A. DEFINITION
The specialist series is used for academic appointees who are engaged in research in specialized areas and who do not have any teaching responsibilities. Candidates normally do not possess the terminal degree. Graduate students are not eligible for appointment to this series.
B. DEADLINES
Deans are responsible for issuing deadlines for specialist actions.
C. POLICY REFERENCES
APM 160 Academic Personnel Office Records, Maintenance of, Access to, and Opportunity to Request Amendment of
APM 220-80-c,d,e,h,i, j Professor Series, Recommendation and Review: General Procedures
APM 330 Specialist Series
D. TERMS OF SERVICE
Appointments in this series may be for the normal period of service of the step to which the candidate is appointed or advanced or less. Please refer to the Academic Salary Scales for the normal periods at each step.
E. ELIGIBILITY FOR REVIEW
1. The department chair or principal investigator (P.I.) is responsible for making certain eligible candidates are reviewed. The Academic Personnel Office and the division office will annually review the eligibility of each appointee.
2. Reappointment and merit increase: Candidates are normally eligible for review for merit increase after serving the normal period at step.
3. Reappointment and promotion: Review for promotion to the Associate Specialist rank normally shall be after two years at Assistant Specialist, Step III. Service at Associate Specialist Step IV is indefinite, and review for promotion to the Specialist rank normally shall not occur prior to two years at Step IV.
4. Advancement actions shall normally be effective July l.
G. DOCUMENT INVENTORY FOR APPOINTMENT TO SPECIALIST SERIES
(Use Document Inventory for Academic Research Titles, see Appendix 8)
(### Please find this form in your Academic Personnel Campus Policies and Procedures manual, as it is not currently translatable to the HTML format. ###)
1. The top portion of the inventory normally is completed by the division office.
2. RECRUITMENT RECORD APPROVAL: This is issued by the dean after a review of the search documentation. Either a compliance statement or approved waiver must be obtained before the appointment dossier can be processed.
3. DEPARTMENT/UNIT/P.I. LETTER: This is the letter of recommendation from the initiator of the review, often the principal investigator. It should contain a recommendation on the title, step, salary and effective date, and an analysis of the individual's qualifications for the position. The identities of the sources of confidential documents shall not be disclosed except by alpha code. Refer to Appendix 4 for information on evaluating research.
4. EXTRAMURAL LETTERS: These letters of recommendation are either solicited by the principal investigator or provided by the individual. If the principal investigator solicits the letters, a copy of the solicitation letter must be included in the dossier, as well as a list of names of those who might not be objective, list of those declining, and brief comments on the academic standing of each letter writer. Often candidates provide placement packets or confidential letters of recommendation. Please include in the department/unit/P.I. letter an explanation of how the letters were received.
5. CANDIDATE'S OPTIONAL STATEMENT: Candidates may want to include a statement on their qualifications and research program which can be helpful to reviewers. This is not required.
6. UNSOLICITED MATERIAL: This is any optional material the candidate wants included in the file.
7. BIOGRAPHY FORM (NUMBER AND ASTERISK ANY PUBLICATIONS SUBMITTED): This must be completed and signed by the candidate. Please be sure the information concerning access to confidential and personal information is completed. Publications are returned after completion of the review. The asterisk is the only record of what publications were reviewed for the action.
8. PUBLICATIONS: It is important that the biobibliography or curriculum vita reflect the publications that were reviewed as this is the only permanent record of what was reviewed since the publications are returned to the department/unit after the appointment process is completed. Publications considered by the initiator of the review (P.I. or department chair/director) should be indicated with an asterisk; the items actually forwarded should be indicated with the letter "F". Those items forwarded should also be numbered on the curriculum vita or biobibliography with the corresponding numbers also indicated on the submitted items.
H. ADVANCEMENT (See Note Below)
All advancement actions are based on merit and availability of funding.
1. Normal Promotion
All appointees completing the requisite number of years of service in the indicated steps of this series are eligible for normal (i.e., not accelerated) promotions to the indicated rank and step effective July 1:
| Current Status | Years at Step | Normal Promotion |
| Junior Specialist II | 1 | Assistant Specialist I |
| Asst. Specialist III | 2 | Assoc. Specialist I |
| Assoc. Specialist IV | 2 | Specialist I |
2. Accelerated Promotion:
Promotion in advance of eligibility, or to a higher rank or step than normal, constitutes acceleration and requires evidence of unusual achievement and exceptional promise.
All appointees completing the requisite number of years of service in the indicated steps of this series are eligible for normal (i.e., not accelerated) merit increase to the indicated step effective July 1:
| Current Status | Years at Step | Normal Promotion |
| Junior Specialist I | 1 | Next higher step |
| Asst. Specialist I-III | 2 | Next higher step |
| Assoc. Specialist I-III | 2 | Next higher step |
| Specialist I-II | 3 | Next higher step |
Merit Increase to Specialist IV, V: There is no specified normal period of service at the Steps above II, and eligibility based on years of service does not apply to advancements beyond Step III. Service at Steps III and above may be of indefinite duration.
Advancement to Specialist, Step IV, is based upon performance during the individual's entire career. It is reserved for scholars of great distinction and normally will not occur after less than three years at Step III. Advancement to Step V calls for continued performance at the level required for advancement to Step IV, and normally will not occur after less than four years at Step IV.
4. Accelerated Merit Increases
Advancement prior to eligibility, or to a higher step than normal, constitutes acceleration and requires evidence of unusual achievement or exceptional promise.
NOTE: Six months or more of service at one-half time or more in any one fiscal year count as one full year of a normal period of service. Less than six months of service at one-half time or more in any one fiscal year does not count. The normal period of service prescribed for each salary level does not preclude more rapid advancement in cases of exceptional merit, nor does it preclude less rapid advancement.
I. REAPPOINTMENT AND MERIT INCREASE PROCEDURES
A merit increase is a change in step, e.g., from Assistant Specialist, Step I, to Assistant Specialist, Step II.
A reappointment is the renewal of a previous appointment immediately following the ending of the previous appointment in the same series.
1. The principal investigator will inform the candidate of the impending action and provide an opportunity for the candidate to be informed of the review procedures.
2. The Checklist to Assure Fairness will be completed by the P.I. and candidate and be included with the dossier.
3. The candidate will provide a current curriculum vitae and copies of recent publications and/or manuscripts. A statement of research activities may be provided, but is not required.
4. The candidate will be provided with an opportunity to inspect nonconfidential documents and a redacted copy of any confidential material, and be given an opportunity to respond. Any response shall be included in the file and be received in ten working days. (Usually there is no confidential material at this stage of such a review.)
5. The principal investigator will prepare an evaluation of the performance of the individual in accordance with the criteria specified in APM 330-10 and include a recommendation on title, salary and step.
6. The principal investigator will provide a copy of the recommendation and evaluation to the candidate and provide an opportunity for the candidate to respond. Any response must be received by the P.I. no later than ten working days after receipt of the copy. When completed, the file will be forwarded by the P.I. to the dean.
7. The dean is delegated authority for reappointments and merit increases including advancement to Specialist at an above-scale salary and above-scale merits in those cases where the candidate has served the normative time at step and when the increase is equal to or less than 10% of the candidate's current salary, up to the salary threshold. The Dean shall inform the individual of the final decision in writing and copy the P.I..
8. If the dossier is found to be incomplete or inadequate, additional information may be solicited by the dean. Any new material shall be added to the file by the principal investigator with a completed Checklist to Assure Fairness for the Submission of Additional Information.
J. DOCUMENT INVENTORY FOR REAPPOINTMENT/MERIT INCREASE FOR SPECIALIST SERIES
(Use Document Inventory for Academic Research Titles, see Appendix 8)
(### Please find this form in your Academic Personnel Campus Policies and Procedures manual, as it is not currently translatable to the HTML format. ###)
1. The top portion of the inventory normally is completed by the division office.
2. RECRUITMENT RECORD APPROVAL: This is issued by the dean after a review of the search documentation. The compliance or waiver information can be obtained from the original appointment file.
3. CHECKLIST TO ASSURE FAIRNESS: This documents the procedures followed by the P.I. in preparing the dossier and should be signed by both the P.I. and candidate. The checklist may be annotated by the P.I. or candidate if the procedures diverged from the checklist.
4. CANDIDATE'S OPTIONAL RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT/UNIT/P.I. LETTER: The candidate has ten working days from receipt of the letter in which to respond. Any written response must be included in the dossier. The response is optional.
5. DEPARTMENT/UNIT/P.I. LETTER: This is the letter of recommendation from the initiator of the review, often the principal investigator. It should contain a recommendation on the title, step, salary and effective date, and an analysis of the individual's performance in accordance with the criteria in APM 330-10. Refer to Appendix 4 for information on evaluating research. Indicate if any special wording is recommended for the reappointment letter. A copy is given to the candidate by the review initiator.
6. CANDIDATE'S OPTIONAL STATEMENT: Candidates may want to include a statement on their accomplishments and research program which can be helpful to reviewers; however, this is not required.
7. UNSOLICITED MATERIAL: This is any optional material the candidate wants included in the dossier.
8. CURRICULUM VITA OR CUMULATIVE BIOBIBLIOGRAPHY: The candidate provides an up-to-date vita or biobibliography.
K. PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE SPECIALIST OR SPECIALIST
A promotion is a change in rank, i.e., from Assistant Specialist to Associate Specialist, or from Associate Specialist to Specialist.
1. The principal investigator (P.I.) shall document the review by completing the Checklist to Assure Fairness. The applicable procedures outlined in the Checklist should be followed in order with the candidate initialing each number to indicate these obligations have been completed. The candidate or P.I. may annotate any items as necessary. If a candidate chooses to waive his/her rights, the candidate should so state near the signature line. Signatures of both the candidate and P.I. are required.
2. The P.I. shall notify the candidate of the impending review and make certain that the candidate is adequately informed about the entire review process. The candidate is given the opportunity to ask questions. The candidate should be made aware of APM 220-80-c,d,e,h,i,,j; 160, and 330.
3. The P.I. shall inform the candidate that past personnel actions may be reviewed during the current review process. Refer to the campus policy on access to prior reviews (section 202.160) for more information.
4. The P.I. shall ask the candidate to supply pertinent information:
a. updated cumulative biobibliography or curriculum vita;
b. copies of publications (or like material since the last review);
c. copies of manuscripts in preparation which the candidate wishes to submit for review;
d. optional statement concerning the candidate's research progress and plans, service, and any other information the candidate wishes to have included in the review file;
e. names of external and internal persons to possibly write letters of evaluation, brief comments on the academic standing of each proposed reviewer and relationship, if any, to the candidate;
f. names of persons (external or internal) who, for reasons set forth in writing by the candidate, might not objectively evaluate the candidate's qualifications and performance. Any names and the reasons shall be included in the review file.
5. The P.I. should be helpful in responding to the candidate's questions and in considering whether additions to the file by the candidate are needed. The P.I. has an obligation to consider the interests of both the candidate and the university, and to see to it that the department review is fair to the candidate and rigorous in maintaining university standards.
6. The P.I. shall solicit letters of evaluation of the candidate from qualified persons, including a reasonable number of persons nominated by the candidate. All such letters shall be included in the review file and are confidential documents. Unsolicited letters may be received from faculty or other interested parties. Such letters are not confidential unless received by the University with the understanding that they will remain confidential. Then they are handled as confidential and redacted for the candidate.
The P.I. should clearly identify whether letters were solicited or not, and their confidentiality status.
7. BEFORE THE P.I. RECOMMENDATION IS DETERMINED, the P.I. shall provide the candidate the opportunity to inspect all nonconfidential documents to be included in the review file. The P.I. shall provide the candidate with a redacted copy of the confidential documents, which will be included in the review file. Refer to section 200.160 for further information concerning confidential documents. A copy of the redacted documents shall be included in the review file.
8. The P.I. shall provide the candidate with the opportunity to submit a written statement in response to, or commenting upon, material in the file. The candidate has ten working days from receipt of the redaction of confidential documents in which to respond. The candidate's written statement, if any, must be included in the review file. The candidate is encouraged to notify the P.I. if he/she waives the response, so the P.I. can immediately continue the review.
9. The P.I.'s letter normally contains:
a. name, current rank, step, and salary of the candidate;
b. number of years at rank and step;
c. rank, step, and salary recommended;
d. and an evaluation and analysis of the candidate's performance based on the criteria in APM 330-10.
10. The P.I. will provide a copy of the recommendation and evaluation to the candidate and provide an opportunity for the candidate to respond. Any response must be received by the P.I. no later than ten working days after receipt of the copy. When completed, the file will be forwarded by the P.I.to the dean.
11. The dean is delegated authority for promotions and shall inform the individual in writing with a copy to the P.I..
12. If the dossier is found to be incomplete or inadequate during the review, additional information may be solicited. Any new material shall be added to the file by the principal investigator with a completed/Checklist to Assure Fairness for the Submission of Additional Information.
L. DOCUMENT INVENTORY FOR PROMOTION IN THE SPECIALIST SERIES
(Use Document Inventory for Academic Research Titles, see Appendix 8)
(### Please find this form in your Academic Personnel Campus Policies and Procedures manual, as it is not currently translatable to the HTML format. ###)
1. The top portion of the inventory normally is completed by the division office.
2. RECRUITMENT RECORD APPROVAL: This is issued by the dean and can be obtained from the original appointment file.
3. CHECKLIST TO ASSURE FAIRNESS: This documents the procedures to be followed by the P.I. in preparing the dossier and should be signed by both the P.I. and candidate. The candidate or P.I. may annotate the checklist as necessary.
4. CANDIDATE'S OPTIONAL RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT/UNIT/P.I. LETTER: The candidate has ten working days from receipt of the letter in which to respond. Any written response must be included in the dossier. The response is optional.
5. DEPARTMENT/UNIT/P.I. LETTER: This is the letter of recommendation from the initiator of the review, often the principal investigator. It should contain a recommendation on the title, step, salary and effective date, and an analysis of the individual's qualifications for the position. Refer to Suggestions for Letters of Evaluations in Appendix 4 for information on evaluating research. A copy is given to the candidate by the review initiator. The identities of the sources of confidential documents shall not be disclosed except by alpha code.
6. CANDIDATE'S OPTIONAL RESPONSE TO REDACTED CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: The candidate may choose to respond to, or comment upon, the file material. The candidate's response, if any, shall be included in the review file.
7. REDACTION OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: The P.I. shall provide the candidate with redactions of the confidential documents. Copies of any redacted documents must be included in the review file. The identities of the persons who were the sources of the documents shall not be disclosed. Refer to 200.160.
8. SOLICITED CONFIDENTIAL LETTERS: These letters of recommendation are solicited by the principal investigator. A copy of the solicitation letter must be included in the dossier, as well as a list of names of those who might not be objective, a list of those declining, and brief comments on the academic standing of each letter writer.
9. CANDIDATE'S OPTIONAL STATEMENT: Candidates may want to include a statement of their accomplishments and research program which can be helpful to reviewers; however, this is not required.
10. UNSOLICITED MATERIAL (OPTIONAL): This is anything the candidate wants in the dossier to be reviewed, e.g., unsolicited letters, reviews of work, etc.
11. CURRICULUM VITA OR CUMULATIVE BIOBIBLIOGRAPHY: This is where publications which have been reviewed are asterisked and numbered, and those that are forwarded are indicated with an "F". IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CANDIDATE TO PROVIDE CURRENT AND ACCURATE INFORMATION.
12. PUBLICATIONS SINCE LAST PROMOTION (NUMBER AND ASTERISK THOSE SUBMITTED ON VITA OR BIOBIBLIOGRAPHY): The publications or manuscripts will be reviewed by the dean in evaluating the file. If this is the first promotion following the initial appointment, include publications or manuscripts since the appointment. The publications submitted must be numbered and asterisked on the biobibliography or curriculum vita. Asterisk those items considered by the P.I. or department chair/director in the course of review. Identify the items actually forwarded with the dossier with the letter "F" (indicates item as forwarded). Those items forwarded should also be numbered on the curriculum vita or biobibliography with the corresponding numbers also indicated on the submitted items.
APPOINTMENT
Dear Professor ___________________:
I would appreciate your help in evaluating one of our colleagues, __________________, who is currently being reviewed for appointment as ____________________.
Appointment in the Specialist Series at the University of California is based upon research in specialized areas and does not include teaching responsibilities. I would appreciate your evaluation of the candidate's qualifications and contributions as well as future potential.
Enclosed is a copy of (his/her) curriculum vita [and copies of (his/her) reprints/slides/publications]. May I suggest you consider (him/her) in relation to others at (his/her) stage of professional development in your experience? Would (he/she) merit the rank of ____________________ in your department if (his/her) research interests were appropriate to your departmental goals?
[begin bold] Under University of California policy, the identity of authors of letters of evaluation which are included in the personnel review files will be held in confidence. A candidate may request access to your letter in redacted form after he/she accepts an offer of appointment at UCSC. Redaction is defined as the removal of identifying information (including name, title, institutional affiliation, and relationship to the candidate) contained either at the top of the letterhead or within and below the signature block of the letter of evaluation.
The full text of the body of your letter will therefore be provided to the candidate if so requested. Thus, if you provide any information that tends to identify you in the body of the letter, that information will become available to the candidate. If you wish, you may provide a brief factual statement regarding your relationship to the candidate at the end of your letter, but below the signature block. This brief statement will not be made available to the candidate.
Although we cannot guarantee that at some future time a court or government agency will not require the disclosure of the source of confidential evaluations in University of California personnel files, we can assure you that the University will endeavor to protect the identity of authors of letters of evaluation to the fullest extent allowable under the law. [end bold] *
I would very much appreciate receiving your evaluation at your earliest convenience. I thank you in advance for your aid in this matter.
Sincerely,
* Bolded paragraphs must be included in all solicitation letters.
PROMOTION
Dear Professor __________:
I would appreciate your help in evaluating one of our colleagues, __________________, who is currently being considered for reappointment and promotion to _______________________.
The University requires external evaluations of the scholarly and professional contributions of candidates for promotion from recognized authorities in the candidate's field. You have been suggested as an evaluator of ___________'s standing.
Enclosed is a copy of (his/her) curriculum vita [and copies of (his/her) reprints/slides/publications]. May I suggest you consider (him/her) in relation to others at (his/her) stage of professional development in your experience? Please note that ___________'s research position does not require teaching and advancement is based upon research in specialized areas. [Please note also that (his/her) research is externally funded.]
[begin bold] Under University of California policy, the identity of authors of letters of evaluation which are included in the personnel review files will be held in confidence. A candidate will at certain prescribed stages of the academic personnel review process, be provided access to such letters in redacted form. Redaction is defined as the removal of identifying information (including name, title, institutional affiliation, and relationship to the candidate) contained either at the top of the letterhead or within and below the signature block of the letter of evaluation.
The full text of the body of your letter will therefore be provided to the candidate. Thus, if you provide any information that tends to identify you in the body of the letter, that information will become available to the candidate. If you wish, you may provide a brief factual statement regarding your relationship to the candidate at the end of your letter, but below the signature block. This brief statement will not be made available to the candidate.
Although we cannot guarantee that at some future time a court or governmental agency will not require the disclosure of the source of confidential evaluations in University of California personnel files, we can assure you that the University will endeavor to protect the identity of authors of letters of evaluation to the fullest extent allowable under the law. [end bold] *
I very much appreciate receiving your evaluation at your earliest convenience. I thank you in advance for your aid in this matter.
Sincerely,
* Bolded paragraphs must be included in all solicitation letters.