New Five-Year Review New Five-Year Review PolicyPolicy

Carole GoldbergVice Chancellor, Academic Personnel

Fall QuarterOctober 18, 2013

Process for DevelopmentProcess for DevelopmentResearch into other UC Policies

◦Ours very informal, vague◦Davis, Riverside, UCSF more structured

Consultation with Academic Senate ◦CAP◦CODEO◦FECs◦Executive Board

2

Why Now?Why Now?Department Chairs unsure about existing

policy

Changing conditions on campus◦More students◦Altered environment for research

funding, publication

Desire for greater campus support for advancement

3

Authoritative SourcesAuthoritative SourcesUC’s Academic Personnel Manual (APM)

◦ http://www.apo.ucla.edu/policies◦ APM 200-0: “Every faculty member shall be

reviewed at least every five years. The Chancellor, with the advice of the Academic Senate, shall determine the level and type of review and shall develop appropriate implementing procedures.”

UCLA CALL, Appendix 12◦ https://www.apo.ucla.edu/policies/the-call/append

ices-1/appendix-12-five-year-reviews◦ Explains purposes, series subject to review,

timing, process, outcomes◦ Effective for reviews this year, effective 7/1/14

4

Purposes for Five-Year Purposes for Five-Year ReviewsReviewsIdentify faculty who have been

inappropriately overlooked for advancement

Identify impediments so faculty members and university can develop strategies for advancement

Ensure equitable distribution of university responsibilities

5

Who is Subject to Review?Who is Subject to Review?Everyone in a teaching series at Associate

or Full◦ Ladder◦ In-Residence◦ Adjunct◦ Lecturer SOE◦ HS Clinical◦ Clin X

Everyone in Professional Research Series (APM 310-17d)

6

When is the Review?When is the Review?Spring of year that marks five years of no

review for rank or step

A negative review starts a new five-year period

Leave time will count absent permission from Vice Chancellor

Pathways agreement may include deferral of Five-Year Review

7

What are the Basic Changes?What are the Basic Changes?Greater detail and guidance

◦ Candidate’s responsibilities◦ Faculty input◦ Responsibilities of Department Chair

Specified outcomes◦ Satisfactory with advancement◦ Satisfactory without advancement◦ Unsatisfactory

Where appropriate, clearer expectations and plan for improved performance to achieve advancement

8

9

What is the Process?What is the Process? Varied to suit differently placed appointees

Advance request from Chair to submit material for a dossier◦ Review is mandatory◦ Department must use available materials if none submitted

Faculty input according to department policies/bylaws

10

What is the Process? (cont.)What is the Process? (cont.) Chair develops departmental

recommendation

Faculty member can review, augment, respond to the Chair’s letter

Dean also provides recommendation, and forwards dossier to Vice Chancellor

Vice Chancellor makes final decision, and may seek guidance from CAP

What Happens if Review is “Unsatisfactory”?What Happens if Review is “Unsatisfactory”?

Chairs will provide an Action Plano Reviewed and approved by Vice Chancelloro Specifies performance expectations in aspect(s) of performance that don’t

satisfy criteria applicable to current stepo Establishes timetable for improvement over next five years

Potential elements of an Action Plano Strategies to improve teachingo Revision of responsibilitieso Exploration and support for new lines of researcho Possible change in serieso Mentoring (e.g., new Emericorps Mentoring Program)

Faculty member submits annual progress report

Consulting with faculty, Chair provides written Annual Evaluation of progress for dossier

11

What if Plan Expectations are not Met?What if Plan Expectations are not Met?

Chair submits Annual Evaluation to Vice Chancellor, who may seek advice of CAP

Chair will recommend further steps consistent with the APM

12