|
APP
3-40, Types of Actions
Describes
normal, accelerated, and decelerated actions. A list of
possible actions and their definitions may be found in APP
3-30, Appendix II, Annual Progress Report.
|
ACADEMIC
SENATE TITLES
3-40.
Types of Actions
Scope
of Reviews
Cases
for normal merit increases and accelerations through the level
of Professor, Step V are judged on the basis of accomplishments
since the last action. Cases for promotion (to Associate Professor,
Professor, Professor VI through VIII, or Above Scale) are judged
on the basis both of accomplishments since the last action and
of cumulative accomplishments.
After
the required consultation with members of the faculty, a department
may recommend one of the following actions:
A.
NORMAL MERIT INCREASE OR NORMAL PROMOTION
While
serving in the final year of the normal years at rank or step,
a candidate is eligible to be considered for a promotion or merit
increase which would be effective the following July 1. Normal
years at rank and step are specified in the Notes in Appendix
I, "Normal Time at Step."
"Normal"
time refers to the standard rate at which the majority of faculty
will progress through the ranks and steps. Progress at a faster
rate (acceleration) is discussed below in Section
B. Progress at a slower rate (No Action or deferral) is discussed
below in Section C.
NOTE:
Normal merit increases within Assistant Professor, Associate Professor,
and Professor I-V ranks, although less critical than promotions,
are not automatic and do require demonstrated merit. For normal
merits, the Short Form may be used. (See APP
3-60).
APPENDIX
I
NORMAL
TIME AT STEP (With Overlapping Steps)
Professor
Series or Equivalent Titles
In
the following summary, Assistant Professor, Steps V and VI, are
shown to "overlap" with Associate Professor, Steps I and II, and
Associate Professor, Steps IV and V, are shown to "overlap" with
Professor, Steps I and II. The associated salaries of these overlapping
steps are approximately the same, and time served in the lower
rank may count in lieu of service in the overlapping step at the
higher rank (see the Notes below).
|
Asst
Prof I
Asst Prof II
Asst Prof III
Asst Prof IV |
2
years at each step
|
|
|
|
*Asst
Prof V |
 |
Assoc Prof I
|
2 years at each step
|
|
| *Asst
Prof VI |
|
Assoc Prof II |
*(see
Note 1
below) |
|
Assoc Prof III |
|
|
#Assoc
Prof IV |
 |
Prof I
|
3 years at each step
(see Note 3 below)
|
| #Assoc Prof V |
|
Prof II |
#(see
Note 2
below) |
|
Prof III
Prof IV |
| |
|
Prof
V
Prof VI
Prof VII
Prof VIII |
3
years normal minimum |
|
|
|
Prof
IX
Prof A/S
|
4
years normal minimum
4 years normal minimum at each level
(see Note 4 below) |
Note
1: Assistant Professor Rank
On
this campus, the normal period of service at the rank of Assistant
Professor is six years. (The maximum allowable period
of service may not exceed eight years under the Eight-Year Rule.
See APM 133.) The normal period of service at a given step is
two years.
The
first four steps in rank and corresponding salary levels are
for normal use. Step I may be considered entry level
for a recently completed Ph.D. (in which case, a recommendation
for promotion would be normal after two years at Step III).
Step II or III might be considered entry level for an
appointee with postdoctoral training (in which case, a recommendation
for promotion would be normal after two years at Step IV or
V).
Steps
V and VI may be used in exceptional situations and with proper
justification. Service at Assistant Professor, Step V, may
be in lieu of service at Associate Professor, Step I, for which
the published salary is slightly higher; service at Assistant
Professor, Step VI, may be in lieu of service at Associate Professor,
Step II. Whether or not the time at these steps should count
in lieu of service at the higher level should be addressed at
the time of the promotion review. Promotion to the rank of Associate Professor is such an important advancement in the UC system that promotion to Associate Professor I should be considered appropriate and normal in any advancement, and promotion to a higher step requires additional justification for the proposed step. The record should reflect performance commensurate with the step proposed: if the proposal is for Associate Professor II, for example, the candidate should have performance equivalent to others at that step. It would be helpful to include letters from UC faculty who can address the level proposed.
Note
2: Associate Professor Rank
The
normal period of service at the rank of Associate Professor
is six years. The normal period of service at any one of the
first three steps is two years.
Steps
IV and V may be used in exceptional situations and with proper
justification. Service at Associate Professor, Step IV,
may be partly or entirely in lieu of service at Professor, Step
I, for which the published salary is slightly higher; service
at Associate Professor, Step V, may be partly or entirely in
lieu of service at Professor, Step II. Whether or not the time
at these steps should count as time at the higher level should
be addressed at the time of the promotion review. Promotion to the rank of Professor is such an important advancement in the UC system that promotion to Professor I should be considered appropriate and normal in any advancement, and promotion to a higher step requires additional justification for the proposed step. The record should reflect performance commensurate with the step proposed: if the proposal is for Professor III, for example, the candidate should have performance equivalent to others at that step. It would be helpful to include letters from UC faculty who can address the level proposed.
Note
3: Professor Rank
The
normal period of service at any of the first four steps is three
years. Service at Step V may be of indefinite duration.
Advancement
to Step VI normally will not occur after less than three
years of service at Step V. For review purposes, this advancement
will be treated like a promotion and will be granted on evidence
of great scholarly distinction and national or international
recognition, highly meritorious service, and evidence of excellent
University teaching. (The Committee on Academic Personnel defines
teaching activities broadly to include supervision and mentorship
of graduate students and postdoctoral scholars.) Service at
Step VI may be of indefinite duration.
Advancement
from Professor, Step VI to Step VII, from Step VII to Step VIII,
and from Step VIII to Step IX, usually will not occur after
less than three years of service at the lower step and will
be granted only on evidence of continuing great distinction,
national or international recognition, highly meritorious service
and excellent teaching performance.
Note
4: Professor, Above Scale
Advancement
to an Above Scale salary is reserved for scholars and
teachers of the highest distinction whose work has been internationally
recognized and acclaimed and whose teaching performance is excellent.
Except in rare and compelling cases, advancement will not occur
after less than four years at Step IX. Moreover, mere length
of service and continued good performance at Step VIII is not
a justification for further salary advancement. There must
be demonstration of additional merit and distinction beyond
the performance on which advancement to Step IX was based.
A
further merit increase in salary for a person already serving
at an Above Scale salary level must be justified by new evidence
of merit and distinction. Continued good service is not an adequate
justification. Intervals between such salary increases may be
indefinite, and only in the most superior cases where there
is strong and compelling evidence will advancement at intervals
shorter than four years be approved.
B.
ACCELERATED MERIT INCREASE OR PROMOTION
Accelerated
Merit Increase: An accelerated merit increase occurs when
an individual is awarded a merit increase after serving fewer
years at a given step than is normal for that salary step, or
when an entire step (or more) is skipped.
Accelerated
Promotion: A promotion may be considered accelerated if an
individual is promoted after serving fewer years at a given rank
than normal. There are, however, some special situations, explained
below:
1.
Assistant Professor - Initial Appointment Higher than "Entry
Level" Step I
Promotion from assistant professor to associate professor is normal
after six years at rank. However, an assistant professor who is
appointed to a level higher than Step I on the basis of comparable
service at another institution might serve fewer than six years
in rank on this campus before being proposed for promotion, and
this would not necessarily be considered an acceleration. Thus,
promotion to Associate Professor, Step I, after two years at either
Assistant Professor, Step III, or Assistant Professor, Step IV,
would be considered normal, depending on the context of the action.
2.
Associate Professor - Initial Appointment Higher than Step I
Promotion
from Associate Professor to Professor is normal after six years
at rank. However, an Associate Professor who is appointed to
a level higher than Step I and who has comparable service at
another institution might serve fewer than six years in rank
before being proposed for promotion, and this would not necessarily
be considered an acceleration.
Service
in overlapping steps requires special consideration. For example,
a promotion to Professor, Step II, after three years at Associate
Professor, Step IV, is not an acceleration if the performance
during time at Associate Professor, Step IV, is demonstrated
to be equivalent to the performance expected during the same
time at Professor, Step I. Promotion to Professor I should be considered appropriate and normal in any advancement, and promotion to a higher step should require additional justification for the proposed step.
3.
"Cumulative" Acceleration
Circumstances
inevitably arise which make it debatable whether or not a proposed
promotion is "accelerated." For example, if someone was accelerated
in the past from Associate Professor, Step I, to Associate Professor,
Step III, promotion after two years at Step III could be considered
either to be normal (in terms of usual promotion patterns) or
accelerated, in that the individual is moving through the rank
at an accelerated pace.
In
all cases for promotion, it is necessary first to address the
question of whether the candidate has attained the expected
performance level and record of the proposed rank. If the case
also involves an element of acceleration, that should be addressed
as a secondary issue.
A
recommendation for acceleration will be considered by the voting
members of the department if a request is made by the candidate,
the chair, or any other faculty member of the department eligible
to vote on the recommendation. After departmental review, it
may be determined that the case does not support acceleration.
If the candidate insists on pursuing the acceleration, the department
should forward a file, with its recommendation, for further
review.
A
dossier proposing an acceleration should always include a discussion
of the reasons for the accelerated advancement. In what ways
does the candidate's record justify accelerated advancement?
The case made should be commensurate with the degree of acceleration
proposed.
Major
accelerations will come under particular scrutiny by CAP. In
general, one of the following criteria must be met:
a. Extraordinary scholarship and excellent teaching or service
during the review period; or
b.
Extensive, persuasive documentation that the candidate should
be at the proposed rank vis-a-vis others in the same academic
unit, i.e., is under rank.
NOTE:
Units are discouraged from attempting to "fine-tune" the step
system by recommending accelerated step-and-a-half merits (off-scales)
and are asked to reserve off-scale recommendations for situations,
such as response to outside offers and other market issues,
where salary is a separate issue.
C.
NO ADVANCEMENT
1.
No Review
If a candidate is not due for normal review (is not serving in
the final year of the normal years at step) and, after informal
review, the department decides that no formal action is warranted,
no file need be prepared for the individual.
2.
Deferral
If
an associate professor or professor who is due for normal review
requests that a merit or promotion review be deferred for
one year, a brief memorandum to that effect from the faculty
member should be forwarded, with endorsement by the department
chair, to the appropriate dean for approval. If the deferral
is approved, review must take place the following year.
In
those units organized with formal departments, the dean
has the authority to approve or deny the proposed deferral.
If the dean approves a one-year deferral of review, Academic
Personnel should be informed in writing of the decision.
In
those units organized without formal departments, requests
for deferral should be forwarded, with endorsement by the unit
administrator, to the Executive Vice Chancellor for review and
decision. Such requests should be sent via Academic Personnel.
Review
may not be deferred for an assistant professor, who must be
reviewed for reappointment. In addition, deferral cannot be
approved for an associate professor or professor whose last
action was "No Action" or "Deferral".
3.
No Action
If
the candidate is due for normal review (and has not been granted
a one-year deferral), a file must be prepared and submitted
for review even though the individual is not recommended for
advancement. In such cases, the action recommended is "No Action."
CAP has noted that a "No Action" contemplated at a normal review
period requires careful analysis, especially when it is a repeated
no-action decision. (NOTE: "No Action" is not appropriate
for Assistant Professors, who must, at a minimum, be reappointed.)
a.
First Review After Normal Time at Step
A
number of circumstances can result in a "No Action" recommendation,
and the type of documentation which is submitted can vary
with the seriousness of the "No Action" recommendation. In
cases where the unit and individual agree that "No Action"
is appropriate, the Short Form may be used for an initial
"No Action" review after normal time at step. If there is
disagreement, or if there are other complexities with the
case, a dossier should be prepared as if it were a normal
merit or promotion file, as appropriate.
Where
review after normal time at step has resulted in a decision
for "No Action," the department is expected to consider the
individual each year thereafter in the review cycle to assess
whether the record merits action. However, it is not necessary
for the department to forward a formal review file every year.
Rather, it must do so when:
b.
Subsequent "No Action" Recommendations
The
faculty member must be formally reviewed after serving the
normal years at step subsequent to the first No Action. The
file should be documented as if it were a merit or promotion,
whichever is appropriate.
After
more than one consecutive "No Action" request, an extended
review should be provided. At the time of the extended review,
CAP expects the unit to state what steps it and the candidate
are taking to remedy the situation giving rise to the repeated
"No Action" recommendations. See also the advisory "UCI Senate
Statement on No Action" below.
APPENDIX
III
UCI
SENATE STATEMENT ON NO ACTION/DEFERRAL
The
Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) will be notified whenever
a faculty member receives two "no actions" over any two normal
review periods. CAP will request the dean or director of the appropriate
unit to obtain from the faculty member a written plan for resumption
of a sound and productive program of scholarly work with a specified
time frame for its execution. This plan will be submitted to CAP
six months from its original request, and will become part of
the personnel file. Deans and chairs are urged to aid in the formulation
of such plans by suggesting sources of funding, redirection in
research focus, and/or constructive steps to improve teaching.
COMMENT:
CAP acknowledges that "monitoring" research and creative projects
is odious and therefore we have rejected the UCAP suggestion that
research plans be approved at any level. We have also rejected
other specific proposals in the UCAP memorandum because each case
varies in regard to the relationship of the faculty member to
his department; this procedure is to encourage a resumption or
completion of research and should not involve counterproductive
confrontations.
More
Than Two "No Actions"
More
than two consecutive no actions in a six to nine year period usually
is persuasive evidence of professional negligence or research
"burn out." These two kinds of situations need different responses.
1. For those individuals whose teaching ability is above average
or who have unusual administrative skill, CAP may recommend
a formalized adjustment in the faculty member's obligations to
the University in terms of:
a. an increased teaching load,
b.
increased service responsibilities (without supplementary
stipend),
c.
reduction in percentage of appointment (to the teaching or
service component), with corresponding reduction of salary.
Such
adjustments should be by agreement, in writing, and subject
to readjustment at the request of the faculty member at the
normal review times. Faculty members under such agreements would
retain rank, right to advance, and eligibility to request sabbatical
leave.
2.
CAP is not willing at this time to consider demotion in step
or rank as an appropriate response to cases of faculty members
who do no research and teach poorly. Demotion does not free
an FTE, would not insure a renewal of research activity or save
students from poor teaching. We call attention, instead, to
three forms of phased dismissal specified by UCAP as possible
in the UC system. These are to be considered only in cases of
flagrant and persistent refusal or inability to meet the teaching
and research obligations of a University of California professor.
The
following steps may be used in such cases. (Any unit considering
these options should contact Academic Personnel before
taking any action or entering into discussions with the faculty
member.)
a. Encouragement of faculty member to reduce percentage of appointment,
with corresponding reduction of salary; the negotiation of such
reduction to be the province of the dean or director, voted
upon by the department, and reviewed by CAP as with any personnel
action.
b.
Encouragement of early retirement, possibly with the negotiation
of additional service credits. CAP would not be involved in
such a solution.
c.
Provision of a limited time transition period whereby the
faculty member may start working elsewhere while the University
continues his/her fringe benefits. At the end of such a period,
the faculty member resigns. A modification of this is an outright
"settlement" whereby a faculty member may receive compensation
of some sort for a year or two, in exchange for a resignation.
The cost effectiveness of such a move should be weighted against
the principle of "buying out," which is being implemented
now in limited cases of severe conflict or total dysfunction
among tenured faculty. CAP would not be involved in such solutions.
d.
Dismissals. In flagrant cases, academic units might
recommend dismissal. Such cases must be sent by CAP for ad
hoc review before any final recommendation is made.
|
