Legislative Assembly Minutes of February 11, 2003
I.
Minutes of November 11, 2002
The minutes of the November 11, 2002 Legislative Assembly were approved as submitted.
II.
Announcements and Opening Statements
Senate Chair Duncan Lindsey
With a quorum present at 2:10 pm, Chair Lindsey opened the meeting.
Chair Lindsey encouraged LgA members to engage in departmental discussions about their views on a
possible move to semesters. He noted that the process is important because, if a change occurs, the first
thing objectors will object to is the process. Complete deliberation on the issue will avoid much of that
criticism as well as providing a more thorough look at faculty opinions. In May, a referendum on the
calendar issue will coincide with the Vice Chair election.
Chair Lindsey introduced Chancellor Albert Carnesale.
III.
Other Announcements
 Chancellor Albert Carnesale
 Update on Information Technology Planning Board (ITPB)
Vice Chancellor Jim Davis, Chris Foote, Chair ITPB
Chancellor Albert Carnesale
Chancellor Carnesale showed a PowerPoint presentation addressing the budget issues impacting the
UCLA community. The presentation included California’s fiscal issues and the Governor’s budget
proposal. The proposal called for substantial reductions in spending for education, health and welfare as
well as local government. The impact on UC includes funding reductions of $74 million this year and
$373 million next year. In FY03, UCLA will experience a $7.6 million impact spread among research,
outreach, student services and institutional/academic support. Issues impacting students include fee
increases, services reductions, reduced outreach and enrollment growth. Although the governor’s plan
provides no new funding for faculty merit increases, the Chancellor is committed to finding sources to
fund scheduled increases.
Questions and Comments
Please comment on the financial impact of the possible change to the semester calendar.
Chancellor Carnesale responds: I don’t think that the financial impact should be a part of the decision.
The financial impact is minimal enough that we can afford to weigh the decision based on what is best
for student learning.
Would you make a decision to change the academic calendar if it’s not supported by the faculty?
Chancellor Carnesale responds: I will not make a decision based on strict numbers, for example, if the
faculty vote 51-49 against changing, etc. I will give serious consideration to the input of the faculty, but
I will not make a decision that amounts to just counting votes.
The latest faculty newsletter claimed that cost of living increases have been much larger for
administration that for faculty, please comment.
Chancellor Carnesale responds: Those numbers are likely to be reflecting increases given to a very small
percentage of administrators, specifically high level medical administrators because competition for
competent medical administrators is fierce. The cost of losing them is greater than the cost of paying
them higher salaries.
Update on Information Technology; Vice Chancellor Jim Davis, Chris Foote, Chair
Information Technology Planning Board
Professor Foote outlined the progress and goals of the Information Technology Planning Board (ITPB).
Areas addressed were the IT building blocks for success, the future of information technology resources
here at UCLA and the plan for achieving and maintaining the goals of the future in the areas of;
Integrating students into an IT-Enhanced environment, Data Management and Analysis, Digital Media
and Computation-Based Research, External access to UCLA, Productivity and UCLA’s IT resources for
interacting with external communities.
Questions and Comments
There were no questions or comments from Assembly members.
IV.
Special Orders – Consent Calendar
The Consent Calendar was approved without objection.
V.
Standing Committee Reports
 Undergraduate Council Revision to Bylaw 65.1; Raymond Knapp, Undergraduate
Council Chair
 Committee on Rules & Jurisdiction proposal to move Bylaw 60.C.1 and 2
incompatibility; Stephen Cederbaum for Cheryl Harris, Rules & Jurisdiction Chair
 Executive Board discussion on teaching evaluations; Stephen Cederbaum, At-Large
Executive Board Member
Undergraduate Council Revision to Bylaw 65.1; Raymond Knapp, Undergraduate Council
Chair
Professor Knapp introduced the bylaw change as adding one word to an existing bylaw so that it will
articulate with the other bylaws. The change refers to Undergraduate Council approvals of designations
of degrees, such as Bachelor of Music.
Questions and Comments
There were no questions or comments from Assembly members.
The Assembly voted and approved the bylaw revision.
Committee on Rules & Jurisdiction proposal to change Bylaw 60.C.1 and 2 incompatibility;
Stephen Cederbaum for Cheryl Harris, Rules & Jurisdiction Chair
This bylaw change refers to a conflict of interest clause. In the past, there has been concern over the
possibility of senate members moving from senate leadership positions directly into deanships, potentially
weakening the independent voice of the senate. The bylaw change has two pieces. First, a technical
request proposed by Rules & Jurisdiction, changing one item in the bylaws to a different section, to make
it more logical. The second is more substantive, requesting that the approval body for exceptions be
changed from the Executive Board to the Legislative Assembly. This provision exists implicitly in the
current wording, but the committee seeks to make it explicit.
Questions and Comments
If the ability to grant exceptions goes to the Legislative Assembly, then there may be cases where an
offer is on the table, and the next Legislative Assembly meeting is months away. This could be a
problem for positions offered to the best qualified individuals who want to accept an offer, but must wait
until the next LgA meeting for permission.
Professor Cederbaum responds: The intent of the change is to vest authority in the LgA but there are
always provisions for emergencies. In order for the conflict of interest provision to have weight, it must
be explicit that deviations from the LgA approval format are exceptions and identified as exceptions.
After some discussion, the Assembly voted and approved the bylaw revision.
Executive Board discussion on teaching evaluations; Stephen Cederbaum, At-Large
Executive Board Member
Professor Cederbaum introduced the issue of “Professor.com” now called “BruinWalk.com” and the Office
of Instructional Development (OID) position on the debate. The OID argues that making teaching
evaluation data available online would reduce the market for BruinWalk.com’s professor reviews.
Professor Cederbaum showed arguments both in favor of and against making numerical scores available,
in addition to providing data about practices at peer institutions.
Questions and Comments (Sampling)
 BruinWalk people have been helpful in trying to resolve the controversy. First, they blocked
google search and tightened the posting restrictions since the first quarter, now students may
only post once per course. We are looking at ways to confirm that posting students actually
were enrolled in a course. We are also looking at the possibility of adding a web-based system,
but there are problems with this system as well.
 Student evaluations are inherently flawed in general. Putting those flawed evaluations in a public
forum is a problem because it shifts the focus of instructor evaluation in the wrong direction.
 There’s a body of research addressing teaching evaluation. What they find is that when a person
is the focus, evaluations vary with respect to gender and race.
 Many of the evaluations shift the focus away from learning objectives, toward more of a
popularity contest.
 We should protect untenured faculty who haven’t honed their teaching skills yet.
 Perhaps the decision to release this data could be made by each department, or each individual
faculty member.
 Student evaluations were never designed for students to use as a way to choose their courses.
 If evaluations are voluntarily released, there may be a problem for departments or individuals
that choose not to disclose.
 Perhaps Professor.com was created in response to our not being more forthcoming
 Historically, the evaluations were in fact created to be available to students. They were even
available in a book that students could purchase, but that they should only be available on a
volunteer basis.
 In many cases where teacher evaluations are published, the evaluation process can really get
watered down. For example, in another university that publishes teacher evaluations, respected
professors actually would do things like bring pizza and candy on evaluation day, practically
soliciting good evaluations, instead of encouraging meaningful feedback from students.
 We should contact peers at other institutions that publish their evaluations and ask what impact
they think that public evaluations have on teaching, grade inflation, etc.
VI.
Chair Lindsey adjourned the meeting at 3:45 pm.