Woman with red umbrella walking past red phone booth

Annual Call

Download 2025-26 Annual Call for Academic Personnel Advancement Actions (PDF)
Download 2025-26 Annual Call Appendix A only (PDF)

August 28, 2025

RE:     2025-2026 Annual Call for Academic Personnel Advancement for Academic Senate and Academic Federation Actions

Dear Colleagues:

With this Annual Call for the 2025-2026 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 – 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 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, https://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/accommodations.

New – 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 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 will be issuing its new 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:

  1. 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);
  2. be up to date on their training and reporting requirements;
  3. be in compliance with all applicable University policies;
  4. have a completed Oath and Patent Acknowledgement form on file;
  5. 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
  6. 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: Link to be provided once issued.

 

ACADEMIC RECRUITMENTS

Reminder – Restrictions on New Hire Offers from other UC Campuses: When the candidate is from another UC campus, Deans and department chairs should not make any offers or promises during the recruitment process about increasing off-scale salary. This is required even when the faculty member’s off-scale salary component at UC Davis would be less than the average off-scale salary in the college/school and scale. At least one year must transpire before any adjustment in off-scale will be allowed, with the exception of adjustments mandated by the campus or UCOP. 

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.

Effective 2024/25

  • STEAD certification expires after four academic years. A faculty member who participated in STEAD or SOM workshops during the 2021-2022 academic year will retain certification until June 30, 2026. In between STEAD sessions, all committees should also review the one-page guidance document with reminders about managing bias in the faculty search process (prepared by STEAD and available in September 2024.)
  • Non-UCD members of a faculty search committee must also be certified by attending STEAD workshops.

*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/facultydev/events/upcoming-events.html#/?i=1. These committees should also review the one-page guidance document with reminders about managing bias in the faculty search process (prepared by STEAD and available in September 2024.)

 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 in order to prepare for upcoming recruitments.

While this workshop is not mandated, 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 here: https://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/stead.

Reminder – Approving Shortlist Reports in UC Recruit: There are three 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 of these 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 employee per new laws and policy. All guidance and process information is available on our webpage here. 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 – 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 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 scholarly record in the one year since last review that is consistent with the record that would be expected in a two-year period.  Additionally, an academic who aspires to accelerate advancement by two years to the full rank should have a scholarly record in the one year since last review that is consistent with the record that would be expected in a three-year period.  There are no similar expectations for exceeding normative time expectations, however, for teaching and university/public service performed in the abbreviated time period.

New – Service in MIV: When possible, 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).

Update – 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. This page can be found at https://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/guidance-optional-statements

Update – Linking Actions in MIV: Linking of Merits and Appraisal actions is no longer available. Each action has its own packet.  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.

Clarification – Non-Peer-Reviewed Articles in MIV: Articles 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.

Clarification – 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

Clarification – 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, systemwide policy (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. 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.

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

  • 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, 2025 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 next 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 promotions due to the candidate not submitting their 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, 2026 may be subject to administrative deferral and can be submitted in the next review cycle.

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 – 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 why they 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 recognized numerous 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 the APM.  Chairs need to advise departments faculty before they vote of this guidance to help avoid unrealistic expectations and disappointment by candidates for advancement.

Reminder – Step Plus Promotions and Barrier Step Merits: For promotions and barrier step merits which have longer review periods, departments are advised to separate out activities in the most recent review period. Justifications for extra half-step advancements should clearly cite the category (e.g., research, teaching, service, etc.) and specific contributions, either during the most recent period of review (if candidate was awarded for the same category in a previous merit period during the longer period of review) or during the entire period of review (if candidate was never awarded during the longer review period). Candidates may be rewarded again for a category for which they have previously received extra half-step advancements, but this is contingent upon the dossier making a compelling case and clearly identifying the activities in the most recent review period that warrant additional recognition. This guidance follows the clarification endorsed by the Academic Senate on June 2, 2022 regarding promotions and barrier step merits: “For consideration of additional half steps at the time of promotion or barrier step advancement, if Step Plus recognition has been awarded in a previous merit cycle in the review period, further Step Plus recognition for that specific area (e.g., research, teaching, service, professional competence and activities) will require additional and compelling evidence of outstanding achievement that is distinct from what was previously awarded.”

Reminder – Service Activities: Dossier should clearly identify the candidate’s role in service activities and address time commitments including number of meetings, preparation work, etc.

Reminder – Graduate Group/Program Service: In the advancement (merit and promotion) process, faculty reviewers and review committees are strongly encouraged to appropriately weigh service to graduate groups and graduate programs in addition to service to departments, colleges/schools, and the university.  Candidates for advancement are encouraged to provide guidance to reviewers as to the amount and impact of such service that it can be appropriately recognized.  Mentoring graduate students and post-docs is also a key component of teaching in APM 210 and should be addressed in the optional Candidate’s Statement and documented in MIV.

Reminder – Part-time Administrator Position Descriptions: Candidates are encouraged to upload position descriptions for any part-time administrator appointments that they hold 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.

Reminder – Redelegated Part-time Administrator Letters: Please send all appointment and reappointment letters for redelegated part-time 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. 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.”

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 – Peer Evaluation of Teaching for Any Action: Faculty can request a peer evaluation of teaching for any action to provide a more balanced perspective on their teaching record beyond student evaluations.

Reminder – Grants in MIV for Federation Members:  All Academic Federation members 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 UC 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.”

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 – Distinguished Professor Emerita/us: For Academic Senate Faculty who are eligible for automatic Emerita/us status upon retirement who are at Professor, Step 9 or 9.5 and who will be retiring before advancing to Above Scale, department(s) may prepare a dossier requesting the title “Distinguished Professor Emerita/us” that would be forwarded to the Dean’s office and to CAP per the Delegation of Authority and assessed by the standards of UC APM 220-18.b.4. This action would need to be completed within twelve-months of the faculty member’s retirement. If approved, this title would be conferred upon the date of retirement. This process is a change in title only and will not result in advancement to Above Scale.  

Reminder – Items to Include with Extramural Letter Requests: While UC Davis has recently encouraged departments to utilize a more holistic evaluation process for advancements due to the deleterious impact of the pandemic on academic careers, extramural letter writers may not be aware of this. Therefore, when seeking extramural letters, we recommend that Department Chairs also consider including with the request the Candidate’s Statement, Statement of Public and Global Impact, and Statement of Achievements Relative to Opportunities. Any of these items provided to extramural letter writers should first be approved by the candidate, as some faculty may not wish these documents to be shared outside the university.

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 – Extramural Letter Requirements for Professors of Teaching: Extramural letters for the Professor of Teaching series have been updated for appointments and promotions for consistency in the application of peer review standards for all Academic Senate faculty. The Extramural Letters Chart has been updated. Extramural letters should sufficiently address teaching contributions beyond a mere review of printed or web course materials. External referees should also be asked to cite their own qualifications to evaluate the candidate’s professional and/or scholarly achievement and activities.

Reminder – Extramural Letter Requirements for ___ in the AES, Specialists in Cooperative Extension, Professional Researchers, and Project Scientists: Extramural letters are no longer required for ___ in the AES, Specialists in Cooperative Extension, Professional Researchers, and Project Scientists undergoing merit reviews that cross the full rank, step 6 barrier. As with faculty, extramural letters are optional for this barrier review, and if requested, the regular procedure for soliciting letters must be followed. The Extramural Letters Chart and Merit Checklists have been updated to reflect this change.

Reminder – Extension Requests:  Every year the Annual Call includes advancement deadlines published in Appendix A. The published deadlines exist to ensure that peer and administrative review proceeds in a timely manner and to allow for prioritization of workload for the Academic Senate and Academic Federation review committees. Please remember that extensions must be requested prior to the due date of the action. No extensions for the submission of late merits or promotions will be granted without strong justification. Authority to grant extensions to the published deadlines and/or issue administrative deferrals will depend on the delegation of the eligible action.

Reminder – Voting Procedures: Department Chairs are encouraged to work with their departments to regularly review their voting procedures and peer review guidelines.

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 % 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 (APM UCD 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.

Reminder – Position Descriptions: When a position description exists, please upload it to the dossier. The position description should be consistent with the department’s expectations and the academic appointee’s contributions. If there are changes during the review period, the previous and current/new position descriptions should be uploaded and reflect the new percentages and/or duties.

Reminder – Ballots for Accelerated Promotions: Remember to include the lateral promotion option on accelerated promotion ballots.

Reminder – Joint Department Reviews: When a joint department does their concurrent review of an advancement action, the primary department is not required to share their department letter. The reviews should be run independently. (APM UCD 220 Procedure 2)

Reminder – Jr. Specialist Reappointment Guidance: Absent serious performance issues, a Jr. Specialist reappointed for a second year in that title must be moved from salary step 1 to salary step 2.

Reminder – MyInfoVault Considerations: In MyInfoVault, once a redelegated action is completed, it should be sent to Post Audit. Also, please convert your appointees to candidates as soon as they have computing accounts. This allows appointment actions to be archived and prevents issues when the candidate has their first advancement action. If you are not able to convert an appointee, please contact the MIV helpdesk, miv-help@ucdavis.edu.

Reminder – Advancement Announcements: Department Chairs should not announce the outcome of a candidate’s merit/promotion to the department faculty. The announcement should be made to the candidate only.

 

OTHER ITEMS

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: https://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/retirements-and-recalls#Retirement%20Dates.

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 OPA. 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 of the required details, including the “Additional Information Requirements for Category I Prior Approval Requests” documentation, 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 following webpage: https://research.ucdavis.edu/policiescompliance/coi/. 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 following website: https://research.ucdavis.edu/policiescompliance/international-relationships-and-activities/.

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 six 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, 2025 Faculty members and Specialists in Cooperative Extension (CE) are now able to submit their 2024-2025 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. 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: https://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/oats

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. In order for them to be able to report, department staff need to send an email to the UC OATS help desk (oats-help@ucdavis.edu) 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 could be impacted if retired faculty have outstanding annual certification reports.

 

ACADEMIC PERSONNEL POLICIES – NEW AND REVISED

SYSTEMWIDE

Academic personnel policies issued during 2024-2025 may be found at: 
https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/academic-personnel-policy/policy-issuances-and-guidelines/index.html

Revised – Issued October 31, 2024, APM – 260, University Professor. A technical revision was made to APM – 260-22, Funding, to remove reference to Presidential and campus funding of University Professor duties. 

Revised – Issued January 1, 2025, APM 240, 246,700, 711, 715, 730, 759, 760. Technical revisions were made to multiple sections of the APM to clarify and align policy with current University practice. For more information, the detailed cover letter can be found here: https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/apm/apm-240-246-700-711-715-730-759-760-issuance/2024-12-19-apm-issuance-cover-letter.pdf

Revised – Issued January 10, 2025, APM 205, Recall for Academic Appointees. Technical revisions to modify recall appointment eligibility language to include retired academic appointees in the Savings Choice plan who separated via retirement and to add additional language to update benefits eligibility.

Revised – Issued January 17, 2025, APM 235, Acting Appointments. Technical revision to remove item “b” from APM 235-25 to ensure consistent application of the acting title and to clarify when an appointee in an acting professor or acting professor of teaching title can be transferred to a regular professorial or professor of teaching appointment. Additionally. Revisions to references to the Professor of Teaching series and titles included in the series.

Revised – Issued April 9, 2025, APM 710, and 758. Technical revisions were made to address changes in law and to incorporate leaves already offered by the University into the APM. For more information, the detailed cover letter can be found here: https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/apm/apm-710-758-issuance/2025-04-09-apm-710-758-issuance-cvr-ltr.pdf.

Revised – Issued April 18, 2025, APM – 065, 140, 240, 245, 270, 275, 280, 340. Technical revisions are being made to comply with state and federal law and regulations, update names of relevant offices, and correct errors. For more information, the detailed cover letter can be found here: https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/apm/apm-issuance-035-140-240-245-270-275-280-340/2025-04-18-apm-policy-issuance-ltr-tech-revisions.pdf.

Revised – Issued APMM – 675, Veterinary Medicine. The revised policy clarifies that faculty members paid on the Veterinary Medicine Salary Scale are not permitted to participate in the HSPCP (APM – 670). Additional clarification that participation by faculty members paid on the Veterinary Medicine Salary Scale in the Negotiated Salary Program (APM – 672) or any future compensation or salary plan is predicated on the requirement that faculty first fully meet the minimum contribution requirements specified in APM – 675-8.d, 675-8.e, and 675-8.f.

CAMPUS

Local campus academic personnel policies may be found at:
https://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/apm/apm-toc

There were no new or revised local policies issued during the 2024 -2025 academic year.