VCRO ACADEMIC NONSENATE REVIEW PROCESS

1
VCRO ACADEMIC NON-SENATE REVIEW PROCESS

• June 11, 2007

2
AGENDA

• PROCESS OVERVIEW
• DEFINITIONS
• CRITERIA
• CASE PREPARATION
• ROLES
• DELAYS PITTFALLS

3
OVERVIEW
4
REASONS FOR REVIEW

• Recognize and reward performance
• Maintain academic standards at the highest level
  of excellence
• Ensure candidate pursues a productive career

5
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

6
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

7
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

8
NORMAL PATH OF PROGRESSION
9
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

10
OUTSIDE OFFERS

• Salary offer from institutions 5-10
• Will respond to peer institutions only
• Wont match industry
• Offer should be in writing

11
CAMPUS WORKFLOW
12
DEFINITIONS

• Type of Review
• Timing of Review
• Salary

13
TYPE OF REVIEW

• 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

14
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

15
SALARY

• 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 candidates established rank and
  step salary (flat dollar amount-no R/A)
• Above Scale - Beyond top of scale (no step
  designation)

16
REVIEW CRITERIA

• Research or other creative work
• Professional activity
• University and public service

17
RESEARCH AND CREATIVE WORK

• Categories
• Refereed Publications, Archival Journals,
  Conference and Symposium Proceedings
• Non-Refereed Publications, Technical Reports,
  Book Reviews
• Books
• Other (creative work)

18
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

19
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

20
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

21
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
• Dont submit for other reviews unless requested

22
CASE PREPARATION

• Look at earlier reviews to identify outstanding
  issues that need to be addressed
• Follow Documentation Checksheets
• Directors 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

23
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

• STAFF
• CANDIDATE
• DIRECTOR
• VCRO

24
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, Directors letter, etc)
• Ensure works credited in last review are not
  counted in current review
• Follow-up promptly when requests for additional
  information are made

25
ROLES-STAFF

• Understand policies and procedures and ask
  questions if you dont
• 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

26
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 (dont wait until
  the review!)
• Respond to requests in a timely manner
• Understand policies and review process

27
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

28
ROLES-DIRECTOR

• Reserve exceptional requests for extraordinary
  meritorious accomplishments and circumstances
• Provide evaluation of candidate-dont just concur
  (lack of credibility)
• Pay attention to feedback in reviews

29
ROLES-DIRECTOR

• Discuss case with candidate throughout
  preparation (Fairness Safeguard)
• Understand policies and procedures
• Ask questions when unsure

30
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

31
REASONS FOR DELAY

• Incomplete Cases
• Recommendation doesnt 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 Directors letter)
• Typographical errors in salaries and effective
  dates

32
COMMON PITTFALLS

• Directors letter fails to provide full and
  independent analysis of candidates contribution
• Insufficient discussion of candidates
  contribution in collaborative work, summary of
  publications, impact of achievements on
  candidates field, candidates ranking in the
  field
• Joint appointments arent coordinated with home
  department

33
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

34
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING

• Please complete the evaluation form provided