Committee on Academic Personnel
Annual Report 2000-2001

Brian Alldredge, Pharm.D.
Chair


During the 2000-01 academic year, the Committee on Academic Personnel met as a Committee on twenty-nine occasions.

In addition to reviewing approximately 315 files for appointment, promotion or change in series and working on several ongoing stewardship reviews, the Committee reviewed and acted on the following issues:

  • Revisions to APM 140, 145 and 150 and proposed APM 137 procedures governing Non-Senate Academic Appointees
  • Inconsistent Criteria for Promotion Across Departments and Schools
  • Rescission of Regents’ Policies SP-1 and SP-2
  • Raising the cap on Clinical X series appointments
  • New Faculty appointment checklist
  • Templates from the Academy of Medical Educators for summaries of distinctive educational effort
  • Concept (as applied at UC –Riverside) of Career Reviews where faculty could initiate review of their files
  • Stewardship Review Procedures
  • Selection of the 2001 Distinction in Teaching Award Recipient
  • Revisions to the "Faculty Handbook for Success – Advancement and Promotion at UCSF"


Systemwide Issues

The University Committee on Academic Personnel worked on several issues this year. One relevant to UCSF was a discussion of the "Career Review" concept as implemented at UC Riverside. A career review allows a faculty member to initiate a review of his or her file to assess his or her advancement status. At UC Riverside, this procedure is only accessible to ladder rank faculty. This issue also came before this Committee at the request of UC and UCSF administration and is discussed further below.


University Issues

The Committee worked on several issues at the Division level.

Revisions to APM 140, 145 and 150 and proposed APM 137
APM 140, 145 and 150 govern procedure for Non-Senate Academic Appointee grievances, layoffs and involuntary reductions in time, and corrective actions and dismissals. Proposed APM 137 would govern Non-Senate Academic Appointee term appointments. The Committee reviewed and was, in general, in favor of the proposed revisions and proposed new policy. The Committee also provided specific comments and suggestions regarding the revisions to Vice Chancellor Bainton. (ATTACHMENT 1)

Inconsistent Criteria for Promotion Across Departments and Schools
The Committee and Vice Chancellor Bainton convened a retreat with the Associate Deans from the Schools of Dentistry, Nursing, Medicine and Pharmacy in March 2001. A primary topic was inconsistent promotion criteria across departments and schools. Although all departments appear to adhere to the Academic Personnel Manual (APM), many appear to place additional requirements on promotion. The retreat group discussed the scope of flexibility necessary to allow departments to raise standards over time as warranted. It was noted that one danger with a common metric could be diminution of opportunities to raise standards; thus care must be taken that any bar set is not overly restraining. On the other hand, fairness must coincide with any changing criteria (e.g., departments must be timely and explanatory in making faculty aware of any midstream changes in expectations for promotion, and, where warranted, exceptions from the new or additional criteria should be considered.)

Ultimately, the group agreed unanimously that, by the beginning of academic year 2001-02, every Department in each School would be asked to provide the Committee with criteria used (in addition to the APM) for advancement in that Department for all promotions to Associate Professor and to Professor in at least the Ladder Rank, In Residence and Clinical X series. The issue will be re-visited once the Committee has reviewed the criteria provided. (ATTACHMENT 2)

Rescission of Regents’ Policies SP-1 and SP-2
In 1995, the Regents of the University of California adopted SP-1, a resolution that prohibited the consideration of race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as criteria for admission to the University or to any program of study, and SP-2, a resolution that prohibited the consideration of the same attributes in the University's employment and contracting practices.

The Regents rescinded SP-1 and 2 on May 16, 2001. Prior to that rescission, the Committee reviewed a letter from the Committee on Equal Opportunity supporting rescission of SP-1 and 2. The Committee joined in EQOP’s letter in favor of rescission. (ATTACHMENT 3)

Raising the Ceiling on Clinical X series appointments
At the request of Vice Chancellor D. Bainton, the Committee considered whether or not the ceiling on appointments in the Clinical X series should be raised. At the time of VC Bainton’s request, appointments to the Clinical X series could not exceed 25% of total Senate-eligible appointments.

In response to VC Bainton’s request, the Committee recommended without reservation that the ceiling be raised. In addition, the Committee recommended that, if possible, the ceiling should be eliminated altogether. This decision followed extensive discussion of issues related to the campus’ mission, academic quality and equality of opportunity for UCSF faculty. The Committee felt that appointment to a series should be based on the nature of the faculty member’s role in the University, not on artificial restrictions, just as the proportion of the Academic Senate represented by each series should reflect the actual composition of the Faculty. The Committee remains committed to maintaining the current, rigorous standards for appointment and promotion of faculty within the Clinical X series. (ATTACHMENT 4)

New Faculty Appointment Checklist
The Committee submitted to Vice Chancellor D. Bainton for review and comment, a draft checklist regarding new faculty appointments. The checklist is intended to help ensure appropriate advance planning for each new faculty appointment and to alert candidates unfamiliar with the UC system to some of the basic issues that should be discussed with his or her prospective department chair. It is intended to augment traditional departmental offer letters rather than replace them. The Committee will follow-up with the Vice Chancellor’s office in the fall regarding a response. (ATTACHMENT 5)

Summary of Distinctive Educational Effort for the Academy of Medical Educators
The new Academy of Medical Educators at UCSF requested that the Committee review its proposed templates for documentation of teaching and educational performance. The Committee reviewed the templates and responded that such summaries would be a good supplement to what the Committee currently receives and that they help to clarify issues that are often vague and ambiguous. The Committee encouraged the Academy to make these summaries available to faculty campus-wide as they would aid the Committee in evaluating teaching, mentoring and education scholarship across campus. (ATTACHMENT 6)

Career Review Concept
Vice Chancellor D. Bainton forwarded a request from President R. Atkinson that each division discuss implementing Career Review procedures at UCSF similar to those utilized at UC Riverside (in which a faculty member is able to initiate review of his or her file to determine whether he or she has been appropriately advanced.) The Committee discussed this concept, and felt that the procedures outlined for UC Riverside needed to be revised for application at UCSF. For example, UC Riverside procedures only allow for review of ladder rank faculty, and the Committee believes that all faculty should have the opportunity to access career review procedures. The Committee determined that it should take this issue up again in the fall to determine recommendations for career review procedures at UCSF. (ATTACHMENT 7)

Stewardship Review Procedures
The Committee is concerned with whether current stewardship review procedures adequately address issues that may arise with these types of reviews, such as timeliness, confidentiality, completeness and follow-through. The Committee discussed this issue at the March CAP Retreat, where D. Dillon, Director of the Office of Academic Personnel, provided current template documentation that relates to these reviews. The Committee suggested at the Retreat that standard instructions, which address issues such as process and confidentiality, be provided to all Stew ardship Review Committees. The group noted that department faculty and staff need to be better educated on several aspects of the process, including: (1) the importance of providing positive feedback in the review process (too often only those with negative feedback participate), (2) how the feedback is used, and (3) what exactly occurs in and after reviews. The Committee formed a subcommittee to review current procedures and issue recommendations. This review is ongoing and will be carried into the next academic year. (ATTACHMENTS 2 and 8)

Distinction in Teaching
The Distinction in Teaching Award (DIT) is awarded annually by the Academic Senate. The Committee selects a DIT subcommittee, appointed by CAP, which consists of a member of CAP who serves as chair, one faculty member and one student (selected from a pool of students and faculty nominated by each of the Schools. For 2000-01, the DIT Selection Committee reviewed a total of five nominations for the DIT Award. The Selection Committee recommended and the Committee concurred with the following award recipients:

Distinction in Teaching Award:
Mary S. Croughan, Ph.D.
Family and Community Medicine

Distinction in Teaching Honorable Mention:
Nancy Fischbein, M.D.Radiology

Faculty Handbook for Success – Advancement and Promotion at UCSF Revisions
The Committee discussed involvement in revisions to the Faculty Handbook for Success (for which the Committee on Equal Opportunity is the primary committee). The Committee believes that there are portions of the handbook for which it could provide valuable input, and to that end, the Committee has offered its assistance to the Equal Opportunity Committee. Academic Senate Staff will coordinate this effort between the two Committees.

Issues for the 2001-02 Academic Year
Matters continuing and new topics for next year include:

  • Recommended Career Review procedures for UCSF
  • Comments and recommendations regarding the stewardship review process
  • Follow-up on suggested sample appointment checklist
  • Follow-up regarding promotion criteria across departments
  • Provide assistance to Committee on Equal Opportunity regarding Faculty Handbook for Success - Advancement and Promotion at UCSF
  • Distinction in Teaching Award 2001-02


Respectfully submitted,

Committee on Academic Personnel

Brian Alldredge, Chair
Donna Ferriero, Vice Chair
Carol Basbaum
Martin Bogetz
Barbara Gerbert
Nelson Schiller
Sandra Weiss



Prepared by:
Gretchen Gende
Sr. Senate Analyst
476-4245
ggende@senate.ucsf.edu

Last Webpage Update: 2/18/13


University of California, San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 94143, (415) 476-9000
The Regents of the University of California