• Unit 18 (IX) Contract
• ASE (BX) Contract
• GSR (BR) Contract
• Postdoctoral Scholar (PX) Contract
• Academic Researcher (RA) Contract

College Contacts

• Tim Sherwood, Dean (tim.sherwood@ccs.ucsb.edu)
• Jen Johansen, AP Analyst (jen.johansen@ccs.ucsb.edu)

• Umesh Mishra, Dean (mishra@ucsb.edu)
• Kathryn Hopkins, AP Analyst (kathrynhopkins@engineering.ucsb.edu)

• Daina Ramey Berry, Dean (drb@ucsb.edu)
• Claudia Kashin, AP Analyst (ckashin@ltsc.ucsb.edu)
• Sendy Dang, AP Analyst – Non-Senate Appointments (sdang@ltsc.ucsb.edu)

• Shelly Gable, Dean (sgable@ucsb.edu)
• Shawnee Oren, AP Analyst (oren@ltsc.ucsb.edu)
• Debra Vance, AP Analyst – Non-Senate Appointments (dvance@ucsb.edu)

• Charlie Hale, Dean (crhale@ucsb.edu)
• Robin Rogers, AP Analyst (rrogers@ltsc.ucsb.edu)
• Debra Vance, AP Analyst – Non-Senate Appointments (dvance@ucsb.edu)

• Sarah Anderson, Interim Dean (sanderson@bren.ucsb.edu)
• Kelly Keogh, AP Manager (kelly@bren.ucsb.edu)

• Jill Sharkey, Interim Dean (jsharkey@education.ucsb.edu)
• Aaron Ballett, AP Analyst (aaron.ballett@ucsb.edu)

Contacts in the Office of Academic Personnel

• Current Membership
• About CAP and their role in Personnel Cases

Tips for Preparing Senate Faculty Appointment Files

• Begin academic recruitments as early as possible after receiving search authorization from the EVC.
• Alert the Office of Academic Personnel and the Dean’s Office in advance of submission of the appointment case if any special handling will be required.
• Adhere to the UC intercampus deadline of March 15 for offers effective in the upcoming academic year, as UCSB is required to present the candidate’s current campus with all of the offer details by April 1. If it is not possible to meet the March 15 deadline, contact the analyst in Academic Personnel as soon as possible to discuss the timeline and options.

• Enumerate the final vote, e.g. "17 yes, 2 no, 3 abstentions."
• Account for any negative faculty votes or opinions.
• Discuss and include justification for the proposed salary.
• Avoid excessively quoting outside evaluators’ comments. Reviewing agencies have access to the letters.
• Avoid identifying outside evaluators by gender, institution, former association with the candidate, etc. A coded list, not shared with the candidate, should be used to identify the evaluators.
• Assess the candidate’s contribution to any collaborative work, including the significance, if any, of the order of authorship.
• Recognize that few campus reviewers will have expertise in the candidate’s field. Arguments advanced on behalf of the candidate must be made in plain English. Avoid disciplinary jargon.
• Discuss the significance of awards and honors, including their relative importance within the discipline.
• Provide specific justification for the recommended rank, step, and salary.

• A minimum of six analytical letters is required for appointments to tenured positions; at least half should come from letter writers suggested by the department.
  • Appointments at Assistant Professor IV or V should preferably also include independent letters solicited by the department.
• The sample wording in the Red Binder for soliciting external letters must be used (see RB I-49 and I-50). Any modifications must have the prior approval of Academic Personnel.
• Chairs may contact external letter writers in order to urge them to respond, but great care must be taken to avoid biasing or influencing their judgment.

Case Processing Workflow

Dean’s Authority versus Expanded Review Cases

• One-step merit advancement to:
  • Assistant Professor/Assistant Teaching Professor III and IV, with up to an additional ½ step in off-scale
  • Associate Professor/Associate Teaching Professor II and III, with up to an additional ½ step in off-scale
  • Professor/Teaching Professor II through V+ and VII through IX+, with up to an additional ½ step in off-scale
• Decelerations of any of the above, including mandatory reviews
• Assistant Professor/Assistant Teaching Professor deferral requests

• Formal Appraisal
• Terminal Appointments
• Promotion to Associate Professor/Associate Teaching Professor
• Promotion to full Professor/Teaching Professor
• Merit to/across Professor/Teaching Professor VI
• Merit to or within Professor/Teaching Professor Above Scale
• No change recommendations
• Accelerations, except as described in RB I-30
• Career Equity Reviews
• Reduction in off-scale supplement

Suggested Timeline for Departmental Case Preparation

• Eligibility List becomes available to departments on April 1
• Chairs talk with eligible colleagues
• Faculty update online bio-bib
• Departmental ad hoc committees, case supervisors, etc. are appointed according to departmental procedures
• Requests for extramural evaluation are sent to potential reviewers
  • Career review cases (promotion to Associate and Full, and merit to Above Scale) require a minimum of six letters. At least three should come from referees chosen by the department independently of the candidate. Letters from UC faculty are no longer required.
• Fall personnel meetings are scheduled and announced

• Candidate’s materials sent to external reviewers
  • Departments must require career-review candidates to provide materials for external reviewers in a timely fashion so that materials can be sent out in Summer.
  • The suggested deadline for external reviewers is October 15 – November 1. Six to eight weeks should be sufficient time for reviewers to provide evaluations, particularly if reviewers have been lined up in the Spring.

• Campus-wide cutoff date for the review period (Note that departments may have earlier deadlines!)
  • Bio-bib items submitted after August 31, the campus-wide cutoff date, will count in the next review period. Departments may establish earlier deadlines. Departments will assure faculty members who meet their responsibility to submit their personnel cases in a timely fashion that the department will meet its responsibility to submit their cases on time.
• Automatic deferral by default for tenured faculty
  • An eligible tenured faculty member who has not submitted their materials by August 31 and whose department has not submitted a case by the Fall deadlines will be regarded as having deferred by default. The Chair will not have to secure a signed deferral statement.
• Assistant Professors/Assistant Teaching Professors must request deferral

• Departments review and vote on Dean’s Authority cases
• College analysts work with departments to ensure that cases are complete when submitted
  • Dean’s Authority cases are considered “routine,” and the department letter may consist of a single page of succinct analysis so long as all three areas of review are addressed. The department letter should not repeat information from the bio-bib. A comment on professional activity, for example, might consist of a single sentence noting that the bio-bib indicates excellent professional activity.
• Dean’s Authority cases and a list of deferrals are due to the colleges by the 2nd Monday in November

• Outside letters analyzed in department
  • If one or more outside letters has not yet been received, the department may either proceed with the letters in hand, or may request an extension for the purpose of securing a full complement of letters. Chairs should be able to demonstrate that the letters were requested in a timely fashion.
• Departments review and vote on Expanded Review cases
• College analysts work with departments to ensure that cases are complete when submitted
• Expanded Review cases are due to the colleges by the 2nd Monday in December

• Respond to requests from the college analysts for minor corrections
• Respond to requests from reviewing agencies for additional information

Common Issues

Campus policy allows for a maximum of two within-step increases--that is, an increase in the off-scale supplement without a corresponding advancement in step (e.g. Prof I to Prof I o/s). Within-step increases may be justified in some circumstances, but chairs should take into account the impact of the increase when the time comes to recommend the next advancement in step. This is especially the case when advancement to the next step occurs soon after the last within-step increase. For example, a faculty member advanced from Prof V to Prof V o/s as of 7/1/23 and then to Prof VI as of 7/1/24 may be recommended for less than the normative salary action to account for the incremental increase as of 7/1/23. Within step advancement may not occur earlier than the normative time at step. For example, a faculty member advanced from Prof IX may not be advanced to Prof IX o/s until they have spent 4 years at step.

An academic employee eligible for review who has not submitted the necessary review materials by the date set by the department and whose case is not submitted to reviewing agencies by the campus deadlines will be considered to have deferred by default. No signed statement of deferral is needed with the exception of Assistant Professors/Assistant Teaching Professors and Academic Researchers, who are required to formally request deferral.

If a Senate faculty member or other academic employee due for a mandatory review has not provided updated information by the established deadlines, the department will conduct the review with whatever information it has in hand. Senate faculty are required to undergo review at least every 5 years.

Requests for extension of the case submission deadlines should be rare. They should be addressed by email to the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel with copies to both the relevant dean and the college analyst. Requests should be made before deadlines arrive. They should make clear what circumstances require an extension to be granted and how and when these circumstances will be met. Any extension will be brief.

Unsuccessful cases sometimes lead to requests for reconsideration. Such requests require either new documentation relating to accomplishments already in place before the cut-off date or evidence that the decision was not based on a fair evaluation of the materials submitted (RB I-10). Under no circumstances can a request for reconsideration and a new personnel action be pending simultaneously.

Situations in which faculty members have received offers from outside institutions can be challenging to navigate. The questions below are intended to help you think through the issues and decide on a course of action. If you submit a retention case, they do not need to be addressed point by point in the departmental recommendation.

• Does the faculty member’s research program influence other research on campus (e.g., collaborations, interdisciplinary, and multidisciplinary research)?
• Do the teaching, research, and professional and public service contributions of the faculty member support inclusive excellence on the campus?
• In fields in which outside research funding is the norm, does the faculty member raise enough money to support his/her research program?
• Has the faculty member displayed a pattern of accelerated advancements?
• Does this faculty member frequently entertain outside offers? If so, is there reason to think a salary increase equivalent to the current outside offer will end the cycle of retention battles?

• What does the faculty member’s scholarship contribute to the national and international standing of his/her discipline and to UC Santa Barbara’s strengths? If the faculty member were to resign would you seek to replace him or her? Is he or she the only person on campus in the field?
• In terms of importance to the campus, is the candidate for retention worth two or more junior faculty?
• How would losing the faculty member affect recruiting graduate students? Would the loss of the faculty member tempt colleagues to leave?
• How do you estimate the faculty member’s potential in terms of research, teaching, and campus leadership?
• Does the candidate meet the standards of collegiality set forth in the APM and the AAUP Statement of Ethics?

• Is the offer from a peer institution? If not, what are the grounds for responding? Does the offer include or consist of an administrative position? Does the salary offer include a stipend or the equivalent for the administrative function?
• Is the offer for a tenured or non-tenured position? Is the salary paid over a fiscal (12 months) or academic (9 months) year? The UC standard for converting from FY to AY is 86% of salary (multiply the FY salary by .86 to get the AY equivalent).
• Is the offer from a non-academic institution or organization?
• Is the offer from a non-U.S. institution? If so, consider the currency conversion rate and any other factors that might impact a “comparable” counter-offer.
• Are there spousal or partner consequences for UCSB? For example, will the loss of the faculty member entail the loss of a faculty member in another department/program/school?