Campus Academic Personnel Manual

A. Appointment

1. Deadlines

Close contact with the Academic Personnel Office will facilitate the expeditious handling of ladder rank appointments. RECRUITMENT COMPLIANCE MUST BE APPROVED BEFORE A FILE RECOMMENDING APPOINTMENT WILL BE PROCESSED. Tenured appointments require one to two months to complete, after submission by the dean; untenured appointments require two to four weeks.

2. Policy References

Information concerning appointment policies is contained in:
APM 200 Appointment and Promotion – General
APM 210 Appointment and Promotion – Review and Appraisal Committees
APM 220 Appointment and Promotion – Professor Series
APM 500 Recruitment – General Policy
APM 510 Recruitment – Intercampus Transfers

3. Intercampus Recruitment: PLEASE NOTIFY THE ACADEMIC PERSONNEL OFFICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WHEN A PERMANENT INTERCAMPUS TRANSFER IS BEING RECOMMENDED.

1. When there is a proposal generated by one UC campus to recruit a faculty member from another UC campus, the chancellor of the recruiting campus will notify the other chancellor at the earliest possible moment that such a proposal is under review, and will provide details as to proposed salary, and other recruitment inducements that are being proposed.
2. The salary offered by the recruiting campus can be no more than one step, or the equivalent of one step, above the faculty member’s current salary.
3. Presidential approval must be sought if the package of start-up costs and other inducements (excluding housing assistance) exceeds the current amount set by the UC Provost and Executive Vice President (the current amount is listed on the Faculty Recruitment Allowance page of the UCSC Salary Scales).
4. In any proposed intercampus recruitment, either chancellor may request mediation or intervention by the President, even when this is not triggered by b) or c) above.
   
   APRIL 1: no offer which entails an intercampus transfer shall be made after April 1 for service during the immediately following academic year, unless a later date is mutually agreed to by the chancellors involved.

4. Appointment Procedures

1. Refer to UCSC Campus Policies and Procedures on Academic Recruitment (CAPM 100.500) and Waivers of Open Recruitment for Senate Faculty Positions (CAPM 101.000) for information on conducting the search and documenting recruitment compliance.
2. Recruitment Compliance must be approved before the Academic Personnel Office will process an appointment recommendation. The search number must be documented in the review.
3. External letters: For untenured positions, if external letters solicited during the recruitment are not sufficient for a clear appointment recommendation, the department may choose to solicit additional external letters.
4. The department chair or designee prepares a dossier on the recommended candidate and includes the material enumerated in the Document Inventory for Matrices for appointment in the selected title series. Explain any items that are not included. It is not necessary to complete a Checklist to Assure Fairness for appointments.
5. The faculty members eligible to vote review the dossier. All tenured faculty have the right to vote on all new appointments that confer membership in the Academic Senate. Voting rights may be extended to other senate members in accordance with Bylaw 55 and the department’s voting procedures. Each department should have a copy of its voting procedures on file in the Academic Personnel Office. Prior to a vote, all departmental members of the Academic Senate must be afforded an opportunity to make their opinions known to the voters.
6. The department chair prepares the letter of recommendation analyzing the evidence and forwards it along with the dossier to the dean. Departments establish their own procedures for review of the letter and evidence by other department members. The letter shall report the nature and extent of consultation on the matter within the department (including the vote taken), and present any significant evidence and differences of opinion which would support a different recommendation.
7. The chairperson may write a separate and distinct letter presenting her/his recommendation and evaluation as chairperson. This letter is confidential and is not made available to other department members eligible to vote on the action. The chair’s letter comments on the review file and may not introduce new material. Refer to 200.160 for information concerning the candidate’s access after the review to the department chair’s personal letter.
8. The review file and documents specified in the Document Inventory Matrices for appointment shall be forwarded to the dean for review. The dean may request additional information or clarification from the chairperson. For actions not delegated to the deans, the dean shall review the file, add a written recommendation, and forward the file to the Academic Personnel Office. For delegated actions, see sections m and 5, below.
9. The APO reviews the dossier for conformity to campus procedures and forwards the dossier to the Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP).
10. The CAP reviews the dossier. For cases of appointment to a tenured position, CAP may request an Ad Hoc review committee if it feels there is need (e.g. if the department and/or dean do not support the appointment, and CAP desires additional input on the file).
11. The Ad Hoc review committee normally consists of three faculty members from UC Santa Cruz or other institutions. They review the dossier and submit a written report to the CAP through the campus review system. APM 210 offers guidance for the Ad Hoc committee review.
12. The CAP reviews the dossier and submits a written report to the Campus Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor.
13. Campus Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor reviews the dossier and has been delegated the authority for appointments, except for Above Scale appointments for which the chancellor retains authority. Appointments of Assistant Professor, Steps I, II and III, and Acting Assistant Professor, Steps I, II and III are further delegated to the deans under certain conditions. Refer to the Delegation of Authority Chart for those expectations. Modified review procedures applicable to delegated actions are detailed below at 404.220.A.5. Off-scale and above-scale appointments with salaries in excess of the Regental Threshold require Regental approval.
14. If, during the senate or administrative review, the dossier is found to be incomplete or inadequate, additional information shall be solicited through the APO.
15. If the Campus Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor’s preliminary assessment is contrary to the recommendation of the department, dean, or CAP, the Campus Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor shall notify the dean and/or the CAP, indicating the reasons and asking for any further information which might support a different decision. If additional information is provided, the dean and the CAP will be given an opportunity to comment on the augmented file before the final decision is made.
16. The offer of appointment is issued by the Campus Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor. Chairs must be careful in discussions with candidates not to offer the position.
17. The APO should be notified of divisional approvals of any additional support, housing, equipment, space, etc., at the time of the offer.

5. Procedures for Appointment Actions Delegated to Deans

1. The department prepares the appointment review file in the normal manner. The department chair forwards the file to the dean’s office.
2. The staff in the dean’s office reviews the file for conformity to applicable policy and procedures; they may consult with the dean and staff in the Academic Personnel Office as necessary.
3. The dean’s office forwards the file to CAP for review, except in circumstances where CAP has waived their review. Refer to the Delegation of Authority Chart.
4. CAP reviews the file and forwards their recommendation to the dean.
5. Any consideration of requested additional information follows the same review process, i.e., department, dean’s office review, CAP, and dean.
6. The dean has authority for the final decision.
7. Deans have the authority to negotiate with candidates within the salary range approved for the recruitment. For appointments above Assistant Professor, Step III, or with proposed salaries greater than the approved amount, the Campus Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor has authority for the final decision.
8. If the dean’s preliminary assessment is contrary to the recommendation of the department or CAP, the dean shall notify the department and/or the CAP, indicating the reasons and asking for any further information which might support a different decision. If additional information is provided, the CAP will be given an opportunity to comment on the augmented file before the final decision is made.

COMPILING THE DOSSIER
Materials to include in the dossier are discussed in this policy and the Document Inventory Matrices.

Many of the items must be gathered before the department can complete its review and recommendation concerning the candidate. The dossier contains the material upon which the decision to make the appointment is made.

Responsibilities

DIVISION:
Employment On-Boarding:
Divisions are responsible for on-boarding new academic employees including obtaining the appropriate employment authorization documentation (Form I-9) prior to the start of employment. The on-boarding process and required documents are located in the UCPath Academic Toolkit/On-boarding Toolkit.

Contact the Academic Personnel Office for questions relating to these documents.

CANDIDATE:

CANDIDATE’S ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: This address will be used for any correspondence. Please inform the Academic Personnel Office of any changes or if the candidate will be at various addresses or if correspondence should be sent to more than one address.

PUBLICATIONS: For appointment to tenured positions, publications should be included in the campus personnel review system –asterisk and include those considered by the department. Those included items should also be numbered on the curriculum vitae or biobibliography with the corresponding numbers also indicated on the submitted items.

Assistant Professor appointment: publications or evidence of creative activity from entire career; MAY include dissertation.

Associate Professor or Professor appointment: recent major publications or evidence of creative activity from approximately last 8 to 10 years; earlier publications MAY be submitted.

It is important to number and asterisk on the biobibliography or curriculum vitae those publications submitted as this is the only permanent record of what has been submitted. A list of what is being submitted is also acceptable.

DEPARTMENT:

STUDENT EVALUATIONS, IF AVAILABLE: Some faculty from other institutions may have student evaluations available for inclusion with their files. Faculty who have taught at UCSC should have evaluations available. If none are available, an explanation is necessary. It may be as simple as they have been lost, no students returned evaluations, etc. Please indicate:

1. the number of students enrolled in the course
2. the number and percent who returned evaluations
3. level of the course, and
4. whether it is a new, substantially revised or repeat course

Candidate

CURRICULUM VITAE (MUST INCLUDE TEACHING, SERVICE, COMPLETE LIST OF PUBLICATIONS) OR CUMULATIVE BIOBIBLIOGRAPHY:

This is where publications which have been reviewed are asterisked and numbered; those that are forwarded for the review should be clearly annotated. The information should be up to date. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CANDIDATE TO PROVIDE CURRENT INFORMATION. Information on research, teaching (what courses), and professional and public service must be included.

UNSOLICITED MATERIAL (OPTIONAL):

This is material not solicited by any University agency. It might include unsolicited letters to the candidate or department concerning the candidate, published reviews of the candidate’s work, or any relevant material the candidate wants to include in the review file. All unsolicited material normally is nonconfidential; the candidate has direct access to it. If the material is received by the University with the understanding that the identity of the author will be held in confidence to the extent permissible by law, then it is handled as confidential and redacted for the candidate, upon written request, after an offer of appointment has been accepted.

CANDIDATE’S OPTIONAL STATEMENT:

This is not required; however, it is often helpful for the candidate to submit a statement of their research plan, teaching activities, and service. The candidate may include any information they desire in this statement. The department must review it before making a final recommendation and evaluation.

Department

SOLICITED CONFIDENTIAL LETTERS – External and Internal:

SAMPLE COPY OF SOLICITATION LETTER OR EXPLANATION OF HOW LETTERS WERE RECEIVED (E.G. CANDIDATE SOLICITED): The reviewers need to know what was said to the letter-writers in soliciting their evaluation. The solicitation letter should be unbiased in approach and a sample must be included in the file. It is not necessary to use this exact letter, however, it is required that the paragraphs concerning confidentiality be included. At least three external letters must be solicited by the department independently of any provided by the candidate for a tenured position.

If some of the letters were not solicited by the department, an explanation of how they were received is required. The candidate may have provided the letters, or the candidate may have solicited the letters without having access to them. They may be part of a placement packet from the candidate’s institution. It may not be possible to solicit letters on candidates proposed for appointment as Assistant Professor as they may have just completed their Ph.D., and not have published work available for external review. Please clearly indicate this either in the department letter or in the extramural letter section.

Candidate

LIST OF NAMES OF THOSE WHO MIGHT NOT OBJECTIVELY EVALUATE CANDIDATE AND EXPLANATION: There may be potential reviewers who might not be objective for personal or professional reasons. Brief reasons must be stated, e.g., “My work has just proved that John Doe’s work of the last 40 years is completely wrong.” “My work is of the Garcia School, and hers is of the Smith school.” Naming someone does not mean the person will be excluded from the review, but will allow reviewers to place comments in context.

Department

LIST OF ALL PERSONS FROM WHOM LETTERS WERE SOUGHT; IDENTIFY THOSE SUGGESTED BY CANDIDATE:
Internal letters are not required, but some departments find them helpful. This list may be combined with the brief comments on the academic standing of the letter writers. The idea is to provide a list of all who have been asked to write. Please indicate if the candidate suggested names of reviewers. IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT CANDIDATES SUGGEST NAMES FOR THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS.

BRIEF COMMENTS ON ACADEMIC STANDING OF EACH LETTER WRITER AND RELATIONSHIP, IF ANY, TO CANDIDATE: IDENTIFY EACH LETTER-WRITER WITH AN ALPHA CODE (REVIEWER A, B, C, ETC.). This section is to give reviewers unfamiliar with the field an idea of the standing and qualifications of the reviewers. A short paragraph is normally sufficient. It should include such information as title, institution, major works or specialty. Examples:

“Associate Professor John Garcia of Harvard University is the author of the definitive work on glueballs, GLUEBALLS IN THE SKY. He directed the candidate’s dissertation while at Princeton University.”

“Professor Jane Jones of Stanford University is a leading biochemist working on _______. Author of numerous papers published in _______. She does not know the candidate.”

EXTRAMURAL LETTERS (ALL SOLICITED LETTERS MUST BE FORWARDED WITH THE FILE):
All letters received MUST be included with the dossier. At minimum, three independent, department-solicited letters must be included for a tenured appointment. The letters should be analytical, giving evidence to support assertions. There is no advantage to soliciting only UC faculty. You should strive to have competent reviewers from leading programs.

There should be a balance between letters from the candidate’s institution and others who may not be personally acquainted with the candidate. Letters should have been written in the last two years.

INCLUDE ANY DECLINING LETTERS OR DOCUMENT VERBAL DECLINATIONS:
You might want to asterisk on the list of all persons who were asked to write letters, those who declined.

Include the actual declining letters. If some declined through a telephone conversation, please note the reasons stated and include in the file. The idea is to document all efforts at obtaining reviews of the candidate’s work.

DEPARTMENT LETTER (NONCONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT):
The recommendation is made in accordance with Bylaw 55 of the Academic Senate and the written voting policy of the department. The exact vote of the eligible faculty must be reported. Faculty on leave or absent must be contacted unless the department’s written voting policy is to the contrary or voting rights have been waived.

The department letter shall discuss the proposed appointment in light of the criteria set forth in APM 210 (teaching, research and service). Any significant evidence or differences of opinion shall be included. ALL REFERENCES TO CONFIDENTIAL LETTER-WRITERS MUST BE BY ALPHA CODE. The letter must be an EVALUATION of the evidence, not merely an enumeration or list of accomplishments, or compilation of quotes from review letters.

The recommendation should include the rank, step, and salary desired. A recommendation for off-scale salary (see section APM 620) must be accompanied by a justification for the salary, e.g. the market place, to match competing offers, or special problems in a discipline.

Requests for start-up funds, exceptional teaching loads, housing assistance, space, equipment or other additional support may be included here or in a separate letter to the dean.

Department Chair

DEPARTMENT CHAIR LETTER (OPTIONAL, CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT):
The chair of the department may submit a separate letter of evaluation based on the dossier. The chair may not introduce new evidence. The letter is not shared with the candidate or the rest of the department; it is a confidential administrative review, available to the candidate upon written request, after an offer of appointment has been accepted.

Dean

DEAN’S LETTER (NONCONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT):
This is prepared by the Division Office and contains the recommendation of the dean.

THE ACADEMIC PERSONNEL OFFICE:

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION COMPLIANCE:
This is issued by the Academic Personnel Office. AN APPOINTMENT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED UNTIL THIS CERTIFICATION IS COMPLETE. Please note the search number and the date of compliance on the checklist.

Department

IDENTIFYING BLANKS AT TOP OF CHECKLIST:
Most are self- explanatory. Prior or concurrent UC employment is necessary to ascertain any time the individual may have toward the 8 year limitation of service (APM 133) or to comply with intercampus transfer policies.

Normally ladder rank faculty are appointed at 100% time for the academic year (9 months basis). Their service dates are the beginning of fall quarter through the end of spring quarter. However, they are paid in advance with the effective pay dates being July 1 through June 30.

---

SAMPLE EXTRAMURAL LETTER REQUEST
APPOINTMENT

Dear Professor ___________________:

I would appreciate your help in evaluating one of our colleagues, ____________________ who is currently being reviewed for appointment as ____________________.

Appointment in the University of California is based upon research, teaching, and university and community service. I am primarily concerned with your evaluation of the candidate’s research accomplishments and future potential, although you should feel free to comment on the other areas as well. How does ____________________ compare with others in their field who have comparable experience? Would they merit the rank of ____________________ in your department if their research interests were appropriate to your departmental goals?

In order to facilitate evaluation I am enclosing a copy of __________________’s curriculum vita and copies of their recent (reprints/slides/publications).

Under University of California policy, the identity of authors of letters of evaluation which are included in the personnel review files will be held in confidence. A candidate may request access to your letter in redacted form after the candidate accepts an offer of appointment at UCSC. Redaction is defined as the removal of identifying information (including name, title, institutional affiliation, and relationship to the candidate) contained either at the top of the letterhead or within and below the signature block of the letter of evaluation.

The full text of the body of your letter will therefore be provided to the candidate if so requested. Thus, if you provide any information that tends to identify you in the body of the letter, that information will become available to the candidate. If you wish, you may provide a brief factual statement regarding your relationship to the candidate at the end of your letter but below the signature block. This brief statement will not be made available to the candidate.

Although we cannot guarantee that at some future time a court or government agency will not require the disclosure of the source of confidential evaluations in University of California personnel files, we can assure you that the University will endeavor to protect the identity of authors of letters of evaluation to the fullest extent allowable under the law.*

I would very much appreciate receiving your evaluation at your earliest convenience. I thank you in advance for your aid in this matter.

Sincerely,

* Bolded paragraphs must be included in all solicitation letters.

---

B. Reappointment of Assistant Professors

1. Deadlines

Refer to annual CALL and Calendar for Academic Personnel Actions issued by the Academic Personnel Office. Reappointment dossiers normally are due in the Academic Personnel Office from the deans on the first day of winter quarter.

2. Policy References

Please refer to:
APM 133 Limitation on Total Period of Service with Certain Academic Titles
APM 220 -b Professor Series – Terms of Service
APM 220 -a,-b,-c Professor Series – Conditions of Employment
APM 220 Professor Series – Recommendation and Review: General Procedures
APM 220 Professor Series – Procedure for Appointment, Reappointment, or Promotion to the Rank of Assistant Professor
APM 220 Professor Series – Procedure for the Formal Appraisal of an Assistant Professor
APM 220 -84 Professor Series – Procedure for Non-Reappointment of an Assistant Professor
APM 220-85 Professor Series – Procedure for Appointment or Promotion to the Rank of Associate Professor or Professor

3. Procedures

Refer to procedures for merit increase (Section 406.220).

Assistant Professors are appointed to two-year terms. In the second year of their term, they are reviewed for reappointment and merit increase. During the fourth year of service, a mid-career appraisal is conducted which normally is combined with a merit increase and reappointment review. (see CAPM 408.220 | Mid-Career Appraisal)

4. Document Inventory Matrix

Refer to Document Inventory Matrix for merit increase or mid-career appraisal, as appropriate.

C. Non-reappointment of Assistant Professors

1. Deadlines

Refer to the annual CALL and Calendar for Academic Personnel Actions issued by the Academic Personnel Office. Non-reappointment dossiers normally are due in the Academic Personnel Office from the deans on the first day of winter quarter.

2. Policy References

APM 220-20-C Professor Series–Conditions of Employment
APM 220-84 Professor Series–Procedure for Non-Reappointment of an Assistant Professor

3. Procedures

1. The general procedures outlined in the promotion section (see CAPM 410.220) apply to non-reappointment except as follows: An Ad Hoc review committee is not required; however, CAP may request an Ad Hoc review committee if it feels one is needed, following consultation with the Campus Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor. Note that Ad Hoc review committees are required when there is a department or dean recommendation against tenure in a promotion review (CAPM 410.220).
2. During a review of a mid-career appraisal, or consideration of reappointment or promotion of an Assistant Professor, if the Campus Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor’s preliminary assessment is to make a terminal appointment, is not to reappoint or promote, or is contrary to the department recommendation, the chair and the candidate shall be notified of this in writing by the Campus Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor. The candidate shall be provided access to the records placed in the personnel review file subsequent to the department review in accordance with APM 160-20-c and CAPM 200.160. When the candidate is provided access to such records, the department chair and dean also shall be provided with appropriate copies. The candidate and the chair, after appropriate consultation within the department, shall then have the opportunity to respond in writing and to provide additional information and documentation. The candidate has ten days to respond to, or comment upon, the preliminary access material. In accordance with campus policy, the candidate may send her/his response to the department or dean at the option of the candidate. If the candidate chooses to send his/her response directly to the dean, it shall be confidential from the department.
   
   The department has twenty days in which to respond to or comment upon the preliminary access material. The candidate is provided with a copy of the department’s response to these materials and the candidate has five days in which to respond. This response may be sent to the department or dean at the option of the candidate. If the candidate chooses to send his/her response directly to the dean, it shall be confidential from the department. The information shall be forwarded to the dean, accompanied by a completed Checklist to Assure Fairness for Submission of Additional Information and for Preliminary Assessment. The dean shall add his/her comment and forward the material to the Academic Personnel Office.
   
3. The chancellor is responsible for a decision not to reappoint an assistant professor. The candidate shall be informed in writing of the decision not to reappoint.
4. Appropriate notice or pay in lieu of notice shall be granted by the chancellor (refer to APM 220 -20-c).
   1. With less than one year of service by the end of the current appointment, at least a four month notice must be given.
   2. With at least one complete year and not more than two years of service by the end of the current appointment, at least a six month notice must be given.
   3. With more than two years of university service by the end of the current period of appointment, at least 12 months notice must be given.
5. The chancellor may respond to written requests from the appointee for reasons for the non-reappointment.