Academic Personnel Coordinators Meeting

1.29.14

Minutes

Roll Call:

Attendees: Arlene Feliciano, Cynthia Brooks, Jocelyn Tieman, Dinora Duarte, Stephanie Shaw, Kyna Williams, Marcella Tong, Bernadette Omote, Gizela Lizares-Ybiernas, Andrew Scott, Sue Shapses, Myrabelle Avecilla, Jan Kiernan, Arlene Bieschke, Debra Moorehead, Miguel Ramirez, Brian Phan, Melissa Mok, Steve Shaevel, Glen Fukui, Vera Moubayed, Marilynn VanderHule, Lena Grant, Marcus Avery, Jackelyn Shinn, Josephine Alviar, Catherine Weston, Patti Heyl, Mary Lopez, Elizabeth Eli Paray, Peter Lopez, Lori Lindstrom, Lorinda Murdock-Lane

ANNOUNCEMENTS

1.  Letters of Understanding

  1. Do not put MOP loan language in the LOU unless it’s been pre-cleared with Dr. Hiatt
  2. Do not put relocation language in the LOU for non-senate faculty, unless you are going to ask for an exception to reimburse
  3. For senate faculty and non-senate faculty with exceptions for location reimbursement (50% or above), please submit travel reimbursement form along with the receipts and letters of exception attached to our office.
  4. Indicate the % of time of appointment at the affiliate
  5. This is needed so we can properly add/not add mandatory reviews on the faculty member’s eligibility record.
  6. It is also needed for reporting purposes (Dean’s, APO, etc).

2.  Leaves of Absence

  1. If you have a faculty member who is going on a leave of absence and need to keep his/her email active, and if the form needs Dean’s signature, then please submit the form along with the leave request. If MITS accepts the forms with your Chair’s signature and does not need the Dean’s signature, then please continue with that practice.

3.  Researchers and Project Scientists

  1. Appointees are required to hold a terminal degree (MD, PhD, DO, DDS, etc). This includes appointments in the visiting series.
  2. Visiting Researchers:
  3. Must either be an interim appointment with a pending appointment coming in or truly visiting from another institution.
  4. Temporary (short-term appointments) or appointees “visiting” from another country does not qualify as a visiting appointment.
  5. Caliber of research and scholarship must be equal to that of faculty in the Regular or In-Residence Professorial series.
  6. Advancement Schedule for the Professional Research Series:
  7. Assistant Researchers – have 5 years from 7/1/13 to decide whether or not they should remain in the Research series or move to the Project Scientist series. If it’s found that the candidate is better qualified for the Project Scientist series than the Research series, s/he must move at his/her next action. Below is an example of Assistant Researcher Joe Bruin who is eligible for a merit increase to Step II effective July 1, 2014. He may:

Yr 1 (eff 2014) / Yr 2 (eff 2015) / Yr 3 (eff 2016) / Yr 4 (eff 2017) / Yr 5 (eff 2018)
1. / C/S and merit to Asst Proj Sci, Step II / - / - / - / -
2. / Defer / C/S and merit to Asst Proj Sci, Step II / - / - / -
3. / Defer / Defer / C/S and merit to Asst Proj Sci, Step II / - / -
4. / Defer / Defer / Defer / C/S and merit to Asst Proj Sci, Step II / -
5. / Defer / Defer / Defer / Defer / C/S and merit to Asst Proj Sci, Step II
  1. Associate and Full Researchers – have 5 years from 7/1/13 to decide whether or not they should remain in the Research series or move to the Project Scientist series. During those 5 years, candidates may choose to go up for advancement using the old criteria. However, they must be in the correct series by the end of the 2017-2018 academic year. Below is an example of Full Researcher Josephine Bruin who is eligible for a merit increase to Step II effective July 1, 2014. She may:

Yr 1 (eff 2014) / Yr 2 (eff 2015) / Yr 3 (eff 2016) / Yr 4 (eff 2017) / Yr 5 (eff 2018)
1. / C/S and merit to Proj Sci, Step II / - / - / - / -
2. / Merit to Rschr, Step II / - / C/S and merit to Proj Sci, Step III / - / -
3. / Merit to Rschr, Step II / - / Merit to Rschr, Step III / - / C/S and merit to Proj Sci, Step IV
4. / Defer / C/S and merit to Proj Sci, Step II / - / - / -
5. / Defer / Merit to Rschr, Step II / - / C/S and merit to Proj Sci, Step III / -

4.  Category I Forms:

a.  The Dean wants to see only one year at a time, not multiple years on a form.

5.  Mentoring Forms:

a.  The form is updated and is on our website. The difference is that this form is for one meeting instead of two for easier filing and organizing. NOTE: Mentoring forms go in reverse chronological order in the dossier.

6.  Quick Reference Chart:

a.  Difference between peer & student evaluation forms and letters – peer & student evaluation forms are ALWAYS mandatory. Peer & student letters are NEVER mandatory. However, you may supplement the dossier with peer & student letters if you lack evaluation forms.

b.  Difference between 5 significant publications statement and reprints of publications – 5 significant publications statement is a statement that goes in the dossier between the prior and after certification page (and after the self-statement if one was submitted) that cites the candidate’s 5 significant publications and provides their role in that publication and why they think it’s significant. The reprints of publications submitted should include the 5 cited in the 5 significant publications statement plus a good representation of the candidate’s publication for the period of review.

DISCUSSION TOPICS:

1.  Affiliate Emails

Issue:

  1. E-mail addresses of faculty at affiliated institutions need to be included on the global Outlook listserv.
  2. Who should be responsible for keeping this list up-to-date?

Possible Solutions:

  1. Put the responsibility on the Chair of the affiliated institution to disseminate announcements that should go to all faculty.
  2. Have departments be responsible for the upkeep of email addresses on a listserv that the global distribution list would pull from.
  3. Put the responsibility on the Dean’s Office to upkeep the email addresses.

2.  Separations

Issue: There are too many faculty members showing as still active or inactive in EDB who should have been separated. Especially for Senate faculty, destination needs to be put in. Reason codes for separation need to be correct.

Possible Solutions:

  1. Process a separation bundle for those who have separated.
  2. Get resignations in writing.
  3. Make sure a candidate is retiring instead of separating. This is especially true for those not drawing from UCRP.
  4. Actively contact the coordinators at the affiliated hospitals to find out if faculty members there are still active.

·  Create a list for renewals each year and put the burden on the coordinator and affiliate Chair to sign off on this? At least you’ll be able to capture those who separated annually.

3.  New Hires

Issue: Appointments are not being put in EDB at the time of hire, thus:

  1. Appointment dates in ADB, EDB, history sheet, etc. do not match.
  2. Academic appointees do not have a record of employment. Some faculty members go up for their 8yr limit and are still not in the system.

Possible Solutions:

  1. Appoint the academic hire in EDB at the time of hire.

4.  Step VI and Above Scale Deadlines

Issue: Step VI and Above-Scale actions are due to our office 11/1 and due to APO 11/27. With Thanksgiving and Veteran’s Day in November, it does not give our office enough time to process and submit these dossiers up to APO before the deadline. We are also not meeting CAP’s quota for dossiers to review.

Possible Solutions:

  1. Move the deadline to 10/1 for departments to submit these actions to our office. Please think about the possibility of moving your ad hoc/committee/department meetings earlier to make this deadline. Please let us know if you think your department CANNOT do this.
  2. Possibility of extending other deadlines on a department by department basis.

5.  Teaching Evaluations

Issue: Teaching evaluation forms are not complete. Important information such as the range of the evaluations, outliers, and # of responders are missing.

Possible Solutions:

  1. For Verinform, please work with your education coordinators to add those values on the reports.
  2. For other forms, if your department cannot give us the information above on a summary, it will be better to submit the raw teaching evaluation.
  3. Please note that it is imperative you redact teaching evaluations prior to giving copies to the faculty member.
  4. Jan Kiernan will show us the way she summarizes teaching evaluations on Excel at a future workshop.
  5. We will post evaluation templates from departments on our website.

6.  Researcher, Project Scientist, & HS Clinical Searches

Issues:

  1. Currently, a search is not conducted for an appointee in the Professional Research and Project Scientist series when the salary source is from grants. This is problematic because most grants come from the federal government which mandates that searches be conducted for employees being paid from federal sources.
  2. A search is not always conducted for appointees in the HS Clinical series who are paid on general department/clinic-based funds.

Possible Solutions:

  1. Searches need to be conducted for all academic appointments. Exceptions to searches:
  2. A postdoc fellow who completed their maximum years of service and are continuing on the same project with no change of duties – a waiver may be requested.
  3. Searches must be regional but does not have to be national. Advertisements can go out on HERC, department websites, etc. Advertisements must be placed for a minimum of two weeks.