VCRO ACADEMIC NON-SENATE

REVIEW PROCESS

June 11, 2007

AGENDA

PROCESS OVERVIEW DEFINITIONS CRITERIA CASE PREPARATION ROLES DELAYS & PITTFALLS

OVERVIEW

REASONS FOR REVIEW

Recognize and reward performance

Maintain academic standards at the highest level of excellence

Ensure candidate pursues a productive career

CASE SUBMISSION DEADLINES Campus deadlines are established to

distribute workload evenly throughout year

VCRO deadlines allow time for review and submission by campus deadlines

Allows time for final decision to be made before July 1

VCRO processes over 100 cases per year APO processes over 1200 per year-1000

are reviewed by the Budget Committee

LATE SUBMISSIONS Deadline extensions are

considered on a case by case basis Must be requested in writing two

weeks in advance of deadline Late cases given lower priority by

Campus Submissions beyond June 30 are

unacceptable and may be returned

MAJOR REVIEWS

Promotion to Associate Research Promotion to Full Research Merit to Research Step VI (requires

highly distinguished scholarship) Advancement to Above Scale

(requires highest distinction)NOTE: These reviews require outside letters

NORMAL PATH OF PROGRESSION

CUTOFF DATES FOR MATERIALS

June 30, except for promotions Example: Full Research Merit

increase effective July 1, 2008; review period is July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2007

Cutoff date for promotions is the case deadline date

OUTSIDE OFFERS

Salary offer from institutions +5-10%

Will respond to peer institutions only

Won’t match industry Offer should be in writing

CAMPUS WORKFLOW

DEFINITIONS

Type of Review

Timing of Review

Salary

Merit-increase in step Promotion-increase in rank

(Ast/Aso/Full) Salary Increase-change in salary,

but not in step 5-Year Review-Mandatory

progress review

TYPE OF REVIEW

TIMING OF REVIEW Normal Period of Service –

advance consistent with policy Acceleration - increase faster

than normal period of time (years or step)

Deceleration -increase slower than normal period of time

On Scale - Salary is on the published salary scale

Off-Scale - Salary is between 2 steps Example: Research II midway to Step III -or- $100 below Step III

Decoupled Salary – a salary increment which is in addition to the candidate’s established rank and step salary (flat dollar amount-no R/A)

Above Scale - Beyond top of scale (no step designation)

SALARY

REVIEW CRITERIA

Research or other creative work

Professional activity

University and public service

RESEARCH AND CREATIVE WORK

Categories Refereed Publications, Archival

Journals, Conference and Symposium Proceedings

Non-Refereed Publications, Technical Reports, Book Reviews

Books Other (creative work)

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Examples:

Editor of Papers for Professional Journals Conference Chair Keynote Speaker Professional Association Officers/Members Accreditation Review Panel Member Outside Referee: e.g. promotion reviews at

non-UC institutions Arts Commission Board Member Proposal Reviewer for Federal Funding Agency

UNIVERSITY SERVICE

The more senior, the more is expected

Campus activities, not just in Unit Academic Senate Committees Unit Ad-hoc Review Committee System-wide Committees

OUTSIDE LETTERS

Candidate and Unit should suggest names (5-6 each)

Friends, collaborators, former colleagues not as strong

Identify colleagues from peer institutions or equivalent

Clearly identify the standing of the reviewer in his/her field

PUBLICATIONS

Required for: Promotions Merit to Research Step VI Advancement to Above Scale Candidate selects 5 most important for Step

VI & Above Scale reviews All since last promotion for promotional

advancement Don’t submit for other reviews unless

requested

CASE PREPARATION Look at earlier reviews to identify outstanding

issues that need to be addressed Follow Documentation Checksheets Director’s letter must provide evaluation of

candidate-not just concurrance Biography and Biobibs must be signed by

candidate Biobib for each year under review Organize case material according to

Documentation Checksheet Provide one complete copy of case for VCRO

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

STAFF CANDIDATE DIRECTOR VCRO

ROLES-STAFF Advise candidate and supervisor of upcoming

review deadlines Provide list to candidate of

materials/information needed for review Ensure review files are complete in accordance

with checksheet Check for accuracy and consistency in the

data (CVs, Bio-Bibs, Director’s letter, etc) Ensure works credited in last review are not

counted in current review Follow-up promptly when requests for

additional information are made

ROLES-STAFF Understand policies and procedures and

ask questions if you don’t Become familiar with VCRO & Campus

guidelines Establish and implement procedures to

ensure timely reviews Identify issues in prior reviews which

should be addressed Identify inconsistencies in review

process

ROLES-CANDIDATE Meet established deadlines Write self-assessment-should describe

accomplishments since last review, current projects and future goals

Submit complete, well-organized materials

Complete Annual Supplement to the Bio-Biobibliography every year (don’t wait until the review!)

Respond to requests in a timely manner Understand policies and review process

ROLES-DIRECTOR

Be honest regarding evaluation Provide critical analysis, not just

accomplishments Be clear about reasons for

acceleration or deceleration If case is late, explain why Communicate with staff and

candidate

ROLES-DIRECTOR

Reserve exceptional requests for extraordinary meritorious accomplishments and circumstances

Provide evaluation of candidate-don’t just concur (lack of credibility)

Pay attention to feedback in reviews

ROLES-DIRECTOR Discuss case with candidate throughout

preparation (Fairness Safeguard) Understand policies and procedures Ask questions when unsure

ROLES-VCRO Communicate Case Deadlines Provide complete analysis Provide larger context for Unit

recommendation Understand policies and procedures Identify Equity Issues Liaison with Academic Personnel Office Provide guidance & policy interpretation to

Units and keep Units informed of changes

REASONS FOR DELAY Incomplete Cases

Recommendation doesn’t address all review criteria

Outside letters, if required Biobibs for entire review period-signed by

candidate Inconsistent data between letters and

biographical information (publication list should match summary in Director’s letter)

Typographical errors in salaries and effective dates

COMMON PITTFALLS

Director’s letter fails to provide full and independent analysis of candidate’s contribution

Insufficient discussion of candidate’s contribution in collaborative work, summary of publications, impact of achievements on candidate’s field, candidate’s ranking in the field

Joint appointments aren’t coordinated with home department

COMMON PITTFALLS Failure to clarify what work is new

since last review Use of same materials from prior cases Areas of concern identified in prior

reviews not addressed

THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING

Please complete the evaluation form provided