Campus Academic Personnel Manual

A. Mid-career Appraisal of Assistant Professor

1. Definition

Mid-Career Appraisal: A formal assessment of an appointee’s achievement and promise for eventual promotion to tenure. It also serves to identify appointees whose records of performance and achievement are below the level of excellence desired for continued membership in the faculty. The appointee’s entire record since appointment will be reviewed. Effective with the 2012-13 review year, solicited external letters of evaluation shall not be part of the mid-career appraisal.

2. Deadlines

Refer to the annual CALL and Calendar for Academic Personnel Actions issued by the Academic Personnel Office.

3. Policy References

APM 220-80 Recommendations and Review: General Procedures
APM 220-83 Procedure for the Formal Appraisal of an Assistant Professor

4. Procedures

1. A mid-career appraisal is normally conducted in the fourth year of service in a title or combination of titles specified in APM 133-0. In unusual circumstances an exception may be requested by the department and dean from the vice provost for academic affairs (VPAA) to conduct the appraisal during the fifth year. The annual CALL issued by the Academic Personnel Office shall list those assistant professors and equivalent titles eligible for mid-career appraisal. Normally the action is combined with a reappointment and merit increase review.No formal appraisal is required if, prior to the normal occurrence of the appraisal, the assistant professor is being recommended for promotion to take effect within a year, has given written notice of resignation, or has been given written notice of non-reappointment.
2. The department or program chair (chair) shall notify the candidate of the impending review and make certain that the candidate is adequately informed about the entire review process. The candidate is given the opportunity to ask questions and is made aware of APM 210-1, 220, and 160.
3. The chair shall document the review by completing the Checklist to Assure Fairness. The procedures outlined in the checklist should be followed in order, with the candidate initialing each number to indicate these obligations have been completed. The candidate may annotate any item as necessary. Signatures of both the candidate and the department chair are required.
4. The chair shall inform the candidate that past personnel actions may be viewed during the current review process. Refer to the campus policy on access to prior reviews (section 202.160) for more information.
5. The chair shall ask the candidate to supply pertinent information:
   1. updated cumulative biobibliography;
   2. copies of publications (or like material) since appointment;
   3. copies of manuscripts in progress which the candidate wishes to submit for review;
   4. optional statement concerning the candidate’s research progress and plans, teaching, service, and any other information the candidate wishes to have included in the review file; and
   5. names of persons (internal) who, for reasons set forth in writing by the candidate, might not objectively evaluate the candidate’s qualifications and performance. Any names and the reasons shall be included in the review file.
6. The chair should be helpful in responding to the candidate’s questions and in considering whether additions to the file by the candidate are needed. The chair has an obligation to consider the interests of both the candidate and the university, and to see to it that the department review is fair to the candidate and rigorous in maintaining university standards.
7. Unsolicited material (optional): this is material that has not been 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 non-confidential; the candidate has direct access to it. If the material is received by the university, and not from the candidate, with the understanding that the identity of the author will be held in confidence to the extent permissible by law, then it is should be marked ‘unsolicited confidential’ and redacted for the candidate.
8. Before the department recommendation is determined, the chair shall provide the candidate the opportunity to inspect all non-confidential documents to be included in the review file. The chair shall provide the candidate with a redacted copy (as defined in 160-20-c.(4)) of the confidential academic review records, if any, which will be included in the review file. Refer to Section 200.160 for further information concerning confidential documents. The identities of the persons who were sources of the documents shall not be disclosed. A copy of the redacted confidential documents shall be included in the review file.
9. The chair shall provide the candidate with the opportunity to submit a written statement in response to, or commenting upon, material in the file. The candidate has 10 working days from when the file was made available for review by the candidate in which to respond. The candidate’s written statement, if any, must be included in the review file. The candidate is encouraged to notify the chair if the candidate waives their response, so that the chair can immediately continue the review.
10. The department evaluation and recommendation is made in accordance with the procedural regulations and bylaws of the Academic Senate. Each department should have a copy of its voting procedures on file in the Academic Personnel Office. The department shall adopt procedures under which the department letter shall be available, before being forwarded, for inspection by all those eligible to vote on the file. The letter shall report the nature and extent of consultation on the file within the department (including the vote taken), and present any significant evidence and differences of opinion which would support a different recommendation. The department letter should contain:
    1. name, current rank, step, and salary of the candidate;
    2. number of years at rank and step;
    3. if the appraisal is combined with a reappointment and/or merit increase review: rank, step, and salary recommended;
    4. the exact vote specifying the number in favor, opposed, and abstained, recused, waived and absent not voting. Eligible faculty on leave retain their voting rights unless they have expressly waived them. A department may determine its own procedures for voting, e.g., “a member has five days after the department meeting to contact the chair with their vote; failure to contact the chair results in an automatic abstention.” NOTE: See Also Senate Bylaws 13.4.3 and 13.4.4; and
    5. and an evaluation and analysis of the candidate’s performance based on the criteria in APM 210-1. See Suggestions for Department Letters of Evaluation for additional information on documenting the evaluation.
11. The chair provides the candidate with a copy of the department evaluation and recommendation. The identities of the sources of any confidential documents shall not be disclosed in the department letter except by alpha code.
12. The candidate is given an opportunity to submit a written comment on the department letter. This comment may be sent to the department or dean at the option of the candidate. If the candidate chooses to send the comment directly to the dean, it shall be confidential from the department. The candidate has 10 working days from receipt of the department letter in which to comment. The candidate’s comment, if any, shall be included in the review file.
13. The chair may write a separate independent letter presenting their recommendation and evaluation of the file as chair. This letter is confidential and is not part of the documents redacted for the candidate, nor must it be made available to other department members eligible to vote on the action. The chair’s letter may comment on the review file but may not introduce new material. The dean’s letter shall identify the chair’s letter with an alpha code (e.g., Reviewer A), and subsequent reviewers shall also refer to the chair’s letter by the assigned alpha code.
14. The review file, and documents specified in the Document Inventory for Mid-Career Appraisal shall be forwarded to the dean. The dean shall review the file and add a written recommendation. The dean may request additional information or clarification in writing from the chair. If such a request is made, the procedures and timelines included in the Checklist to Assure Fairness for the Submission of Additional Information shall be followed. The review file shall be forwarded to the Academic Personnel Office.
15. The review file shall be reviewed for completeness and forwarded to the Senate Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) by the Academic Personnel Office.
16. Ad hoc committee review is normally required for non-reappointment cases only; however, the CP/EVC, after consultation with CAP, may determine that one is not required in such cases (CAPM 404.220.C.3). Where the CP/EVC determines there will be ad hoc review, CAP shall nominate an ad hoc review committee and the CP/EVC or designee shall approve the nominations. The ad hoc committee shall proceed in accordance with APM 210 and shall base its recommendation and evaluation on the review file.
17. CAP shall review the file including the report of the ad hoc committee, if any, and add a written recommendation.
18. If, during the Academic Senate or administrative review, the review file is found to be incomplete or inadequate, additional information shall be solicited through the Academic Personnel Office. Additional information normally shall be requested in writing from the department. If such a request is made, the procedures and timelines included in the Checklist to Assure Fairness for the Submission of Additional Information shall be followed. The dean shall add their comment and forward the material to the Academic Personnel Office. The review shall then be based upon the review file as augmented.
19. If the CP/EVC’s preliminary assessment is to make a terminal appointment, is not to reappoint, or is contrary to the department recommendation, the chair, the candidate, and the dean shall be notified of this in writing by the CP/EVC and the preliminary assessment procedures 404.220.C.3 shall be followed. Otherwise, the CP/EVC shall make the final decision based upon the review file and the candidate shall be notified in writing with copies to the dean and chair. Documents added to the mid-career appraisal review file subsequent to the department letter shall be copied and/or redacted as appropriate and provided to the candidate with copies to the dean and chair.
20. After the decision, the candidate shall have the right, upon written request, to receive from the CP/EVC a written statement of the reasons for the decision.
21. The candidate may forward a written response to the mid-career appraisal for inclusion in their personnel file. The response must be submitted to the department no later than the date for submission of material for the tenure review. Copies must be forwarded to the dean and the Academic Personnel Office.