UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ |
AS/SCP/1322 |
COMMITTEE ON
ACADEMIC PERSONNEL
2000-2001
ANNUAL REPORT
To: the Academic Senate, Santa Cruz Division
The
Committee on Academic Personnel advises the Chancellor or her designated
representative—the Campus Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor or a Divisional
Dean—on appointments, promotions, merit increases, and midcareer appraisals for
Senate faculty, adjunct faculty, and professional researchers. The Committee
also advises the Academic Senate and the administration on policy matters
relating to academic personnel.
CAP
had eight members in 2000-2001—one from the Arts, one from Engineering, and two
each from Humanities, Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences.
Service
on CAP offers a chance to appreciate at close range the remarkable variety and
quality of our colleagues’ achievements. Members of the 2000-01 committee are
grateful for this experience.
In
2000-01 CAP continued its established practice of meeting on Thursday
afternoons. The Committee met 29 times from September 28, 2000 to June 7, 2001.
The
Committee made recommendations on 225 personnel cases—3 less than in 1999-00,
49 more than in 1998-99 and 27 more than in 1997-98: see Table
1. Although these figures appear to reflect a
lower case load in 2000-01 than in 1999-00, the data is misleading. More files actually entered the personnel process
but they moved through the system more slowly, a problem CAP is working to
rectify. As a result, 17 cases initiated
in 2000-01 were held over until 2001-02 as opposed to only 7 in 1999-00.
(See details under “Case Flow” below.)
Given the current projections for campus growth, it seems likely that
the number of cases will continue to increase. CAP also sent the Executive
Vice Chancellor slates of proposed members for 55 ad hoc committees.
Among
the cases considered were 63 appointment files. CAP recommended appointment in
all cases, though not always at the rank or step proposed by the Department. As
of September 1, 60 offers of appointment had been made in the Professor series:
39 accepted, 4 declined, 1 withdrew.
For 16 cases, there has been no response at the time of this report. This rate
of acceptance is comparable to that of prior years.
During
2000-01, there continued to be a high degree of agreement between CAP’s
recommendations and the final administrative decisions on personnel cases. The two concurred in 91.1 percent of cases
(185 out of 203 cases). This degree of
agreement is testimony to the level of
consultation
between the administration and representatives of the Academic Senate, and an
indication of shared values regarding professional development.
The
final Dean or EVC decision did not concur with CAP’s recommendation in 18 cases:
*
In 2 cases, a greater acceleration was granted than CAP recommended.
*
In 6 cases, more off-scale was granted than CAP recommended.
*
In 4 cases, advancement was granted despite CAP’s failure to support it.
Appointments
*
In 2 cases, appointment was made at the salary recommended by CAP, but at a
different step.
*
In 2 cases, appointment was made at a higher salary than CAP recommended.
*
In 2 cases, appointment was made at a lower salary than CAP recommended.
It is customary for the Chancellor, the Executive Vice Chancellor, and/or Divisional Deans to meet with CAP to discuss cases in which the administration's evaluation of a personnel file differs significantly from CAP’s. This year we were visited once by a Dean and several times by EVC Simpson, who also took the opportunity to discuss policy issues with us. In addition, the CAP Chair and selected CAP members met once with the Humanities’ Council of Chairs, at their request, to discuss general issues relating to the academic review process.
Case Flow
CAP’s
caseload in 2000-01 was lightest in the Fall, when 21 cases were reviewed,
and heaviest in the Spring, when 127 cases were reviewed (see
Table 2a). At CAP’s final meeting, 26 cases were considered—an overwhelming
burden on the committee. Seventeen cases were not completed by the end of
the year. In only one of these cases was the complete file received before
CAP’s final meeting. All other holdovers resulted from an incomplete ad hoc
process: ad hocs had not met or had met but had not filed reports (see Table
2b). These delays resulted from earlier delays on the department or divisional
level, or from difficulties in assembling ad hoc committees. CAP’s review
of personnel cases that did not involve an ad hoc report was normally completed
in the week it was received. We urge our colleagues to submit their materials
by the deadline, and hope that
During
2000-01, 1 member of the UCSC Academic Senate served on three ad hoc
committees; 23 served on two ad hoc committees; and 111 served on one ad hoc
committee. The independent evaluation supplied by the ad hoc process is crucial
to shared governance. We are grateful for our
colleagues’
continued willingness to take on this responsibility. We especially appreciate
their diligence in reviewing prospective appointments on short notice.
At
the same time, the single biggest factor delaying files is the ad hoc process:
constitution of the committees, scheduling of meetings, and writing of reports.
CAP is seeking ways to increase efficiency and assure that the burden of ad hoc
service is distributed more equitably. Early in the academic year, CAP sent a
request to all departments requesting faculty to self-identify areas outside
their specialties in which they have some expertise. We received responses from
most departments and have established a database that allows us to tap more
individuals for ad hoc service. We ask that any departments who failed to
respond to this request do so as soon as possible.
CAP
recognizes that ad hoc service places an extra burden on already overworked
faculty. We therefore wish to emphasize the importance of agreeing to serve on committees
so that no faculty member will have to perform this task more than twice in any
one year. Most faculty readily agree to participate, but a few routinely
decline or do not return phone calls or emails from AHR staff. CAP is
consulting with AHR staff and EVC Simpson for solutions to this and other ad
hoc committee issues.
CAP continues to discuss the most effective way to evaluate teaching in the personnel process. Three issues have arisen in various cases:
|
|
|
3. If the department has additional evidence of teaching quality we would welcome its inclusion in the chair’s letter.
Since
CAP members read so many files, our job would be simplified if departmental
letters could be somewhat more standardized in length and content. Occasionally
we receive extremely long
letters
(some up to 15 pages) with detailed descriptions of every publication and
course; CAP prefers instead that department letters be shorter and more focused
(4-6 pages is typical), providing syntheses
of strengths and weaknesses. While we do not wish to dictate any formula for
discussions of teaching and research in department letters, we did convey some
broad suggestions to the deans, who were asked to share them with department
chairs. These suggestions are reproduced below for the use by new chairpersons.
Teaching:
CAP finds that the most helpful letters are not
organized on a course-by-course basis, but rather in the following manner:
a)
A
summary of the number of courses/students taught in the review period. Is this
number normal? Appropriate?
b)
The
level of courses taught. CAP prefers to see teaching over a broad spectrum of
the curriculum: lower-division, upper-division, and graduate courses. If the
teaching is narrowly focused (particularly on the graduate level), it would be
helpful if the chair’s letter explained the rationale for the course
assignment.
c)
A
summary of points raised repeatedly
in student evaluations (e.g., highly organized, inspiring, boring, late to
class, energetic). There is no need for
direct quotes from the evaluations, since we read them ourselves. Most
helpful to CAP is an organization of these comments according to the levels
described in b.
d)
An
explanation of problem areas and clarification of factors that might be
ambiguous (e.g., a low percentage of submitted evaluations)
Research:
We also have a few requests to help us evaluate the
research component of the file.
a)
Articles in journals. It is helpful if the chair’s letter can provide data
on the selectivity of the journal. Is it peer-reviewed? What percentage of
submitted articles are accepted for publication?
b)
Conference papers. Is it possible to describe standards? What percentage of submitted
papers are typically accepted?
c)
Multiple-authored papers. Could the chair’s letter note whether the order of
authors represents the degree of input? We realize that there are different
traditions in
different fields, but normally we would consider the
first author to have made the largest contribution.
d)
Work in progress continues to present problems. Please be sure to describe the status
of each publication at the previous
review. Remember that a publication only “counts” once. It is generally
better to wait until an article is accepted or published than to forward a
typescript of a “submitted” article still awaiting peer review. Many junior
faculty need to be advised about this procedure.
It
is sometimes unclear how CAP is to interpret split votes on appointments: do
the “no” votes express dissatisfaction with the candidate or merely indicate
that another candidate was first choice? Some departments move to make a vote
unanimous once a decision is reached. For departments that do not follow this
procedure, it would be helpful if the chair’s letter could address the issue,
if only to comment that the departmental discussion did not provide any
explanation for the negative vote(s).
On
several occasions, CAP continued to struggle with cases in which an Assistant
Professor, Step 4, was on the call for advancement but was not yet ready for
promotion to tenure. According to CAPPM 407.690B, a candidate must show a
record of accomplishment clearly indicating that tenure is imminent at the next
review in order to be advanced to the overlapping Step 5. If this criterion is
not met, a salary increase at Step 4 may be recommended instead. However, the
campus’s policy on off-scale salary limits mandates that the salary of an
Assistant Professor not exceed that of an Associate Professor, Step 2, except
in extraordinary circumstances. Issues of salary compression (particularly in
engineering) also come into play in this regard. CAP is sympathetic to the
predicament of Assistant Professors who are hired at advanced steps and/or with
significant off-scale salary components. But for reasons of equity to the
faculty as a whole, we felt that as long as these policies are in place, they
must be respected. EVC Simpson has appointed a committee chaired by Professor
Buchanan Sharp to study these issues. The committee completed its deliberations
in the spring, but has not yet submitted its report.
Late submission of materials
by faculty
Occasionally CAP examined a case that had been substantially delayed because the faculty member was late in submitting his or her materials. While the issue did not affect the substance of our recommendation, we discussed whether such actions should be retroactive. The Sharp committee was asked to recommend in this matter; we await their report.
Staffing our Committee is a difficult job. The staff member must be accurate, reliable, efficient, and knowledgeable about the personnel process. Our heartfelt thanks to Pamela Edwards for meeting these rigorous demands and for her positive attitude. We are also deeply indebted to Barbara Brogan, Director of Academic Human Resources, and to the AHR staff—Breck Caloss, Nancy Degnan, Therese Doherty, Nancy Furber, Linda Petrakis, Liz Crompton, Ann McCardy—for their wisdom, support, and impressive command of the academic personnel process.
Respectfully
submitted,
Claude
Bernasconi
Ken
Bruland
Sandra
Chung (F)
Donna
Haraway (WS)
Catherine
Cooper
Peter
Kenez
Paul
Lubeck
Ira
Pohl
Leta
Miller (Chair; UCAP Representative)
September
27, 2001