Annual Memo on Academic Advancement – 2020

---

October 08, 2020

By Lori Kletzer, Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor 
By Junko Ito, Chair, Senate Committee on Academic Personnel 

To: SENATE FACULTY

Annual CAP/EVC Memo On Academic Advancement – 2020

Dear Colleagues:

As the new academic year begins, we write to address frequently asked questions, provide information on new policies, and emphasize priorities and expectations related to the senate faculty merit and promotion process.

1.  Impacts of COVID-19

The pandemic has impacted all of us, changing our work to remote modalities, and for some people it has resulted in significant effects on research productivity and teaching. Our recent communication provides specific guidelines for how to take the impact of COVID into account for Senate faculty reviews in 2020-21. We have also updated the campus solicitation letter templates to provide guidance for external reviewers. We will have additional discussions this year on how to perform reviews in 2021-22 and beyond.

2.  Review of Teaching Professors

Teaching Professors (those in the Lecturer with Security of Employment series) were moved to the rank and step system a year ago by changes in systemwide policy. This move necessitated changes in the review process for faculty in this series. We recently produced guidance for these reviews, including guidance for applying the Special Salary Practice to faculty in this series.

3.  Above-Scale Actions

Initial Above Scale advancement is based on both career distinction and additional merit; advancement to Above Scale only occurs after a distinguished career record. At this high level, the criteria for advancement become even more elevated per systemwide policy, APM 220-18-b(4). There is not an expectation that faculty continue to advance beyond Step 9, although we do recognize continued outstanding achievement. Further Above Scale actions must show new evidence of merit and distinction; a further above scale review may have an outcome that is “satisfactory” without salary increase if there is only continued excellence. The Special Salary Practice does not apply at Above Scale. In order to have more consistency across campus for these relatively rare and infrequent actions, we provide the following guidance:

Action	Criteria
16.5% of Step 9	Exceptional in research (can reach exceptional with a major discipline-spanning award), outstanding or above in teaching and service
13.75% of Step 9	Outstanding in research, outstanding or above in teaching and service
11% of Step 9	Outstanding in research, excellent or above in service and in teaching
5.5% or 8.25% of Step 9	Excellent in research, excellent or above in service and in teaching. Or outstanding research and deficiencies in teaching or service.

4.  Special Salary Practice

The campus practice of awarding standardized off-scale salary increments in outstanding merit and promotion cases will continue for the 2020-21 review year for all Senate faculty. As a reminder, the components are:

• Normal advancement: Files that demonstrate excellence in all three areas will be considered for advancement of one step with no additional off-scale salary component.
• Greater-than-normal advancement: Files that meet and exceed the criteria for normal advancement, but do not reach the threshold for accelerated advancement, will be considered for a one-step advancement plus an additional off-scale salary component.
  • G1: Greater-than-normal files that are closer to a normal action will be considered for an off-scale salary increase of one-third of a step. These are typically files where one area is outstanding and the other two are excellent.
  • G2: Greater-than-normal files that are closer to an accelerated action will be considered for an off-scale salary increase of two-thirds of a step. These are typically files where two areas are outstanding and the other one is excellent.
• Accelerated advancement: Files that demonstrate outstanding performance that is significantly beyond expectations in all three areas will be considered for a two-step advancement.
  • AC: A standard acceleration file will be considered for a two-step advancement with no additional off-scale salary component. Most accelerations are expected to be in this category.
  • A1: In rare and exceptional circumstances, acceleration files that exceed the standard for a two-step advancement will be considered for an off-scale salary increase of one-third of a step.

5.  Contributions to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

We continue to value and recognize contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion in the context of research, teaching, and service. Faculty are encouraged to provide information about their efforts and achievements in their personal statement, because these contributions can sometimes reach visibility only when they are explicitly called out and described. Such contributions should be recognized, in accordance with policy on criteria for advancement (see policy excerpts at Evaluating Contributions to Diversity for Faculty Appointment and Promotion).

We will continue to require all applicants for Senate faculty positions to submit a statement of contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion. We have posted guidance for applicants and reviewers.

6.  Reminders about External Letters for Major Reviews

As of the 2020-21 review cycle, external letters for Step 6 reviews shall no longer be solicited, except when the candidate has requested a Career Equity Review. Internal letters are allowed, but are discouraged unless necessary. For all other major reviews that still require letters, please remember these expectations for external reviewers. 

7.  Review Periods

When the review is a major action (promotion, Step 6, initial Above Scale), there are multiple review periods to consider. The larger review period is considered for the binary decision of promotion or major advancement (for tenure, this period is the career, with emphasis on the period since appointment; for promotion to full, it is the period since tenure; for Step 6, it is the career with emphasis on the period since promotion to full; for initial Above Scale, it is the career, with some emphasis on the period since advancement to Step 6). If additional salary or acceleration is considered under the Special Salary Practice, that decision should be based on achievements since the last review (which is typically a merit review), as earlier work would have been considered for previous greater than normal actions. 

 8.  PDFs

Please submit all documents in PDF format. Submission of documents in Microsoft Word or Excel formats requires each reviewer to download the document, which may impact security and confidentiality.

Because reviewers are working remotely, hard copy materials cannot be accepted this year. Please provide electronic copies of books whenever possible. 

9.  Work in Progress

Submission of work in progress is generally discouraged, as credit is primarily awarded for completion of the work (typically publication after a peer review process, although the definition of completion may vary by discipline). Work in progress may be submitted when the candidate is working on a larger project that will span multiple review periods, such as a book or a feature-length film. Work in progress may be submitted for a tenure review, if there is a concern about the quantity of the completed work. In cases where there is a lack of completed work, work in progress may be submitted to demonstrate research activity. More details are in the 2017 annual memo.

10.  Collegiality

When an individual’s inappropriate behavior undermines their ability to provide effective service and/or disrupts the efforts of other faculty, staff, or students to fulfill their own responsibilities, this can be considered in evaluating the service component of an individual’s merit review. It is important to be specific about the nature of the allegations, including concrete examples. If efforts have been made to attempt to address the offending behavior (e.g., meetings with the faculty member, conflict resolution), these should be documented. Confidential information should not be included. The personnel review process is not a substitute for reporting inappropriate conduct through the proper channels. 

Sincerely,

Junko Ito, Chair, Senate Committee on Academic Personnel

Lori Kletzer, Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

cc:

Academic Senate Office
Committee on Academic Personnel
Deans
Department Chairs
Department Managers
Divisional Academic Personnel Coordinators