VCRO ACADEMIC NON-SENATE REVIEW PROCESS June 11, 2007.
-
Upload
joshua-thomas -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of VCRO ACADEMIC NON-SENATE REVIEW PROCESS June 11, 2007.
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
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
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
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-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