UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS ACADEMIC SENATE VOLUME XXIX, No. 3

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING OF THE REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY

DAVIS DIVISION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE

Thursday, May 24, 2001

3:30-5:30 p.m.

Cabernet Room, Silo

Having been informed of a quorum, Chair Jeffery Gibeling called the Special Meeting of the Representative Assembly to order. A roster of members present and absent is attached as Appendix I to these minutes. He stated that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the report of the Special Committee on Personnel Process Reform (SCPPR) and to take action on the implementation proposals contained therein. He then recapped the history:

On December 10, 1999, the Executive Council of the Academic Senate appointed a Special Committee on the Academic Personnel Processes (SCAPP) to undertake a careful review of our academic personnel policies, procedures and practices and to identify areas where improvements were warranted. While the report made many substantive recommendations, it also emphasized the need for a change in campus culture, the responsibility for which rests with all of us acting collectively and individually. After reviewing the SCAPP report, the Executive Council believed that the Senate should give further consideration to implementing the recommendations. A resolution to create a Special Committee on Personnel Process Reform (SCPPR) was presented to the Representative Assembly at its meeting of October 24, 2000, which was continued on November 15, 2000. Unfortunately, the Assembly lacked a quorum at the second meeting and could not act on the proposed resolution. Subsequently, the Executive Council voted on November 17, 2000 to appoint SCPPR with the charge that it develop implementation proposals.

The SCPPR report has been received by the Executive Council and discussed by it at two meetings. The major changes proposed by SCPPR are to redelegate all merit actions to local personnel committees, to increase the degree to which CAP is subject to the authority of the larger Senate and to create a mechanism to appeal personnel committee recommendations. The Executive Council endorses these proposals, and is recommending that the Assembly adopt a set of new Bylaws that differ slightly from the wording proposed by SCPPR. The Assembly is also being asked to approve resolutions to the Chancellor and to CAP.

Chair Gibeling invited a motion on the suggested amendments to the Bylaws, as slightly amended by the Executive Council or the resolutions to the Chancellor and to CAP.

John Oakley, Chair of the Committee on Faculty Welfare, expressed the unanimous concerns of the Faculty Welfare Committee (CFW) regarding the proposed amendment to Bylaw 77. Faculty Welfare. He stated that the proposed amendment mandates that CFW collect annually and publish the comparison of academic salaries of UC Davis with other divisions of the University of California and a comparison group of universities of higher status than UC Davis whose reputations we wish to emulate. He said adding this additional charge to the workload of CFW would over-burden the committee and said the task now being asked of CFW is too important to be done in a perfunctorily manner. He also said that the proposed amendment was included in SCPPR’s recommendations without any consultation with CFW. He then urged the Assembly to take this off the table for consideration and adopt a better formulated proposal with appropriate consultation.

Colin Cameron said there may be some misunderstanding as to what is being requested. He reported that UCOP has the data by discipline and that the collection of data requested should not be all that time intensive. The question is, however, should this particular committee be charged with this responsibility? He said he believed it was an important issue - who do we want to be compared with?

Kevin Hoover reported that there is not a motion on the floor and he therefore moved adoption of proposed amendments to Bylaws 41, 42 and 43 noting that these amendments should be considered together because of their interlocking nature.

Greg Clark moved an amendment to the motion to strike section 8, page 5. He said it would constitute a lot of work for departments and the possibility of the creation of lots of mischief.

Discussion ensued in which M. Privalsky, P. Yager, C. Cameron, M. Jackman, J. Utts, J. Mechling participated.

By a show of hands, the vote on the motion to strike section 8 was defeated.

N. Landau moved that Section 8 be amended to read: “To solicit from time to time from academic departments, and to publish general and broadly delineated standards for advancement pertinent to the various academic disciplines.” After brief discussion, the motion was seconded and carried.

Professor Money proposed an amendment to Bylaw 42 striking “unusual” and adding “with clear justification”. Discussion ensued. A vote on the motion, by show of hands, was defeated.

Returning to the main motion, by a show of hands, the motion to approve Bylaws 41, 42, and 43, as amended, carried by the necessary 2/3 majority.

C. Hunt introduced a written description of procedures for signing ad hoc committee reports. J. Mechling then asked if he could move consideration of the resolution to CAP, appearing on the last page, thereby allowing discussion of the Hunt proposal. The Chair responded affirmatively. J. Mechling moved an amendment to add the procedural recommendations distributed by Professor Hunt to the resolution to CAP concerning the procedure for signatures on ad hoc committee reports.

C. Hunt stated that the purpose of the proposed procedure is to ensure that members of the ad hoc committees see the final prepared report and that no further editing is allowed except by the entire committee.

J. Gibeling said he asked CAP for an opinion on this matter and CAP advised against making any changes at this time, noting that the current system makes it easier to assure confidentiality. He said CAP proposed instead that following the receipt of the final signatures, all of the ad hoc members be contacted again and be invited to do a final review with a timeline of 5 working days in order not to compromise the timeliness of the process.

Discussion ensued with C. Hunt noting one of the problems with CAP’s suggestions is that people do not want to come to Mrak twice to review and/or sign ad hoc reports, especially those from off campus. R. Rucker pointed out CAP’s concern has to do with confidentiality and timing. He also noted the difficulty of getting people to participate on ad hocs. In addition, he said going to five person ad hocs will increase the telephone calls by about 1/3. A vote on the Hunt proposal, by a show of hands carried.

Returning to the resolution to CAP, N. Landau moved that section 5.(d), page 16 of the call to the meeting “that not all members must be drawn from closely related areas” be struck. The motion was seconded. K. Hoover clarified and justified reasoning for the statement. There was brief discussion. The vote on the motion was defeated.

A question was asked about the authority of the resolution to CAP. K. Hoover stated that these are suggestions that CAP work with the Vice Provost to make this possible if they can but in passing the earlier Bylaw, 41, the Representative Assembly has given itself the authority to give instruction to CAP. The resolution to CAP then is an instruction to CAP.

Concerns were expressed about 5 (b) – that the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee contact the other nominees. M. Privalsky provided the rationale for this statement noting that a call from a staff member is easier to decline than a call from one of your colleagues, the Chair of the Ad Hoc.

L. Grivetti said he agreed with the proposal for 5 person ad hocs but that practically the process will be made more difficult; CAP will have a tougher job. Vice Provost Klein mentioned that the telephone calls might best be done by staff in his office due to the confidentiality issues. He also agreed that 5 person ad hocs would be good but he said there is a time issue. He said there is an obligation to complete tenure cases by the end of June and that is difficult to accomplish with 3 person ad hocs. C. Cameron said he believes it is important to go from 3 person ad hocs to 5 person ad-hocs and yet he said he understands the difficulty of getting people to serve.

A vote on the motion to delete 5.(b). was defeated.

On the Call for the main question, the resolution to CAP, by a show of hands the motion carried as amended.

K. Hoover moved adoption of the proposed amendments to Bylaw 28. The motion was seconded. He explained that the only change is to reaffirm that these additions do not change the fact that the various personnel committees (CAP, Faculty Personnel Committees and Committee of Academic Personnel Advisers) are still standing committees of the Davis Division and as such they are subject to the same general rules as other standing committees. By a show of hands, the motion carried.

K. Hoover moved approval of amended Bylaws 44 and 45. The motion was seconded. He noted that these amendments govern a personnel appeals process. And further, there are two categories of review 1) reconsiderations that occur because additional information is provided relevant to a personnel action and 2) appeals when a Senate member believes standards of merit were not followed or that published procedures were not followed.

J. Vohs sought clarification. He asked if the advice from the Academic Personnel Adviser goes forward with the appeal? K. Hoover said if it was an appeal cpc/spc, CAP is acting as the appeal procedure; CAP still makes the final judgment. The Academic Personnel Adviser is simply an independent opinion separate from the cpc/spc or CAP.

Asked about the number of appeals, R. Rucker said there are approximately 400 cases of which approximately 10% of those have appeals.

J. Vohs inquired whether there would be a report from the Academic Personnel Adviser to CAP? K. Hoover said if the individual decides to take the case forward it will go forward with the advice of the Academic Personnel Adviser. If the individual decides not to take the case forward after discussing it with an Academic Personnel Adviser, it stops there. With that information, J. Vohs suggested a clarification in the language of the amendment to Bylaw 44. Points #2 and #3 were clarified as follows:

Point #2: “To assess independently whether a personnel action raises substantive issues for appeal and to communicate that assessment to the appellant Senate member.”

Point #3: “On the request of the appellant Senate member, to transmit an appeal to the Committee on Academic Personnel or to the Committee on Privilege and Tenure along with a brief statement of their assessment in accordance with Ren. DD Bylaw 45c.

A vote on the proposed amendments of Bylaws 44 and 45, as modified slightly, carried.

K. Hoover then stated that as a result of the earlier remarks by John Oakley, Chair, Committee on Faculty Welfare, he suggested proceeding to the resolution to the Chancellor and he so moved. J. Oakley expressed strong opposition to such a motion and urged the Assembly to vote aye or nay on the matter he raised at the beginning of the meeting. K. Hoover responded that he meant no disrespect to John, in fact quite to the contrary. He thought he was doing this out of consideration for Professor Oakley’s expressed concerns and therefore he thought taking no action at this time to allow for further consideration of the amendment to Bylaw 77 was the way to proceed. But, he said procedurally there was not a motion on the floor and one cannot table something that has not been put into debate. J. Oakley asked if it was too late to “notice” this matter for the June meeting? J. Gibeling responded affirmatively.

Subsequently, a motion to send the proposed amendment of Bylaw 77 back to the Executive Council for further consideration was made, seconded and carried.

Returning to the resolution to the Chancellor, K. Hoover reiterated his motion to approve the resolution. The motion was seconded. J. Utts reminded the Assembly of the need to strike the first sentence in 2. since it refers to the comparisons to be reported by the Committee on Faculty Welfare. This was accepted as a friendly amendment. The resolution to the Chancellor, as amended, was approved.

K. Hoover moved approval of the proposed amendment to Bylaw 73. The motion was seconded and carried.

W. McConnell said he wanted to note for the record that the Assembly owes a great debt of thanks to all of those who have participated in this process – SCAPP, SCPPR, and all of the other individuals who have been involved. This was approved by acclamation.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

Jay Mechling, Secretary