ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PERSONNEL
September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2000

The 1999-2000 Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) met 37 times and completed 469 personnel actions, while considering a total of 763 agenda items. In the course of performing its duties (Appendix I), the Committee extended its activities from previous years to include merit reviews for the new Professor, Step IX, category. The additional task of approving simplified voting regulations under By Law 55 for personnel actions in all departments also was finished.

Most CAP agenda items were analyzed, discussed, and completed with a written analysis in two meetings. The final letter or report was forwarded on the day after the second meeting. Thus, when CAP met weekly, agenda items usually were completed within 15 days (Fig. 1). During the summer, when CAP meets biweekly, or when holidays prevented meetings, the turn-around time on agenda items was somewhat longer.

Figure 1. Time required for CAP action on agenda items in 1999-2000.

The total of 469 personnel actions considered by the Committee was somewhat larger than that of the previous year, primarily because there were additional merit actions for faculty at the rank of Professor (Table I). A smaller number of cases for promotion to Associate Professor was balanced, in part, by additional candidates for promotion to Professor. The much smaller than normal number of cases for promotion to Associate Professor was associated with a higher than normal rate of positive decisions (Table IIA). The proportion of positive decisions on promotion to Professor was similar to previous years (Table IIB). The small number of merit cases for Professor, Step II to V, involved either administrative appointments, such as departmental chairs, or multiple-year accelerations (Table III). CAP and the Vice Provost agreed on more than 90% of these merit decisions. Few accelerations of more than one year were recommended by CAP or approved by the Vice Provost, but in most instances, candidates who were denied a multiple year acceleration received some positive acknowledgement for extra achievements (Table IV). Of 121 Professors who were considered for high-level merits, 89% received a positive decision (Table V).

College, School and Division Personnel Committees (Appendix II) advise deans on personnel actions redelegated to the deans. Those actions include appointment of Assistant Professor, Step I, II, and III, most normal and one-year accelerated merit actions up to and including Professor, Step V, most normal merit actions for Lecturers and Senior Lecturers with Security of Employment, and Unit 18 actions (including appointments and reappointments of Lecturers and Senior Lecturers without Security of Employment). In 1999-2000 these committees reviewed 316 merits and 56 appointments, excluding Unit 18 actions (Table VI). In addition, the committees conducted 45 junior faculty appraisals, which were conveyed to CAP for further evaluation. Members of the College, School and Division Personnel Committees are nominated by CAP from names submitted by respective Executive Committees.

Off-scale increments to faculty salaries are awarded by the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel to recruit or retain outstanding faculty who are identified by deans or department chairs. CAP is not consulted unless the off-scale increment corresponds to two or more steps in the salary scale. CAP almost never initiates a recommendation for an off-scale salary award as part of the normal personnel review process.

Professor Arthur Krener represented Davis at six meetings of UCAP in 1999-2000. In addition to responding to issues raised by the Office of the President, UCAP considered issues submitted by its members, by Senate committees, and by various officers of the Academic Senate. The Committee also facilitated the exchange of information among campuses.

Peer review is the basic strength of the academic personnel process in the University of California. CAP thanks those faculty members who served on 135 ad hoc committees in 1999-2000 for giving so generously of their time and for the high quality and objectivity of their evaluations. In addition, CAP members are grateful to Vice Provost Barry Klein’s office for assistance throughout the year. Solomon Bekele deserves special praise for learning his new job as CAP assistant on short notice at the beginning of the year. He made the process work.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Bisson
Richard Carlsen
Edward Feldman
Bruce Gates
Gail Goodman
Art Krener
Wanda Wenman
Michelle Yeh
Donald Phillips (Chair)

Table I. Personnel Actions Referred to CAP.

* Includes Acting, Clinical, In-Residence and Adjunct titles.

** SOE - Security of Employment

Table II. Promotion Actions

1. Promotions to Associate Professor: Votes of reviewing bodies.

Proposed 30 (6 accelerated); approved 27* (6 accelerated).

* One action pending

B. Promotions to Full Professor: Votes of reviewing bodies.

Proposed 60 (14 accelerated); approved 46 (14 accelerated).

Table III. Professor, Step II to Step V, Merit Actions Considered by CAP

Table IV. Vice Provost Decisions on Accelerations.

Table V. Vice Provost Decision on High-level Professor Merits.

Table VI. College/School/Division Personnel Committee Actions

Appendix I. Duties of the Committee on Academic Personnel - 1999-2000

1. Nominate faculty to serve on ad hoc committees that recommend appointments, promotions, and high-level merit increases (Professor, Step VI or Above-scale).
2. Review reports of ad hoc committees and independently evaluate dossiers of candidates under consideration.
3. Review proposed accelerated merit increases, appeals, terminations, deferrals, five-year reviews, and reappointments of departmental chairs.
4. Review normal merit actions for department chairs, program chairs, associate deans, members on college, school, and division personnel committees (and their near relatives) and other individuals for whom such action has not been redelegated to deans.
5. Appoint faculty to serve on college, school and division personnel committees.
6. Review policy matters referred by the administration and by the chair or committee of the Academic Senate, as well as initiate new policies and changes in existing policies when appropriate.
7. Audit recommendations from college, school and division personnel committees.
8. Ensure departmental voting procedures comply with Academic Senate By Law 55.
9. Review requests for Target of Opportunity for Excellence and Partner Opportunity Program positions.
10. Use independent evaluation of each case to ensure equity in the application of criteria for appointments, merits, and promotion actions.