Career Case Management

Career Case Management
April 6, 2018 Office of Academic Personnel

Agenda Overview – career review cases
Eligibility – departmental consultation, candidate preparation Deadlines – departmental, campus Case materials – biobibs, CVs, self-statements Extramural letters – name selection, solicitations, letter redaction, coded list Case preparation – departmental processing, voting, preparation of recommendation (department letter) Reviewing agencies – role in the review process How many here have been managing merits and promotions less than one year? Less than three years? Five years or more? Focus is primarily on senate faculty cases, but many principles apply to research title career reviews. Where there are significant differences, we will try to point them out. - 1st time offered, want it to be a discussion but may need to go offline to answer unique situations, but Questions are welcome throughout.

What is a “career review case?”
Promotion from Assistant What is a “career review case?” A career review is a personnel case during which a formal and comprehensive assessment of a candidate is performed. A career review case focuses on both the entire career and the achievements within the current review period. The assessment is both internal and in many cases external but not always (and we’ll talk more about that). A successful career review also often involves a change in rank but not always – sometimes it is a change in step within the same rank.

Which personnel cases are career review cases?
Ladder faculty & research titles (Researcher*, Proj Sci, Specialist) Promotion from Asst to Assoc Promotion from Assoc to Full Merit to step VI*, Above Scale Lecturer Sr Lecturer Promotion from LPSOE to LSOE Promotion from LSOE to Sr LSOE - Research titles includes Professional Researcher, Project Scientist, Specialists. (*Merit to Step VI is a career case review only in the Professional Researcher series). - BONUS QUESTION: for the Academic Senate titles (ladder, Lecturer PSOE, LSOE, Sr. LSOE) are any career reviews Dean’s Authority? No, all are Expanded Reviews LSOE notes (optional, just for reference): Lecturer PSOE (LPSOE) is eligible for review every 2 years. Must advance to LSOE by the end of the 8th year. An LSOE will become eligible for promotion to Senior Lecturer SOE after six years of service as Lecturer SOE. If not promoted to Sr. Lecturer SOE, LSOE may continue to receive further merit increases but eligibility will be every 3 years if the individual is being paid level equivalent to the salary of a Professor. Use checklist at RB I-34 (modified appropriately to address the requirements of the SOE series).

Eligibility Lists Look for campus announcements from AP
Senate Faculty elig list available in early April Researchers, Proj Scientists, Specialists elig list available in early September Access lists by logging into AP Folio  Eligibility Listing link under AP Folio heading Notice for the review cycle was sent out on Monday. Senate Faculty & Continuing Lecturers** available in early April Researchers, Project Scientists, Specialists, Academic Coordinators** available in early September (**= not included on the slide due to the fact that these populations are not the topic of this presentation) Deferral memo: Asst Prof or LPSOE deferral requests must include memo from Dept Chair that explains the reasons for the deferral and describes the progress that will be expected prior to the next review. Review for promotion to tenure or Security of Employment will normally take place by the end of the 6th year of service but may be deferred until the 7th year. The faculty member’s deferral request and Chair memo are to be submitted via AP Folio

Eligibility and General Information
Eligibility is based on normative time at step  See Red Binder I-75 for normative time General info on faculty Appointment and Advancements Procedural items – materials, the review process, criteria, department voting, etc Also see Department Chair’s Handbook under Resources for Academic Employees on AP website

Dept Notifies Faculty of Elig
Overview of process RB I-22 checklist RB I-26 safeguard statement Response deadline Faculty Responds Set case type in AP Folio Dept consultation if needed Memos for Asst Prof & LPSOE deferral Instructions to Candidates Dept & campus deadlines Evaluator names Case materials Previous case biobib Overview of the process Departments usually prepare internal guidance about the review process for their faculty. If your department needs to refresh or create your department materials, refer to RB I-75 and the Department Chair’s Handbook. Deferral memo: Asst Prof or LPSOE deferral requests must include memo from Dept Chair that explains the reasons for the deferral and describes the progress that will be expected prior to the next review. Review for promotion to tenure or Security of Employment will normally take place by the end of the 6th year of service but may be deferred until the 7th year. The faculty member’s deferral request and Chair memo are to be submitted via AP Folio

Department consultation
Accelerations/Deferrals, if appropriate Mandatory Above Scale Accelerations Red Binder I-43 Interval between salary increases for Above Scale must be a minimum of 4 years. Accelerations will not be approved except for the most superior cases Department consultation is based on the notion that it is the department that makes the recommendation Examples of Accelerations & Deferrals – a major award may justify a department putting up faculty earlier than normative time. Or, if eligible but unusual circumstances warrant deferral, department chair might advise deferral (e.g. not a career review, but Asst Prof up for merit/appraisal and all samples are lost in transit and the research suffers as a result, the department should advise deferral) Above Scale accelerations: department must make compelling argument Reviews at least once every five years are now required for all of the research titles (Researcher, Proj Sci, Specialist) – RB III-8

Department & campus deadlines – Faculty
Campus cut-off Internal department deadlines: Candidate decisions, materials for outside letters (CV/biobib, publications, etc), reviewer names, evaluator letter deadlines Campus-wide cutoff date Sept 15 (senate faculty) Case must based upon materials available before Sept 15 (except letters); departments may set earlier cutoff date Dean’s Authority cases due 2nd Mon Nov Expanded Review cases due 2nd Mon Dec Department Deadlines Deadline-driven process means that cases must be managed with the eye on the timelines from start to finish – April to December – Internal department deadlines encompass candidacy decisions (e.g. elig letters go out April 5, due back April 19), materials from candidates in order to pursue outside letters, names of potential reviewers (and names of people the candidate does not want contacted). Depts also need to set deadline for extramural evaluator letters in order to receive the letters back in time to incorporate into the case and discuss in faculty meetings, which are usually scheduled sometime in the fall. e.g. five days for the candidate to comment per #12 on the safeguard statement: “I was informed of my right to make written comments, within 5 working days, to the Chair (or appropriate person) regarding the departmental recommendation. I was aware that these comments would be included in the file and made available to other voting faculty in the department.” This means that the final department letter needs to be given to the candidate at least five days before the deadline, this year Dec 10, 2018 (and Nov 13th for Dean’s authority cases) Dean’s Authority Expanded Review

Department & campus deadlines – Faculty (cont’d)
Red Binder I-2 Case must based upon materials available before Sept 15, except letters delayed outside of department’s control What if departments have an earlier cutoff date? example: department biobib cutoff date is June 30 Outside letters are solicited in Aug. Evaluators sent candidate CVs updated through August – is this a problem? YES – may result in evaluators reviewing items not on the biobib Campus cut-off Department Deadlines

Department & campus deadlines – General
Red Binder I-2 In promotion to tenure cases, exceptions to campus-wide Sept 15 cutoff date may be appropriate What if the candidate wants to include future dates of events that are scheduled to occur after the department or campus cutoff date? do not include Research series cut-off: December 31 Project Scientist/Specialist cut-off: January 31 Campus cut-off Department Deadlines What if departments want to change their existing cutoff date? Both Dean and Associate Vice Chancellor of Academic Personnel must be notified There are other considerations as well – how to get everyone in the department on track, would have to take place over a number of years. HELLY to give next slides on the biobib

Case Materials - Biobib
What is a Bio-bibliography or “biobib?” Why does the review process require a biobib instead of a Curriculum Vitae (CV)? The biobib contains information also found in a traditional curriculum vitae, but arranged in a specific format to ensure consistency and clarity Generally divided into: Mini CV Research Teaching Professional Activities Service

Case Materials – Biobib (cont’d)
Red Binder I-27 Instructions for Completion of the Bio-bibliography (biobib) Word document template available on Forms page on AP website Only Research section should be cumulative, even in a career review Reviewing agencies have access to candidate’s complete record Should be maintained by the faculty member, checked for accuracy and compared to prior case biobib, by department analyst Teaching section omitted for research title reviews (more on this later)

Research/creative activity should be complete and accurate Correct titles, complete citations, order of author names should be accurately reflected Correctly categorized (peer-reviewed article, book, book chapter, conference proceedings, etc…) Electronic links to publications (if used) should function correctly from any computer; should link to the final version; should not require sign-in to access Links are to be listed after Title and Author information Any links listed on a biobib have to function, even if they're from a prior review period. If they are from a prior period and are non-functioning, then they should either be removed or fixed. Should go directly to the item and not require a log in, membership/subscription, or additional click to open, and should be viewable from any computer, not just those from a campus connection where a UCSB library subscription makes the publication viewable. Much of the time, departments find that they must devote space on a local server on which they store the document rather than rely upon the publisher site for the functional link.

Works in press (B items) are “counted” in the current review; these are assigned a number on the next review, but appear below the line on the next biobib and include an * Submitted (C items) should be hard copy, not links If submitted, in-process (D items) should be hard copy as well Not tracked, so often these are not included with the case materials JUNE to do next slide on self-assessments

Case Materials – Self-assessments
Self-statements may cover research, teaching, professional service, contributions to diversity and should be included in the case upload Especially in research title career reviews, self-assessments can be an appropriate place to list individualized teaching and mentoring (vs Service) Advancement criteria in research titles reviews: research/creative activities, professional activities, university and public service (see RB sections III-12, III-14 and III-16 for further details) No teaching section on biobib Candidates in research reviews often want to list teaching but since teaching is not an area of review, they look for another place to put it. However, not everything needs to be listed on the biobib. The self statement can be used to discuss one-on-one mentorship.

Extramural Letters – Evaluator Names
At least six letters are required, including minimum of two UC-familiar Refer to RB III-12 & RB III-14 for research title requirements Evaluators should be tenured faculty from distinguished institutions Advancement to Above Scale should include international Department analyst should compare names of evaluators who wrote in candidate’s appointment and any prior cases and advise accordingly, before solicitations are sent out 8-10 names usually need to be solicited in order to get six If both the candidate and the department come up with the same name, the letter is deemed department-suggested Two stage: ask first by whether the person is willing to write, if yes, send formal solicitation letter with confidentiality statement, CV, materials; names are to be included on the coded list.

Extramural Letters – Evaluator Names (cont’d)
Candidate provides names independently of the department’s list, then lists are compared. If both suggest the same name, it is counted as a department-suggested name …on coversheet and coded list

Extramural Letters – Evaluator Names (cont’d)
Deviations from requirements in RB I-46 should be explained in the coded list (not in the department letter) Repeat letter writers should generally be avoided Close associates should not be invited to write collaborators in research, colleagues, advisors, personal friends LPSOE/LSOE letters can be extramural or from campus; see RB I-56 Question: are more letters always better? If six letters are good in a tenure case, are twelve even better? “Deviations” include less than six letters, less than 2 UC Familiar letters, repeat letter writers (e.g. if the number of academics in a discipline is small), etc.

Extramural Letters – Solicitations
Do not change prescribed wording from RB I-50 without AP approval Use correct wording for the proposed action RB I-49: sample letter & confidentiality statement For research titles, refer to external evaluation sections RB III-12, III-14 & III-16 Include a deadline for return of letters Consider department timelines, e.g. fall faculty meeting schedules Department chair contact to encourage response must be careful – free of bias/influence

Extramural Letters – Materials to External Reviewers
Candidates should be treated equitably Items sent to reviewers depend upon department culture and practice Curriculum Vitae (CV) versus Bio-bibliography (biobib) Consider department cutoff dates versus “up-to-date” CV Take care that external evaluators are not reviewing items that are not going to be on the candidate’s (campus) biobib OR that are not actually in the state of publication as represented Solicitation letter and any materials sent to reviewers that are not already in the case are uploaded to AP Folio No ESCIs or written student evaluations Once a practice associated with materials sent to outside reviewers is adopted, it should be used in future. Candidate self-statements can sometimes be over-quoted in the extramural reviewer letters. Publications that are represented as “in press” should contain publication or proof marks, should not be just a Word document, if it is, it should be accompanied by some sort of proof that the item has been accepted, otherwise, the candidate may be (accidentally or intentionally) providing submitted materials and not an item that is truly accepted and in press. This can hurt the candidate in the extramural reviewers’ letters because it can be obvious. HAVE WE taken a BREAK YET?

Extramural Letters – in the meantime….
Biobib clean-up Sabbatical reports APM 025 BAP ESCIs Department analyst collects, reviews, prepares case materials as needed – see checklist RB I-34 (for research titles, RB III-9) Compare current biobib against previous case biobib, verify publication line & other info Collect ESCI reports and written student evaluations as needed Budget and Planning (BAP) teaching report Verify information between self-statements and biobib Sabbatical leave reports and APM 025 for review period Publications (hard copy or PDF links) from current period + representative career sampling, e.g (tenure case requires ALL publications) If candidate is using the BAP report and uploading it to the case, add the evals available Y/N information on the form.

Extramural Letters – Coded List
Also known as the referee or external evaluators coded list Who prepares the coded list? Why? Faculty with knowledge of the evaluators’ qualifications and context should prepare the list Discussion appropriate for the coded list often ends up on the department letter – do not make this mistake! Risk of confidentiality breach Candidate sees the department letter before the case is turned in to College – then it is too late to correct

Extramural Letters – Redacted Letters
Should candidates receive redacted letters automatically? No – offer of redacted copies should be made to candidates, but do not prepare redacted copies unless requested Must be given in advance of internal department deadline to allow time for candidate response to be considered in department letter Redact letterhead information from each page, plus signature block and any material below it No redactions should be made within the body of letter If provided, redacted versions must be uploaded to case – check that candidate reports this in safeguard statement

Department Recommendation Letter
Case preparation Once letters are received and case materials assembled, department processes case according to internal protocol, makes a recommendation, conducts faculty consultation (vote) Department process Biobib, self-statements, publications, ESCIs, etc Department Recommendation Letter APM e: The departmental recommendation is made in accordance with the procedural regulations of the Academic Senate and established governance practices of the department. The chair initiates a personnel action for an appointment, promotion, merit increase, appraisal, reappointment, non-reappointment, or terminal appointment by addressing a letter setting forth the departmental recommendation to the Chancellor (or to the Dean, Provost, or Vice Chancellor, according to the applicable campus procedure). This departmental letter shall discuss the proposed personnel action in the light of the criteria set forth in APM , and shall be accompanied by supporting evidence. The chair shall report the nature and extent of consultation on the matter within the department (including any vote taken) and present any significant evidence and differences of opinion which would support a contrary recommendation. The chair should ensure that individuals who have provided confidential letters of evaluation are not identified in the departmental letter except by code. The department shall adopt procedures under which the letter setting forth the departmental recommendation shall be available, before being forwarded, for inspection by all those members of the department eligible to vote on the matter or by a designated committee or other group of such members. Pursuant to campus procedures, the chair may also, in a separate letter, make an independent evaluation and recommendation, which may differ from the departmental recommendation. Departmental recommendation is prepared in accordance with APM e; letter is then made available to eligible faculty per departmental protocol

Departmental Letter Guidelines
Red Binder I-35 Department letter should be concise, accurate and analytical – not a listing of items documented on the biobib Accuracy of recommendation letter should be checked against all case materials including biobib, self-statements, ESCI scores, student evaluations, extramural letters, etc Case materials provide detailed evidence to support the evaluation Department letters should not be overly long, even for career cases should address all four areas of review – research, teaching, professional activity, service INCLUDE PAGE NUMBERS

Departmental Letter Guidelines (cont’d)
Career reviews encompass the candidate’s career in addition to current review period; assessment should address career overview and recent achievements overly long letters are a burden to all reviewing agencies Include departmental vote; explain any “no” votes (state if unknown) and indicate total number eligible to vote, for example: 13 yes, 0 no, 0 abstaining, 2 not voting; 15 eligible total Acceleration recommendations ideally addressed via separate paragraph or in summary paragraph acceleration justification that is “integrated throughout” letter = difficult to identify Academic Senate & department bylaws govern voting eligibility – UCSB academic senate bylaw 205/system-wide bylaw 55 Spouses are counted as eligible but are non-voting members. Should not participate in faculty meetings and discussions Any negative votes should be explained whenever possible on the basis of the faculty discussion of the case, and acknowledged when they cannot be explained. Research title promotion cases do not typically involve departmental vote; however, if vote is taken, that should be discussed in the letter (review procedure must be explained)

Context Explain the CONTEXT of research or creative activities reviewing agencies are not well-versed in every discipline – department letters should be written to be accessible/understandable to layman avoid using only specialized, technical, or esoteric language Explain the CONTEXT of awards or other accolades Nobel Prize or election to NAS may be commonly understood, but discipline- specific or international awards should be put into context

Context Explain the CONTEXT of teaching evaluations and ESCI scores Don’t ignore negative teaching evaluations or substandard ESCI scores Consider and integrate candidate’s comments teaching self-statements as appropriate If ESCI scores A & B are not provided as required, explain why Explain the CONTEXT of contributions to diversity as appropriate to four areas of review (research/creative activities, professional activities, teaching, service) RB I-35 & APM d: Teaching, research, professional and public service contributions that promote diversity and equal opportunity are to be encouraged and given recognition in the evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications. Contributions to diversity and equal opportunity may include effort to advance equitable access to education, public service that addresses the needs of diverse populations, or research in a scholar’s area of expertise that highlights inequalities. Mentoring and advising of students and faculty members, particularly from underrepresented and underserved populations, should also be given due recognition.

Departmental letter should not contain excessive quotes from self-statements, student evaluations, outside reviewers Reviewing agencies have all of this documentation in full Outside reviewer quotes should not be used in lieu of analysis, careful consideration and discussion of external evaluation letter content

Avoid evaluator discussions which identify the letter writer gender “her/him/she/he,” or that give identity clues, for example: “Referee A, a prominent faculty member at a top university in Germany who won the Kyoto Prize in 2016…” Avoid detail about solicitation process: “The department solicited three referees suggested by the candidate and three suggested by the department. All six agreed to write…” If the candidate suggested only three names, letter writer identity has been revealed Don’t let the cat out of the bag

Campus reviewing agencies
Dean’s office, AP, CAP, Ad hoc committees, AVC, EVC, Chancellor College analysts review the case first Respond to their requests for revisions/corrections promptly Additional information requests Any reviewing agency can request add’l info Not a negative reflection on the candidate Candidate should be informed (APM, Section h) Professional researchers from an academic department are first reviewed by the dean’s office then to AVC. Ad Hoc committees are appointed to review recommendations for terminal appointments at the time of tenure; promotions to tenured positions (although CAP can “act as its own ad hoc” and any other case where CAP or AVC want one). Each committee includes a chair, two members, and a department representative. CAP nominates a slate of members for each committee, that is reviewed by the AVC before the committee is set up. The department rep is someone from the department who is there to provide information to the committee. The other members are from departments outside of the requesting department but who have a general knowledge of the area. END next slide contact info

Academic Personnel Contacts
Helly Kwee Senate Faculty Math, Life, & Physical Sciences; Engineering; ORUs; Bren x5428 Vacant Social Sciences; Academic Programs; Creative Studies; Educ TBD Joanna Kettmann Research Series; Project Scientists; Specialists X5048 June Betancourt General AP policy X5728 And your college analysts!

Questions? END

Career Case Management

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Career Case Management"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Career Case Management

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Career Case Management"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback