Academic Personnel Manual section 200-0 mandates that "Every faculty member shall be reviewed at least every five years."

The following describes the procedure to be followed in conducting the Five-Year Review. The procedure is designed to be flexibly applied to the various professorial ranks, and is intended to be an informal process for reviewing those faculty members to whom the mandate applies. The flexibility of the procedure reflects a shared understanding that the additional review burdens imposed by the mandate should be kept at a minimum for the Department Chairs.

The purpose of the Five-Year Review is to identify any impediments to success; to develop, where applicable, alternative strategies for improvement; and to assess the likelihood that the faculty member will earn a normal advancement to the next step or rank within a designated period following the Five-Year Review. The criteria to be used are those applicable to the individual's next normal step or rank -- i.e., the standards pertinent to the faculty member's potential advancement or promotion.

The designated period would be the applicable "normal" period of service for the faculty member's next advancement in step or rank; for Associate Professors, two years; for Full Professors (below Step V) three years.

The emphasis on flexibility recognizes that the nature of the review will necessarily vary for differently placed faculty.  Five-Year Reviews of faculty members at Step VI and above, those on the verge of retirement, and those who hold Adjunct status would ordinarily be accomplished with dispatch. The Five Year Review has the potential to be most constructive for mid-career faculty members between Associate I and Professor V; they would therefore typically require more detailed reviews. 

Flexibility also applies in the respect that the Chair's letter (see Section IV below) may vary as appropriate in its recommendations, depending upon the circumstances (see Section VIII below). Flexibility is also provided by way of the fact that the Chair's consultation process in connection with the Five-Year Review is left as a matter of departmental discretion. (See Section IV below).

 

The Five-Year Review process applies to the following faculty members who have not been formally reviewed in the preceding five years: 

• Associate Professor
• Professor
• Associate Professor-in-Residence
• Professor-in-Residence
• Associate Professor of Clinical (X)
• Professor of Clinical (X)
• Adjunct Associate Professor
• Adjunct Professor
• Associate Clinical Professor (Compensated)
• Clinical Professor (Compensated)
• Lecturer SOE
• Senior Lecturer SOE

It does not apply to faculty members who are in the Executive Program or to faculty whose appointments are Without Salary and Without Step.

The Five-Year Review requirement takes into account the individual's review history; thus, the limited five year review process described here applies only to those faculty members who have not been otherwise formally reviewed in the preceding five years (see examples in Section IV below).

The Department Chair is responsible for making the departmental recommendation in a Five-Year Review.  Note that the Five Year Review differs from other academic personnel decisions, which require that a departmental recommendation be made by a vote of the faculty or a formally designated committee. Before making a recommendation, the Department Chair should, however, consult with such a designated faculty committee, or other faculty body (for example, the departmental Executive Committee or Personnel Committee). As in all other reviews, the faculty member whose record is being assessed shall have the opportunity to be informed about the documents that serve as the basis for the review and to contribute additional materials. The Chair will consult with the faculty member to update and discuss the individual's recent professional contributions before making a recommendation. The faculty member has the right to read and respond to the Chair’s letter.

The Chair's recommendation should be incorporated in a letter that is sent to the Dean for final action by the appropriate decision-maker (the Dean, or the Chancellor by way of the Dean, as specified in Section VII below). The Chair's letter should review the individual's accomplishments in teaching, research, professional activity, and service during the previous five year period, and offer a recommendation as to what further steps, if any, are appropriate in light of the review (see Section VIII below, on Outcome of the Five-Year Review).  If the decision-maker concurs, the Chair's letter constitutes the Five-Year Review (see Section VIII below).

 

The Five-Year Review is conducted in the Spring of the academic year that ends a period of five years in which the faculty member has not been reviewed. The following are the kind of “events”  that trigger the beginning of the counting of the five year period:

1. A decision by the Chancellor or Dean approving or disapproving a formal proposal for advancement in step or rank. The five year period begins on what was the effective date of the advancement.
2. Completion by the Chancellor or Dean of a Five-Year Review. The five year period begins on July 1 following the academic year in which the Five-Year Review was completed.

Professor A's advancement from Professor I to II was approved by the Dean, effective July 1, 1995. Professor A was not reviewed for advancement effective July 1, 1996, '97, '98, '99, and has not been proposed for July 1, 2000. The five year period begins on July 1, 1995 and ends on June 30, 2000. There will be a Five-Year Review in Spring 2000. The review would address Professor A's progress in the past five years, and the likelihood of advancement of Professor A to Step III effective on or before July 1, 2003.

Example 2:

Associate Professor B was reviewed for promotion from Associate Professor Step III to Professor I in academic year 1994-95 and disapproved for promotion effective July 1, 1995. The five-year period begins on July 1, 1995. There would be a Five-Year Review in Spring, 2000 (1999-2000 academic year being Professor B’s 5^th year). The review would address Professor B's progress in the past five years, and the likelihood of promotion for Professor B in two years.

1. Time served by a faculty member in the Executive Program is not counted in computing the five-year period;
2. Sabbatical and salaried leaves are counted in computing the five-year period;
3. The Chancellor will determine in the individual case whether an unsalaried leave is to be counted in computing the five-year period; and
4. Receiving a salary adjustment within step does not constitute a formal review, hence it does not serve to alter the five-year count.

The administrative officer responsible for final action in the Five-Year Review is the officer who would have authority to approve the faculty member's next normal advancement in step or rank.

The last personnel action for faculty member C was approval by the Dean for advancement from Associate Professor I to Associate Professor II. The Dean has responsibility for final action in the Five-Year Review.

The last personnel action for faculty member D was disapproval by the Chancellor of promotion from Associate Professor III to Professor I. The Chancellor has responsibility for final action in the Five-Year Review.

The last personnel action for faculty member E was approval by the Chancellor for promotion to Professor I. The Dean has responsibility for final action in the Five-Year Review.

Where the Dean is responsible for final action in the Five-Year Review, the Dean, after considering the document(s) submitted by the Department Chair, determines the outcome of the review, and sends a letter reporting the outcome to the Department Chair with a copy for the faculty member.

Where the Chancellor is responsible for final action, the Dean transmits the material submitted by the Chair together with the Dean's statement. The Chancellor determines the outcome of the review, and sends a letter reporting the outcome to the Department Chair, with a copy to the Dean and a copy for the faculty member. Note that, in keeping with Section III above, the Dean or the Chancellor may determine that the Chair's letter constitutes the Five-Year Review assessment.

The individual's total contribution should meet the appropriate standard for a UC faculty member; thus, if it is concluded that there is substantial weakness in a given area (e.g., in research productivity) and little prospect for improvement in that area, consideration ought to be given to alternative assignments (e.g., in teaching, departmental service, etc).

The Department Chair's letter may include, as appropriate in the individual case and by way of illustration, the following elements:

1. A chronological overview of the faculty member's recent personnel history;
2. An  assessment of the faculty member's achievement and/or specific weaknesses in any of the customary areas of evaluation: teaching; research or other creative work; professional activity; and service;
3. A simple acknowledgement of good performance, when appropriate, particularly in the case of a faculty member at Step VI or above, or on the verge of retirement.
4. A possible recommendation of an off-scale salary adjustment when warranted by recent achievements.
5. The suggestion of possible actions that may be taken following the review; for example, specifying methods for improvement of teaching; recommending revision of the faculty member's division of responsibilities (e.g., increase or decrease in teaching or administrative responsibilities); exploring the potential for new lines of research and/or funding sources including the possibility of more support for the individual’s research program from the university.
6. A proposal that the record warrants merit advancement or promotion (in the latter case a formal departmental review would be required including submission of the appropriate dossier materials and conforming with departmental procedures for faculty consultation in advancement or promotion cases). 
7. An assessment of the likelihood that the faculty member will be advanced in step or rank in the next two (Associate Professors) or three (Full Professors) years.