ACADEMIC SENATE: SAN DIEGO DIVISION
FEBRUARY 24, 1998

ANNUAL REPORT
COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PERSONNEL
1996-97

INTRODUCTION

The Senate Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) advises the Chancellor or a designated representative -- ordinarily, the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (Senior VCAA) -- on appointments, promotions, terminations, and certain merit increases for most series of academic personnel. The committee also advises the Academic Senate and administration on policy matters relating in some way to academic personnel.

As the last stage of the elaborate process by which faculty members review other faculty members' accomplishments, CAP has especially serious responsibilities. It must maintain high standards both of excellence and of fairness. It must be prompt yet thorough. It must have a comprehensive understanding of rules and precedents, and it must profit from its experience of the many hundreds of files that are annually submitted to its judgment.

Service on CAP has traditionally provided a chance for its members fully to appreciate, not only the remarkable complexity of the University's review system, but also the remarkable variety and quality of their colleagues' achievements. We of the 1996-97 committee are very grateful to have been given this opportunity.

In the following report, we discuss some important issues that arose during the year, and present statistical reports on the cases we considered [see Appendix #1].

COMMENTARY

I.   Overrides and Consultation with the Administration

As was the case the previous year, a remarkable result of this year's consultation with the Administration was the Interim Senior VCAA's high rate of agreement (98.5%) with the judgments of CAP. This is very close to the previous high point of 99.4%, which was reached in 1990-91. [The low point in recent years was the 96.6% agreement in 1988-89.]

A.  Overrides

There were 10 overrides by the Administration, as follows:

CAP recommended a high-level professorial appointment as proposed; the Interim Senior VCAA approved the appointment with a large off-scale salary, one which the committee was not prepared to support.

CAP could not for procedural reasons support an accelerated career advancement but did recommend market off-scale for retention purposes; the Interim Senior VCAA granted the proposed advancement.

CAP agreed with the department's assessment of a candidate's sixth year appraisal of favorable with reservations; the Interim Senior VCAA's appraisal was problematic.

CAP split on a major accelerated advancement, which the Interim Senior VCAA supported.

CAP recommended a major advancement as proposed, which the Interim Senior VCAA accelerated by a step.

CAP recommended a high-level professorial appointment but at a lower step; the Interim Senior VCAA supported the appointment as proposed.

CAP recommended a high-level appointment as proposed; the Interim Senior VCAA approved it at a lower salary.

CAP recommended a promotion to tenure but with less of an increase in the proposed market off-scale salary; the Interim Senior VCAA approved a higher salary.

CAP recommended promotion to full professor but with less of an increase in the proposed market off-scale salary; the Interim Senior VCAA approved a higher salary.

CAP recommended a merit increase but with less of an increase in the proposed market off-scale salary; the Interim Senior VCAA approved a higher salary.

Nevertheless, the Interim Senior VCAA indicated that he has been especially impressed by the solidity of CAP's analyses and judgments this year, and that he feels that the system serves the campus well. Parenthetically, the CAP Chair notes that, having observed very different leadership styles and memberships in his several terms on the committee, the members have always bonded, and achieved a remarkable level of discourse.

B.   Administrative Consultation

 In the interest of openness and communication CAP has in recent years extended an invitation to Deans, Directors, Department Chairs, and Provosts to visit with CAP to discuss committee attitudes, practices and procedures, or general issues of campus academic personnel policy. This year CAP met in this way with the Chairs of the Departments of Medicine, Political Science, and Reproductive Medicine; with the SOM Dean for Academic Affairs; and with the Provost of Marshall College. These meetings were exceptionally cordial and helpful to CAP. Additionally, the Interim Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, along with the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel, also visited CAP on several occasions; and the CAP Chair and/or Vice Chair attended and answered questions at several meetings of the General Campus Department Chairs.

II.  Cases Outstanding

The end of CAP's 1996-97 session tied the previous year's unprecedentedly low number of cases (4) on which CAP had not made final recommendations. This result can again be attributed to extraordinarily effective consultation with the Senior VCAA; the removal of the deadline for departmental submission of non-tenure files from May 1 to April 1; careful preparation of files by most departments; and the willingness of CAP to act as its own ad hoc committee in a relatively large number of cases (see below, "Ad Hoc Committees").

III.  Ad Hoc Committees

CAP routinely nominates (and the Senior VCAA appoints) ad hoc committees to advise on proposals for major advancements and for hiring with tenure. CAP has the ability, however, to act as its own ad hoc committee, an ability that it tends to exercise in cases that seem clear-cut or in which a quick response to retention/recruitment is called for. During 1996-97, CAP again acted relatively often as its own ad hoc -- 36.4% of the time.

 

% time agreed with ad hocs

% time acted as own ad hoc

1996-97

79.6%

36.4%

1995-96

79.3%

40.7%

1994-95

75.0%

26.2%

1993-94

75.6%

17.5%

1992-93

80/9%

24.3%

1991-92

81.8%

28.4%

1990-91

67.6%

37.8%

We wish to remind the faculty that service on campus ad hoc review committees is critically important, and indeed should be considered a duty rather than a burden. A sound, thorough, analytical ad hoc committee report, mindful of the pertinent criteria for the action proposed, is invaluable to CAP deliberations. A brief statement of general praise, lacking in any real evaluation of the candidate's accomplishments, is, however, not very useful. We realize that faculty members must sometimes refuse ad hoc service due to scheduling difficulties, or being out of town or just too busy. However, a high number of turn-downs can result in unfortunately delays to reviews, and on occasion CAP will decide to act as its own ad hoc to avoid further delay. It has been suggested by at least one department chair that, as incentive to serve, faculty members receive credit for serving on ad hoc committees by having information about their service records included in their own personnel reviews. We note that individual faculty members can always provide such general information (for example, "served on four campus ad hoc committees") as evidence of campus service.

IV.  Academic Series and Salaries Criteria (the PPM)

A.  Adjunct Professor series

1. CAP has for some time had concerns about the varying interpretations of the criteria for appointment and advancement in the Adjunct Professor series and the different ways the series has been used across the campus. Taking into account the 1-1-88 wording of PPM 230-20, II.D.5a, CAP proposed that a statement of clarification be added [language underscored] to the current (10-1-94) language, as follows:

a. A candidate for appointment or advancement in this series shall be judged by the four criteria specified below. Evaluation of the candidate with respect to these criteria shall take appropriately into account the nature of the University assignment of duties and responsibilities and shall adjust accordingly the emphasis to be placed on each of the criteria. The relative distribution of responsibilities among the four criteria may differ but must be clearly defined for each individual at the time of appointment and advancement. For each criterion, the quality of the accomplishments must be equivalent to that specified for the Professor series. The Adjunct Professor series may not be used for individuals whose quality of work has fallen below that expected for the Professor series.

It is expected that this revision will appear in the PPM at its next printing.

2. Proposal from the Department of Biology for streamlining appointments/reappointments of non- salaried adjunct professors from the Salk Institute.

CAP recognizes that there exists a unique relationship between the Salk Institute and the Department of Biology as a result of the Affiliation Agreement Between the Regents of the University of California and the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences to establish a joint graduate program. It is also acknowledged that the Salk Institute has consistently set very high standards for its faculty, and that the quality of the research and creative accomplishments of its faculty meets the criteria specified for individuals in the Professor series at UCSD. In order to streamline the process of appointment, reappointment and promotion, and to ensure that high standards are maintained, CAP recommended the following:

At the time of the initial appointment to Adjunct Professor status or for promotional review, a file would be submitted in the format used by the Salk Institute for the most recent evaluation of the individual (including CV, outside letters already obtained, and ad hoc committee report, if present in the file), accompanied by a letter of recommendation from the Department of Biology. For individuals who already have Adjunct Professor status but are being considered for promotion, the file should also contain a written synopsis of the candidate's teaching and service. For legal reasons, it probably will be necessary that approval be obtained from the outside referees for inclusion of their letters in the file submitted to CAP.

For reappointment, the process proposed by the Department of Biology should be sufficient. In such cases, the department would ensure that the files submitted to CAP contain a written synopsis of the candidate's research, service and teaching (including evaluations) as well as an updated CV.

 B.   Project Scientist tier of the Professional Research series

Based on information provided by the Interim Senior VCAA's office in the fall quarter, it was CAP's understanding that all "retierings" in the transitional period have now been completed, and that PSSRP [Project Scientist and Specialist Review Panel] will continue to see both project scientist and specialist career reviews. CAP was therefore confident that it could discontinue review of project scientist appointments and advancements, with the understanding that we would, however, be willing to look at exceptional cases should input from the committee be desired.

C.   Professor-in-Residence series

1.  UCAP Task Force on I-R Series

During the past year UCAP has continued discussions on the Professor-in-Residence series. Although the Academic Senate passed a memoriam, the report is under continuing discussion by the various System-wide committees. It is hoped that final resolution of this critical issue will occur during the 1997-98 academic year.

2.  Professor-in-Residence appointments in the School of Medicine

The School of Medicine proposed to allow in-residence faculty voluntarily to reduce their percent time to as low at 50% while retaining their in-residence appointment. To a certain extent, current in- residence policy as contained in the PPM may make this a moot point. However, while the intent was to be supportive of faculty, CAP felt that there are definite downsides to making it easy to reduce in-residence faculty percent time.

Currently, in SOM departments, there is a strong moral commitment to retaining I-R faculty no matter what, if they have reached the associate or full professor level. The feeling is that they have demonstrated outstanding scholarship, teaching, service, etc., and that even if grant funds should dwindle, there is more than enough to do around the University where such individuals' skill and dedication would be appreciated. As a result, the departments make a commitment to support the faculty. I-R and FTE faculty members are treated identically in all ways except in terms of where the salary comes from. While no UC FTE support backs up I-R salaries, such salaries are backed up by a combination of hospital revenues, grant support, clinical revenue, and departmental support.

Allowing a reduction in per cent time of I-R faculty sets a bad precedent that in the long run will be detrimental to the I-R faculty. Because it is an "all or nothing" decision regarding a faculty appointment, there is currently a substantial hesitation to remove someone's appointment. If one allows a partial reduction in time, that hesitation would be removed. One would also be concerned that decisions to reduce involuntarily an I-R faculty member's time might be arbitrary on the department chair's part or on the part of the hospital administration. The additional consequence of facilitating the reduction in per cent time of I-R faculty would be a reduction in their University service, teaching, etc., clearly an unpalatable consequence since the I-R faculty are so crucial in the teaching hospitals.

Allowing the reduction in I-R per cent time also further blurs the distinction between adjunct and I-R faculty. The layoff or involuntary reduction in time procedure would presumably become identical between I- R faculty and adjunct faculty, perhaps with the exception that I-R faculty would have the right to a P&T hearing. However, unlike the adjunct faculty, the I-R faculty (like the FTE faculty) is supposed to be all things to all people (researcher, teacher, clinician, University citizen). Once you reduce the I-R faculty member's per cent time, you make it impossible to fulfill the I-R criteria and in essence begin the process of forcing them into adjunct professor series.

Finally, the salary implications of a reduction in per cent time need to be addressed. As proposed by Dean Schneider, faculty who were salaried 50% time in the I-R series and who were expected to participate in the full complement of faculty activities (teaching, research, clinical, University service) would not be allowed to keep professional income generated in their non-University supported time. When this was challenged, a supposedly more accommodating position was that such professional income would have to go through the faculty practice plan, and that the faculty could keep whatever remainder trickled down to them. However, the University does not "own" its faculty seven days a week. If the University ceases to pay its faculty full-time, the University has no right to capture any income generated by the faculty in their non-University time.

CAP feels that the committee should continue to be consulted in every instance of Professor-in- Residence per cent time reductions -- involuntary and voluntary.

 D.   Off-Scale Salaries

In 1995 the Representative Assembly proposed a revision to the policy on off-scale salaries, essentially providing for a six-year period of no tapering of market off-scales, and more clearly delineating between bonus and market off-scales. This revision has not as yet been incorporated into the published PPM. It is our understanding, however, that departments and candidates will continue to be referred to the minutes of the Representative Assembly meeting of April 25, 1995, which describe the policy change regarding bonus and market off-scales.

E.   UC Berkeley proposal to add Steps IX and X in the full Professor rank

At present, there are eight steps in the Full Professor rank. Advancement beyond Step VIII, resulting in Above-Scale status, occurs as a result of an additional career review. Two years ago Senate organs at Berkeley recommended the addition of a Step IX and, at some later point, a Step X. The major argument for this proposal was a perceived need to prevent careers from being arrested at Step VIII, and to "save" Above-Scale from being used as merely another "step." The major argument against the proposal was a perceived need to keep advancement to the higher steps of the Professor series from becoming merely routine. CAP had been mildly favorable to further exploration of the proposal to add Steps IX and X. Although CAP had not been fully convinced that the change was necessary, the committee was reassured by the fact that the proposers envisioned retention of a full career review as necessary for advancement to Step VI. CAP had also been assured that should Steps IX and X be established, there would still be career- review "barriers" to routine advancement at both VI and Above-Scale. This year we report that the proposal ultimately did not gain support at the UCAP level, and instead an ad hoc committee was set up to review the step system in general. This issue is pending.

F.  Professors Above-Scale

At a spring UCAP meeting it was noted that many campuses permit Professors, Above-Scale to use "Distinguished Professor" as a more appropriate and descriptive name for their rank in official correspondence and other matters pertaining to University business. The granting of this to campus faculty would be done through the Senior VCAA's office. It is not clear if this ever occurred at UCSD, but we note that some faculty of this rank in some departments have been doing this practice for some time.

G.   Terminations/Layoffs/Reductions in Percent Time

CAP has been concerned that insufficient information has been provided in proposals for faculty terminations for lack of funds or reductions in percent time for lack of funds. As a result, CAP sometimes requested that such proposals be returned to the department requesting additional information. While CAP knows that these decisions are not made lightly, CAP feels it is important that the department indicate clearly what process they have taken on such cases. It does not serve the University, the department, or the faculty member well for such a proposal to suggest that a decision was taken lightly, or seemed arbitrary (i.e., communicated unilaterally to the faculty member). Therefore, CAP tried to articulate some questions for departments to address to assure that all options have been considered fairly. The committee encouraged Dean Schneider to communicate the "quasi-policy guidelines" to the SOM departments informally.

 V.  Endowed Chairs committees/candidates considered

CAP nominated search committees and reviewed nominees for the following endowed chairs:

SAIC Chair in Engineering;
Blasker Chair in Environmental Engineering;
Harold Clayton Urey Chair in Chemistry;
William E. and Mary B. Ritter Memorial Chair;
Chancellor's Associates Chair IV;
Ingrid and Joseph W. Hibben Chair in Space Science and Education;
Ritter Memorial Chair.

VI.  Administrator Review

This year CAP was pleased to review and support ad hoc committee reports on the review of Department Chairs Lewis L. Judd (Psychiatry), Palmer Taylor (Pharmacology), and Stanley Mendoza (Pediatrics), and Provost Thomas Bond (Revelle College).

In another administrator review file CAP was extremely frustrated in not being able to reward good work of outstanding teaching and administrative contributions, since the individual did not have any significant scholarly and creative efforts in the period under review. We encourage the Administration to continue to seek creative ways in which such individuals could be rewarded without violating the integrity of the academic review process and its focus on scholarly achievement.

VII.  Departmental voting procedures

On May 4, 1995, the Representative Assembly of the system-wide Academic Senate revised Senate Bylaw 55, which governs voting procedures in departments. In various complex ways, the revisions limited departments' ability to restrict or extend voting privileges to members within the various ranks of assistant, associate, and full professor. Although revisions in the Bylaw had little to no effect on the voting procedures of most UCSD departments, departments were required to vote to confirm the agreement of their procedures with the Bylaw and to submit these procedures for approval to CAP. Thirteen departments completed this procedure that year; and last year CAP reviewed and approved submissions from an additional four departments: Biology, Economics, Medicine, and Political Science.

VIII.  Miscellaneous Academic Policies

A.   UCSD Biological Sciences Compensation Plan

The majority of CAP members viewed the proposal as a positive step towards remedying the salary inequity that exists between the biological science faculty on the General Campus and those in the School of Medicine. It was further felt that the proposed plan would also facilitate the development of a more favorable environment for productive interactions and open dialogue. CAP did have some concerns, however, regarding the inclusion in the plan of biological science faculty from the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. CAP felt it important that the proposal be reviewed by the entire Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, and that the criteria for inclusion in the plan and the decision-making process be clearly defined.

A minority position on CAP held that the plan would set up, in addition to the existing salary disparity between the Ph.D. faculty in the SOM and those on the General Campus, an equal disparity between the faculty on the General Campus in biological sciences and in all other disciplines. Further, tensions may likely result between the biological science faculty in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and other faculty in that department. It was also felt that the proposed salary increment (which would be negotiated between the faculty member and the department, and then approved by the dean) circumvents the procedure set up for Academic Senate input into how salaries are determined. While the proposed plan has existed in the SOM for some time, it seems basically unfair and should not be spread into General Campus departments.

B.   Policy on Professional School Differential Fees

CAP had serious concerns that a major change in University policy could result from this proposal, i.e., that student fees could be used directly to support faculty salaries in the University of California. We viewed this as a major change in UC operations, one which could have serious consequences in many of our activities. Certainly this could have a negative impact on our public relations with many constituencies in the state of California. Thus, although we can appreciate the potential justification for a different fee structure for professional school students, we did not want such differential fees to be used as an indirect way of diverting student fees to support faculty salaries. Therefore CAP strongly urged that the use of student fees support the activities that they now do.

C.   Faculty Workload

CAP reviewed and endorsed the Report of the UCSD Task Force on Faculty Workload, supporting the dissemination of information regarding what faculty actually do in terms of their workload in real hours rather than percent effort.

D.  Faculty Disciplinary Procedures

CAP reviewed and commented on the Task Force Report on Faculty Disciplinary Procedures. One issue concerned the use of attorneys and who should pay for them. The report seemed to conclude that lawyers should be involved minimally and should be paid for by the faculty member. The first part of this conclusion seemed piously unrealistic, and the second conclusion, although perhaps realistic, seemed unsupportive of faculty. It is likely that in serious disciplinary cases faculty members will wish their own attorneys to be present. Particularly when the faculty member is found "innocent" at a disciplinary hearing, it seems unfair for that faculty member to have to pay the substantial legal fee for representation. This would be all the more true if the case was found to be a "nuisance" case, i.e., maliciously filed, or involving a trivial matter. There may be some circumstances in which the University would automatically provide an attorney for the faculty member. However, in the vast bulk of cases, it would appear that the faculty member would have to pay these costs personally. CAP suggested that the merits of and the mechanisms for reimbursing faculty who are not found at fault should be taken into consideration.

The procedures provide that hearing panels are to be comprised of three to five members, at least two of whom are members of the Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure; the other members must be members of the Academic Senate. While this is consistent with existing policy, CAP thought it might be worthwhile to consider an alternative. Specifically, in disciplinary cases for which the specialization of Academic Senate input may not be required (e.g., cases of sexual harassment), it may be desirable to include on the hearing panel one member who is not a member of the Academic Senate. This individual may be someone drawn from a panel of community people and is acceptable to both sides of the disciplinary action. The purpose of including someone who is not a member of the Academic Senate is to ensure that important decisions in disciplinary matters reflect input from the community within which we operate. In a number of cases from the past there has been some criticism from students, staff, and community members that the University protects its own and fails to hold faculty to the standards of conduct the community expects from its members. This may lead to pressure from the "outside" to apply sanctions to our faculty. In short, if we are not perceived as policing our own, others may decide to police us. This is something we wish to -- and could -- avoid by including outside input in some cases of disciplinary matters.

Finally, CAP agreed that disciplinary actions may be delegated to Deans in the case of some actions, but not without first also having a campus-wide review of the case.

E.  Orientation for New Faculty in the Division of Natural Sciences and the School of Engineering

CAP applauded the efforts of the Staff Education and Development Division of Human Resources in preparing the draft version of the above document, at the request of the Chair of the Department of Biology. While acknowledging that some special circumstances may apply to individuals in the natural sciences and in engineering ( e.g., the importance of documentation of independence from one's postdoctoral mentor is a critical issue), we noted that the issue of shared governance within the UC System and its implementation at UCSD is one for all faculty in the orientation process.

F.   Affiliation Agreement between UCSD and the Burnham Institute

CAP gave careful consideration and its endorsement to the proposed affiliation agreement between UCSD and the Burnham Institute. This joint program in Molecular Pathology by the two institutions will be similar to the joint program in Molecular Biology by UCSD and the Salk Institute. These collaborative ventures are expected to benefit all parties.

G.   UCSD Charter High School

In supporting the early-stage proposal to establish a charter high school at UCSD, CAP expressed concerns regarding how to consider our regular faculty members who participate in the program in terms of the teaching and service aspects of their review files. CAP also felt that because of the many independent variables, it could be difficult to evaluate the program to determine whether or not it's working. It was also thought to be more cost-effective first to go out and examine existing charter schools.

H.  Standardization of review processes throughout the UC campuses

During the year UCAP formed a subcommittee to consider establishing uniform standards for the academic review process by the Divisional CAPs. COLIN BLOOR chairs this subcommittee, with the other members coming from UCSF, UCI, and UCSB. This subcommittee will continue its deliberations during the 1997-98 academic year.

 CONCLUSION

CAP wishes to thank the staff of the Academic Personnel Office for the thousands of hours of efficient, knowledgeable, and thoroughly professional work that have made CAP's own work possible. The committee is also indebted to the wisdom and unselfish service of its Advisory Committee on the Arts; the School of Medicine Committee on Academic Personnel; the Department of Medicine Council on Appointments and Promotions; the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Committee on Academic Personnel; the deans, provosts, and department chairs; and the many campus ad hoc committees.

Finally, CAP is pleased to record a very special debt to SHARON JONES, its Administrative Analyst. Her knowledge, her energy, and (even more astonishingly) her good humor have never been known to fail. We would have been lost without her.

Respectfully submitted,

Andrei Both (Theatre) [FW]
Joel E. Dimsdale (Psyche)
David C. Goodblatt (Hist)
Myrl C. Hendershott (SIO)
Kenneth Lyons Jones (Peds) [Su]
George Lipsitz (EthSt)
Sheldon A. Nodelman (VisArts (SSu]
Charles L. Perrin (Chem & Biochem)
Barnaby J. Rickett (ECE)
Laura E. Schreibman (Psych)
Doris A. Trauner (Neuro/Peds) [FW]
Deborah H. Spector (Biol), Vice Chair
Colin M. Bloor (Path), Chair

 

APPENDIX

A. DEPARTMENTAL PROPOSALS.

During 1996-97, CAP considered 660 departmentally submitted files over the course of 32 meetings, and rendered final recommendations on these proposals to the Interim Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (Interim Senior VCAA) in 656 cases.

The weekly average of "20.6" files is, however, somewhat misleading. During the better part of the year a typical agenda contained 30 to 40 -- or more -- files for committee review. These included, for example, repeated requests for reconsideration of preliminary decisions, files coming back from ad hoc committees, and files returned from departments with requested additional information or clarification.

We have been notified of final action by the administration on 653 of the 660 cases considered by CAP. By the fall quarter, final action was still pending on 1 CAP recommendation (response to preliminary decisions); acceptance of offers was still awaited on 2 CAP recommendations. Additionally, 4 cases were still in process: 1 sent for ad hoc committee review, and 3 returned to departments for clarification or additional information.

The completed cases break down into the following kinds of actions:

Academic Category

Number of Files

% of Total

Professorial series -- General Campus, SIO, IR&PS

231

35.4%

Professorial series, School of Medicine

-- including Prof-in-Res and Prof of Clinical "X"

83

12.7%

Professional Research series

(Research Scientist and Project Scientist tiers)

99

15.2%

Adjunct Professor series

224

34.3%

Temporary and others

16

2.4%
 

653

100.0%

B. ACTION ON GENERAL CAMPUS, SIO, AND IRPS FILES

Department Proposal

CAP Recommendation
 

Approved

Modified

Rejected

Appointment to or promotion to tenure

26

10

1

-- withdrew or declined

9

0

0

Appointment to or promotion, In-Residence

0

1

0

-- withdrew or declined

0

0

0

Joint appointments

0

0

0

Promotion to Full rank

10

5

1

" " " " -In-Residence

0

0

0

Lecturer with Security of Employment actions

2

0

0

Terminal reappointment of Asst Prof

0

1

1

Appointment to Asst Prof

18

1

0

-- withdrew or declined

5

0

0

Merit increase

73

38

6

Appraisals or reviews only

0

0

0

Salary increase only

2

3

1

No-change merit

9

6

2

TOTALS

154

65

12

Modifications (28.1% of actions in this group):

Advantageous to candidate. Of the 65 CAP modifications, 14 (21.5%) were advantageous to the candidate, as follows: higher appointment step - 1; greater acceleration - 2; accelerated, not regular, promotion - 2; accelerated, not regular, merit - 2; added or greater off-scale - 5; more favorable appraisal - 2.

Disadvantageous to candidate. Of the 65 CAP modifications, 50 (76.9%) were disadvantageous to the candidate, as follows: lower appointment step - 4; acting, nor regular, title - 1; lesser acceleration - 1; regular, not accelerated, promotion - 3; regular, not accelerated, merit - 7; off-scale only, no merit - 6; less or no off-scale - 23; bonus, not market, off-scale - 2; less favorable appraisal - 3.

Disagreed with series proposed. Of the 65 CAP modifications, 1 (1.6%) involved a recommendation for appointment in a different series, with an added recommendation of promotion.

Accelerations. Of a total of 231 departmental proposals, 54 (23.4% of total actions) were for accelerations: 37 for accelerated merit increases (CAP favored 23 cases, modified 5, and rejected acceleration in 9 cases), and 17 for accelerated promotions (CAP favored 12 cases, modified 1, and rejected acceleration in 4 cases). Of the total number of accelerations proposed, CAP favored 41 (75.9%), entirely or in modified form, and opposed any acceleration in 13 (24.1%) cases.

In addition, in 2 cases CAP recommended an accelerated merit increase where regular advancement had been proposed, and in 1 case CAP recommended an accelerated promotion where regular advancement had been proposed; the departments accepted CAP's recommendation in these 3 cases.

[NOTE: Following a tradition established last year, CAP recommendations for merit increase or off-scale following departmental proposals for promotion to associate or full professor are represented in the "Rejected", not the "Modified," column. There were no such cases in this category.]

C. ACTION ON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE FILES

 

CAP Recommendation

Department Proposal

Approved

Modified

Rejected

Appointment to or promotion to tenure

5

0

0

" " " Assoc Prof-in-Res

3

0

1

" " " " Assoc Prof of Clin XX"

1

0

0

Withdrew or declined

0

0

0

Joint appts

1

0

0

Promotion to Full rank

3

1

1

" " " ", in-Residence

3

1

1

" " " ", of Clin "X"

0

0

0

Appointment to Asst Prof

4

0

0

" " " ", in-Residence

4

0

0

" " " ", of Clin "X"

1

0

0

Termination of Asst Prof

0

1

0

" " " ", in-Residence (lay-off)

0

0

0

" " " ", of Clin "X"

0

0

0

Merit increase

26

4

2

" ", in-Residence

3

1

0

" ", Prof of Clin "X"

1

0

0

No change

3

0

0

" ", in-Residence

0

0

0

" ", Prof of Clin "X"

1

0

0

Appraisals only

0

0

0

Salary increase only

0

0

0

TOTALS

68

10

5

Modifications (12.2% of actions in this group):

Advantageous to candidate. Of the 10 CAP modifications, 2 (20.0%) were advantageous to the candidate, as follows: less unfavorable appraisal - 1; accelerated, not regular, merit - 1.

Disadvantageous to candidate. Of the 10 CAP modifications, 6 (60.0%) were disadvantageous to the candidate, as follows: regular, not accelerated promotion - 2; more problematic appraisal - 4.

Disagreed with series proposed. Of the 10 CAP modifications, 2 appointments (20.0%) were recommended in different series.

Accelerations. Of a total of 83 departmental proposals, 21 (25.3% of total) were for accelerations: 11 for accelerated merit increases (CAP favored all these cases); and 10 for accelerated promotions (CAP favored 7, and rejected acceleration in 3 cases). Of the 21 departmental proposals for acceleration, then, 85.7% were favored entirely, and accelerated action was not supported in 14.3% of the cases.

In addition, 1 accelerated merit increase was recommended by CAP where the departmental proposal had been for regular action; the department accepted CAP's recommendation.

[NOTE: Following a tradition established last year, CAP recommendations for merit increase or off-scale following departmental proposals for promotion to associate or full professor are represented in the "Rejected," not the "Modified," column. There were 3 such cases, 1 involving a recommendation for a merit increase instead of promotion to the associate level, and 2 involving recommendations for merit increases instead of promotion to the full level.]

D.  ACTION ON PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH SERIES FILES (RESEARCH SCIENTISTS, PROJECT SCIENTISTS)

 

CAP Recommendation

Departmental Recommendation

Approved

Modified

Rejected

Appointment to Assoc or Full Res Sci rank

7

3

0
 

CAP Recommendation

Departmental Recommendation

Approved

Modified

Rejected

Promotion to Full Res Sci rank

7

3

0

Tier change w/promoto Assoc or Full Res Sci rank

1

0

0

(declined)

1

0

0

Appointment to Assoc or Full Proj Sci rank

3

1

1

(declined)

1

0

0

Tier change w/promo to Assoc or Full Proj Sci rank

1

0

0

Joint appt (both tiers)

0

0

0

Promotion to Full Res Sci rank

8

1

0

Promotion to Assoc Res Sci rank

6

3

2

Terminal reappointment of Asst Res

1

0

0

" " Asst Proj

0

0

0

Appointment to Asst Res Scientist

11

6

0

Tier change w/merit to Asst Re Sci

2

1

0

Appointment to Asst Project Scientist

7

6

0

Merit increase, Research Sci tier

11

7

3

withdrawn

1

0

0

Merit increase, Project Sci tier

0

0

0

‘No-change’ merit, Research Sci tier

2

0

1

‘No-change’ merit, Project Sci tier

0

0

0

Salary increase only( both tiers)

1

0

0

Appraisal only (both tiers)

0

0

0

TOTALS

64

28

7

Modifications (28.3% of actions in this group):

Advantageous to candidate. Of the 28 CAP modifications, 8 (29.6%), were advantageous to the candidate, as follows: appointment at a higher step - 7; promotion to a higher step - 1.

Disadvantageous to candidate. Of the 28 CAP modifications, 15 (51.9%) were disadvantageous to the candidate, as follows: appointment at a lower step - 5; off-scale, nomerit - 1; less or no off-scale - 2; regular, not accelerated, promotion - 1; regular, not accelerated, merit - 1; less favorable appraisal - 5.

Disagreed with tier proposed. Of the 28 CAP modifications, 5 (18.5%) were recommended in the Project Scientist tier rather than the Research Scientist tier, as follows: appointment - 2 (including 1 at a lower rank) ; promotion - 3.

Accelerations. Of a total of 99 departmental proposals, 11 (11.1% of total) were for accelerations: 3 for accelerated merit increases (CAP favored 2, and rejected acceleration in 1 case); and 8 for accelerated promotions (CAP favored 5, and rejected acceleration in 3 cases). Thus CAP favored 63.6% of the 11 departmental proposals for accelerated action; accelerated action was not supported in 36.4% of the cases.

In addition, 1 accelerated promotion (but in a different tier) was recommended by CAP where the departmental proposal had been for regular action in another tier; the department accepted CAP's recommendation.

[NOTE: Following a tradition established last year, CAP recommendations for merit increase or off-scale following departmental proposals for promotion to associate or full research scientist or project scientist are represented in the "Rejected," not the "Modified," column. There were 2 such cases, both involving merit increases instead of promotions to the associate level.]

E. ACTION ON OTHER CASES

 

CAP Recommendation
 

Approved

Modified

Rejected

Adjunct Professor Series:

      

General Campus, SIO, & IRPS

50

2

2

School of Medicine

154

12

4
       

Other Temporary Files:

      

General Campus, SIO & IR/PS

15

0

1

School of Medicine

0

0

0

TOTALS

219

14

7

Modifications (5.8 % of actions in this group):

Advantageous to candidate. Of the 14 CAP modifications, 2 (14.3%) were advantageous to the candidate, as follows: appointment made at higher rank - 1; promotion instead of regular reappointment - 1.

Disadvantageous to candidate. Of the 14 CAP modifications, 10 (71.4%) were disadvantageous to the candidate, as follows: lesser degree of acceleration - 1; appointment at lower step - 2; less favorable appraisal - 7.

Disagreed with series proposed. Of the 14 CAP modifications, 2 (14.3%) involved recommendations for appointment in a different series.

Accelerations. In this group, out of a total of 240 departmental proposals, 3 (1.3%) were for accelerated actions: 1 was for an accelerated merit increase, which CAP modified to a lesser degree of acceleration; 2 were for accelerated promotions, 1 of which CAP supported, and 1 of which CAP rejected. Thus CAP favored 66.7% of the accelerations proposed in this category.

No additional accelerations were recommended by CAP in this category.

[NOTE: Following a tradition established last year, CAP recommendations for merit increase or off-scale following departmental proposals for promotion or tenure are represented in the "Rejected," not the "Modified," column. There were no such cases in this category.]

F.  AD HOC COMMITTEES

In 1996-97, 236 files fell into the categories normally requiring ad hoc review (i.e., appointment and promotion to tenure or tenure-equivalent; advancement to full, Step VI, and Above-Scale; and terminations). Five of the cases for which CAP nominated ad hoc committees were still pending as of the Fall Quarter '97: 1 for which the ad hoc had not yet met; 2 that required additional information from departments before convening or reconvening ad hocs; and 2 awaiting acceptances of offers or responses to preliminary decisions.

For the remaining 231 cases, acted upon and finalized, CAP recommended 147 ad hoc committees (63.6% of the cases) and acted as its own ad hoc in 84 cases (36.4%).

CAP followed the recommendation of the ad hoc in 117 of 147 cases (79.6%). In 30 cases (20.4%), CAP's recommendation differed to some degree. This information is described in the table that follows:

Dept Proposal

# ad hocs nominated

# cases in which CAP

followed the ad hoc=s recommendation

 

# cases in which CAP

made a different

recommendation

Tenured & tenure-

26

22

4

equivalent appointments

      

Promotions

75

57

18

(including accelerations)

      

Merit increases

43

36

7

(including accelerations)

      

Terminal appointments

3

2

1

TOTALS

147

117

30

G. ACCELERATIONS

Dept Proposal

# ad hocs nominated

# cases in which CAP

followed the ad hoc=s recommendation

 

# cases in which CAP

made a different

recommendation

Tenured & tenure-

38

32

6

equivalent appointments

      

Promotions

73

64

9

(including accelerations)

      

Merit increases

31

27

4

(including accelerations)

      

Terminal appointments

5

3

2

TOTALS

147

126

21

G. ACCELERATIONS

 

CAP Recommendation

Departmental Proposal

Approved

Modified

Rejected

General Campus, SIO, IR&PS:

      

Merit increase

23

5

9

Promotion

12

1

4

SOM:

      

Merit increase

11

0

0

Promotion

7

0

3

Professional Research series:

Merit Increase

2

0

1

Promotion

5

0

3

Other:

Merit increase

0

1

0

Promotion

1

0

1

TOTALS

61

7

21

Of a total of 89 departmental recommendations for accelerated action, CAP supported 76.4% entirely or in modified form, and rejected acceleration in 23.6% of the cases.

Additionally, CAP recommended some form of acceleration in 5 cases where only normal actions had been proposed by the departments. These included 3 recommendations for acceleration in regular merit increase cases (2 on the General Campus and 1 in the SOM), and 2 recommendations for accelerations in regular promotional cases (both on the General Campus). All were accepted by the departments.