Resubmission of a departmental recommendation in a case in which there was a final negative decision for advancement or promotion of an Associate or Full Professor 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

A formal evaluation of an Assistant Professor 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 tenure rank.
    

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 to tenure rank.
    

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 Assistant Professor- in-Residence series and other specified titles. See Appendix 14 for "Guide to the 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 at the election of the department or when requested by the appointee, Dean, Council on Academic Personnel, or Chancellor.

When a required appraisal coincides with review for renewal of appraisal or merit increase or both, 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 below on "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;

4. has given written notice of resignation.

All Schools or 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.

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.

A. Exclusions

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

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

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.

Except in instances of resignation or dismissal for good cause, non-renewal of the appointment of an Assistant Professor follows only upon review. Review and submission of dossier are required during the second year of each term as an Assistant Professor until the individual becomes subject to an Eight-Year Limit Review. The department may only recommend (a) renewal for a two-year term or (b) non-renewal. However, a department may institute a review in the first year of term and recommend non-renewal beyond the current two year term.

A. Senate Review

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 notification process. See Section IX, "Preliminary Assessment of an Assistant Professor" for process.

If as a result of a review of an Assistant Professor, 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.

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, 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.

If an Assistant Professor 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.

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 ending on a specified date.
   

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.

If there is a proposal that an Assistant Professor not be renewed and if fiscal or programmatic considerations are significant factors in the case, the facts of the matter shall be fully discussed with the Council on Academic Personnel, and the Council shall be furnished with the results of the Chancellor’s consultation with other Senate committees on the fiscal and programmatic considerations. The Chancellor shall consider the Council’s advice on the case prior to making a final decision.

Section 103.9 of the Standing Order of The Regents provides:

"All appointments to the positions of Associate Professor and Professor and to positions of equivalent rank are continuous in tenure until terminated by retirement, demotion, or dismissal. The termination of a continuous tenure appointment or the termination of the appointment of any other members of the faculty before the expiration of the appointee’s contract shall be only for good cause, after the opportunity for a hearing before the properly constituted advisory committee of the Academic Senate."

 

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 a 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.