Indicates the role of the department chair in initiating and conducting academic personnel reviews.
The department chair is responsible for making certain that there is an annual informal review of the status of each faculty member in the department with regard to his/her time at rank and step. (See Appendix I for guidelines on computing time at rank and step.) It is suggested that this annual review take place in late spring in order to determine which faculty will be eligible for normal merit increases, promotions, or other mandatory reviews in the following academic year.
The chair is asked to annotate the Annual Progress Report with the results of the preliminary review and to submit the report to Academic Personnel. The report form issued by Academic Personnel indicates the time at rank and step for each faculty member. The chair should verify this information and mark the report with the personnel action which the department intends to consider (including “none”) for each faculty member. The Progress Report is reviewed by Academic Personnel to ensure that all mandatory reviews are conducted. (See Appendix II for more information on the Annual Progress Report.)
A formal academic review is required for all individuals who are eligible for normal advancement or due for mandatory review and for those individuals who are judged by the department as deserving of acceleration. A review for an acceleration may be initiated either by the individual, the department, or the chair. Formal review should also be considered in cases of unsatisfactory performance.
It should be stressed to the candidate and all departmental reviewers that advancement is dependent upon demonstration of achievement in areas of the candidate’s responsibility.
In 1977 (Revised in 1992), the University adopted policies to assure fairness in the academic review process. These policies are contained in APM Policies 160, 160 Appendices A and B, 200, and 220 and in the local campus implementation of these policies in Section APP 1-12 of this manual. Department chairs are responsible for adherence to these policies and procedures and may wish to provide copies of the pertinent APM and APP sections to the candidate and to discuss them with the candidate. Chairs may find the checklist “Chair’s Guide for Academic Personnel Reviews” (Form UCI-AP-15) useful in discharging this duty.
The department chair bears responsibility for presenting and documenting the departmental recommendation for subsequent review levels. In larger departments, however, it may be advantageous for a departmental committee to be appointed to draft the department letter.
The chair may also provide an independent assessment of the case that is separate from the department letter. The chair then forwards the completed dossier to the dean, including the appropriate publications and teaching evaluations.
After the dean has provided his or her recommendation on the case, the dossier is sent to the appropriate analyst in Academic Personnel, who forwards it to CAP on behalf of the Chancellor. If the Executive Vice Chancellor or CAP nominates an ad hoc review committee, the case will be, in most cases, reviewed by the ad hoc, then by CAP. CAP recommends on the case to the Chancellor (for promotions and above scale merit increases) or to the Executive Vice Chancellor (for merit increases).
If, during the course of review, a recommendation is made which is different from the department recommendation, a notification will go back to the level of disagreement. This notice normally summarizes the reasons for the differing recommendation and asks if there is further information to be submitted on behalf of, or, by the candidate. If additional information is added to the file at this point, the chair is responsible for seeing that the candidate is kept informed of the department response, including any additional information that is added to the file at this point. The candidate shall be afforded the opportunity to make a written response for inclusion in the personnel review file. (See Section APP 1- 12).
After the Chancellor’s (or the Executive Vice Chancellor’s) final decision on a review, a letter announcing the merit or promotion is sent to the candidate via the Dean’s office. If the decision is for No Change, a memorandum will be sent to the chair via the Dean; it is then the chair’s responsibility to forward this result to the candidate.
How to Compute Years at Rank and Step to Determine Eligibility for Normal Advancement or Other Required Review
Not to be used to determine years toward 8-year rule.
When reviewing each academic appointee within a department, it is important to know the number of years the individual has served at rank and step in order to determine whether the appointee is eligible for normal advancement or otherwise due for required review.
Normal periods of service are assigned to the various ranks and salary steps in the Academic Salary Scales. Rank is indicated by the payroll title, and step is indicated by a Roman numeral after the title (for example, Assistant Professor, Step II; Associate Professor, Step II; Professor, Step II). The step is not part of the title or the rank. Rather, it is an indicator of the stage of advancement of the individual and is used primarily to keep a record of progress through the rank.
Normal periods of service are tracked by calculating the candidate’s years at rank and step. Years at rank and step are credited on July 1 to indicate the number of years of service as of the following June 30. This means, for instance, that an appointee hired July 1, 1996, is immediately credited with one year at rank and one year at step for purposes of determining whether review is due in the 1996-1997 review cycle. For statistical purposes, years at rank and step for appointees are recorded in the individual salary history records as follows:
- An academic-year (9-month) appointee who is appointed mid-year but who serves at least two full quarters in the fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) will receive one year’s credit at rank and step.
- An academic-year (9-month) appointee who is appointed mid-year and who serves just one quarter in the fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) will not receive credit for that year at rank and step.
- A fiscal-year (11-month) appointee who is appointed during the period July 1 through January 1 will receive one year’s credit at rank and step.
- A fiscal-year (11-month) appointee who is appointed during the period January 2 through June 30 will not receive credit for that year at rank and step.
Special Considerations for Determining Whether Mandatory Review is Due
- Service in an “acting” title does not technically count toward years at rank and step. However, this service should be considered in the review process, particularly when an acting appointment is regularized. This means that a merit increase would not be considered “accelerated” for an assistant professor serving in his or her first year as assistant professor if this was preceded by one year as acting assistant professor.
- Service in an “acting” title does count toward determining years toward the eight-year rule (See APM Policy 133).
- Time served in a “visiting” title does not normally count toward years at rank and step but may be considered in the review process.
- Service in a “visiting” title does count toward determining years toward the eight-year rule (See APM Policy 133).
- If a person is reappointed after an official separation, accruals of time at rank and step are counted only from the date of reappointment.
- If non-reappointed, a person may not be reappointed to certain titles for five years (See APM Policy 133-0-a-(3)).
- If a faculty member transfers to UCI from another UC campus without a break in service, continuous time in eligible titles at the other UC campus counts toward time at rank and step at UCI.
- Periods of leave, with or without salary, normally count toward service in computing the number of years at rank and step. Whether or not the time will count depends on the nature of the leave (e.g., research leave normally will count, medical leave normally will not count). The issue of whether or not the time on leave counts for rank and step (and additionally on the eight-year clock) needs to be resolved at the time the leave is requested (See APM Policy 200-19-3).
Annual Progress Report
Each year Academic Personnel sends the Annual Progress Report to all academic units. This report lists (a) all persons in the Professor Series and equivalent ranks, (b) all non- student academics employed in teaching titles other than the Professor Series, (c) persons in research titles, and (d) Academic Coordinators.
Each unit is responsible for verifying the current status of the individuals listed on the report. In case of additions, corrections, or other discrepancies, please contact the appropriate analyst in Academic Personnel to reconcile the record.
After verifying the present status, the unit should indicate anticipated action for these individuals for the upcoming review cycle in the “Proposed Action” column. Please be aware that the report is of an action which the unit anticipates proposing, and it is not binding. If the anticipated action changes, the unit should inform Academic Personnel.
A list of actions which may be proposed is provided below.
- Merit Increase: Person is being recommended for advancement to a higher step within the same rank. Above-Scale Professors are eligible for merit increases.
- Accelerated Merit: Person is being recommended for advancement in step before serving the normal time at the current step, or person is being recommended for advancement to a higher step than normal.
- Reappointment: Person is being recommended for continued service with no change in step. (It is used for reappointments of assistant professor and equivalent ranks.)
- Mid-career Appraisal: Assistant professor is being reviewed for progress toward tenure, or candidate in another series with a limit on service (i.e., eight-year clock) is undergoing similar review. This review is ordinarily conducted during the fourth year of service but may be done earlier. Results of the review must be given to the candidate in writing.
- Postponement (of Tenure Review): Assistant professor is due for tenure review in the sixth year. The department (with the dean’s approval) has determined that postponement is warranted due to the candidate’s significant work in progress.
- Promotion: Person is being recommended for a promotion to a higher rank within the same series.
- Accelerated Promotion: Person is being recommended for promotion in advance of serving the normal time at the current rank. (NOTE: If the time at the current step has been normal and advancement from that step is normally a promotion, then the action would not necessarily be considered an acceleration.)
- Non-reappointment: Assistant professor is being recommended for a terminal appointment.
- No Action:
Associate professor or higher rank is required to be reviewed for a merit increase or promotion, but the recommendation is against action at this time. (This is not used for assistant professors or others whose appointments must be renewed.)
- Deferral (of Normal Review): Person has requested a one-year postponement of normal review.
- Change in Series: Person is to be appointed to a title in a different series.
- Fifth Year Review: A faculty member at Professor, Step V, or above, is being reviewed for performance after serving five years at the same step.
- None: No recommendation is being made. The person has not yet been at the present rank and step for the “normal” number of years since the previous review or is otherwise not due for review.