ARTICLE 30
DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL [1]
|
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. |
Discipline is a written censure [2]
, suspension without pay, or reduction in pay for misconduct and/or
dereliction of academic duty. [3]
|
2. |
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.
|
3. |
Any discipline or dismissal of an NSF pursuant to this Article
shall be for just cause.
|
|
B. PROCESS FOR
DISMISSAL BASED ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE [4]
1. |
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,[5]
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.
|
2. |
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.
|
3. |
If the Continuing Appointee fails to meet the requirements
set forth in the written remediation plan, the University may conduct
an academic review. [6]
|
4. |
If the NSF meets the requirements set forth in the written remediation
plan, no out of cycle academic review will be conducted.
|
5. |
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.
|
6. |
Instructional performance is measured by evaluation of evidence
demonstrating such qualities as:
|
a. command of the subject matter and continued
growth in mastering new topics;
b. ability to organize and present course materials;
c. ability to awaken in students an awareness of the importance
of the subject matter;
d. ability to arouse curiosity in beginning students and
to stimulate advanced students to do creative work; and
e. achievements of students in their field.
|
|
7. |
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.
|
8. |
The following exemplify excellence in teaching. The University
shall give all relevant materials due consideration.
|
a. Student evaluations, provided the quantitative
measure in the student evaluation is not the sole criterion
for evaluating teaching excellence;
b. assessment by former students who have achieved notable
professional success;
c. assessments by other members of the department, and other
appropriate faculty members;
d. development of new and effective techniques of instruction
and instructional materials; and
e. assessments resulting from classroom visitations by colleagues
and evaluators.
|
|
9. |
An NSF may provide a self-statement or self-evaluation
of her or his teaching objectives and performance.
|
10. |
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:
|
a. departmental NSFs;
b. departmental Academic Senate faculty;
c. other academic appointees;
d. students; and/or
e. others external to the University of California.
|
|
11. |
Review Committees
|
a. If a Continuing Appointee does not meet
the requirements set forth in her/his written remediation
plan provided for under Section B.2 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.
b. 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.
|
|
12. |
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.
|
13. |
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.
|
14. |
The NSF may submit written comments that shall be included in
her/his personnel file.
|
15. |
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.
|
16. |
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.
|
17. |
The NSF may submit a written response to her/his
evaluation, which shall be included in her/his personnel file.
[7]
|
18. |
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. [8]
|
19. |
The designated University official shall provide
the NSF with a written notice of the final decision specifying the
outcome of the academic review.
|
20. |
If the outcome of the review results in a recommendation for
dismissal, the University will take action in accordance with Section
C., below.
|
|
C. WRITTEN NOTICE
OF INTENT TO DISCIPLINE OR DISMISS
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.
1. |
Issuance [9]
|
a. 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.
[10]
The University will also send a copy of the Notice to the
NSF through campus mail to her/his campus office address.
b. The University will send a copy of the notice to the local
UC-AFT if so requested by the affected NSF. [11]
c. 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.
|
|
2. |
Content [12]
The Written Notice of Intent shall:
|
a. inform the NSF of the disciplinary or dismissal
action intended, and the effective date of the action; [13]
b. provide an explanation of the reason for the action, including,
where appropriate, illustrative materials;
c. 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
d. inform the NSF of the right to representation by a representative
of her/his choice, including the UC-AFT.
|
|
3. |
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.
|
|
D. RESPONSE TO WRITTEN
NOTICE OF INTENT
The NSF or her/his designated representative shall be entitled to respond,
either orally or in writing, to the Notice of Intent described above.
[14]
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. [15]
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.
|
E. WRITTEN NOTICE
OF ACTION [16]
1. |
When the University makes updates and/or changes
to the Academic Personnel Manual, and/or changes to local campus
manuals or regulations related to NSF, it posts those changes on
the University’s web site. The University will provide notice
to the UC-AFT of the proposed and final changes to the APM and the
web address where the changes can be viewed.
|
2. |
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.
|
3. |
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.
|
|
F. ALTERNATIVES
FOR REVIEW OF DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL
1. |
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.
[17]
|
2. |
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. [18,
19]
|
|
G. PROCEDURE FOR
REVIEW OF PROPOSED DISMISSAL [20]
The UC-AFT shall retain any union rights expressly guaranteed by HEERA
except as specifically limited by this MOU.
1. |
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. |
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.
|
b. |
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.
|
c. |
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.
1) |
The Senate has elected not to review
the action, or
|
2) |
The Senate has elected to review the proposed dismissal
and
|
a) the review process is complete
or
b) twelve (12) months have lapsed following the
issuance of the Notice of Intent to Dismiss. |
|
|
d. |
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. [21]
|
e. |
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.
[22]
|
|
2. |
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.
|
a. 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.
b. 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. |
|
|
|