Davis Division Academic Senate Open Forum

2.12.2006 Posted by Joseph Turcano - in response to Quirino Paris' comments below: I must respectfully disagree with your statement regarding the allocation of FTE's.

In my opinion the current FTE system has never been appropriately rationalized by Provost Hinshaw, Prof Simmons, or anyone else. FTE's are often used to support administrative activities, and/or used for political patronage or recruitment, and not for their intended use of supporting research and teaching. They alienate and bastardize faculty that do the same or better work, without FTE support.

The current FTE system should be completely eliminated.

2.12.2006 Posted by Quirino Paris: On Thursday, February 2, Professor Dan Simmons, Chair of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate, used this means of communication to distribute a personal viewpoint on the executive compensation scandal.

Today, I need to use the same medium because my point of view issystematically censured (or attempted top be censured) on this campus. As you may recall, a week ago (January 27) Dateline published a letter of mine discussing the dubious purpose and procedure of the Research Initiatives. That letter was initially rejected by the editor, Clifton Parker. It took more than a month before Provost Hinshaw  ordered Mr. Parker to publish it as is. But then, although I was addressing Provost Hinshaw, my letter appeared side by side to a reply from Professor Simmons, a highly unusual event.

Immediately, I wrote a rebuttal to Professor Simmons and sent it to Dateline last Saturday, January 28.  The next Friday, February 3, it didnot appear in Dateline. Instead, a letter by Ms. Lorraine, of the IT department, presented the dilemma faced by Chancellor Vanderhoef in the choice of a cell phone.  Exactly that same letter, by the way, appeared 10 days before in the Davis Enterprise. Thus, the editor of Dateline preferred to publish a letter of praise for Chancellor Vanderhoef's acumen in choosing a cell phone rather than my letter discussing the most important university issue: the allocation of FTE positions.

I do not believe that my reply to Professor Simmons did not make the campus Dateline newsletter because of lack of space. As far as I recall, all my letters to Dateline during the past 15 years were either modified, or delayed, or not published.

Therefore, I choose this means of communication to affirm my freedom of speech in a manner similar to that of Professor Dan Simmons, hoping not to offend you.  Here is my rebuttal to Professor Simmons that Dateline refused o publish:

In a recent letter to Dateline (January 27) dealing with "Research Initiatives," I addressed Provost Virginia Hinshaw. Surprisingly, she did not reply and Professor Simmons took her place. Unfortunately, he did not address split appointments, the main issue of the
present FTE allocation plan for new faculty hiring. Split appointments are bad for new faculty, the departments involved, and, ultimately, for research.  Professor Simmons writes that "the Davis campus is committed to interdisciplinary research programs." And so am I.  But what Provost Hinshaw and the Chair of the Academic Senate do not seem to understand is that interdisciplinary research has nothing to do with split appointments. In general, junior faculty do not flourish under split appointments. This fact has been amply demonstrated since the 1970s when Graduate Groups were introduced and were allocated many FTEs. It is surprising, therefore, that Provost Hinshaw and Professor Simmons have not learned from that largely failed experiment.

The reason why split appointments do not work for junior faculty is simple:They must divide their loyalty and duties between two departments and faculties who may have different research perspectives. In four decades I have witnessed several failures among young colleagues with split appointments and I have never seen a success. A split appointment may be of interest to mature faculty who have an established research record and need not worry about tenure. Split appointments at the junior level are a mistake and a squandering of our scarce resources. Moreover, such positions seem unlikely to attract the best candidates, as most applicants understand the drawbacks of a split appointment. A candidate selected in such a searchis likely to be a compromise candidate.

If you care about free speech, teaching and research on this campus, please write your comments to Chancellor Vanderhoef, Provost Hinshaw, Professor Dan Simmons and Dateline editor Clifton Parker.  We, as faculty, must stop the constant attempt by the administration to avoid discussing critical campus issues involving teaching and research.

2.9.2006 Posted by Yossi Etz-Hasadeh: I am writing to you regarding two matters currently facing the UCD Academic Senate; 1) The upcoming UC system wide Academic Senate vote that will affect the re-instatement of Mr Howard Zochlinski 2)The upcoming Academic Senate “no confidence” vote on Mr. Chancellor Vanderhoef during the week of February 13, 2006.

I would like to comment briefly on both of these matters;

I have known Mr Zochlinski for over 4 years and am very familiar with his 13 year struggle with the university aimed at securing for himself some measure of justice and the right to due process. In February of 2005 the UCD Academic Senate, finally allowed a hearing on Mr. Zochlinski’s disqualification, the result of which was an overwhelming vote in favor of Mr. Zochlinski’s reinstatement – 46-4. Since that time the UCD administration has refused to recognize the legitimacy of that vote and has denied Mr. Zochlinski reinstatement.

It appears that the University administration, according to the faculty who spoke at the hearing on his reinstatement, has resorted to tactics that included slander and libel.

Rabbi Shmaryahu Brownstein on behalf of myself and several local Rabbis, wrote to Chancellor Vanderhoef requesting a meeting to discuss Mr. Zochlinski’s reinstatement. The Chancellor’s response was:

Dear Rabbi Brownstein:

There are processes, rules and policies that have been applied to the many aspects of this case, going back to the early 1970’s at Santa Barbara.  I am satisfied that these processes, rules and policies have worked and/or, are working.  The meeting you recommend would not, in my view, be useful.

Larry N. Vanderhoef

I was appalled by this response. It ignores a reasonable request because it is “not useful”.  The Santa Barbara reference was offensive as it is well know that Mr Zochlinski suffered there with; false arrests, malicious prosecution, beatings and a rape in the Santa Barbara County jail in 1972 at the behest of a UC police officer – were these too part of UC “processes, rules and policies”?. While Chancellor Vanderhoef has since apologized for his inclusion of Santa Barbara, he still refuses to meet with any of us to discuss Mr. Zochlinski.

The apology was too little and too late. While Mr. Zochlinski offered to drop his lawsuit in 1997 in exchange for readmission, not only was readmission denied then by Dean Gibeling, but a concerted effort at slandering Mr. Zochlinski was started, according to the testimony given at the hearing on his reinstatement in February, 2005. It is difficult to believe Mr. Vanderhoef can give out over half a million in salary, benefits and perks to Dr. Rose for threatening to sue, while spending reportedly a significantly larger sum in denying Mr. Zochlinski his civil rights and the opportunity to complete his education.

Therefore I too support the effort to vote “no confidence” against Chancellor Vanderhoef.

2.8.2006 Posted by Quirino Paris - regarding No Confidence Vote:

• Davis Enterprise - Paris 2/5/06
• Question and No Answer 2/5/06
• Viral Mismanagement

Please send your comments as text in the body of an email to gina.anderson@ucdavis.edu. Include any supporting documentation as an attachment or link.

(Postings reflect the views of the writers and are not the views of the Academic Senate, its officers, or agencies. Libelous material will not be posted. Factual documentation of questionable statements may be requested, but comments will not be edited. The Academic Senate Office reserves the right to refuse to post any item that is deemed inappropriate or unrelated to the business of the Academic Senate.)