Chris Musselman, Wendy Reed, Lisa Rubin, Fred Sanger

Workgroup Minutes

November 14, 2000

Page 1

MINUTES

Academic Personnel Workgroup

Tuesday, November 14, 2000

10:00 - 12:00 p.m.

12-407 MDCC

Present:John Andrews, Grazyna Besser, Arlene Bieschke, Tina Bousquet, Chela Castro, Joan Cowan, Doris Dworschak, Jennifer Gino,

Albert Glover, Wendy Hager, Cindy Herrier, Dianne Hillman, Anita Jennings, Karen Kannmacher, Pat Kearney, Pamela Kindred, Kristin Kuntz, Linda Leffall, Gizela Lizares-Ybiernas, Mark Lucas, Sheila Mann, Carol Melitsoff, Dian Mitchell, Maria Moayed,

Chris Musselman, Wendy Reed, Lisa Rubin, Fred Sanger,

Steve Shaevel, Sherri Lynn Simpson, Marcella Tong, Char Tyrrel, Marilynn VanderHule, Norma Vaquerano, Joanne Yung

Albert Glover called the meeting to order and everyone introduced themselves. He then introduced William F. Friedman, M.D., Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, UCLA School of Medicine.

Dr. Friedman spoke about timelines for submission of academic reviews and the need for financial penalties for late submissions. Dr. Dignam started this precedence and Dr. Friedman will continue to impose these penalties. The School of Medicine does one-half of the dossiers on campus. He will give due consideration for requests for late submissions, as long as there is justification and the requests are submitted in writing in advance of the deadline. If an action is submitted late, there should be no finger-pointing. The ultimate responsibility is at the top of the pyramid, i.e., the chair.

He then spoke about how departmental administrators are in a position to help the faculty by recognizing when a dossier is problematic. The single biggest hurdle is to Associate Professor, particularly in the Regular and in-Residence series. There must be a balance between scholarship, creativity, teaching, and service. In these two series there must be publication. There may be an assistant professor who is senior author (1st or last author). Mostly, however, they are collaborative in nature. Mentors should counsel assistant professors not to be generous with authorship until they are at the associate rank. Counsel them to annotate their bibliographies so that it is clear what their particular roles were in each publication prior to submitting the dossier.

When soliciting letters of evaluations there must be a balance between those evaluators who were suggested by the candidate and those who were suggested by the department. If evaluators are listed as "both," it appears as though they were suggested by the candidate and the department did not come up with their own list, so they simply indicated that the evaluator appeared on both lists. Evaluators must be experts, not merely friends of the candidate. If you see this occurring, please "nudge" your chair or chief. Pat Kearney pointed out that sometimes an area is very small and everyone knows each other in a particular field. Dr. Friedman assured her that it's permissible if they know each other; however, all of them should not have worked with them for the past four years. Chris Musselman asked if it was permissible to contact evaluators and remind them to respond if they haven't already done so. Dr. Friedman assured her that is was quite appropriate. Marilynn VanderHule asked what to do if the candidate submits a very long list of evaluators. Dr. Friedman pointed out that the department is not bound to solicit every one of the evaluators whose names are suggested.

The Departmental Recommendation Letter, or Chair's Letter should mention negatives and explain them (or at least try to explain them). Credibility is lost and the candidate may be disadvantaged if they are not addressed. Additionally, all Departmental letters should address creativity.

Dean Friedman spoke about the necessity to have a search for Regular and in-Residence appointments. Sometimes an argument can be made that a candidate is so vital to the Department's mission that there is no need to look any further. In these instances, called Appointments of Opportunity, the case must be made in advance of the appointment. On the other hand, a search generally confirms that the candidate is, in fact, the best person for the position. A question was asked about a situation whereby people were solicited for suggested candidates and when they found out that a particular candidate had applied they couldn't think of anyone better. The Dean responded that if something unusual occurs and there is only one candidate, departmental administrators should alert the chair to possible problems. He stressed that we must create a diverse faculty so we're trying to accurately reflect society with the membership of the search committee. To that end, search committees should be gender balanced. When the position involves Regular rank a search committee must be utilized. When the position will be in the in-Residence series, a search committee should be utilized. Albert Glover added that when there is an incumbent, a search must be done and the incumbent should apply.

There was discussion regarding the Visiting versus Acting series. Appointments in the Acting series are used mostly as interim to the Regular series, but they will be considered as interim to the in-Residence series as well. They allow membership in the Academic Senate (which in turn provides benefits, housing allowance, etc.), but they require review by CAP and approval of the Vice Chancellor.

The Department of Medicine uses the Adjunct series for clinicians who see patients at less than 20 hours per week. Dr. Friedman feels they should be Clinical (Compensated) because they're clinicians, not bench researchers. Adjunct is used when there's a lack of balance (e.g., a clinician in a basic science department). M.D.'s shouldn't be in the Adjunct series because they're seeing patients. The Clinical (Compensated) series is extremely important to the mission of the Department and, ultimately, the School. Dr. Friedman wants to maintain uniformity among departments within the School.

Sheila Mann questioned committee service for assistant professors. Dr. Friedman indicated that university committee service is not really necessary at the time of the fourth-year appraisal, but there should be some type of service. Providing service to a girl scout troop, for example, is quite appropriate at this level.

Doris Dworschak asked about self-statements. Dr. Friedman indicated that he separated out the research component by having the faculty discuss their 5 significant publications so that their self-statement can guide the reader to their independent contributions. It can be used to tell what they're about -- who they are. They can also address problems or negatives. It should be short -- 1-3 pages. If there are aspects to an individual's career that would be helpful to note (e.g., a change in direction or an improvement on a prior criticism), that should be identified. Self-statements in dossiers for on-time merit increases that expound upon research activities are overkill.

People should not be shy about asking for time off the clock. Some women feel that taking time off the clock will hurt them. Dr. Friedman suggests they should do it anyway. Lisa Rubin stated that there was an instance where a Department Chair would not support a deferral -- should they forward the request anyway? Dr. Friedman replied in the affirmative.

Marilynn VanderHule asked the Dean to discuss additional requirements for accelerations. Dr. Friedman replied that an individual who needs to be accelerated every six months is bothersome. Accelerations are legitimate and necessary for out of the ordinary accomplishments. They are almost always appropriate if someone won a special award from some organization other than their friends in their department. They are appropriate if productivity/magnitude is much larger than other very good people, extraordinary accomplishments, peer recognition is stellar or seminal, exceptional recognition. They are legitimate and should be used judiciously. New educational opportunities now exist because the 3rd and 4th year curriculum is changing.

Fourth-year appraisals are constructive instruments to help the individual better understand their prospects for advancements. They are not punishments. There is no correlation between a favorable vs. with Reservations appraisal and their advancement to associate rank. The Vice Chancellor is now getting involved in the process when there is an element of unfavorable.

Changes to the Clinical (Compensated) series should take place during or before an Assistant Professor's fifth year only. There should be every attempt made to appoint them in the appropriate series in the first place. After the fourth-year appraisal, if it looks like the candidate may not advance in the in-Residence or Regular series, there is a one-year opportunity to switch the person to Clinical (Compensated). The Department must show a positive reason to justify the change in series, so as not to demean the value of the Clinical (Compensated) series.

Clinical X is reserved for a Master Educator/Master Clinician. The Assistant Professor level is too soon in a person's career to establish that they're a master at anything. Although proposals for change to or appointment as Associate Professor I in the Clinical X series will be seriously considered, even that level may be too early. The Dean feels it's appropriate to propose a change to the in-Residence series anytime a person obtains the credentials necessary for that series.

Lastly, Dr. Friedman discussed teaching. Lisa Rubin stated that there is new technology, creating websites, etc. Does this count for teaching or creativity? She pointed out that people who engage in such activities are not working directly with students. Dr. Friedman responded that they would get credits in both areas. To teach is to advance progress. Teaching is taken very seriously.

The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Submitted by:

Wendy Reed

Dean's Office

School of Medicine

/wr