Discipline is a written censure, suspension without pay, or reduction in pay for
misconduct and/or dereliction of academic duty.
Dismissal is the termination of employment, initiated by the University, prior to
the stated ending date of appointment (if applicable), for serious misconduct,
serious dereliction of academic duty, or the failure to maintain the academic
standards for Continuing Appointees established in Article
7b, Sections D.
and E., demonstrated by a significant decline in performance.
Any discipline or dismissal of an NSF pursuant to this Article shall be for just
cause.
If the Department Chair or unit head determines, based upon the evaluation
criteria set forth in this section, that there has been a significant decline in the
quality of the Continuing Appointee's performance, the department chair or
unit head shall discuss the matter with the Continuing Appointee. The
Department Chair's determination may occur during the normal review
process or at any other time.
Following the discussion, the Department Chair or unit head shall provide the
Continuing Appointee with a written remediation plan that sets forth the
required areas of improvement and a reasonable time period within which the
improvement shall be accomplished.
If the Continuing Appointee fails to meet the requirements set forth in the
written remediation plan, the University may conduct an academic review.
If the NSF meets the requirements set forth in the written remediation plan, no
out of cycle academic review will be conducted.
Evaluations of the academic qualifications or performance of NSF shall be
made on the basis of demonstrated excellence in the field and in teaching,
academic responsibility, and other assigned duties which may include
University co-curricular and community service.
Instructional performance is measured by evaluation of evidence
demonstrating such qualities as:
command of the subject matter and continued growth in mastering new
topics;
ability to organize and present course materials;
ability to awaken in students an awareness of the importance of the
subject matter;
ability to arouse curiosity in beginning students and to stimulate
advanced students to do creative work; and
achievements of students in their field.
Due attention should be paid to the variety of demands placed on instructors
by the types of teaching called for at various levels and the total performance
of the NSF should be judged with proper reference to assigned teaching
responsibilities.
The following exemplify excellence in teaching. The University shall give all
relevant materials due consideration.
Student evaluations, provided the quantitative measure in the student
evaluation is not the sole criterion for evaluating teaching excellence;
assessment by former students who have achieved notable
professional success;
assessments by other members of the department, and other
appropriate faculty members;
development of new and effective techniques of instruction and
instructional materials; and
assessments resulting from classroom visitations by colleagues and
evaluators.
An NSF may provide a self-statement or self-evaluation of her or his teaching
objectives and performance.
An NSF being evaluated may provide letters of assessment from individuals
with expertise in her/his field, and/or other relevant materials to the evaluation
file prepared by the University, which shall be included as part of the
evaluation process. Those from whom letters may be provided include but
are not limited to:
departmental NSFs;
departmental Academic Senate faculty;
other academic appointees;
students; and/or
others external to the University of California.
Review Committees
If a Continuing Appointee does not meet the requirements set forth in
her/his written remediation plan provided for under B.3 and an
academic review takes place, a committee shall review and make
recommendations about NSF performance. The committee shall be at
the Departmental level, except where not practicable, in which case it
will be as close to the departmental level as is practicable (e.g. school,
division or college). Such committees will be comprised of academic
appointees with sufficient knowledge of the NSF's field of expertise.
The University shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that a qualified
NSF will participate on such review committees although no individual
shall be required to serve on the committee. Unless the NSF on the
committee is a standing appointee, the NSF being reviewed shall be
consulted about the NSF appointment on the committee. Care shall be
taken to ensure that the committee is composed of faculty who can
offer a neutral assessment of the NSF's performance. The NSF on the
review committee shall be under the same obligation as any other
member of the personnel committee with respect to the confidentiality
of the review process.
The NSF being reviewed may provide a written list of suggested peers from
whom input may be solicited and/or identify qualified persons from whom
input may be solicited. The NSF being reviewed shall be afforded an
opportunity to raise concerns about possible bias on the part of individuals
involved in their review. Any such statement provided by the NSF shall be
included in the personnel review file.
At each level of the process, the review entities shall determine the weight to
be given the materials/information provided, and may solicit input from
persons not identified by the NSF being reviewed.
The NSF may submit written comments that shall be included in her/his
personnel file.
An evaluation of an NSF shall be based on a personnel review file. The
personnel review file shall contain only material relevant to consideration of
personnel action.
The NSF shall receive a copy of the evaluation indicating the sources of
evidence on which its appraisal of teaching excellence was based prior to the
recommendation of the department chair or unit head.
The NSF may submit a written response to her/his evaluation, which shall be
included in her/his personnel file.
Following the departmental review and recommendation, the NSF's personnel
review file shall be forwarded to a UC official outside the department for final
decision.
The designated University official shall provide the NSF with a written notice
of the final decision specifying the outcome of the academic review.
If the outcome of the review results in a recommendation for dismissal, the
University will take action in accordance with Section C., below.
The University shall provide Written Notice of Intent, as described in this Section C.,
for the following actions: written censure, suspension without pay, reduction in pay
or dismissal.
Issuance
The University shall give a Written Notice of Intent to the affected NSF,
either by delivery in person, or by placing the Written Notice of Intent in
the United States Mail, first-class, postage-paid, in an envelope
addressed to the NSF at her or his last known home address. The NSF
shall be responsible for informing the designated University office in
writing of his or her current home address and of any change in such
address. The information so provided shall constitute "the employee's
last known home address." The University will also send a copy of the
Notice to the NSF through campus mail to her/his campus office
address.
The University will send a copy of the notice to the local UC-AFT if so
requested by the affected NSF.
Whether the University delivers the Written Notice of Intent in person
or by mail, the Notice of Intent shall contain a statement of delivery or
mailing indicating the date on which the University personally delivered
or deposited the Notice of Intent in the U.S. Mail. Such date of delivery
or mailing shall constitute the date of issuance of the Written Notice of
Intent.
Content
The Written Notice of Intent shall:
inform the NSF of the disciplinary or dismissal action intended, and the
effective date of the action;
provide an explanation of the reason for the action, including, where
appropriate, illustrative materials;
inform the NSF of the right to respond, to whom to respond, and the
applicable time frame for responding in accordance with Section D;
and
inform the NSF of the right to representation by a representative of
her/his choice, including the UC-AFT.
Written Authorization
The University shall accept an NSF's advance written authorization for notice
to the UC-AFT in the event of any proposed disciplinary or dismissal action.
The NSF shall provide such notice through the designated Campus official.
The NSF or her/his designated representative shall be entitled to respond, either
orally or in writing, to the Notice of Intent described above. If the University delivers
the written Notice of Intent to the NSF in person, the University must receive the
response within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date on which it
delivered/issued the written Notice of Intent. If the University mails the written notice
to the NSF, the University must receive the response within thirty (30) calendar days
from the date on which the written Notice of Intent was mailed. The University shall
establish the date on which it mailed the Notice of Intent by sending the Notice via
registered mail.
WRITTEN NOTICE OF ACTION
A Written Notice of disciplinary or dismissal action must specify the action the
University intends to take and the effective date of the action.
The University's action may not include discipline more severe than that
described in the written Notice of Intent; however, the University may reduce
such discipline without the issuance of a further written Notice of Intent.
The University shall provide the NSF and (if applicable) her/his designated
representative a written Notice of Dismissal, or Notice of Disciplinary Action,
within thirty (30) calendar days after the issuance of the written Notice of
Intent, unless the NSF has elected an academic Senate review of the Intent
to Dismiss in accordance with Section G., below. This notice must consider
any response that the NSF has provided to the Notice of Intent described in
Section D., above.
ALTERNATIVES FOR REVIEW OF DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL
Discipline
Any NSF may grieve and arbitrate discipline actions taken pursuant to this
Article. Grievances must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Article
32 Grievance and Article 33 Arbitration.
Dismissal
NSF in faculty titles may request a Senate review of a dismissal action in
accordance with the Academic Senate regulations in effect at the time of the
action at the NSF's campus, or may elect review of the same action in
accordance with the provisions of the Grievance and Arbitration articles. NSF
in non-faculty titles identified in Article 5, Section B., may only seek a review
of dismissal actions in accordance with the provisions of Article 32 Grievance
and Article 33 Arbitration.
Senate Review - Within the Senate Review procedures, the scope of the
review shall be limited to determining whether there was procedural
irregularity, and/or whether the action taken was for good cause.
A faculty NSF who has received a Notice of Intent to Dismiss may elect
to have the proposed dismissal considered for advisory review under
the applicable Senate Review Procedures in effect at the time. An
NSF who chooses to use the Senate Review Procedures must provide
written notification to the designated University official within fourteen
(14) calendar days from the date of the University's Notice of Intent to
Dismiss.
The Senate may choose, in accordance with its procedures, to review
a proposed dismissal action through the applicable procedures in
effect at the time, if any, for hearings before the Academic Senate.
The Senate may also decline to review a proposed dismissal action.
When the Academic Senate Review option has been selected, the
University shall not initiate a final dismissal action until the earliest of
the following has occurred.
The Senate has elected not to review the action, or
The Senate has elected to review the proposed dismissal and
the review process is complete or
twelve (12) months have lapsed following the issuance of
the Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
When the Senate accepts the review, the University shall consider the
Senate recommendations in making its decision. The University
decision shall be final, and is not subject to grievance and arbitration.
If the Senate declines to review the proposed dismissal, the University
shall provide a Written Notice of Action to the NSF and her/his
designated representative, if any.
Grievance and Arbitration - An NSF who has received a Written Notice of
Action, including dismissal action, may file a grievance in accordance with the
procedures of Article 32 Grievance Procedure, unless the NSF has pursued a
Notice of Intent through the Academic Senate Review, and the Academic
Senate has agreed to review the proposed dismissal action.
The imposition of disciplinary or dismissal action shall not extend the
time limits for the filing of a grievance on any other matter under Article
32 - Grievance Procedure.
In any arbitration, the arbitrator shall have the authority to determine
whether the discipline or dismissal was for just cause and if so, to
determine the remedy, but s/he may not reevaluate the academic
performance or qualifications of the NSF.
