"Titles in the Professor of (e.g., Psychology) in-Residence series are assigned to academically qualified research or other creative personnel who engage in teaching, research, and University service to the same extent as those holding the corresponding titles in the professorial series in the same department" — Academic Personnel Manual Section 270. See Appendix 5 for "Instructions to Review and Appraisal Committees" regarding personnel actions.

All appointments and reappointments at any rank must have a specified ending date. The maximum term of an appointment is:

When extending an offer to individuals in this series, it is necessary for the Dean or Chair to include the following statement in any correspondence regarding their offer of an appointment or renewal of appointment:

"This appointment is for a specific term, with an ending date as herein set forth, and is not for a longer period unless express written notification is so given to the appointee. In the absence of such express notification, the appointment ipso facto terminates on the designated ending date."

As an exception to the requirement of a specified ending date, appointments in this series may be made at the Associate Professor and Professor ranks with no specified ending date ("indefinite") in the case of positions in the Neuropsychiatric Institute the base salaries of which are funded more than 50% by General (19900) funds.

Appointment must be at 100% of full time unless the Chancellor or Dean certifies that the appointee’s sole professional commitment is to the University and the appointee is a member of an approved compensation plan in the University or the equivalent in an affiliated institution. The service components assigned an In-Residence appointee must be equivalent to those of a regular Professorial appointee in the department.

Tenure or Security of Employment is not granted in association with appointment in this series.

* An Assistant Professor-in-Residence who has completed eight years of service in that title, or in that title in combination with other titles as established by the President, shall not be continued after the eighth year unless promoted to Associate Professor-in-Residence or Professor-in-Residence. For additional titles that count toward this limit, see Appendix 14 for "Guide to the Computation of Years of Service Which Count Toward the Eight-Year Limit."

Total service in this series when supported from General Funds (19900) for 51% or more may not exceed eight years. In addition, there is a cumulative limit on all prior appointments made in the Adjunct Professor, Professor of Clinical (X), and Clinical Professor (Compensated) series. Appointments made in these series when supported by General Funds for 51% or more time, in combination with appointment in the Professor-in-Residence series, also count toward the Eight-Year funding limitation. See Appendix 14 for "Guide to the Computation of Years of Service Which Count Toward the Eight-Year Limit."

It is the responsibility of each Department Chair (in cooperation with any employing Principal Investigator or Director) to assure that each appointee to this series is at all times aware of the financial longevity of the source(s) of support for the appointment.

Departmental provisions for Teaching Assistants, Professional Research—, Postgraduate Research—, and Research Assistants may not be used to support appointments to this series.

Appointees to all ranks are members of the Academic Senate.

An individual appointed to this series is compensated on the same Salary Scale and basis established for the Regular Professor series compensation. An Off-Scale salary rate may be approved by the Chancellor or, upon specific delegation, by the Dean.

Salary scales established for the Regular Professorial series are as follows: Academic Year (9 months); Fiscal Year Scale; Law School Scale; Business Administration/ Management and Engineering Scale and the Health Science Compensation Scale. Local campus differential scales are also established for the School of Public Health and for the School of Education and Information Studies.

Deans not serving as Chair have Off-Scale approval authority up to and including the next step. All Off-Scale rates must be in multiples of $100. For all other Off-Scale salary up to the Regental threshold the Chancellor is the final approval authority. Salaries exceeding this threshold require Regental approval (refer to annually published UC Salary Scales for Regental thresholds). See Appendix 17 for "Summary of UCLA Policy on Off-Scale Salaries."

C. Above-Scale Salary Limitations

The Chancellor has the authority to approve Above-Scale salaries up the Regental threshold (refer to annually published UC Salary Scales for Regental thresholds). Approval of salaries beyond this approval authority require Regental action.

Please see Appendix 22, "Summary of Recruitment Policy" and Appendix 23, "Faculty Search Guidelines" regarding search requirements and required documentation.

Criteria for assessment of individual qualification are set forth in Appendix 5, "Instructions to Review and Appraisal Committees" except that in applying these criteria in cases involving individuals in the rank of Assistant Professor-in- Residence, due consideration must, of course, be given the individual’s promise, as well as achievement, in research and creative activity.

Employment encompasses the following types of personnel actions:

1. Appointment

Initial employment in the series or permanent intercampus transfer. Review and submission of a dossier are required for appointment.

2. Re-employment

Appointment in the same series after a previous separation. Review and submission of a dossier are required.

3. Renewal of Appointment/Reappointment

Appointment immediately following the ending date of a self-terminating appointment in this series. Review and submission of dossier is not required, provided there is no change in rank or step.

4. Change in Series

Transfer to another academic series. Review and submission of a dossier are required. See Appendix 26 for dossier content and search requirements.

5. Change of Department

Transfer from one department to another. Review and submission of dossier are required.

6. Split Appointment

Permanent salaried appointments where the faculty position is divided between two or more departments, when taken together, total 100%. Review and submission of a dossier are required. Also see Appendix 15 for policies governing Interdepartmental Degree Programs and Centers for Interdisciplinary Instruction.

7. Joint Appointment

Appointment to an additional department on a without salary basis where the faculty position remains based in the home department. Review and submission of dossier are required. Please see Appendix 15, "Joint and Split Appointments" for instructions regarding secondary department participation in subsequent reviews.

8. Temporary Appointment

Appointments made on a year-to-year basis to academic administrative positions or to temporary research positions require no dossier.

9. Informal Extra-Departmental Affiliations

An informal relationship (not a Joint or Split Appointment) with an Organized Research Unit, research center, or interdepartmental teaching program, within the University for the purposes of advising or conducting research. An evaluation of the appointee’s contribution to that program should be submitted in all actions requiring a dossier.  Also see Appendix 37 for Interdisciplinary Activity.

The effective date of an appointment is the first day on which payment begins.

For Academic Year (9-month) appointments, the effective date of the appointment will not coincide with the being date of the service period. Effective dates for Academic Year appointments commence as follows:

July 1 -- Fall Quarter
November 1 – Winter Quarter
March 1 – Spring Quarter

The effective date for Fiscal Year appointments will always coincide with the first day of service.

E. Senate Review

The following tables apply to all Schools and Colleges.

1. Appointment, Re-employment and Change in Series

2. Renewal of Appointment/Reappointment

When renewal of a self-terminating appointment in this series coincides with a required appraisal, a merit increase, or promotion, a dossier is to be submitted. Such dossier is subject to the review, approval authority policies and procedural requirements governing that action

3. Change of Department and Split Appointment

4. Joint Appointment (WOS Appointments)

Authority to approve or deny recommendations rests at the administrative levels indicated below.

Employment actions for an Academic Year (9-month) appointment approved by the Dean after the first day of the service period requires Chancellor’s approval for the retroactivity.

For Fiscal Year appointees, employment actions approved by the Dean more than 6 months after the effective date of the appointment requires Chancellor’s approval for the retroactivity.

1. Appointment, Re-employment and Change in Series

Dentistry, Law and Nursing

Arts and Architecture, Education and Information Studies, Engineering and Applied Science, Letters and Science, Management, Medicine, Public Health, Public Policy and Social Research, and Theater, Film & Television

2. Renewal of Appointment/Reappointment

All Schools and Colleges

* provided that there is no change in rank and step

3. Change of Department and Split Appointment

Dentistry, Law and Nursing

Arts and Architecture, Education and Information Studies, Engineering and Applied Science, Letters and Science, Management, Medicine, Public Health, Public Policy and Social Research, and Theater, Film & Television

4. Joint Appointment (WOS Appointments)

Dentistry, Law and Nursing

Arts and Architecture, Education and Information Studies, Engineering and Applied Science, Letters and Science, Management, Medicine, Public Health, Public Policy and Social Research, and Theater, Film & Television

The following restrictions govern all employment:

1. any action involving employment of near relatives (see Appendix 21, "Employment of Near Relatives") requires approval of the Chancellor;
2. compliance with recruitment and search requirements; and
3. any exception to policy governing the series requires the advance 
   approval of the Chancellor.

Advancement encompasses merits, merits to Above-Scale and further Above-Scale and promotions. Advancements become effective July 1st. See APM 200-17a for the policy regarding the payment of salary increases associated with merits and promotions.

Eligibility does not imply automatic advancement. Departments are required to review the record of each individual when the individual becomes eligible for a normal merit increase or promotion to determine whether or not advancement should be recommended. Advancement follows only upon demonstration of qualification following review.

A dossier must be submitted whether or not Senate Review is waived. See the "Summary of Procedure" section for detailed procedural requirements associated with each category of advancement.

The responsibilities of Recommending Officers are set forth in Appendix 1, "Guidelines for Department Chairs and Other Recommending Officers" and Appendix 2, "Synopsis of Academic Personnel Manual Section 220." For an individual with a Joint or Split Appointment, see Appendix 15.

In addition, when an individual has an informal extra-departmental affiliation, the primary department is to obtain from the head of the other unit, an evaluation of the individual’s contribution to that program. The evaluation should include the individual’s scholarly work, names of faculty members who might serve as members of a campus ad hoc review committee, and names of persons at other institutions from whom evaluations of the individual’s scholarly work might be solicited by the department. Any such material provided to the department shall be included by the department in the resulting dossier. In the absence of departmental initiative, the head of the other unit may act freely in proposing departmental consideration of an appropriate personnel action, and may submit to the department any of the material described above.

Note: If service began on or before January 1 for a Fiscal Year appointee or the beginning of the winter quarter for an Academic Year (9-month) appointee, the full year is credited toward eligibility.

Advancement in step not involving change in rank. Review and submission of dossier are required for merit increase and occur during the year prior to advancement. Review for merit increases through Professor-in-Residence V and merits to Professor-in-Residence VII through IX involves evaluation of performance during the period of service in the current step. Review for Merit increases to Professor-in-Residence VI and Professor-in-Residence Above Scale involves evaluation of performance during the individual’s entire academic career.

1. Normal Merit Increase

All personnel completing the requisite number of years of service in the indicated steps of this series are eligible for normal merit increase to the next higher step effective July 1st:

2. Accelerated Merit Increase

Advancement in step in advance of eligibility or to a higher step than normal constitutes acceleration and requires evidence of exceptional achievement.  

3. Deferred Merit

Merit increases that are deferred by one or more years are not subject to Senate Review unless requested by the candidate.

4. Merit Increase to Professor-in-Residence VI, VII, VIII, IX and Above-Scale

There is no specified normal period of service at the steps above IV and eligibility based on years of service does not apply to advancements beyond Step V. Service at Steps V and above may be of indefinite duration.

1. 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 highly distinguished scholarship, highly meritorious service, and evidence of excellent University teaching. Great distinction, recognized nationally or internationally, in scholarly or creative achievement or in teaching is expected. However, 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.
    
2. Advancement to Steps VII, VIII and IX will only 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.
    
3. 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 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.  Faculty who have attained the rank of Above-Scale may use the title “Distinguished Professor X” as a working title. 

5. Senate Review

All Schools and Colleges

*Senate Review is waived except in cases where two (2) consecutive, two-year accelerations have been sought.

6. Approval Authority

Authority to approve or deny recommendations rests at the indicated administrative levels except that:

1. any merit increase involving compensation at an Off-Scale rate requires Chancellor’s approval for the Off-Scale rate (unless authority has been generally delegated to the Dean); and
    
2. any merit increase for an Academic Year (9-month) appointee approved by the Dean after the first day of the service for the Fall Quarter, requires Chancellor’s approval for the retroactivity.
    
3. any merit increase for an Fiscal Year appointee approved by the Dean after September 1st, requires Chancellor’s approval for the retroactivity.
    
4. any merit increase of two years acceleration in the Professor-in-Residence Series (except Professor-in-Residence Step VI) has the final approval authority of the Dean, except in cases where two (2) consecutive, two-year accelerations have been sought; the Chancellor has final approval authority.

Dentistry, Law and Nursing

Arts and Architecture, Education and Information Studies, Engineering and Applied Science, Letters and Science, Management, Medicine, Public Health, Public Policy and Social Research and Theater, Film & Television

*Senate Review is waived except in cases where two (2) consecutive, two-year accelerations have been sought.

Advancement in rank within series. Review and submission of dossier are required for Promotion and should occur during the year prior to advancement. Review for Promotion involves evaluation of performance during the full period of service in the current rank.

1. Normal Promotion

All personnel completing the requisite number of years of service in the indicated steps of this series are eligible for normal promotion to the indicated rank and step effective July 1st. See APM 200-17a for the policy regarding the payment of salary increases associated with merits and promotions.

Eligibility does not imply automatic advancement. Advancement follows only upon demonstration of qualification following review: 

2. Accelerated Promotion

Promotion in advance of eligibility or to a higher rank or step than normal constitutes acceleration and requires evidence of unusual achievement.

3. Senate Review

All Schools and Colleges

4. Approval Authority

All Schools and Colleges

Resubmission of a departmental recommendation for advancement in a case in which there was a final negative decision for advancement or promotion of an Associate or Full Professor-in-Residence may be made, after appropriate departmental review of the resubmitted file, in any year succeeding the year in which the original submission was made. Except in unusual cases, a final academic personnel decision will not be reconsidered in the same year the case was originally submitted, and a resubmitted proposal will not be approved unless sufficient new evidence has been added to the file.

VI. Fourth-Year Appraisal of an Assistant Professor-in-Residence

Appraisal is a formal evaluation of an Assistant Professor-in-Residence which is made in order to arrive at the prospects of the candidate for eventual promotion and to provide information to the candidate regarding those prospects.

Appraisals are characterized as:

1. "Favorable" - indicating an assessment that it appears likely that the individual will eventually qualify for promotion to Associate Professor-in-Residence.
    
2. "With Reservations" - indicating an assessment that there is identified weakness or imbalance in the record which appears to require correction in order for the individual eventually to qualify for promotion.
    
3. "Unfavorable" - indicating an assessment that on the present evidence it appears unlikely that the individual will eventually qualify for promotion to tenure rank.

Appraisal is to be conducted during the fourth year of combined service in the Assistant Professor rank of this series, service in the Regular Professor series and other specified titles. See Appendix 14 for "Guide to Computation of Years of Service Which Count Toward the Eight-Year Limit."

Appraisal may also be conducted at any time during service as an Assistant Professor-in-Residence at the election of the department or when requested by the appointee, Dean, Council on Academic Personnel, or Chancellor.

When a required appraisal for an appointee in the Assistant Professor rank coincides with review for merit increase, a single combined dossier should be submitted. Such a dossier is subject to review, approval authority policies and procedural requirements for appraisal.

Note: Whenever the department’s appraisal is "unfavorable," a vote must be taken and recommendation made with respect to the separate question of the individual’s continued appointment. A department may recommend an (a) unfavorable appraisal and continuation of appointment; or (b) unfavorable appraisal with recommendation for non-renewal. See Section VIII, "Non-Renewal of Appointment of an Assistant Professor as a result of a Personnel Review" for procedures regarding non-renewal.

When the department recommends a "with reservations" or "unfavorable" appraisal of the likelihood of eventual promotion, if the record demonstrates positive elements such as conscientious and effective service the department may wish to recommend a merit increase without thereby qualifying its less than favorable appraisal.

C. No Appraisal is required if the individual:

1. is being recommended for promotion effective the following July 1st;

2. has been given notice of a terminal appointment;

3. is subject to an Eight-Year Limit Review; or

4. has given written notice of resignation.

All Schools and Colleges

Appraisal recommendations are forwarded to the Dean’s Office for transmittal to the Council on Academic Personnel. Once the Council has commented, the appraisal is ordinarily returned to the Dean for final determination. However, in cases where an "unfavorable" recommendation has been made, the Chancellor becomes the final approval authority. In addition, if CAP makes a "with reservations" recommendation, at their discretion CAP may recommend that the appraisal be reviewed and decided by the Chancellor.

In cases where the Dean is the approval authority, if the Dean’s final assessment differs from that of the Council on Academic Personnel, the custom is for the Dean to discuss the matter with the Council prior to his/her final decision.

All Schools and Colleges

Any appraisal for an Academic Year (9-month) appointee approved by the Dean after the first day of the service for the Fall Quarter, requires Chancellor’s approval for the retroactivity.

Any appraisal for a Fiscal Year appointee approved by the Dean after September 1st, requires Chancellor’s approval for the retroactivity.

VII. Eight-Year Limit Review of an Assistant Professor-in-Residence

An Assistant Professor who has completed eight years of service in that title or in combination with other designated titles, cannot be continued after the eighth year unless promoted to associate professor. See Appendix 14, "Guide to the Computation of Years of Service Which Count Toward the Eight-Year Limit."

Review and submission of a dossier are required for consideration of promotion no later than the seventh year of service. Departments may recommend either to promote or not. If, as a final outcome of the review process, a decision not to promote is rendered, notice will be issued and a one-year terminal appointment will result.

1. A review during the seventh year of service is not conducted when:

• the appointee has given written notice of resignation, or
• a terminal appointment has already resulted as a result of a prior review.

2. A review during the seventh year of service may be postponed when:

• a request for stopping the clock for substantial child care of a newborn as provided in APM 133-17(h) has been previously approved, or
• a leave of absence has been previously approved to be excluded from service toward the Eight-Year Limit.

See Appendix 25, "Leaves of Absence" for further information. For categories of certain leaves of absence that can be excluded from the count toward the Eight-Year Limit, see Appendix 14 for "Guide to the Computation of Years of Service Which Count Toward the Eight-Year Limit."

All Schools and Colleges

All Schools and Colleges

Note: The final decision by the Chancellor not to promote, cannot be made without the appropriate Preliminary Assessment notification process. See Section IX for process.

VIII. Non-Renewal/Non-Reappointment of an Assistant Professor-in-Residence as a result of a Personnel Review

Though an appointment to a title in this series with a specified ending date expires by its own terms on that date, a recommendation not to continue made on the basis of performance, can only occur as the result of a review. See Section XI if non-renewal is due to budgetary reasons, programmatic changes, or lack of work.

All Schools and Colleges

All Schools and Colleges

Note: The final decision by the Chancellor not to renew, cannot be made without the appropriate Preliminary Assessment process. See Section IX for process.

If as a result of a review of an Assistant Professor-in-Residence, the Chancellor’s preliminary assessment is not to renew or promote, or is contrary to the departmental recommendation, the Department Chair and the candidate shall be notified of this in writing by the Chancellor.

The final decision by the Chancellor not to renew or promote, shall not be made without the appropriate preliminary assessment notification process and opportunity to respond being provided to the candidate.

A. Formal Procedures

1. The Department Chair and the candidate shall be notified of this in writing by the Chancellor and be provided with all records placed in the personnel review file subsequent to the departmental review.
    
2. The candidate shall have the opportunity to provide additional information and documentation and may respond in writing either to the Department Chair or directly to the Chancellor.
    
3. The Chair, after appropriate consultation within the department, shall have the opportunity to respond in writing and to provide additional information and documentation.
    
4. The personnel review file, as augmented by the added material, shall then be considered in any stage of the review process as designated by the Chancellor before a final decision by the Chancellor is reached.

When a personnel review results in a final decision (1) not to renew the appointment of an Assistant Professor-in-Residence, or, (2) not to promote to Associate Professor as the result of an Eight-Year Limit review, the Chancellor will provide the individual with written notification of a terminal appointment.

If so desired, the individual may request of the Chancellor that a written statement of the reasons for the non-renewal or decision not to promote be provided. This statement will only be provided upon receipt of a written request.

X. Reconsideration of Terminal Appointment of an Assistant Professor-in-Residence

If, as a result of a personnel review, an Assistant Professor-in-Residence is given notice of a terminal appointment, the faculty member may, during the period prior to the final termination date, request reconsideration. The presumption is that the previous decision was correct, and it will be an unusual case where that decision, which resulted from a lengthy and careful set of reviews, will be reversed on reconsideration. The prior decision will be reversed only if there is substantial new evidence which strengthens the area(s) of weakness in the original record to the extent that the total record now meets the standard for promotion.

Formal Procedures

1. A faculty member’s request for reconsideration should be communicated to the Chair. The Chair should consult with the faculty member regarding the request and inform the faculty member in writing of the deadline for submission of additional materials, in order to permit timely departmental review. Departments should establish a deadline for making additions to the record, and a time schedule for departmental faculty review, so that there can be timely submission of the case to the Academic Personnel Office. Additions to the record may not be made after the deadline date established by the department. Unless a different deadline has been approved by the Chancellor, the deadline for submission to the Academic Personnel Office of a request for reconsideration, including all additions to the record, is the announced date for submission of departmental recommendations in promotion cases. Submission of a request for reconsideration, consideration of the case in the personnel process, and/or reaffirmation of the original decision will not extend, or otherwise affect, the prior notice of terminal appointment.
   
2. A departmental recommendation regarding reconsideration should be submitted by the Chair in accordance with normal academic personnel procedures. There must be a review and vote by the departmental faculty, recommending either reaffirmation or reversal of the previous decision, pursuant to the department’s procedures for consideration of promotions of Assistant Professors. The department should:

1. explicitly identify what new evidence, since the earlier review, is now in the file;
    
2. explicitly evaluate whatever new evidence there may be; and
    
3. make a judgment whether the new evidence, if any, is so substantial that, taken together with the record in the previous review, the earlier decision should be reversed.

3. The file must include new Certification Statements signed by the candidate. In transmitting the departmental recommendation the Chair should include in his or her letter a summary of the department’s consideration of each of the above three matters. By way of illustration, "substantial new evidence," as referred to above, might consist of evidence that a major piece of research, not previously reviewed, has been published or accepted for publication. Ordinarily, additional evaluations of previously submitted material will not be viewed as "substantial new evidence."
    
4. A request for reconsideration does not automatically initiate consideration of the case by the entire review process. After consultation with the Council on Academic Personnel, the Chancellor determines whether a given case should be referred to an ad hoc review committee and whether this should be the original committee or a new committee. If the case is not referred to an ad hoc review committee, or, if it is so referred, after this committee makes its report, the case is considered in normal review channels, including the Office of the appropriate Dean and the Council on Academic Personnel. Final action is taken by the Chancellor.

Non-renewal of an individual’s appointment for budgetary reasons, programmatic change, and/or lack of work requires a vote by the tenured faculty of the department. Budgetary reasons include discontinuation of the funding for all or part of a program or project on which the appointee works and/or from which all or part of his or her salary is budgeted. Programmatic changes include discontinuation or restructuring of all or part of a program or project on which the appointee works. Lack of work may be because of a change in the emphasis of an on-going program or project, lack of funds, and/or the termination of an individual’s appointment at a hospital affiliated or associated with the University.

Note: Faculty of the School of Medicine who hold a salaried appointment at a hospital affiliated or associated with UCLA or at another affiliated institution, and an appointment at UCLA, are subject to the following policy:

"Continuance of an individual’s UCLA appointment is contingent upon
continuance of the individual’s appointment at the affiliated or associated hospital
or other affiliated institution pursuant to the policies and procedures of that institution."
 

1. The order of non-renewal of appointees with the same rank due to budgetary reasons, programmatic changes and/or lack of work, who are supported from the same funding source in the same department, unit, or project, shall be on the basis of special skills, knowledge, or ability essential to the operation of the department, unit, or project.
    
2. When there is no substantial difference in the degree of special skills, knowledge, or ability essential to the department, unit, or project, the order of termination shall be in inverse order of seniority. Seniority is defined as the number of months of full-time equivalent service as a faculty member at UCLA.

1. Before the Chair provides written notice to the individual the Chair shall submit the file to the Dean and the Chancellor for review of the procedural aspects of the consideration of the matter within the department.
2. If the Chancellor determines that the process within the department was appropriate, the Dean will inform the Chair that the written notice can be given to the appointee. The written notice should:

1. provide the individual with a minimum of twelve calendar months notice before the ending date of the appointment; or
    
2. in a case in which such twelve-months notice is not given, if the funding source(s) for the appointment so permit, the individual will be given a terminal reappointment for the number of months for which notice was not given. If the funding source(s) for the appointment are not sufficient to support a terminal reappointment for the full number of months for which notice was not given, the individual shall in any event receive such a reappointment for a minimum term of three calendar months; or
3. the Dean may determine that salary for the period of such a terminal reappointment may be paid in lieu of reappointment.

3. Upon receipt of notice of non-renewal, the appointee may request in writing a written evaluation of his or her academic achievements. Such an evaluation will serve to establish for the record an institutional assessment of the appointee’s qualifications and performance independent of budgetary, programmatic, or lack-of-work considerations. The written statement shall be given to the individual before the specified ending date whenever possible. The appointment will, however, end on the specified ending date, regardless of the date of the statement.

Termination of an appointment with a specified ending date, prior to that ending date, may be only for good cause and is subject to the provisions of Regents Standing Order 103.9.

Except in instances of resignation or dismissal for good cause, termination of an existing appointment which does not have a specified ending date ("indefinite") may be accomplished as follows:

1. Written notice by the Chair of termination for budgetary reasons, programmatic reasons, and/or lack of work and specification of an ending date will serve to establish a specific ending date.
    
2. Once a specific ending date has been established, appointments are subject to the provisions of Regents Standing Order 103.9 and the provisions in Section XI, "Non-Renewal of a Term Appointment for Budgetary Reasons, Programmatic Changes, or Lack of Work."

Academic Personnel Manual Section 200-0 mandates that "Every faculty member shall be reviewed at least every five years." Appendix 12 describes in detail the purpose of the Five-Year Review, the criteria to be applied, and the procedure involved. Two features are emphasized regarding the Five-Year Review:

1. The Five-Year Review process only applies to those instances in which a faculty member has not been reviewed in the course of an appraisal, merit increase or promotion review in the previous five years; and
    
2. the procedure is designed to be flexibly applied to the various professorial levels.