APM UCD-220, Exhibit A

Printable Version

In this Section

General

Quick Links

Search the Policy Manuals

Academic Personnel Manual

Appointment and Promotion
Section UCD-220, Academic Senate Review and Advancement
Exhibit A, Consultation and Voting on Academic Senate Personnel Actions

University policy, as set forth in Academic Senate Bylaw 55, requires that each departmental letter of recommendation in support of an appointment, promotion, or merit increase contain a report of consultation with members of the department.

Bylaw 55 grants to active (non-emeriti) Academic Senate members the right to vote on new appointments that carry membership in the Academic Senate and, at the appropriate level, on certain categories of promotion, removal of "acting" titles, and non-reappointments or terminations. As a minimum, Academic Senate faculty members at or above the proposed rank shall have the right to vote on all actions at a level up to and including their own rank. Departments that wish to allow non-Senate academic members of equivalent rank to participate in the review of personnel actions may do so on an informal basis, but may not extend voting rights to non-Senate faculty.

The department's active Academic Senate faculty shall establish the voting procedures in the following types of personnel actions (other than certain exceptions listed in Bylaw 55) that involve Academic Senate members:

1. Merit increases.

2. Deferrals.

3. Appraisals.

4. New appointments and advancements, including the Adjunct Professor series, and Agronomist in the AES (when combined with an Academic Senate title).

5. Joint appointments (salaried and nonsalaried).

6. Changes in status.

7. Interdepartmental transfers.

Within the limits of Bylaw 55, departments must decide upon their own voting procedures and submit those procedures in writing, through their dean, to the Oversight Subcommittee of the Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) for review. Departmental voting procedures may be reviewed every year.

In personnel actions the recorded vote should clearly separate the view of faculty members normally eligible to vote on an action from those to whom the department has extended the right to vote. When a separate recording of votes could breach confidentiality, the department chair shall aggregate the vote so that confidentiality is maintained. No vote need be recorded in cases where only one faculty member is eligible to vote.