Divisional Representatives|
Davis Division of the Academic Senate ACADEMIC SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL PROCESSES REFORM REPORT March 31, 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 17, 2000, the Executive Council of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate established the Special Committee on Personnel Process Reform. This Committee (SCPPR) was charged with recommending an implementation plan for nineteen of the twenty-one recommendations made in the Report of the Special Committee on Academic Personnel Processes (revised September 29, 2000). The Committee was also charged to suggest a mechanism by which personnel recommendations can be appealed independently of CAP. The charge to this Committee is reproduced in Appendix VII. Our detailed recommendations are presented as a series of proposed Bylaw amendments and resolutions in Appendices I - VI. In order to provide context, our report outlines the twenty-one recommendations of SCAPP, and follows the form of that report. We have added brief comments for additional clarification followed by our proposals for implementing the SCAPP recommendations. Each proposal contains a detailed reference to the appropriate appendix. Briefly, our recommendations include: Appendix I. Amendment to Committee on Faculty Welfare Bylaw Appendix II. A Resolution to the Chancellor Appendix III. Draft of a Replacement for the Bylaw Governing CAP Appendix IV. A Resolution to the Committee on Academic Personnel Appendix V. Amendment to Executive Council Bylaw Appendix VI. Amendment to the Definition of Divisional Committees Our recommendations are strongly interdependent. Thus, with some exceptions, the report should be viewed as a whole, not as a series of recommendations to be implemented in piecemeal fashion.
SALARIES Overview SCAPP demonstrated that salaries at UC Davis are among the lowest in the UC system and that our salaries continue to fall behind not only the most highly regarded public and private institutions, but also the better compensated faculties in UC. In this section we propose a by-law amendment and a Resolution of the Academic Senate addressed to the Chancellor in order to implement SCAPP recommendations 1 and 2. Recommendation 1 : The campus should adopt personnel policies that will create a positive and supportive atmosphere in which excellent faculty will thrive.
The spirit of this recommendation is absolutely fundamental to meaningful reform of the personnel process at UC Davis. At every level of the personnel process, we should strive to cultivate and nurture a climate in which excellence is recognized and rewarded. Recommendation 2: The Campus should adopt the policy of comparing our salaries with institutions whose reputations we wish to emulate. The goals of U C Davis should be, first and foremost, to achieve academic excellence in undergraduate and graduate teaching and research. In striving to reach our academic goals, we should measure our salaries against the most highly regarded academic institutions, whether private or public. In order to reflect local political and academic reality, we should also compare our salaries to the other UC campuses and to other institutions such as the "comparison eight" used by the University. Implementation: We propose to amend Bylaw 77 in order to charge the Committee on Faculty Welfare with the task of reporting annually to the Representative Assembly appropriate comparisons of salaries. The proposed amendment is outlined in Appendix I: Amendment to Bylaw 77, Committee on Faculty Welfare. We also propose a resolution, requesting the Chancellor to use these comparisons as appropriate for purposes of measuring meaningful progress in achieving our academic goals (Appendix II: Resolution Addressed to the Chancellor; resolution no.2).
THE ROLE OF CAP Overview The SCAPP report presented a series of recommendations that was designed to redirect the focus of the activities of the Committee on Academic Personnel and to improve its communication with the Academic Senate. In this section, we propose to replace Bylaw 43: Academic Personnel with a renumbered and reorganized section of the Bylaws (Appendix III: Renumbered Part VI, Title IV, The Academic Personnel Process). In addition, a small "housekeeping" change is proposed for Bylaw 28 (A) (Appendix VI. Amendment to the Definition of Divisional Committees). Recommendation 3: The Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) should endeavor to play a positive and supportive role in our personnel processes. The need to recreate a positive and supportive atmosphere on our campus was a repeated theme of the SCAPP report. We strongly endorse this sentiment. Implementation: Proposed Bylaw Ren. 41 (A) (Appendix III) specifically charges all personnel committees "with creating a positive and supportive environment in which excellent academic personnel will thrive." Recommendation 4: CAP should evaluate personnel actions on the basis of recommendations and evidence provided by other levels of the review process. Recommendation 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. These recommendations reflect the consensus of SCAPP that the campus will be served better if CAP oversees the personnel process rather than attempting to micromanage that process by revisiting each recommendation in detail. Because the personnel process on our campus is characterized by a high rate of overturning of recommendations made at earlier stages of review, the campus will be served better if CAP focuses on the reconciliation of discordant reviews rather than generating an additional, new review. Implementation: Proposed Bylaw Ren. 42 (B) 2 (Appendix III) includes an expanded description of the duties of CAP that embodies the intent of recommendations 4 and 5.Recommendation 6: CAP should consult regularly with the Executive Council of the Academic Senate on pending policy matters.Recommendation 7: The Academic Senate should decide whether the duties of CAP should include "initiating new policies." Recommendation 8: CAP should ask for guidance from the Senate in defining tasks beyond those explicitly stated in the by-laws. These SCAPP recommendations were based on widespread concerns that the Bylaws do not provide sufficient guidance to CAP regarding their involvement in policy matters. Specifically, many members of the Division were concerned that CAP might make essentially autonomous decisions and recommendations that did not have widespread support. Implementation: We propose that the intent of recommendations 6, 7, and 8 is best implemented by expanding the requirements for consultation and reports by personnel committees (Appendix III). To that end:Ren. 41 (B) specifies that all personnel committees are subject to the authority of the Representative Assembly and the Division; Ren. 42 (B) 4 clarifies that the advice of CAP to the Chief Campus Officer is subject to the advice, consent, and direction of the Division. Ren. 42 (B) 5 requires CAP to consult regularly with the Executive Council concerning academic personnel policies; Ren. 42 (B) 6 requires CAP to report to the Representative Assembly each quarter for discussion and ratification of any changes in policy recommended since the last report; Ren. 42 (B) 7 provides that CAP shall receive and implement any pertinent policy adopted by the Representative Assembly or the Division; Ren. 42 (B) 9 expands on the nature of the Annual Report that CAP submits to the Representative Assembly.
Recommendation 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.Implementation: Ren. 42 (B) 2 (Appendix III) specifically assigns to CAP the duty of making recommendations on these personnel actions to the Chief Campus Officer. In order to state more precisely which actions are intended for CAP and which for faculty personnel committees, the bylaw specifically assigns tenure decisions and actions requiring extramural review to CAP. Although the clear intent of the bylaw is stated in Section (B) 2, Section (B) 3 provides flexibility: CAP may make recommendations on actions normally assigned to Faculty Personnel Committees or may delegate actions normally assigned to itself to Faculty Personnel Committees when there is a compelling justification. However, the SCAPP report was very clear in recommending that actions within rank for department chairs, members of personnel committees and candidates for high level merits and accelerations should remain with faculty personnel committees.Recommendations to be made by Faculty Personnel Committees are specified in Ren. 43 (B) 1.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING FACULTY PERFORMANCE Overview Criteria for evaluation of faculty is explicitly stated in APM 210-1-d. However, the SCAPP report found several deficiencies in the practice and interpretation of these criteria on our campus. In particular, they found that personnel decisions are not currently made with the flexibility mandated by the APM and that decisions may reflect an insufficiently broad view of the nature of scholarship. They also found that academic leadership, especially by Department and Program chairs, has not been appropriately recognized and rewarded. Recommendation 10 is treated below and the broader question of how best to increase widespread, mutual understanding of faculty performance expectations is treated in recommendations 11-15. Recommendation 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. This recommendation was made by SCAPP in an effort to rectify what it viewed as inadequate recognition of the burdens of responsible, high quality service on our campus. Although there has been a program of administrative leave, the level of compensation offered is not adequate for chairs to reinstate the vigor of their research programs and does not extend to others with major service responsibilities. Implementation: Practical implementation of any such program would be the responsibility of the Administration. Consequently, we propose that the sense of the Division be communicated in a resolution addressed to the Chancellor (Appendix II: resolution no. 3)Recommendation 11: Standards for evaluating faculty performance should be clarified. This recommendation requires no action as mechanisms for accomplishing this goal are discussed below. CLARIFICATION OF STANDARDS Overview: One of most important insights provided by the SCAPP report is that there is little agreement among the faculty about detailed standards for the evaluation of faculty performance within the framework of excellence in teaching research, service and professional competence. The following three recommendations represent an effort to clarify detailed standards that we view as essential to effective revision of the personnel process.Recommendation 12: Each department should be requested to provide a written summary to CAP and the local personnel committees of the nature of scholarship within their academic discipline and their own criteria and standards for evaluation of faculty performance. The goal of this exercise is to articulate standards and practices of the department so that both candidates and persons evaluating the candidate will have a clear view of performance expectations.This was perhaps the most important recommendation of the SCAPP report because it was a response to evidence that faculty and the several bodies that review faculty performance commonly have serious disagreements about whether or not faculty have been meeting expectations. The SCAPP report cited clear evidence that faculty at Davis advance more slowly than on other UC campuses and that standards for advancement are unclear or interpreted differently by equally competent review agencies. A further concern of the faculty was that expectations have changed quickly and with little notice as the composition of personnel committees changed. In order to develop a consistent institutional view of how faculty may best meet the expectations for excellence outlined in the APM, it is essential that clarification begin at the department level, with appropriate higher level review, as outlined by SCAPP. Implementation: We propose that the Representative Assembly instruct CAP to invite each department to provide a brief written summary as recommended by SCAPP. These instructions are summarized in Appendix IV: Resolution Addressed to the Committee on Academic Personnel (Resolution no. 2). Recommendation 13: The Office of the Vice-Provost should organize an annual workshop on the academic personnel review process for chairs, 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. The goals of this recommendation are to educate the principals who participate in the review process, to discuss problems that have arisen, and to enhance mutual understanding of the different perspectives that arise at each level of review. We endorse SCAPP's sentiment that such communication between the Senate and the administration is essential to restoring and maintaining faculty confidence in the personnel process. Implementation: We propose to communicate this recommendation to the Chancellor (Appendix II, resolution no. 4).Recommendation 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. Detailed discussion and recommendations are presented in the SCAPP report as Appendix IX: The Annual Call. Implementation: We propose to communicate the sense of the Representative Assembly to both the Chancellor and to CAP (Appendix II: resolution no 5; Appendix IV: resolution no. 3)
EFFICIENCY OF THE PROCESS Recommendation 15: All merit actions within rank should be re-delegated to the Colleges and Professional Schools.SCAPP recognized that decisions on merit actions within rank should be made as close to the source of disciplinary expertise as possible. The role of CAP in such actions should be limited to the oversight necessary to ensure fairness of standards across disciplines and among academic units of the campus. Implementation: Bylaw Ren. 43 (B) 1 (Appendix III) specifies that Personnel Committees of the Faculties are the authorized representatives of the Davis Division for the purpose of making recommendations to the Chief Campus Officer concerning merit actions within rank. We also propose to request that, on the side of the Administration, the Chancellor treat such personnel actions in a parallel way (Appendix II, resolution no. 6). Recommendation 16: Documentation in review files should be reorganized and abbreviated.SCAPP recognized that the file currently used for review of personnel actions is not organized for efficient review of the most essential information. Furthermore, the committee noted that review of merit actions within rank does not require the same level of documentation that might be necessary for review of tenure actions and promotions. Accordingly, they recommended that a greatly abbreviated review file be submitted for merit actions within rank and that the review file be organized in a manner that is efficient from the point of view of the review committee. Implementation: We propose that CAP be directed to work closely with the Vice-Provost for Academic Personnel in order to reorganize and abbreviate the documentation in review files (Appendix IV, resolution no. 4). We propose also to direct a similar request to the Chancellor (Appendix II, resolution no. 7) and to attach to these resolutions a copy of relevant parts of the SCAPP report and an example review file that follows the intent of the SCAPP report (Appendix V of that report).
ENHANCING FAIRNESS AND CONFIDENCE Recommendation 17: Ad hoc review committees should be expanded to five members, including a departmental representative. SCAPP recognized a marked increase in the rates of overturning of personnel recommendations that coincided with the reduction of the size of ad hoc committees. They also heard considerable testimony that suggested that the quality of discussion and recommendations of five-member committees was better and less likely to be swayed by the opinions of a single member. The difficulty of forming review committees was a major impetus for reducing the size to only three members. If the recommendation for five-member committees is to be feasible, it is essential that the faculty regard requests for such service as an obligation that cannot be ignored. Implementation: Ad hoc committees are nominated by CAP and appointed by the Vice-Provost. We propose to direct CAP to nominate five-member committees (Appendix IV, resolution no. 5) and to request that the Chancellor appoint committees of this size (Appendix II, resolution no. 8). We further propose that the Chancellor adopt the SCAPP recommendation that the record of requests to serve on such committees and the outcome (served or declined, with reasons) be made a required part of the chair's letter in any personnel action. Other recommendations also are designed to increase the probability of obtaining participation of the faculty. Recommendation 18: CAP should adopt procedures by which members with a conflict of interest are recused.SCAPP heard widespread concern from faculty who perceived that members of CAP and local personnel committees participated inappropriately in decisions for which there was a conflict of interest. These concerns included committees making recommendations about their own members, participation by a member in decisions about colleagues from the same department, and participation in decisions concerning colleagues with whom a member has well-known personal or professional disagreements, or close personal relationships. SCAPP felt that the damage to the credibility of the personnel process caused by such potential or perceived conflicts of interest far outweighs the possible benefit of having the additional disciplinary expertise of a professional colleague on the review panel. Implementation: We propose to modify CAP's bylaw to make the development and maintenance of a conflict of interest policy one of its duties and to direct CAP through a resolution to develop and publish appropriate policies concerning conflict of interest and the circumstances in which a member of CAP, a faculty personnel committee, or an ad hoc review committee should be excused from participation in a personnel action (Appendix III, Ren. Bylaw 42 (B) (10) and Appendix IV, resolution no. 6) Recommendation 19: The Committee on Committees should appoint a shadow CAP to make recommendations on appeals of personnel actions and on actions involving members of CAP. The Executive Committee of the Davis Division felt that this recommendation would be unworkable. However, because of the widespread concern with the current system of appealing recommendations to the same bodies that made them, this committee was specifically charged with recommending a procedure for making appeals independently of CAP. Therefore, we recommend an alternate system of making appeals that, we hope, will meet the concerns of the faculty and SCAPP. We propose a multiple stage process by which reconsideration or appeals of personnel recommendations should take place. Briefly, a negative recommendation on a personnel action may be reconsidered by the original committee or may be appealed to a superior committee. Reconsideration would be appropriate only if the Senate member wished to supply additional substantial or contextual information relevant to the personnel action. An appeal would be appropriate only when a Senate member believes that a personnel committee has failed to apply published standards of merit or has failed to follow published procedures. In general, an effective personnel process will require difficult academic judgements and decisions. To appeal, a Senate member must first consult an Academic Personnel Adviser , who will advise the member with respect to the personnel process and will make a written recommendation regarding the suitability of the issue for appeal. Appeals of the recommendations of faculty personnel committees will be transmitted to CAP through the Committee of Academic Personnel Advisers. Appeals of the recommendations of CAP will be transmitted to an ad hoc Appeals Committee, through the Committee of Academic Personnel Advisers and the Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. The recommendations of the committees constituted to consider appeals will represent the definitive advice of the Senate to the Chief Campus officer. Any review undertaken by this process would not affect the rights of a Senate member to bring matters before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. Requests for redress of violations of a Senate member's rights or privileges may be brought before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure at any time independently of the appeals process set forth in the proposed bylaw. Implementation: The constitution of the Committee of Academic Personnel Advisers is considered in Ren. 44 (Appendix III). Procedures for Review of Academic Personnel Actions are considered in Ren. 45 (Appendix III). Recommendation 20: CAP should be housed with the Senate and all support for it and its staff should be included in the budget of the Academic Senate. The charge to this committee did not include this original recommendation by SCAPP, primarily because space for CAP in the Senate office has already been created by action of the Chair of the Division. However, it is essential that the Division receive adequate space, staff, and financial support if it is to discharge its responsibilities effectively. Implementation: We propose a resolution to the Chancellor noting this essential element of the SCAPP report (Appendix II, resolution no. 9).
Recommendation 21: The state of the Academic personnel system should be examined by the Academic Senate during the academic year 2001-2002 and at regular intervals thereafter. Because action by the Representative Assembly has been delayed beyond the dates contemplated by SCAPP, we propose that re-examination should begin in the Fall, 2003 and every five years thereafter. Implementation: A proposed amendment to Bylaw 73 (Appendix V) makes this review a duty of the Executive Council of the Davis Division.
Respectfully submitted,
Howard W. Day Kevin D. Hoover Jerold A. Last, Chair Linda A. Morris Martin L. Privalsky Kate M. Scow Special Committee on Personnel Process Reform
Appendices
Appendix I. Amendment to Committee on Faculty Welfare Bylaw Add the following paragraph under DD Bylaw 77 (B): (3) To collect annually and to report to the Representative Assembly and publish to the Division comparisons of academic salaries of the UC Davis with: 1. other divisions of the University of California; and 2. a comparison group of universities of higher status than UC Davis whose reputations we wish to emulate. The second group of universities should include both public and private universities and should be updated from time to time as appropriate. Appendix II. A Resolution to the Chancellor A Resolution of the Representative Assembly of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate Addressed to the Chancellor of the University of California, Davis Adopted 16 April 2001. To Larry Vanderhoef, Chancellor, University of California, Davis: In the 1999-2000 academic year, the Executive Council of the Davis Division commissioned a review of the academic personnel process by the Special Committee on the Academic Personnel Process (SCAPP). Its report made twenty-one recommendations relating to reform of the academic personnel process. Some of these recommendations fall within the authority of the Academic Senate; others within the authority of the Administration. This resolution conveys the substance of the recommendations that fall within your authority as the Chief Campus Officer. The Davis Division strongly supports these recommendations and urges you to give them full consideration and to take appropriate action to implement them. The Representative Assembly resolves that: 1. The Chancellor should receive the reports of the Special Committee on the Academic Personnel Process (SCAPP) and the Special Committee on Personnel Process Reform (SCPPR) and consider each of the recommendations in this resolution in light of those reports. 2. In setting policies on compensation for academic personnel, the Administration should refer to the comparisons to be reported annually by the Committee on Faculty Welfare. The Administration should consider salaries at UC Davis in relation to those at other campuses in the UC system and at other universities of higher status than UC Davis whose reputations we wish to emulate. 3. 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. 4. The Office of the Vice-Provost for Academic Personnel should organize an annual workshop on the academic personnel review process for chairs of programs, deans, members of Faculty Personnel Committees, members of the Committee on Academic Personnel, and Academic Personnel Advisers in order that the principal participants in the personnel review process have the same information. 5. The Annual Call for personnel actions and the personnel review files of individual faculty have become unnecessarily cumbersome to the point that their utility in providing useful guidance to departments in preparing personnel actions and information to review committees is seriously impaired. The Vice-Provost for Academic Personnel should work closely with the Committee on Academic Personnel to revise and greatly shorten the Annual Call in order to communicate concisely the essence of the review process and to announce and clarify new policies. The Vice-Provost and the Committee should work closely to reorganize and abbreviate the documentation in review files. 6. Because the structure of the Senate committees designated to consult with the Administration on personnel matters has been changed through a revision of the divisional bylaws, it would be desirable for the Administration to treat personnel actions in a parallel manner. In particular, all personnel actions within rank (including accelerations) not requiring extramural review should be redelegated to the various colleges and schools, whose deans should consult with the appropriate Faculty Personnel Committee. 7. The Vice Provost of Academic Personnel should work closely with the Committee on Academic Personnel to reorganize and streamline the review files for personnel actions in the manner discussed in the SCAPP Report. Files for personnel actions within rank need not duplicate the detail required for promotions and appraisals. 8. Ad Hoc Personnel Review Committees should normally consist of five members. The Division recognizes, on the one hand, that five-member Ad Hoc Committees are desirable and, on the other hand, that a significant change in culture is essential if expanded committees are to be feasible. Therefore, the Vice Provost of Academic Personnel should work closely with the Committee on Academic Personnel and with the Chair of the Davis Division to design a set of procedures that encourages sufficient participation of faculty to make this possible. The Vice-Provost, the Chair, and CAP should actively consider: (a) That the record of requests to serve on an Ad Hoc Committee and the outcome (served or declined to serve (with reasons)) be communicated to department chairs and be made a required part of the chair's letter in any personnel action. (b) That all members of the Ad Hoc Committees be nominated by CAP, that the Chair of CAP contact the person nominated to be Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee, and that the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee contact the other nominees - at least in the first instance. (c) That the database of potential members of Ad Hoc Committees should be expanded and reviewed and updated by CAP annually. (d) That not all members of an Ad Hoc Committee need to be drawn from closely related disciplines or have special expertise in a candidate's area of research. (e) That all tenured faculty should be eligible to serve on an Ad Hoc Committee for a candidate of any rank (i.e., the at-or-above rule should be relaxed). (f) That the Chair of the Senate should annually remind all tenured faculty of their duty to serve on Ad Hoc Committees. (g) That the outcome of personnel actions should be routinely communicated to the members of the Ad Hoc Committee. 9. The various personnel committees should be adequately funded and staffed and have adequate space to conduct their business as part of the Senate and independent of the office of the Vice-Provost for Academic Personnel or other elements of the Administration.
Appendix III. Draft of a replacement for the Bylaw governing CAP (now Bylaw 43, but to be renumbered and reorganized)
Renumbered PART VI, TITLE IV THE ACADEMIC PERSONNEL PROCESS Ren. 41. Authority of Personnel Committees. (A) The Committee on Academic Personnel, the Faculty Personnel Committees and Ad Hoc Appeals Committees shall serve as the properly constituted bodies to advise and confer with the Chief Campus Officer in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Regents. Each of these committees is charged with creating a positive and supportive environment in which excellent academic personnel will thrive. (B) These committees are subject to the authority of the Representative Assembly and of the Division on all matters of policy. The authority of the Representative Assembly and the Division shall not be construed to extend to individual personnel cases or in ways that would breach the confidentiality of individual personnel records guaranteed under University rules or law.
Ren. 42 Committee on Academic Personnel. (A) Membership. This committee shall consist of nine members. (B) Duties. The Committee on Academic Personnel shall have the following duties: 1. The Committee shall strive to maintain consistent personnel standards within the Division, given inevitable differences among academic disciplines. 2. To make recommendations to the Chief Campus Officer regarding personnel actions in which the Division has a compelling interest: appointments, appraisals of assistant professors, promotions to tenure, promotions, and actions requiring extramural review. To the greatest extent possible, the Committee should evaluate the recommendations and evidence of academic merit and professional competence provided by other levels of the review process. Only in unusual circumstances should the Committee undertake independent evaluations of review files or advise overturning unanimous or nearly unanimous recommendations of earlier levels of review. The Committee should make every effort to reconcile conflicting recommendations of earlier levels of review, consulting as appropriate with departments, deans, or ad hoc review committees. 3. In cases or categories of cases for which compelling justification exists, to make recommendations to the Chief Campus Officer regarding personnel actions that according to Ren. DD Bylaw 43 (B) (1) would normally fall under the jurisdiction of a Faculty Personnel Committee; and, similarly, to delegate to a Faculty Personnel Committee personnel actions that would normally fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Academic Personnel. 4. Subject to the advice, consent, and direction of the Division, to confer with and advise the Chief Campus Officer on all matters of general policy regarding academic personnel. 5. To consult regularly with the Executive Council on policy regarding academic personnel. 6. To report at least once each quarter to the Representative Assembly for review, discussion, and determination by a majority vote any change in policy enacted since the last report and any policy matter pending before it. 7. To receive and implement with the limits of Senate authority any policy regarding academic personnel adopted by a majority vote of the Representative Assembly or the Division through a mail ballot. 8. To solicit from time to time from academic departments, and to publish, the standards for advancement pertinent to the various academic disciplines. 9. To deliver an annual report covering the previous academic year to the first regular meeting of the Representative Assembly in the fall term including: 1. a summary of its advice to the Chief Campus Officer and the Faculty Personnel Committees; 2. the reports of the Faculty Personnel Committees that it has received pursuant to Ren. DD Bylaw 43 (B) (2) and (3); and 3. a summary of the personnel actions considered by the Committee and the Faculty Personnel Committees and their dispositions in a form acceptable to the Representative Assembly. 10. To develop and publish guidelines governing conflict of interest for its own members and members of the Faculty Personnel Committees. 11. To review staff allocation recommendations of the Committee on Academic Planning and Budget Review and to confer with that committee thereon.
Ren. 43 Faculty Personnel Committees. (A) Organization.
2. The Executive Committee of each Faculty shall nominate, subject to confirmation by the Committee on Academic Personnel, the members of the Personnel Committee for that Faculty.
Academic Personnel and subject to its jurisdiction. (B) Duties. Each Faculty Personnel Committee shall have the following duties: 1. To make recommendations to the Chief Campus Officer regarding all matters related to academic personnel within rank and not requiring extramural review, including merit increases (normal and accelerated), and other personnel actions delegated to it by the Committee on Academic Personnel, but excepting those personnel actions for which the Committee on Academic Personnel assumes primary responsibility according to Ren. DD Bylaw 42 (B) (3). 2. To report its actions regularly to the Committee on Academic Personnel. 3. To report to the Committee on Academic Personnel annually (or more frequently if required) a summary of personnel actions falling under its jurisdiction and their disposition to be forwarded as part of that Committee's report to the Representative Assembly as required in paragraph Ren. DD Bylaw 42 (B) 9.
Ren. 44. Academic Personnel Advisers (A) This committee shall consist of a chair and two to four members. The chair and members of this committee should be experienced in the academic personnel process. Current members of the Committee on Academic Personnel, Faculty Personnel Committees, or the Committee on Privilege and Tenure are ineligible to serve on this committee. Appointments are for one year and are renewable. (B) The responsibilities of the members of this committee are: 1. To advise members of the Faculty with respect to the personnel process and procedures for appeal of personnel actions. 2. To form an independent assessment of whether a personnel action raises issues that might meet the criteria for an appeal and to communicate that assessment to the Senate member. 3. On the request of a Senate member , to transmit an appeal to the Committee on Academic Personnel or to the Committee on Privilege and Tenure along with a brief statement of their assessment in accordance with Ren. DD Bylaw 45 (C). (C) The chair shall arrange for meetings of the committee and prepare materials as needed to orient the advisers, coordinate activities, and assure consistency of advice. (D) The chair and members of this committee may not serve on Ad Hoc Appeals Committees and cannot serve as a representative of any of the parties in appeals of personnel actions.
Ren. 45. Review of Personnel Actions (A) Types of review. Recommendations made by Senate personnel committees may be reviewed in two ways: reconsideration and appeal. (i) Reconsideration is appropriate only if a Senate member wishes to supply additional substantial or contextual information relevant to a personnel action. Reconsiderations are undertaken by the same committee that considered the original action. (ii) Appeal is appropriate when a Senate member believes that a personnel committee has failed to apply published standards of merit or has failed to follow published procedures. Appeals are considered by a committee superior to the one that considered the original action. Although an appeal may involve matters of merit or procedure, a review of a personnel action does not affect the rights of a Senate member to consideration of matters within the scope of the authority of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. In particular, subject to the provisions of DD Bylaw 87 and Senate Bylaw 335, requests for redress of violations of a Senate member's rights or privileges may be brought before the Committee on Tenure and Privilege at any time independently of the appeals process set forth in this bylaw. (B) Procedures for reconsideration. The Committee on Academic Personnel and the Faculty Personnel Committees shall establish and publish procedures governing reconsideration of unfavorable recommendations on personnel actions. (C) Procedures for appeal. 1. Any Senate member who believes that an unfavorable personnel action was the result of a failure to apply published standards of merit or to follow published procedures should consult with an Academic Personnel Adviser before determining that there are issues that warrant an appeal. The Academic Personnel Adviser should review the relevant information in light of the established standards and procedures and consult with the Senate member. 2. Appeals of the recommendations of a Faculty Personnel Committee. The Committee on Academic Personnel receives and decides such appeals. An appeal must be transmitted to the Chair of the Committee on Academic Personnel through an Academic Personnel Adviser and should be accompanied by a brief statement summarizing the adviser's recommendation to the Senate member with regard to the merits of an appeal. The Committee on Academic Personnel should state clearly the reason for its decision and should address the issues raised by the appellant.
3. Appeals of the recommendations of the Committee on Academic Personnel. (a) An appeal should be transmitted to the Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure through an Academic Personnel Adviser and should be accompanied by a brief statement summarizing the adviser's recommendation to the Senate member. The Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure convenes an Ad Hoc Appeal Committee to hear and rule on the appeal. (b) Each Ad Hoc Appeal Committee shall consist of three members. The Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure appoints the chair of the Appeals Committee and one member on the nomination of the appellant and one member on the nomination of the Committee on Academic Personnel. (c) The Ad Hoc Appeal Committee should state clearly the reason for its decision and should address the issues raised by the appellant. D) The recommendations of committees duly constituted to consider appeals are the definitive advice of the Senate to the Chief Campus Officer on personnel actions, except in those cases in which the Committee on Privilege and Tenure makes a recommendation on particular matters within the scope of its authority.
Appendix IV. A Resolution to the Committee on Academic Personnel
A Resolution of the Representative Assembly of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate Addressed to the Committee on Academic Personnel Adopted 16 April 2001.
To the Committee on Academic Personnel of the Davis Division: In the 1999-2000 academic year, the Executive Council of the Davis Division commissioned a review of the academic personnel process by the Special Committee on the Academic Personnel Process (SCAPP). Its report made twenty-one recommendations relating to reform of the academic personnel process. Some of these recommendations fall within the authority of the Academic Senate; others within the authority of the Administration. Of the former, some are incorporated into the bylaws governing the personnel process, and others are concerned with policy and the conduct of the Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP). This resolution conveys the substance of the recommendations that concern CAP's policies. The Davis Division advises and directs CAP to take appropriate action to implement them. 1. The Committee on Academic Personnel shall receive the reports of the Special Committee on the Academic Personnel Process (SCAPP) and the Special Committee on Academic Personnel Process Reform (SCPPR) and consider each of the recommendations in this resolution in light of those reports. 2. CAP shall seek to clarify and publish the standards for evaluating faculty performance taking due account of the differences among disciplines. CAP shall invite each department to provide a written summary of the nature of scholarship within its academic discipline and its own criteria and standards for the evaluation of faculty performance with the goal of articulating the standards and practices so that both a candidate and the review committees have a clear view of expectations for a candidate's performance. 3. The Annual Call for personnel actions and the personnel review files of individual faculty have become unnecessarily cumbersome to the point that their utility in providing useful guidance to departments in preparing personnel actions and information to review committees is seriously impaired. CAP shall work closely with the Vice-Provost for Academic Personnel to revise and greatly shorten the Annual Call in order to communicate concisely the essence of the review process and to announce and clarify new policies. CAP shall work closely with the Vice-Provost to reorganize and abbreviate the documentation in review files. 4. The Committee on Academic Personnel should work closely with the Vice Provost of Academic Personnel to reorganized and streamline the review files for personnel actions in the manner discussed in the SCAPP Report. 5. Ad Hoc Personnel Review Committees should normally consist of five members. The Division recognizes, on the one hand, that five-member Ad Hoc Committees are desirable and, on the other hand, that a significant change in culture is essential if expanded committees are to be feasible. Therefore, the Committee on Academic Personnel should work closely with the Vice Provost of Academic Personnel and with the Chair of the Davis Division to design a set of procedures that encourages sufficient participation of faculty to make this possible. The Vice-Provost, the Chair, and CAP should actively consider: (a) That the record of requests to serve on an Ad Hoc Committee and the outcome (served or declined to serve (with reasons)) be communicated to department chairs and made a required part of the chair's letter in any personnel action. (b) That all members of the Ad Hoc Committees be nominated by CAP, that the Chair of CAP contact the person nominated to be Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee, and that the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee contact the other nominees - at least in the first instance. (c) That the database of potential members of Ad Hoc Committees should be expanded and reviewed and updated by CAP annually. (d) That not all members of an Ad Hoc Committee need to be drawn from closely related disciplines or have special expertise in a candidate's area of research. (e) That all tenured faculty should be eligible to serve on an Ad Hoc Committee for a candidate of any rank (i.e., the at-or-above rule should be relaxed). (f) That the Chair of the Senate should annually remind all tenured faculty of their duty to serve on Ad Hoc Committees. (g) That the outcome of personnel actions should be routinely communicated to the members of the Ad Hoc Committee. 6. Consistent with the requirement of the newly adopted bylaw (Ren. 42 (B) (10)), CAP shall develop and publish policies for itself, Faculty Personnel Committees, and Ad Hoc Personnel Committees, governing when a participant in the review process must recuse himself or herself because of a conflict of interest.
V. Amendment to Executive Council Bylaw Add the follow paragraph under DD Bylaw 73 (C): (6) To conduct a comprehensive review of the academic personnel process starting in Fall 2003 and every five years thereafter. Appendix VI. Amendment to the Definition of Divisional Committees The Committee on Academic Personnel, the proposed Faculty Personnel Committees, and the Committee of Academic Personnel Advisers will be standing committees of the Davis Division. Most of the bylaws governing standing committees appear in Part VI, Title IV of the Davis Division Bylaws ("List of the Standing Committees and Their Powers and Duties"). The proposed amendment segregates all of the committee in renumbered Part VI, Title VI. The proposed amendment simply highlights that this reorganization of the Bylaws does not change the status of the various personnel committees as standing committees and guarantees that they are subject to the same general rules as other standing committees. Add the italicized words to DD Bylaw 28 (A): Committees of the Davis Division include the Representative Assembly, the Committee on Committees, regular standing committees (including the Committee on Academic Personnel, the Faculty Personnel Committees, and the Committee of Academic Personnel Advisers), joint standing committees, special committees, and the Faculties of colleges and schools. Appendix VII. 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 that 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:
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. 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. Approved by the Executive Council, Davis Division of the Academic Senate November 17, 2000
|