UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ
|
AS/SCM/264 |
M I N U T E S
A Regular Meeting of the Santa Cruz Division
May 30, 2001
A regular meeting of the Santa Cruz Division of the
Academic Senate was held Wednesday, May 30, 2001 in Kresge Town Hall. With
Parliamentarian Don Potts and Secretary David Koo present, Chair Roger Anderson
called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. Chair Anderson requested and received
without objection, to add the following items to the agenda: 1) a
minority report to the University Center Report (5a) and 2) two resolutions on
faculty housing from the Committee on Committees (after 6b). Professor
Jaye Padgett moved to re-order the agenda as follows: Item 6a. Committee on
Teaching: Proposed change to Bylaw 13.28.1 be moved before 6a. The motion
carried by a vote of 36 in favor and 6 opposed. Chair Anderson noted that
many faculty in the room chose not to vote.
1. Approval of Minutes
Chair Anderson asked if there were any further
corrections to the minutes from the meetings of February 23, 2000, November 9,
2000, November 27, 2000 and February 21, 2001 (with continuations on March 8,
2001). Professor Bob Meister rose to request that the URL be included in
the minutes for the full text of speeches that were given in the presentation
of the report from the Committee on Planning and Budget on February 21,
2001.
A motion to approve all four meeting minutes, with
corrections, to be considered together was made and seconded. The minutes
were all approved by unanimous voice vote.
2. Announcements
a) Chair Anderson
Campus Provost Simpson will not be making
announcements today, but Chancellor Greenwood will be using the time for her
announcements. Chair Anderson commended the Senate on conclusively
dealing with the issue of grading and student assessment this year by adopting mandatory
grades and retaining mandatory evaluations. Grades have often been
considered the common currency of the realm. What the Santa Cruz Senate
has done is to set the exchange rate for this currency at a higher rate than
that of the common currency. We’ve added value for both the students and
for prospective readers of transcripts by instituting grades and keeping
narrative evaluations.
Chair Anderson recognized the 2000-01 Excellence in
Teaching Awardees: Frank Andrews (Chemistry), Jeremy Elkins (Legal Studies),
Dana Frank (American Studies), Frank Galuszka (Art), Jody Greene (Literature),
Conn Hallinan (Writing), Jorge Hankamer (Linguistics), Charles McDowell
(Computer Science), Daniel Palleros (Chemistry), Robert Shepherd (Economics),
Michael Urban (Politics), and Karen Yamashita (Literature).
Chair Anderson announced that in the past two years
UCSC has reached the criteria to become a Carnegie I Research Institution and
can now look to achieving AAU status. UCSC has achieved excellence in
teaching with several new and exciting programs and research with new centers
and institutes and internationally recognized accomplishments in the midst of
enormous campus growth at about 7% per year. Factors such as revised
eligibility criteria for UCSC admissions and the Dual Admissions program both
assure that such growth will continue. Although many capital projects
such as the Seymour Discovery Center, the Graduate Commons, and the new
bookstore are at or near completion, capital projects cannot be completed fast
enough to keep up with enrollment growth. Committee on Planning and
Budget has emphasized this challenge in their reports this year.
For the next two years, the campus will have to
grapple with the issues of improving faculty and staff housing and salaries;
instituting state funded summer session; and developing the Silicon Valley
Center and the Monterey Bay Education Science and Technology Center
(MBEST). Other issues, some longer term, include moving toward
selectivity in admissions; defining the role of the colleges; aiding
recruitment and retention of faculty; enlarging graduate student enrollment,
perhaps with new professional schools; and improving undergraduate advising and
research opportunities. Chair Anderson expressed optimism in the Senate’s
ability to work with the administration on these and other issues and
opportunities.
Rising on a question of privilege, Professor John Hay read the following statement: The Santa Cruz Division of the Academic Senate wishes to express its deep gratitude to Professor Roger Anderson for his unfailing commitment to the present and the future well-being of the Division, a commitment, as I can well attest being on Committee on Planning and Budget, that he has substantiated by unstinting efforts and remarkable patience during this tenure as Chair of the Division. In the period when growth presents as many dangers as opportunities, and when knowledge of UCSC’s defining past has become critical in articulating our transition to an inevitably different future, Chair Anderson’s knowledge and sensitivity in matters of planning both large and small from the bottom upwards and from the top downwards have provided an invaluable center of gravity for the Senate as a whole and its committees in particular.
b) Chancellor Greenwood
On behalf of herself and
Campus Provost Simpson, Chancellor Greenwood expressed grateful acknowledgement
of Chair Anderson’s helpful advice and guidance for the past two years.
Chancellor Greenwood announced that Professor Hayden White was awarded the
Constantine Panuzio Distinguished Emeriti Award that recognizes UC
emeritus faculty for outstanding scholarship or education service.
Due to the energy crisis and a downturn in state
revenues, the projected $6 billion surplus did not materialize. Consequently,
it is expected that the state’s Compac with Higher Education, which would have
provided a 5 percent increase, including roughly 4 percent for salaries and 1
percent for libraries has been cut back to 2 percent total. The budget is
currently in conference and the University is aggressively advocating to have
funding for salaries partially restored. On the good news side, the
University will receive funding for all budgeted enrollment. Also, the
Governor’s science initiatives are being funded and UCSC is involved in
two of these. For QB III, UCSC expects to receive $5M in state funds; $1M
for equipment, $3.5M for an additional
5,000 square feet to the proposed engineering building and $0.5M to upgrade the
engineering wing of the physical science building. For CITRIS, UCSC
expects to receive $7M for an additional 15,000 square feet to the engineering
building. Although we will need to raise an additional $4M for this
capital project, our capital budget did get a boost by participating in these
Governor’s initiatives.
There is the possibility of a bond issue for higher
education. UC Office of the President has reached an agreement with CSU
and the community colleges on a $4.8 billion proposal that would provide each
segment with $333M. It will also set aside an additional $200M for new
off-campus joint use facilities. If the bond issue gets approved at that
level and gets on the ballot, then it is important that all of us help in its
support.
The Chancellor announced that the architects for the
Inclusion Area D faculty housing project will be at the evening’s strolling
dinner with site location plans and drawings for the facilities. Faculty
can see the projections for two plans in terms of possible density and types of
rental and for-sale homes, square footage, etc. (another opportunity for
faculty to examine the plans was announced for 8 June). The CEQA process and
designing of the facilities will be on a parallel track. There is some
amount of risk in this, but all factors indicate that the project will get
through the CEQA process successfully. If nothing goes wrong, ground
breaking can begin in the summer of 2002. Any delays are expected to be less
than 9 months.
UCSC has made a $1.5 million commitment to a
childcare facility and has asked UC Office of the President for a matching
allocation, creating a $3M commitment to the facility. Campus will
be fundraising with foundations for another $3M. There should be
significant progress on this facility in the next year. Some faculty have
volunteered to assist with grant writing.
Besides mentioning several steps to improve
communications between the faculty and administration, the Chancellor noted
that undergraduate admissions for UCSC this coming year are about 4 percent
over expected, although the numbers are not final until June. Admissions
of underrepresented students are about 14 percent over predictions.
UC Regent Sue Johnson is chairing the Commission on Support of Graduate
Education. The report is expected in fall 2001 and should help
to inform the campus discussion of advancing graduate education and
research.
Responding to questions from the floor about the
appropriate density for Inclusion Area D, Chancellor Greenwood said that the
architects are looking at the feasibility of raising the density from 91 to
100. While Inclusion Area D is being developed as quickly and
efficiently as possible, it is only the first in a series of housing projects.
UCSC, with funding from UCOP, has already begun the site evaluation of the
400-acre area known as north campus. Professor Francisco Hernandez said
that the gathering of the environmental baseline data-bio data, soils, geology,
hydrology, etc. started about a year ago. The administration is already
working with Sasaki Associates (architects) and Jones & Stokes
(environmental design) to develop models for housing, future colleges, and
other facilities. The project is about 18 months behind the schedule of
Inclusion Area D.
3. Report of the Representative to
the Assembly
Professor Susan Schwartz submitted the report
of the Assembly in writing.
The Assembly of the Academic Senate of the
University of California held two regular meetings on February 28 and May 23,
2001. Following are highlights from these meetings.
President Atkinson’s Remarks
· 2001-2002
Budget- The Governor’s May revision to the budget includes $100M in new
funds for energy costs and $12.8M for increased enrollments; however, due to
the slowing economy and the reduction in 2001-2002 revenues, it cuts
Partnership funds to UC by $90M. The Senate and Assembly versions of the budget
differ a bit from the Governor’s budget and from each other; the conference
committee will begin to resolve these differences. Restoration of the
Partnership funds is among the University’s highest priorities.
· California Institutes for Science and Innovation- Three institutes are moving forward with the first of four $75M annual State appropriations approved by the Governor and the legislature. The California Institute for Bioengineering, Biotechnology, and Quantitative Biomedicine, is a collaboration between UCSF, UCB and UCSC. $33M of initial funding for a fourth Institute, The Center for Information Technology Research and the Interest of Society a collaboration between UCB, UCD, UCM, and UCSC) was approved by the Governor and the legislature.
· Fall 2001
Admissions- UC had an 8%increase in freshmen applications with gains in
freshman admissions from all ethnic groups. The number of admissions systemwide
increased by 18.5% among Chicanos, 17.2% among Latinos, 13.6% among African
Americans, 6.3% among American Indians and 5.2% among students of other ethnic
groups.
· Housing Task
Force- To address the housing crisis facing the University, a housing task
force co-chaired by Regent Sue Johnson and Senior Vice President Mullinix and
consisting of representatives from The Regents, campuses, the Academic Senate,
students, and community members has been appointed.
· UC Merced-
Professor David Ashley was appointed as executive vice chancellor for UC
Merced. Interviews for major administrative positions are underway.
Chair Cowan intends to establish a committee to deal
with the academic component of year round operation. He also mentioned that
faculty consultation on the effects on admissions of rescinding SP-1 and SP-2
would be required over the summer and that faculty participation would be
compensated.
The Variance to Senate Regulations regarding UCSC’s
grading system was unanimously approved at the February 28, 2001 meeting.
Dual Admissions Policy (DAP)
Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools
(BOARS) Chair Dorothy Perry made a presentation to the Assembly on the Dual
Admissions Policy. This policy was first proposed by President Atkinson and
endorsed with modification by BOARS. The Dual Admissions Policy allows non-UC
eligible high school seniors in the top 12.5% of their graduating class to
apply for admission to UC and guarantees admission after successful completion
of a course of study at a California community college. The goal of this
program is to increase the number of community college graduates that transfer
to UC campuses. The Assembly approved in principle the DAP with the
understanding that the program will be instituted only with adequate funding
for counseling and a formal review of the program after 5 years. After numerous
concerns were expressed, the Assembly passed a change in Senate Regulation 476
to add this fourth eligibility path to UC.
Senate Bylaws Changes Governing Privilege &
Tenure Standards
The University Committee on Privilege & Tenure
presented modifications to the Universitywide Senate Bylaws governing the
standards and procedures used by P&T committees to be approved by the
Assembly. The modifications separate a single bylaw into three bylaws
describing each of the main procedures that P&T deals with (discipline,
grievance, and early termination) and clarify regulations to protect faculty
rights and expedite the dealings of P&T. After two small amendments
the revisions were approved unanimously.
Amendment to Senate Regulation 630
The University Committee on Educational Policy
presented an amendment of Senate Regulation 630 for approval by the Assembly.
This amendment removes the restriction on the number of quarters or semesters a
student can complete in summer session. This amendment passed.
Report from UC Faculty Welfare
Chair Judith Gruber reported on: 1) the Regent’s
approval of significant improvements to the UC Retirement System; 2) the
availability of UCOP matching funds for construction of childcare facilities;
3) the reduction of UC Partnership Funds not permitting salary parity with our
comparison Universities but allowing merit increases and a 0.5% COLA for
faculty; 4) the unfavorable UC budget climate putting on hold the
domestic-partner, benefit-equalization initiative.
Professor Joel Yellin asked about the impact of the
Dual Admissions Program (DAP) on the Santa Cruz campus. Committee on
Admissions and Financial Aid Chair John Tamkun stated that the DAP formalizes a
pathway for admission that already exists, so the hope is that it will increase
the number of transfers to the system. It does not change any of the
admissions requirements for this campus and will provide additional funding for
counseling transfer students. CAFA did discuss DAP and feedback from the
campus was forwarded by the BOARS representative.
4. Special Orders: Annual Reports
a) Committee on Emeriti Relations:
Annual Report (AS/SCP/1307)
CER
Chair William Domhoff encouraged those faculty considering emeriti status in
the next five years to begin now on working with their departments to establish
regulations regarding emeriti status. It will be particularly important
in terms of teaching since emeriti will be needed during the campus’ growth
phase and the implementation of state funded summer sessions. The report
was received without comment.
5.
Reports of Special Committees
a) University Center (AS/SCP/1300)
Chair Anderson relinquished the Chair to Senate Vice
Chair Carla Freccero. The report was presented by Professor Chris
Connery, Co-Chair of the committee. The University Center will be opening as
part of Colleges 9 and 10 dining commons in Fall of 2002 with facilities for
events such as lectures, colloquia and meetings. Of the $400,000 required
in gifts to fund the Center, $267,000 has already been raised. The tasks
for the future will include establishing operational aspects of the Center such
as drafting bylaws and setting membership. Professor Joel Yellin
presented a minority report as an addition. Both reports were received
without comment.
6.
Reports of Standing Committees
a. Committee on Teaching: Proposed Changes to Bylaw
13.28.1 (AS/SCP/1299)
With Senate Chair Roger Anderson presiding, COT
Chair Jaye Padgett moved the legislation. Responding to a question from
the floor, Chair Padgett clarified the voting rights for the committee as
follows. Those non-Senate members sitting with the committee have no
voting rights. The motion was seconded and passed by unanimous voice
vote.
b. Committee on Academic Freedom: Proposed Change to
Bylaw 13.9.1 (AS/SCP/1301)
Chair Joel Yellin moved the legislation stating
that the current wording did not provide for graduate student
representation. Chair of the Committee on Rules Jurisdiction and
Elections (RJ&E) Stanley Williamson stated that RJ&E has reviewed the
proposed change and previously recommended to the Committee on Academic Freedom
that the last eight words “who shall not have the right to vote” of the
legislation be struck, since it is redundant with Bylaw 13.4.1 which
defines voting membership to only divisional members. RJ&E also found
the proposed change does not conform with the language of all the equivalent
bylaws that are the charges of the other Senate committees with student
representation.
Chair Yellin responded with the following points.
The decision to repeat in a Bylaw words already present elsewhere in the Bylaws
is a policy decision not within the purview of RJ&E. The wording is exactly
the same as the charge to CAF in the Bylaws of UC San Diego and many campuses
in the system. Many committees do not realize that students and others who do
not have the right to vote cannot sign annual reports. UCSC is out of
compliance with the practice observed all over the UC system. UCSC has
the responsibility to act consistently with the statewide bylaws.
Chair Anderson called for and received a second on
the motion.
Professor John Isbister moved that the last eight
words of the legislation be struck so that it reads:
13.9.1 There shall be four Santa Cruz Division
members. The Committee shall also have one undergraduate student
representative and one graduate student representative.
The motion to amend was seconded.
Speaking for the amendment:
Carol Freeman
Geoffrey Pullum
James Sheldon (student representative to CAF)
Points made for the amendment:
Signature on a report does not necessarily indicate
that people voted on the content. Including the final phrase as a special case
for one committee would imply that something different was true for the
other committees. The final phrase that would be omitted by the amendment was
unanimously opposed in a recent vote by the Student Union Association.
Furthermore, the Bylaws of the UC Berkeley Division, Committee on Academic
Freedom, Title 4, Section 29-A says that the committee has five senate members
and two student members, and there is an asterisk down at the bottom of the
page which says: see Bylaw 13-C. Bylaw 13-C, Part 4, on voting procedures
reads: “on all formal votes in committees attended by student members, the
student opinions will be recorded separately and so reported whenever the
recommendations of the committee is presented to the Division or other Academic
Senate bodies and to administrative officers advised by such committee.”
Speaking against the amendment:
Joel Yellin
Points made against the amendment:
Names do not appear on reports simply for
identification, but to indicate that the signators have read the report and
agree with its contents. An example of
the underlying problem is that on the report of CAP, under discussion here, the
student representative opposed the proposal, and has no vote, yet his name
appears on the document as though he can vote and agrees to the proposal.
Professor Ethan Miller moved a substitute amendment
to read:
13.9.1 There shall be four Santa Cruz Division
members. The Committee shall also have one undergraduate student
representative and one graduate student representative, neither of whom shall have
the right to vote.
The substitute motion was defeated by a show of
hands 22 in favor, 26 opposed.
After further debate, the amendment to strike the last eight words of the main motion passed by a voice vote. With no further debate, the amended main motion was called to question and passed unanimously by voice vote.
c. Committee on Committees: Proposed
Change to Bylaw 4.2 (AS/SCP/1301)
COC Chair Shelly Errington moved adoption of the
legislation and explained that the intent of this bylaw change to shorten the
term of office for the Senate Vice Chair to one year is to create a small
pool of experienced Senate leaders from which a Senate chair may be
chosen. The motion was seconded.
Professor Joel Yellin offered a friendly amendment that, instead of “is appointed”, the bylaw will read, “shall be appointed”. The friendly amendment was accepted so that the bylaw read:
4.2 Vice Chair
A
Vice Chair of the Santa Cruz Division shall be appointed by the Committee on
Committees for a term of one year and serves as a Divisional Representative to
the Assembly of the Academic Senate. Should the office become vacant
before the completion of a term, the Committee on Committees shall appoint a
Vice Chair to fill the remainder of the term. The Vice Chair carries out
all of the duties of the Chair in the absence or incapacity of the Chair, or
such duties as are delegated by the Chair.
With no further debate, the amended bylaw passed by
unanimous voice vote.
d. Committee on Committees: Resolution for Special Advisory Committee On Affordable Housing for New Faculty (AS/SCP/1314)
COC Chair Shelly Errington moved the resolution with
two minor changes in the text.
First, that the second paragraph be changed as
follows:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT: we propose the creation
of a new Special Committee of the Academic Senate be created as follows:
Second, that the final paragraph be changed so
as to strike the words “at least one from each division”.
The motion was seconded.
The COC Chair explained that the special committee
is being established to address the housing crisis that has adversely affected
recruitment, retention, and morale of faculty. It will report to the
Committee on Faculty Welfare; the Committee on Land and Building Development;
and the Senate as a whole.
Discussion:
Considerable discussion among several faculty
focused mainly on the connotations of using the phrase “new faculty” for the
name of the committee. A number of points were raised. The resolution is
unclear on the relationship between new faculty and junior faculty, since there
are examples of new faculty who are not untenured or junior and yet have the
same housing problems. This issue is pressing across faculty ranks, not
just new faculty. Retention issues affect the campus as a whole, not just untenured
faculty. Concerns were raised on the impact on the faculty participating in
this committee. Many faculty have come through the ranks and are now associate
professors and yet they still have not had their housing problems solved.
The breadth and depth of this problem throughout the ranks has to be recognized
in the composition of the committee. Proposals for faculty housing will have to
be integrated with the broader campus plans for all housing, particularly staff
housing. If we began by integrating staff housing issues into the focus
of this committee, there would be a smoother transition to implementation in
the future. Broadening the charge could also slow the process down.
Chair Errington clarified that if the charge of the Special Committee were broadened in this way, it would overlap with the charge of the Committee on Faculty Welfare. COC carefully chose the word “new” and admittedly left the designation vague. That the Special Committee was not established as a subcommittee of Faculty Welfare or Land and Building Development was intended to make it more visible and to give the Committee the ability to report to the Senate as a whole. Also, this method does not require changing the bylaws or charge of any standing committee. A subcommittee can only consist of members of that committee and cannot have additional (at large) members. So it would not be possible to add extra manpower to the effort of addressing the housing issue.
Professor Scott Brandt suggested that the definition of “new” be understood to apply to anybody who has not yet found permanent housing. COC Chair Errington expressed approval of this suggestion. Professor Joel Yellin offered a friendly amendment to strike the word “New” from the Committee’s title. This was rejected on the grounds that it might create an overlap of the special committee's charges with the charge of the Committee on Faculty Welfare.
The resolution to establish the Special Advisory
Committee was approved by unanimous voice vote.
e.
Committee on Committees: Resolution on the Faculty Housing Allocation Policy
(AS/SCP/1315)
COC
Chair Errington moved the following resolution:
Resolution:
WHEREAS
the current allocation policy for on-campus purchased housing is based on
obsolete assumptions about the housing market in Santa Cruz and no longer
adequately addresses the needs of the faculty, therefore:
BE
IT RESOLVED:
that
new faculty members, having been told that they will be given priority in the
allocation of housing on campus, must not lose priority to faculty members
hired after them without ever having been given the opportunity to purchase an
adequate house on campus; AND
that
the housing allocation policy as it applies to all faculty members must be
revised to provide a fair and straightforward policy that best addresses the
current needs of the faculty.
The
motion was seconded. This resolution from COC was co-sponsored with two people
from the floor.
Speakers
during the discussion of the resolution:
Robert
Boltje Carla
Freccero
Scott
Brandt (co-sponsor) Brent
Haddad
Maureen
Callanan Geoffrey
Pullum
Shelly
Errington Mark
Traugott (CFW Chair)
Margaret
Fitzsimmons
Points
made during the discussion:
The
resolution will address the gross problems with the current allocation policy.
In particular, the current system for allocating housing on campus is based on
the assumption that everyone on the list will have the opportunity to buy a
house within two years. After two years, faculty now lose their priority to new
faculty, even though the earlier faculty never had a chance to exercise their
priority. The proposed resolution supports the principle that people who
were made housing promises earlier do not lose priority to people who come
later. The resolution will not solve the problem of housing, but should
encourage the administration to rewrite the policy to that it is transparent
and just. Each person’s priority should be clear.
The
proposed resolution's use of the word "new" is ambiguous, and a
friendly amendment was proposed (but not accepted) that any changes to the
priority system would not apply to faculty hired through July 2001. The
proposed resolution would interfere with the existing system of priorities and
there would be losers, some of whom, because of financial decision changes,
could have possible grounds for a lawsuit. The current version is vague and
what it would do is unclear. The administration sets up the priority
policy. The resolution would actually hurt short-term recruitment. The
main problem is not the priority system but a large mismatch between demand and
the availability of new housing.
The
resolution on faculty housing allocation policy passed by a voice vote.
f. Committee
on Committees (COC) Nominations (AS/SCP/1311)
Professor
Joel Yellin asked the Senate Chair to consider going into Executive Session to
discuss specific aspects of the COC nominations. Second, he questioned
whether the procedures now used for undergraduate and graduate student grade
appeals are consistent with academic due process for faculty. Thus, those nominations are for a committee
whose operations may be out of compliance with Senate Bylaws. Chair Anderson ruled not to go to executive
session.
For
the current Spring quarter, Chair Errington nominated the following:
Narrative
Evaluations Student Grievance Hearing Committee:
Bill
Ladusaw as Chair, Richard Hughey, Judith Habicht-Mauche
In
addition to the 2001-02 committee nominations listed in the CALL, Chair
Errington nominated the following:
Emeriti
Relations: Don Osterbrock for Fall quarter
Land
and Building Development: Amelie Hastie
Special
Committee on Merit Equity Review: Katherine Metz, Maria Schonbek
Special
Committee on Affordable Housing: Pat Mantey As Chair, Scott Brandt
As
Vice Chair, Bill Sullivan, Ken Kletzer.
In
the discussion that followed, three issues were raised by CAF Chair Joel
Yellin.
First,
a member of the Administration, who might have a conflict of interest, is
being appointed to Chair the NE Student Grievance Hearing Committee.
Second, he questioned if the procedure that is now used for undergraduate and
graduate student grade appeals is consistent with academic due process for
faculty. Finally, those nominations are for a committee that may be out
of compliance with the Bylaws. P&T Chair George Blumenthal stated
that P&T had reviewed the issue as raised by CAF and had recommended that
this committee continue so that there would be an appeals procedure in place
for students.
The
nominations were approved by voice vote.
g. Committee
on Educational Policy: Amendments to Regulations (AS/SCP/1309)
CEP
Chair Carol Freeman moved the amendments. She summarized them by
stating that a vast majority of students do not have GPAs and that
academic progress toward degree and academic standing is monitored by counting
the number of courses passed per quarter. The proposed amendments are
intended to address several issues. First, they will add an effective
tool for monitoring performance so that students in academic trouble can be
identified more quickly for advising and support. Second, they will bring UCSC
into compliance with federal guidelines for awarding financial aid.
Finally, the amendments will ensure that all regulations are consistent
in indicating that the grade "No Pass" will appear
permanently on a student's official transcript. The motion was seconded.
Professor
Joel Yellin rose to a point of inquiry asking for assurance that the majority
of CEP was in favor of the legislation. CEP Chair Freeman stated that
this was the case; although no vote was taken, there was clear
consensus in the meeting.
The
Amendments passed by unanimous voice vote.
h.
Committee on Educational Policy: Draft Advisory Guidelines for Writing
Performance (Narrative) Evaluations (AS/SCP/1310)
CEP
Chair Carol Freeman introduced the Draft Guidelines stating that it was
submitted not for discussion, but to solicit input in writing about the draft.
i.
Committee on Faculty Research Lecture Nomination (AS/SCP/1306)
Professor
Shelley Stamp reported the nomination of Professor David Haussler of
the Department of Computer Science as the Faculty Research Lecturer for
2001-2002. The nomination was approved by acclamation.
j. Committee
on Planning and Budget: Report #5 on the Silicon Valley Center (AS/SCP/1312)
The
report was presented by CPB Chair John Hay. A question from the floor
pointed to the report's description of year-round operations being adopted
by the Administration in the face of expressed reservations of the Graduate
Council, the Committee on Faculty Welfare, the Committee on Academic Personnel,
and CPB. CPB Chair Hay stated that the response of the Senate committees
was concerned with when implementation of year round operations would
occur. Campus Provost John Simpson rose to clarify that the
Administration was asked with a very rapid turnaround by the Office of the
President if UCSC would be interested in going to state-funded summer session
during summer 2002. Senate committees were consulted and responded they
had reservations, which were no different than those of the Administration.
7. Report
of the Student Union Assembly
Chair
Matt Becker presented the Student Union report. Beginning with the
December 3, 1999 Special meeting and continuing through the events of last year
surrounding the narrative evaluation discussion, students have felt that they
were shut out of the Senate process. This year there has been increased
cooperation and discussion between the faculty and the students. Students
would like to address the issue of increased student participation in the decision
making process in several different areas.
Regarding
the issue of mandatory grades, once they are implemented, students would like
to see an evaluation of their effect on retention, academic
dishonesty, and improvement of the quality of students who choose to
attend UCSC. By evaluating these, we will be able to determine the
realization of the promised benefits and/or the possible detriments that the
opponents of mandatory grades have raised.
Students
ask that the Academic Senate seriously consider supporting the move of the
Student Center to the soon-to-be vacated Bay Tree Bookstore location and the
entire package of that move, including the Learning Center moving into the
current student center location. Students spent a year and a half of time
and a large amount of student money in preparing for this move with the
understanding that it would occur according to the plans developed with the
Administration. Unfortunately, these plans have recently come into
question and there is doubt as to whether they will actually end up going
through. Students ask that the Senate look into this and consider
supporting the plans of student governance Board regarding the swap of space.
Students
would like to thank the faculty for their support in requesting the repeal of
the Regents’ ban on affirmative action, SP1 and SP2, and look forward to
working with faculty over the coming months to develop a new admissions
process in the aftermath of the repeal.
Finally,
over the past two years, the disparity in voice between the Senate and the
students has become increasingly apparent. Students ask for the support of the
Senate in their attempts to establish a shared governance process whereby
students will have their voice considered in the decisions of the University.
We are not attempting to take any power or authority away from the Senate but
would simply like to make sure that all voices are heard in any actions of
policy.
This
report from the Student Union Assembly is the first that has occurred at the
Senate since winter of last year. SUA Chair asked that the Senate
Committee on Rules, Jurisdiction, & Elections look into the possibility of
amending the agenda so that the reports of student organizations are reordered
to follow the announcements of the Chancellor and Campus Provost.
The
meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
David
Koo
Secretary
September
27, 2001
Recording
Secretary: Mary-Beth Harhen