OTHER FACULTY PERSONNEL ISSUES

Merit Equity Review

Merit Equity Review (MER) has been established for ladder faculty to ensure that members are at the appropriate rank and step that is consistent with achievement. A significant discrepancy between the faculty member’s existing rank and step and that of his/her peers within the same discipline must be identified. All supporting information as described in the CALL relating to the rank, and step of the proposed advancement must be provided. The review will be processed by assessing the candidate’s overall record, using the university’s established criteria with one exception: were a significantly higher rank, or step, is indicated, the case will not require the additional demonstration of a basis for accelerated advancement. MERs supplement current applicable annual and other periodic academic reviews. MERs neither replace nor affect existing procedures.

The MER can not address salary issues

Eligibility and Frequency: A MER of an individual faculty member cannot occur at the assistant professor level. A MER can occur only once at the associate professor level, once at the full professor level prior to advancement to Professor Step VI, and once after advancement to Professor Step VI. All MER actions become part of the academic dossier.

MER can be applied to faculty in the following ladder ranks:

Associate Professor
Professor
Associate Professor in Residence
Professor In Residence
Associate Professor of Clinical (x)
Professor of Clinical (x)
Lecturer SOE
Senior Lecturer SOE

Additional information can be found in the Merit Equity Review section of the CALL at: http://www.apo.ucla.edu/call/append35.htm. Please read carefully the attachments (pages 3-7).

Please use only the Data Summary pages for the MER – in all instances. Data Summary pages for the MER can be found at: http://www.apo.ucla.edu/Data%20Summaries/mer.pdf.

A. SUBMITTING THE ACTION

MER may be brought forward to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel in one of two ways:

1. Through the Department
   Any ladder faculty member may request from his/her Department Chair that s/he be put forward for a MER. The faculty member’s request should identify area(s) of the record that s/he believes were not previously sufficiently evaluated and/or area(s) of the record that indicate he/she was not hired at the appropriate rank/step commensurate with his/her accomplishments at the time of hire. The review process for a MER will be the same as that established for whatever level the candidate requests as the outcome of the MER.
   
   a. For a MER in ‘regular’ merit cases (i.e. to Associate Professor II, III; Professor II-V, VII-IX) College departments are required to prepare dossiers using the practices, policies and procedures, and in a parallel manner described at: http://www.college.ucla.edu/personnel/handbook/ten-prof_b.htm.

   b. For a MER to Professor Step VI, College departments are required to prepare dossiers using the practices, policies and procedures, and in a parallel manner described at http://www.college.ucla.edu/personnel/handbook/ten-prof_d.htm.

   c. For a MER to Professor, (Initial) Above Scale, College departments are required to prepare dossiers using the practices, policies and procedures, and in a parallel manner described at http://www.college.ucla.edu/personnel/handbook/ten-prof_e.htm.

   d. For MER to Professor, (Further) Above Scale, College departments are required to prepare dossiers using the practices, policies and procedures, and in a parallel manner described at http://www.college.ucla.edu/personnel/handbook/ten-prof_f.htm.

   e. In the case of a Merit Equity Review where a solicitation letter is required, a sample, and its required attachments, can be found at: http://www.apo.ucla.edu/call/append35.htm, pages 3-7.
   
   Before making a recommendation to the Dean, the Department Chair should:

   A.	consult with such faculty committees, or other faculty bodies, as has been prescribed by the Departmental Bylaws or customary practices for consultation in cases of this type (merit, promotion, etc.)
   or
   B.	establish a committee to review MER actions.

   Once the MER has been conducted following the established deadlines, see http://www.college.ucla. edu/personnel/deadlines.asp, and no later than six months after a request was initiated, the results of the departmental review are communicated to the faculty member for their response. Once the candidate has responded (or decided not to respond), the case is submitted to the Dean’s office.
   

   Note,for MER Cases
   A.	If the proposed advancement involves an action that would require outside letters of evaluation, such letters must be included in the case (see “Sample Solicitation Letter for Merit Equity Review” at http://www.apo.ucla.edu/call/append35.htm.
   B.	The department must include a history of the candidate’s employment at UCLA, including rank, step and salary at appointment, years at step, and years at rank, sabbaticals and leaves. A copy of the salary history record card is required.

   
   
2. Through the Deans’ Office
   
   When a Ladder Faculty member believes that his/her Department will be unable to conduct the MER with appropriate objectivity, the faculty member may request that the MER bypass the Department and be handled by the Dean’s Office. The Dean’s Office will then be responsible for assembling the materials for the MER. An ad hoc committee will be formed to act in place of the departmental committee. After the review committee has met, the Dean will provide the candidate with a copy of the committee report for comment. Once the candidate has had the opportunity to respond, and the Dean has commented, the file will be submitted to APO. APO will forward the file to CAP. CAP will determine if a campus-wide ad hoc committee will be assigned.
   

B. ROUTING AND APPROVAL

If the department has conducted the MER, once the case has been submitted to the Dean, the Dean will review the case, make a comment and then forward to APO for submission to CAP.

If the Dean’s office has conducted the MER, once the ad hoc committee has completed the review and the candidate and Dean have commented, the Dean’s office will forward the case to APO for submission to CAP.

In all cases:

CAP will make a recommendation for action to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel.

CAP’s assessment and recommendation play a critical role in MER; CAP is the only peer review body that has the advantage of the campus-wide perspective on faculty performance. Unlike any other reviewing body, CAP has the ability to collect and compare files drawn from across the campus. CAP strives to ensure equity with every review. In consultation with the Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel, CAP will determine if a campus ad hoc committee will be required. The Dean will have an opportunity to review the ad hoc committee report, as is done in all cases that require a campus ad hoc committee.

The Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel shall make the final decision based on the full body of evidence in the file.

There is no appeal process for Merit Equity Reviews. There is no reconsideration process for a MER.