I. SCHEDULE FOR ACADEMIC PERSONNEL REVIEWS

2021-2022AY

Chairs and Deans must establish due dates to enable timely handling of files in order to meet the Academic Personnel Office (APO) deadline. The table below lists deadlines, but when the file is ready please forward it to APO so it can be processed as expeditiously as possible.

 

Personnel Review Action	Date Due in Academic Personnel Office	File Entry Cut Off Date
Promotion to Associate Professor	The third Tuesday in January	September 30
Advancement to Above Scale (A/S)
Promotion to Full Professor
Advancement to Professor VI	The first Monday in February
Career Review
Reappointment of Assistant Professor	The first Monday in March
Appraisal	One third due the third Monday in November
Merit	Two thirds due the first Tuesday in April
Quinquennial Review	100% due the first Monday in May

 

Note: For all cases, letters should be solicited before September 1 to allow reviewers ample time to respond. For 7^th year promotion to Associate Professor cases, extramural letters must not be solicited until after June 30 (or any earlier than the end of the 6^th year). For off-cycle 7^th year promotions, the dates will be adjusted accordingly. 7^th year promotion to Associate Professor files may be updated until April 30 of the 7^th year. The deadline for receipt of Extramural and Student letters is November 1^st. If there is good reason to grant an exception to this deadline and the file will be on time to APO, then the new deadline will be at the discretion of the Dean. Evidence of decanal approval and the reason for granting the extension must be included in the eFilePlus.

Announcements of final Academic Personnel Review decisions will be made once a week on Friday if they are available. Final decisions after the last calendar day in June will be announced as soon as they become available. In the interest of equity and efficiency for candidates and reviewers alike, it is important that the schedule and its deadlines be adhered to carefully. The Deans, CAP, and the VPAP feel no obligation to consider cases in which a faculty member does not supply documents and information by the deadlines that Chairs set. Files not received in the Academic Personnel Office by the final due date (first Monday in May) normally will be returned for consideration during the next academic year. Such files will be classified as deferrals and will not be considered for retroactive action. Tenured faculty members below Professor Step V who are at normal time at step will receive an automatic deferral if they do not submit materials by the departmental due date, unless the Department Chair has granted an extension. Mandatory action files received after the extension deadline or beyond the final due date listed on the Schedule may be automatically denied or deemed unsatisfactory.

II. PROCEDURES

 

A. General Review Procedures for Senate Faculty Academic Personnel Files Procedures for academic personnel review of senate faculty at the UCR campus are outlined in the “CALL”. No other procedures or guidelines for faculty review shall be used.

1. Role of Academic Personnel Office (APO), Routing, Delegation Chart and eFilePlus The Vice Provost for Academic Personnel (VPAP) is designated by the Chancellor and the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor (PEVC) to develop and implement academic review procedures for the Riverside campus (APM 220-80c). The VPAP facilitates all Academic Personnel actions on behalf of the Chancellor and the PEVC via APO. All items must be submitted to APO via the appropriate Dean’s Office and be addressed to the Chancellor.

The Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) provides advice to the Chancellor (or designee) on academic personnel matters. The VPAP is the Chancellor’s and PEVC’s designee for facilitating administrative input and advice from CAP. The full committee charge for CAP can be found on https://senate.ucr.edu/committees/6 .

The Delegation of Authority Chart provides information on the final authority on review actions. It can be found on the APO website: http://academicpersonnel.ucr.edu/policies_and_procedures/ .

The eFilePlus System is used for a routed, paperless review of merit and promotion files. Processes outside of eFilePlus include: Chair’s meeting with candidate, signing of Procedural Safeguard Statement (Part 1 and Part 2), Department meeting, Department voting, preparation of department recommendation (draft and final), CAP meeting, CAP voting and preparation of CAP recommendation. General information regarding the eFilePlus system can be found on the eFilePlus website at http://academicpersonnel.ucr.edu/eFilePlus/ .

NOTE: As of the 2017-2018AY review cycle, the use of eFilePlus is mandatory for all files. Extensive documentation may be uploaded to the Other section as a PDF .

2. Bylaw 55 & Department Voting Rights

Academic Senate Bylaw 55 contains material governing voting rights and other issues related to considerations of academic personnel procedures. See the Academic Senate Manual for Bylaw 55 text. Please refer all questions related to interpretation and implementation of Bylaw 55 to the Rules and Jurisdiction Committee of the Academic Senate. Voting Rights Template is available on the Academic Senate website: http://senate.ucr.edu/ under Committee Listings, Academic Personnel.

The method of voting to comply with Bylaw 55 is left to the discretion of the department. It is important that this be done in a consistent way that results in a clear picture of faculty opinion about the proposed action. Review of departmental delegations and procedures are solicited annually by the Academic Senate Office. Bylaw 55 forms must be completed and submitted to the Academic Senate by the end of October or before the first personnel meeting whichever comes first. CAP shall provide copies to APO and the Dean’s offices by the first week of November.

 

3. Extension Requests

Extension requests will be granted only under exceptional circumstances and must be approved by the VPAP prior to the final due date for submission to APO published in Section I. Such a request must be forwarded through the Dean's office and must clearly justify the reason for the delay and include the estimated date when the file will be received in the Dean’s Office. If the extension request is for additional time to receive extramural letters, then the extension request must additionally request an exception to include letters dated past the due date. If the estimated submittal date for any action is beyond the final date for files to be received by APO (first Monday in May), the extension request must also be approved by CAP. The Deans, CAP and the VPAP feel no obligation to consider cases in which a faculty member does not supply documents and information by the deadlines that Chairs or Deans may set. Files received after the extension deadline or beyond the final due date listed on the Schedule for Academic Personnel Reviews may be returned for re-submission during the next academic year. Mandatory action files received after the extension deadline or beyond the final due date listed on the Schedule may be automatically denied or deemed unsatisfactory.

4. Procedures Regarding Eligibility

The Department Chair is responsible for making certain that within the department there is an annual review of the status and performance of each faculty member in the department. Cases of possible eligibility for merit increase or promotion shall be examined ( APM 220-80-b ) and a preliminary review list must be provided to APO, via the College Dean’s Office, by the first Monday in August. Faculty are eligible for advancement or promotion each year, however, advancement usually occurs in conjunction with completion of normal time in step. Throughout this document, the term 'eligible' references the completion of normal time in step with the broader understanding that nothing precludes submission of a file during any review cycle. See Section II.A.4.b below for the concept of acceleration.

a. Normal Time in Step

 

CHART I – NORMAL TIME IN STEP
Assistant Professor	Associate Professor	Full Professor		Distinguished Professor Above Scale	Normal Period of Service at Step
Step	Step	Step	Step	No Steps
I					2 years
II					2 years
III					2 years
IV*					2 years
V	I				2 years
VI	II				2 years
	III				2 years
	IV	I			3 years
	V	II			3 years
		III			3 years
		IV			3 years
		V			3 or more years
			VI		3 or more years
			VII		3 or more years
			VIII		3 or more years
			IX		4 or more years
				no steps/ just merits	4 or more years between merit advancements

*Review for promotion to Associate Professor must occur no later than the 7^th year of service in order to adhere to the eight-year rule and the terminal-year requirement. Visiting Assistant Professor and Acting Assistant Professor appointments count toward the eight-year rule.

 

Departments are required to review each faculty member at the Associate or Full ranks who is at normal time in step and to make a recommendation for or against advancement. (See Section

II.B.7 for deferral. ) Departments are required to review each faculty member at the Assistant rank who is at or above normal time in step and to make a recommendation for or against advancement. Assistant Professors cannot defer. (See Section II.B.7 for deferral. )

Because there is no specified normal time at Professor Step V and above, service at these steps may be of indefinite duration. (However, see Section II.B.12-Quinquennial Review. ) Advancement to Steps VI, VII, VIII, and IX usually will not occur until at least three years of service at the lower step. Advancement to Above-Scale usually will not occur until at least four years of service at Step IX.

b. Acceleration

Advancement to a higher step before normal eligibility constitutes acceleration. The campus encourages departments to put forward deserving candidates for acceleration. Advancement to a higher rank must meet the appropriate criteria for promotion ( APM 210-1-d and APM 220-18- b(4) ). The minimum criterion for acceleration within rank is strength in all areas of review during the abbreviated review period. Exceptional strength in one area is not sufficient to offset a weakness in another area. In addition:

i. For one-year accelerations within rank, the record for the abbreviated review period must reflect a level of accomplishments commensurate with the normal on-time merit.

ii. For multiple year accelerations within rank, the records for the abbreviated review period must reflect excellence in all areas of review commensurate with the proposed step, in addition to performance in at least one area deemed to be outstanding and a driving force for the acceleration.

iii. Advancement to Step VI usually will not occur after less than three years of service at Step V. A recommendation for acceleration to this step requires highly distinguished scholarship, highly meritorious service, and evidence of excellent University teaching at the standards noted in APM 220-18-b(4) .

iv. The bar is set higher for acceleration to Professor Step VII and above, as required in APM 220-18-b(4), revised in 2008. A recommendation for acceleration to these steps requires exceptional performance at the standards noted in APM 220-18-b(4) .

v. Advancement to Professor Above-Scale usually requires four years of service at Professor IX; advancement within Professor Above-Scale usually requires four years of service at the current scale. Only in the most superior cases where there is strong and compelling evidence will increases at intervals shorter than four years be approved. A recommendation for acceleration must demonstrate a signal achievement or honor in one of the three areas of assessment in addition to exceptional performance at the standards noted in APM 220-18- b(4) .

vi. The department and Dean are expected to explicitly address the acceleration recommendation in their letters. Multiple-year accelerations and those at the senior professor and distinguished professor steps must be particularly well justified.

The Department Chair has the responsibility to review the record of each member of the department to determine whether a recommendation for acceleration should be considered by the

 

voting members of the department. Chairs and colleagues should always be alert to exceptionally strong performances and should be prepared to make appropriate recommendations which are carefully and thoroughly documented by evidence appropriate to the case.

A recommendation for acceleration must be considered by the voting members of the department if a request is made by the candidate, by the Chair, or by any other ladder rank faculty member of the department eligible to vote on the recommendation. If the request is made by the candidate, a vote must be taken. If a department vote is taken, the candidate must be informed of the vote.

After the departmental vote is taken and the candidate is informed of the vote, the department and candidate may agree not to have the recommendation for acceleration forwarded for further review. Ultimately, however, this is the candidate's choice.

A promotion is not considered an acceleration, regardless of years at rank or step when a candidate is advancing to the "normal" (see charts below) step in the next rank. In cases where movement to a lateral step is possible, the first step above the lateral step is considered the "normal" step. Regardless, departments may always elect to vote on the lateral step when advancement to the lateral step is deemed most appropriate. A vote on the lateral step would be particularly helpful if the vote on the "normal" step were mixed.

CHART I - PROMOTION FROM ASSISTANT PROFESSOR TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
To Associate Professor
From Assistant Professor	Steps	I	II	III	IV
	I, II, III, IV	Normal	2-yr acceleration	4-yr acceleration	6-yr acceleration
	V	Lateral	Normal	2-yr acceleration	4-yr acceleration
	VI	-	Lateral	Normal	2-yr acceleration

CHART II - PROMOTION FROM ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR TO FULL PROFESSOR
To Full Professor
From Associate Professor	Steps	I	II	III	IV
	I, II, III	Normal	3-yr acceleration	6-yr acceleration	9-yr acceleration
	IV	Lateral	Normal	3-yr acceleration	6-yr acceleration
	V	-	Lateral	Normal	3-yr acceleration

c. Overlapping Steps

The normal periods of service are described in APM 220-18-b . The use of Assistant Professor, Steps V and VI is encouraged as an alternative to premature consideration of promotion.

Overlapping steps are those in which the published salaries vary by $100. The following are overlapping steps in the professorial series. See also Lateral Promotion.

Assistant Professor V Associate Professor I Assistant Professor VI Associate Professor II Associate Professor IV Professor I

Associate Professor V Professor II

5. Review Criteria

Reviewing bodies that advise on actions concerning appointees in the Professor and corresponding series, are instructed to use these criteria for appointment, promotion and

 

appraisal( APM 210-1-d ). The flexibility provided in APM-210-1-d should be used when weighing achievements across the different evaluation areas. The relevant verbiage in APM-210- 1-d is: “In evaluating the candidate’s qualifications within these areas, the review committee shall exercise reasonable flexibility, balancing when the case requires, heavier commitments and responsibilities in one area against lighter commitments and responsibilities in another.” Some level of compensation between achievements can support a merit advance, but a significant imbalance will not be successful.

In teaching, "clearly demonstrated evidence of high quality in teaching is an essential criterion for appointment, advancement, or promotion." In addition, participation in graduate programs is expected, although the degree of participation may depend on whether the department has a graduate program. Attention may be given to the role of the candidate and the candidate’s field in attracting high-caliber graduate students to the campus. Discussion of mentoring (such as of individual undergraduates, undergraduate groups/organizations, individual graduate students, graduate organizations, postdoctoral scholars, project scientists or junior faculty, especially those from groups underrepresented within the discipline) and what has been achieved through that mentoring is expected and appropriate. For example, metrics such as the number of completed or in-progress MS, MA, MFA or PhD students, if graduate students won fellowships, co-authored papers, presented at conferences, gained internship opportunities are indications of positive mentoring. It is appropriate to bring attention to mentoring awards. One way to indicate time and effort dedicated to mentoring within eFilePlus is to go under Other Teaching Info, click on Activity and then choose Other Supervision/Advising. Here one can, for example, list mentoring activities that take place at conferences, on the campus, or within the community as well as names of students mentored. Mentoring activities relating to staff can also be included.

In the area of research, "There must be evidence that the candidate is continuously and effectively engaged in creative activity of high quality and significance. Publications in research and other creative accomplishment must be evaluated, not merely enumerated." ( APM 210-1-d(2) Both the quality of publication outlets and impact of the research in the field are important factors.

Research and scholarship must be performed at the highest level. In many areas, extramural support is essential for a high quality research program. Although grants are not a necessary metric of research productivity, in many disciplines the receipt of major research grant or fellowship is considered work that has undergone a rigorous peer-review process that can denote current research productivity, sustainability of future research productivity, peer recognition, and leadership. For faculty at the rank of Assistant Professor, Step IV or lower, major research grants or fellowships secured during the merit review period reflect research productivity and impact, and should be treated in a similar way as technical journal articles. Additionally, grants or fellowships that recognize overall career accomplishment may be viewed as awards or honors, and faculty who lead large center and/or training grants can have these efforts recognized as contributions to campus service. Moreover, extraordinary success in being awarded extramural grants or fellowships can be the basis for additional off-scale or acceleration.

The absence of extramural funding, however, shall not be taken as a negative indicator of the quality of research. When appropriate, the candidate and department are advised to address the issue of funding in the self-statement and department letter.

It is recognized that the timeline from the start of a book project to the appearance of the book in print must nearly always be measured in years, and it often extends across multiple review periods. Withholding credit until publication can thus disadvantage a scholar in a book-based discipline (disciplines in which a book-length monograph is typically required for promotion

 

relative to colleagues for whom completion of an item of research has a much shorter arc. To this end, a completed book chapter that is part of an established, single-author book project can be accepted as sufficient scholarly activity for a merit one time for all faculty at each rank (assistant, associate, full) under the following conditions: 1) the book chapter was completed during the review period; 2) the book chapter qualifies as an essentially finished entity and its place in the eventual book is identified; 3) the book chapter along with the book project plan is uploaded as one PDF into eFilePlus under Other Information, Non-Confidential Document; 4) completed but unpublished book chapters cannot be used to support acceleration, additional off-scale, or promotion; 5) if a book chapter that received this accommodation is subsequently published in lieu of the book project (e.g., a stand-alone book chapter or an article in a book) the candidate contribution statement should note that the work was previously credited with this accommodation.

For Professional Activity, see APM 210-1-d(3) . For University and Public Service see APM 210-1-d(4). The level of involvement in each should be commensurate with stage of career.

Thus, for full professors, evidence of leadership in both professional and university service would increasingly be expected with moves to higher steps. University service would normally graduate from contributions to the department at the assistant professor level to include contributions to the campus, senate, and system-wide governance at higher ranks of the professoriate. In addition to listing committees they serve on, candidates should also explain their role and provide a sense for the level of their involvement and their specific contributions.

The University of California is committed to excellence and equity in every facet of its mission. Contributions in all areas of faculty achievement that promote equal opportunity and diversity should be given due recognition in the academic personnel process, and they should be evaluated and credited in the same way as other faculty achievements. These contributions to diversity and equal opportunity can take a variety of forms including efforts to advance equitable access to education, public service that addresses the needs of California’s diverse population, or research in a scholar’s area of expertise that highlights inequalities. Mentoring and advising of students and faculty members, particularly from underrepresented and underserved populations, should be given due recognition in the teaching or service categories of the academic personnel process

( APM 210-1-d ). The language in APM-210-1-d does not add a fourth category of evaluation, and therefore contributions to equal opportunity and diversity is not a specific, required review category for files. However, extraordinary contributions to equal opportunity and diversity within the existing categories of research, teaching, and service can be recognized as additional strengths of a file.

a. First Personnel Actions at UCR Only

Items that were not credited at appointment but which have been completed (e.g. grants awarded, papers published, talks given) between the submission of the appointment file and date of appointment may be included. The review period should be adjusted to capture these items. A list of the items that would normally fall under an eFilePlus category must be included on the cover sheet of the Department Letter.

b. Area of Research Not Aligned with Department

Under circumstances when the research has moved beyond, and no longer aligns with, department/college expertise (e.g. a series of romance novels written by a biomedical scientist), a senate ad hoc committee will be required in cases of promotion. The ad hoc committee will be expected to contribute names for extramural letter solicitations, as well as writing their report.

 

6. Procedures Before the Personnel Review File is Assembled

It is the candidate's and the Department Chair's responsibility to document the file in an adequate manner. Chairs must not independently add materials to the file that cannot be documented. Only material pertinent to evaluation should be in the review file. Chairs may utilize statistical information (e.g. journal rankings, impact factors, citation reports, etc.) that might aid in the evaluation of the quality and impact of the candidate’s scholarly activity. The file must present and contextualize the scholarly and intellectual contributions of the candidate in each area of review. Review shall be based only on what is contained in the file. The candidate must provide all pertinent material and information requested in eFilePlus and certify the file is complete (as verified by the Procedural Safeguard Statement). A separate Promotion file and Merit file cannot be submitted in the same review cycle.

It is the expectation of the Deans, CAP and the VPAP that all faculty having advancement cases shall provide their updated material to the Department/School/Division Chair as early as possible. Cooperation in completion of information in one’s personnel file is a professional obligation without which the review process cannot be initiated.

The Chair shall discuss with the faculty member the following possible options:

1. The faculty member may wish to be considered for promotion. If so, a full promotion file, including extramural letters, shall be prepared.

2. Associate Professors and above may wish to defer review. (For limitations, see Section II.B.7-Deferral.)

3. The faculty member may wish to be considered for a merit if the faculty member is not at the highest step and is not in the 7 ^th year in the Assistant rank.

a. The Chair confirms the impending review with the candidate.

b. The Chair makes certain the candidate is adequately informed about the entire review process and is made aware of APM 210-1 , APM 220-80 , and APM 160 .

c. The Chair makes certain the candidate is given an opportunity to:

i. Ask questions.

ii. Encourage the candidate to begin updating eFilePlus, including a self-statement.

iii. Suggest, where relevant, names of persons to be solicited for letters of evaluation.

iv. Provide in writing to the Chair names of possible extramural reviewers who, for reasons set forth by the candidate, might not objectively evaluate the candidate's qualifications and performance. Any such statements shall be included in the personnel review file.

v. Provide in writing to the VPAP and CAP, names of possible campus Ad Hoc reviewers who, for reasons set forth by the candidate, might not objectively evaluate the candidate's qualifications and performance.

4. The faculty member may wish to discuss the possibility of an additional O/S or an acceleration if the record warrants this distinction (see Section II.B.10 ).

7. Procedures Before the Departmental Recommendation is Determined

a. The Chair shall provide the candidate the opportunity to inspect all the non-confidential material in the personnel review file. Confidential documents (including declinations from extramural reviewers) shall be made available to the candidate. These documents shall be provided in the form of redacted copies. Per information given to extramural letter writers “The University of California will keep your name and institutional affiliation confidential. Any identifying information on the letterhead and within your signature block will be removed. However, pursuant to state law and University policy, the full text of the body of your letter will be provided to the candidate. In order to keep your identity confidential,

 

you may want to avoid putting information in the body of your letter that would identify you”.

 

Note: The identities of persons who were the sources of these documents shall not be disclosed. Redaction of a letter of evaluation (including declinations) is defined as removal of the name, title, organizational/institutional affiliation, and relational information contained below the signature block. ( APM 160-20-c(4) . ) Any identifying information on the letterhead and emails (including email address or signature) must also be removed.

b. The candidate shall be given five (5) business days to submit a written statement in response to or commenting upon material in the file, including confidential documents. The response, if any, shall be included in the review file. Alternatively, the candidate may waive the waiting period.

c. The file must be opened to faculty in the department, according to departmental Bylaw 55. For Joint Appointments and Faculty with Defined Duties in Other Units, see Section II.C . The members of the department who are eligible to vote or have an advisory vote shall be given at least five (5) business days to access and review the file before voting. In the case of absentee ballots, all votes must be received prior to the department meeting.

d. The candidate must sign Section I of the Procedural Safeguards Statement ( Attachment B-1 ).

8. Procedures During Departmental Review

a. The Chair is obliged to ensure that the departmental review is fair to the candidate and rigorous in maintaining University standards. The Academic Senate Committee on Privilege and Tenure (P&T) must be contacted directly for allegations of procedures which violate the Faculty Code of Conduct (APM-015)

b. Participation in personnel meetings is considered part of a faculty member’s service duties. There must be a concerted effort to ensure participation by as many faculty as possible in department meetings. Academic Personnel may return the file if insufficient departmental votes are recorded. Physical presence of faculty members is required in discussions intended to lead to a vote on academic personnel actions. Physical presence is defined as attending the meeting in person to allow for complete participation in the deliberations, discussions, decisions, and/or voting. Remote attendance is permissible if it can be organized in a way that enables engagement and preserves confidentiality. Under extenuating circumstances, there may be absentee ballots. All absentee votes must be received prior to the departmental meeting. If opinions are expressed via an absentee ballot, then they must be discussed at the meeting.

c. All ranks/steps requested by the candidate must be considered and voted upon by the voting members of the department. Record all votes taken unless the vote for higher rank and step does not have any negative votes.

d. The department shall adopt procedures under which the departmental letter setting forth the departmental recommendations shall be available for inspection by all voting members, including faculty who have been given advisory voting privileges.

When the draft of the departmental recommendation letter is ready for review, the Chair is responsible for communicating to the faculty where the draft is available for review. The Chair must also provide the faculty with a due date for receipt of any comments to the draft.

 

It is advisable to allow, at a minimum, a period of two (2) business days. It is the department faculty’s responsibility to ensure that the letter accurately reflects the discussion. Once the due date has passed, the Chair must review any comments received from the faculty, and to the extent possible, incorporate those comments into the finalized departmental recommendation letter.

The Chair must then notify the faculty that the finalized departmental letter is available for review (but no further comments from the faculty shall be allowed except for corrections of errors of fact).

When the Chair notifies the faculty of the finalized departmental letter the faculty have 24 hours to notify the Chair of their intent to write a minority report which is then due five (5) business days after the original Chair notification (i.e. the 24 hours is part of the five (5) business days). If the Chair is not informed of a forthcoming minority report, there is no requirement for the five (5) day period and the file may move forward.

Identifiers of extramural and student letters are to be limited to numerical or alphabetical designations in the department letter. The same protection of confidentiality must also be extended to statements made by faculty members.

In units where there is no Chair, the "departmental letter" summarizing the case should be prepared by a senior faculty member designated by the Dean. The same member must be responsible for preparing the letters for all candidates in the unit. This faculty member may also prepare a "Chair's Letter." (See Section III.G.)

If the personnel action involves the Department Chair, a senior faculty member to act as Chair for the file is designated by the Dean. This faculty member may also prepare a “Chair’s

Letter.”

A summary of the departmental letter shall be provided to the candidate once the period for the submission of minority reports is expired. The candidate will be able to review the unredacted finalized letter and any minority reports after the period for submission of minority reports is expired.

e. Minority reports are intended to permit interpretations of fact and academic judgment which differ materially from those expressed in the departmental letter. Minority reports must be confined to the evaluation of teaching, research or service as discussed at the department meeting but not viewed as being represented in the department letter. The report must not contain comments on procedures/processes used to assemble the file or conduct the meeting. The intent is not to extend to unreasonable degrees, differences of academic judgment already clearly delineated in the departmental letter and reflective of both majority and minority views. Minority reports should be embarked upon only when attempts to revise the departmental letter to more accurately reflect departmental opinion reaches an impasse. Such minority reports are not to be treated as alternatives to departmental letters in scope or detail but should focus on critical matters of fact and academic judgment about the specific case not discussed in the departmental letter.

The discussion in minority reports must not invoke the names of extramural referees, eligible voters, or students. The minority opinion must be signed and forwarded as an addendum to the departmental letter. The addendum is considered part of the department letter. Any response to the department letter and minority report must be treated as one document. All

 

minority reports not submitted through the Department Chair and the Dean's office will be returned to the sender. Minority reports are limited to a maximum of two (2) pages.

If a minority report is received by the Chair, the chair must make the document known and available to departmental members eligible to vote on the case. In the Chair’s Letter, the Chair may comment on the minority report or other document.

Minority reports and other such documents submitted in accord with the above specified procedures shall be a part of the file as it is considered by all of the subsequent reviewing agencies (see Section II.A.9.b for exception, relating to the candidate's option of sending their comment to the Dean's or VPAP’s office).

f. After signature by the candidate of Section I of the procedural safeguard, no additions to the file are permitted apart from recommendations of subsequent reviewing bodies, and as permitted under Section II.A.9.b or Section II.A.12.a . If errors are discovered in the file after departmental review and vote,

i. The candidate must be informed of the error(s) and subsequent corrections made.

ii. If applicable, the candidate shall certify on Part 2 of the Procedural Safeguard Statement indicating that the candidate has been informed of the error(s) and that corrections to the file have been made.

iii. If applicable, corrections must have documented departmental review before being forwarded.

If a correction of fact is made to the finalized departmental letter, the corrected departmental letter must show the original date and all subsequent revised dates. Any correction of fact in the finalized departmental letter affords the candidate a five (5) business-day period to respond to the departmental letter and minority report (see Section II.A.9.b ). Alternatively, the candidate may waive the waiting period.

9. Procedures After the Departmental Recommendation is Determined

Before the file is forwarded:

a. The candidate shall be provided a copy of the departmental letter, including the header page, and all minority reports.

b. The candidate has the right to make a written comment on the departmental recommendation (including minority reports, if any). The candidate's written comment, to be transmitted within five (5) business days of receipt of the departmental letter, may be addressed to the Chair, the Dean, or the VPAP. (It is the joint responsibility of the candidate and the department to verify the date the candidate received a copy of the departmental letter as noted on the procedural safeguard form.). Any response by the candidate to one or both department letters shall be seen by both Chairs and both Deans unless the candidate chooses to address the response to the VPAP. The candidate must use Attachment H for his or her response, and specify to whom the response is addressed:

• If addressed to the Chair(s) , it shall be added to the department's copy of the file and will proceed with the forwarded file through the review process. Department faculty may not comment on a response to the department letter.
• If addressed to the Dean(s) , it shall not be sent to the department, but the Dean shall inform the Department Chair that a written statement has been received from the candidate without revealing the contents. A written statement that is addressed directly to

 

the Dean shall be forwarded to the VPAP’s Office and to CAP but shall not be sent to an Ad Hoc review committee, unless the candidate specifically requests that the statement be included in the file that goes to the Ad Hoc committee.

• If addressed to the VPAP , the response shall be reviewed by CAP and the Chancellor or designee

· The VPAP shall inform the Department Chair and Dean that a written statement has been received from the candidate without revealing its contents. The written statement shall become a part of the file.

The candidate’s written comments in quinquennial reviews and merit files (including Professor within above Scale) are limited to two (2) pages. The candidate’s written comments in advancements to Professor VI, Professor Above-Scale, promotions, career reviews, reappointments, and appraisals are not limited in length.

c. The candidate and Department Chair must sign the Procedural Safeguards Statement ( Attachment B-1 ).

In eFilePlus, the same processes and documentation requirements apply with the entry, review, approval and routing done electronically via the eFilePlus system.

10. Procedures During Review Beyond the Department

a. Corrections to the File

After signature by the candidate of Section I of the procedural safeguard and after review by the department faculty and the Dean, no additions to the file are permitted apart from recommendations of subsequent reviewing bodies, and as permitted under Section II.A.9.b or Section II.A.12.a. Changes in the status of publications are not corrections. Only corrections of fact are permitted.

If errors are discovered by reviewing bodies beyond the Department:

i. The nature of the errors shall be communicated to the Chair via the Dean.

ii. The candidate shall be informed by the Chair of the substance of the errors and shall certify the corrections on Part 2 of the Procedural Safeguards Statement.

iii. If applicable, corrections must have documented departmental review and be open to all eligible faculty before being forwarded.

The candidate shall certify on Part 2 of the Procedural Safeguards Statement that they have been informed of the corrections in the file ( Attachment B-2 ).

If a correction is made to the departmental letter, the corrected departmental letter must show the original date AND all subsequent revised dates. The candidate must certify on Part 2 of the Procedural Safeguards Statement that they have been informed of the changes in the file (see Attachment B-2 ). If the candidate wishes to respond to the revised department letter, the candidate must provide the response within five (5) business days ( see Section II.A.9.b ).

In eFilePlus, the same processes and documentation requirements apply with the update, review, approval and routing done electronically via the eFilePlus system.

 

b. Additional Information Solicited During Review

i. If additional clarifying information or an update is requested by an Ad Hoc committee (in cases involving Ad Hoc committees), or by CAP, such information shall be solicited through the VPAP. If additional information is requested by the VPAP, PEVC or the Chancellor after CAP’s recommendation has been forwarded, CAP shall be informed of the request and the response. Updates cannot not be solicited for accelerations. Deans may also independently ask for clarification on material already present in the file but may not solicit updates to the file, i.e. the Dean may write directly to the department (or the candidate via the department) asking for clarifications if there is not enough

information about the candidate’s role in a joint publication (or on a committee, or in a grant, etc.). For update requests involving cases other than a 220 response (see Section II- A-12) or 7 ^th year promotion to Associate Professor review, the last calendar day in February will be used as the cut-off date .

ii. All responses shall be limited to the specific information requested in the memo from the VPAP (or Dean if applicable) and will be added to the file at the department level and routed to all subsequent reviewing bodies. The department may comment on the new material and may submit a new vote or may reiterate its original recommendation. If the department opts out of commenting, or re-voting, the file must contain a statement from the Department Chair indicating that the department was made aware of the clarification or correction but has decided not to comment or re-vote. The requesting body must specify whether or not a department vote is required with the new material.

iii. A new department vote will require an addendum to the department letter and subsequent waiting periods.

iv. The candidate shall be informed by the Chair of the substance of the changes in the file, without disclosure of the identities of sources of confidential documents, and may be provided access to the new material in accord with APM 220-80-d .

v. If the candidate wishes to respond to amendments to the file, the candidate must provide a response within five (5) business days.

vi. The candidate shall certify on Part 2 of the Procedural Safeguards Statement that they have been informed of the changes in the file. ( Attachment B-2 )

vii. In the case of updates to the list of publications, it is understood that these may not appear on subsequent Difference Lists if the advancement is awarded except as described in Section II.B.8.

11. Procedures for Announcement of Administrative Decision

a. Merits cases and Advancements to Professor VI and Professor Above-Scale (A/S):

i. The decision on the candidate's file will be communicated to the Chair through the Dean, with a copy of the decision announcement to CAP. The Chair shall promptly communicate the decision to the candidate.

ii. Appeals are not permitted except for procedural violations.

b. Appointment, reappointment, or promotion to Associate Professor and Professor:

i.  In the following situations the Chancellor’s first assessment is considered preliminary and it triggers the 220 process (see Section II.A.12 ):

 

· If the Chancellor’s preliminary assessment is negative in cases for 7 ^th year promotions, or

· If the Chancellor’s preliminary assessment is negative in cases for reappointments of Assistant Professors, or

· If the Chancellor’s preliminary assessment is contrary to the recommendation of the department, Dean or CAP.

In these cases, the Chancellor makes the final decision after the completion of the 220 process.

ii. In cases where all reviewing bodies are negative for a non-7 ^th year promotion to Associate Professor, promotion to Professor, or appointment the Chancellor's (or designee’s) first assessment constitutes the final decision and a 220 process will not be initiated.

iii. The final decision of the Chancellor will be communicated in writing by the PEVC via APO to the Chair of the department through the Dean. The Chair shall promptly communicate the decision to the candidate. The announcement for 7^th year cases will occur soon after the Chancellor’s final decision.

c. Candidate’s access to records:

Access to designated records on the Procedural Safeguards Statement will be automatically provided by APO.

12. Appeals of Promotion and Appointment Cases – 220 Response

a. Updates:

i. The 7^th year promotion to Associate Professor candidate may continuously update the file until the earlier of two events: the announcement of a positive promotion decision by the Chancellor or April 30 of the 7^th year. New or updated information must be provided as it becomes available, through the appropriate channels. For non-7^th year promotions, promotions to full professor, and appointments, if applicable a one-time 220 update through April 30 may be solicited. Acceptable updates for these cases include significant service commitments, additional teaching evaluations, grant awards, publications, and previously solicited extramural letters (including student letters) which arrived late. Letters resulting from a solicitation by the candidate are not allowed. Departmental responses are limited to comments on the new material. See II.A.12.b for details. For off-cycle 7^th year promotions, the date will be adjusted accordingly.

ii. Promotion to Associate Professor cases that are brought before the 7^th year, promotions to Professor, appointments, or reappointments are not allowed the continuous update to file. In these instances, the one-time 220 update through April 30, is allowed if the preliminary assessment is contrary to the recommendation of the department, Dean or CAP as described in Section II.A.12.b .

iii. To facilitate timely progression of the 220 process and because updates are limited in scope, it is expected that file processing will take significantly less time than the original file.

b. Preliminary Contrary or Negative Decisions (220 process; APM 220-80-j and APM 220-84-b

If a 220 process is mandatory the VPAP shall initiate the 220 process as follows:

i. The PEVC shall communicate the preliminary assessment in writing to the Chair of the department through the Dean, with a copy to CAP. The letter must indicate the reasons for the preliminary decision and ask for any further information that might support a different decision. The Chair shall provide the candidate with a copy of the PEVC’s statement.

 

ii. If the 220 process is completed prior to April 30, the file will be held at APO until April 30 to await further updates. During that period, the candidate has the right to submit further updates. Updated information may include additions to the originally submitted file, such as grants, publications, and/or teaching evaluations. Extramural letters shall not be solicited. If the 220 process is completed after April 30, only material dated April 30 or before will be accepted.

iii. The candidate may waive the right to hold the file open until April 30 in the interest of an earlier decision. In this case, the file is closed to further updates when the candidate waives updating rights.

iv. Candidates will automatically be furnished access to records by APO. The Department Chair and the Dean will also be provided with copies of records supplied to the candidate at this time. These materials must also be made available to the members of the department who are eligible to vote.

v. The department review shall include a new departmental vote. Procedures after the department recommendation is determined, as set forth under II.A.9 , shall be followed.

vi. The updated file is forwarded by the Chair to the Dean for review. The Dean shall include their recommendation based on the updated file. The updated file is then reviewed by CAP, and a final decision is made by the Chancellor. No appeal of the final decision is permitted since the addition of information to the file has provided the opportunity for appeal of the Chancellor’s preliminary assessment.

vii. If the promotion is approved as a result of the response to the preliminary assessment, the decision is based on the resubmitted file.

viii. The final decision of the Chancellor will be communicated in writing by the PEVC to the Chair of the department though the Dean. Candidates will automatically be furnished access to records by APO. The Department Chair and the Dean will also be provided with copies of records supplied to the candidate at this time.

c. Non-Reappointment for Assistant Professors or Other Appointees of Equivalent Rank: According to academic personnel regulations, each appointment and reappointment of an Assistant Professor is for a maximum term of two years. Thus, it is possible that

non-reappointment of an Assistant Professor may occur at the end of any such term of contract or during an appraisal review. (See also Appraisal, Merit and Reappointment of Assistant Professors. See Section II.B. )

If a recommendation for the terminal appointment of an Assistant Professor is made by a Dean, campus Ad Hoc review committee, and/or CAP, or if the Chancellor's preliminary assessment is to make a terminal appointment or not to reappoint, then, before there is a final decision by the Chancellor to make a terminal appointment or not to reappoint, the procedures set forth in the preceding Section ( II.A.12.b ) must be followed.