Attachment 1A
UCLA Undergraduate Council Academic Senate
Los Angeles Division
Undergraduate Council Minutes of Meeting: February 22, 2013 Approved: XXXXXXXX Present: Absent: T. Carter (Chair), H. Ackerman, A. Blaisdell, E. Gans, D. Glanzman, K. King, V. Manousiouthakis, J. McCumber, E. Tognozzi, J. Woo, L. Loeher (Ex‐Officio), Student Representatives: A. Pollard, R. Virk E. Carpenter (Vice Chair), D. Aboody, P. Amarasekare, M. Cooperson, L. Estrada, J. Gober, E. Le Guin, K. McGarry, I. Pak, C. Streeter, M. Tamanoi, S. Chandler (Ex‐Officio), R. Gurval (Ex‐Officio), P. Turner (Ex‐Officio), D. Wiley (Ex‐Officio), Student Representatives: M. Akuezue, K. Orens, G. Sanchez, T. Vasquez Guests: L. Blackmar, P. Hein‐Unruh, K. McJunkin, F. Wada Staff: M. Spagnuolo 1. Approval of Minutes: February 8, 2013 The minutes were unanimously approved as written. 2. Community Programs Office Test Bank Chair Carter provided information regarding the Community Programs Office Test Bank that allows students to view past tests for certain courses and professors. Students exchange their tests for access to the test bank. Senate Chair Linda Sarna sent a letter to the CPO requesting that they notify professors once per academic year so that faculty are aware of the test bank and know they have the option to have their exams removed from the database. Also, Sarna asked the CPO to notify professors each time one of their tests is added to the bank. The membership discussed the test bank and many feel that it is a good resource for students as past exams can be effective educational tools. It was noted that fraternities and sororities also have test banks so the CPO provides this service primarily for students who do not belong to these organizations. This agenda item was for informational purposes only and no action is required. 3. Senate Item for Review: Online Education Policy Chair Carter presented the Council’s draft statement in response to the proposed Online Education Policy, noting that the membership’s concerns discussed at the previous meeting are reflected in the statement. These concerns included focusing on matriculated students, consulting with UNEX, clearly defining the role of the Senate in approving courses, providing examples of course development paths, and the faculty compensation model. Additionally, the membership approved adding some verbiage regarding intellectual property concerns. Specifically, it was recommended that policies of other organizations (such as the Writer’s Guild) be consulted as examples. The draft statement was unanimously approved with the only change being the inclusion of the aforementioned additional text. 4. Senate Item for Review: Right to Appeal Curricular Decisions The Council’s draft statement in response to the Senate’s proposed bylaw changes to include the right to appeal curricular decisions was reviewed by the membership. The statement includes the membership’s only concern which was the requirement of a minimum number of 10 Academic Senate faculty required in order to appeal a decision. The statement notes that this fixed number could be unfair to smaller departments and recommends requiring either 10 faculty or 20% of the number of faculty in a department, whichever is fewer. Chair Carter noted that Graduate Council expressed several concerns with the bylaw changes. GC believes that the type of curricular changes included under the right to appeal, as well as the timeframe for when decisions can be appealed, should be more clearly defined. GC shared UgC’s concern regarding the minimum number of 10 required faculty, and also asked for clarification regarding the Legislative Assembly vote (2/3 approval or majority required). The Council unanimously approved the statement as written and declined to include any of the concerns noted by the Graduate Council. 5. Senate Item for Review: Financial Aid Funding Policies Chair Carter discussed in detail the three proposed Financial Aid Funding Policies, noting that currently financial aid is revenue‐driven, with 33% of new revenue from tuition being returned to aid. Carter noted that overall the policies aim to maintain accessibility and affordability; two are policy‐driven, while the third proposes to remain revenue‐driven. The membership discussed concerns with the number of hours students are expected to work under the proposed policies and would like to the system to consider a new process for determining parents’ ability to pay. A draft statement noting these concerns will be reviewed by the membership at the Council’s next meeting on March 8. Additionally, Chair Carter will invite a representative from UCLA’s financial aid office to answer questions from the Council regarding potential impacts to UCLA. 6. Academic Senate Progress Review Report: Mathematics – Updated Response The Council reviewed the addendum that was added to the Department of Mathematics’ progress review report after discussion at the previous meeting. The addendum requires the Department to provide a report in two years to update the membership on faculty recruitment and ladder faculty participation in the undergraduate program. The membership unanimously approved the addendum. 7. New Business Chair Carter provided an update on the topics discussed at the February 4, 2013 UCEP meeting. UCOE was the focus of the discussion, specifically in regards to the Committee’s struggle with approving systemwide courses. The UCEP membership decided they would no longer approve these courses until they know why they are required to do so, given that the courses all are first approved at the campus level. Additionally, UCEP discussed the possibility that the funds UCOP is receiving from the governor for online education may partially be spent on developing a system that would facilitate enrollment in campus online courses by UC students at other campuses. Furthermore, UCEP discussed that the legislature and UCOP are looking at the efficiency of the system’s administration and teaching workload. Currently ideas about either increasing the classroom size or hiring more lecturers are being considered. It was also noted that Governor Brown would like the faculty to teach more. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:19 p.m.