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