Representative Assembly Meeting, June 10, 2003

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chair Bruce R. Madewell called the meeting to order. He reported that there were no announcements by the President, Vice Presidents, Chief Campus Officer, Deans, Directors, or other Executive Officers (agenda items 2. - 5.).

6.Special orders

A. Remarks by the Chair of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate:

Division I Intercollegiate Athletics: The Executive Council, the Committee on Academic Planning and Budget Review and the Undergraduate Council are currently working on implementation of the recommendations of the faculty to the Chancellor following his decision to move to Division IAA Athletics and the Big West Conference. The faculty also now has an expanded presence on the Athletics Administrative Advisory Committee, with all of the faculty appointments on that committee made by the Committee on Committees.

Non-Resident Tuition Remission: The resolution of the faculty from the last Representative Assembly meeting was forwarded to the Provost. The Provost has continued to work with the joint Senate/Administrative Advisory Committee on a proposed NRTR policy, with consideration being given to the opinions of the faculty as expressed by faculty postings on the web-site, reports from the Committee on Academic Planning and Budget Review and Graduate Council, the opinions rendered at the last Representative Assembly meeting, the opinions of individual faculty, departments and graduate groups.

The NRTR committee believes that there is most support on campus for a NRTR model based on residency, but questions still remain on the details of implementation and the use of internal resources devoted to non-resident tuition remission. No final decisions have been made on a NRTR policy.

The Executive Council has taken issue with the process by which the administration asks for faculty opinion on a variety of issues in addition to NRTR and will consider at its next meeting a resolution to create a Task Force to explore effective Senate-Administration interactions that are reflective of the spirit of shared governance.

Chair Madewell reported that a quorum had been certified and officially called the meeting to order. A roster of members present and absent is attached as Appendix I to these Minutes.

He noted the reports on the Consent Calendar, indicated with an asterisk. In addition, he said the Annual Report of the International Studies and Exchanges Committee was distributed at the door and he would like it to also be included on the Consent Calendar. [A copy is attached as Appendix II to these Minutes.] He asked if any member of the Representative Assembly wished to remove any of the other reports on the Calendar. Judith Stern requested that the Annual Report of the Committee on Transportation and Parking be removed. No other reports were requested to be removed; therefore, all other reports will be noted as having been received and placed on file.

6. E. Annual Report of the Committee on Committees - Marion Miller, Chair, presented the Annual Report of the Committee on Committees. She reported the Divisional Officers for 2003-2004: Bruce R. Madewell, Chair; Judith S. Stern, Vice Chair; and Kyaw Tha Paw U, Secretary. She then moved confirmation of the 2003-2004 appointments to standing committees appearing on pages 11-14 of the meeting call. The motion was approved.

6. G. Annual Report of the Distinguished Teaching Awards Committee - Anna Kuhn, Chair, presented the report of the Committee and announced the 2003 recipients of the Distinguished Teaching Awards: Chris Calvert, Animal Science; James McClain, Geology; James Shackelford, Chemical Engineering and Materials Science; and Susan Tucker, Chemistry. She then announced the 2003 recipients of the Distinguished Graduate Mentoring Award: Adel Kader, Pomology; and Karen Watson-Gegeo, School of Education. The Committee's report was approved by acclamation. With the exception of Karen Watson-Gegeo, all of the recipients were present to accept the award and make brief comments. A video presentation by Karen Watson-Gegeo, who was unable to attend, was introduced and shown by Matthew Bronson. The statements read concerning the achievements of each of the recipients appear as Appendix III to these Minutes.

Chair Madewell thanked Anna Kuhn and the dedicated work of the entire DTA Committee and congratulated the recipients.

6. P. Annual Report of the Committee on Transportation and Parking - Judith Stern, Chair, presented the report of the Committee. She briefly commented on a few of the recommendations outlined in the Committee report, appearing on pages 35-37 of the Call to the Meeting, and stated that although the Committee continues to make progress in reviewing the funding and oversight of transportation and parking on campus much work remains to be done.

7. Reports of special committees - None

8. Reports of standing committees

A. Report of the Committee on Academic Planning and Budget Review - Registrar Jack Farrell, for the Committee, presented the proposed amendment to Davis Division Bylaw 48 concerning the Instructional Space Advisory Subcommittee of the Committee on Academic Planning and Budget Review (appearing on pages 55-56 of the Call to the Meeting). He said the proposed amendments adds two representatives that would serve as resource people to the subcommittee - the Assistant Registrar in charge of assigning classroom space for all faculty requests and the Manager of Classroom Technology in charge of the installation of all instructional technology used in general assignment classrooms and the open computer labs and classrooms. He moved approval of the proposed amendment; the motion was seconded and carried.

B. Report of the Committee on Grade Changes re proposed amendments to Davis Division Guideline 15. Enrolled No Work Submitted

Richard Sexton, Chair, Grade Changes Committee presented the report of the Grade Changes Committee and the proposed amendments to Davis Division Guideline 15. E-NWS.

Professor Sexton reported that the Grade Changes Committee is proposing this change because students who are enrolled in a course they do not intend to complete and do not drop prevent other students that may be on the wait list from enrolling. He noted that the intent is to open up classes to students who are unable to enroll in courses they need to complete their degree. Also he noted that some instructors abuse the E-NWS notation, awarding the E-NWS notation to students who have in fact completed some work in the course. Similarly some staff advisors encourage inappropriate use of E-NWS as a mechanism to avoid paperwork involved with late drops. He said the proposal to eliminate the E-NWS notation is to encourage students to drop those courses that they do not anticipate participating in a timely manner.

Currently, he said, there are between 1100 and 1600 E-NWS notations given each quarter. The number of those from impacted classes is not known. This notation is apparently a UCD anomaly; peer institutions seem to get along without it. Also, this notation was instituted pre computer registration. Students now have continuous and almost instantaneous and effortless computer access to their class registration status, leaving them little excuse for not being registered properly. The Grade Changes Committee sees ample evidence that the use of this notation is increasing. The Committee receives 50-90 petitions each month. The argument that Dean's Offices are reluctant to approve late drops is incorrect. Dean's Offices routinely approve them when there is justification.

He noted that there is, however, a structural problem concerning the 10-day drop and a 12 day-add but that the Registrar's Office has put into place a procedure, as of Fall, 2003, that allows students a three-business-day grace period after the 10^th day of instruction to drop either (a) a 10-day-drop class that was added to their schedule on the 11^th or 12^th day, or (b) a "placeholder" course with a 10-day-drop deadline that is no longer desired because the student was added from a wait list to a preferred course on the 10^th, 11^th, or 12^th day of instruction. This grade period will be widely publicized.

Finally, he reported that in proposing this amendment, the Grade Changes Committee recognizes that approval of this change will inaugurate a transitional period of some confusion on the part of instructors, students and staff. The Committee, therefore, will accept the obligation to evaluate grade change petitions from students who believe an F grade assigned under provisions of Guideline 15.A. was assigned improperly. With this extant safeguard provided by the Grade Changes Committee and the aforementioned procedure established by the Registrar's Office, inappropriate assignments of F grades can be eliminated, while retaining the undeniable benefits of the proposed change in terms of improved class access and enhanced integrity of the grading system.

Professor Sexton moved approval of the proposed amendments to Davis Division Guideline 15 as appears on page 57 of the Call to the Meeting.

Discussion ensued with Associate Dean Jack Goldberg stating that the problem is exacerbated with the current add/drop legislation and the drop deadline being before the add deadlines, as mentioned by R. Sexton. The add/drop deadline needs to be changed or there needs to be some other remedy because according to Academic Senate Regulations, Deans offices do not have authority to late drop a student who did no work but did not drop the course. He also reported that previously the E-NWS notation appeared on the external transcript but that a few years ago the Representative Assembly voted to remove it from the external transcript; it now only appears on the internal transcript.

M. Rucker said she would like to see some alternative to the student receiving an "F" grade for these kinds of situations. W. Silk suggested that there needed to be some kind of safety net so as not to penalize students. It was also mentioned that awarding "F" grades in this case changes the meaning of what an "F" grade means.

T. Murphy spoke as a past Chair of the Committee on Educational Policy and said this proposal was considered by CEP. The majority view of the members was that students should be held accountable for knowing the courses in which they are enrolled and for dropping courses that they do not plan to complete. A student who submits no work for a class in which he or she is enrolled cannot pass the class. The minority felt that transcripts should be used only to measure academic performance. Their use to enforce administrative efficiency would devalue them as an evaluative tool. They also believed that the appearance of unanticipated "F's" on student transcripts would result in the loss of more faculty and staff time, through complaints and petitions, than would be saved. He said CEP discussed possible alternatives to the proposal that would still put pressure on students to promptly drop classes they do not intend to complete. One possibility is to reduce the registration priority to last for any student who is assigned an E-NWS notation. A second possibility is to return to the previous policy of leaving E-NWS notation on the external transcript; this would distinguish an indication of an enrollment error from an academically justified "F". For students who feel the E-NWS is even unacceptable, it might be reasonable to allow the grade to be removed through a petition process with a substantial financial penalty - $500.00 was mentioned.

Undergraduate student, Michael Lopez, spoke strongly against support of this proposal. He noted that there are numerous things that can happen that warrant the use of the E-NWS transcript notation. He said he believed it was also an erosion of instructor's authority over their students; a teacher should make the decision and that taking the decision-making away from the instructor and giving students an "F" will undermine faculty-student relationships.

Evelyn Silvia stated that the E-NWS transcript notation is solely for students enrolled in a course for which no work is completed and that if faculty members followed the rules we would not have this problem. She also said the thought the Senate should reconsider whether the E-NWS notation should be on the transcript. A transcript is based on academic work completed.

Kevin Hoover opined that the arguments put forward for the notation to be retained are based on using it for something other than what it was designed for. He said he strongly supported eliminating the E-NWS transcript notation particularly with the growth in enrollment and impacted classes. He cited a wait list of 50-60 students in some classes in his department.

There was a call for the question.

Chair Madewell asked if members were ready to vote? By a show of hands, he said the indication was that the Assembly was ready for a vote. A member questioned the count and asked for a re-count. On the re-count, by a show of hands, discussion continued.

In the discussion that continued, a member asked what the criteria were for a late drop. The response was that approvals are granted only in the most unusual circumstances and only in those cases where it is clear that by not approving the petition the student would be treated unfairly. Major health issues or major personal issues were cited as examples.

A faculty member stated that as the instructor he would like to be able to evaluate a student and give them a grade that they deserve.

Another faculty member added that by eliminating the E-NWS notation, instructors are losing their ability to let students out of course responsibilities because of extenuating circumstances.

Jack Goldberg reiterated his concerns about the problem with the drop deadline and the necessity to come up with a solution that addresses this problem.

There was a call for the question. A vote on the motion to approve the proposed changes to Davis Division Guideline 15 was defeated with 23 voting in favor, 29 voting against and 1 abstention.

There was a call for a quorum. By show of hands, 53 voting members were present (a quorum being 53).

8. C. Report of the Graduate Council re proposed amendments to Bylaw 80

In the absence of the Chair of the Graduate Council, Kevin Hoover, Chair, Committee on Elections, Rules and Jurisdiction presented the report of the Graduate Council proposing amendments to Bylaw 80. He reported that the proposed legislation simply clarifies the number of Senate members to be appointed by the Committee on Committees and also adds specificity to the graduate student representatives to be appointed. He moved approval of the legislation appearing on page 59 of the Call to the Meeting. The motion was seconded. The motion carried with one abstention.

8. D. Report of the Committee on Research re proposed amendments to Bylaw 99

Professor Velinsky, member of the Committee on Research, presented the proposed amendments. He reported that currently the Committee on Research spends most of its time reviewing grant proposals. He said the proposed legislation divides the Committee into two subcommittees to allow the Committee more time to provide oversight on policy issues and also to evaluate the applications for faculty research grants. The two subcommittees would have ten members each and the legislation would also allow the use of ad hoc members when deemed appropriate. He moved approval of the legislation appearing on pages 61-63 of the Call to the Meeting.

Discussion ensued in which K. Hoover stated that he voted against the earlier version discussed at the May Representative Assembly meeting basically due to the size of the proposed membership of the committees. He said the current proposal with a considerably decreased membership was, in his opinion, an improvement. However, he said there are still substantial problems. Even with a ten-member committee, it simply is not possible for the members to have the breadth of knowledge required to appropriately evaluate all of the grant proposals. A great deal of energy and time goes into preparing the proposals for such a small amount of money. I would urge the Senate to look at the cost benefit and simplify the entire process. If we are going to have to write serious proposals they ought to be evaluated seriously. Currently, that is not the case.

A Senate member said that starting this year he quit applying due to the way the proposals are handled, the lack of timeliness of learning whether one's grant had been approved and if it had not been approved being given an adequate justification for the denial.

There was a call for the question and when put to a vote the proposed amendments to Bylaw 99. were approved.

9.Petitions of students - None

10. Unfinished business - None

11. New business - Chair Madewell inquired whether there was any new business to bring to the attention of the Representative Assembly? Professor Quirino Paris responded that he wanted to bring the matter of probation, disqualification and dismissal of undergraduate students to the attention of the Representative Assembly. He noted that Senate regulations give the faculty the authority for formulation and execution of the policy on probation, disqualification and dismissal; however, he believes that faculties in undergraduate colleges and divisions have opted to allow the deans to take responsibility for enforcing the policy. He said the Senate should take responsibility for implementing, monitoring, and enforcing this regulation.

Chair Madewell responded that he would begin a dialogue with the Executive Council on this issue and report back to the Representative Assembly.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m

Kyaw Tha Paw U, Secretary

Representative Assembly of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate

Attachments

Search the Davis Division Website

Davis Division

General Links

Academic Personnel

Awards