The Special meeting of the Representative Assembly of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate was called to order by Professor Jeffery C. Gibeling. A roster of members present and absent is attached to these minutes as Appendix I.

Professor Gibeling announced that the Special Meeting was called in accordance with Bylaw 20 pursuant to a request signed by six members of the Representative Assembly to "address the concerns that have arisen among faculty on the campus with respect to the academic personnel process as it pertains to promotions, accelerations, regular merits at various levels, and new hires." He pointed out that at the October 25 Representative Assembly meeting there was a motion on the floor. But he said that motion died for a lack of a quorum and is no longer on the floor for discussion. He then noted and summarized the two hand-outs distributed at the door (copies attached to these Miutes as Appendix II): a description of actin taken by the Executive Council appointing a Special Committee on the Academic Personnel Processes and the proposed motions endorsed by numerous Academic Senate members also calling for the appointment of a committee to investigate and address concerns of the faculty about the academic personnel process.

Professor Winder McConnell stated that he believed that the action taken by the Executive Council was an excellent start to addressing the problems and concerns about the academic personnel process. He moved endorsement of the Executive Council proposal with amendments to include items ii. and iii from the single sheet handout. ["ii. the Executive Council be asked to form a committee consisting of members of the campus administration and the senate (excluding members of the current CAP or recent CAPS and the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel) to investigate and address concerns of the faculty that have been raised with respect to the process and iii. said committee examine, in the context of Davis Division Bylaw 43, pertinent Systemwide Bylaws, and the Academic Personnel Manual, the current scope of CAPs "tasks" as listed in Appendix I of the 1999 Annual Report of the Committee on Academic Personnel;"] . The motion was seconded.

Discussion ensued in which Professors D. Smith, Ehler, Labavitch, Teller, Newton, Privalsky and others participated. Professor Kari Lokke read a statement by Professor Van den Abbeele, unable to attend. Discussion included clarification of item ii concerning the composition of the Special Committee. An amendment to change the word "recent" to "and those from within the past 10 years" and also to strike "the campus administration and" was offered and subsequently accepted by the maker of the motion. Chair Gibeling read Item ii, as amended, "the Executive Council be asked to form a committee consisting of members of the Academic Senate (excluding members of the current CAP and those from within the past 10 years and the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel) to investigate and address concerns of the faculty that have been raised with respect to the process". A vote on the motion carried. Professor Kevin Hoover, Chair, Elections, Rules and Jurisdiction Committee, reported that this action formally does not take affect until after 41 days. A motion was made to make it effective immediately. The motion was seconded and by a show of hands carried.

Chair Gibeling stated that every effort will be made to publicize the existence of this special committee and to provide opportunity for input.

Discussion continued regarding the academic personnel process. Professor Ehler moved that the 1998-99 Annual Report of the Committee on Academic Personnel be rejected. The motion was seconded by Professor McConnell. There was a call for a quorum. A quorum was certified. Professor John Oakley opined that rejection of the report is overkill under conditions of great uncertainty and anecdotal evidence. He urged a no vote on the motion. Professor Albert Harrison also spoke against the motion stating that at the October 25 Representative Assembly meeting the motion to reject the report was an intent to get something to happen. He said the action today of endorsing the Special Committee is evidence that something was done and he did not see any point at this time to reject CAP's Annual Report. On a vote of the motion, 4 voted in favor of; 58 voted against. The motion failed.

A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

Jay Mechling, Secretary
Representative Assembly of the
Davis Division of the Academic Senate

Background

Recently, a significant number of faculty, department chairs and deans have expressed concerns about the academic personnel process at UC Davis. One concern stems from the recent AAUP report showing that average faculty salaries at Davis are among the lowest in the UC system. This ranking has a long history, extending back at least 20 years. In addition, related data reveal that the percentages of full professors at steps above IV and above scale are also among the lowest in the system.

Additional concern has been expressed regarding the academic personnel process. Specific issues that have been raised include uncertainty over the standards for advancement, the sense that contributions of service in curricular development and academic leadership are not properly recognized and frustration that the feedback provided to candidates is of limited value in encouraging improved performance.

Since the review steps in the academic personnel process involve primarily Academic Senate committees, it is incumbent upon the Senate to undertake a careful review of our current academic personnel policies, procedures and practices to identify areas where improvements are warranted.

Charge

The Special Committee on the Academic Personnel Process is charged with reviewing all academic personnel policies, procedures, practices and outcomes with the goal of recommending changes for improvements if deemed necessary. Specifically:

1. The committee shall review the salary and step/rank data for the Davis campus in comparison to the other UC campuses. The goal of this analysis is to identify the reasons that the campus has historically had among the lowest average salaries and relatively low percentages of Full Professors at the highest steps and above scale. The committee should utilize data provided by UC Office of the President and any other relevant sources of information. To the extent possible, the committee is asked to distinguish between differences in merit and compensation.

2. The committee shall review the current academic personnel policies, procedures and standards at UC Davis with the goal of identifying recommendations that will improve the effectiveness of this system. Specific questions that should be addressed include, but are not restricted to:
   1. Is the Davis campus too conservative in its standards for appointments, merits and promotions in comparison with other UC campuses? If so, at what steps in the process is a conservative attitude most evident? Does this situation reflect differences in the campus culture among the campuses?

   2. Are the standards for advancement consistent at all steps in the review process, from department initiation of action through the final decision by the dean or vice-provost? Are the review standards being communicated effectively to the faculty and department chairs? Are current efforts to compare all faculty based on uniform standards across disciplines effective? Do the numbers and directions of reversals of decisions raise questions about the consistent application of the standards?

   3. Do personnel decisions properly reflect the degree of flexibility recommended in the Pister report? Are teaching and curricular development given appropriate weight in the personnel review process? Are service contributions (administrative, Senate, etc.) to the functioning of the campus given appropriate credit in reviews?

   4. Are personnel decisions being made at the appropriate level, or are changes in re-delegation (Vice Provost to Deans, CAP to SPC/CPC, etc.) needed?

   5. Are the sizes and compositions of CAP and the SPC/CPC's appropriate for the breadth and intellectual diversity of the campus? Do CAP and the SPC/CPC's properly balance their responsibilities in terms of oversight of the process versus detailed analysis of individual cases?

   6. Are the benefits of our current academic personnel practices commensurate with the costs in terms of the amount of time spent by faculty and staff during Fall quarter and by the various personnel committees throughout the year?

   7. How do academic personnel practices at Davis compare with those at the other 8 general campuses? Are there best practices from other campuses that could be used to improve the effectiveness of the academic personnel process at Davis?

   8. Is the feedback provided by CAP and the SPC/CPC's effective in encouraging improvements in the scholarly work of individual faculty and in helping department chairs guide the development of their faculty?

   9. Is there reason to believe that compromises of confidentiality have undermined collegial respect of the academic personnel process?

3. The special committee is asked to report its findings and recommendations to the Executive Council by May 1, 2000. If any changes to Senate bylaws or the Academic Personnel Manual are deemed necessary, they should be presented in draft form. The committee shall also present its final report at the first meeting of the Representative Assembly for the 2000-01 academic year.

Membership

This special committee shall consist of 9 members of the Academic Senate appointed by the Committee on Committees. These members must include some faculty with previous experience at various levels of the academic personnel process, including service on CAP, on school or college personnel committees and as a department chair. The committee should also include at least one member with expertise in the quantitative analysis of labor and compensation data. All members should have broad campus experience and the overall committee membership should reflect the diverse academic interests of the faculty.

Approved by the Executive Council
Davis Division of the Academic Senate
November 19, 1999

Clifford Bernd (German and Russian), Marc E. Blanchard (French/Humanities), Don Carlson (Molecular and Cell Biology), Les Ehler (Entomology), Ines Hernandez-Avila (Native American Studies), Winder McConnell (German and Russian), Sally P. Mendoza (Psychology), Judith Newton (Women's Studies), Beatriz M. Pesquera (Chicano/a Studies), Chet Price (Food Science and Technology), Marty Privalsky (Microbiology), Phillip R. Shaver (Psychology), Gary M. Smith (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Facility), Kari Lokke (Comparative Literature), Georges van den Abbeele (French/Humanities Institute)

Whereas the faculty, represented by the Representative Assembly of the Academic Senate, wishes to express serious concern over

1. the manner in which the personnel review process has been handled over the past few years and

2. the ability of this process to ensure fair and equitable treatment to all members of the Academic Senate at UC Davis,

This Assembly is resolved that

1. swift and effective action must be taken to restore both the perceived integrity of the personnel review process and general morale among large segments of the faculty;

2. the Executive Council be asked to form a committee consisting of members of the campus administration and the senate (excluding members of the current CAP or recent CAPs and the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel) to investigate and address concerns of the faculty that have been raised with respect to the process;

3. said committee examine, in the context of Davis Division Bylaw 43, pertinent Systemwide Bylaws, and the Academic Personnel Manual, the current scope of CAP's "tasks" as listed in Appendix I of the 1999 Annual Report of the Committee on Academic Personnel;

4. said committee evaluate the roles currently played by the Academic Senate and the administration in the personnel review process;

5. said committee consider the possible connection between the personnel review process and systemwide inequities in salaries and compensation with respect to UC faculty.