New Five-Year Review
Policy
Carole Goldberg
Vice Chancellor, Academic Personnel
Fall Quarter
October 18, 2013
Process for Development

Research into other UC Policies
◦ Ours very informal, vague
◦ Davis, Riverside, UCSF more structured

Consultation with Academic Senate
◦
◦
◦
◦
CAP
CODEO
FECs
Executive Board
2
Why Now?

Department Chairs unsure about existing
policy

Changing conditions on campus
◦ More students
◦ Altered environment for research
funding, publication

Desire for greater campus support for
advancement
3
Authoritative Sources

UC’s Academic Personnel Manual (APM)
◦ http://www.apo.ucla.edu/policies
◦ APM 200-0: “Every faculty member shall be
reviewed at least every five years. The
Chancellor, with the advice of the Academic
Senate, shall determine the level and type of
review and shall develop appropriate
implementing procedures.”

UCLA CALL, Appendix 12
◦ https://www.apo.ucla.edu/policies/thecall/appendices-1/appendix-12-five-year-reviews
◦ Explains purposes, series subject to review,
timing, process, outcomes
◦ Effective for reviews this year, effective 7/1/14
4
Purposes for Five-Year Reviews

Identify faculty who have been
inappropriately overlooked for advancement

Identify impediments so faculty members and
university can develop strategies for
advancement

Ensure equitable distribution of university
responsibilities
5
Who is Subject to Review?

Everyone in a teaching series at Associate
or Full
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦

Ladder
In-Residence
Adjunct
Lecturer SOE
HS Clinical
Clin X
Everyone in Professional Research Series
(APM 310-17d)
6
When is the Review?

Spring of year that marks five years of no
review for rank or step

A negative review starts a new five-year
period

Leave time will count absent permission
from Vice Chancellor

Pathways agreement may include deferral of
Five-Year Review
7
What are the Basic Changes?

Greater detail and guidance
◦ Candidate’s responsibilities
◦ Faculty input
◦ Responsibilities of Department Chair

Specified outcomes
◦ Satisfactory with advancement
◦ Satisfactory without advancement
◦ Unsatisfactory

Where appropriate, clearer expectations and
plan for improved performance to achieve
advancement
8
What is the Process?

Varied to suit differently placed appointees

Advance request from Chair to submit
material for a dossier
◦ Review is mandatory
◦ Department must use available materials if
none submitted

Faculty input according to department
policies/bylaws
9
What is the Process? (cont.)

Chair develops departmental
recommendation

Faculty member can review, augment,
respond to the Chair’s letter

Dean also provides recommendation, and
forwards dossier to Vice Chancellor

Vice Chancellor makes final decision, and
may seek guidance from CAP
10
What Happens if Review is “Unsatisfactory”?

Chairs will provide an Action Plan
o Reviewed and approved by Vice Chancellor
o Specifies performance expectations in aspect(s) of performance that don’t
satisfy criteria applicable to current step
o Establishes timetable for improvement over next five years

o
o
o
o
o
Potential elements of an Action Plan
Strategies to improve teaching
Revision of responsibilities
Exploration and support for new lines of research
Possible change in series
Mentoring (e.g., new Emericorps Mentoring Program)

Faculty member submits annual progress report

Consulting with faculty, Chair provides written
Annual Evaluation of progress for dossier
11
What if Plan Expectations are not Met?

Chair submits Annual Evaluation to
Vice Chancellor, who may seek
advice of CAP

Chair will recommend further steps
consistent with the APM
12