MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY
OF THE DAVIS DIVISION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE
Monday, October 25, 1999
3:30 - 5:30 p.m.
Memorial Union, MU II
1. Minutes of the June 8, 1999 meeting
2. Announcements by the President - None
3. Announcements by the Vice Presidents - None
4. Announcements by the Chief Campus Officer - None
5. Announcements by Deans, Directors, or other Executive Officers - None
6. Special orders
A. State of the Campus Address - Chancellor Larry N. Vanderhoef
B. Remarks by the President of ASUCD, Phong La
C. Remarks by the Co-Chair of the Graduate Student Association, Molly Hillard
D. Remarks by the Chair of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate, Jeffery C. Gibeling
7. Reports of special committees - None
8. Reports of standing committees
A. Report of the Faculty Research Lecture Committee9. Petitions of students - None
*B. Annual Report of the Committee on Academic Personnel
C. Report of the Committee on Committees
*D. Annual Report of the Graduate Council
*E. Annual Report of the Library Committee
*F. Annual Report of the Teaching Committee
*G. Annual Report of the Faculty of the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
*H. Annual Report of the Faculty of the College of Engineering
*I. Annual Report of the Faculty of the School of Law
*J. Annual Report of the Faculty of the College of Letters and Science
*K. Annual Report of the Faculty of the School of Medicine
*L. Annual Report of the Faculty of the School of Veterinary Medicine
A. Extension of the term of the Honors Council
B. Report of the Committee on Elections, Rules and Jurisdiction concering proposed revision of Bylaw 180
Chair Jeffery C. Gibeling began the meeting informally, a quorum having not yet been certified. He welcomed everyone to the new academic year and the first meeting of the Representative Assembly. Subsequently, having been informed that a quorum was present, he called the meeting to order. A roster of members present and absent is attached as Appendix I to these minutes.
The Chancellor gave his State of the Campus address utilizing a Power Point presentation. A brief summary of his remarks follow:
UC Davis will be focussing on four themes. The first one being academic planning for growth/faculty recruitment. The academic planning for growth and faculty recruitment process will determine which academic areas will grow and that will influence the areas of expertise of the faculty recruited, which will in turn affect the kind of students we will attract and the type of facilities and funding that will be needed. Faculty recruitment will shape the academic landscape of UC Davis for the next quarter century. There are currently 1504 active Senate members and in the next 5-7 years we will add 175 new faculty members and require 325 replacements.
The education of our undergraduates is the second theme and one in which we must continue to think about in new and different ways. Quoting from E. O. Wilson, Harvard biologist, "Most of the issues that vex humanity daily…cannot be solved without integrating knowledge from the natural sciences with that of the social sciences and humanities. Only fluency across the boundaries will provide a clear view of the world as it really is…." Our "Nature and Culture" program is one example of this kind of breadth.
Third, outreach. We will continue expansion of our partnerships with K-12 and will be announcing a new enhancement program in the very near future. Not only will we continue our efforts with outreach to the community but we will also increase our efforts with economic developments. The Technology Transfer Office, UC Davis Connect and the Enterprise Zone are examples of such developments that relate to research funding.
The fourth theme is campus climate. We place a high value on diversity and trends in faculty hiring. Campus committees will be appointed to begin examining how UC Davis can hire more women and minorities and also investigation of other hiring and promotion issues. The pursuit of diversity is an important component of the pursuit of excellence.
The campus is positioned for success. The Hotel/conference center - near the site of the Center for the Arts will provide important regional interaction and impact. The UC Davis Medical Center also continues to play an important part in this interaction. We will continue to engage ourselves in ways that make a difference. We have facilities under construction - Plant and Environmental Sciences and Engineering III to name a couple. We also have some facilities in the queue - the teaching sciences laboratory building, technology classroom/recital hall, and Veterinary Medicine. Several of these have equal funding - State and non-State. We also have federally or privately funded facilities such as the Western Human Nutrition Research Center, and the Jackson Laboratory. Russell Park, Aggie Village, Primero Grove, LaRue Park and the Hotel/Conference Center are examples of contract construction facilities. (We contract with a contractor who builds the facility for us according to our instructions; they then manage it according to our rules.) The FACE Initiative is another way of dealing with a shortage of funds for facilities. The students voted to tax themselves over the next 2-2 1/2 decades to help with student facilities such as an activities and recreation center, aquatic complex, equestrian center and a multi-use stadium.
There are other things that we can do to prepare for growth and new faculty. Fund raising is an important one. You will see a growth in the number of Endowed Chairs. There will also be some special campaigns, Veterinary Medicine, Tahoe Research Center, and the Center for the Arts, are three such focussed areas in fund raising. There are many, many other things going on in the general realm of raising money for the campus. All of which will never be successful without the high quality of the faculty.
Examples of recent national and international recognition include Lynn Hershman for the Flintridge Award for Lifetime Achievement in the Arts, Fred Murphy elected to the National Institute of Medicine, Bruce Hammock elected to the National Academy of Sciences and Robert Bower elected to the National Academy of Engineering.
Other issues very much on our minds is graduate student support, staff workload, security, health care financial stability, and faculty hiring and faculty salaries.
The Chancellor concluded his remarks by noting that the above mentioned items concluded the list of issues currently on the minds of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor and himself but that they both welcomed suggestions for additions.
Remarks by the President of ASUCD, Phong La
Mr. La commented on last spring's amendment to the minimum progress requirement and expressed his concerns about increasing the number of units required from 12 to 13. He also reported that ASUCD has been working to reinstate the publication Student Viewpoint. He said he wanted to thank those who have participated in this publication and he encouraged more participation in the future. He said ASUCD is also working on the issue of student housing and he noted that they were against the student housing initiative. He reported the Magnar Ronning Award being reestablished last year and he congratulated Dr. Michael Smith, Department of History, as the first recipient of this award since its reestablishment. In conclusion he mentioned the circus tent on the Quad noting that it serves as a book exchange and also a textbook library.
Remarks of the Co-Chair of the Graduate Student Association, Molly Hillard
Ms. Hillard stated that GSA offers a wide variety of services - student travel and emergency loans just to name a couple. She said GSA has been working to fill graduate student representative slots on Academic Senate and Administrative Committees and have had very good response from graduate students willing to participate.
She then shared GSA's primary agenda for this year: job placement and career development, mentorship exploration, and greater diversity of our student body and faculty to help promote diversity. She said she looked forward to working with the Senate this year and thanked the Assembly for the invitation to speak today.
Remarks by Chair, Jeffery C. Gibeling
Chair Gibeling reported on agenda items he anticipates for the Senate this year including implications of year-round operation and increasing student enrollment in Summer Sessions; the proposal from Governor Davis for a community service requirement for undergraduates; a new proposal for domestic partner benefits, specifically in medical and retirement benefits and posting of lecture notes on the web. He noted the Chancellor's mention of the compensation/salary equity issue and said the Executive Council has briefly discussed this issue and that he intends to appoint a special committee to examine these discrepancies and also look at the issue of campus standards and evaluation of scholarship. He mentioned the upcoming WASC accreditation review. He noted an issue from last year regarding the evaluation of course units and said discussion of this would continue this year. He reported that an effort will be made to improve the effectiveness of the Academic Senate committee structure, to make participation on committees more meaningful and also to strengthen the role of Senate consultation. He noted the Executive Council's serious consideration of the creation of an Undergraduate Council. He said these are the major topics on the agenda but that he welcomed suggestions for others.
7. Reports of special committees - None
8. Reports of standing committees
Chair Gibeling stated that most of the Annual Reports appear on the Consent Calendar and he asked if anyone wished to remove any of these reports from the Consent Calendar. He was asked to remove the Annual Report of the Committee on Academic Personnel. No other requests were made, the Annual Reports of the Graduate Council, Library, Teaching, Faculty of the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of the College of Engineering, Faculty of the School of Law, Faculty of the College of Letters and Science, Faculty of the School of Medicine, and the Faculty of the School of Veterinary Medicine were therefore noted as having been received and placed on file.
Kevin Hoover made a motion to reorder the agenda and move discussion of the Annual Report of the Committee on Academic Personnel to take place after item 12. New business. The motion was seconded and carried by voice vote.
12. New business
Kevin Hoover, Chair of the Committee on Elections, Rules and Jurisdiction presented the report of the Committee. He said the proposed amendment was a result of a ruling from the Chair of the Division at a Representative Assembly meeting last Spring in response to a challenge from the floor that no amendment to legislation under discussion could be enacted without notice being given to the Division, even in the case in which the legislation itself had been previously noticed. He said while this ruling was consistent with the wording of Bylaw 180, it represented a departure from the actual practices of the Representative Assembly in which amendment of legislation under debate was usual and indeed is contrary to parliamentary practice as described in Robert's Rules of Order. The Committee on Elections, Rules and Jurisdiction therefore recommends the adoption of an amendment to Bylaw 180 that would clarify the customary practice of the Representative Assembly with respect to debate and amendment of legislation. He said the proposed amendment to Bylaw 180 would allow debate, amendments, and voting on amendments from the floor which do not exceed the scope of the previous notice. He moved approval of the proposed amendment as printed on page 63 of the call to the meeting. The motion was seconded. John Oakley said he did not agree with legislation to merely ratify past practice and that he also believed there are dangers of amendments on the floor. K. Hoover noted that this legislation is a modest amendment and that the vote is only on the proposed legislation. A vote on the amendment to change Bylaw 180, with an effective immediately clause, was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
9. B. Annual Report of the Committee on Academic Personnel
Chair Gibeling announced that the first step is to receive the report of the Committee on Academic Personnel. He then noted two corrections: On page 23 of the Call to the Meeting, Table V, the number 15 concerning Step VI under "Approved" should read 25. Secondly, on page 25, Table VII, under "CPC/SPC/DPC" in the "Yes" column, the number 166 should read 266. He asked if there were other corrections; none were voiced. Winder McConnell was recognized and he read a prepared statement, attached to these Minutes as Appendix II.
Prior to opening the report for further discussion, J. Gibeling noted the following points of order: the Assembly cannot direct the work of a subcommittee except through Bylaw changes. Secondly, he advised against the discussion becoming personalized and reminded the Assembly of the need to show a measure of respect.
A statement of support for W. McConnell's statement was voiced.
The question was asked, "What are our options now?" J. Gibeling responded that Annual Reports are received and placed on file. If we do not do anything else, the CAP report will be noted as having been received and placed on file. The Assembly can accept or reject the report. The Report does not call for any actions so neither of those steps would have any concrete outcome.
Beatriz Pesquera made a motion to reject the Annual Report of the Committee on Academic Personnel. The motion was seconded. Discussion ensued with some support for the motion and expression that such action would make a symbolic, active statement. Randolph Siverson noted that it had been his experience over the years that complaints about CAP are continuous year after year and he said he would like to see an analysis of the significant variance from previous years before casting aspersions on this year's CAP. Another participant stated that it was his impression that CAP is doing their best and that to reject the report is in the spirit of negative and punitive action and he therefore could not support rejection of the report.
Judith Newton said it is extremely difficult to have adequate representation on CAP due to the diversity of the campus and the size of the Committee. She suggested the possibility of there being more than one CAP, perhaps establishment of CAPs for schools/colleges so that they could have better informed discussions. Also, she said, the notion of universal standards is difficult because of the many different kinds of disciplines with different cultures.
W. McConnell voiced support for the motion. He said it is symbolic and indicates the lack of confidence felt about CAP. It also emphasizes the need for a joint committee of the Academic Senate and the Administration to look into some of the concerns voiced here today.
R. Hansen stated that as Chair of the Committee on Committees he wanted to remind everyone that CAP is one of the most difficult committees for the Committee on Committees to fill. He said it is difficult to find people that are willing to serve on committees like CAP and CAPBR. There is a considerable workload on these committees. CAP also has a considerable effect on the professional lives of people and it is essential that fair-minded, objective individuals be appointed. He noted that due to the lack of sufficient numbers of volunteers in some areas he attended L&S Dean's meetings with department chairs and encouraged those in attendance to volunteer for Senate service. He said the faculty need to work together and find a solution to this dilemma.
J. Oakley opined how difficult it is to make informed judgements on this kind of discussion. He said perhaps the Assembly ought to be looking at the next report - the Report of the Committee on Committees. He asked, "Are we all doing our part in providing that committee with sufficient numbers of faculty members willing to serve?"
Albert Harrison expressed the view that this body could express a statement of its reaction to the CAP report and also that we want also to contribute to a positive solution which would include reviewing the recent actions of CAP.
Returning to the motion, Ines Hernandez-Avila said it was her belief that rejection of the CAP report is a positive statement for those who have been frustrated by the actions of CAP.
Robert Thornton asked, "What is the consequence of rejecting the report?" J. Gibeling responded that in his view, there is no practical outcome. The facts of the CAP report remain unchanged.
Due to the lateness of the hour, J. Gibeling suggested a call for the question. He said it was then his intent to follow through with the idea he stated at the beginning of this meeting for the establishment of a committee to carry out some studies on this issue.
There was a call for a quorum with the results indicating a quorum was no longer present. The motion on the floor died for lack of a quorum. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
Jay Mechling, Secretary
Representative Assembly of the
Davis Division of the Academic Senate
"Shared governance at the University of California is nothing if not based on the confidence of the Academic Senate in the various mechanisms that have been established to insure its integrity. This pertains, in particular, to those committees established by the Academic Senate itself. Over the past few years, the confidence in the ability of CAP to insure fair and equitable treatment to all members of the academic senate has eroded to the point where a number of the faculty at all levels, including many who have proceeded without difficulty through the system, have become frustrated, infuriated, but, above all demoralized. Such demoralization has reached its peak over the last year or two and many of us in this room, including deans, program directors, and departmental chairs, believe that substantial, effective, and long-term change is warranted if confidence in the personnel process is to be restored.
Each one of us undoubtedly has a story that would forcefully underscore what has led to this lack of confidence. We are fully aware, however, that to cite individual personnel cases would allow CAP to invoke the rule of confidentiality. It cannot comment on individual decisions, but it should be fully aware that we can and that networking among various disciplines and schools on the campus has produced a plethora of anecdotal, but factual, evidence of CAP's rulings that attest to the extent to which things have gone very wrong indeed. Make no mistake: this is not simply the carping of a self-serving clique who would never be satisfied, regardless of the outcome. Some of the academic senate members most outraged by personnel decisions handed down that have involved promotions, accelerations, and new hires have moved through the system with relatively little difficulty. It is testimony to their integrity that, in the spirit of community, they feel obliged to speak out forcefully in support of those who have been treated unfairly, or in a most capricious manner.
CAP itself, in numerous comments it has made on actions considered, particularly over the past two or three years, has provided ample evidence of its incompetence to serve as anything other than an oversight committee, one that might be entrusted with checking to insure that proper procedure has been followed in an academic personnel merit, promotion, or hiring action, but which under no circumstances should be delegated wider powers that include making qualitative judgments on individual cases. It would be interesting to determine as well just how many faculty believe that CAP has been effective in insuring some modicum of balance across the myriad of disciplines on the campus in the matter of personnel reviews.
The statistics show, of course, that the majority of actions considered by CAP and on whose actions the Vice Provost has acted, have an affirmative outcome. This does not, however, in any way "balance out" those instances of patent injustice towards other colleagues who have not only had to contend with irrational, negative decisions on perfectly sound records, but who have also been subjected to so-called "evaluative" comments - too often revealing remarkable ignorance of what is truly important in individual disciplines - from that committee, comments that have done considerable damage to morale among the professoriate at various levels throughout all the colleges on the campus. Consider the case of one department in which not a single Assistant Professor currently eligible for promotion to Associate Professor has elected to submit the dossier, so intimidated have they become through the manner in which their senior colleagues have been treated. Even those of us who have moved with some regularity through the system have, however, reason to be concerned. The statistics recently cited in the Chronicle of Higher Education demonstrate that, in the aggregate, the rate of progress through the personnel system on the Davis campus is the slowest of any of seven major campuses in the system and that is particularly (but not exclusively) true of the Full Professor series (where, on the average, we lag behind by one to two steps).
What is to be done? CAP needs to be reminded of a peculiar paradox in the personnel review process, namely, that the degree of incompetence to judge independently the research record of any individual member of the academic senate increases in direct proportion to the power that is exercised by the reviewing body. That power should be curtailed. Qualitative judgments cannot be made with any degree of credibility by a committee whose members are incompetent of independent judgment; they should, they must, rely on experts in the field. It is, for example, insanity to have a review characterized by excellent external peer letters, unanimity on the part of the department, full support from the dean, unanimous approval by CAP's own appointed ad hoc committee, rejected by CAP and subsequently the Vice Provost based on their own evaluation of the candidate's research record.
A rejection of the annual report today, if that indeed comes about, will send a loud-and-clear message to CAP that the Academic Senate has grave doubts, to put it mildly, about the way in which that committee has been doing business of late. The Chair of the Academic Senate should be supported in his intention to form an ad hoc committee to review the broad range of issues and concerns that have emerged with regard to CAP's actions, as well as its function and mandate on the Davis campus. Perhaps this ad hoc committee can consider such possibilities as separate CAPs for the various colleges, or an extension of the mandates of College Personnel Committees which, as far as can be ascertained, enjoy the confidence of most faculty, certainly more than CAP. These and other suggestions should be debated by this Academic Senate. The one thing we cannot afford to consider, if we are truly interested in the best and long-term interests of faculty at UC Davis, is an acceptance and prolongation of the status quo."