Chair Gibeling thanked those who have agreed to participate on the Representative Assembly and on Senate committees. He said this work could not be done without these many volunteer efforts.

He then reported on issues that are currently on the agenda for Senate discussion this year. He said a new joint Academic/Administrative Committee was appointed late last Spring and has been exploring the development of a new College, possibly a School of Education. He said the committee worked over the summer exploring expanded options for K-12 and beyond. There have been a series of lectures and this was the theme of the Chancellor’s Fall Conference.

Another local issue is the unit valuation of courses, i.e. how many units are awarded for how much work. This is not evenly applied across the campus and the Senate will be looking at how we might more properly and fairly award the number of units for courses.

Systemwide activities include: a) The President’s Office has proposed another change to our admissions policy. Under this program, called the dual admissions program, students who fall between the top 4% and the top 12 ½ % of their high school class, but are not otherwise eligible, would be admitted simultaneously to a community college and a UC campus. Myriad details have yet to be worked out and the University Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools has been charged with working on this program and these details b) The Academic Senate systemwide is also concerned about the direction health sciences education, not only at the University but across the nation, is taking. The Academic Council will be working with Vice President Drake to put together a structure for dealing with this issue that will involve meaningful faculty participation c) the Expanded Summer Program is to be phased in over the next three years. It will be implemented at UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara and UC Los Angeles the first year. Details concerning the fee structure for this program are yet to be completely worked out d) UC’s Management of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Labs in Los Alamos and Livermore is coming up for review this year. The Secretary of Energy has suggested re-writing the contracts to change the wording slightly and extend the contract three years. This is a departure from past practice. Clearly, there is not time for the traditional consultative process; the Senate will not have time to engage in a lengthy review. He noted that in the past, faculty have voted to support contract extension one time and to oppose it another time.

Chair Gibeling, hearing that a quorum was certified, called the meeting to order. A roster of members present and absent is attached as Appendix II to these minutes.

Chair Gibeling asked if anyone wished to remove any of the items appearing on the Consent Calendar. Hearing no such request, the Annual Report of the Committee on Academic Personnel, the Report of the Committee on Elections, Rules and Jurisdiction, Annual Report of the Committee on Elections, Rules and Jurisdiction, Annual Report of the Graduate Council, and the Annual Reports of the Faculties of College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Engineering, Letters and Science, Medicine and Veterinary Medicine were noted as having been received and placed on file.

Chair Gibeling suggested a reordering of the agenda to move the Report of the Faculty Research Lecture Committee before discussion of the reports of the special committees. A motion was made, seconded and approved.

Chair Gibeling reported that this is the final report of the Special Committee as its term

also expires at this time. He thanked Professor Howard Day, who has guided the work of

this committee, and all of the members. They have all worked very hard and diligently.

He noted that the Meeting Call contains only the main report but that the appendices are on the web.

Professor Howard Day presented the report of the committee. He announced the membership of the committee: Anna Marie Busse Berger, Colin Cameron, Robert

Hansen, Ines Hernandez-Avila, Martin Privalsky, John Robbins, Robert Rucker, and

Edward Schroeder. He said all members were hard working but that he especially wanted to recognize Colin Cameron who devoted a vast number of hours to the work of this committee. In particular he took a year’s worth of personnel data and analyzed it; he made a large contribution to this report. This was a full-time job for both he and I from January through June. We all came into this committee with a variety of perspectives but despite our diversity in background and experience we came together with a high degree of unanimity. I think we all feel very comfortable with the recommendations that we made. Not that we have all of the answers to these problems but the recommendations are a good starting point for discussion.

The personnel system is basically sound but we do need to make some important changes

in our academic culture. Our findings include the following: faculty at UC Davis are indeed paid less than on other UC campuses, salaries at Davis are generally second or third from the bottom of the eight general UC campuses, salaries at Davis also are, with two exceptions, significantly below the eight campus average when compared on the basis of discipline, our campus tends to hire at lower levels and make less use of above scales and off scales. All of these things affect our faculty salaries. The academic personnel policies seem to be unnecessarily tumultuous - never knowing what is expected of us, with changing expectations from year to year as committees change. We find that denials occur at higher rates than on other campuses - 30% of merit actions considered by CAP without input from ad hocs were denied, CAP overturns 19% of the recommendations made by the deans and the Chancellor overturns CAP recommendations at higher rates than at other UC campuses, usually in favor of candidates. He said SCAPP was surprised at the rather high rate of disagreement of the review committees at various steps in the process – no less than 10%.

How do we interpret this? This uncertainty relates to the level of lack of trust, and lack in

clarity of the standards for faculty performance.

What is the problem? The short answer is we are the problem and we are the solution. We have created a conservative and sometimes negative system. We cannot put the onus of the problems on the administration. They rarely overturn CAP. All levels of the review appear to contribute in a comparable way to the denials.

How can we change our culture? We have made 21 recommendations; all of which are fully supported by all of the members. Not all of those 21 are actionable; some are rhetorical. But, here are a few highlights: Clarification of standards is necessary. It is clear that there are no campus relative weights that we place on teaching and research.

Improvements have been made in making teaching a much more integral part of the merit review process; however, the process does not have the necessary flexibility. Academic leadership for example is not being rewarded appropriately.

We believe that CAP can affect that culture if it is perceived it is playing a supportive role. We have proposed that CAP have an oversight role. Only in unusual cases should it do an independent review. Analysis of scholarship is best done at a lower level of the

review system. These recommendations require that CAP modify its actions. We also

believe that if the faculty have the will to change the culture, the culture can be changed.

Another controversial recommendation concerns re-delegation. CAP should focus on

those actions in which the campus has a compelling interest. All merit actions within rank should be re-delegated. We collectively spend too much time on merit actions. SCAPP feels that normal merits should be normal. This is not to say we are advocating a decrease in the standards. In the same way, we feel accelerations should be awarded more commonly for those who are doing excellent work. Too generous a treatment has not been a problem on this campus. We are already an excellent university and we need to reward our faculty.

To promote fairness and faculty confidence, SCAPP has proposed that the campus return

to five member ad hoc committees. The counter arguments to this recommendation are

clear. Faculty must feel obliged to serve when asked, and a record of service and refusal

should become a permanent part of the service record. Some campuses already do this.

As faculty members, we cannot refuse to participate in this process and then complain

that CAP is doing a bad job.

SCAPP also recommended that all appeals and re-considerations be dealt with by a shadow CAP. Appeals should not be handled by the same committee that handled the original action. The Executive Council has expressed its concern about this particular

recommendation. SCAPP is not tied to this particular recommendation but some solution should be implemented to give the faculty some confidence.

As you read this report we want you to make full use of the members of our committee.

Please feel free to call on us if we can illuminate any part of this report. SCAPP believes

we can change this negative culture. We can clarify the practices. We can ask our

personnel committees to adopt a more flexible process. We can make merit steps less

arduous. These are all things that are within our power to change and I think it would make a difference in the culture that has arisen at UC Davis.

J. Gibeling thanked Professor Day and all of the members of the Special Committee for all of their hard work and dedication. He then called attention to the Executive Council

resolution appearing in the Call to the Meeting. He said the Executive Council approved a resolution as to how to proceed from here -- the resolution calls for a second committee.

to the problem of the recommendations – they are of a mix of many things and cannot

really be adopted as they stand. He moved adoption of the resolution, but he also reported that he must dissent from leaving out Recommendation 19 regarding a shadow CAP. The motion was seconded.

He said the resolution refers 19 of the 21 recommendations to an implementation committee. He noted that Recommendation 20 is about moving CAP to the Academic Senate Office. This recommendation was presented to the Chancellor and Provost sooner rather than later because of the third floor remodeling plans underway. Both the Chancellor and Provost have agreed to this move so that recommendation is already in process.

J. Mechling noted that it was nearing 5:30 p.m. and he said there was not sufficient time to take action on all of these recommendations. He moved that when the meeting is

adjourned rather than waiting for the next regularly scheduled Representative Assembly

meeting, a meeting, for which the date is to be determined by the Chair, be scheduled. It was noted that this will not be a Special meeting but rather a regular meeting. The motion was seconded. K. Hoover stated that this motion is not debatable but it is amendable. Call for the question. The motion carried.

Back to the Executive Council resolution. Brief discussion ensued with the question being asked, "Why did the Executive Council object to the shadow CAP" (by the Executive Council)? K. Hoover responded that the objections were basically about creating another committee. The very formulation of such a committee suggests that this new committee would be somewhat superior and that the Committee on Committees will have a problem finding folks to serve on CAP. In addition, it may make the whole personnel process more cumbersome.

J. Gibeling noted that some members also felt that we should first make the other reforms

and see how that works before establishing a "shadow" CAP. K. Hoover said he was not

insensitive to that idea but that he thought Howard Day made clear the discussion that they went through before coming up with the recommendation. He offered an amendment. The amended resolution should include the statement that "A process in which personnel decisions can be appealed independently of CAP should be developed."

Brief discussion ensued in which the importance of an appeal process was expressed.

Chair Gibeling stated that it was well past 5:30 p.m. and he was not sure how much further this discussion could be pursued. There was a call for the question (the K. Hoover

amendment) and the motion carried.

Returning to the vote on the main motion, to create the implementation committee, J.

Money said she had several comments on the report that she would like to address but felt

constrained by the time. J. Gibeling said he did not want to stifle debate on this issue and

he therefore asked for a motion to adjourn. So moved and seconded. The motion carried.

The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. with Chair Gibeling reporting that another meeting

will be called as soon as possible.

The continuation of the Regular Meeting of the Representative Assembly was reconvened on Wednesday, November 15, 2000, 3:30 – 5:30, in the Cabernet Room, Union Silo.

While waiting for a quorum to be certified, Professor Kiskis inquired about the status of the conflict of commitment – APM 025 under revision. Chair Gibeling responded that the President’s Office is working on the revision of the current policy that allows only 39 days per year which translates into one day per week for consulting. He noted that a detailed response to the proposed revisions from the Davis Faculty Association is on the web. He invited comments to the proposed revisions and said he would be happy to forward them to systemwide.

Jay Mechling opined that it was his sense at the last meeting that the Assembly was close to taking a vote but that some people wanted an opportunity to make comments but were constrained due to the time. He asked if it was the intent at today’s meeting to provide that opportunity? J. Gibeling responded affirmatively.

Chair Gibeling reported that at the point of adjournment at the October 24 meeting, the main motion on the floor was to adopt the resolution proposed by the Executive Council that would create another Special Committee. The Executive Council resolution was amended on the floor and that is the point at which there was a motion to adjourn.

Although a quorum was not present, discussion ensued on several of the recommendations with J. Money, J. Mechling, C. Cameron, M. Privalsky and others participating. J. Vohs added endorsement of the praise for the committee’s efforts but went on to state that in view of the lack of a quorum he would urge the Executive Council to move forward and initiate establishment of the Special Committee. Discussion continued with J. Newton, W. McConnell, C. Cameron, and R. Thornton participating. Subsequently, a "straw poll" was suggested and by a show of hands, those present supported the Chair of the Academic Senate asking the Executive Council to appoint the implementation committee.

Chair Gibeling thanked those present for attending and the group departed at 4:40 p.m.

Subsequently, the Executive Council voted to create the Special Committee on Personnel Process Reform in accord with the amended motion that had been on the floor at the Representative Assembly meeting. The Executive Council resolution is included as an attachment with these Minutes as Appendix IV.