Faculty Colleagues:
The Davis Faculty Association has maintained a deep interest in
the faculty personnel review process since we learned of and
reported the shocking statistics that UC Davis faculty were
seriously behind other UC campuses in salary and rank. In the
first DFA Email Bulletin (http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~dfamhays/) issued by the DFA Board in October 1999 we noted that
UC Davis Full Professor average salaries were lowest of the seven
major campuses. Assistant and Associate Professor salaries also
ranked near the bottom. Soon thereafter, the Academic Senate
Special Committee on Academic Personnel Processes (SCAPP) was
appointed. Based on the SCAPP report, the Special Committee on
Personnel Process Reform (SCPPR) was formed and has now released
its report with 21 concise and convincing recommendations (http://www.mrak.ucdavis.edu/senate/committee_scppr_report.htm).
Among the important issues addressed in the report is the
definition of CAP’s role, limitations on its purview, and
revised procedures to appeal its decisions. These are key factors
addressing the perception that CAP has played the role of sole
arbiter of scholarship quality at Davis. The SCPPR
recommendations provide a balance in clarifying CAP’s
purpose, while still allowing it to intervene when problems
occur. Part of the reason that CAP assumed so much responsibility
was its presumed objectivity, distant from internal departmental
conflicts. The new recommendations throw weight back to
departments, where unfavorable majority reviews can be coerced by
influential senior faculty, and where reviews based on quality of
research might not be questioned by deans or CAP. We would
suggest that CAP should report to the faculty each year the
number of cases where it has contravened any prior
recommendation, and where it has intervened in any actions
outside its normal purview, for example, in normal merit actions.
The appeal process should also be reviewed after one or two years
of experience. The report attempts to strike the right balance
between providing an avenue for genuine appeal, yet makes the
barrier high enough to avoid appeals of every negative action.
We agree that a positive change recommended in the report is to
establish standards based on departmental and college criteria,
and we endorse this move. Departmental standards should be
appraised by the faculty of each college, and must be open and
available. This will ensure a greater uniformity of quality and
forestall concerns of unfair standards in particular departments.
Because of differences among subdisciplines and departmental
cultures, the process will not be straightforward for all
departments. Patience and thoughtfulness will be required as the
discussions develop. It is vital that all faculty members know
that their academic accomplishments will be rewarded
appropriately, including accelerated advancement when merited.
Department chairs should be reminded of their obligation to
evaluate their faculty each year, and to use this evaluation for
possible recommendations of acceleration.
We applaud the call for reorganization and simplification of
review files. Most routine merit actions would require simple
documentation of teaching, research, and service, plus an
invitation to the candidate to attach any other appropriate
materials. Usually a publication list, a summary of teaching
evaluations and a list of committee service should suffice.
Faculty members spend far too much time preparing paperwork when
they could be attending to scholarly activities.
Changes in the policies of CAP (as well as other committees)
should be proposed by the committee on a regular basis, for
approval by the Senate prior to implementation. In that way there
will be adequate time for notice to reach the affected parties.
The suggestion in Ren. 42 (B) 6 that revisions in procedures or
criteria can be approved after the changes have already been
applied will seem unfair to faculty whose review actions have
been affected by the changes.
We conclude by commending members of SCAPP and SCPPR for their
outstanding work, which has resulted in thoughtful and compelling
recommendations for change. Their efforts will improve the
fairness of the faculty review process, increase faculty support
of the process, and enhance the level of collegiality at UC
Davis. The SCPPR report will be considered by the Representative
Assembly on Thursday, May 24, at 3:30 p.m., in the Cabernet Room
of the Silo. It is important that faculty attend and participate.
Home | Current Activities | Newsletters | Join
| Contact | Links
All contents copyright 2001 The Davis Faculty
Association.