Resolution Approved by the Executive Council

May 14, 2001

A Synopsis of the Reform to the Personnel Process in the Report of the SCPPR Committee.

The reforms suggested in the SCPRR Report are keyed to the specific recommendations of the previous SCCAP Report. They appear complex. In reality, however, there is both more and less to their substance than might be immediately apparent.

There is less in the sense that, if these reforms are adopted, the personnel process in 2001-02 and after will function remarkably like the existing personnel processes in most cases. The reforms aim to move more actions to college and school personnel committees and away from CAP. Here, as elsewhere, SCPRR’s object was not to eliminate flexibility in CAP or other aspects of the Senate personnel process, but to suggest default positions, while recognizing that practice must be left room to adapt to circumstance and experience.

There is more to the reforms than will be obvious except to those accustom to reading Senate bylaws and regulations. In particular, like many Senate committees, CAP has previously enjoyed substantial formal autonomy – subject only to ex post review by the Representative Assembly. The reforms subordinate CAP to the Division in matters of policy and clarify its obligation to report to and consult with the Executive Council and the Representative Assembly. While it would now be within the power of the Division to direct CAP, it is hard to believe that the Representative Assembly would normally wish to exercise such power. The existence of a channel by which the will of the Division could be expressed would provide a safety valve and more routine two-way communication that might in future help prevent the widespread dissatisfaction that led to the SCCAP Report in the first place.

Although there are many little details and many of them are important, the main lines of the proposed reforms can be described in five points:

1. The standards on which the advancement of faculty are to be based are to be established in a cooperative effort of the personnel committees, the Division, and the academic departments and are to be published.

2. The reforms clarify who speaks on behalf of the Senate. In particular the ambiguous status of the college and school personnel committees is clarified. Under the reform Faculty Personnel Committee are subordinate committees to CAP and both are arms of the Division, not of the Administration. While SCCAP and SCPRR advise the Administration to re-delegate most merit actions to the deans, it is up to them whether to accept that advice. Still, its within the power of the Division to specify which of its own committees is qualified to consider which personnel actions.

3. Reporting and consultation between personnel committees and the Division are clarified and regularized.

4. An appeals process is established. The overarching principle is that it should be possible to appeal a decision to a body different from the one that rendered the original adverse decision. The appeals procedure has three parts:

(a) An action can be brought back before the same committee in order to provide additional information or context. This is call reconsideration.

(b) Appeals of decisions of Faculty Personnel Committees are heard by CAP. Appeals of decisions of CAP are heard by Ad Hoc Committees with members representing CAP and the appellant, and a neutral chair.

(c) Consultation with a personnel adviser is the first step in the appeals process. The Committee of Faculty Personnel Advisers is modeled on the Committee of Faculty Privilege Advisers. Since the personnel adviser’s recommendation becomes a part of the appeals record, consultation should both discourage inappropriate appeals and help potential appellants to understand how to navigate the appeals process.

5. The resolutions addressed to CAP and the Chancellor pass on detailed advice generated from SCCAP’s investigations. These have to do with streamlining the personnel process, redelegation of ordinary merit actions to the level of deans and local personnel committees, returning to five-member ad hoc committees, and a variety of other subjects.

This brief summary omits details that are found in the SCPPR Report, but should convey a reasonable idea of its direction and intent.

Note: In the following proposed amendments, text which differs from that proposed in the SCPPR Report is noted in ~~strikeout type~~ for deletions and bold type for insertions.

Substitute Amendment for Bylaw 43.

(If these amendments are adopted, Bylaw 43 will be replaced by several bylaws. The Committee on Elections, Rules and Jurisdiction will have to renumber and reorganize the Bylaws accordingly. The numbering here reflects a suggested renumbering.)

Renumbered PART VI, TITLE IV--THE ACADEMIC PERSONNEL PROCESS

Proposed Wording - NEW

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.

Present Wording Proposed Wording

42. is currently Academic Freedom Ren. 42 Committee on Academic Personnel.

and Responsibility (to be renumbered

by Committee on Elections, Rules (A) Membership. This committee shall consist of

and Jurisdiction) 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 timely recommendations to the Chief Campus Officer regarding personnel actions in which the Division has a compelling interest: appointments, terminations, appraisals of assistant professors, promotions to tenure, promotions, actions requiring extramural review, and salaries. ~~To the greatest extent possible, the Committee should evaluate the~~ The Committee shall normally rely on the recommendations and evidence of academic merit and professional competence provided by other levels of the review process; and, ~~Only~~ only in unusual circumstances, ~~should~~ shall the Committee ~~undertake independent evaluations of review files or~~ advise overturning unanimous or nearly unanimous recommendations of earlier levels of review. The Committee ~~should~~ shall 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. To report any change in policy enacted since the last report and any policy matter pending before it to the Representative Assembly for review, discussion, and determination by a majority vote at least once each quarter.

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.

Present Wording Proposed Wording - NEW

43. is currently listed as Academic Ren. 43 Faculty Personnel Committees.

Personnel (to be renumbered by

Committee on Elections, Rules and (A) Organization.

Jurisdiction)

1. The number of members and the organization of each Faculty Personnel Committee shall be determined by the Committee on Academic Personnel in consultation with the Executive Committee of each Faculty.

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.

3. The Personnel Committee of a Faculty must include members of that Faculty, but may include other members of the Division.

4. The Personnel Committees of the Faculty are subordinate to the Committee on 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.

Amendment to DD Bylaw 28 (A):

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.

PART VI. COMMITEES OF THE DAVIS DIVISION

TITLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

(A) Present Wording Proposed Wording

Committees of the Davis Division 28 (A) Committees of the Davis Division include

include the Representative Assembly, the Representative Assembly, the

the Committee on Committees, regular Committee on Committees, regular standing

standing committees, joint standing committees (including the Committee on

committees, special committees, and the Academic Personnel, the Faculty Personnel

Faculties of colleges and schools. Committees, and the Committee of

(Am. 4/21/80; 1/27/81) Academic Personnel Advisers), joint

standing committees, special committees,

and the Faculties of colleges and schools.

(B) Present Wording

All committees of the Davis Division (B) No Change

shall report to the Representative Assembly of the Division and are subject to its jurisdiction. However, all written reports submitted by committees of the Davis Division to the Representative Assembly shall be posted on a World Wide Web site, the address of which is clearly indicated on the agenda for the meeting to which they are submitted and shall be simultaneously sent to Department Chairs of all academic units. The committee reports shall remain posted on the Web page for eighteen months. (Am. 11/1/96; 10/20/97)

Amendments Governing a Personnel Appeals Process.

Proposed Wording - NEW

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~~ shall 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~~ may be renewed.

(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~~ assess independently whether a personnel action raises substantive 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.

Present Wording Proposed Wording

45. is currently listed as Admissions Ren. 45. Review of Personnel Actions

and Enrollment (to be renumbered by

Committee on Elections, Rules and (A) Types of review.

Jurisdiction

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 Privilege and Tenure 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.

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~~ shall 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~~ shall 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~~ shall state clearly the reason for its decision and ~~should~~ shall address the issues raised by the appellant.

3. Appeals of the recommendations of the Committee on Academic Personnel.

(a) An appeal ~~should~~ shall be transmitted to the Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure through an Academic Personnel Adviser and ~~should~~ shall be accompanied by a brief statement summarizing the adviser’s recommendation to the Senate member. The Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure shall 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 shall appoints the chair of the Appeals Committee. The Committee on Academic Personnel and the appellant shall select one member each. ~~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.

Present Wording Proposed Wording

77. Faculty Welfare Amendment to DD Bylaw 77 (B).

(3) None (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.

Present Wording Proposed Wording

73. Executive Council Substitute Amendment to DD Bylaw 73.

(7) None (7) To conduct a comprehensive review of the

academic personnel process starting in Fall 2003 and every five years thereafter.

Substitute 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~~ 24 May 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.

Substitute 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~~ 24 May 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 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.

(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.