviews. For ladder-rank, Sr./Lecturer PSOE/SOE series, and Librarian searches, the preliminary interview Shortlist Report(s) must be approved by Vice Provost Phil Kass. Detailed steps for creating the Shortlist Report(s) for preliminary interviews can be found in Advisory #AA2015-05.

NEW PRACTICES IN ACADEMIC REVIEWS

New – Administrative Deferrals will be an option beginning in 2017-2018:  Deadlines for actions due to the Vice Provost’s Office are published in the Annual Call and Deans’ Offices set additional deadlines to allow for timely review at their level. If any 2017-18 action is late without obtaining prior approval of an extension, the action will automatically be designated as an “Administrative Deferral”, and the candidate will be eligible in 2018-2019. The advancement will not be made retroactive to the previous year. Note: Five-year reviews and 7th-year tenure cases cannot be designated as Administrative Deferrals.

New – Deadlines for Academic Reviews:  Please find in Appendix A updated deadlines for the academic review process. These deadlines were issued in Advisory #AA2017-03 in preparation for automatic Administrative Deferrals beginning in 2018-2019. These deadlines include the latest possible dates 1) by which candidates must submit their finalized materials to the department, 2) for departments to submit dossiers to the deans’ office, and 3) for deans’ offices to submit dossiers and recommendations to the Academic Senate (redelegated) and Academic Affairs (non-redelegated). Please note: Departments and Dean’s Offices may set earlier deadlines.

For 2017-2018, Administrative Deferrals will not be automatic. Requests for extensions to the deadlines must be submitted with justification to the Office of the Vice Provost, via the Dean’s Office, for Vice Provost approval. If the candidate has not been approved for an extension and does not submit a substantially complete advancement packet to their voting unit by the published deadline, the Vice Provost—Academic Affairs has the right to deny a request for extension and issue an administrative deferral on a case-by-case basis.

Academic Affairs consulted with deans’ office staff to recommend a set of standard deadline extensions for actions that become non-redelegated during the review process. The recommendations were reviewed and accepted by the Vice Provost. Therefore, for redelegated actions that become non-redelegated during the review process, the dean’s office must contact the appropriate Academic Affairs analyst team, to establish a new deadline based on the following:

3 weeks standard extension = when a redelegated action changes to a 2.0 step increase action (e.g., merit from Professor, Step 3 to Professor, Step 5);

5 weeks standard extension = when a redelegated action changes to a 2.0 step increase action that crosses a barrier step (e.g., merit from Professor, Step 4 to Professor, Step 6);

8 weeks standard extension = when a redelegated action changes to one which now requires extramural letters (e.g., merit from Professor, Step 8.5 to Professor, Above Scale, or a merit that is returned by the central review committee for consideration as a promotion).

Any requests for longer or additional extensions beyond the standard extensions must be submitted with strong justification to Academic Affairs for the Vice Provost’s consideration.

New – New Deadline for Submitting Materials to Review Files in 2017-2018: Effective immediately with the 2017-2018 review cycle, materials submitted for review must include only activities and achievements dated no later than September 30. For example: a journal article accepted as in-press on October 12, 2017 cannot be included in the 2017-2018 review file. The September 30 deadline does not apply to a candidate undergoing review for promotion to Associate rank in their “seventh year” of service. For such “seventh year” tenure cases, additional dossier materials may be submitted until the final decision is made. Please be sure to communicate this information to all academic members of your unit(s).

New – Updated Academic Federation Advancement Eligibility Form: Updated Federation form for Step Plus is now available on our website: (http://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/local_resources/docs/forms_and_checklists/Notice_Eligibility_Federation_Members.docx).
Please note the following major changes: (1) the form should not be made available to department reviewers/voters; and (2) Health Sciences Clinical Professors are no longer required to submit the form. Further modifications of the form may be forthcoming, as the Federation has voted positively on extending Step Plus to Academic Coordinators, Academic Administrators, Assistant/Associate University Librarians and Law Librarians, Continuing Educators, and University Extension Teachers, beginning with the 2017-18 academic year.

New – Assistant Professors hired 6/30/2016: For faculty members who were hired on 6/30/2016, the tenure clock technically begins with the 2015-2016 cycle, meaning that their “seventh year” is 2022-2023. Because of their unusual start date, the VP-AA retains the option to extend the tenure clock on a case-by-case basis for faculty members who began their tenure clocks on 6/30/2016. We request your assistance in monitoring these situations closely. Reminders will be added to the Annual Call in future years, and we will attempt to develop a way of using technology to track these individuals.

New – Specialist series, Steps 6-9 at the Full rank: Steps 6-9 have been added to the Specialist series salary scale, which historically ended at Specialist, Step 5. With the addition of new steps to the series, Step 6 is not intended to be a barrier step for the Specialist series, but advancing beyond Step 9 will require an Above-Scale review, including extramural letters. Those Specialists who have already advanced beyond Step 5 (i.e. to “Above Scale” in the previous system), will be placed on the appropriate step, with an off-scale, as needed, to equal their previous salary. As these employees have already undergone an Above-Scale review, they will not be required to undergo another Above-Scale review to advance beyond Step 9.

New – Streamlining Measure – Change to order of Joint Department Review per APM UCD 220, effective 2017-2018: According to APM UCD 220 Procedure 3 for Joint Appointments, a candidate’s joint department conducts their review prior to the home department, and the home department is expected to consider all the joint department recommendations in their own review (see steps 14 and 15). With the implementation of Step Plus, and the rule that the highest department recommendation becomes the action submitted to the Dean’s Office, the joint department’s review is no longer required to take place prior to the home department. In short, a candidate’s joint department(s) and home department may conduct their reviews concurrently, and both are expected to meet the deadline for submission of the candidate’s dossier to their dean’s office. This change is effective with the 2017-2018 review cycle and will be included in the revision to APM UCD 220 and all of its procedures.

CLARIFICATIONS AND REMINDERS FOR ACADEMIC REVIEW DOSSIERS

Clarification – Scholarly/Intellectual Leadership in Collaborative Work: Candidates and Chairs are cautioned that entries in the List of Contributions to Jointly Authored Works should clearly and succinctly summarize the actual contributions of the candidate, and must avoid the usage of vague or repetitive language (i.e., cutting and pasting identical contributions across publications).

Academic appointees are strongly urged to describe their roles thoroughly in each co-authored scholarly/creative activity in the “Contributions to Jointly Authored/Created Works” section of MIV. Many areas of science and engineering are increasingly collaborative, and this is often reflected in publications that have multiple authors. Independence can be a problematic criterion to apply in research that requires substantial collaboration across disciplines and areas of expertise. Accordingly, faculty candidates should identify any leadership roles that they played in collaborations leading to co-authored publications/created activities. Examples of scholarly leadership include activities such as developing the conceptual framework for the project, inventing or applying novel analytic techniques, making key discoveries, changing the interpretation of findings, and writing substantial sections of the paper.

Faculty candidates may list all authors, but should only describe their own contributions to the work resulting in the co-authored publication/creative activity, keeping in mind the importance of demonstrated intellectual leadership. An estimate of the candidate’s % contribution to the work should not be included.

Clarification – List of Trainees in MyInfoVault (MIV): Faculty members have asked questions about which “trainees” are appropriate to describe in MIV under the List of Trainees. Examples of such trainees include the following:

  • GSRs whom the candidate paid or hosted in their research groups, but for whom the faculty member is not a major professor or whose committees they serve on. (Note: GSRs for whom the candidate serves as a major professor or committee member should be listed under Graduate Students mentored.)
  • Visiting students or scholars from other institutions who are learning research techniques and scholarly approaches from the candidate.

Clarification – Entering Committee Membership/Service Roles in the Dossier: When preparing the dossier, please display committee service in the format that displays the committee name once and the years served on that committee, instead of displaying the list of relevant committees for each year separately. When entering service entries into MyInfoVault (MIV), each administrative activity, committee, or editorial/advisory board on which the candidate has served should be listed only once, with a date range included in the “From/To Year” field. For example, if a candidate served as Vice Chair for the past three years, we would expect to see one entry for that appointment, with the dates entered as “2014-2017.”

Clarification – Department Letter Expectations for Elaborating on Service Contributions: Department chairs play an instrumental role in analyzing candidates’ contributions to University and public service due to widely varying expectations of time commitments for committees, review panels, etc. The department letter should provide guidance to FPCs, deans, CAP and the Vice Provost on the amount of workload expended on such service activities, and not merely count the number of activities.

Clarification – Advancement for Full- or Part-Time Faculty Administrators (e.g., Associate Dean 75% and Professor 25%): Systemwide APM 220-10 provides the following guidance required for advancement within the professorial title when the professorial appointment is part-time: “Advancement of a part-time appointee with a title in this series shall depend on quality of performance at a level of distinction comparable to that demanded of a full-time appointee, although, when circumstances warrant, a lesser rate of scholarly accomplishment or an extended time frame for review will be acceptable.”

At UC Davis, our practice is that teaching and university and professional service are expected to be in general proportion to the percentage of time of the faculty appointment, reflecting the same quality of performance as is expected for a full-time professorial appointment. To advance in the Professor title, a full-time faculty administrator with a 0% faculty appointment must do at least some documented teaching (e.g. seminars, guest lectures) and mentoring. To help reviewers evaluate service within the professorial role, the candidate, department and dean should call attention to service that is above and beyond what is expected for the administrative role. In contrast to teaching and service, for which expectations are prorated for the percent-time of the professorial appointment, the continuing growth of scholarly distinction and impact of a part-time academic appointee is expected to meet or closely approximate standards for advancement of a full-time faculty member. This is especially true for promotions or barrier step merits, where a professor is expected to have met specific benchmarks for scholarly impact to be eligible for advancement. Given that heavy administrative duties often reduce research productivity, more flexibility should be exercised when evaluating research and other scholarly work for regular merit actions. Still, many full-time administrators will advance more slowly within the Professor title than full-time faculty members. At UC Davis, full-time faculty administrators are not required to undergo five-year reviews.

Reminder – Delegation of Junior Specialist Appointments, Reappointments and Reappointments with Merit:

  • Deans have approval authority for appointments, reappointments and reappointments with merit for Junior Specialists up to 60-days retroactive. Deans also have approval authority for appointments of Junior Specialists for a third year by exception.
  • The Vice Provost—Academic Affairs has approval authority for any Junior Specialist action that is more than 60-days retroactive.

Reminder – Eligibility Lists are live and dynamic in APHID (Academic Personnel History & Information Database): Eligibility for merits and promotions are available in live/dynamic lists in APHID under the Reports menu (https://aphid.ucdavis.edu/). Eligibility automatically recalculates as soon as a final decision is announced on a merit/promotion action, so departments may easily use the eligibility lists for planning purposes. All staff who work in academic personnel may be granted access. The only academics who may have access are department chairs and deans. If you need access, please contact academic personnel staff in your department or dean’s office.

Reminder – Candidate Statements: Candidates must limit their statements to 5 pages as stated on the checklist. Departments are asked to enforce this prior to submitting a dossier to the Dean’s office. The review committee and Academic Affairs have the right to return dossiers that do not meet the requirements on the checklist.

Reminder – Merit Advancements to Associate rank, Steps 4 and 5 for the Professional Researcher, Project Scientist and Specialist in Cooperative Extension series: Federation members in these series who will have served within the Associate rank for 6 years or less at the time of advancement will have their merit action reviewed as a redelegated action, regardless of whether or not the advancement is to an overlapping step. Federation members in these series who seek to advance to an overlapping step in the Associate rank, but will have been at the Associate rank for more than 6 years at the time of advancement, will have their merit action reviewed as a non-redelegated action. Federation members in these series do not need to request permission from the Vice Provost to pursue non-redelegated advancements to the overlapping steps of 4 and 5 at the Associate rank. At their discretion, deans may require prior approval at the college/school level before the department prepares a merit to one of these overlapping steps. See Advisory #AA2016-05 “Merit action to Associate rank, Step 4 and 5 for Professional Researcher, Project Scientist and Specialist in Cooperative Extension series”.

Reminder – Adjunct Professor Series Appointment and Review: The Adjunct Professor title is not a courtesy title! APM 280-4 states, “Titles in this series may be assigned (1) to individuals who are predominantly engaged in research or other creative work and who participate in teaching, or (2) to individuals who contribute primarily to teaching and have a limited responsibility for research or other creative work; these individuals may be professional practitioners of appropriate distinction…” Furthermore, APM UCD 280-10 states, “Appointment to this title requires a meaningful and regular participation in teaching …” Due to the broad scope of this policy, we want to provide clarity and guidance for the Adjunct Professor series, which is reviewed by the Committee on Academic Personnel-Oversight Committee (CAP-OC). For candidates who are appointed and reviewed in the Adjunct Professor series, the department letter should clearly describe the balance of research versus teaching expected of the candidate. Note that there is also an expectation within APM 280 that a minimum of 50% of the funding for an Adjunct appointment should be derived from non-State funding.

Reminder – APM UCD 285 Lecturer with Security of Employment Series (07/01/15): The UC system wide policy is currently under revision and review. We will update the campus as information becomes available.

Reminder – Recommended Language for Department Solicitation Letter to Extramural Reviewers (include in all solicitation letters): We strongly recommend including the following language in the department solicitation letter to extramural reviewers for all advancement actions that require extramural letters. “UC Davis encourages its faculty members to consider extensions of the (pre-tenure/review) period under circumstances that could interfere significantly with development of the qualifications necessary for (tenure/advancement). Examples of such circumstances may include birth or adoption of a child, extended illness, care of an ill family member, significant alterations in appointment. Please note that under this policy the overall record of productivity and scholarly attainment forms the basis of your evaluation. Time since (appointment/the last promotion) is not a factor in this review.”

Reminder – Faculty membership in Graduate Groups is in itself not a form of service: Membership in a Graduate Group must be removed from the University Service category in a dossier, unless the faculty member is providing service to the graduate group (e.g., serving as Chair, Vice Chair, or member of a committee), that is considered service, and should be included on the list of campus-level service in the dossier.

Reminder – Letters for high-level merit advancement to Professor Step 6: System-wide policy specifies that Professor Step 6 is a barrier step, and so 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 high-level merit dossiers for advancement to Professor Step 6 this past year failed to provide sufficient evidence that these criteria had been met. In a minority of cases, extramural letters from national and international authorities may be essential to demonstrate national scholarly impact and recognition, and for these cases, extramural letters may be required by the Dean, CAP, or Vice Provost.

Note: Extramural letters for advancement to Step 6 (or similar barrier steps) within the Academic Federation titles are still required. However, note that Step 6 is not a barrier step for the Specialist series.

Reminder – Hyperlinks provided in the Dossier: All dossiers containing inadequate links will be returned for correction, which will result in delaying the review and final decision on the action. It is important that all hyperlinks in MyInfoVault (MIV) take the reviewer to the record without requiring searching and/or making a purchase. The crucial point is that hyperlinks frequently change and must be checked for each action—to prevent delays in review, all reviewers must be able to navigate to online materials using workable links.

OTHER ITEMS

New – Educator WOS (formerly Lecturer WOS): The Educator WOS title should never be used as a way of conferring Instructor of Record status to anyone teaching a podium, for-credit course (with the exception of First Year Seminars).

Reminder – *DRAFT* Guidelines for preparing Prior Approval Requests for Category 1 Outside Professional Activities (APM 025 Conflict of Commitment and Outside Activities of Faculty Members and APM 671 Conflict of Commitment and Outside Activities of Health Sciences Compensation Plan Participants): Appendix C is a draft guidelines document that Academic Affairs will be using when reviewing prior approval requests for Category I Activities, and we urge both academic appointees and AP staff members to review those guidelines.

Reminder – EMPLOYMENT OF NEAR RELATIVES (APM 520 and APM UCD 520): An internal audit conducted during the 2014-15 academic year found that not all near relatives on our campus had completed and had on file the appropriate forms and documentation. Please refer to Advisory #AA2016-02 for additional information. The form is now accessible through Forms Online, see the “Near Relatives Identification and Approval Form.”

NEW AND REVISED SYSTEMWIDE ACADEMIC PERSONNEL POLICIES

Academic personnel policies issued during 2016-2017 may be found at:
http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel/academic-personnel-policy/policy-issuances-and-guidelines/policy-issuances-2010-present.html

APM 015 The Faculty Code of Conduct, and APM 016 University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline (07/01/17) – Issued on May 12, 2017, APM section 015, The Faculty Code of Conduct, and APM section 016, University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline, are effective July 1, 2017. APM 015 and 016 were revised based on recommendations made by a Joint Committee of the Administration and Academic Senate on Faculty Discipline. The committee was appointed by the President of the University of California to examine how the University manages proceedings for faculty respondents in cases alleging sexual violence or sexual harassment. In addition to changes made to APM 015 and APM 016 based on the committee’s recommendations, revisions were also made to APM 015 to add the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) related protections to existing language regarding non-discrimination and anti-harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

APM 190, Appendix G Program Description Retirement Contributions on Academic Appointee Summer Salary (11/01/16) – Issued on November 10, 2016, revised APM 190, Appendix G, Program Description Retirement Contributions on Academic Appointee Summer Salary, is effective November 1, 2016. Revisions to this APM section align policy for administering summer salary benefits for all faculty and academic appointees with the new retirement plan options that became available to those employed on July 1, 2016 or later.

APM 278 Health Sciences Clinical Professor Series, 210-6 Instructions to Review Committees That Advise on Actions Concerning the Health Sciences Clinical Professor Series, 279 Volunteer Clinical Professor Series, new section 350 Clinical Associate, 112 Academic Titles (7/1/17) Issued on April 28, 2017, APM section 278, Health Sciences Clinical Professor Series, section 210-6, Instructions to Review Committees That Advise on Actions Concerning the Health Sciences Clinical Professor Series; section 279, Volunteer Clinical Professor Series; new section 350, Clinical Associate; and section 112, Academic Titles, are effective July 1, 2017, with APM 350 and APM 112 to be implemented on that date. Health Sciences Compensation Plan (HSCP) campuses and schools will have up to one year, until July 1, 2018, to create new procedures or revise existing procedures to implement APM 278, APM 210-6 and APM 279. These will include conditions that are appropriate for current Health Sciences Clinical Professors and Volunteer Clinical Professors to transfer to administration under the revised policies or transfer to the applicable title under policy criteria matching duties, review criteria, and appointment dates.

APM 360 Librarian Series, 210-4 Instructions to Review Committees that Advise on the Appointment, Merit Increase, Promotion, Career Status Actions for Members of Librarian Series (10/01/16) – Issued on September 30, 2016, APM sections 360, Librarian Series and 210-4, Instructions to Review Committees that Advise on the Appointment, Merit Increase, Promotion, Career Status Actions for Members of Librarian Series, are effective October 1, 2016. The revisions to these APM sections governing non-represented librarians strengthen these important policies and clarify terms related to appointment, advancement, and personnel review procedures. Revisions aligned policy language, in most but not all places, with the terms and conditions of the October 1, 2013 collective bargaining agreement between UC and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) governing represented librarians. In addition to the new definition of librarian, policy revisions cover the criteria for appointment, terms of service, merit increases, promotion, appointment or advancement to career status, and review procedures.

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
Professor of Analytic Epidemiology,
Population Health and Reproduction (Veterinary
Medicine), and Public Health Sciences (Medicine)