|
UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ |
AS/SCM/261 |
MINUTES
A Regular Meeting of the Santa Cruz
Division
November 9, 2000
Meeting
A
Regular Meeting of the Santa Cruz Division of the Academic Senate was held Thursday,
November 9, 2000 at Kresge Town Hall.
With Parliamentarian Allen Van Gelder and Secretary David Koo present,
Chair Roger Anderson called the meeting to order at 3:10pm.
Chair
Anderson asked for and received approval, without objection, to re-order the
agenda as follows.
5b. Special Senate Committee on the
University Center Report was deferred to the Winter quarter meeting.
4d. Committee on Affirmative Action
Report moved after 4m.
6f. Graduate Council proposed change to
Bylaw 13.21 moved before 6a.
1.
Approval of Minutes
a. Minutes of December 3, 1999 (AS/SCM/258)
Professor
Joel Yellin moved to accept corrections #1-3 that were published in the CALL to
the minutes of December 3, 1999 and substitute the following paragraph for the
last paragraph.
After a motion to stop the debate was
approved, the motion to refer the matter to CEP and the Graduate Council was
then subjected to a counted rising vote.
Those rising in favor were counted first and then those against. The Chair announced that there was a tie at
79 to 79 without any vote from the officers.
Professor William Sullivan rose to state he had mistakenly risen for the
motion and requested to change his vote to against the motion. A point of order was raised concerning
whether a senator can change his vote.
No ruling was announced, but the Chair proposed that the vote be
conducted again. An objection was
raised on the grounds that some Senators had left the hall. The Chair then suggested that both of the
officers should vote at this time. A
point of order was raised on the grounds that since the officers did not vote
when the count was taken, they had ipso facto abstained from voting. The Chair did not explicitly rule on this
but announced that the count was tied at 79/79. He then announced that he would cast his own vote in favor of the
motion to commit. A Senator asked the
Chair what the ruling had been on the question of the change of vote, and the
Parliamentarian stated "It was cancelled." Another point of order was made that a tie means the motion was
not passed, but was ruled to be dependent on the vote of the Chair. Chair Anderson, exercising the right to
break a tie, voted for the motion so that the motion passed 80 to 79.
A
motion to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting on December 3, 1999 with
these corrections was seconded and passed by unanimous voice vote.
b. Minutes of February 23, 2000 (AS/SCM/259)
The
minutes of February 23, 2000 meeting were then considered. Professor George
Brown moved to modify the minutes to reflect the exact wording by Professor
Kevin Karplus of his amendment at the February 23 meeting. Professor Joel Yellin then made two points
for the record. First, the Chair should not admit a motion that the Secretary
would have to paraphrase for the record. Second, the wording in the minutes
should be the same as was stated by the Chair.
Professor Yellin then proposed an amendment to include the Chair's
restatement of the motion by Professor Karplus. After the accuracy of this
restatement was questioned, a motion was made, seconded, and passed by voice
vote to postpone the February 23, 2000 minutes until the next regularly
scheduled meeting.
c. Minutes of June 1, 2000 (AS/SCM/260)
A
motion to approve the minutes of June 1, 2000 as written was seconded and
passed by unanimous voice vote.
2.
Announcements
a. Chair Anderson
Chair Anderson started with a reiteration
of three points carried from last year. The first was that the campus and
Systemwide administration will respect Senate advice on issues. This characterized much of the
Senate/Administrative interactions last year.
With the new administrative committee structure and new budgetary
process at UCSC this year, however, both the Senate and the Administration need
to continue to ensure that adequate consultation occurs. The second point was that the Senate has put
forward imaginative, constructive and thoughtful analysis of campus problems.
The Chair believes the Senate did this last year and will continue to do so
this year. The third point was that the
Senate will reach reasonable consensus on reaffirmation and reinvention of our
campus values, traditions, and image.
The ongoing and constructive discussions of narrative evaluations and
grading policy are examples of these efforts.
Chair
Anderson announced the call for a Special Meeting of the Academic Senate on
November 27th to consider the general issue of retention or elimination of
narrative evaluations. The current
discussion of narrative evaluations has been conducted for the past year and it
is now time for the Senate to settle the issue with a vote. Chair Anderson has asked three faculty
groups, students and alumni to write summary arguments on the issue. These will be circulated by the November
27th meeting.
The
Department of Energy is renegotiating the UC management contract for the DOE
Laboratories: Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and the Lawrence Berkeley
National Labs. The negotiation for a
new contract is coming up for renewal two years earlier than normal and is on a
fast track. To provide informed Senate
discussion on the national lab contract, there will be a forum on November
29th, with participation from the Office of the President. The Chair invited
the Senate to join him in supporting Professor Peter Young in his role as Chair
of the UC Systemwide Committee on Research Policy (UCORP), which is dealing
with the renegotiations.
The
general issue of growth will be very important to the campus this year. Graduate education was the topic of the
Chancellor's retreat this fall. There
are tremendous constraints facing UCSC's ability to increase graduate
enrollments, such as cost of housing and making competitive stipend
offers. It will be important to look at
the possibility of new graduate programs and professional schools. The Silicon Valley Center, year-round
operations, and changes to admissions policies must be considered as part of
this growth. Other problems resulting
from growth, such as childcare and housing, are also in need of rapid
resolution.
Chair
Anderson proceeded to the annual new faculty introductions. Professor Joel
Yellin rose to a point of order that the introduction of new faculty is not in
the order of business and is more appropriate for the social occasion after the
Senate meeting. The Chair ruled that
faculty introductions are a tradition for the fall meeting and were announced
in his cover letter to the call. The
Chair said that Professor Yellin's point will be considered for future fall
meetings.
Humanities: Dean Wlad Godzich introduced Assistant
Professors Alexandra Stern (History), Anjali Arondekar (Women's Studies),
Radhika Mongia (Women's Studies), and Lecturers with Security of Employment Roz
Spafford (Writing Program) and Liz Abrams (Writing Program).
Social
Sciences: Dean Martin Chemers introduced Assistant Professors Pamela Perry
(Community Studies), Judy Scott (Education), Judy Mascovich (Education), Doris
Ash (Education), Marc Howard (Politics), Mara Mather (Psychology), Eileen
Zurbriggen (Psychology), Associate Professor Kip Tellez (Education), and
Professor Gordon Wells (Education).
Engineering:
Dean Pat Mantey introduced Assistant Professors Ethan Miller and James
Whitehead from the Department of Computer Engineering.
Natural
Sciences: Dean David Kliger introduced
Assistant Professors Erik Asphaug (Earth Sciences), Don Croll (Biology),
Margaret Dekshenieks (Ocean Sciences), Slawek Tulaczyk (Earth Sciences), and
Professors Piero Madau (Astronomy) and
John Thompson (Biology).
Arts: Dean Ed Houghton introduced Assistant Professor
Karlton Hester (Music).
b.
Chancellor M.R.C. Greenwood
The
Budget: The Regents budget will be
presented this week before going to the Governor. The basic partnership with the state should ensure approximately
300 million new dollars or a 7.7 percent increase coming to the University in
the next fiscal year. Much of this
represents expenditures for fixed costs.
There will also be additional funds for initiatives such as increased graduate student support,
student outreach and retention, support for the California digital library
project, and increases in staff
salaries. The University is in the
process of final contract negotiations with CUE employees. There has been a tentative agreement that
will result in between 13% -22% salary increase which the union is in the
process of ratifying. Many of the
University's other union contracts have recently been settled. The unions assisted the University this
summer to get funds included in the budget for additional support for
staff. UCSC faculty sent a petition to
Chancellor Greenwood to increase staff salaries that will be presented to a
systemwide work group dealing with staff compensation issues.
Enrollments:
Total enrollment at UCSC is 12,125 students.
GPA's were up at 3.53 and average SAT scores were 1145. UCSC had 44 new Regent's Scholars with GPA's
of 4.2 and SAT scores over 1400. There was a 10% increase in the number of
transfers to 888. Engineering has seen
a 21% increase in enrollments. There
has been an increase in underrepresented students in all categories. Additional
details can be found on the web.
Fund
Raising: Last year, the campus received
$24.3 million in private gift support.
There has been a continual rise from a base of $8-9 million three to
four years ago. This is the fourth
record breaking year in a row, with a target in three to five years of $50
million. The Division of Social
Sciences received three large grants to support the New Teacher Center. The Division of Arts received a new gift to
create the Kamil and Talat Hasan Endowed Chair in Classical Indian Music. Endowed Chairs are increasing at a regular
rate. There are currently 11 active
fund raising campaigns across the divisions that will require raising over $50
million over the next several years.
University
Center: It is very important that the
University Center open by fall 2002 with the completion of Colleges 9 and
10. Included in fund raising campaigns
this year is one to raise the remaining $400,000 to complete the Center. Progress toward achieving this goal is
halfway. The UCSC Foundation raised a
$50,000 gift from a trustee, $25,000 gift from the Sentinel, $15,000 from
another trustee, and several $5,000 gifts for lifetime membership. $50,000 is pledged from alumni and $50,000
from academic administrators.
Chancellor Greenwood proposed that faculty close the remaining $100,000
gap by each contributing $1,000 over
three years at $33 per month. If 100 faculty rise to this challenge, targeted
fund raising will be complete and there will be no need to assign University
Relations staff to this campaign.
c.
Campus Provost and EVC John
Simpson
Campus
Provost Simpson announced changes in the senior administrative leadership: Wlad
Godzich replaces Jorge Hankamer as Humanities Dean; Steve Kang replaces Pat
Mantey as Dean of Engineering; Cathy Sandeen is Dean of University Extension
replacing Interim Dean Marcie Dekking; and Frank Talamantes is Dean of Graduate
Studies replacing Interim Dean Bud Bridges.
Professor Jim Gill was acknowledged for his service as the Associate
Vice Chancellor for Research. The
search for a new VC Research is continuing.
Campus
Provost Simpson highlighted some results from growth: the Center for Justice and
Tolerance; the Institute for Geophysics and Planetary Physics; the Institute
for Humanities Research; the Campus Curriculum Initiative to hire new faculty
specifically in disciplines that diversify the curriculum; and $850,000 in new
funds to support graduate fellowships.
Growth funds have produced over 70 new faculty positions, 164 new staff
positions, and 25 new teaching assistants.
The
Compact (UC – State Partnership Agreement) with the state will provide UC with
greater budgetary predictability. He
read from the Compact: "The
University will receive a 4 percent increase to the state general funds base,
plus funding for enrollment growth consistent with access under the massive
plan at the agreed upon marginal rate adjusted annually." In 2000-2001 this rate is $8,139. As we
increase in size, we can expect funding to accompany the growth. These funds
come with increased enrollment, accepting increasing numbers of students from
K12 or the community colleges. The
Compact with the state will bring substantial changes to all campuses, but at
UCSC it will be particularly important to consider a new planning and budgeting
process in support of this growth.
Since resources are expected to be predictable, CP Simpson will be
asking units to plan in terms of where they will be at campus build out
(2010). These plans should be clearly
derived from current six-year plans.
Plans should integrate staff support, I&R support, graduate support,
workload support, including dealing with increased enrollments. Enrollment growth can be accommodated not
only on campus but also through Summer Session, the Silicon Valley Center,
Education Abroad Program, and UCDC.
Plans will include accountability measures in order to monitor success.
CP
Simpson announced a new administrative committee structure to support this long
term planning process. Five committees
have been formed: the Academic Planning Committee; Academic Support Planning
Committee; Information Technology Committee; Advisory Committee on Facilities;
and the Campus Welfare Committee. These
committees will consist of members of the administration, the Senate,
appropriate staff and student representation.
They are charged with advising CP Simpson about issues that confront the
campus as it grows. Over these five
committees is a sixth, the Provost's Advisory Council (PAC), consisting of
administrative and Senate representatives, and Vice Chancellors. PAC's minutes and agendas will be made
public in order to facilitate greater understanding of the planning process.
Chair
Anderson then recognized Professor Manfred Warmuth who rose to recognize the
service of Pat Mantey as Dean of Engineering.
The intention to establish an engineering school was part of UCSC's 1961
academic plan. In 1964 Chancellor
McHenry hired Professor Clauser to spearhead the effort of beginning the new
school. In the fall of 1967, the school
was launched with graduate classes.
However, two years later it was deferred due to budgetary reasons. There were various other attempts to start
the school over the years. In the fall
of 1984, Dr. Pat Mantey from IBM was hired as the first faculty member and
Chair of Computer Engineering. Pat had
bigger plans than developing a single department, and never lost sight of that
vision. Pat hired 11 new faculty
members, including five Presidential Young Investigators. The School of Engineering was officially
launched in June, 1997, with Pat Mantey as Dean. He immediately started another department in Electrical
Engineering, which now has 10 faculty.
He started the Information Systems Management Program. He hired the founding Chair and faculty for
the Applied Math and Statistics Program.
Dean Mantey brought in large research grants, such as the REINAS
Project. He solicited a $5 million
endowment from Jack Baskin, the largest private donation in the history of
UCSC. He secured an endowed Chair in
Electronics. He facilitated growth in
Biomolecular Engineering, culminating in the Howard Hughes Award for David
Haussler. The School of Engineering now
has 42 faculty and 1,100 students.
These enrollments exceed projections by 15 percent. These are just some of Dean Mantey's
achievements.
3.
Report of Representatives to the
Assembly
Shelly
Errington reported on the Academic Assembly meeting of May 2000 by referring to
the letter sent to all faculty from Academic Council Chair Larry Coleman. (This letter is available from the Senate
Office upon request)
4.
Special Orders: Annual Reports
a.
Committee on Academic Freedom (AS/SCP/1283)
Former
CAF Chair Jerome Neu presented the annual report, which was received without
comment.
b.
Committee on Academic Personnel (AS/SCP/1284)
Former
CAP Chair Sandy Chung presented the annual report, which was received without
comment.
c.
Committee on Admissions and Financial Aid (AS/SCP/1274)
Former
CAFA Chair John Wilkes presented the annual report. There was discussion of the dual admissions program proposal from
UC President Atkinson and its effect on local admissions policies. UCSC currently has its own dual admissions
policy for transfers from community colleges.
This year CAFA will be examining the effects of the Atkinson proposal on
local policies.
d.
Committee on Computing and Telecommunications (AS/SCP/1285)
CCT
Chair Charlie McDowell presented the annual report, which was received without
comment.
e.
Committee on Educational Policy (AS/SCP/1279)
Former
CEP Chair George Brown presented the annual report. There was discussion about the future of comprehensive exam exit
requirements. Exit exam requirements are
not affected by the new legislation on grading. This graduation requirement is part of the Senate Regulations and
is not at the discretion of the department.
f.
Committee on Emeriti Relations (AS/SCP/1267)
Former
CER Chair Joe Bunnett presented the annual report, which was received without
comment.
g.
Committee on Faculty Welfare (AS/SCP/1287)
CFW
Chair Mark Traugott presented the annual report. There was discussion about the Administration's new policy that
short term interest (STIP) from parking revenues will return to TAPS rather
than the Chancellor's discretionary fund.
Yet the Administration has been reluctant to include this in a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Santa Cruz Faculty Association. The Memorandum
of Understanding with the Faculty Association is independent of the Senate
Legislation. In developing the policy
on STIP, the Administration was responding to a Senate Committee.
Faculty
housing was also discussed, especially for new faculty. CFW identifies faculty housing as of high
priority this year and is meeting with campus administrators to discuss
Inclusion Area D, long-term leases, and off campus housing. CFW and the Administration are jointly
conducting a survey on faculty housing issues. A database of hiring over the last three years is being developed
to determine, among other things, the degree to which housing played into
faculty decisions in recruitments.
h.
Graduate Council (AS/SCP/1277)
GC
Chair Phokion Kolaitis presented the annual report. A question was raised about grade appeals mentioned in the
report. This year's Graudate Council
has not yet addressed the issue.
i.
Committee on the Library (AS/SCP/1280)
COL
Chair Armin Mester presented the annual report, which was received without
comment.
j.
Committee on Planning and Budget (AS/SCP/1295)
CPB
Chair John Hay presented the annual report, which was received without comment.
k.
Committee on Privilege and Tenure (AS/SCP/1276)
P&T
Chair George Blumenthal presented the annual report, which was received without
comment.
l.
Committee on Teaching (AS/SCP/1281)
COT
Chair Jaye Padgett presented the annual report, which was received without
comment.
m.
Committee on Affirmative Action (AS/SCP/1282)
CAA
Chair Judy Yung and CAA member Bettina Aptheker presented the annual report
with a note that a resolution for a Senate vote follows. Although UCSC,
compared to other campuses, has the most diverse faculty, progress in
recruitment of women and minorities has been slow in the past ten years. In 1990, 110 women made up 26.5 percent of
the faculty. Ten years later there are
152 women for 33.3 percent, which means that 66 percent of the faculty are men.
During the same period, percentages of non-white faculty has grown from 73 to
105 for a change from 17.4 to 22.9 percent, African Americans from 11 to 17 for
an increase from 2.6 to 3.7 percent, Chicanos and Latinos from 24 to 29, or 5.7
to 6.3 percent, and Native Americans from 3 to 4 which is 0.7 to 0.9
percent. Based on federal affirmative
action regulations that require us to compare the percentage of women and
minorities in departments to the percentage available in the respective fields,
every division falls short in some areas.
This percentage is expected to grow.
Also, the faculty does not reflect the diversity of the population
served. In the state of California,
there are currently 50.2 percent non-whites.
This fraction is expected to grow to 60 percent by 2020. At UCSC, as a
result of projected enrollment growth and separations, 600 new faculty will be
hired in the next 10 years. This growth provides an opportunity to increase
faculty diversity and to raise standards of excellence.
CAA
Chair Yung moved the following resolution:
Resolution:
Whereas progress has been slow in the recruitment
of underrepresented groups of faculty over the past ten years;
Whereas the campus has arrived at an opportune
moment for faculty diversity in that over 600 new faculty will be hired in the
next ten years as a result of projected enrollment increases and faculty
retirements; and
Whereas the pursuit of excellence in teaching,
research, and service at a public land grant university depends on the
commitment and achievements of a diverse community of faculty;
It is Resolved:
That the Santa Cruz Division of the Academic
Senate affirms its commitment to excellence through affirmative action and
strongly urges Chancellor Greenwood and Executive Vice Chancellor Simpson to
join efforts with the Academic Senate in advancing faculty diversity and
excellence on this campus;
That departments and programs be rewarded for
both their past and present efforts in hiring and retaining diverse faculty;
That deans, departments, and programs should
be held accountable for promoting diversity and equal opportunity; and
That the Committee on Affirmative Action work
with appropriate Senate committees and the administration to develop the format
for implementing the items above.
The
motion was seconded and followed by discussion with the following points
made. In response, Senators noted that
as a Federal contractor, the University is required to meet minimum standards
so that the percentage of underrepresented groups reflects the available pool
of people with Ph.D.’s in that field.
To meet a standard of matching faculty diversity to state demographics
is beyond this minimum requirement of representation in proportion to
availability. According to Faye Crosby,
these two standards are not contradictory.
As the number of available minority Ph.D.s in some fields are so low,
and indeed already met in departments, UCSC can attempt to reach the larger
goal of matching state demographics. Targeted minority groups include women
and, on the color dimension, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino and
Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans.
The only group that is not identified as a target group is white males.
Senators
expressed concerns that matching California’s mix may violate Federal law and
is inconsistent with the notion we are a world not a regional university; that the
statistics for all faculty do not accurately reflect the mix of just the most
recent hires; that the basis for the claim that guidelines have been violated
is unclear; that in one case the requirement seems to be an unreasonable one
that there should be 100% female membership of a department; that achieving a
proportional mix is difficult with small numbers within a department; that the
available pool of candidates may be very scarce or non-existent; that there is
no authority for any Senate unit other than the Privilege and Tenure Committee
to investigate violations of rules by faculty; and that the meaning of
accountability for refusing to follow the behavior favored by the proponents of
the resolution was not clear.
Accountability
measures are not specifically described in the resolution because that will be
the work of Senate committees. The
report does contain lists of strategies and best practices, which have been
successfully implemented in some UCSC departments. In Attachment C of the report (page 35), "X" is meant
to show under representation in relation to the available pool of Ph.D.s in
that discipline.
The
question was called to limit debate on the resolution. It was seconded and carried by voice
vote. Professor Joel Yellin then rose
and made a motion to table the resolution pending an explanation of terminology
in the report and to answer questions raised in the discussion. The motion to table was seconded but did not
carry by a show of hands.
The
question having been called, the resolution was then voted on. By a show of hands, those in favor exceeded
those opposed, so the resolution was adopted.
The
resolution was adopted
5.
Reports of Special Committees
a.
Special Senate Committee on Merit Equity Review (AS/SCP/1265)
CMER
Chair Mary Silver presented the report and made a number of comments, some of
which follow. In 1997 the Special
Committee on Merit Equity was established and charged with examining whether
there was evidence that inequities exist in rank and step for faculty with
comparable length of service and time since degree, and if such evidence were found, to recommend procedures to be
used to identify cases of possible inequity.
In February of 1999, the committee presented a statistical report to the
Senate. Questions raised on the floor
at that time, and new findings since then, led to this re-analysis.
The
results of the study show the same patterns of salary differences found in
analysis by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). However, this report addresses issues of
salary difference not only between women and men but also between minorities
and non-minorities. Differences in
salary based on merit or excellence cannot be addressed in statistical
analysis, so proxies or measures of experience that are correlated with
excellence or merit are substituted.
The controls that were used are those usually considered legitimate
reasons that contribute to salary differences, such as controls for the discipline
because certain fields get higher or greater remuneration than others.
One
difference in the current analysis is that the controls for rank and step have
been dropped because they produce a bias of moving more slowly through the
system. The results show that there is clear evidence that the null hypothesis:
namely, that there is no difference in salary between women, minorities, and
non-minority males, can be rejected.
Chair Mary Silver then moved the resolution as it appeared in the call
(AS/SCP/1265). After a minor amendment
from the floor, the resolution read:
Resolution:
Whereas the analyses presented by the Committee
on Merit Equity Review in its two statistical reports, February 1999 and May
2000, indicate some significant salary differences between women and men
faculty and between minority and non-minority faculty;
Whereas these data cannot rule out the
possibility of discrimination;
Whereas the results indicate a need for the
investigation of individual cases, if the Senate and administration are to ensure
that discrimination is not a possible outcome of the personnel review process;
It is Resolved:
(1)
That a "Merit Equity Review
Process," which is a full-career review, be available to any individual
faculty member who perceives her/his salary or whose salary is perceived to be lower than appropriate for a
scholar of her/his merit, based on parity at UCSC;
and
(2)
That the Special Committee on Merit
Equity Review work with appropriate Senate committees and the administration to
develop the format of the Merit Equity Review Process.
Points
made by various Senators during discussion follow. The resolution is written in such a way that does not advantage
any particular group. It is based on
whether persons perceive themselves or someone else to perceive them as having
been treated unfairly. Is it possible
to do this now, so that the resolution is unnecessary.
The
current practice of the Committee on Academic Personnel is to consider the
recommendations of any authority or committee that comments on the file, but
only for the period under review. What
a merit equity process would allow CAP to do, that it cannot do now, is a full
career review. If there were inequities
in the past outside of the current review period, the merit equity review
process would provide a method to rectify them. A merit review process would be set up after broad consultation.
Details, such as how many times a review could be requested or whether requests
would go through a screening committee, will be addressed later if the Senate
decides to pass the resolution.
The
question was called, seconded, and passed without objection. The vote to adopt the resolution was
unanimous by a show of hands.
6 Reports of Standing Committees
a.
Graduate Council: Proposed Change to
Santa Cruz Division Bylaw 13.21 (AS/SCP/1289)
GC
Chair Phokion Kolaitis presented legislation to change Bylaw 13.21 so that
membership of the Graduate Council would be increased from 6 to 10. In the coming years, GC will be faced with
significant challenges associated with the growth of graduate education on the
campus. Other UC campuses have 8 to 20
members. Professor Joel Yellin moved approval of the change. The motion was seconded and passed by
unanimous voice vote.
b.
Committee on Committees: Proposal for a New
Standing Committee: Committee on Land and Building Development (AS/SCP/1263)
COC
Chair Shelly Errington moved approval of a proposal for a new standing
committee on Land and Building Development.
The committee is being established to enhance faculty input into
building designs
Several
faculty made the following points during the discussion. Duplication of efforts
by review committees could cause delays and increase costs in the
construction/design process. The
committee must be integrated into the new administrative committee structure
proposed by the EVC, which includes an analogous administrative committee. Arrangements should be made so that the two
committees work simultaneously to review projects. There is currently very
little faculty input and no formal Senate involvement in the siting and design
of buildings.
The
question was called and seconded. After
an inconclusive voice vote, the motion passed 45 to 19 by a show of hands.
c.
Committee on Committee: Nominations
(AS/SCP/1297)
Chair
Errington then moved approval of nominations proposed in the call with the
addition of the following:
Committee
on Admissions and Financial Aid: the BOARS representative will be Zack
Schlesinger; Committee on Affirmative Action: Avril Thorne; Computing and
Telecommunications: Lisa Sloan; Graduate Council: Martine Schlag, Olof
Einsdottir, and Paul Nauert; Rules, Jurisdiction and Elections: Chair Ron
Grieson has resigned and Stanley Williamson will replace him as Chair;
Privilege and Tenure: advisors Angela Davis, Phil Crews, and David Brundage.
During
the discussion, one Senator made the suggestion that all the names of P&T
advisors should be published in every call along with the phone numbers and
departments of committee members.
The
motion was seconded and passed by unanimous voice vote.
Chair
Errington also reported that Chancellor Greenwood's five year review will be
conducted and coordinated by the Academic Council this year. Letters soliciting comments for the review
will be sent to all faculty soon.
COC
has also been working with EVC Simpson, the Senate Advisory Committee, and
Senate committee Chairs to provide input to the EVC regarding the new
administrative committee structure. The
new structure will include not only the formal process of consultation as
established in the Regents’ Standing Orders, but also informal consultation and
review at earlier stages in the process.
d.
Committee on Committees: Proposed Change
to Santa Cruz Bylaw 13.23: Increase in Membership to Committee on Planning and
Budget (AS/SCP/1296)
Chair
Errington moved approval of legislation to include the Senate Vice Chair ex officio in the membership of the
Committee on Planning and Budget.
Professor Joel Yellin moved to pass the legislation by unanimous consent. It
passed by unanimous consent.
Professor
Joel Yellin then moved to adjourn. The
motion was not seconded. Chair Anderson
called for a count to determine if there was a quorum. The count determined
that a quorum was present.
e.
Committee on Educational Policy:
Amendments to Perfect the New Regulations on Grading (AS/SCP/1275)
Chair
Carol Freeman presented legislation to eliminate the grade C minus. This will resolve significant problems and
discrepancies in the current regulations on grading. According to Systemwide regulations about grade points, the grade
of C gets 2.0 grade points. A grade of C minus gets a grade point of 1.7. To graduate from the University of
California, one has to have an average
grade point of 2.0. Eliminating C minus
preserves the definition of the pass grade as signified in work of C or
better. It prevents any erosion of the
perception of the quality of the pass or "P" work. It moves the level of passing work to C or
2.0 grade points. Eliminating the grade
C minus removes inconsistencies which would permit two students doing identical
work in a class to have different outcomes in terms of grading and allows clear
demarcation between satisfactory and unsatisfactory work. Chair Freeman then moved to adopt the changes
to Senate regulations on grading. The
motion was seconded.
Several
Senators participated in the discussion that followed and made the following
questions, replies, and points: If C minus is eliminated, where is the
appropriate place to put students with that grade? Faculty must make the decision on what constitutes satisfactory
work, that is, work at the level worthy of graduation from UC and usable to
satisfy as a major requirement and put them at a passing grade. No other UC campuses have eliminated the
grade C minus and UCSC's grading should have a grading system as close to other
UC’s as possible. All the campuses have had to introduce legislation to fix the
problems caused by the grade C minus. UCSC has, overall, a different approach
to grading and so may not benefit from duplicating the grading systems of the
other campuses. The variance that UCSC
got originally was a passing grade that was for clearly passing work, not for a
grade point. If the C minus grade is
not being viewed as clearly passing work, then it cannot be equated to
"P".
Professor
Joel Yellin moved an amendment to the motion so that all parts of the CEP
proposal be struck except for the changes in SR9.2.1. The CEP proposal takes
away departmental control in determining minimum qualification requirements for
major programs. The motion was
seconded.
A
point of inquiry was raised regarding what motions are appropriate to raise
within one year of a mail ballot. Chair
Anderson clarified that what was voted on in the recent mail ballot was the
establishment of mandatory grades.
Whether those grades are modified with pluses and minuses does not
address that fundamental question and so is inconsequential enough to discuss
without waiting one year after a mail ballot.
Throughout
the discussion there were several calls to count quorum, which is currently 62,
but each time, quorum was confirmed.
The
question was called on the motion to amend, and seconded. The motion to amend
was defeated by 51 to 16 in a counted show of hands.
The
question was called on the main motion and seconded. The main motion passed by a show of hands.
Chair
Anderson adjourned the meeting at 6:20pm.
ATTEST:
David
Koo
Secretary
February
5, 2001
Recording
Secretary: Mary-Beth Harhen