NOTICE OF MEETING!
BERKELEY DIVISION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE
Thursday, November 8, 2007, 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Sibley Auditorium, Bechtel Engineering Center
Items on the agenda for the fall meeting of the Berkeley Division include:
•
Updates on faculty salaries and retirement benefits
Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost George Breslauer will answer questions about
the recently implemented faculty salary scale, and Professor Robert Anderson will
report on the work of the University Committee on Faculty Welfare, Task Force on
Investment and Retirement.
•
Announcements
Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau
Berkeley Division Chair William Drummond
ASUC Academic Affairs Vice President Curtis Lee
Graduate Assembly Campus Affairs Vice President Miguel Daal
• Reports of standing committees
Committee on Academic Freedom
Committee on Budget and Interdepartmental Relations
Committee on Admissions, Enrollment, and Preparatory Education
• Proposed legislation
Berkeley Division legislation affecting elections and mail ballots
* Communications may be directed to the Academic Senate e-mail address: acad_sen@berkeley.edu.
•
Information items (Information only)
In Memoriam
In Memoriam is a compilation of commemorative statements honoring deceased
members of the Division, their lives, and service to the University. Memorials are
written by colleagues of the deceased and published by the systemwide Academic
Senate in In Memoriam. The Committee on Memorial Resolutions has approved
memorials for the following Berkeley faculty since April 2007; the authors are listed at
the right.
Bruce Alan Bolt (Earth and Planetary
Science)
David Brillinger, Joseph Penzien,
Barbara Romanowicz
Richard M. Bridgman (English)
Alex Zwerdling
Rowland M. Cannon Jr. (Materials
Science and Engineering)
R. O. Ritchie, A. P. Tomsia
Theodore E. Cohn
(Optometry/Bioengineering)
Thomas F. Budinger, Stanley Klein,
Dennis Levi, Sharmila Majumdar
Frank S. Crawford (Physics)
Richard A. Muller
Don M. Cunningham (Mechanical
Engineering)
Charles Radcliffe, Joseph Frisch
George M. Foster Jr. (Anthropology)
Stanley H. Brandes, Nancy ScheperHughes
Ben Clifford Gerwick Jr. (Civil And
Environmental Engineering)
Keith Crandall, Robert Bea, Robert
Wiegel
Franklin M. Henry (Physical
Education)
Roberta J. Park, George A. Brooks,
M. Kathryn Scott
Lawrence W. Levine (History)
Leon Litwack, Robert Middlekauff,
Irwin Scheiner
William M. Meredith (Psychology)
Sheldon Zedeck, Rhona S. Weinstein,
Barbara Mellers
Sheldon Messinger (Law)
Malcolm M. Feeley, Lauren Edelman,
Rosann Greenspan, Jonathan Simon
Francis H. Moffitt (Civil and
Environmental Engineering)
Carl L. Monismith, James M.
Anderson, Edward L. Wilson
2
Robert K. Mortimer (Molecular and
Cell Biology)
G. Steven Martin, Michael R. Botchan,
Jasper D. Rine
Leonard Edward Nathan (Rhetoric)
Thomas O. Sloane, Seymour Chatman,
George Hochfield
A. Richard Newton (Electrical
Engineering and Computer Sciences)
Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli,
Robert K. Brayton, Jitendra Malik
Chester T. O’Konski (Chemistry)
John E. Hearst, Rollie J. Myers
Oliver Payne Pearson (Zoology)
William Z. Lidicker Jr., James L.
Patton
Allan Richard Pred (Geography)
Michael Watts
William Kendrick Pritchett (Classics)
Ronald S. Stroud, Erich S. Gruen,
Donald J. Mastronarde
Thomas Warren Ramsey
(French/Comparative Literature)
Basil Guy, Leonard W. Johnson
Lawson L. Rosenberg (Molecular and
Cell Biology)
Paola S. Timiras, John G. Forte, Terry
E. Machen
Thomas Gustav Rosenmeyer (Classics) Robert Alter, Mark Griffith, Anthony
Long, Donald Mastronarde
Lawrence Talbot (Mechanical
Engineering)
Frederick S. Sherman
John Holland Thow (Music)
Richard Taruskin, Cindy A. Cox
Martin Trow (Public Policy)
John M. Quigley, Patrick Hayashi, Neil
J. Smelser
Lionel Edward Weiss (Earth and
Planetary Science)
Hans-Rudolf Wenk, Iris Borg, Richard
Doell
Memorials for deceased Senate members are published in In Memoriam at two online locations:
UC Academic Senate (editions 2002+)
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/inmemoriam/welcome.html
UC History Digital Archives (editions 1928-2001)
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/uchistory/archives_exhibits/in_memoriam/index.html
Committee on Memorial Resolutions
Professor John Polt (Spanish & Portuguese), 2007-08 Chair
3
ORDER OF BUSINESS
I.
Minutes
Minutes of the April 27, 2006 meeting of the Division (attached)
Minutes of the November 14, 2006 meeting of the Division (attached)
Minutes of the April 19, 2007 special meeting of the Division (attached)
Minutes of the April 19, 2007 meeting of the Division (attached)
II.
Announcements by the President
President Robert C. Dynes is unable to attend.
III.
IV.
Other Announcements
A.
Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau
B.
Berkeley Division Chair William Drummond
C.
ASUC Academic Affairs Vice President Curtis Lee
D.
Graduate Assembly Campus Affairs Vice President Miguel Daal
Special Orders-Consent Calendar
For proposed legislative amendments, additions to the current text are noted by an underline;
deletions to the current text are noted by a strikethrough line
A.
Berkeley Division legislation affecting elections and mail ballots
Given the increasing interest in electronic voting options and declining
participation in paper-based elections, the Berkeley Division has been exploring
the possibility of conducting Division elections electronically.
Berkeley Division Bylaw 9 is a proposed bylaw that would govern electronic and
paper-based elections. It is comprised of new text and text taken from existing
bylaws. Sections A and D.2 are new, but the rest of the proposed bylaw (i.e.,
sections B, C, D.1, E, F) are taken from existing sections of Division Bylaws 4 and
17 to create one bylaw governing elections.
Amendments to Division Bylaw 25 are proposed to reflect a change in election
practice within the College of Letters and Science and to make the bylaw
consonant with proposed Division Bylaw 9.
An amendment to Division Bylaw 161 is proposed to allow for an electronic or
paper ballot.
Electronic elections will not be mandatory; Senate members who want to vote by
paper ballot will be able to do so upon request.
4.
DIVISIONAL COUNCIL (En. 10.89, CC. 3.92)
4
B.
9.
Terms
1.
The Chair serves for one year.
2.
The Vice Chair will serve one year as Vice Chair and the next
year as Chair of the Division and of the Divisional Council.
3.
Committee Chairs, ex officio, normally will serve the same
term as the tenure of their Chairs. A Committee Chair may
designate a Senate member of that Committee to serve in his
or her stead on the Divisional Council (with approval of the
Committee on Committees) for a period of one year. (Am.
11.13.03)
4.
At-Large members, half to be elected every year, will serve
two-year terms. They cannot serve consecutive terms.
•
At-Large members shall be elected in the same
manner and at the same time as members of the
Committee on Committees (By-Law 17), except that
the first election will be held during the Fall 1989
semester to elect six members to serve from January
1990 until the beginning of the Fall 1991 or the Fall
1992 semester. However, the number of nominations
must be at least twice as many as there are places to
be filled; the Committee on Committees will add the
necessary number of nominees to complete the slate if
the number of Nominating Petitions received from
the membership is fewer than the number required.
5.
Terms begin on the first day of instruction of the Fall term,
unless otherwise designated in Divisional legislation.
6.
A partial term counts as a full term.
7.
A vacancy occurring between regular elections is filled by
the Committee on Committees.
Division Elections
A.
General Provisions
Subject to provisions in these By-Laws, all Divisional elections and
ballots are to be conducted by paper or electronic means. If an
election is conducted electronically, Berkeley Division members
may request a paper ballot from the Secretary in writing. The
Division Secretary, in consultation with the Committee on Rules
and Elections, shall decide whether the election or ballot will be
conducted by paper or electronic means.
B.
Notice of Election
Not fewer than 30 days of instruction prior to the election, the
Secretary must send to each voting member of the Division a
Notice of the Election. (Am. 4.26.01)
C.
Nominating Petitions
•
Nominating Petitions must be filed with the Secretary within
10 days of instruction after the Notice of Election has been
sent. (Am. 4.26.01)
•
A Nominating Petition must be signed by five voting
5
•
D.
Voting
1.
By paper ballot:
•
At least 14 calendar days before the Election, the
Secretary must mail to each voter a list of all
nominees, stating their nominators and departmental
affiliation of each. (Am. 4.26.01)
•
The list of nominees must be accompanied by a ballot
listing the nominees alphabetically, a plain envelope
in which the voter is to enclose the marked ballot, and
a further envelope addressed to the Secretary to be
used for return of the sealed ballot.
•
The voter must be notified that:
•
all ballots must be returned to the Secretary no
later than the date of election;
•
A ballot is invalid if more names are marked
than there are vacancies to be filled, or if the
ballot lacks the signature of the voter in the
space provided on the return envelope;
•
A voter who spoils a ballot may, by tearing it
across once and returning it to the Secretary,
obtain another.
(EC.00)
2.
E.
members of the Division, and must state the departmental
affiliation of the nominee and nominators.
The nominee must certify acceptance.
By electronic ballot:
•
At least 14 calendar days before the Election, the
Secretary must make available to each voter an
electronic ballot of all nominees, stating their
nominators and departmental affiliation of each.
•
Each voter will have access to a secure, web-based
voting system that is administered by the Academic
Senate office.
•
The voting system will authenticate the identity of
each voter and separate the identity of each voter
from his or her vote to maintain the confidentiality of
the voting process.
•
The voting system will be designed so that once a
vote has been cast, neither the voter nor anyone with
access to the system can change the vote.
•
If a Senate member prefers a paper ballot, the
Berkeley Division will make one available upon
written request. If a voter submits both an electronic
and a paper ballot, the electronic ballot will take
precedence and the paper ballot will be destroyed
prior to the count.
Election of At-Large Members to the Divisional Council
•
At-Large members shall be elected at the same time as
members of the Committee on Committees and in the
6
manner outlined in this By-Law, except that the number of
nominations must be at least twice as many as there are
places to be filled; the Committee on Committees will add
the necessary number of nominees to complete the slate if
the number of Nominating Petitions received from the
membership is fewer than the number required.
F.
17.
Election of Committee on Committees Members
•
Committee members are elected in accordance with Senate
and Berkeley Division By-Laws.
•
Candidates receiving votes on at least 35% of the valid
returned ballots are to be declared elected.
•
If more candidates receive votes on at least 35% of the valid
ballots cast than there are vacancies to be filled, those having
the highest percentage are to be declared elected.
•
If fewer candidates receive votes on at least 35% of the valid
ballots cast than there are vacancies, a second mail ballot
must be taken. It must list the nominees not elected but
receiving the highest percentage on the first ballot, but not to
exceed twice the number of remaining vacancies.
•
Those receiving the highest percentage on the second ballot
are to be declared elected for such vacancies as exist. A tie
for the last vacancy is broken by lot.
COMMITTEES
(CC. 10.89, 3.92)
A.
Membership
•
This Committee has eight elected members, who are elected
in accordance with Senate and Division By-Laws.
•
It chooses its own Chair, who is also a member of the
Grievance Board as provided in By-Law 13.
B.
Terms and Vacancies
•
Four members are elected each year to serve for two years
beginning the first day of instruction in the Fall.
•
When a vacancy in its own membership occurs, the
Committee, subject to confirmation by the Divisional
Council, may appoint a member of the Division to serve the
unexpired part of the term.
(CC. 10.89)
•
The Committee is instructed to give consideration to
nominees not elected but receiving the highest vote in the
immediately preceding election.
BC.
Duties
This Committee appoints:
•
The Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary and Parliamentarian of the
Division;
•
All other Standing Committees;
•
Special Committees as the Division may direct;
•
Faculty Representative to the Senate of the Associated
Students of the University of California, who also serves as a
7
•
•
•
C.
member of the student Search and Selection Committee
and the Grievance Board, as provided in By-Law 13.C;
Student members to Committees on Educational Affairs (ByLaw 13); (Am. 11.8.05)
Nominees for appointment to administrative committees
when
called upon by the Chancellor; nominees to all positions on
the Chancellor's Committee for Animal Care and Use, except
for non-Senate and outside University members; (Am.
11.8.05)
Nominees to all non-chair positions on the Committee for
the Protection of Human Subjects, except for non-Senate and
outside University members. (En. 4.88; Am. 11.13.03; Am.
11.8.05)
Election of Committee Members
•
Four members are elected each year to serve for two years
beginning the first day of instruction in the Fall.
•
The Committee is elected by mail ballot conducted in
accordance with Senate By-Laws.
1.
Notice of Election
Not fewer than 30 days of instruction prior to the election,
the Secretary must mail to each voting member of the
Division a Notice of the Election. (Am. 4.26.01)
2.
Nominating Petitions
•
Nominating Petitions must be filed with the Secretary
within 10 days of instruction following mailing of the
Notice of Election. (Am. 4.26.01)
•
A Nominating Petition must be signed by five voting
members of the Division, and must state the
departmental affiliation of the nominee and
nominators.
•
The nominee must certify acceptance.
3.
Ballots
•
At least 10 days of instruction before the Election, the
Secretary must mail to each voter a list of all
nominees, stating their nominators and departmental
affiliation of each. (Am. 4.26.01)
•
The list of nominees must be accompanied by a ballot
listing the nominees alphabetically, a plain envelope
in which the voter is to enclose the marked ballot, and
a further envelope addressed to the Secretary to be
used for return of the sealed ballot.
•
The voter must be notified that:
•
all ballots must be returned to the Secretary no
later than the date of election;
•
A ballot is invalid if more names are marked
than there are vacancies to be filled, or if the
ballot lacks the signature of the voter in the
space provided on the return envelope;
•
A voter who spoils a ballot may, by tearing it
8
4.
5.
across once and returning it to the Secretary,
obtain another.
(EC.00)
Voting
(Am. 10.25.93; 10.25.94)
•
Candidates receiving votes on at least 35% of the
valid returned ballots are to be declared elected.
•
If more candidates receive votes on at least 35% of the
valid ballots cast than there are vacancies to be filled,
those having the highest percentage are to be declared
elected.
•
If fewer candidates receive votes on at least 35% of
the valid ballots cast than there are vacancies, a
second mail ballot must be taken. It must list the
nominees not elected but receiving the highest
percentage on the first ballot, but not to exceed twice
the number of remaining vacancies.
•
Those receiving the highest percentage on the second
ballot are to be declared elected for such vacancies as
exist. A tie for the last vacancy is broken by lot.
Vacancies
•
When a vacancy in its own membership occurs, the
Committee, subject to confirmation by the Divisional
Council, may appoint a member of the Division to
serve the unexpired part of the term.
(CC. 10.89)
•
The Committee is instructed to give consideration to
nominees not elected but receiving the highest vote in
the immediately preceding election.
25.
RULES AND ELECTION (Am. 10.25.94)
B.
By vote of the Division, issues of interpretation of Divisional
legislation may be referred to this Committee for decision and
report.
•
Such decisions are subject to review by the Division, either
when the report is made or on petition signed by twenty-five
voting members of the Division. The final date for filing
such petition is ten days after the minutes of the Division
reporting the decision are placed in the mail.
•
If the Division disapproves the report of the Committee, the
Committee must at once draft legislation which expresses
the intent of the Division.
•
This Committee supervises all elections of the Division,
election of Committee on Committees for the College of
Letters and Science, and voting on propositions submitted to
the Division by mail or electronic ballot. (Senate By-Law 340
and Berkeley Division By-Law 9) .
•
Unless otherwise specified in these By-Laws, election is by a
plurality of votes cast.
(Am. 10.25.94)
161.
ELECTRONIC OR MAIL BALLOT
An electronic or mail ballot must be held on any issue, including
modification of legislation, if a majority of the voting members present at
9
a meeting of the Division so orders. Mail Electronic and mail ballots are
held in accordance with Senate By-Laws 95 and 340 and Berkeley Division
By-Law 9.A and 9.D.
(En. 3.89)
V.
Reports of Special Committees (None)
VI.
Reports of Standing Committees (Discussion only)
VII.
A.
Committee on Academic Freedom
B.
Committee on Budget and Interdepartmental Relations
C.
Committee on Admissions, Enrollment and Preparatory Education
Petitions of Students (None)
VIII. Unfinished Business (None)
IX.
University and Faculty Welfare (Discussion only)
A.
Updates on faculty salaries and retirement benefits
Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost George Breslauer will answer questions
about the recently implemented faculty salary scale and Professor Robert
Anderson will report on the work of the University Committee on Faculty
Welfare, Task Force on Investment and Retirement. The Academic Council
Statement on the University of California Retirement Plan (UCRP) is attached.
X.
New Business (None)
10
DRAFT
MINUTES OF MEETING1
BERKELEY DIVISION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE
April 27, 2006
The spring 2006 meeting of the Berkeley Division was called to order at 3:42 p.m. on Thursday,
April 27, 2006, in Sibley Auditorium, Bechtel Engineering Center, pursuant to call. Professor Alice
Agogino, chair of the Berkeley Division, presided, and called the meeting to order. Fifty-six Senate
members were present (the required number for quorum is 50).
I.
Minutes of Meeting
The draft minutes of the November 8, 2005 Division meeting were presented for approval.
ACTION: The minutes of the meeting were approved as submitted, without objection.
II.
Announcements by the President
UC President Robert C. Dynes was not able to attend.
III.
Other Announcements
A.
Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau
Chancellor Birgeneau acknowledged outgoing Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
Paul Gray for his past leadership. The Chancellor also acknowledged Dean of Letters
and Science George Breslauer who will step into the position, and recently arrived Vice
Chancellor for Administration Nathan Brostrom.
The Chancellor provided an update on current issues for the University.
•
Faculty recognition: Berkeley’s strength was reflected in several Sloan
fellowships received this year, acknowledging top junior faculty in the U.S., and
a number of senior faculty inducted into the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences and the National Academies of the Sciences.
•
Undergraduates: Undergraduate applications increased, and enrollment is
expected to grow this year. The Chancellor has taken a more proactive stance
and has worked successfully with individual legislators in Sacramento to
promote Berkeley’s interests.
•
Compensation: UC dealt with severe criticism in the local media about senior
administrators’ compensation this year. Improving adherence to UC policies and
more transparency are needed.
A new policy on faculty compensation will be announced by Vice Provost for
Academic Affairs and Faculty Welfare Jan De Vries later in this meeting.
Berkeley has increased the minimum wage to $11.25/hr. retroactive to April 1,
improving the salaries of almost 200 staff members.
1
Recordings of Divisional Meetings are available in the Academic Senate Office, 320 Stephens Hall, by
appointment.
11
•
•
•
B.
Budget: It is believed that the Compact with the State will hold, and an increase
in the operating budget is hoped for. Additional state funding has been obtained
so anticipated fee increases will not be necessary.
Fundraising: The capital campaign has been very successful but fundraising
efforts need to significantly increase. Improvements to the financing of
intercollegiate athletics and capital projects are now under consideration.
Interdisciplinary initiatives: Berkeley has received sizable gifts for the health
sciences and for the alleviation of global poverty. The concept of the Berkeley
Diversity Research Initiative (BDRI) has relevancy to institutions around the
world, and has drawn outside interest. (Chair Agogino provided an update on
BDRI, saying that full proposals have been received after an initial round of
selections).
Chair of the Berkeley Division, Alice Agogino
Chair Agogino presented a Powerpoint presentation summarizing Senate activities and
accomplishments during the year.
•
Capital campaign: The Named Fund Initiative is available to faculty who wish to
donate.
•
Shared governance: The Senate has been involved in several initiatives this year,
including those of the living wage, information technology, and streamlining
academic personnel processes.
•
Faculty art: A faculty art exhibit is now on display at the Senate Office.
•
Intercollegiate athletics: The Senate has been involved in discussions in the
University Athletics Board regarding the large intercollegiate athletics deficit.
•
Classroom technology: The Senate again calls attention to deterioration of
classrooms and the urgent need for funding of technology upgrades.
•
Executive and faculty compensation: The recent accusations against UC
regarding senior and faculty compensation have been misleading. The faculty
has developed a set of guidelines regarding compensation.
•
Transition: Chair Agogino acknowledged incoming Division chair William
Drummond (Journalism) and incoming Division vice chair Sheldon Zedeck
(Psychology).
With several former Division chairs in attendance, Chair Agogino copresented a plaque
to outgoing EVCP Gray, commending him for years of leadership in shared governance.
C.
ASUC Academic Affairs Vice President Jason Dixson
On behalf of the Graduate Assembly (GA), Vice President Dixson announced the three
recipients of the Distinguished Faculty Mentoring Award: Professor Nelson Graburn
(Anthropology), Professor Ananya Roy (City and Regional Planning), and Professor
John Lindow (Scandinavian). A reception will be held on May 10. The GA also urges
that best practices in mentoring be promoted throughout the faculty and be included as
a criterion in hiring and tenure review.
The ASUC made several recommendations to deal with current and future high
enrollment problems and prevent erosion of the educational experience.
•
An increase in Temporary Academic Staff funding for introductory courses.
•
Provide curriculum management to assist struggling undergraduates.
•
Plan for a larger student body.
•
Improve classrooms, particularly in science facilities. Technology will be useful
in helping to mitigate future budgetary shortfalls.
The ASUC asks for the Senate’s support of these issues in the spirit of shared
governance.
IV.
Special Orders-Consent Calendar
12
For proposed legislative amendments, additions to the current text are noted by an underline;
deletions to the current text are noted by a strikethrough line
A.
Proposed amendment of Berkeley Division Bylaw 2, Membership
On May 29, 2002, the Assembly voted to recommend to the Regents that lecturers and
senior lecturers with potential for security of employment (PSOE) be made Senate
members, in addition to lecturers and senior lecturers with security of employment. On
July 18, 2002, the Regents amended Standing Order 105.1(a), which defines Senate
membership, to include lecturers and senior lecturers with PSOE. The proposed
amendment to Berkeley Division Bylaw 2 is needed to make the divisional bylaw
consonant with the Standing Orders of the Regents and systemwide bylaws.
Full-time Lecturers PSOE and Senior Lecturers PSOE constitute a small group within the
University. They teach and perform public service, but research is not a criterion for
their appointment or advancement. They are hired to meet long-term instructional
needs that cannot best be met by hiring faculty in the Professorial Series. Depending on
performance, Lecturers PSOE can be advanced to the Lecturer with Security of
Employment (SOE) title; Senior Lecturers PSOE can be advanced to the Senior Lecturer
SOE title.
2.
MEMBERSHIP
A.
B.
C.
D.
B.
Members of the Division are: (Am. 9.91)
•
The President;
•
The Chancellor, Vice Chancellors, Provosts, Deans, Directors of
academic programs, Assistant or Associate Vice Chancellor for
Admissions and Enrollment, Registrar, and chief Library at
Berkeley; (EC. 11.21.00; Am. 4.25.05)
•
All Professor, Professors in Residence, Professors of Clinical
_____, and Acting Professors;
•
Associate Professors, Associate Professors in Residence, Associate
Professors of Clinical _____, and Acting Associate Professors;
•
Assistant Professors, Assistant Professors in Residence, and
Assistant Professors of Clinical _____;
•
Instructors, Instructors in Residence;
•
Senior Lecturers with Security of Employment, and Lecturers with
Security of Employment, Senior Lecturers with Potential for
Security of Employment, and Lecturers with Potential for Security
of Employment, with full time teaching responsibilities in
curricula under the control of the Academic Senate, whose duties
lie primarily in Berkeley; and
•
Those Vice Presidents, Deans, and Directors of statewide units
who choose to enroll in this Division.
Instructors and Instructors in Residence of less than two years’ service
have no vote.
Membership does not lapse because of leave of absence or transfer to
emeritus status.
The Committee on Rules and Elections determines whether a person
meets the requirements for membership. (CC. 10.25.94)
Proposed amendment of Berkeley Division Bylaw 33, Committee on Courses of
Instruction, Duties
As part of an effort to maintain efficient, effective, and transparent procedures for
conducting its business, the Committee on Courses of Instruction (COCI) recently
13
reviewed Berkeley Division Bylaw 33. The proposed addition of a fifth bullet point,
under the “Duties” portion of Bylaw 33, is intended to codify the authority that has
already been delegated to the Committee as part of its charge to ensure that courses are
conducted and degrees awarded in an appropriate manner. The Committee feels that
the adoption of this language in Bylaw 33 will not represent any significant change in
Senate procedures, but it will clarify COCI’s jurisdiction.
33.
COURSES OF INSTRUCTION
C.
Duties
•
•
•
•
•
C.
Reviews, coordinates, and takes final action on all matters relating
to courses of instruction, including approval of new courses;
modification, withdrawal, conduct, credit valuation, and
classification of existing courses; and consults with and advises
departments and individual members of the Division on courses
of instruction.
Gives full consideration to the views and conclusions of
appropriate departments, departmental committees and
representatives, and faculty members when matters related to
their courses of instruction come before the Committee.
Neither advises on, nor has any jurisdiction over, courses in the
School of Law. [SOR 105.2(b)]
Acts on behalf of the Division in reviewing recommendations
from the colleges, schools, and Graduate Council concerning the
award of degrees, certificates, and honors (See By-Law 100).
Reviews and takes final action on requests for exceptions to
Division Regulations governing courses of instruction and the
awarding of degrees, certificates, and honors.
Proposed amendments to Berkeley Division Regulation A207, Grade Appeals
The proposed editorial changes to Regulation A207 are offered for the sake of clarity.
The if - then nature of the grade grievance process is not sufficiently emphasized in the
current version of Regulation A207. Adding introductory language to the third bullet
point will establish that grade grievances must first be addressed at the informal level
and that only if this fails then a student may invoke the formal grade grievance process.
The Committee also felt that adding language to the end of the fourth bullet point in
A207 would clarify the grade grievance deadline. Though it seems reasonable to infer
that the original deadline language would apply to both the formal and informal
grievance process, COCI felt that the lack of specificity on this point is not in the best
interest of affected students or instructors. Thus the Committee has proposed a revision
explicitly applying a one-year deadline to both formal and informal grievance
procedures.
Finally, COCI proposes the substitution of “one calendar year” for “two regular
semesters” in Regulation A207. This change is again offered for the sake of clarity,
particularly in light of the increasing regularization of summer sessions—which COCI
believes should not be applied toward the deadline imposed upon the grade grievance
process. COCI has always interpreted the “two regular semester” deadline as
synonymous with one calendar year and applied it accordingly, and the Committee felt
that updating the language would be in the best interest of all those who will need to
consult this regulation in the future.
14
A207. GRADE APPEALS
A.
Appeal Process
•
•
•
•
•
•
D.
This Regulation covers grievances by students originating in units
of instruction and concerning grades.
Grounds for grievance are application of non-academic criteria,
such as considerations of race, politics, religion, sex, or other
criteria not directly reflective of performance related to course
requirements; sexual harassment; or improper academic
procedures that unfairly affect a student’s grade.
The student must first attempt to resolve a grade grievance with
the instructor in charge. If such an attempt is unsuccessful or if the
student prefers, the student shall seek assistance from the student
Ombudsperson (or a mutually accepted third party) and the
department chair. If a grievance is resolved between a student and
an instructor and the resolution requires a grade change, the Chair
of the Department (or equivalent unit) in which the course was
taught shall refer the case expeditiously to the Committee on
Courses of Instruction. After reviewing the case, the Committee
on Courses of Instruction may instruct the Office of the Registrar
to make the required change in the student's record. (Am. 4.88)
The following formal procedure may not be activated unless the
student, instructor in charge, Ombudsperson (or any mutually
accepted third party), and the Department Chair have failed to
resolve the dispute informally. ; and it has been less than one
calendar year since the last day of the semester in which the
course in question was taken. Neither formal nor informal grade
grievance processes may be initiated after the one-year deadline
has passed. (EC.00)
The formal procedure is to be completed as expeditiously as
possible:
•
at the unit level within twenty (20) working days;
•
at the Senate level within forty (40) working days;
if both parties are in residence and the University is in
regular session (excludes Summer Session). (EC. 4.86)
The formal process must be initiated within two semesters of the
alleged offense. (Rev. 3.83)
Proposed amendment of Berkeley Division Regulation A208, Grade Points for XB
Courses
The Committee on Rules and Elections (R&E) considered an implementation date for
Regulation A208, approved by the Berkeley Division at its meeting on April 25, 2005, at
the request of the Office of the Registrar and with the concurrence of the Division Chair.
The question arose because Academic Senate Bylaw 312.C.4 states “Modifications of
legislation shall take effect immediately following approval by the legislative agency
empowered to act finally for the Senate, unless a different date is specified or required
by Divisional Bylaw.” Immediate implementation, however, would have created
multiple problems, as outlined below.
R&E unanimously approved the following ruling: “Berkeley Division Regulation (BR)
A208 is to be applied only to University Extension XB courses undertaken in or after the
fall semester 2005, at which time it shall be mandatory for all eligible students. BR A208
does not apply to University Extension XB courses taken before then. BR A208 shall
15
apply to all XB courses without exception and students shall not have the right to
petition that only credits shall count.”
R&E made this decision based on considerations of fairness. BR A208 must be applied
equally to all students on campus. Individual students should therefore not petition
either (1) to have only units and not grades counted for XB courses taken in Fall 2005 or
later or (2) to have grades from XB courses taken before Fall 2005 counted in calculating
their grade point average.
R&E approved the following proposed amendment.
A208. GRADE POINTS FOR UNIVERSITY EXTENSION “XB” COURSES
4.25.05)
(En.
UC Berkeley Extension courses carrying the “XB” designation on University
Extension transcripts shall be accepted for unit, requirement, and grade-point
credit on the Berkeley campus, subject to the following conditions (see SR 810A):
A.
B.
“XB” courses shall not count toward satisfaction of the residence
requirement of the University (SR 630), the residence requirement of the
Berkeley Division (SR A290), or of the student's College.
Students in dismissed status must obtain Dean’s approval prior to
enrolling in “XB” courses in order to receive grade points toward
graduation in their College for those courses. For dismissed students,
grade points shall be counted toward graduation only upon successful
readmission to their College.
“XB” courses shall be accepted for unit, requirement, and grade-point credit for
only a student who: 1) has been admitted to and is a regularly matriculated
student on the Berkeley campus, or 2) has taken “XB” courses through the Fall
Program for Freshmen and subsequently admitted to a degree program or
college at Berkeley.
Regulation A208 is to be applied only to University Extension “XB” courses
undertaken in or after the fall semester 2005, at which time it shall be mandatory
for all eligible students. Regulation A208 does not apply to University Extension
“XB” courses taken before then. Regulation A208 shall apply to all “XB” courses
without exception and students shall not have the right to petition that only
credits shall count.
E.
Proposed amendment to Berkeley Division Regulation 400.A.1, Requirements For The
Degree Of Bachelor Of Science In The College Of Chemistry
Currently the Department of Chemical Engineering asks students to choose one of six
options to meet graduation requirements. To provide in-depth coverage of the
individual options, the department currently requires 128 semester units for graduation.
The department recently voted unanimously to reduce the total graduation requirement
to 120 semester units in line with the campus norm, while still retaining the option
program.
400.
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN THE
COLLEGE OF CHEMISTRY
A.
Requirements for the Bachelor of Science Degree
16
1.
B.S. in Chemistry: 120 units; B.S. in Chemical Engineering: 128
120 units. None of the units for either degree may be for any
course (e.g., trigonometry, high school chemistry, high school
physics) which is equivalent to a matriculation subject
prerequisite to a required course in the College. (Rev.3.83; 4.89)
ACTION: The Consent Calendar was approved without objection.
V.
Reports of Special Committees (None)
VI.
Reports of Standing Committees
D.
Committee on Admissions, Enrollment, and Preparatory Education
Professor Robert Jacobsen, chair of the Committee on Admissions, Enrollment, and
Preparatory Education (AEPE), presented the committee’s report pertaining to freshman
admissions, as the cycle for transfer students was not yet complete. As a single read
process was applied this year rather than the double read, more time was made
available for final review of the applications for those not clearly eligible. This was
fortunate as thousands more applications were received. The higher number of eligible
applications also resulted in a much higher number of scholarship applicants
interviewed by the Committee on Undergraduate Scholarships and Honors, and
possibly more awards.
Chair Jacobsen presented a Powerpoint presentation on admissions showing statistics
for the incoming class. This is the first year for the Atkinson new SAT test and some
scores are slightly lower; the significance of this difference has yet to be determined, and
the class still looks very strong academically. Numbers for underrepresented minority
students are very slowly increasing. Other trends include a higher number of women,
and applicants who will be the first in their families to attend or graduate from college.
In general, trends are positive.
E.
Committee on Faculty Awards
Professor Anne Middleton (English), a member of the Committee on Faculty Awards
(FA), presented the committee’s report on behalf of FA Chair Bob Buchanan, who was
not present at the meeting. Former UC President Jack Peltason received the 2005 Clark
Kerr Award for exceptional leadership in higher education at a November 8 ceremony.
The 2006 Clark Kerr Award will be presented to Professor Nannerl Keohane, president
of Duke University, scholar of political science, and a leader for women heads of major
research universities. The award ceremony will be announced at a later date.
Professor Sheldon Zedeck (Psychology) is the recipient of the Berkeley Faculty Service
Award, acknowledging his outstanding record of over 30 years’ service to the Division.
A reception will be held on May 2 at International House.
The FA committee welcomes suggestions for promoting awards recognizing excellence
at Berkeley. The committee recommends that each unit identify a faculty liaison to FA to
facilitate the nominations process. More information is available on the Division’s
website.
F.
Committee on the Faculty Research Lecture
On behalf of the chair of the Department of Mathematics, Theodore Slaman, Professor
Emeritus Calvin Moore presented Professor Vaughan F. R. Jones, a recipient of the
Faculty Research Lecture award and faculty member since 1985. Professor Jones’s
research has led to enlightening applications of von Neumann algebra to a wide range of
fields. He has been widely recognized for his contributions, having received the
17
prestigious Fields Medal in 1990, and a title from his home country of New Zealand
accompanied by a citation from Queen Elizabeth.
Professor Timothy Clark announced that Professor Martin Jay (History) is a recipient of
the Faculty Research Lecture for the humanities and social sciences, although he was not
present at the meeting. Professor Jay is widely recognized as an influential interpreter of
twentieth century intellectual history (critical theory, or the Frankfurt School), and his
writings are key in the field for their clarity, scholarship and balance. He is also known
for his unpredictable explorations of ideas and new media.
G.
Committee on Faculty Welfare (Handout A)
Professor Dorothy Hale (English), chair of the Committee on Faculty Welfare (FWEL),
summarized committee activities in two primary areas during the past year.
•
Family-friendly initiatives: The committee represented the faculty perspective in
this campuswide initiative and fostered communication with interested campus
groups. The committee made three primary recommendations which were
submitted to Divisional Council:
o
The campus should fulfill its commitment to central funding of the Active
Service Modified Duties Benefit (ASMD).
o
Regularize ASMD and increase access to ASMD by offering more
education and communication.
o
Bring the campus childcare center under the auspices of the office of the
vice provost for academic affairs and faculty welfare. Campus childcare
policies should be institutionalized and developed with faculty
representation and oversight, and childcare services should be better
funded.
•
Benefits: The committee recommends that more information on retirement
policies and benefits be made available to faculty. For instance, the creation of a
dedicated website compiling links to a broad range of retirement policy-related
information is highly desirable.
H.
Committee on Rules and Elections
Professor Daniel Melia (Rhetoric), chair of the Committee on Rules and Elections (R&E)
and Division Secretary, announced the results of the 2006 Division election: 384 valid
ballots and eight invalid ballots were received.
Divisional Council:
James Kirchner (Earth & Planetary Science))
Stephen Mahin (Civil and Environmental Engineering)
Patricia Zambryski (Plant & Microbial Biology)
Committee on Committees:
Allen Goldstein (Environmental Science, Policy and Management)
Thomas Laqueur (History)
Donald Mastronarde (Classics)
Carlo Sequin (Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences)
Committee on Committees of the College of Letters and Science:
George Brooks (Integrative Biology)
Lucia Jacobs (Psychology)
The committee is looking into the possibility of instituting online voting.
I.
Committee on Teaching
Professor Oliver O’Reilly (Mechanical Engineering), chair of the Committee on Teaching
(COT), presented the 2006 teaching awards. The award ceremony had been held the
previous day in the Zellerbach Playhouse.
18
Educational Initiatives Award:
School of Public Health undergraduate program
Distinguished Teaching Award:
Ani Adhikari (Statistics)
Ananya Roy (City and Regional Planning)
David Wagner (Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences)
The pools for the awards were strong this year. Next year COT will contact every unit
for nominations. The committee is streamlining procedures to ease the process, in
particular for smaller departments. COT is also revising the applications for
instructional minigrants.
J.
Disaster Preparedness Work Group
Professor Robert Spear (Public Health) is chair of the Division’s Disaster Preparedness
Work Group (DPWG). The importance of redundant communication, data backups and
being part of a disaster response system are lessons learned in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina. The Chancellor has recommended to President Dynes the systemwide
coordination of mutual aid for the UC campuses, in which faculty should take an active
role.
Campus-level planning has been on-going regarding resumption of teaching and
administrative business at the unit level. A pilot program for research resumption has
been initiated in the School of Public Health. Chair Agogino added that a subcommittee
of Divisional Council is preparing additional recommendations for disaster
preparedness.
VII.
Petitions of Students (None)
VIII.
Unfinished Business (None)
IX.
University and Faculty Welfare (Discussion only)
A.
Faculty compensation at UC Berkeley (Handout B)
Discussants invited for the presentation on faculty compensation were Vice Provost for
Academic Affairs and Faculty Welfare Jan De Vries and three panelists: Janet Broughton
(professor of philosophy and former co-chair of the Faculty Compensation Task Force);
Richard Newton (dean, College of Engineering); and Angelica Stacy (associate vice
provost for faculty equity).
Vice Provost De Vries summarized changes in compensation practices over recent
decades, and described a discipline-specific compensation gap which exists between
Berkeley and comparable research institutions, particularly between associate and full
professors. Berkeley needs to strengthen its ability to reward meritorious performance
and demonstrate to the faculty that their economic interests will be addressed. As an
interim goal, the campus should take steps to improve Berkeley’s competitiveness. The
task force’s recommendations will enable the campus to have a more systematic
response to compensation issues.
Vice Provost De Vries presented an update on the task force’s recommendations.
•
Promotion increment: Comparable to the ‘salary bump’ offered by other
institutions at promotion to tenure, a new $6,000 promotion increment (see
Handout B) will be given upon promotion from assistant professor to associate
professor (and in certain cases, for promotion to full professor). Funding will
come from various places, including by restricting the total number of faculty.
19
•
•
•
Market increment: The task force recommended a more systematic and regular
review of market increments by discipline to maintain competitiveness.
Compensation package: A comprehensive review of the total compensation
package, including non-salary benefits, is being conducted by the Office of the
President.
Targeted Decoupling Initiative (TDI): Additional funding will be provided
through an extended TDI program to offset possible salary inversions in the full
professor rank created by the promotion increment. However salaries will not be
increased beyond the level of Professor Step VI.
The new policies will greatly improve Berkeley’s competitiveness and address faculty
retention issues. In open discussion period with the panelists, the following points were
raised.
•
Berkeley needs a systematic process which strengthens units, and which can be
implemented incrementally.
•
Creating equity across disciplines is not a realistic goal for Berkeley in the current
market. Berkeley’s first step is to address equity within disciplines.
•
Faculty compensation should be decided according to specific criteria rather than
ad hoc in reaction to outside offers, as the quality of the faculty body and the
student:faculty ratio could be negatively affected.
•
The campus is moving in a new direction with the invigorated capital campaign,
and toward increasing private endowments.
•
Berkeley must take action now even though the Regents’ systemwide review of
faculty compensation is not yet complete.
•
The Chancellor was commended for his support of the new policies, developed
through the process of shared governance.
X.
New Business (None)
The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
Daniel F. Melia
Secretary, Berkeley Division
Handout A:
Handout B:
Faculty Welfare annual report, April 27, 2006.
Promotion increment, UC Berkeley’s faculty compensation crisis; Jan De Vries, vice provost for
academic affairs and faculty welfare, April 27, 2006.
20
DRAFT
MINUTES OF MEETING2
BERKELEY DIVISION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE
NOVEMBER 14, 2006
The Fall meeting of the Berkeley Division met at 3:40 p.m. on Tuesday, November 14, 2006, in Sibley
Auditorium at the Bechtel Engineering Center, pursuant to call. Professor William Drummond, chair of
the Berkeley Division, presided. A quorum of 50 Senate members was not attained during the meeting.
I.
Minutes
The minutes of the April 27, 2006 spring meeting of the Division were not considered in the
absence of a quorum.
II.
Announcements by the President
President Robert C. Dynes was unable to attend.
III.
Other Announcements
A.
Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau
Chancellor Birgeneau remarked upon the excellence of Berkeley faculty, several of
whom were recognized by prestigious awards this year. Berkeley is successful in
attracting new faculty and graduate students, and produces a significant number of
doctorates each year. Berkeley continues to have an impact on the California economy.
•
Diversity: In spite of Proposition 209’s limitations, Berkeley has continued to
work toward increasing its numbers of underrepresented minority students.
•
Vice chancellor for equity and inclusion: The search to fill this new vice
chancellorial seat is underway.
•
Budget: The Chancellor provided an update on the administration’s response to
the Senate’s critical budget priorities identified by the Senate’s Committee on
Academic Planning and Resource Allocation (CAPRA).
o
Classroom facilities and technology: Additional funding is being directed
to upgrade classrooms. A recently approved infrastructure bond will
provide additional support.
o
Temporary Academic Staff (TAS): Additional funding is also being
identified for TAS, particularly for the humanities and social sciences.
o
Capital campaign: The capital campaign will seek private donations to
provide endowments for faculty and to advance several building projects
now being planned.
•
Infrastructure: A number of campus building renovations and new building
plans are in progress.
•
New initiatives: Diversity research and biomass energy conversion are among
the new academic initiatives this year.
•
Senior management: Scott Biddy has been appointed as vice chancellor for
university relations to replace Donald McQuade, who has returned to teaching.
Genaro Padilla, former vice chancellor for student affairs, has also resigned to
return to teaching. Harry Le Grande will serve as interim vice chancellor.
In response to audience questions about faculty benefits and compensation, the
Chancellor stated that a resumption of individual retirement contributions is inevitable,
but he doesn’t anticipate further erosion of health benefits. He added that sufficient
additional funding for faculty salaries is unlikely to come from the state, so faculty
salaries are being targeted in the capital campaign.
2
Recordings of Divisional Meetings are available in the Academic Senate Office, 320 Stephens Hall.
21
IV.
E.
Berkeley Division Chair William Drummond
Chair Drummond presented a brief overview of Divisional business.
•
Compensation: Office of the President is taking steps to increase transparency.
Senior management and staff compensation have been made available.
•
Grade distributions: Berkeley has agreed to post undergraduate course grade
distributions on the website of Pick-A-Prof, a for-profit company. But the
campus is also making the data available on its own website, along with
additional features that will benefit both students and instructors. (Courses of
fewer than 10 students will be excluded from the public posting).
•
Online bio-bibliography: The prototype for a web-based bio-bibliography is
under development and will be piloted in an early-adaptor department.
•
Public affairs: Chair Drummond and Division Vice Chair Sheldon Zedeck
participated in a self-study by the Public Affairs Office. It is hoped that the
Senate will benefit from greater visibility in the future.
F.
ASUC Academic Affairs Vice President Joyce Liou
Joyce Liou, ASUC vice president for academic affairs, asked for faculty support for
extracurricular activities that enhance the quality of student life. An added benefit
would be greater alumni loyalty.
G.
Graduate Assembly Academic Affairs Vice President Mariyam Cementwala
Mariyam Cementwala, Graduate Assembly’s vice president for academic affairs,
focused on three key issues of concern for graduate students:
1.
Lower Sproul redevelopment: The lower Sproul plaza has great potential as a
center for student services; the GA plans a survey of graduate student needs.
2.
Student families: Berkeley should be more family-friendly to graduate students
with children.
3.
Health care: The range of health care services and dependent health care should
be made more accessible and affordable for graduate students and their families.
Special Orders-Consent Calendar
For proposed legislative amendments, additions to the current text are noted by an underline; deletions
to the current text are noted by a strikethrough line
A.
Proposed Amendment to Berkeley Division Bylaw 24
In recent years, there has been a growing sense on the Committee on Research (COR)
that it should serve as a stronger voice on campus, similar to other divisional CORs, in
representing faculty more proactively with regard to the full spectrum of research issues
and concerns, and when appropriate, as determined by the Division, an oversight role.
The proposed bylaw amendment is intended to strengthen COR’s charge. The
Committee on Rules and Elections and Divisional Council approved the proposed
amendment.
24.
RESEARCH
A.
Membership
This Committee has a Chair, a Vice Chair, and at least fifteen members.
(Am. 4.29.04)
B.
•
•
•
•
Duties
This Committee makes recommendations to the Chancellor concerning
applications by members of the Division for research grants and for travel
expenses to attend meetings of learned societies;
Represents the Division in all matters relating to the review of Organized
Research Units; and
Advises the Chancellor in matters relating to research policy.
This Committee advises the Division in all matters pertaining to the
22
•
•
•
•
research mission of the Division and the University;
Confers with and advises the Chancellor and the Vice ChancellorResearch on faculty perspectives regarding research policy matters;
Maintains regular contact with other Committees of the Division on
matters relating to research policy and allocations, such as the
Committees on the Library, Computing and Communications, and
Academic Planning and Resource Allocation;
Establishes policies and procedures governing allocations to the
Committee, administers and allocates funds designated for research
according to established policy; determines recipients of faculty research
and travel grants, and;
Makes recommendations to the VC-Research based on review reports of
Organized Research Units.
ACTION: The Consent Calendar was approved as noticed.
V.
Reports of Special Committees (None)
VI.
Reports of Standing Committees
K.
Committee on Admissions, Enrollment, and Preparatory Education
Professor Bob Jacobsen, chair of the Committee on Admissions, Enrollment, and
Preparatory Education (AEPE), made note of the process of shared governance in the
admissions process. Due to the huge number of applications received, this year those
which score as clearly admittable or clearly not admittable will again be given a single
read. The middle range applications will receive a second read. All applications go
through an extensive series of post-read reviews. This optimizes efforts to identify those
applicants with the greatest potential for academic success and furthers the University’s
goal to provide access to all students on the basis of their context. Chair Jacobsen
encouraged interested faculty to become involved in selection of the Chancellor’s and
Regents’ scholars, through the Division’s Committee on Undergraduate Scholarships
and Honors.
Topics for the coming year include:
•
Fine-tuning the admissions process.
•
Consideration of admissions policies for domestic non-resident and international
students.
L.
Committee on Academic Planning and Resource Allocation
Professor Calvin Moore, chair of the Committee on Academic Planning and Resource
Allocation (CAPRA), emphasized the importance of careful budgetary planning as state
funding declines. It is necessary for the intercollegiate athletics department to eliminate
its deficit and become self-supporting, so that athletics activities do not compete with
academic programs.
VII.
Petitions of Students (None)
VIII.
Unfinished Business (None)
IX.
University and Faculty Welfare
A.
Undergraduate Outcomes Task Force report
The Undergraduate Outcomes Task Force, a joint Senate/administrative committee,
recently released a report on undergraduate education and the effectiveness of outcome
assessment at Berkeley. Task force member Caroline Kane (professor of molecular and
cell biology and chair of the Committee on Student Diversity and Academic
Development) and co-chair Christina Maslach (vice provost for undergraduate
23
education and acting dean of the College of Letters and Science) summarized key
points from the report on a panel moderated by Division Vice Chair Sheldon Zedeck.
Two guiding principles were identified: the units should define their parameters for
undergraduate learning outcomes locally, and greater academic support for assessment
is needed. Undergraduate learning outcome assessment will be added to academic
program reviews, beginning in pilot departments. The report recommended that the
campus work to improve access and sharing of its collected data and analyses. The
campus should also greatly expand the range of data that is collected, particularly for
post-baccalaureate activities, and the types of student achievements beyond what is
listed on the transcript. Educational assessment approaches are also changing nationally,
which may affect campus planning for the future.
X.
New Business
A.
Resolution of congratulations
Whereas the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded George Fitzgerald Smoot III
the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics,
And whereas this recognition for a member of the UC Berkeley faculty brings further
distinction to the campus,
Therefore, be it resolved that the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate expresses its
sincerest congratulation to a man who epitomizes the finest qualities of a Berkeley
faculty member.
Action was not taken on this item in the absence of quorum.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
Daniel F. Melia
Secretary, Berkeley Division
24
Draft
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
BERKELEY DIVISION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The Berkeley Division met on Thursday, April 19, 2007, in Booth Auditorium at Boalt Hall School of
Law, pursuant to call. Professor William Drummond, chair of the Berkeley Division, presided, calling
the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m.
I.
Minutes
The minutes of the April 27, 2006 and the November 14, 2006 Division meetings were to be
presented at the spring Division meeting immediately following this special meeting.
II.
Business
Comments by Berkeley Division Chair William Drummond
The special meeting was requested by 17 members of the Division who proposed two
resolutions concerning the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) proposal as the business of the
meeting. These resolutions were promptly posted online, but due to time constraints, no
amendments or substitute resolutions were included in the notice. Any amendments or
substitute resolutions raised from the floor could be considered during the meeting.
Chair Drummond reviewed parliamentary procedures according to Robert’s Rules of Order. An
amendment limiting the scope of the main motion would require a simple majority to act upon
it. An amendment outside the scope of the main motion could be considered by unanimous
consent, but any action would require a two-thirds majority. Amendments to resolved clauses
would be considered and disposed of before moving to the whereas clauses. The agenda was
approved without objection. Professor Anne Wagner (Art History) would speak on behalf of the
group.
Procedural motion presented by Chair William Drummond
Motion:
To limit debate for a Senate member speaking for the first resolution to five minutes, and a Senate
member speaking against the resolution (or proposing an amendment) to five minutes. To limit
debate for a Senate member speaking for the second resolution to five minutes, or a Senate
member speaking against the resolution (or proposing an amendment), to five minutes. To limit
subsequent speakers to three minutes each.
The motion was moved and seconded.
Vote: The motion was approved by voice vote.
Chair Drummond stated the question by reading the main motion aloud. Chair Drummond
recognized Professor Anne Wagner (Art History) to speak on behalf of the proponents of the
main motion for the purpose of moving the main motion, but not for debate.
25
Main motion presented by Professor Anne Wagner
The proponents of the main motion urge the University to exercise a greater degree of
transparency and deliberation to actively protect the University’s academic mission and the
public trust before entering into a major collaboration with BP, a for-profit corporation. Though
guidelines have been established to protect the University in such cases, the speed with which
the EBI proposal was developed raises many questions as to whether due consideration may
have been hastened in order to move this project forward. The resolutions presented here
reaffirm the critical importance of the Senate’s participation as an equal partner in shared
governance to protect Berkeley’s status and reputation as a great public university. The
University must protect its academic interests from corporate influence. These resolutions do
not threaten academic freedom, as those opposed have claimed.
Main Motion:
WHEREAS the public mission of the University of California, Berkeley, mandates the
highest standards of scholarly integrity and transparency, particularly in regard to its
relationships with for-profit sources of funding, and
WHEREAS the problems resulting from a previous contract with an outside corporation,
Novartis, led to an independent review by a team from Michigan State University, which
laid out specific “guidelines to govern future university/industry agreements,” 3 and
WHEREAS the Michigan State review explicitly recommends that the University “avoid
industry agreements that involve complete academic units or large groups of
researchers,” and “encourage broad debate early in the process of developing new
research agendas;” and furthermore warns that “There are indications that the
overstatement of academic freedom mixed with interests in commercialization is
simultaneously eroding the public trust in science and the genuine merits of scholarly
autonomy,” and
WHEREAS the proposed BP contract establishing the Energy Biosciences Institute raises
deep questions on all these grounds, be it therefore
RESOLVED that the Academic Senate urges the Chancellor that no contract with BP be
entered into until a comprehensive review of its terms is executed, with that review
taking full account of the recommendations of the Michigan State report, and that the
renegotiated contract be made available in full for consideration by all members of the
Senate.
*****
WHEREAS the proposed partnership between BP and the University of California,
Berkeley, raises a host of concerns, chief among them the integrity of the principle of
shared governance, and
WHEREAS decisions about appointments and the allocation of resources appear to have
gone forward without meaningful and effective Academic Senate review, be it therefore
RESOLVED that the Committee on Committees, in consultation with other relevant
Senate bodies, immediately convene an impartial (and appropriately supported) blue
ribbon Ad Hoc Committee, composed of senate members not previously involved in the
BP negotiations and free of any real or perceived conflict of interest, to review those
aspects of the partnership that impinge on the Senate's mandate, to advise the Chancellor
of their findings, to provide continued oversight of any subsequent contract between the
3
See Busch Team External Review of the Collaborative Research Agreement between Novartis Agricultural
Discovery Institute, Inc., and The Regents of the University of California
26
University and BP, and to develop a set of protocols to govern future contractual
agreements between the University and all for-profit funding sources.
Chair Drummond recognized Professor Randy Schekman (Molecular and Cell Biology) for the
purpose of speaking against the main motion but not for debate.
Presentation against the main motion by Professor Randy Schekman
Contrary to the claim that the intent of the main motion is to improve transparency in the EBI
process, these resolutions would create a ‘bureaucratic blockade’ to corporate and private
funding, severely impacting scholarly research at Berkeley. The language used by opponents to
the BP contract threatens the collegial relationship of faculty across disciplines. Professor
Schekman indicated he would present two amendments, a substitute for each of the resolutions
of the main motion, later in the meeting.
Presentation of the second resolution by Professor Wagner
Chair Drummond invited Professor Wagner to present the second resolution of the main
motion, which had already been read aloud; Professor Wagner had no additional comments.
Chair Drummond then recognized Professor Schekman for the purpose of presenting a motion
to amend, but not for debate.
Motion to amend the first resolution of the main motion presented by Professor
Randy Schekman (Handout A)
Motion:
Move that this substitute amendment (Resolution A) be approved to replace the first
resolution of the main motion:
Compromise Amendment to the resolutions1 before the Academic Senate,
which concern the Energy Biosciences Institute. April 19, 2007
WHEREAS the public mission of the University of California, Berkeley, mandates the highest
standards of scholarly integrity and transparency, particularly in regard to its relationships with
sources of private funding, and given the position of the Systemwide Academic Senate on this
issue, be it
RESOLVED, cognizant of the memorial passed and ratified by the Systemwide Academic Senate
in 20062, that the Academic Senate instruct the Chair of the Berkeley Division to advise the
Chancellor that grave issues of academic freedom would be raised if the campus were to deviate
from the principle that no unit of the University, whether by faculty vote or administrative
decision, has the authority to prevent a faculty member from accepting external research funding
based solely on the source of funds. Policies such as the faculty code of conduct are already in
place on our campus to uphold the highest standards and integrity of research. The Academic
Senate believes that any intervention on the basis of assumptions about the moral or political
standing of the donor is unwarranted.
1. Notice of a special meeting of the Academic Senate, April 19, 2007 with resolutions concerning
university agreements
(http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/meetings/documents/Div_SpecialMtg_0407.pdf)/.
2. Memorial passed by the Systemwide Academic Council on September 27, 2006 and
ratified by the Assembly on October 11, 2006.
(http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/assembly/oct2006/research%20funding.11.06.p
df)
27
“The Academic Council instructs the Chair of the Council to advise the President that
grave issues of academic freedom would be raised if the Regents were to deviate from the
principle that no unit of the University, whether by faculty vote or administrative decision, has
the authority to prevent a faculty member from accepting external research funding based solely
on the source of funds. Policies such as the faculty code of conduct are already in place on all
campuses to uphold the highest standards and integrity of research. The Academic Council
believes that the Regental intervention on the basis of assumptions about the moral or political
standing of the donor is unwarranted.”
The motion was seconded.
Discussion:
Chair Drummond recognized individuals for the purpose of general debate; highlights of the
discussion follow.
•
Academic freedom of the faculty must be upheld by approval of the substitute amendment.
Reference was made to a recent resolution passed by the systemwide Academic Senate
reaffirming the academic freedom of faculty. Senate committees will be involved in
oversight of the EBI contract process; the Senate must not be restricted in function.
•
It is the right of faculty to govern their interests in the University through the process of
shared governance. The Senate must also guard against division of the campus along
disciplinary lines.
•
The academic freedom of the faculty for individual inquiry, and the collective right of the
faculty to participate in shared governance are not separate issues and should be addressed
together to protect the University’s interests. Professor Schekman’s substitute motion does
not address what the speaker sees are primarily procedural issues pertaining to shared
governance.
•
The proponents of the main motion strongly uphold the need for open review, debate, and
Senate oversight. Their concern is with the terms of the BP agreement and in protecting the
University’s interests; they do not seek to prohibit the University from entering into
agreement with BP or any other corporate entity.
•
One member noted that the limited amount of information available on the EBI and limited
debates have contributed to a polarization of the faculty. It is still unclear whether the
University has agreed to the recommendations of the Michigan State report (on Novartis),
and whether those protocols are being followed in the EBI contract; the terms of this
agreement are of great concern.
Chair Drummond recognized Professor Charles Schwartz (Physics).
Procedural motion presented by Professor Charles Schwartz
Professor Charles Schwartz moved to table the first resolution of the main motion and the
proposed amendment (Resolution A) for this meeting, and to refer them to Senate leadership
for deeper consideration. This would allow the special meeting to focus on the second
resolutions of both the main motion and the proposed amendment (Resolution B), both of
which recommend Senate oversight of the EBI process.
Chair Drummond offered two options at this point: to vote on Professor Schwartz’s motion, or
to go into quasi-committee of the whole for more open discussion not bound by Robert’s Rules of
Order, then to reconvene. Professor Jack Citrin called the question on Professor Schwartz’s
28
motion. Chair Drummond then clarified that the amendment on the floor took precedence
over the newly proposed amendment by Professor Schwartz. Therefore this motion to table
would be limited to Professor Schekman’s proposed amendment of the first resolution of the
main motion. A two-thirds majority would be required to act.
Motion:
Move to table the proposed amendment (Resolution A) of Professor Schekman and refer it
to Senate leadership for further consideration.
The motion was seconded.
Vote: The motion to table the proposed amendment (Resolution A) was defeated.
All in favor: 94
All against:
157
Reintroduction of the motion to amend
Chair Drummond stated that the amendment (Resolution A) presented by Professor Schekman
was now on the floor for a vote.
Procedural motion presented by a Senate member
A Senate member made the motion that the meeting reorganize for open discussion in quasicommittee of the whole, to address both amendments (Resolutions A and B) together in their
entirety, to better address the concerns expressed. Chair Drummond reviewed the procedures
from Robert’s Rules of Order for meeting in quasi-committee of the whole. It was noted that the
second amendment (Resolution B) had not yet been presented.
Motion:
Move that the meeting reconvene as quasi-committee of the whole.
The motion was seconded.
Vote: The motion to convene in quasi-committee of the whole was defeated by a voice
vote.
Reintroduction of the motion to amend:
Chair Drummond stated that the motion to amend the first resolution of the main motion
(Resolution A) presented by Professor Schekman earlier was again the motion on the floor.
Vote: The motion was approved by voice vote.
Motion to amend the second resolution of the main motion presented by Professor
Randy Schekman
Professor Schekman presented a motion to amend the second resolution of the main motion
(Resolution B). Professor Schekman noted the care that had gone into developing this
resolution, which restates a proposal originally made by Chair Drummond.
Motion:
Move an amendment (Resolution B) to replace the second resolution of the main motion as
follows:
29
BE IT RESOLVED that the Academic Senate instruct the Chair of the Berkeley Division to
advise the Chancellor that an adequately supported committee3 composed of four members of the
Academic Senate, the chairs of the Budget Committee, the Committee on Research, the Committee
on Academic Planning and Resource Allocation, and the Committee on Academic Freedom, be
constituted to serve in an advisory capacity to the chancellor in the initiation and oversight of the
Energy Biosciences Institute and similar future endeavors.
3. Excerpt from the memo of W. Drummond, Chair, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate,
emailed on March 21, 2007. (http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/EBI_chron.pdf), itself derived
from the aforementioned resolutions.
“Following the announcement of February 1, the nature of consultations with the Senate
changed. Negotiations got underway to create a contract to operationalize the EBI. On March 20,
VCR Burnside advised me that the chairs of the Budget Committee, the Committee on Research,
the Committee on Academic Planning and Resource Allocation, and the Committee on Academic
Freedom had been invited to participate in the negotiation of the contract for the EBI agreement
with BP. She asked that DIVCO entrust these chairs to provide confidential input to the
negotiations. Once the contract was signed, they would be released from a pledge of
confidentiality.”
The motion was seconded.
Discussion:
Chair Drummond recognized individuals for purposes of debate only. The proposed
amendment (Resolution B) was revised to clarify that the Senate oversight committee would be
comprised of the four committee chairs only. A comma after “…four members of the Academic
Senate…” was deleted and parentheses added around the list of the four committee chairs, so
that the proposed amendment reads as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Academic Senate instruct the Chair of the Berkeley Division to
advise the Chancellor that an adequately supported committee3 composed of four members of the
Academic Senate (the chairs of the Budget Committee, the Committee on Research, the
Committee on Academic Planning and Resource Allocation, and the Committee on Academic
Freedom), be constituted to serve in an advisory capacity to the chancellor in the initiation and
oversight of the Energy Biosciences Institute and similar future endeavors.
Chair Drummond recognized a member of the audience to speak.
Amendment presented by a Senate member
A Senate member made a motion for an amendment to strengthen and clarify the intent of the
amendment on the floor by adding particular phrases from the main motion.
Motion:
Move that two phrases from the main motion be added to the proposed amendment (Resolution B,
as amended). (Inserted text is underlined below).
BE IT RESOLVED that the Academic Senate instruct the Chair of the Berkeley Division to
advise the Chancellor that an adequately supported committee3 composed of four members of the
Academic Senate (the chairs of the Budget Committee, the Committee on Research, the
Committee on Academic Planning and Resource Allocation, and the Committee on Academic
Freedom), be constituted to serve in an advisory capacity to the chancellor in the initiation and
oversight of the Energy Biosciences Institute and similar future endeavors, with that review
taking full account of the recommendations of the Michigan State report and to develop a set of
30
protocols to govern future contractual agreements between the University and all for-profit
funding sources.
The motion was seconded. A two-thirds majority would be required to act.
Vote: The motion to amend the proposed amendment (Resolution B, as amended) was
defeated.
All in favor: 82
All against:
186
Reintroduction of the proposed amendment to the second resolution of the main
motion, as amended:
Chair Drummond noted that the motion on the floor was again the proposed amendment
(Resolution B, as amended with parentheses) presented by Professor Schekman. A simple
majority would be required to act upon this motion.
Vote: The proposed amendment (Resolution B, as amended), was approved by voice
vote.
Chair Drummond summarized the action: the resolved clauses of the substitute amendments
presented by Professor Schekman had now been approved to replace the resolved clauses of the
main motion. The meeting moved on to consider the whereas clauses.
Chair Drummond recognized Professor John Taylor (Plant & Microbial Biology) to present a
motion to amend, but not for debate.
Motion to amend the first set of whereas clauses of the main motion presented by
Professor John Taylor
Professor Taylor moved to replace all whereas clauses in the first resolution of the main motion
with the following language.
Motion:
To replace all the whereas clauses in the first resolution of the main motion with the following
language:
WHEREAS the public mission of the University of California, Berkeley, mandates the highest
standards of scholarly integrity and transparency, particularly in regard to its relationships with
sources of private funding, and given the position of the Systemwide Academic Senate on this
issue,
The motion was seconded.
Vote: The motion was approved by voice vote.
Professor John Taylor was recognized for the purpose of presenting a second amendment, but
not for debate.
Motion to amend the second set of whereas clauses of the main motion presented by
Professor John Taylor
Professor John Taylor moved to replace all whereas clauses in the second resolution of the main
motion with the following language.
31
Motion:
To replace all the whereas clauses in the second resolution of the main motion with the following
language:
WHEREAS the proposed partnership between BP and the University of California, Berkeley
raises concerns about appointments and the allocation of resources,
The motion was seconded.
Vote: The motion was approved by voice vote.
Final motion presented by Chair Drummond
Chair Drummond noted that there were now two approved substitute amendments (Resolution
A and Resolution B, as amended), presented by Professor Schekman and Professor Taylor, on
the floor to replace the main motion.
Motion:
To replace the entire main motion with the two approved substitute amendments (Resolution A
and Resolution B, as amended):
WHEREAS the public mission of the University of California, Berkeley, mandates the highest
standards of scholarly integrity and transparency, particularly in regard to its relationships with
sources of private funding, and given the position of the Systemwide Academic Senate on this
issue,
BE IT RESOLVED, cognizant of the memorial passed and ratified by the Systemwide Academic
Senate in 20062, that the Academic Senate instruct the Chair of the Berkeley Division to advise
the Chancellor that grave issues of academic freedom would be raised if the campus were to
deviate from the principle that no unit of the University, whether by faculty vote or
administrative decision, has the authority to prevent a faculty member from accepting external
research funding based solely on the source of funds. Policies such as the faculty code of conduct
are already in place on our campus to uphold the highest standards and integrity of research. The
Academic Senate believes that any intervention on the basis of assumptions about the moral or
political standing of the donor is unwarranted.
*****
WHEREAS the proposed partnership between BP and the University of California, Berkeley
raises concerns about appointments and the allocation of resources,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Academic Senate instruct the Chair of the Berkeley Division to
advise the Chancellor that an adequately supported committee3 composed of four members of the
Academic Senate (the chairs of the Budget Committee, the Committee on Research, the
Committee on Academic Planning and Resource Allocation, and the Committee on Academic
Freedom) be constituted to serve in an advisory capacity to the chancellor in the initiation and
oversight of the Energy Biosciences Institute and similar future endeavors.
Vote: The two substitute amendments (as amended) were approved in place of the main
motion, by majority in a voice vote.
II.
Other matters authorized by unanimous consent
None
32
The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. without objection.
Daniel Melia
Secretary, Berkeley Division
Handout A:
Compromise amendment to the resolutions before the Academic Senate, which concern the
Energy Biosciences Institute. April 19, 2007.
33
Draft
MINUTES OF MEETING
BERKELEY DIVISION OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The spring meeting of the Berkeley Division was held on Thursday, April 19, 2007, in Booth
Auditorium at Boalt Hall, School of Law, pursuant to call. Professor William Drummond, chair of the
Berkeley Division, presided. Attendance was just below quorum so official business could not be
conducted. The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. with announcements.
I.
Minutes
No action was taken on the minutes of the April 27, 2006 and November 14, 2006 meetings of
the Division due to the lack of quorum. The minutes of the special meeting held on April 19,
2007, just prior to this meeting, would be prepared for distribution at the fall 2007 Division
meeting.
II.
Announcements by the President
President Robert C. Dynes was unable to attend.
III.
Other Announcements
C.
Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau
Chancellor Birgeneau was unable to attend; Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
George Breslauer (EVCP) attended on his behalf. The EVCP emphasized that the
administration works to support Berkeley’s excellence and, referring to the special
Division meeting on the Energy Biosciences Institute immediately preceding this
meeting, called for the campus community to move forward together.
The EVCP acknowledged that the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech has reinforced a sense
of responsibility in campus officials to maintain up to date disaster response procedures
and policies, in conjunction with the Academic Senate. There are on-going efforts
systemwide to improve student mental health services as well.
The EVCP responded to Chair Drummond’s request for an update on faculty
compensation. The EVCP served on a systemwide work group that found over 60
percent of UC faculty are off-scale. Steps are being taken to bring salary scales closer to
market rates in an equitable manner. In response to another query, the EVCP responded
that lowering tuition for children of faculty had not been part of the charge to the work
group and had not been considered.
H.
Berkeley Division Chair William Drummond
Chair Drummond thanked the committee chairs for their service this year. He also
commended the Senate staff for their efforts in organizing the Division meetings.
I.
ASUC Academic Affairs Vice President Joyce Liou
Joyce Liou, vice president for academic affairs of the Associated Students of the
University of California (ASUC), presented an update on ASUC’s priorities. ASUC
partnered with Pick-a-Prof.com in March to post course evaluations and faculty grade
histories online. The course evaluation is based on CalFacts, a service originally
developed by the ASUC in conjunction with the Committee on Educational Policy. The
students feel an online, public system will enhance their educational experience, and see
benefits to the faculty as well.
J.
Graduate Assembly Academic Affairs Vice President Mariyam Cementwala
34
Mariyam Cementwala, Graduate Assembly (GA) vice president for academic affairs,
highlighted three issues.
•
Graduate student life and mental health: The Virginia Tech event highlights the
crucial importance of student mental health services. The GA recommends
improving funding for the Tang Center to strengthen its services and expand
educational outreach. The recently approved registration fee increase directed
toward mental health services will help, but additional funding, more counselors
and better medical coverage are still needed.
•
Lower Sproul redevelopment: Though graduate students clearly desire a graduate
student center, the referendum to provide funding failed. The GA continues to
support funding for this project.
•
Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI): The GA recently passed a resolution on the EBI,
calling for graduate student participation in the research addressing our common
concerns about global climate change.
IV.
Special Orders-Consent Calendar
For proposed legislative amendments, additions to the current text are noted by an underline; deletions
to the current text are noted by a strikethrough line
A.
Proposed Amendment to Berkeley Division Bylaw 23
The Committee on Privilege and Tenure (P&T) proposes to increase its membership
from five to at least seven members. The increased membership would allow P&T to
appoint members to either a pre-hearing or a hearing panel when it considers grievance
cases. This division between pre-hearing and hearing panels is not required by P&T’s
governing bylaws, nor is it always necessary, but it is a prudent practice that affirms
P&T’s impartiality, especially in contentious cases.
In addition, P&T proposes the removal of the phrase “all matters affecting the privilege
or tenure of officers of instruction of the Division." This phrase appears to conflict with
Academic Senate Bylaws 334-337, which limit P&T’s jurisdiction to cases involving
"members of the Academic Senate," except in early termination cases. P&T proposes
new language that conforms to Academic Senate bylaws.
The Committee on Rules and Elections and Divisional Council approved the proposed
amendments.
23.
B.
PRIVILEGE AND TENURE
A.
Membership
This Committee has five at least seven members.
B.
Duties
This Committee takes cognizance of all matters affecting the privilege or
tenure of officers of instruction of the Division. matters in accordance
with Academic Senate Bylaws 334, 335, 336, and 337.
The principles and procedures governing its conduct are set forth in
Senate By-Laws 334, 335, 336, and 337. (AM 10.24.02)
Proposed Amendment to Berkeley Division Bylaw 35
The Committee on Educational Policy (CEP) proposes changes to more accurately
describe CEP’s duties within the Division. The Committee on Rules and Elections and
Divisional Council approved the proposed amendments.
35.
EDUCATIONAL POLICY
B.
Duties (Am. 4.29.04)
!
Considers and reports upon matters involving questions of educational
35
!
!
!
!
policy;
Initiates proposals involving questions of educational policy;
Represents Advises the Division in all matters relating to educational
policy, including significant changes in the allocation of campus
resources;
Makes recommendations to the Chancellor Divisional Council on the
establishment and disestablishment of curricula, colleges, schools,
departments, institutes, bureaus and the like (See Regulation 300.
American Cultures Breadth Requirement) (CC. 4.89); and
Participates in campus program review of academic departments and
units, paying special attention to matters involving undergraduate
education.
Action: The Consent Calendar was approved as noticed.
V.
Reports of Special Committees
None
VI.
Reports of Standing Committees
M.
Committee on Rules and Elections
Division Secretary Daniel Melia, chair of the Committee on Rules and Elections,
announced the results of the Division’s election; 370 valid and 8 invalid ballots were
received.
Senate members elected to the Divisional Council:
Steven Beissinger (Environmental Science, Policy, and Management)
Ralph Catalano (Public Health)
Lisa Pruitt (Mechanical Engineering)
Senate members elected to the Committee on Committees of the Berkeley Division:
Raymond Jeanloz (Earth & Planetary Science)
Aihwa Ong (Anthropology)
Loren Partridge (History of Art)
No nominations were submitted for the Committee on Committees of the College of
Letters and Science.
N.
Committee on Admissions, Enrollment, and Preparatory Education
Professor Robert Jacobsen, chair of the Committee on Admissions, Enrollment, and
Preparatory Education (AEPE), presented a report on the committee’s work in
undergraduate admissions, in collaboration with the Office of Undergraduate
Admissions. AEPE has responsibility for the application read policy, norming readers,
and more deeply reviews those applications on the borderline of admission or denial.
This year over 10,000 were admitted, with slightly increased numbers of economically
underprivileged students and underrepresented minorities. Faculty can assist in
encouraging these students to enroll by participating in outreach activities such as Cal
Day.
The committee plans to focus more attention on increasing international student
admissions, particularly at the freshman and transfer levels, and evaluating outcomes
and international student success.
O.
Committee on Academic Planning and Resource Allocation
Professor Calvin Moore, chair of the Committee on Academic Planning and Resource
Allocation (CAPRA), provided an update on CAPRA’s activities.
36
•
•
•
•
•
P.
Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI): CAPRA has been involved in the contract
discussions since August.
Intercollegiate athletics: CAPRA strongly recommended that the intercollegiate
athletics deficit be reduced to zero after 10 years, with an intermediate step of $45M within five years. The administration has agreed to work toward the latter;
CAPRA will follow up on its full recommendation.
Haas Executive Education Center: The committee has reviewed plans for the
business school’s proposed center.
Campus budget process: The committee developed recommendations for the
campus budget based upon discussions conducted with senior administrators
Student mental health: CAPRA supports implementation of the administration’s
Tier I plan to strengthen student mental health services, bringing those services
closer to national standards.
Committee on Faculty Research Lecture
Professor Judith Butler, a member of the Committee on Faculty Research Lecture (FRL),
presented the 2006/07 awardees on behalf of FRL Chair Robert Tjian, who could not
attend. Professor Jean Fréchet (Chemistry) and Professor Daniel Boyarin (Near Eastern
Studies/Rhetoric) are honored for significant contributions made in their respective
fields.
Professor Daniel Boyarin, Hermann P. and Sophia Taubmann Professor of Talmudic
Culture, has researched and published on a wide range of topics from Rabbinical studies
to, more recently, research in Greek and Christian writings. He is a passionate scholar
and researcher with an ‘intellectual restlessness’.
Professor Jean Fréchet, Henry Rapoport Chair of Organic Chemistry, is a pioneer in
organic chemistry and polymer science whose discoveries have had influential
applications in such areas as semiconductor microprocessor manufacture, fiber-optic
and photovoltaic systems, gene therapy and in the development of drugs and vaccines.
Q.
Committee on Faculty Awards
Professor Bob Buchanan, chair of the Committee on Faculty Awards (FA), announced
the committee’s selections for two awards.
Two Senate members have been selected for the Berkeley Faculty Service Award this
year: Professor Herma Hill Kay (Law) and Professor Carol Clover (Scandinavian
Studies/Film Studies). The awardees were recognized for their outstanding service to
the Division.
The Clark Kerr Award for contributions to higher education is to be presented to
Berkeley’s Professor Karl Pister (Civil and Environmental Engineering).
R.
Committee on Teaching
Professor Oliver O’Reilly (Mechanical Engineering), chair of the Committee on Teaching
(COT), announced the recipients of the Distinguished Teaching Award: Andrew Garrett,
Associate Professor (Linguistics); Steven Goldsmith, Associate Professor (English);
Eileen A. Lacey, Associate Professor (Integrative Biology) and Associate Curator,
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology; and Kathleen McCarthy, Associate Professor (Classics
and Comparative Literature). The Biology 1B Field Station in the Department of
Integrative Biology is the recipient of the Educational Initiatives Award. The awardees
will be honored at a ceremony on April 25 in Zellerbach Hall. Chair O’Reilly
commended all those who were involved in the nomination process for their efforts.
COT also supervised the award of 39 educational minigrants for teaching; information
about these minigrants is available through the Office of Educational Development.
37
VII.
Petitions of Students (None)
VIII.
Unfinished Business (None)
X.
University and Faculty Welfare (None)
X.
New Business (None)
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Daniel Melia
Secretary, Berkeley Division
38
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ACADEMIC SENATE
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO
John B. Oakley
Distinguished Professor of Law, U.C. Davis
Telephone: (510) 987-9303
Fax: (510) 763-0309
Email: John.Oakley@ucop.edu
SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ
Chair of the Assembly and the Academic Council
Faculty Representative to the Board of Regents
University of California
1111 Franklin Street, 12th Floor
Oakland, California 94607-5200
August 10, 2007
ROBERT C. DYNES
PRESIDENT
Re:
Academic Council Statement on the University of California Retirement Plan (UCRP)
Dear Bob,
I am pleased to present you with the enclosed Academic Council Statement on UCRP that the
Council adopted unanimously on July 25, 2007. Based on a draft conceived and authored by the
University Committee on Faculty Welfare (UCFW) and the Task Force on Investment and Retirement
(TFIR), the statement provides information to concerned members of the University community about
the management and investment performance of UCRP.
On behalf of the Academic Council, I respectfully request your assistance in distributing the
Academic Council Statement on UCRP to University administrators and officials, the campuses,
University employees, members of the general University community, and such other interested
parties as you may deem suitable recipients.
Sincerely,
John B. Oakley, Chair
Academic Council
Copy:
Academic Council
María Bertero-Barceló, Executive Director
Enclosure:
1
JO/MAR
ACADEMIC COUNCIL STATEMENT ON UCRP
July 25, 2007
There has been considerable criticism in the press, and by employee groups, of
the management of University of California Retirement Plan (UCRP) assets. The criticism
is unfounded. UCRP is well managed by The Regents, who set investment policy but do
not choose individual investments, and the Office of the Treasurer, which chooses
individual investments following the policy set by The Regents. Consistent with the
Academic Senate’s role in the shared governance of the University, faculty on two
Senate committees—the University Committee on Faculty Welfare (UCFW) and its Task
Force on Investments and Retirement (TFIR)—carefully monitor UCRP investment policy
and returns. The Senate also nominates two faculty to serve on the University of
California Retirement System (UCRS) Advisory Board.
It is truly extraordinary that we have been able to maintain a fully funded plan
without contributions for the last sixteen years; this attests to the overall soundness of
UCRP’s management. Contributions will eventually be needed to UCRP—not because
of poor management, but because UCRP’s liabilities increase each year as UC
employees earn additional service credit. Each additional year of service credit
earned by an employee increases the pension benefits that UCRP will be required to
pay. The large surplus that was built up as a result of the strong performance of the
stock market in the period 1982-2000 has slowly been eroded by the annual growth of
liabilities, which were not offset by annual contributions.
Understandably, faculty and other UC employee groups are concerned about
the proposed restart of contributions—especially because UC salaries significantly lag
the market—and about the safety of their pensions. These concerns, amplified by
allegations reported in the press and elsewhere that poor management and conflicts
of interest have produced investment returns that are too low, have created
considerable anxiety among UC employees. They have also created the impression
that the restart of contributions to UCRP is necessary because of this alleged poor
performance. The Academic Senate is convinced that these concerns are unfounded.
Concerns about UCRP have also led to demands for changes in the governance
structure, to some form of joint governance. The Academic Senate believes that some
change in the role of the UCRS Advisory Board would be advisable, but that ultimate
authority over UCRP investment and policy decisions should be left with The Regents.
The purpose of this document is to provide a statement of current Academic
Senate policies concerning UCRP, and to provide information to the UC community
1
about UCRP and the Senate’s role in its management and oversight. The document is
based on an independent analysis by TFIR. It explains the current governance structure
of UCRP, how UCRP liabilities are calculated, and why it is important to maintain UCRP
at fully funded status. It also explains the changes in UCRP investment policy made in
2002 and why those changes enhanced the long-run security of UC employee
pensions. The document also gives a brief account of what determines investment
returns and how investment performance should be measured, and then compares
UCRP investment returns with those of CalPERS and CalSTRS, the main pension plans for
state employees and teachers, over the last ten years. The document also states
current Academic Senate policies with respect to UCRP and the restart of contributions.
Finally, it concludes with a recommendation for change in the UCRS Advisory Board.
1. How UCRP’s Funding Ratio Is Calculated:
The funded status of a defined benefit pension plan like UCRP is computed in the
following way. The first step is to compute the actuarial accrued liability (AAL) of the
plan. This is the present discounted value of the pension benefits that will be paid in the
future, based on the service credit earned to date. As an example, consider a 50-yearold employee with 20 years of service credit who plans to retire ten years from now, at
age 60, when this individual’s service credit will have grown to 30 years. At retirement,
this individual will be entitled to a pension of 75% (30 years of service credit times an
age factor of 2.5%) of their highest average plan compensation (HAPC), the highest
average covered compensation earned over a period of thirty-six consecutive months.
The computation of AAL as of today takes into account the twenty years of service
credit that have already been earned, and thus calculates an accrued pension benefit
equal to 50% (20 years of service credit times 2.5%) of an estimate of this individual’s
eventual HAPC. (Future salary growth is assumed and factored into the calculation, as
is the increase in the age factor that occurs from age 50 to age 60, but service credits
from future years of employment are not included in current liability.) This stream of
pension payments is discounted back to its present value today at the actuarial
assumed rate of return (7.5% per annum) on the UCRP assets. The second step is to
compute the Market Value of Assets (MVA). The funding ratio is simply MVA divided by
AAL. 1
A 100% funding ratio means that, if the plan’s actuarial assumptions about
investment returns, salary increases, mortality, and so on, actually happened and no
further service credit was earned, the current assets would be exactly sufficient to pay
The UCRP actuary also computes the so-called Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA), which smooths
out volatility in market returns by spreading out each year’s market performance over 5 years.
For simplicity in this discussion, we will focus on MVA.
1
2
off all the pension benefits earned to date. However, nothing would be left to pay off
the pension benefits that will be earned in the future, i.e., in the example above, the
benefits arising from the additional ten years of service credit. Thus, with a 100% funding
ratio, contributions are required each year to cover the normal cost of the plan, which
is essentially the increment to AAL resulting from the service credit earned in the year.
Virtually all defined benefit pension plans require contributions each year to cover the
additional service credit earned.
The assumption of a 7.5% rate of return is a reasonable, and slightly conservative,
estimate of the expected long-run investment return on the portfolio, given an
acceptable level of volatility for a pension portfolio. In practice, investment returns will
vary tremendously from year to year; over the past ten fiscal years, returns have ranged
from +21.82% in 1997-98, as the stock market bubble inflated, to -9.20% in 2001-02, as the
bubble deflated. Even over long periods, the investment return could be significantly
above or below the assumed rate. A shortfall in investment returns would be very
painful, requiring large contributions to fund the benefits owed to present and future
retirees. Thus, it is appropriate to make the assumption slightly conservative, since this
reduces the chances of a painful shortfall.
For simplicity, the above discussion is based on the payment of a certain stream
of UCRP benefits to retirees. In reality, the stream of pension benefits actually paid to a
retiree depends on the number of years that employee spends in retirement, i.e., how
long he/she lives; assumptions must also be made concerning payments to survivors. In
calculating the AAL, an average present discounted value is used for the expected
payments, based on weighting various potential streams of payments by associated
probabilities of particular retirement dates, mortality, etc. The averages are based on
actual experience with UC’s population of retirees. Periodically, The Regents
commission the UCRP actuary, The Segal Company, to conduct experience studies and
recommend appropriate changes in assumptions about mortality and other
parameters. The most recent experience study was presented to The Regents in May
2007.
2. Why UCRP’s Funding Ratio Should Not Be Allowed to Fall Below 100%:
The AAL is the present value of UC’s legal liability to pay future pension benefits;
these pension benefits must be paid. Therefore, if the funding ratio falls below 100%,
then the excess liability has to be offset by even larger contributions. Assuming that
UCRP investments earn the actuarially assumed 7.5% rate of return, 16% of UC’s payroll
must be paid into the plan each year to cover the additional pension obligations
incurred in that year. This is called the “normal cost” of maintaining UCRP at a fully
funded status. What happens if a plan is allowed to fall below fully funded status is
illustrated by CalPERS. If it were fully funded, its normal cost would be about the same
3
as that of UCRP—16%. However, its funding was allowed to fall below 100% so at
present, 20.9% of payroll is being contributed, a burden which is shared by employers
and employees. Deferring contributions to a pension plan substantially increases the
total amount that must be contributed, due to the foregone returns that would have
been earned on the deferred contributions.
Beyond the risk that employer and employees will, in the future, have to
contribute more than 16% of payroll to UCRP, allowing funding levels to fall below 100%
also threatens the future well-being of retirees. Basic UCRP pension benefits and partial
COLAs (cost of living increases) are legally guaranteed by the University and would
have to be paid regardless of the funding status. However, the legally required COLAs
are not sufficient to keep up with a rate of inflation above 2%. As a result, The Regents
have also authorized occasional ad hoc COLAs to retirees. These ad hoc COLAs are
valuable to all retirees, and are critically important for retirees who live into their eighties
and nineties, who historically have depended on the ad hoc COLAs to prevent
substantial erosion of the purchasing power of their pensions. If UCRP funding falls
below 100%, these ad hoc COLAs may well be at risk.
3. Plans for Restarting Contributions:
As of June 30, 2006, the funding ratio of UCRP was approximately 107.5%.
Assuming that investment returns would just equal the assumed 7.5% rate, the funding
ratio would have dropped below 100% in the 2008-09 fiscal year. As a result, The
Regents voted to restart contributions at a low level, effective July 1, 2007, intending
that they be slowly raised over several years to an 11% employer contribution and a 5%
employee contribution, which would be sufficient to sustain UCRP in the long run. This
split between employer and employee contributions mirrors the split that CalPERS would
have if it were 100% funded. Universities which compete with UC for faculty typically
make an employer contribution of about 10% of salary to a defined contribution
pension plan; this gives the faculty member the choice between contributing
approximately 6% of salary and having roughly the same expected pension benefit
provided by UCRP, or contributing less and having a lower expected pension benefit.
Because the Governor and Legislature declined to provide funding for the restart of
employer contributions at this time, however, the restart of employee contributions to
UCRP has also been postponed.
The markets did very well in 2006-07, and we anticipate that the funding ratio of
UCRP, as of June 30, 2007, will be approximately 115%. This is very fortunate, but it is
unreasonable to expect the market to continue to provide this kind of performance
year after year. The one-time windfall in 2006-07 provides us with some breathing room,
and contributions can probably be postponed for another two or three years.
However, unless we achieve truly extraordinary investment returns going forward,
4
contributions will eventually need to be restarted. The only question is when. The
Academic Senate strongly supports restarting employer and employee contributions
when needed to maintain UCRP’s funding ratio above 100%.
4. Effect of Employee Contributions on Total Remuneration:
The restart of employee contributions will mean a substantial reduction in total
employee remuneration at a time when UC faculty and staff salaries are already
seriously uncompetitive. The Academic Senate’s position is that the restart of employee
contributions must not reduce UC’s competitiveness in total remuneration. Hence, the
Academic Senate’s position is that the restart of contributions must be accompanied
by substantial salary increases, both to compensate for the restart of contributions and
to move cash compensation quickly toward competitive levels.
5. UCRP Investment Policy and Returns:
UCRP assets have been well managed over the years. The annual return over
the ten-year period ending June 30, 2006, was 9.04%, a period that included the
deflation of the stock market bubble in 2000-2002. This is 1.54% above the rate of return
assumed in the actuarial calculation of the funding ratio. In the 2006-07 fiscal year
through May 31, the return was 19.70%.
There have been allegations in the press and by employee organizations that we
should have done better. The arguments advanced for this position have included the
following:
! CalPERS and CalSTRS have had higher investment returns than UCRP in
some recent years, and consequently UCRP must be doing something
wrong.
! The Regents forced the resignation of former Treasurer Patricia Small in
2000 and “outsourced” the management of the funds; had Ms. Small
continued as Treasurer, we would have had higher returns.
! UCRP’s investment returns have been reduced as a result of serious
conflicts of interest.
None of these arguments has merit.
The primary determinant of investment return and investment risk in a portfolio is
the allocation of investment dollars among the various classes of assets: domestic
stocks, foreign stocks, bonds, private equity, real estate, absolute return, and so on. The
asset allocation is set by The Regents, based on advice from the Treasurer and an
outside consultant. The outside consultant, Richards & Tierney, advises on the asset
5
allocation but plays no role in choosing individual investments and receives no
commissions or fees in relation to the holding or trade of individual investments. Those
who do receive fees for managing assets receive a flat fee, plus, in some cases,
incentive payments based on the returns they achieve. This structure is consistent with
the practices of other well-managed public pension funds, and notably avoids conflicts
of interest that could arise if the consultant received fees for trading. 2
The investment risk of the portfolio is determined in part by the risk of the
individual asset classes and the amounts allocated to them. It is also determined, to a
substantial extent, by the correlations between asset classes (the extent to which they
rise and fall together). For example, although foreign stocks are somewhat more
volatile than domestic stocks, the inclusion of foreign stocks in the portfolio provides
diversification. This diversification can reduce the overall volatility of the portfolio
because the factors affecting the value of foreign stocks are, to some extent, different
from those affecting the value of domestic stocks.
The outside consultant and The Regents choose the asset allocation that, in their
judgment, maximizes expected return, subject to the level of volatility they are willing to
tolerate. If they were willing to tolerate higher volatility, they could obtain the possibility
of higher returns, but at the cost of a higher probability of investment losses. Since the
UCRP portfolio is a pension fund, The Regents have appropriately chosen an asset
allocation with lower volatility than the asset allocation used in the UC General
Endowment Pool.
Asset returns are volatile and unpredictable. In any given year, the actual return
on an asset class consists of the predictable expected return on that asset class plus a
random return outcome which cannot be predicted in advance. It is important to note
that, for most asset classes, the random, unpredictable component is larger than the
predictable expected return. Thus, two portfolios with prudent but different asset
allocations are likely, in any given year, to produce very different returns; the portfolios
could have identical expected returns and overall volatility, with the difference in one
year’s results attributable to the unpredictable portion of returns. Simply comparing
realized returns does not provide a sound basis for judging the quality of investment
managers.
The asset allocation of UCRP is different from that of CalPERS. Because the asset
classes that are heavily weighted in the CalPERS portfolio have done well in a few
recent years, the overall return on the CalPERS portfolio in those years has been higher
than that of UCRP. In other years, however, that same asset allocation would not have
The Regents, the Office of the Treasurer, and consultants act in accordance with State and
University policies governing conflict of interest and ethical conduct.
2
6
fared as well. Over the ten-year period ending June 30, 2006, CalPERS reports its annual
return was 9%, which just matches UCRP’s performance.
The main difference between UCRP and CalPERS is that CalPERS is less than 100%
funded and currently requires a combined employer/employee contribution of 20.9%
of salary; UCRP is slightly over 100% funded, despite having had no contributions for 16
years.
It is very important that the asset allocation of a portfolio remain stable over time,
with adjustments made infrequently and based on careful analysis. Research has
shown that frequent reallocation of assets within a portfolio, or “market timing”—a
strategy in which the investor tries to guess which asset class will do best in a given
month or year—has a poor track record compared to a strategy of maintaining a
stable asset allocation over extended periods of time. It is certainly correct that
investing more funds in the asset classes that performed relatively well in recent years
would have led to higher returns for UCRP. But this outcome was not predictable and
cannot be expected to occur in the future. Those who criticize the investment
performance by comparing UCRP to CalPERS or other pension funds over a period of
just a few years are implicitly asking that we adopt market timing as our investment
strategy; that would be a very bad idea.
In addition to asset allocation, diversification within each of the asset classes is
very important to reduce risk without a resulting reduction in expected return. The
current Chief Investment Officer and Acting Treasurer, Marie Berggren, and her
predecessor, David Russ, have established a disciplined and effective policy of
diversification. A large part of the equity portfolio is invested in index funds, which will
track very closely the average performance of the asset class because of their
diversification, and which involve very low expenses. By essentially buying “the
market”, the riskiness of holding large shares of the portfolio in individual stocks is
avoided. Part of the equity portfolio is actively managed by outside managers. Each
outside manager controls only a small portion of the portfolio, so the actively managed
portfolio is much better diversified than it would be if it were managed by a single
manager, whether internal or external. Russ and Berggren have carefully measured the
performance of the external managers and the internal staff who monitor them, and
have replaced managers when warranted by a shortfall in their investments’ return
compared to the appropriate benchmark.
The best way to judge the quality of management is to compare the return of
each asset class within the portfolio to an appropriate benchmark for that class, usually
a broad index of all the assets within the class. For example, the benchmark for
domestic equity is the Russell 3000 index, which represents approximately 98% of the
market value of U.S. publicly traded securities. Every three months, The Treasurer
7
publishes a detailed breakdown of the return of each asset class, in comparison to the
return on the benchmark for that class. If the return on domestic equity matches its
benchmark in a given quarter, it means that the return on domestic equity just equaled
that of the Russell 3000 for that quarter. The overall benchmark for the UCRP portfolio is
an average of the benchmarks for the individual asset classes, weighted by UCRP’s
asset allocation. The current investment policy was put into effect in November, 2002,
so only the last four full fiscal years 2003-04 through 2006-07 reflect the current policies
established by The Regents, Russ, and Berggren. In each of those years 3 , investment
returns in each asset class closely track the benchmark for the class, and the overall
return is slightly above the overall benchmark.
Prior to 2002-03, the equity portion of the UCRP portfolio was managed internally.
The treasurers in this period did not practice the type of risk management that is
expected in a pension portfolio of this size. The portfolio was concentrated in a
relatively small number of large-capitalization stocks that the internal managers hoped
would outperform the market. As a consequence, the portfolio was poorly diversified.
This increased the volatility of the portfolio without producing a compensating increase
in the expected rate of return. Investment returns varied substantially from the
benchmarks, being well above the benchmarks in some years and well below in others.
Investment returns were on average near the benchmark in this period; we attribute this
fact to a combination of low investment expenses and good luck, rather than to any
inherent advantages of the strategy that was followed.
We have seen other instances in which California public portfolio managers
obtained attractive results for a period of time, but then suffered substantial losses
because they had not put adequate risk management measures in place, and we
were very concerned by the potential for a substantial loss. We were greatly relieved
when The Regents, and Treasurers Russ and Berggren, put in place appropriate risk
management measures to safeguard the UCRP portfolio. We are convinced that UC
and its employees and retirees have been, and continue to be, well served by those
changes.
Much has been made of the fact that in the 2005-06 fiscal year, UCRP paid $32
million in fees to outside managers. This amounts to about 0.075% of the UCRP assets.
The total expenses, including internal costs and fees to outside managers, amount to 17
basis points: 17/100ths of 1 percent. As a comparison, CREF, which offers retirement
plans for many competing universities, has expense ratios at least twice as high for all
their funds, including their index funds. UCRP uses a mix of active and passive
management of its funds allocated to domestic, publicly-traded, securities. The jury is
3
Results for 2006-07 are through May 31, 2007.
8
still out on whether the returns produced by these active managers justify the additional
fees for active management, but these fees are very modest in proportion to the size of
the portfolio.
The specific allegations of conflict of interest seem either far-fetched or
inconsequential. More important, we see no evidence whatsoever that the alleged
conflicts of interest have had any adverse impact on UCRP investment returns.
6. UCRP Governance:
Currently, The Regents have the responsibility for managing UCRP. They have
the fiduciary responsibility to see that the promised benefits are paid. They set
investment policy, but delegate the implementation of that policy to the Treasurer’s
Office.
Some employee groups have called for joint governance of UCRP. While the
exact definition of joint governance is unclear, they appear to want The Regents to
delegate all or a substantial part of the fiduciary responsibility for UCRP to a new board,
which would be equally divided between appointees of UC’s management and
representatives elected by employees.
Much of the impetus for the call for joint governance appears to arise from the
erroneous perception that UCRP investment performance has been substandard, and
that is the reason we will need eventually to restart contributions. The need to restart
contributions was not caused by the current UCRP governance structure, and it cannot
be avoided by changing that structure.
Depending on how it is implemented, joint governance might carry some
significant dangers:
!
It is unclear whether faculty and staff would run in separate
elections, or faculty and staff would compete in an at-large election;
since staff vastly outnumber faculty, an at-large election might result in
the election of no faculty to the new board. Currently, the Academic
Senate has substantial input into UCRP policies, so joint governance could
decrease, rather than increase, the influence of faculty. The Senate
policy remains that faculty have a special role to play, given the Senate’s
shared governance of the University established under the Standing
Orders of The Regents and the California Constitution.
!
A number of those calling for joint governance have
expressed the view that it would be better to defer restarting contributions
until the funding ratio of UCRP declines to 80-85%. For the reasons
9
explained above, this would not be in the interests of UC, its employees, or
retirees.
!
A number of those calling for joint governance have argued
that we should return to the investment policies practiced prior to 2002.
For the reasons explained above, this would not be in the interests of UC,
its employees, or retirees.
UCRP currently has a very weak form of joint governance structure, the UC
Retirement System Advisory Board (UCRS Board). This board is composed of five
representatives of UC management, two faculty chosen by the Academic Senate, and
two representatives elected by staff. At one time, the UCRS Board had considerable
influence over UCRP policies and practices. However, for the last several years, the
Board’s actions have been severely limited by the Office of the General Counsel, over
concerns that its operation might violate the “direct dealing” provisions of the California
Higher Education Employee Relations Act (HEERA), the labor law governing UC, its
employees, and unions. These provisions prevent UC from “dealing directly” with
employees, rather than the unions that represent them, over the terms and conditions
of employment. According to court precedents, the direct dealing provisions prevent
the UCRS Board from making recommendations to The Regents. The Senate believes
that the University should respond to the calls for joint governance by asking the
Legislature to amend HEERA to exempt the UCRS Board from the HEERA “direct
dealing” provisions, to restore the ability of the UCRS Board to function effectively in
providing employee input into the management of UCRP. If HEERA is amended, The
Regents should establish procedures to ensure that the UCRS Board’s recommendations
must be considered by The Regents before The Regents enact any changes in UCRP.
However, in the Senate’s view, the ultimate authority over UCRP should be retained by
The Regents.
10