Davis Division of the Academic Senate
Special Committee on Personnel Processes Reform

A Resolution of the Executive Council of the Davis Division

Whereas the Executive Council has forwarded to the Representative Assembly, the Report of the Special Committee on the Academic Personnel Process (SCAPP); and

Whereas the Executive Council is grateful to SCAPP for the careful, thorough, thoughtful, and time-consuming effort put into the Report; and

Whereas the Executive Council takes note of the principal recommendations of the report, but recognizes the implementation of the various recommendations require different mixtures of action on various levels, including possible changes to Davis Division Bylaws, consultation with the Vice-Provost for Academic Personnel, and revision of policies of the Committee on Academic Personnel, which require further detailed consideration;

Resolved that the Executive Council directs that a special committee should be created as here set out:

1. The special committee shall be called the Special Committee on Personnel Process Reform (SCPPR).

2. SCPPR shall consist of a chair and four additional members appointed by the Committee on Committees The membership shall be chosen to reflect the expertise necessary to make appropriate recommendation to the Representative Assembly on the implementation of those recommendations approved of in spirit by the Assembly.

3. SCPPR shall report to the Assembly no later than the first meeting of the Winter quarter of 2001 with an implementation plan (or, if it determines that implementation is not practicable, a statement of its reasons for so finding) for each of the following recommendations of SCAPP, which the Executive Council approves in spirit:

1)      The campus should adopt personnel policies that will create a positive and supportive environment in which excellent faculty will thrive.

2)      The campus should adopt the policy of comparing our salaries with institutions whose reputations we wish to emulate.

3)      The Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) should endeavor to play a positive and supportive role in our personnel process.

4)      CAP should evaluate personnel actions on the basis of recommendations and evidence provided by other levels of the review process.

5)      Only in unusual circumstances should CAP undertake independent evaluations of review files or overturn unanimous or nearly unanimous recommendations of prior reviews.  CAP should make every effort to reconcile conflicting recommendations by consulting with departments, deans, and ad hoc review committees, as appropriate.

6)      CAP should consult regularly with the Executive Council of the Academic Senate on pending policy matters.

7)      The Academic Senate should decide whether the duties of CAP should include "initiating new policies."

8)      CAP should ask for guidance from the Senate in defining tasks beyond those explicitly stated in the by-laws.

9)      CAP should be responsible for making recommendations about personnel actions in which the campus has a compelling interest such as appointments, appraisals of Assistant Professors, promotions and merit actions requiring extramural review.  All other actions should be redelegated to the colleges and professional schools.

10)  Department and program chairs and others with significant service responsibilities should be compensated by paid administrative leave that is accrued at the same rate as, and in addition to, sabbatical leave.

11)  Standards for evaluating faculty performance should be clarified.

12)  Each department should be requested to provide a written summary of the nature of scholarship within their academic discipline and their own criteria and standards for the evaluation of faculty performance.  The goal of this exercise is to articulate the standards and practices of the department so that both candidates and persons evaluating the candidate have a clear view of performance expectations.

13)  The Office of the Vice-Provost should organize an annual workshop on the academic personnel review process for chairs of programs, deans, members of local personnel committees, and members of CAP in order that the principals who participate in the decision-making process have the same information.

14)  The Annual Call should be revised and greatly shortened in order to communicate concisely the essence of the review process and to announce and clarify new policies.

15)  All merit actions within rank should be re-delegated to the colleges and professional schools. 

16)  Documentation in review files should be reorganized and abbreviated.

17)  Ad hoc review committees should be expanded to five members, including a departmental representative.

18)  CAP should adopt procedures by which members with a conflict of interest are recused.

19)  The state of the academic personnel system should be re-examined by the Academic Senate during academic year 2001-2002 and at regular intervals thereafter.

4. SCPPR shall report to the Assembly no later than the first meeting of the Winter quarter of 2001 with a recommendation (or, if it determines that implementation is not practical, its reasons for so finding) for a process in which personnel decisions can be appealed independently of CAP.

5. No implementation plan recommended by SCPPR shall be acted upon until adopted by the Representative Assembly.