The CALL provides policy and procedural details regarding the appointment, merit advancement, and promotion process. In particular, Appendix 6, "Appointment and Advancement of Assistant Professors at UCLA" outlines the appointment and advancement process for regular rank Assistant Professors at UCLA. It may be helpful, however, to provide here an overview of the review process to which The CALL applies.

Appointments, merit advancements (within-rank increases in step and salary), and promotions (changes in rank from Assistant to Associate or to Full Professor) are recommended by the Department Chair after consultation with the appropriate members of the department (often a delegated departmental committee in the case of merits, and the full faculty in the case of appointment and promotion). The departmental recommendation is submitted to the Dean for consideration, and--in the case of promotions, higher level appointments, and major accelerations or deferrals of more than one year--to Senate and Chancellorial review as described below.

The schedule of normal merit increases, assuming a successful review of the faculty member's performance, is described in The CALL, which provides for two years at step for Assistant Professors (Steps I through III), two years at step for Associate Professors (I and II), and three years at step for full Professors (Step I through IV). Steps IV and V of the Associate Professorship are used at UCLA only under special circumstances that are described in The CALL. There is no specified normal period of service at the Steps above Professor, Step IV; service at Steps V and above may be of indefinite duration. Since decisions are based on merit, the progress of a highly meritorious candidate through the steps and ranks may be accelerated by one or more years compared with the schedule of normal merit increases.

The extra-departmental path of the review process depends upon the nature of the personnel action under consideration. Typically, the relevant Dean has authority to approve normal merit increases, appointments at the Assistant Professor level, and accelerations of one year. All other cases (including those that involve deferrals of two years or more) are submitted for Senate consideration by way of the Council on Academic Personnel which makes a recommendation to the Chancellor. The Council may seek guidance from an ad hoc review committee of faculty members composed of members recommended by the Department, the Dean, and the Council and appointed by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel.

The Council's guidelines for deciding on the need for appointment of an ad hoc review committee are detailed in The CALL. When an ad hoc review committee is employed, the committee's report is submitted (anonymously) to the Dean for final comment, to the Council on Academic Personnel for its consideration in making a recommendation, and to the authority to whom the Chancellor has delegated responsibility for decision, usually the Vice Chancellor, Academic Personnel.

The review procedures incorporate multiple occasions for participation by the candidate in the review--e.g., occasions for adding materials to the file; suggesting names of appropriate extramural reviewers; learning the results of and commenting on any written evaluative reports, including the letter reporting the faculty discussion and vote. In the case of Assistant Professors, participation includes two procedures specific to that rank. First, there is provision for a fourth-year review, conducted by the Department, with the participation of the faculty member, for consideration by the Dean, the Council on Academic Personnel, and in certain cases the Vice Chancellor, Academic Personnel, with feedback provided in return to the candidate evaluating his or her progress toward tenure. Second, in the tenure review in those cases where the Vice Chancellor makes a preliminary assessment not to approve promotion, the candidate and the Department have the opportunity to respond to extra-departmental reports before a final administrative decision is made.

The criteria for assessment of faculty members are spelled out in The CALL's definition of each professorial series, in the "Instructions to Review and Appraisal Committees" and in the description of the special standards that apply to merit increases to Professor, Step VI and above.

The CALL's description of policy and procedures must be taken in conjunction with the formal regulations provided in the Academic Personnel Manual (APM) regarding personnel matters. The APM provides, for example, detailed rules regarding faculty and external agency access to personnel records (APM 160); appointment and promotion in the professorial series (APM 220); the faculty code of conduct and administration of discipline (APM 015); child-bearing and parental leave (APM 760); and the duties and responsibilities of Department Chairs (APM 245). A member of the faculty who believes that impermissible criteria have been employed in an academic personnel review or a procedural violation has occurred, may file a grievance with the campus Committee on Privilege and Tenure (but the substantive merits of the case will not be reviewed in the grievance process). Academic appointees who are not members of the Academic Senate have available a grievance procedure under Section 140 of the Academic Personnel Manual. Individuals who believe that their rights have been violated in an academic personnel case may contact the Committee on Privilege and Tenure by calling extension 53851.

The concept of "shared governance" that has been vital in the development of UCLA as an academic institution is central in the review process. It is embodied in the role that the Departmental faculty play in appointments, merits and promotions; in the contribution that ad hoc faculty review committees make to the decision process; and in the important role of the Senate-appointed Council on Academic Personnel's recommendations regarding personnel actions.