Annual Report

Committee on Academic Personnel- Oversight Committee

2002-2003

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction

Academic Personnel Actions, 2002-2003

Promotions

High-Level Merits (VI)

Above Scale Actions

Other Merit Actions Overrides

CAP-OC Action Data by College, School or Division

Policies, Procedures and Issues Considered by CAP-OC

Resolution 2: Criteria of Scholarship

Resolution 6: Criteria for Recusement

Overlapping Steps

Gender Equity Review Task Force

UCD Equity Review Process

Staffing Issues

Report of UCAP activities

Acknowledgments

Attachments

Introduction

The Committee on Academic Personnel – Oversight Committee (CAP-OC) advises the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel on promotions, appointments, terminations, multiyear accelerations within rank that involve skipping a step, high-level merit actions, third year deferrals, five-year reviews, appraisals and off-scale requests beyond two-steps for all academic series within the Academic Senate. CAP also recommends membership of ad hoc committees, which are appointed by the Vice Provost. Further, CAP-OC advises both the Academic Senate and Vice Provost on academic personnel matters as they arise. CAP-OC appoints and directs the Faculty Personnel Committees (FPC) that advise Deans on redelegated personnel actions.

This academic year all appeals were reviewed by CAP-AC (Appellate Committee). Other changes included the redelegation of single and multiyear accelerations that do not involve skipping a step to the Deans and Faculty Personnel Committees. In addition, evaluation to Professor Step VIII and IX were redelegated to the Deans this academic year. There was some confusion this year as to which actions had been redelegated to the Deans, so some actions that were mistakenly forwarded to CAP by the Deans were reviewed by CAP at the request of those Deans. In addition, there were some actions handled by the Deans that should have come to CAP and that therefore are still pending as of August 31, 2003. CAP-OC is particularly attentive to issues that impact equity of treatment of Academic Senate members.

During the 2002-03 academic year CAP met 40 times and considered a total of 390 agenda items. The normal turn around time for agenda items remained two weeks. There was an increase in the number of quick turnaround actions requested of CAP this year. In order for CAP to be able to accommodate these quick turnaround times requested by Deans, the files coming to CAP must be complete. A file is reviewed in the first week, and a letter to the Vice Provost that contains the summary of the committee’s deliberations is reviewed a week later, finalized and forwarded to the Vice Provost. CAP must formally request any clarification or missing information from the Office of the Vice Provost in writing. The Vice Provost then requests this information of the Dean who in turn must request it from the Department. The information is then submitted to the Vice Provost who then sends it to CAP. This process can add significant time to the review of an action. Incomplete files delayed many of the quick turnaround actions this year. CAP requests that Department Chairs and faculty make sure that the files are complete before they leave the Department.

This year several cases were quite late in coming to CAP-OC, necessitating the formation of ad hoc committees over the summer. There were various reasons for the tardiness of the files, but it is imperative that cases requiring an ad hoc committee be forwarded to CAP in a timely fashion. As in past years ad hoc committees took anywhere from two weeks to several months to review a file and write their report.

Academic Personnel Actions, 2002-2003

Table 1 provides a summary of CAP’s deliberations by category for the past academic year. CAP considered 86 appointments to various ranks, 120 merit actions and 88 promotions. There were 38 appraisals. Of the 164 merit and promotion actions for the faculty academic series, CAP recommended against the action or was divided in 11 cases (6.7%). Of the 10 cases CAP recommended against, 9 had also been recommended against at an earlier level of review (Department, Dean or ad hoc committee) and the other one had received a divided recommendation at an earlier level of review. CAP recommended less of an advancement in an additional 12 cases (7.3%). In the majority of these cases CAP recommended less of an acceleration, but still supported advancement. In two cases CAP recommended advancement to Associate Professor, Step IV, rather than promotion to Professor, Step I. CAP recommended additional advancement over that requested in 13 cases (7.9%). The final results (Vice Provost’s decisions) are summarized in Table 2. For merit and promotion actions, the Vice Provost denied actions or offered less than what was requested in 19 cases. The Vice Provost concurred with CAP’s recommendation in all but four cases. There were 127actions referred to ad hoc Committees (Table 3).

Promotions: With respect to promotions to Associate Professor, CAP recommended the advancement for 43 of 44 tenure cases (Table 4). In 3 of these cases, CAP recommended a further acceleration of the candidate than was requested. In one case advancement or promotion was recommended that was less than that requested by the candidate.

CAP supported 40 of 42 promotion actions to Full Professor (Table 5). In 4 of these cases CAP recommended a further acceleration than was requested at earlier levels of review. CAP recommended advancement with less of an acceleration in 7 cases. In two of these cases, Associate Professor Step IV was recommended instead of promotion.

High Level Merits: CAP considered a total of 49 actions for Professor, Step VI. CAP supported 41 (84%) of these actions (Table 6). One of these actions recommended additional advancement and one recommended less of an acceleration. Eight actions were not supported.

Above Scale Actions: There were a total of 4 requests for advancement to Above Scale (Table 7). CAP supported all four actions.

Other Merit Actions: CAP considered 29 accelerated and other actions within the Professorial rank (Table 8). CAP supported 28 of these actions, with three actions recommended for additional advancement and three recommended for less of an accelerated advancement. CAP recommended against one action. There were 13 actions for further Above Scale advancement (Table 9). CAP supported 12 of these actions, recommending additional advancement in 2 cases. One case was not supported.

“Overrides”: Of the 390 actions, there were 15 cases in which the Vice Provost’s decision differed from the recommendation of CAP. Two were promotions, three were merit actions and ten were appointments. The Vice Provost awarded accelerations in the case of the two promotions for which CAP had not supported the requested acceleration. For the merit actions, the Vice Provost granted advancement for one negative recommendation, overruled the recommendation of an accelerated advancement suggested by CAP, and awarded an acceleration not supported by CAP in the third case. In the 10 appointment cases where CAP and the Vice Provost disagreed, CAP recommended an increase in the level of appointment in 6 cases and a decrease in 4 cases. In all but two cases the Vice Provost decided in favor of the original level requested by the Dean. In the remaining two cases, one was appointed at a lower level, but at a level still higher than that recommended by CAP and in the other case the candidate was appointed at the higher level recommended by CAP but with an acting title.

CAP Action Data Presented by College, School or Division: The distribution of actions by college, school or division is presented in Table 10. The results of the actions by campus units are presented in Tables 11-20. For units with greater than 10 actions, CAP’s support of advancement ranged from a high of 100% (Division of Biological Sciences) to a low of 89% (School of Veterinary Medicine). Summaries of the actions by the Faculty Personnel Committees are given in Tables 21-30. FPC recommendations for actions ranged from a high of 100% (School of Law) to a low of 66% (School of Education). Some Deans do not keep accurate records of FPC decisions. CAP requested last year that this be done by the Dean’s office staff, and most have. Faculty Executive Committees may need to make sure that sufficient records are kept. Last year Academic Senate office staff culled through each action to provide information on the FPC decisions when such information was not provided by the Deans. It was not possible to do so this year.

Policies, Procedures and Issues Considered by CAP-OC

Resolutions 2 and 6: Last year CAP-OC implemented the recommendations adopted by the Academic Senate in spring of 2001 for reform of the personnel process. There were two items still in progress at the time of submission of last year’s annual report, resolutions 2 and 6. Resolution 2 concerns the request of departments to provide a written summary of the nature of scholarship and the criteria and standards for evaluation of scholarship within their disciplines.

Resolution 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.”

Departments were invited by CAP-OC to submit written summaries of the criteria of scholarship to CAP during the 2002-03 academic year. Several departments indicated a preference to not provide any written criteria, and CAP-OC sought clarification of the resolution. In the course of these discussions it was brought to the attention of the committee that the resolution could be implemented solely as defined by CAP-OC. That being the case, the committee re-evaluated implementation of this resolution and decided to interact directly with departments, not involving the administration in the approval process of the submitted criteria. A letter to that effect was sent to department chairs in May (Attachment 1). Some departments indicated dissatisfaction with this resolution citing an inability to provide clear departmental criteria of scholarship. This was particularly true of multidisciplinary departments or those in which diverse modes of scholarship are important such that every faculty member constitutes a unique case. CAP-OC decided that departments would have the option of not providing written criteria of scholarship if that was the will of the faculty of the unit. CAP requested that departments provide CAP with a statement of the intent not to provide criteria of scholarship reporting the vote of the faculty.

Of the 8 departments in the College of Engineering, two have responded indicating that they would not be providing criteria of scholarship. Of the 7 departments in Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 5 have responded that they will not be providing criteria of scholarship. No departmental responses have been received from the School of Veterinary Medicine. Of the 30 departments in the School of Medicine, one has submitted criteria of scholarship. Of the 21 departments in the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, three have submitted criteria of scholarship and one has indicated that criteria would not be provided. Four departments in Humanities, Arts and Cultural Studies have submitted criteria of scholarship and one has indicated that none will be provided. In the Social Sciences, 2 departments have submitted criteria of scholarship. The Division of Biological Sciences submitted Division-wide criteria. Criteria were also received from the School of Education.

CAP has responded informally to some of these departments regarding their criteria of scholarship. Formal responses to the departments that have submitted criteria will occur once a quorum of departments have responded, to allow CAP to compare expectations across campus units and to use that comparative information to guide departments in the development of their criteria of scholarship.

Resolution 6 instructed CAP to develop and publish polices for itself and Faculty Personnel Committees governing when a participant in the reviewing process must recuse themselves.

Resolution 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.”

This was done last year (Attachment 2) and sent to our subcommittees and to the Vice Provost. The Vice Provost confirmed that similar instructions were already given by her office to ad hoc Committees, which are administrative committees, but they differ in that faculty are allowed to “vote twice” as the departmental representative does not know that they will be selected for ad hoc Committee service at the time votes are cast in the department. The only concerns with the policy statement were raised by the School of Law. All School of Law members participate fully in new appointments and FPC members traditionally vote at the level of the faculty. CAP-OC considered their points, but still elected to retain the stipulation that faculty voting on an action at the departmental level recuse themselves from voting on the personnel committee. In the case of the School of Law, this may result in appointment actions not receiving a recommendation from the School FPC. If such situations arise, the Dean should forward the action to CAP in lieu of the School FPC for Academic Senate input.

Overlapping Steps: The Vice Provost asked CAP-OC’s opinion of the idea of fundamentally changing how overlapping steps are used in the promotion process. It was suggested that all promotion actions be granted to the first step of the new rank. This would mean that all Assistant Professors whether at Step IV, V, or VI would be promoted to Associate Professor Step I, and Associate Professors Steps III and IV would be promoted to Professor Step I. Since this would entail a decrease in salary, it was proposed that the salary difference would be converted into a merit-based off-scale. This plan would allow administrators to initially support faculty out of the regular salary pool by hiring them at step based on salary rather than accomplishment. CAP-OC opposed this idea (Attachment 3). If the administration wishes to eliminate overlapping steps entirely that would be preferable to what amounts to a cut in salary with the portion of that salary converted to an off-scale that could be lost if the faculty member deferred an action or was denied a subsequent action. Numerous surveys indicate that faculty salaries at UC are well below our comparison institutions. The issue of general salary equity needs to be broadly addressed and not coupled to case-by-case advancement through the ranks.

Taskforce on Gender Equity Report: CAP-OC was also asked to comment on the system-wide Taskforce on Gender Equity Report. Our deliberations were summarized in a letter to the Chair of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate (Attachment 4). In that letter CAP-OC made several recommendations that to our knowledge have not been acted upon with the exception of the development of a UCD Equity Review Process.

UCD Equity Review Process: CAP-OC was also asked to comment on a draft of the proposed new Equity Review Process proposed by the administration. CAP-OC’s response to the first draft of this proposal is attached (Attachment 5). In reviewing this proposal CAP-OC also proposed guidelines to be followed by CAP-OC when conducting an equity review. These guidelines were forwarded to the Vice Provost for comment and are also attached (Attachment 6). Concerns were raised about the use and composition of ad hoc committees and the statement in our guideline that they might not follow the criteria of composition currently used for ad hoc committees reviewing promotion actions. The Vice Provost informed CAP-OC that any recommendations for composition of these committees that did not adhere to the administration’s criteria would have to be fully justified. CAP-OC is satisfied with that response and has no problems justifying the composition of an equity review ad hoc committee. CAP is concerned that the nature of some requests for equity review may preclude inclusion of a department member on the ad hoc committee evaluating the scholarship of the candidate. Further, in some cases it may be desirable to appoint faculty to the ad hoc committee who may be at a lower rank than the candidate but who have expertise in the discipline of the candidate. For these reasons CAP decided that the composition of the committees should be flexible.

Staffing Issues: This year was the first year that the organization of ad hoc committees and preparation of ad hoc committee reports was handled by the Academic Senate. CAP-OC continued to question this practice as the ad hoc committees are administrative, not Senate, committees. This imposed a significant increase in workload on the single staff member assigned to CAP-OC and CAP-AC. The Vice Provost provided additional staffing support to the Senate office to assist in the handling of the ad hoc committees.

There are also issues concerning the updating of ad hoc databases and the lack of timely information being provided to CAP-OC on faculty leaves and other issues that preclude service on an ad hoc committee. CAP-OC did not become aware of the problem of inaccuracies in the database until midway into the recommendations for ad hoc committees. Significant time was wasted by CAP-OC members due to the inaccuracies in the CAP-OC ad hoc committee database. The administration is working on linking the two databases that contain faculty data so that information does not have to be re-entered by hand into the CAP-OC database. This should prevent these problems from occurring in the future, and CAP-OC endorses this plan. The Chair of CAP-OC, with the concurrence of the full committee, opposed the suggestion that CAP-OC members be responsible for entering data into the database.

Report of UCAP Discussions: Professor Robert Rucker represented Davis at four meetings of UCAP, and Professor Michelle Yeh from the Davis campus served as Chair of UCAP for the 2002-2003 academic year. UCAP addressed a broad range of issues. Among those of general importance to the UC Davis personnel process were: the relative weight given to service, assessment of electronic communication as a vehicle for dissemination of scholarly activity, criteria in use for evaluating teaching (particularly as it relates to academic freedom), procedures for gender and other equity reviews, off-scale compensation procedures, and evaluation or recognition of those in the professional research, clinical X and CE specialist series. The Office of the President, UCAP members, or other UC Academic Senate committees and officers bring issues to the attention of UCAP. A primary function of this system-wide committee is to facilitate the exchange of information among campuses. Accordingly, CAP was regularly informed of UCAP discussions and through its representative provided input into such discussions, when appropriate.

Acknowledgements:

We thank our staff assistant, Solomon Bekele, for his efficient and professional service, and Don Orescanin for his efforts on behalf of the Ad Hoc committees. We also thank the members of the Faculty Personnel Committees for their hard work, and the faculty who served on Ad Hoc committees this academic year. Their efforts are vital to the success of the review process.

Respectfully submitted,

Anna Maria Busse-Berger

Edward Callahan

Jeannie Darby

Jan Ilkiw

Michael Maher

Thomas Morrison

Robert Rucker

Robert Shumway

Linda Bisson, Chair

DATA FROM PERSONNEL ACTIONS SENT TO CAP 2002-2003

Table 1. Types of Actions including accelerations^*

ACTIONS		ALL	PROPOSED ACCELERATIONS
Appointments
	Change of title	5	NA
	Department chair	1	NA
	Endowed chair	1	NA
	Senior lecturer	1	NA
	Assistant professor	14	NA
	Associate professor	24	NA
	Full professor	26	NA
	Upper level professor	14	NA
	Total	86
Merits
	Assistant professor	1	1
	Associate professor	12	5
	Full professor	68	24
	Upper level professor	30	15
	Lecturer	0	0
	Senior lecturer	2	0
	Redelegated	7	0
	Total	120	46
Promotions
	Associate	47	14
	Full professor	40	3
	Senior lecturer	1	0
	Total	88	17
Appraisals
	Assistant professor	38	NA
	Total	38
Miscellaneous
Deferral 3-year	Associate professor	3	NA
	Full professor	3	NA
5-year review	Associate professor	1	NA
	Full professor	10	NA
	Upper level professor	1	NA
Off-scale salary	All levels	10	NA
Reconsideration	Appointment	2	NA
Removal of acting title	Full	2	NA
Response to preliminary assessment	Promotion	2	NA
POP screening	All levels	8	NA
TOE screening	All levels	7	NA
Reappointment	Department Chairs	8	NA
	Associate	1	NA
Total		58
Grand total		390	62

· Some dossiers have more than one action

Table 2. Results of All Actions⁺

RESULTS	NUMBER OF ACTIONS
More information requested	9
Result unknown^*	4
Pending	13
Yes to proposed action	290
Yes but less than proposed action^**	36
Yes but more than proposed action	25
No^***	13
Total	390

+ some dossiers have more than one action

* includes off-scale salary requests, POP and TOE screenings

** includes appraisals with guarded outcome (7)

*** includes appraisals with negative outcome (4)

Table 3. Actions sent to Ad Hoc Committees

ACTIONS	NUMBER
Appointments	0
Promotion to Associate Professor	43
Promotion to Full Professor	37
Promotion to Senior Lecturer	1
Merit increase to Professor VI	43
Merit increase to Senior Lecturer	0
Merit increase to Professor AS	3
Total	127

Table 4. Promotions to Associate Professor including 11 proposed accelerated actions

4a. Final result (Vice Provost Decision)

RESULTS	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	37
Yes but less than proposed action	1
Yes but more than proposed action	5
No to proposed action	0
Pending	1
Total	44^*

* including 11 approved accelerated actions

4b. Results from various reviewing bodies

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC
Yes to proposed action	44	43	39
No to proposed action	0	1	3
Divided	0	0	1
Total	44	44	43^*

* CAP acted as the ad hoc action (1 action)

4c. Results from review by CAP

RESULTS	CAP RESULT
Yes to proposed action	39
Yes but less than proposed action	1
Yes but more than proposed action	3
Divided on proposed action	0
No to proposed action	1
Total	44

Table 5. Promotion to Full Professor including 5 proposed accelerated actions

5a. Final result (Vice Provost Decision)

RESULTS	NUMBER OF ACTIONS
Pending	0
Information	1
Yes to proposed action	30
Yes but less than proposed action	7
Yes but more than proposed action	4
No to proposed action	0
Total	42^*

* including 5 approved accelerated actions

5b. Results from various reviewing bodies

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC
Yes to proposed action	41	36	32
No to proposed action	1	6	4
Did not act	0	0	1
Total	42	42	37^*

* CAP acted as the ad hoc action (5 actions)

5c. Results from review by CAP

RESULTS	CAP RESULT
Yes to proposed action	31
Yes but less than proposed action	7
Yes but more than proposed action	4
Divided on proposed action	0
No to proposed action	0
Did not act	0
Total	42

Table 6. Merit increase to Professor, Step VI including 10 proposed accelerated actions

6a. Final result (Vice Provost Decision)

RESULTS	NUMBER OF ACTIONS
Pending	0
Yes to proposed action	38
Yes but less than proposed action	1
Yes but more than proposed action	3
No to proposed action	7
Total	49^*

* including 14 approved accelerated actions

6b. Results from various reviewing bodies

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC
Yes to proposed action	44	46	28
Yes but more than proposed action	1	1	1
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	1
Divided on proposed action	1	0	0
No to proposed action	3	2	13
Total	49	49	43^*

* CAP acted as the ad hoc action (6 actions)

6c. Results from review by CAP

RESULTS	CAP RESULT
Yes to proposed action	39
Yes but less than proposed action	1
Yes but more than proposed action	1
Divided on proposed action	0
No to proposed action	8
Total	49

Table 7. Merit increase to Professor, Above Scale, including 4 proposed accelerated actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP Decision^*
Yes to proposed action	4	3	1	4	3
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Yes but more than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
No to proposed action	0	1	2	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	1
Total	4	4	3^+	4	4

* including 2 approved accelerated actions

+ CAP acted as ad hoc on 1 action

Table 8. Merit increases within the rank of Professor

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	CAP RESULT	VP Decision
Yes to proposed action	29	23	22	22
Yes but less than proposed action	0	2	3	3
Yes but more than proposed action	0	0	3	3
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	0
No to proposed action Did not act	0 0	3 1	1 0	1 0
Total	29	29	29	29

Table 9. Merit increase within Professor, step AS including 5 proposed accelerated actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION*
Yes to proposed action	12	12	10	11
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	0	0
Yes but more than proposed action	0	0	2	1
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	0
No to proposed action	1	1	1	1
Pending	0	0	0	0
Total	13	13	13	13

* including 5 approved accelerated actions

RESULTS OF ACTIONS BY SCHOOL OR COLLEGE (final action only)

Table 10. Origin of Actions^*

SCHOOLS OR COLLEGES	NUMBER OF ACTIONS
College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences	53
College of Engineering	45
College of Letters & Science	126
Graduate School of Management	7
School of Law	5
School of Medicine	97
School of Veterinary Sciences	29
Division of Biological Sciences	25
Division of Education	1
California Regional Primate Research Center	1
Land, Air, Water Resources	1
TOTAL	390

* Some dossiers have more than one action
Table 11. College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

11a. All Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	48	44	19	42	42
Yes but less than proposed action	2	4	0	5	7
Yes but more than proposed action	0	0	0	2	1
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	1	0
No to proposed action	2	5	4	4	3
Did not act	0	0	0	0	0
Unknown	2	1	0	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	1
Total	54	54	23	54	54

11b. Merit and Promotion Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	37	34	19	32	32
Yes but less than proposed action	0	1	0	4	4
Yes but more than proposed action	0	0	0	1	1
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
No to proposed action	0	2	4	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	0
Total	37	37	23	37	37

Table 12. College of Engineering

12a. All Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	39	43	15	35	34
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	1	2	2
Yes but more than proposed action	1	0	0	3	4
Divided on proposed action	1	0	0	0	0
No to proposed action	1	1	3	4	3
Did not act	1	0	0	0	0
Unknown	1	0	0	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	1
Total	44	44	19	44	44

12b. Merits and Promotion Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	29	33	15	26	25
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	1	1	1
Yes but more than proposed action	1	0	0	3	4
Divided on proposed action	1	0	0	0	0
No to proposed action	1	0	3	3	3
Unknown	1	0	0	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	0
Total	33	33	19	33	33

Table 13. College of Letters and Science

13a. All Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	112	106	24	97	100
Yes but less than proposed action	0	1	0	12	8
Yes but more than proposed action	0	1	0	7	5
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	1	0
No to proposed action	3	6	6	3	2
Did not act	0	0	1	0	0
Unknown	5	5	0	0	3
Pending	0	0	0	0	2
Total	120	120	31	120	120

13b. Merits and Promotion Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	50	46	24	43	41
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	0	5	5
Yes but more than proposed action	0	1	0	2	4
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
No to proposed action	3	6	6	3	2
Did not act	0	0	1	0	0
Unknown	0	0	0	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	1
Total	53	53	31	53	53

Table 14. Graduate School of Management

14a. All Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	3	5	1	6	6
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Yes but more than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
No to proposed action	0	1	0	0	0
Did not act	0	0	0	1	0
Unknown	4	1	0	0	1
Pending	0	0	0	0	0
Total	7	7	1	7	7

14b. Merit and Promotion Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	1	0	1	1	1
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Yes but more than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
No to proposed action	0	1	0	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	0
Total	1	1	1	1	1

Table 15. School of Law

15a. All Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	6	6	1	6	6
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Yes but more than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	2	0
No to proposed action	0	0	1	0	0
Did not act	0	0	0	0	0
Unknown	0	0	0	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	0
Total	6	6	2	6	6

15b. Merit and Promotion Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	3	3	1	3	3
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Yes but more than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
No to proposed action	0	0	1	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	0
Total	3	3	2	3	3

Table 16. School of Medicine

16a. All Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	93	76	27	65	66
Yes but less than proposed action	0	9	0	15	15
Yes but more than proposed action	2	0	0	10	11
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	2	0
No to proposed action	0	10	6	3	3
Did not act	1	1	0	0	0
Information	0	0	0	1	1
Unknown	0	0	0	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	0
Total	96	96	33	96	96

16b. Merits and Promotion Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	46	43	27	37	37
Yes but less than proposed action	0	1	0	5	5
Yes but more than proposed action	2	0	0	4	5
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	1	0
No to proposed action	0	5	6	2	2
Did not act	1	0	0	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	0
Total	49	49	33	49	49

Table 17. School of Veterinary Medicine

17a. All Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	24	22	7	19	15
Yes but less than proposed action	0	1	0	1	0
Yes but more than proposed action	0	1	0	3	3
Divided on proposed action	0	0	1	0	0
No to proposed action	1	1	2	3	2
Did not act	1	1	0	0	0
Unknown	0	0	0	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	6
Total	26	26	10	26	26

17b. Merits and Promotion Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	16	14	7	11	9
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	0	1	0
Yes but more than proposed action	0	1	0	3	3
Divided on proposed action	0	0	1	0	0
No to proposed action	1	1	2	2	1
Did not act	0	1	0	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	4
Total	17	17	10	17	17

Table 18. Division of Biological Sciences

18a. All Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	24	23	7	21	19
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	0	4	4
Yes but more than proposed action	0	0	1	0	1
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
No to proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Did not act	1	1	0	0	0
Unknown	0	1	0	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	1
Total	25	25	8	25	25

18b. Merits and Promotions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	10	11	7	11	10
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Yes but more than proposed action	0	0	1	0	1
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
No to proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Did not act	1	0	0	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	0
Total	11	11	8	11	11

Table 19. California Regional Primate Research Center

19a. All Actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	1	1	1	1	1
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Yes but more than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
No to proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Did not act	0	0	0	0	0
Unknown	0	0	0	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	0
Total	1	1	1	1	1

19b. Merits and Promotions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	1	1	1	1	1
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Yes but more than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
No to proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	0
Total	1	1	1	1	1

Table 20. School of Education

All actions

RESULTS	DEPARTMENT	DEAN	AD HOC	CAP RESULT	VP DECISION
Yes to proposed action	1	1	0	1	1
Yes but less than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Yes but more than proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Divided on proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
No to proposed action	0	0	0	0	0
Did not act	0	0	0	0	0
Unknown	0	0	0	0	0
Pending	0	0	0	0	0
Total	1	1	0	1	1

Merit and Promotions

No actions

SUMMARY OF FACULTY PERSONNEL COMMITTEE ACTIONS

Table 21. FPC Actions College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

Rank	FPC Recommendation Yes Split No	Dean’s Decision Yes No
Assistant Professor	2 1	2 1
Associate Professor	1 1	1 1
Professor	49 1 10	49 11
Total	54 1 13	54 14

Over-rides: 0

Table 22. FPC Actions College of Engineering

Rank	FPC Recommendation Yes Split No	Dean’s Decision Yes No
Assistant Professor	4 0	4 0
Associate Professor	4 0	4 0
Professor	36 8	42 2
Total	44 8	50 2

Over-rides: 6

Table 23. FPC Actions Division of Humanities, Arts and Cultural Studies

Rank	FPC Recommendation Yes Split No	Dean’s Decision Yes No
Assistant Professor	6 0	6 0
Associate Professor	0 0	0 0
Professor	10 1 6	12 5
Total	16 1 6	18 5

Over-rides: 1

Table 24. FPC Actions Division of Mathematics and Physical Sciences

Rank	FPC Recommendation Yes Split No	Dean’s Decision Yes No
Assistant Professor	1 0	1 0
Associate Professor	3 0	3 0
Professor	12 1 2	14 1
Total	16 1 2	18 1

Over-rides: 1

Table 25. FPC Actions Division of Social Sciences

Rank	FPC Recommendation Yes Split No	Dean’s Decision Yes No
Assistant Professor	4 3	5 2
Associate Professor	3 1	4 0
Professor	13 3	14 2
Total	20 7	23 4

Over-rides: 3

Table 26. FPC Actions School of Law

	FPC Recommendation Yes Split No	Dean’s Decision Yes No
Total	5 0	5 0

Over-rides:0

Table 27. FPC Actions School of Education

Rank	FPC Recommendation Yes Split No	Dean’s Decision Yes No
Total	2 1	2 1

Over-rides:0

Table 28. FPC Actions Division of Biological Sciences

Rank	FPC Recommendation Yes Split No	Dean’s Decision Yes No
Assistant Professor	6 0	6 0
Associate Professor	1 1	1 1
Professor	10 1	10 1
Total	17 2	17 2

Over-rides: 0

Table 29. FPC Actions School of Veterinary Medicine

Rank	FPC Recommendation ACCURATE DATA NOT AVAILABLE TO CAP Yes Split No	Dean’s Decision Yes No
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
Total

Over-rides:

Table 30. FPC Actions School of Medicine

Rank	FPC Recommendation Yes No	Dean’s Decision Yes No
Assistant Professor		14 0
Associate Professor		5 0
Professor Assistant Professor Of Clinical__ Associate Professor Of Clinical__ Professor of Clinical __		24 4 32 2 16 2 10 1
Total

An additional two candidates were approved for a modified advancement

Over-rides: There were 8 over-rides, six were on appointments, 2 were for merit actions, and the third was a promotion action (non-academic senate title).

Attachment 1

TO: DEPARTMENT CHAIRS:

After distributing its memo of 14 May 2003, the Committee on Academic Personnel has engaged in further consultation and reflection on its call to departments to develop standards of advancement. It is now clear that the memo was not consistent with CAP’s charge under the bylaws of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate or with the separation of powers implied in the Standing Orders of the Regents. Just as important, the whole issue of developing standards for advancement has become somewhat murky and may benefit from a clear restatement. This memo supercedes all previous memos on this subject.

CAP’s bylaw (Davis Division Bylaw 42(b).8) calls for it

To develop jointly with each academic department general and broadly delineated standards for advancement pertinent to the various academic disciplines, and to publish and update these standards from time to time.

This provision originated in the recent reforms of the academic personnel process in response to the feeling – pervasive on some parts of the campus – that the academic standards of some particular disciplines are not well understood in the personnel process. It is not a call to rewrite the Academic Personnel Manual (APM) for particular disciplines. Rather, where the APM calls for evidence of merit in research, service, and teaching, it offers departments an opportunity to articulate how these terms should be interpreted in the context of their particular disciplines. It is not a call to either raise or lower the bar for advancement in any particular department. Rather it is an opportunity to inform the personnel process of disciplinary-specific differences, in order to make the personnel process less erratic and more fair. The standards are a joint effort between CAP and the departments. CAP’s bylaw also requires it (DDB 42(b).1):

To strive to maintain consistent personnel standards within the Division, given inevitable differences among academic disciplines.

Standards must be jointly agreed between CAP and the department. Any approved standards must be consistent with the APM. Within that bound, departments have an opportunity to enter into a dialogue with CAP about what merit means in their fields.

The Administration is required under the Standing Orders of the Regents to consult with the Senate on personnel cases. Departmental evaluations of colleagues, CAP, and the Faculty Personnel Committees are part of that consultation with the Senate. In deciding what advice to render, the Senate is autonomous. The previous memo incorrectly suggested that deans and other administrators would be involved in development of the required standards of merit. In fact, all communication about these standards shall be direct between CAP and the departments as called for in CAP’s bylaw and not transmitted through, negotiated with, or vetted by, any administrator. CAP will itself consult with its subordinate Faculty Personnel Committees.

Departments requiring more time to develop their criteria of scholarship need not comply with CAP’s earlier memo requesting them by the end of this academic year. In addition, some departments have indicated that they see no need to articulate standards to any greater degree than already found in the APM. Having made that decision now does not, however, preclude a department from developing more specific standards at a later date.

c: Deans, Vice Provost Horwitz, Provost Hinshaw, Bruce Madewell, Chair, Academic Senate, Kevin Hoover, Chair, Committee on Elections, Rules, and Jurisdiction

Attachment 2

Effective September 1, 2002

POLICY ON RECUSEMENT

Faculty Personnel Committees

Faculty serving on standing personnel committees shall recuse themselves from voting on an action whenever any of the following apply:

1. Having voted on the action at a previous (departmental) level;

2. Having consulted with a Dean or Dean’s designee on an action subsequently appearing before the committee; or otherwise actively involved in influencing an action or appointment at an earlier level of review;

3. Having a conflict of interest (close personal or professional relationship with the candidate or any other conflict of interest).

Attachment 3

November 6, 2002

VICE PROVOST BARBARA HORWITZ

Academic Personnel

Re: Overlapping Steps at the Assistant Professor Level

I asked CAP’s opinion of the idea of promoting faculty at overlapping steps at the Assistant level to Associate Professor I, with the difference in salary converted to an off-scale. This would allow faculty more time to advance through the rank of Associate Professor. CAP does not support this idea. Faculty should be hired at the level appropriate for their experience, and provided with the resources needed to advance normally through the ranks. The APM already provides for more time at the Associate Professor level for faculty who are promoted to this rank at Step II or III. They can advance to Step IV for a period of three years before consideration for advancement to Professor.

We continue to be concerned that faculty salaries across the board at the University of California are well below comparable public institutions nationally. However, rank and step of appointment should not be based on adjustments of salary for market considerations, but should be based instead on the record of accomplishment.

Linda F. Bisson, Chair

Committee on Academic Personnel

LFB:sb

Attachment 4

April 9, 2003

BRUCE R. MADEWELL, Chair

Davis Division of the Academic Senate

Re: Faculty Gender Equity

The Committee on Academic Personnel has reviewed the report of the Taskforce on Gender Equity and offers the following comments. These comments are presented in the context of gender but are applicable to other underrepresented groups as well. First, we would like to make a distinction between gender equity and gender underrepresentation. Equity issues center on practices, polices and procedures that may differentially reward or advantage one group over others. Gender inequity leads to gender underrepresentation as indicated in the report, but gender underrepresentation is also a much broader phenomenon and can reflect a rejection of a career path by a group in the absence of any inequitable practices or perceptions of inequity.

Gender Equity

The Committee on Academic Personnel at UCD conducts an equity review of each case that comes before the committee. This means that CAP will review each faculty member on average every 2 to 7 years depending upon their rank and circumstances to be certain that they are at the appropriate rank and step. Our Faculty Personnel Sub- committees are also asked to conduct equity reviews for each action appearing before the committee. Therefore, each faculty member receives an equity review every 2 to 5 years. It is important that CAP be allowed to make recommendations that adjust faculty salaries and appointments following these reviews. UCD CAP makes use of recommendations for retroactive advancement to adjust faculty within or between ranks in accordance with their records of accomplishment. Faculty Personnel Committee recommendations for retroactive advancement are now all submitted to CAP for comment and endorsement to assure all units are treated similarly. Admittedly this system is not perfect and depends upon accurate calibration of expectations on a discipline-by-discipline basis and is reliant on an appropriate and thorough dossier being prepared and reviewed by the candidate and the department. CAP endorses the administration’s plan to develop an additional candidate-driven process for equity review and looks forward to commenting on the proposal. Last year CAP analyzed its own and our subcommittees’ recommendations for advancement by gender to determine if there was any pattern of inequity. None was found, but we recommend this analysis be done on a yearly basis. CAP brings any issue of inequity or possible inequitable treatment of any faculty member by a unit to the attention of the Vice Provost. CAP does not communicate directly with Deans or Department Chairs in these situations.

The process of equity analysis followed by the Davis campus has resulted in the adjustment of several faculty and seems to be working well. However, we have the following suggestions for improvement:

An analysis of advancement of women faculty at UCD should be undertaken. CAP suggests that the administration specifically look at the advancement and hiring on the basis of gender at UCD. This should be done in multiple ways, such as evaluating rank and step since time of hire, since time of degree, with and without taking into account child-rearing leaves, and in relation to performance. If possible, the percentages of women in applicant pools should be tabulated and compared to the percentages of hires of women. This analysis should be undertaken with the goal of uncovering any inequities in the system.

Faculty advancement should be strictly based on accomplishment and not on personality traits that may be skewed by gender. Advancement in academia is often facilitated by self-promotion of one’s work. There is the danger here of rewarding a personality trait rather than the record. Departments and candidates should strive to provide a balanced evaluative view of the record.

All faculty position advertisements should be worded in such a way that would allow CAP the flexibility to make an appropriate recommendation on the rank and step. On several occasions a faculty member has been selected by the unit for a position at a more junior level than warranted by their record of accomplishment. CAP recommends the appropriate level of appointment, but the candidate is often brought in at the level advertised.

Departments should be asked to periodically undertake a review of all faculty to identify any situations of inequity so that they may be forwarded to the appropriate committee or administrator to address. This recommendation will hopefully be met by the new equity review process being proposed by the administration, which CAP has not yet seen.

Gender Underrepresentation

Any reward process that treats groups inequitably will result in an underrepresentation of the disadvantaged group. However, we feel there are potentially issues other than inequitable hiring and advancement practices that underlie the statistics that indicate women are underrepresented in faculty positions given their numbers among graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Work-life balance issues play a strong role in career selection. Academic advancement typically follows rather strict timelines, and although some flexibility in the time line for advancement does exist, faculty who take advantage of this flexibility are often perceived as advancing at a slower than normal pace. Such attitudes foster the perception of an academic career as family unfriendly. The quality of a faculty is directly associated with accomplishment, and the more time an individual faculty member has to devote to creative pursuits the stronger the record of accomplishment. Rigid timelines in which to document a record of accomplishment sufficient for advancement may be a deterrent to pursuit of an academic career for those individuals with other demands on their time. In other cases, the weekly time demand of a typical faculty member required to be perceived as “pulling one’s weight” within a department or unit may discourage graduate students and postdoctoral fellows from pursuing academic careers. Previous surveys of faculty workloads have indicated on average a 50- to 60-hour workweek. Sustaining this level of commitment is difficult and may lead to rejection of academia as a career path by highly qualified candidates. CAP offers the following suggestions with respect to gender underrepresentation.

Survey graduate students and postdoctoral fellows on intended career path choices to determine issues leading to a rejection of an academic path. Statistics indicate that women and minority groups are under-represented in faculty pools. This may occur because of inequitable hiring practices or favoritism, but other explanations are equally likely. A more appropriate comparison would be percentages of hires of women and minority groups as a function of their percentage in the pool of applicants, not the pool of degree holders. This number is difficult to obtain. CAP suggests that a survey of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows be undertaken to determine if the percentages of those indicating a preference for an academic career matches the percentage by gender in the pool. If there is a discrepancy, fewer women indicating a desire to pursue academic careers, the reasons for that choice should be noted and analyzed.

Introduce greater flexibility in hiring and promotion of faculty with work-life balance issues. Surveys of women in various disciplines in which they are underrepresented at the faculty level have indicated that work-life balance issues play a strong role in rejection of an academic career. Rigidity of time lines for “normal” advancement contributes to this perception. CAP suggests that the administration consider greater flexibility in the type and level of appointment to address this issue. As an example, departments may wish to offer a 50% appointment to two individuals rather than a 100% appointment to a single individual. If the time line is adjusted, meaning that the tenure clock would be set for 14 years at 50% appointment, rather than in the same 7-year time-frame, such fractional positions would become attractive to those faculty with work-life balance issues.

Develop family friendly positions that allow retention of postdocs and graduate students on an academic career track. The university should recognize that, while family rearing work-life balance issues may be transient, they extend well beyond the child rearing leaves currently offered to faculty. Postdoctoral positions, adjunct professorships and lectureships are means by which an individual may remain on an academic track without having to assume the full responsibilities and workload of a faculty member. Rigid limitations of times in these types of positions may discourage women from pursuing academic careers. For example, postdoctoral fellows are currently limited to a maximal time of five years at UCD. This is frequently a time at which women and men start families while remaining fully active in their discipline. The university should develop policies that allow individuals who are academic track to remain in a postdoctoral position if work-life balance issues are better met. Again, the goal should be to retain under-represented groups in the pipeline.

Linda F. Bisson, Chair

Committee on Academic Personnel

LFB:sb

Attachment 5

June 25, 2003

VICE PROVOST BARBARA HORWITZ

Academic Personnel

Re: Career Equity Review

The Committee on Academic Personnel has reviewed the UCD Career Equity Review proposal and offers the following comments. First, it is important that the current CAP practice of an equity analysis of each case that comes before the committee continue whether a special request for such a review is made or not. A second CAP concern is that some faculty may miss the first phase of the Career Equity Review process slated for 2003 – 2004 due to leaves or absences. These faculty should be allowed to request a review upon return to campus and not have to wait until their next merit action. Third, CAP is concerned that accurate records of which faculty members have requested an equity review will need to be kept. CAP will need to be aware of this information, and therefore it should be included in the faculty database. Fourth, CAP is concerned about workload issues if many of these cases come forward in the same year. Each case will require a considerable amount of committee time for a thorough review. Much of this work appears to be slated for the summer, a time when it may be difficult to form ad hoc committees. Finally, CAP is concerned about staff support for this activity, as it will occur over the summer when current staff members typically take vacation.

You specifically asked CAP’s opinion about a lack of an appeals process for these equity reviews. CAP concludes that an appeals process would likely be a duplication of effort especially since CAP will be able to engage in extensive communication with the department to seek missing information concerning the request.

Linda F. Bisson, Chair

Committee on Academic Personnel

Attachment

Attachment 6

CAP’s Guidelines for the Career Equity Review Process

The Career Equity Review Process will not replace nor supersede the current CAP practice of conducting an automatic equity review of each case that comes before the committee.

CAP will be guided by the criteria of scholarship statements from the departments in reaching decisions concerning appropriate rank and step, but will base its recommendations on a comparative analysis of the candidate.

CAP will conduct an initial review of each Career Equity Review dossier to determine what additional information or consultation may be necessary. CAP will request additional information of the candidate via the Vice Provost, as is the current practice for promotion cases.

Depending upon the nature of the case, CAP may request review and comment by an ad hoc committee. This committee will be selected on the basis of ability to review the question at hand, and will not be subject to the same rules of representation and numbers of members as in the current personnel process.

Depending upon the nature of the case, CAP may request files of other faculty of a similar rank within the same department or in different departments but within the same discipline.

As with the promotion process, it will be incumbent upon the candidate to make the case for equity advancement with CAP serving as a reviewing body. Every effort will be made to obtain additional information when warranted.