The UCLA CALL

Appendix 35

— Merit Equity Review (MER) —

Revised July 1, 2005

I.     Policy

The Office of the President has mandated that each campus provide a mechanism for ensuring that all University ladder faculty members are at the appropriate rank and step that is consistent with achievement. The Merit Equity Review has been established for Ladder-Rank faculty and will go into effect on July 1, 2003.

A request for MER must be a substantive request which will require all supporting information as described in the CALL relating to the rank and step of the proposed advancement.  A significant discrepancy between the faculty member’s existing rank and step and that of his/her peers within the same discipline must be identified.  The MER process also provides an opportunity for those in administrative positions, including Deans, Chairs, and the Council on Academic Personnel (CAP), to suggest a MER for faculty whose rank and step are found to be seriously inconsistent with attainment.  A MER may not be used as a mechanism to grieve a negative action that has occurred in the current or prior academic year, nor may it be scheduled in less than the normal merit review interval (three years for Professor and two years for Associate Professor) following a final administrative personnel decision involving a CAP recommendation. A MER may also not be used in lieu of a currently available normal personnel action, including a one-year accelerated or deferred action.

 

 II.   Purpose of the Merit Equity Review and Criteria Applied

The purpose of the Merit Equity Review (MER) is to ensure that all University ladder faculty are at the appropriate rank and step consistent with the prevailing UC and UCLA standards. The MER does not deal with salaries.

A request for a MER must be substantive; that is, it must contain a request for a specific rank and step, with documentation appropriate to support that request. The review will proceed by assessing the candidate’s overall record, using the University’s established criteria with one exception: where a significantly higher rank or step is indicated, the case will not require the additional demonstration of a basis for accelerated advancement.

 

III.   Faculty Members to Whom Merit Equity Reviews are Applicable

 The MER process applies to the following ladder faculty members:   

• Associate Professor

• Professor

• Associate Professor-in-Residence

• Professor-in-Residence

• Associate Professor of Clinical (X)

• Professor of Clinical (X)

• Lecturer SOE

• Senior Lecturer SOE

A MER of an individual faculty member shall not occur at the Assistant Professor level.  A MER may occur once at the Associate Professor level; once at the Full Professor level, prior to advancement to Professor, Step VI; and once after advancement to Professor VI.
 

IV.   Responsibility for Preparing the File

There are two ways in which a file proposing a MER may be brought forward to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel: 

1)   Any ladder faculty member may request from his/her Department Chair that he/she be put forward for a MER. The faculty member’s request should identify, in addition to the other information specified in this Appendix, area(s) of the record that he/she believes were not previously sufficiently evaluated and/or area(s) of the record that indicate he/she was not hired at the appropriate rank/step commensurate with his/her accomplishments at
the time of hire. The review process for a MER will be the same as that established for whatever level the candidate requests as the outcome of the MER. Before making a recommendation, the Department Chair should consult with such faculty committees, or other faculty bodies, as prescribed by the Departmental Bylaws or customary practices for consultation in cases at the requested level. 

2)   In the case of a ladder faculty member where there is evidence his/her Chair or Dean will be unable to compile the MER file with appropriate objectivity, the faculty member may request that the action bypass one or more of these reviewing agencies. Such requests must be approved by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel in consultation with CAP. If the Chair is removed from the review process, the Dean will assume all of the duties normally assigned to the Departmental Chair for a MER review and will act in accordance with the customary departmental review procedures for the requested level. If the Dean is removed from the evaluation process, the Chair will submit the departmental recommendation directly to APO for review by CAP.

In extraordinary circumstances where permission is granted to bypass both the Chair and the Dean, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel in consultation with CAP will be responsible for appointing an ad hoc departmental committee. The committee would assume the Chair’s responsibilities of assembling the MER materials, reviewing the dossier, and overseeing the preparation and review of the MER report in accordance with customary departmental review procedures for the requested level. The Chair of the departmental ad hoc committee will substitute as the Departmental Chair for the purposes of the MER review and will provide the candidate with a copy of the committee report and summary of departmental deliberations prior to the dossier being sent forward to APO.

Note: If the recommended advancement involves an action that would require outside letters of evaluation, such letters must be included in the case (see “Sample Solicitation Letter for Merit Equity Review” below).  In addition, the department must include a history of the candidate’s employment at UCLA, including rank, step and salary at appointment, years at step, and years at rank, sabbaticals and leaves.  A copy of the salary history record is required.

V.     When the Review is Conducted 

The MER is conducted following the established deadlines (see Submission Deadlines).  Once a department or unit recommendation has been determined, it is to be communicated promptly to the faculty member for his or her response, then to the appropriate Dean (except in circumstances described in section IV.2 above) for the Dean’s recommendation, and to APO for transmittal to CAP, which will make a recommendation for action by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel.

VI. The Council on Academic Personnel Process (CAP)

CAP’s assessment and recommendation play a critical role in MER, as CAP is the only peer review body that has the advantage of a campus-wide perspective on faculty performance; and, unlike any other reviewing body, CAP has the ability to collect and compare files drawn from across the campus. CAP strives to ensure equity with every review. In consultation with the Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel, CAP will determine if a campus ad hoc committee will be required. The Dean (except in circumstances described in section IV.2 above) will have an opportunity to review the ad hoc committee report, as is done in all cases that require a campus ad hoc committee.

VII. Outcome

The Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel shall make the final decision based on the full body of evidence in the file. If favorable, the effective date shall be set at the beginning of the next academic year.

 

VIII. Appeals 

There is no appeal or reconsideration process for a Merit Equity Review.

— Sample Solicitation Letter for Merit Equity Review —

The following is a sample letter of extramural referees for a Merit Equity Review.  This text must be included in solicitation letters of evaluation.

University of California
Matrix of Ranks & Steps  
 

a.  Advancement to Step VI is based not only upon performance since the last preceding advancement but also upon performance during the individual’s entire academic career. Advancement to Step VI will be granted on evidence of great distinction, recognized nationally or internationally, in scholarly or creative achievement or in teaching.  Provided, however, that advancement to Step VI will not be granted if performance under any of the criteria -- scholarly or creative achievement, teaching and service -- falls below a level of excellence. Advancement to Step VI normally will not occur after less than three years at Step V.

b.  Advancement to Steps VII, VIII and IX will be granted on evidence of continuing achievement at the level required for advancement to Step VI. Advancement normally will not occur after less than three years at the current step.

c.  Advancement to an Above-Scale salary is reserved for scholars and teachers of the highest distinction, whose work has been nationally and, where relevant, internationally recognized and acclaimed. Except in rare and compelling cases, advancement will not occur after less than four years of service at Step IX. Mere length of service and routine good performance at Step IX is not a justification for further salary advancement. There must be demonstration of additional merit and distinction beyond the performance on which advancement to Step IX was based. A further merit increase in salary for a person already serving at an Above-Scale salary level must be justified by new evidence of merit and distinction. Intervals between such salary increases may be indefinitely long and only in the most strongly justified cases will increases at intervals shorter than four years be approved.

Checklist of Documents for 
Merit Equity Reviews
 

Please submit two copies of each (original plus one copy) in the indicated order:

Name:   _____________________________________________________

Department:   ________________________________________________
 

[  ]  1.  Chair’s Letter (optional) 

[  ]  2.  Department Letter

[  ]  3.  Vote Page

[  ]  4.  Candidate’s Response (optional)

[  ]  5.  Candidate’s Self-Statement (optional but encouraged)

[  ]  6.  Extramural Letters (if required, see “Sample Solicitation Letter for Merit Equity
           Review.”  Letters should be a balanced selection from the Candidate and Chair’s list.)

[  ]  7.  Student Letters Evaluating Teaching

[  ]  8.  Current Bibliography

[  ]  9.  List of Professional Activities and service

[  ] 10. University and Public Service

[  ] 11. Grant Activity (if applicable)

[  ] 12.  Student Teaching Evaluations

Table of Contents

Appendix 36