SCRIPPS OVERVIEW  |  RESEARCH OVERVIEW  |  SUPPORT SCRIPPS  |  DIRECTORIES & MAPS  |  EMPLOYMENT

SIO STAFF COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE REPORTS UPDATE REPORT DIRECTOR'S REPORT MINUTES BY-LAWS HISTORY ARCHIVES
		Print-Friendly Version 2005-2006 SIO Committee on Academic Personnel Annual Report During the academic year 2005-2006, SIO CAP reviewed 209 personnel files. These included Faculty (18%), Researcher (10%), Project Scientist (11%), Specialist (3%), Postdoctoral Researcher (42%), Research Associate (4%) and miscellaneous (12%) files. While the largest fraction of files reviewed belonged to the postdoctoral researcher series, these were handled by one SIO CAP member in consultation with SIO APO and so did not take up any time by the committee as a whole. SIO CAP proposed actions ranged from appointment, various levels of promotion and career review, merit, reappointment, recall and no change. SIO CAP agreed with the proposed actions indicated in the files 95% of the time, proposed less 4% of the time, proposed more in one case, and proposed no in one case. SIO CAP agreement with the final action taken by the Vice Chancellor for Marine Sciences or the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs occurred 97% of the time, up from 94% in 2004-2005 and 93% in 2003-2004. SIO CAP remains the most deeply enriching institutional service for our academics and our most important obligation to our academic peers because it deals with the quality of our science and the equitable treatment of our scientists. As such imperfections in the review process should be given particularly careful scrutiny. Two flaws in an otherwise exemplary analytical process are apparent. These relate to the evaluation of members of the Project Scientist Series and discrepancies in how Faculty and non-Faculty files are processed for review. Although the Project Scientist Series has become a career position with the potential for high salary rewards, many people serving on ad hoc committees or on SIO CAP still review these files as if the individuals in question are glorified postdoctoral researchers, with considerably less expectation for impact in the peer-reviewed scientific literature than is the case for members of the Faculty or Researcher series. This is not the admonition given in the SIO CAP memo of December 4, 2001, Revised January 24, 2002. More detailed advice is needed for all of the units, sections and ad hoc review committees in evaluating Project Scientist files. SIO has striven for many years to maintain parity within the Faculty and Researcher series. The recent inclusion of both Faculty and Researcher series members as members of the SIO Faculty is a reflection of this policy. However, the files for these two groups (and other academics as well) are handled very differently, and in the case of Researcher files differences exist among the units in file handling. A more uniform process which is more parallel to the Faculty review system would be an improvement. During 2005-2006 an ad hoc committee examined this issue and the issue of academic file handling in a Section model. Recommendations were passed on to the Vice Chancellor for Marine Sciences on April 6, 2006. D, H. Bartlett, Chair, SIO CAP, 2005-2006

webmaster@sio.ucsd.edu