Introduction

The Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) advises the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel on promotions, appointments, terminations, multiyear accelerations within rank, 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. This year CAP also received appeal actions from the personnel committees of the college and school faculties. Further, CAP advises both the Academic Senate and Vice Provost on academic personnel matters as they arise. CAP is particularly attentive to issues that impact equity of treatment of Academic Senate members.

CAP evaluates candidate files according to guidelines established in the Academic Personnel Manual. CAP’s mandate is to assure fair and equitable treatment of all faculty while ensuring that high standards of scholarship are maintained across the campus. Teaching, research or creative activity, service, and professional competence are evaluated.

This year CAP implemented resolutions passed by the Davis Division of the Academic Senate, with the exception of those still under discussion between the administration and the leadership of the Academic Senate. Furthermore, CAP took the opportunity presented by the Academic Senate deliberations to re-evaluate long-standing practices handed down from previous CAP committees. These matters are discussed in detail later in this document.

During the 2001-02 academic year CAP met 38 times and considered a total of 507 agenda items. There were a total of 485 academic personnel actions. The normal turn around time for agenda items is two weeks. 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. This process is delayed when files are incomplete or contain conflicting information, or when further elaboration of statements in the file is required. CAP noted that the number of incomplete files reaching the committee this year was greater than before, and consequently there were more delays in actions than before. The problem of incomplete files was particularly evident in appointment actions, which require a rapid turnaround. CAP urges Deans and Department Chairs to be more vigilant in assuring that files are complete and accurate prior to leaving the Dean’s office. CAP noted that Ad Hoc Committees took anywhere from two weeks to several months to review a file and write their report.

Academic Personnel Actions, 2001-2002

Table 1 provides a summary of CAP’s deliberations by category for the past academic year. CAP considered 67 appointments to various ranks, 163 merit actions and 103 promotions. There were 39 appraisals. Of the 266 merit and promotion actions, CAP recommended against the action or was divided in 45 cases (17%) and recommended less of an advancement in an additional 14 cases (5%). There were 147 actions referred to Ad Hoc Committees (Table 2). The final results (Vice Provost’s decisions) are summarized in Table 3. The Vice Provost denied actions or offered less than what was requested in 70 cases, 35 of which were merits and promotions.

Promotions: With respect to promotions to Associate Professor, CAP recommended the advancement as requested for 35 of 45 tenure cases (Table 4). In one of these cases, CAP recommended a further acceleration of the candidate than was requested. In three additional cases advancement or promotion was recommended that was less than that requested by the candidate. Of the remaining six actions, four had not been supported by at least one earlier level of review, and two were divided recommendations from CAP.

CAP supported 38 of 55 promotion actions to Full Professor (Table 5). In three of these cases CAP recommended a further acceleration than was requested at earlier levels of review. CAP recommended advancement without promotion or promotion with less of an acceleration in eight cases. The remaining cases had not been supported at one or more previous levels of review. In all of these cases, teaching and service were considered commensurate with advancement, with concerns surrounding research impact or creative activity. In all cases there was evidence that work in progress, when brought to fruition, would warrant the advancement.

High Level Merits: CAP considered a total of 44 actions for Professor, Step VI, 5 for Professor, Step VII (accelerations only), 17 for Professor, Step VIII and 12 for Professor, Step IX. CAP supported 52 (67%) of these actions (Tables 6, 7, 8, 9). CAP supported 28 actions for advancement to Professor, Step VI as proposed, and recommended less of an acceleration in 2 cases. In one case, CAP recommended further advancement not proposed at any earlier level of review. Of the 14 actions to Professor, Step VI, not supported by CAP, 8 were not supported at one or more earlier levels of review, and CAP was divided in its recommendation for one additional case.

There were a total of 34 actions for Professor, Step VII (accelerations), VIII and IX. CAP supported 24 of these actions, including 2 cases for which CAP recommended additional advancement. CAP recommended advancement, but less than that proposed, in 2 additional cases and was divided in two cases.

Above Scale Actions: There were a total of 17 Above Scale advancement requests (Tables 10 and 11). CAP supported advancement in 14 cases, and recommended advancement in addition to that requested by the faculty member in 3 cases. CAP recommended less than the proposed action in one case.

Other Merit Actions: CAP considered accelerated actions within rank at the Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor rank. At the Assistant level, two accelerations were approved as requested and a third was approved as a merit increase. Four accelerated advancements within the Associate Professor ranks were proposed. CAP supported two and recommended normal advancement in one case. CAP considered nine recommendations for normal advancement within the Associate Professor rank and supported seven.

For the rank of Professor, CAP considered a total of 29 actions (Tables 12, 13, 14, 15). Thirteen of these actions were normal actions and CAP supported all 13, including advancement in addition to that requested by the faculty member in one case. Sixteen were accelerations. CAP supported 6, was divided in one, and recommended less of an advancement in 4 actions. One of the remaining actions was not supported by at least one earlier level of review. In the remaining actions, CAP judged that the acceleration requested was not warranted by the record, with at least one area, teaching or research, not supporting acceleration.

Off-Scale Requests: In reviewing numerous requests for off-scale salary increments, CAP has become acutely aware that in some fields the salaries offered at the University of California, Davis are systematically well below those being offered to our faculty and faculty candidates by other public institutions of comparable academic stature. This year CAP requested that the Vice Provost investigate the comparison institutions used for the establishment of the UC faculty salary scale. CAP will continue to raise this issue vigorously. CAP considered a total of 41 off-scale requests, and 71% of these were recommended for approval. In cases where CAP did not recommend approval, the rationale for the off-scale was not apparent from the record presented. CAP does not automatically support off-scales in cases of recruitment to another institution. The record of scholarship must support the retention effort.

Appeals and Reconsiderations: The Academic Senate changed the Bylaw regarding appeals in the spring of 2001 (see below), requiring that all appeals first be reviewed by an Academic Personnel Adviser. Appeals of Faculty Personnel Committee decisions are now considered by CAP and appeals of CAP’s decisions considered by a different committee. CAP was asked to consider seven appeals from the 2000-01 academic year by the Vice Provost following the appeals protocol in place before spring of 2001. This was so that all actions from that year would be evaluated using an identical process. There was considerable confusion among the faculty and departments over the new appeals process and what constituted a reconsideration versus an appeal. A “reconsideration” is defined as an action that contains new information or corrects information in the dossier. Reconsiderations return to the original reviewing committee. Items labeled “appeals” as well as “reconsiderations” were all forwarded to CAP this year. CAP reviewed the cases submitted to it to determine which ones were truly reconsiderations and which were more correctly appeals. There were seven actions considered to be appeals by CAP with the Vice Provost’s concurrence. These appeals are on hold until the new appeals process is defined.

CAP received 9 appeals of actions from Faculty Personnel Committees and supported 4 of these appeals. In all four cases, CAP’s recommendation for advancement was based upon compelling new evidence presented by the candidate or the Department. Thus, these actions fit the criteria for a reconsideration. However, they were still evaluated by CAP.

“Overrides”: The Vice Provost concurred with CAP’s recommendation in 134 of 146 promotion or high level merit advancements requiring outside review, disagreeing with CAP’s recommendation in 12 (8%) of the cases. Of merit advancements in the Professorial ranks, CAP and the Vice Provost concurred in 68 of 78 actions, disagreeing in 10 cases. For other types of actions, the Vice Provost disagreed with CAP an additional 11 times for a total of 43 overrides of CAP recommendations. In 4 cases the Vice Provost’s decision was less favorable to the candidate than CAP’s recommendation, and in 39 cases it was more favorable. In contrast, for the last few years the Vice Provost reversed CAP’s recommendation for these actions in 10 to 14 cases with a similar total number of actions. In past years, the incidents of reversals all concerned non-academic criteria or the record of the candidate as an administrator. CAP is not provided with any formal evaluation of the administrative record so must limit its comments on these cases to the academic record.

CAP was concerned with the high level of reversal of CAP recommendations. CAP offered a divided recommendation on fifteen of the actions. In all cases, the Vice Provost concurred with the minority of CAP recommending advancement. Eight actions were awarded one year hence, an action no longer considered by CAP for this academic year at the request of the Vice Provost. In these cases, the Vice Provost considered awards and publications published after the December 31 deadline, a practice not followed by CAP. In the interest of fairness, CAP hopes that all faculty for whom CAP has not supported advancement are being given the opportunity to add material to their files after the posted deadline, and has expressed this concern to the Vice Provost. Five of these actions were disagreements over the level of appointment of a candidate.

The remaining fifteen overrides were differences of opinion. Six of these were overrides of negative decisions of the previous Vice Provost, with whom CAP had concurred. In the remaining cases, some were awarded advancement on the strength of administrative service records, involved non-academic criteria or were a disagreement over the relative importance of the teaching record. CAP has discussed the high level of reversals with the Vice Provost, especially those due to information not available to CAP.

CAP Action Data Presented by College, School or Division: The distribution of actions by campus unit is presented in Table 16. The results of the actions by campus units are presented in Tables 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24). A summary of the actions by the Faculty Personnel Committees are given in Tables 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32). A summary is presented in Table 33.

Equity Analysis: Many faculty are concerned that women and members of ethnic minorities are disadvantaged in the merit and promotion system. The numbers of minority faculty requesting advancement in any one year is too low to allow detection of any trends, but a significant number of actions from women faculty members do occur on an annual basis. CAP therefore analyzed the percentage of women seeking advancement, seeking accelerated advancement and seeking deferral, to determine if there were any patterns that indicated gender inequity in the personnel process. Only one (9%) of the 11 deferral requests was from a female colleague. Of the promotion actions, 27% of the total actions and 20% of the acceleration requests for promotion to Associate Professor were from women faculty members. At the Professorial level, 32.6% of the actions and 21.4% of the acceleration requests were from women faculty members. Of the acceleration requests within rank, 21% were from women faculty members. Thus, the percentage of women faculty seeking accelerated advancement is slightly lower than those seeking normal advancement. From this data set, however, it is not possible to determine if this defines a clear trend. Of the accelerations endorsed by CAP, 1/3^rd were for women. Requests for accelerations were approved for 2/3^rd of the cases for female faculty members and for slightly less than half (48%) of male faculty members. Thus, although women comprised a smaller percentage of the requests for acceleration, the cases presented were on average stronger. Further, of the 11 cases where CAP recommended accelerated advancement based on equity review, 27% were women. With respect to off-scale requests, 28% were for female faculty members, and 28% of the negative recommendations by CAP were for female faculty members. CAP recommends that this type of analysis be done every year and included in the CAP annual report.

Disagreements with Previous Levels of Review: There are several reasons why CAP may make a recommendation different from one made at earlier levels of review. The difference can reflect a genuine difference in judgment regarding the merits of a case. For example, there are circumstances under which previous levels of review have concluded that aspects of the record are marginal or below expectations for the unit but nonetheless recommend advancement. A central issue sometimes concerns how weak a record may be and still be acceptable for advancement. In such cases, CAP is guided by the norms established across campus, based in part on past practice, and by the need to reconcile deferral actions with those actions going forward. As reviewing entities preceding CAP do not have the opportunity to make these kinds of comparative evaluations, disagreements result.

There are other reasons why CAP may disagree with an earlier review. These frequently center around the use of inappropriate (as stipulated in the APM) or non-academic criteria applied by the earlier reviewing entities, such as including works submitted or in preparation as a basis for a recommendation, the use of income generated by a candidate for the university as a criterion, the desire to grant salary parity to a candidate, illness of the candidate as a justification for the candidate’s failure to meet expectations (the vast majority of departments recommend deferral in such cases), reliance on quantity of effort rather than quality and impact, and recommendations based on a candidate’s personal interactions with colleagues. Some departments equate publication outlets for which there is a chance of acceptance with those for which there is a chance of rejection. Clearly, acceptance in the former type of peer-reviewed outlet indicates the impact and novelty of the work. A second concern is the apparent requirement of some reviewers for the works to be “favorably reviewed” in the literature. Favorable reviews are indeed one indication of the quality and impact of a scholarly contribution. In CAP’s assessment, however, a controversial work that receives mixed reviews may be excellent scholarship.

CAP hopes that the incidence of such disagreements will diminish once departments clearly articulate criteria for advancement. Nonetheless, CAP must go on record as stating that not all of the reviews provided to it have been balanced and evaluative. CAP has perceived that in some cases, the reviewing entities preceding it have seemed to proceed on the assumption that the critical judgments could be deferred to CAP and their role is one of advocacy for the candidate.

CAP Action on Resolutions of the Representative Assembly of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate, adopted Spring 2001.

The Davis Division of the Academic Senate, at the May 24, 2001 meeting of the Representative Assembly of the Academic Senate, adopted the following seven resolutions that were forwarded to CAP for action.

Resolution 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.”

Action taken: The reports were distributed to CAP members and discussed over the course of several meetings held during the year, and CAP consulted them when it formulated recommendations and took action on the remainder of the resolutions.

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.”

CAP strongly supports this resolution. Often, when CAP has disagreed with the conclusions of previous levels of review, the reason for the disagreement has been the lack of clear criteria for advancement within a department, or the inconsistency of application of criteria from one case to another within a department, raising serious issues of equity from CAP’s perspective. Furthermore, some departmental evaluations have not been truly evaluative, rather having been enumerative, with generic and unsubstantiated statements regarding the impact of the candidate’s work. The establishment of clear departmental criteria for advancement, in keeping with the criteria outlined in the APM, will eliminate the current inconsistency of application of criteria that has resulted in faculty being treated inequitably. CAP’s only concern with this resolution is the potential for loss of flexibility in applying the criteria for advancement. Because these criteria form the basis of the appeals process, there is the possibility that they will be rigidly interpreted, especially by the administration. All reviewing bodies should adhere to established criteria for advancement while retaining the flexibility in application of those criteria as granted in the APM. Clearly, waiving of the established criteria would have to be fully justified.

As noted in last year’s report of the Committee on Academic Personnel, several departments had immediately submitted their standards and criteria for advancement to CAP. In the fall of 2001, the Vice Provost informed CAP that the establishment of criteria for advancement of faculty is the purview of the administration, and indicated that although CAP could request the criteria as indicated in the Bylaws of the Academic Senate, CAP could not use the criteria in evaluation of a candidate, nor would the criteria be given to an Ad Hoc Committee. This same issue arose repeatedly in discussions involving the Chair of CAP and the Vice Provost with Faculty Personnel Committees, Department Chairs and Deans during the fall quarter. Faculty and administrators were equally concerned that the resolution did not define a process by which the standards that a Department wished to submit would be evaluated for consistency with the Academic Personnel Manual. At issue was the central role these criteria and expectations for performance would play in the appeals process.

Rather than go forward with the solicitation of standards and criteria for advancement under these circumstances, CAP elected to negotiate an approval process with the Vice Provost so that the departmental criteria could be considered in the evaluation of candidates for advancement. CAP and the Vice Provost agreed to a process involving initial review of department standards and criteria for advancement by the Faculty Personnel Committees, followed by approval by the respective Dean. The criteria would then be forwarded by the Dean to CAP. CAP will review the criteria for consistency across campus and with the APM and make a recommendation on acceptance or rejection to the Vice Provost. The Vice Provost will have the ultimate authority to approve or reject the proposed departmental criteria.

Bylaw 41 requires CAP to consult with the Division and/or Executive Council on matters of new or changes in policy. The Vice Provost therefore called a meeting attended by the Chair of CAP, Linda Bisson, the Vice Provost, and the Chair of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate, Jeffery Gibeling, in January of 2002 to discuss the review and approval process for departmental criteria of scholarship and to determine what further consultation with the Academic Senate was necessary. The Chair of the Academic Senate concurred with the process that had been developed, and indicated no further consultation was needed. The Vice Provost then requested that the Chair of the Academic Senate send a letter informing the departments of this criteria approval process so it would be clear that it had the full endorsement of the Academic Senate. That letter would then be followed by CAP’s request for the departmental criteria to be submitted to CAP following review by the Faculty Personnel Committees and Dean’s approval.

The second issue that was raised during the meetings with the Faculty Personnel Committees and Department Chairs was the following: the resolution instructed CAP to request criteria from the Departments, but it did not require Departments to respond. Several Departments indicated to various CAP members and to their Deans that they would not respond. Their main concerns echoed CAP’s, that the criteria would be too rigidly applied. CAP was concerned that the Departments that declined to participate might be those that have not consistently provided evaluative assessments of faculty performance in recommendations for advancement. Given the proposed importance of these criteria and as a matter of equitable treatment of all faculty, CAP concluded that for these criteria to be meaningful, they would have to be provided by all Departments. The Vice Provost indicated that for the criteria to be used in the personnel process, all departments would have to respond. CAP therefore requested that the memo from the Chair of the Academic Senate stipulate that Departments would be expected to respond to the request from CAP to provide criteria and standards for faculty evaluation. The issue of how Departments who failed to respond to this request would be handled was raised by the Vice Provost, but not resolved. CAP believes it is inappropriate for CAP to play a role in any sanctions against Departments who do not comply with the request to submit criteria of scholarship.

Action taken: In July of 2002, a letter from the Chair of the Academic Senate was sent to each Department clarifying the nature of the review and approval process and the requirement for each Department to provide a statement of its standards and criteria for advancement. CAP followed with the request for criteria and standards for the evaluation of faculty performance. CAP would like to take this opportunity to apologize for the confusion caused to those Departments that received CAP’s letter prior to that of the Chair of the Academic Senate.

Resolution 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.

Action taken: The Vice Provost, with the participation of CAP, conducted a review of the Annual Call. Several changes were made on the basis of this review. CAP will review the Annual Call on a regular basis and continue to provide advice to the Vice Provost. One issue of strong concern to CAP was the example letter for Chairs. This letter is unsatisfactory as it is not truly evaluative of faculty performance, is nonspecific in its attempt to fit all disciplines, and is reiterative of other documentation within the file. CAP is continuing to work with the Vice Provost to develop more useful tools to guide Department Chairs in the personnel process.

Resolution 4: “The Committee on Academic Personnel should work closely with the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel to reorganize and streamline the review files for personnel actions in the manner discussed in the SCAPP report.”

Action taken: The SCAPP report offered suggestions primarily for the streamlining of within rank advancements. Therefore, CAP invited comments from the Faculty Personnel Committees regarding the reorganization and streamlining of review files. Written comments have been received from three committees (DBS, L&S, CAES). Rather than offering suggestions for elimination of material from the packet, these comments reaffirm the utility of the information that is presented on a broad disciplinary base. Other specific recommendations were often conflicting. What one unit found dispensable, another found vital to their evaluative process. Suggestions for reorganizing the presentation of material were also received. Consequently, CAP has not yet made its final recommendations, and before doing so, CAP will again request comments from the five committees that have not responded. CAP concurs with several of the suggestions from the SCAPP report about ways to streamline the merit review process and will reconcile the conflicting views of the Faculty Personnel Committees in light of these recommendations.

Resolution 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 the 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 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 for service 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.”

Action taken: The Ad Hoc Committees are advisory to and appointed by the Vice Provost. Consequently, the Administration has responded to these issues in a letter (from Provost Hinshaw to Chair Gibeling, January 14, 2002). CAP was consulted by the Vice Provost regarding the issues prior to the response from the Provost. The Provost’s response is summarized here:

(a): The Vice Provost is communicating this information to Department Chairs.

(b): The Provost declined to change the current process by which CAP recommends committee members. CAP presently recommends three committee members, plus one or two alternates depending upon the case, and CAP requests return of the packet to CAP for subsequent recommendations if three members willing to serve cannot be identified from the initial list of four or five. In some rare cases the Vice Provost, on the basis of information not available to CAP, declines a recommendation made by CAP and discusses the reasons, which are usually confidential, with the Chair of CAP. Faculty who have a close personal or professional relationship with the candidate as determined by CAP’s initial review of the file are not recommended for committee service.

(c): The database used by CAP is inclusive and lists all faculty in all Academic Senate titles including emeriti. CAP has access to the full database, which is updated during the year. CAP notes, however, that the database includes information requested from faculty about their fields of interest rather than their fields of expertise, and some entries are more detailed and up to date than others. It is sometimes difficult for CAP to judge how well a faculty member is able to evaluate the record of a candidate based on the narrowness of some entries. The Vice Provost concurred with CAP in this assessment, and in recent instructions to faculty requested that they fill out the field of interest from the perspective of helping CAP use this information as a basis for recommending membership of Ad Hoc Committees.

(d): Declined by the Provost. The primary role of an Ad Hoc Committee is to provide an assessment of the record of creative work or research of the candidate. This can best be done when the Ad Hoc Committee members have expertise in the area. CAP does not have sufficient expertise to evaluate the impact of scholarship in all of the areas represented on campus. Accordingly, CAP relies on that expertise residing in the Ad Hoc Committee. CAP is aware that a single Ad Hoc Committee member in a three-member committee could exert undue influence. However, the greater concern is diluting the expertise of the Ad Hoc Committee.

(e): Implementation of this suggestion was deemed inappropriate by the Provost in order to be in compliance with Academic Senate Bylaw 55. However, when warranted by expertise or distance from the candidate, CAP has relaxed the at-or-above rule on a case-by-case basis in making recommendations for Ad Hoc Committee membership and the Vice Provost has concurred with CAP’s recommendations.

(f): Endorsed.

(g): Supported by the Office of the Provost.

CAP voiced concerns regarding items (a) and (g). Particularly with respect to item (a), CAP anticipated that in some circumstances it would be possible for a Department Chair to determine on which Ad Hoc Committee a faculty member had served. Further, if such service were spelled out in a subsequent dossier, it could be possible for other faculty within the unit to determine which committees a faculty member had served on. The possibility that this service might not be kept strictly confidential is unacceptable. With respect to item (g), the timing of notification of the members of the Ad Hoc Committee of the outcome of a decision would need to follow that of the notification of the candidate. As a point of clarification, CAP suggests that the statement in “a” that the record of requests to serve on Ad Hoc Committees be changed to “. . . required part of the department letter in any personnel action,” as there is a distinction between department and chair letters in personnel actions, unless the expectation is that in addition to department letters, all chairs will now be required to write a separate chair’s letter detailing Ad Hoc Committee service.

The Provost did not support the reintroduction of five-member committees at this time but will revisit the issue once the culture of service on Ad Hoc Committees presumably changes on the campus. Instead, the Provost offered an alternative suggestion, that three-voting member committees be retained but that the departmental representative be a non-voting member, in effect creating a four-member committee with respect to discussion of the merits of the case (although only three members would vote on the action). This option was offered to the Academic Senate for consideration.

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.”

Action taken: A policy on recusement for CAP was already in existence at the time this resolution was adopted. CAP was unable to determine the origin of this document. CAP reviewed the document and made some changes to the wording, and contacted CAP committees at our sister University of California campuses to determine what their recusal policies were. Our recusal policy is similar to that of the Berkeley campus.

Before enacting the recusal policy, CAP requested a clarification of the nature of a vote on an advisory committee. In several documents, votes on personnel committees are equated with votes at the department level. CAP is concerned by the practice of equating a vote on a personnel committee with departmental voting rights and the potential violation of voting rights as granted under Bylaw 55 by a recusal policy. Current practice is to require that faculty on personnel committees not vote at the department level to avoid “voting twice” on an action. Bylaw 55 stipulates that no restrictions can be placed on a right to vote. CAP requested a review of the new recusal policy by the appropriate body of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate, particularly with respect to Bylaw 55. Chair Gibeling forwarded the policy to the Chair of the Committee on Elections, Rules and Jurisdiction.

SCAPP recommended that the policy be changed so that no member of CAP participate in the review of an action from a colleague of the same Department, stating that to do so would constitute a clear conflict of interest. CAP is not convinced that this is automatically the case. CAP members currently recuse themselves when there is a close personal or professional relationship with the candidate regardless of his or her departmental home.

Resolution 7: The following procedures for ad hoc committees shall be adopted. (Procedures are not repeated here)

Action taken: This resolution concerns procedures by which Ad Hoc Committee members submit, review and sign reports. This is currently the responsibility of the Provost’s Office. Next year the Academic Senate Office will handle reports, and CAP recommends that the Academic Senate staff follow the procedures as stipulated in this resolution.

Consultation with the Vice Provost on Changes Proposed to Bylaw 45 “Review of Personnel Actions”

CAP was asked by the Vice Provost to comment on the proposed changes to Bylaw 45 concerning the establishment of a review process adopted by the Davis Division of the Academic Senate on May 24, 2002:

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

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

a. An appeal shall be transmitted to the Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure through an Academic Personnel Adviser and 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 appoint the chair of the Appeals Committee. The Committee on Academic Personnel and the appellant shall select one member each.

b. Each Ad Hoc Appeal Committee shall consist of three members. The Chair of the Committee on Privilege and Tenure shall appoint the chair of the Appeals Committee. The Committee on Academic Personnel and the appellant shall select one member each.

c. The Ad Hoc Appeal Committee should state clearly the reason for its decision and should address the issues raised by the appellant.

CAP concurs with the suggestion that appeals of Faculty Personnel Committees be forwarded to CAP for consideration. This policy was instituted this year. However, these appeals are not yet all being transmitted via an Academic Personnel Adviser and instead most have been provided by the candidate and the Department (see section on appeals, above).

With respect to the appeals process regarding a CAP recommendation, CAP concurs that there is merit in directing appeals to a different body. However, CAP committee members unanimously agreed that CAP should play no role in the appeals process. This opinion was transmitted to the Vice Provost.

CAP’s primary function is to assure fair and equitable treatment of faculty across campus. On occasion a negative recommendation is rendered because the record of the faculty member is judged not to be of the caliber of colleagues at the same rank and step within the same discipline or Department. CAP is assisted in its evaluation by reviewing deferral requests that sometimes more clearly stipulate the expectations for advancement in a Department than the letters accompanying promotion actions. CAP must reconcile criteria given in deferral actions with the record of faculty who are recommended for advancement by the same Department or unit. Because CAP reviews some hundreds of cases per year, CAP becomes calibrated to the norm of expectations across campus as well as within a given department. CAP is concerned that a process that does not involve a similar element of calibration will not have credibility with the administration.

CAP is particularly concerned about the proposed element of advocacy in the review process. Numerous studies have linked processes of advocacy to the persistence of inequity in hiring and advancement in academia. CAP does not support any practice, no matter how well intended, that can lead to inequity in the advancement of faculty. CAP also notes that the concerns expressed in the SCAPP report concerning three-member Ad Hoc Committees would be applicable to this proposed appeal process.

CAP letters are advisory to the Vice Provost and as such may not contain sufficient information to allow faculty to understand the basis of a negative recommendation, let alone a negative decision from the Vice Provost. CAP, to the extent that confidentiality of the process is not violated, will expand upon the reasons for a negative recommendation. However, CAP notes that this is not the process that is utilized on most of our sister campuses. Instead, on those campuses, the Chancellor or Chancellor’s designee provides a detailed letter to the faculty member elucidating the reasons for a negative decision, as the decision is made by the Administration. Although there is concurrence between CAP’s recommendation and the Vice Provost’s decision in most cases, there are cases about which we disagree. Because the Vice Provost does not always follow CAP’s recommendation, CAP believes that each candidate is entitled to a clear statement from the Vice Provost as to the basis for the decision.

Evaluation of Impact of Other Recommendations from the Academic Senate Review of the Personnel Process

Relocation of CAP to Academic Senate Offices: This spring CAP was relocated along with the Academic Senate Office from Mrak Hall to Voorhies. From CAP’s perspective, there have been no major problems with this relocation, although the evaluation of some files has been delayed by problems with materials missing from the file, and information that was inadvertently retained in the Vice Provost’s Office; furthermore, there have been some issues of Dean’s offices contacting one or the other office and information not being transmitted to CAP in a timely fashion. CAP views these problems as easily corrected once the campus adapts to the physical separation of the two offices.

One issue of concern to CAP is adequate staffing. As mentioned in the Executive Summary, CAP member Jan Ilkiw created a database allowing tracking of all personnel actions by the Academic Senate. Adequate staffing should be made available to enter data into this database on an ongoing basis. CAP is further concerned that the current staffing level is insufficient to also handle Ad Hoc Committee appointments and report preparation.

Redelegated Merit Actions: This year the first actions of Department Chairs and advancements to Professor, Step VII, were redelegated to the Faculty Personnel Committees and the Deans. With respect to Chair actions, some Faculty Personnel Committees report that they found the process problematic. In most cases, advancement is dependent upon the strength of the candidate’s record of service as Chair or Director. Evaluations of Chair performance are the responsibility of the Dean. Some Faculty Personnel Committees judged that they needed to obtain an evaluation of the candidate’s performance as Chair from the Dean in order to make a recommendation back to the same Dean. These committees are dissatisfied with this process. The Vice Provost and CAP will review this redelegation after further consultation with the Faculty Personnel Committees.

CAP would like to commend the School of Medicine for the process they have adopted for the evaluation of Chairs. A School Faculty Committee is appointed to conduct a detailed analysis of the performance, impact, and effectiveness of the Chair. The Committee’s detailed report is then included in the record for subsequent personnel actions. CAP has found these evaluations quite useful in the assessment of effective administrative service. In some units, primarily anecdotal information is provided regarding the evaluation of the administrative record of a Chair. Our experience is that the advancement of a Chair often hinges upon the record as Chair. CAP understands that such evaluation is the responsibility of the Administration, and stresses that it is difficult to make a recommendation for an action when insufficient documentation is provided.

Concerning merit advancements to Professor, Step VII, some Faculty Personnel Committees were unfamiliar with the requirements as stipulated in the APM, and during meetings with the Vice Provost and Chair of CAP, noted that the commonly held faculty view of advancements at this level of the professoriate in their units was inconsistent with the APM. Faculty Personnel Committees were instructed to comply with the APM when making recommendations for advancement at this level. During the post-factum audit, CAP concurred with the majority of decisions to advance to Step VII. Those cases with which CAP did not concur will be discussed with the Faculty Personnel Committees.

Policies, Procedures and Issues Considered by CAP

Retroactive Merits: Every file that comes before CAP is automatically subjected to an equity review. On occasion, CAP determines that the candidate would have been successful if an accelerated advancement had been requested the previous year. It is CAP’s practice in these situations to recommend that the action be retroactive to the previous July. This practice resulted in significant debate among the Deans and Faculty Personnel Committees, and the Vice Provost asked CAP to reconsider and justify it. The Deans believed that faculty were penalized at the next action following a retroactive advancement, as they had fewer years at step to produce a record warranting advancement during the next cycle. After consulting with Faculty Personnel Committees, CAP determined that there was a widely held belief that in making a recommendation for retroactive advancement, CAP was including creative works published after the date of the recommended advancement. This was not the case; CAP considered only the record up to December 31^st of the year before the retroactive advancement. In other words, if an action were proposed for July 2002 and CAP judged that a retroactive advancement to July 2001 was warranted, CAP would consider only publications and creative works through December of 2000, as would have been the case if the action had been submitted the previous year. CAP wished to retain the ability to recommend retroactive merits. After discussions with the Vice Provost, it was agreed that CAP in its letter to the Vice Provost will stipulate specifically the materials included in the recommended retroactive action and those that were excluded, in essence “drawing the line” for the next action. Further, Faculty Personnel Committees were informed of the criteria for retroactive advancement and asked to consider this possibility during their review of files. At the Vice Provost’s request, all Faculty Personnel Committee actions recommending retroactive advancement are forwarded to CAP for comment. These practices were adopted this year.

One Year Hence Advancements Without Further Review: Another CAP practice that was questioned by the Vice Provost was the recommendation to award advancement in a subsequent year without further review. The CAP web page listed the following criteria for such advancements: “CAP does not have a policy concerning future advancement without further review (in lieu of acceleration), beyond noting that such advancements are rare and generally recommended reluctantly. CAP acknowledges the common-sense notion that a faculty member who is judged eligible for advancement a year hence, based on the present record, might well be considered eligible for advancement at once. However, in cases where a majority of CAP does not find a record supportive of acceleration, the minority that supports the acceleration can sometimes persuade the majority to recommend normal advancement one year hence without further review. Advancement a year hence without further review gives a slight acceleration in any case, since the line is drawn immediately below the publications considered during the current review period. All subsequent publications are considered in the next personnel review. In such cases, a faculty member may continue to accumulate research publication records that will support acceleration in the future.” (REVISED: 3/25/98)

The Vice Provost decided that this practice, as described on the CAP web site, violated the APM, and expressed the additional concern that the practice could encourage frivolous acceleration requests. Such recommendations were made primarily in cases in which a multiyear acceleration was requested, when CAP judged the record to be consistent with an acceleration of lesser magnitude. This could be accomplished by making the acceleration effective in a subsequent year. On rare occasions, CAP would make a recommendation for advancement one year hence when it judged acceleration was not warranted but normal advancement was. This practice was adopted largely to save candidates and their departments the trouble of submitting a packet in the subsequent year. Awarding the advancement in a subsequent year led to the perception among Deans and faculty that works submitted or in progress were being considered.

The Vice Provost requested that CAP make a recommendation only on the acceleration as proposed for this academic year. After much deliberation, CAP decided that the practice of recommending advancements in subsequent years without further review was problematic, and agreed to suspend this practice until clearer guidelines could be established. Instead, CAP will note in its recommendation to the Vice Provost that some accelerated advancement is warranted, but not to the extent requested by the candidate and the department.

CAP was concerned by the number of times the Vice Provost awarded advancement without further review this past year. CAP informed the Vice Provost of our dissatisfaction with this process and the lack of Academic Senate consultation in the awarding of these types of advancement. Based on our objections, CAP will regain its involvement in recommending and reviewing these actions next year.

Procedure for the Appointment of Faculty Personnel Committees: A legislative ruling from the Committee on Elections, Rules, and Jurisdiction concerning the scope of the permissible role of the dean in the appointment of college personnel committees under Davis Division Bylaw 43 was requested by a faculty member. CAP, following recommendations from the faculty executive committee of the schools, division and colleges, appoints faculty personnel committees. The Chair of CAP informed the Committee on Elections, Rules, and Jurisdiction that letters nominating faculty for Faculty Personnel Committee service come directly from the Chair of the Faculty Executive Committee in some units, from the Dean on behalf of the Faculty Executive Committee in others or from the Dean directly.

The Committee on Elections, Rules, and Jurisdiction has ruled (June 14, 2002) that nominations of faculty for service on Faculty Personnel Committees must come directly to CAP from the Chair of the Faculty Executive Committee and may not be transmitted through a Dean’s office or under the signature of a Dean or other Administrator. The Committee on Elections, Rules, and Jurisdiction has also ruled that the practice for nomination of faculty for service on the Division of Biological Sciences personnel committee is inconsistent with Senate bylaw 43 and instructed CAP to obtain nominees for the Division of Biological Sciences personnel committee from the Faculty Executive Committees of the College of Letters and Science and the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. CAP will no longer accept letters of nomination of faculty for service on Faculty Personnel Committees that have come from a Dean. A letter to that effect was sent to all Deans and Chairs of Faculty Executive Committees by Jeffery C. Gibeling, Chair of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate, in July of 2002.

Standards for Appointment and Advancement of Faculty in the Clinical X Series: In academic year 2000-01, CAP raised concerns with the Chair of the Academic Senate and the Vice Provost regarding the disparity in application of standards for advancement of faculty in the Clinical X series. Departments were interpreting the criteria for advancement in this series given in the APM quite differently, which raised a serious concern regarding equity. For faculty with virtually equivalent records in different departments, CAP was routinely receiving negative recommendations for advancement from one Department but recommendations for accelerated advancement from another. Attempts to waive requirements for advancement were common in some units, ostensibly justified on the basis of clinical load carried by the faculty member, and the inability of the Department to provide the faculty member with protected time for

Annual Report of the Committee on Academic Personnel

Executive Summary

Introduction

Academic Personnel Actions, 2001-2002

Consultation with the Vice Provost on Changes Proposed to Bylaw 45 “Review of Personnel Actions”

Policies, Procedures and Issues Considered by CAP