Attachment A1
COUNCIL OF FACULTY CHAIRS/SENATE COMMITTEE CHAIRS MEETING
MINUTES
November 10, 2010
9:00 am – 11:00 am
131 Kerckhoff Hall
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF:
GUESTS:
MEETING:
I.
Leadership: Ann R. Karagozian, Andrew Leuchter, Robin L. Garrell
CFC: Peter Bird (College), Mitchell Chang (GSEIS), Andrea Fraser (SOAA), Edmond
Hewlett (Dentistry), Raymond Knapp (College), Joseph Olivieri (TFT), Randolph
Steadman (Medicine), Steven Wallace (Public Health)
SCC: Chris Anderson, Christopher Colwell, Rebecca Emigh, Cameron Gundersen,
MarySue Heileman, Darnell Hunt, Christopher Kelty, Jill Klessig, Stanley Korenman,
Lawrence Kruger, David Lopez, Steven Nelson, Tara Scanlan, Joseph Watson, Shane
White
Systemwide Chairs: N/A
CFC: A.E. Benjamin (SPA), Scott Cummings (Law), Muriel McClendon (College),
Linda Sarna (Nursing), Stan Schein (College), Oscar Stafsudd (HSSEAS), Christopher
Tang (AGSM)
SCC: Judith Berliner, Troy Carter, Jack Feldman, C. Philip Larson, Carlos Quicoli,
Ernest Wright
Systemwide Chairs: Robin Fisher (UCR&J)
Jaime Balboa, Cathy Davis
N/A
The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m.
IMPORTANT ISSUES BEING DISCUSSED CURRENTLY OR THOSE COMING DOWN
THE PIPELINE (Ann R. Karagozian)
Chair Karagozian updated the members on the Post Employment Benefits proposal. The
committees that have been requested to opine have done so, and UCLA’s response to the action
item has gone to UCOP. There was unanimous support, UC-wide, for one of the options (option C)
with modifications for new employees and potentially for current employees to choose if they so
wish. President Yudof will recommend this option with small salary increases overall (base plus off
scale) to the Regents this month.
The proposal to rename fees as tuition was approved. The industrial relations policy proposal
input has been presented to Kathryn Atchison and will eventually go UC-wide. Regarding the issue
of the “Academic council and UCLA’s statements on UC’s future,” the UCLA statement was
endorsed by the Executive Board, however there was a strong recommendation for UCLA to opine
on the report that is being generated by a “UC Special Committee.”
Chair Karagozian updated the members on the Anderson Graduate School of Management (AGSM)
proposal for financial self-sufficiency. This proposal was sent to all FECs and also a number of
Academic Senate committees. A large number of comments were received and considered by the
Executive Board on October 28, 2010. The Academic Senate had indicated to the Chancellor that
Senate input would likely take three forms: (1) looking at the “business case,” which included
taking a look at some of the details of the numbers that were provided in the proposal; (2) looking
1
Attachment A1
at the operational characteristics of the reconfiguration of the school for financial self-consistency,
along with looking at faculty rights and student rights, and the way administration would operate;
and (3) the philosophical level of having an entity within a public-supported institution become
financially self-sufficient. There was a unanimous vote by the Executive Board to not support the
proposal as written. There was also a strong recommendation by the Executive Board to put a
joint faculty/administrative task force together to examine financial self-sufficiency in general for
UCLA, including how it could or should work and what types of Schools could feasibly move
towards this direction. Chair Karagozian thanked the committee chairs for their hard work and
thoughtful input on this proposal.
Chair Karagozian reminded the members that there are several new items undergoing review: (1)
policy on self-supporting graduate programs (due January 6, 2011); (2) Revisions to APM 010 and
015 regarding faculty academic freedom and public statements (due January 6, 2011), and (3)
Senate membership and administrators (due March 3, 2011). Additionally, the Senate leadership is
investigating a new policy on visiting students (classified as a “non-degree objective” students) and
charging non-resident tuition if the student is here for more than two quarters. The Senate’s
position at the moment is to stop this policy immediately and have it go through appropriate
Senate review. There is also another item regarding the issue of Deans voting on FECs as exofficio members. The Academic Senate is currently seeking clarification from the UC Committee on
Rules & Jurisdiction (R&J). The same question applies to other administrators serving as ex-officio
members on Senate committees.
II.
CONSENT CALENDAR (Ann R. Karagozian)
The minutes from the June 3, 2010 CFC/SCC meeting were approved as written.
III.
ROLES/RESPONSIBILITIES OF FEC CHAIRS AND SENATE COMMITTEE CHAIRS
(PROCEDURES; COMMUNICATIONS; BUDGET DISCUSSIONS, ETC.)
Chair Karagozian reminded the members that communication with the chairs’ constituencies,
committee members, Senate staff, etc. is crucial. She advised the members to maintain a useful
website with information on proposals, documents to be reviewed, etc.; reminders to FEC on
meetings, subcommittee activities, etc.; and to communicate with faculty as a whole on critical
issues. Chair Karagozian also encouraged the members to communicate with the Senate
leadership if any issues arise.
IV.
ISSUES AND CHALLENGES OF MUTUAL INTEREST
Chair Karagozian asked the members if they had any issues of mutual interest to other committees
that they would like to discuss. An FEC chair asked Chair Karagozian if she had any feedback
regarding the industry relations guidelines proposed by UC San Francisco. She stated that the
method of soliciting opinions was very unusual because there has been a UC-wide policy in place
since 2008. The proposal was sent to Kathryn Atchison, the UCLA Vice Provost for Intellectual
Property and Industry Relations. She then sent it to the Senate for review and comments were
relayed back to her. Vice Chair/Chair-Elect, Andrew Leuchter, stated that the School of Medicine
comments were very helpful. A number of committees and schools commented that the statement
was much too focused on the Health Sciences and that it would not apply to the remainder of the
campus.
2
Attachment A1
One of the FEC members described a situation currently occurring within his school. Within the
last ten years, full-time professional faculty have come to outnumber ladder faculty. The
professional faculty members now want to participate more meaningfully in the governance of the
school. Chair Karagozian stated that the professional faculty members are not Senate members
and thus could not participate in Senate activities. It was recommended to treat the professional
faculty members as equals although they lack a vote.
Tara Scanlan (Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics): Chair Scanlan stated that her
committee meets three times per year to review the progress of the Intercollegiatae Athletics
Department and make sure that the student-athletes are receiving the attention they should. She
provided an overview of the student-athlete academic success as well as the athletic success.
Chair Scanlan brought up three issues to think about: (1) all faculty members get a mid-term
report so that all student-athletes who are having problems can be identified; (2) the athletes are
supposed to approach their professors at the beginning of each quarter with their schedule in
order to help facilitate travel releases when necessary; and (3) many departments have raised
their entrance requirements for their majors (e.g., Communication Studies requires a 3.8 average
in order to be admitted). The students must also complete a certain number of classes in their
major within a certain period of time. This is where it is difficult because student-athletes
frequently take a lighter course load. Chair Karagozian suggested that these issues may need to
be dealt with at the department chair or dean level, not the FEC level.
Lawrence Kruger (University Emeriti and Pre-retirement Relations Committee): Chair
Kruger reported to the committee that UEPRRC has been requested to consider changing the call
to allow an emeritus to use the term emeritus professor when they retire at the level of associate
professor. The committee is reluctant to do this. Chair Karagozian has requested to be kept
informed regarding this issue. Additionally, Chair Kruger requested information regarding the new
Conference Center & Faculty Club. At the present time, the Conference Center Committee is
focusing on a temporary facility. Acting Chancellor Emeritus (Chair of the Conference Center
Committee), Norman Abrams, will be visiting the Council on Planning and Budget (CPB) in January.
Chair White (Committee on Faculty Welfare) stated that the Conference Center issue is also a
faculty welfare issue and that the committee should invite ACE Abrams as well as Administrative
Vice Chancellor, Sam Morabito, to a Committee on Faculty Welfare meeting. Chair Karagozian
suggested that questions regarding the new Conference Center be sent directly to Sam Morabito
and copied to her.
Christopher Kelty (Committee on Library & Scholarly Communication): Chair Kelty
reported to the Committee on the Nature Publishing Group (NPG) issue. NPG approached the
California Digital Library (the UC systemwide entity that pays for online subscriptions to electronic
resources) with a proposal to raise prices 400% for the NPG publications (of which there are 67).
Systemwide, UC spends approximately $24 million per year on electronic publications. COLASC
issued a letter to NPG stating that if alterations were not made to this 400% increase, the UC may
boycott NPG because the only other alternative would be to cancel subscriptions. They responded
with a letter challenging many of the claims, figures, and numbers that the CDL had provided. UC
responded with another letter stating that the Nature Publishing Group’s figures were incorrect. In
August, there was a negotiation meeting with the CDL staff, and chair of UCOLASC at which they
issued a joint statement that negotiations were ongoing. One of the things that is likely to happen
over the coming years is a shift from charging libraries for online publications to charging people
3
Attachment A1
who generate research money for publication. This is important for UCLA because of all the UC
campuses, we generate the most in direct funds. These funds will also be targeted by the
publishers as a way of paying for their costs. Part of the negotiations will probably involve some
suggestions on not only what the correct price to charge for subscriptions is, but whether or not
fees for submission and publishing of articles should be on the table. Chair Karagozian reiterated
that research funds are a very large target. Chair Kelty added that the Office of the President has
proposed a change to the way that indirect fees are dealt with. Previously, they basically funneled
into the Office of the President and were distributed through a complex system that included some
going into 19900 funds and some going back to the campuses, etc. The proposal is to return all of
the indirect costs to the campuses which will also produce inequalities among the campuses
because UCLA and UC Berkeley get very large amounts of indirect funding whereas other
campuses don’t. In the past, these other campuses have depended upon this redistribution of
wealth, especially for library-related issues. The CDL is the solution to providing those resources to
everyone on every campus. If the kinds of charges that the publishers are seeking shifts from the
library budgets to the research budgets, that could create turbulence in whether or not all of the
campuses have access to the same resources.
A question was posed regarding faculty being asked to offset their 19900 funding with grant
funding. Chair Karagozian informed the Committee that that is part of the UC systemwide Senate
committee that is evaluating different models of potential compensation that can perhaps alter our
funding climate and budgetary challenges. The final report has not been issued yet. As part of
the Anderson proposal there was an altered compensation plan that was similar to the Health
Sciences in some respects.
The question was asked if the University as a whole was continually trying to increase the faculties
overhead rate. Immediate Past Chair Garrell gave the Committee some background information on
the subject. She stated that each university negotiates with one federal agency to set its overhead
rate. The UC negotiates with the Department of Health and Human Services. In the negotiation
process, other campuses in negotiating with their government partner, have simply come to an
agreement and the ultimate rate that is agreed upon is fairly close to what the university has
proposed. Systematically, over the last decade, our overhead rate that has been assigned to us is
approximately 14% lower than what we’ve said our costs are. What is being focused on now is
why there is not a fair discussion with the UC regarding this disparity. The second element that is
of concern and looms large in this report is how much money are we leaving on the table when the
University grants waivers? Waivers are done ad hoc, but also simply because many foundations
and funding agencies do not allow recovery of the full overhead cost. Unstated, but the
clarification is, we need to capture all that money that we’re leaving on the table. This was
discussed at the Academic Council last year, and the Senate was very clear about what the
potential consequences might be: firstly, not all of those partners might agree to our fix.
Secondly, the agencies that most commonly do this (that either have no overhead or a reduced
overhead rate) are in areas like the Social Sciences and Humanities. It would be a catastrophe if
the leaders of California were to insist on the full overhead rate for agencies that were unable to
give it.
Shane White (Committee on Faculty Welfare): Chair White gave an update starting with the
Post-Employment Benefits process. There will be a long overdue focus on the finance portion of
the PEB decision. There will also be a focus on total remuneration of faculty salaries. The Faculty
Welfare Alert that went out last Friday talked about the changes to the health care plans as they
4
Attachment A1
affect University employees.
Right now there is quite a bit of talk about raising the employer contribution rate of the employee
benefits plans to the level of 20% with the employee contribution being raised to 7% or 8%. The
funding is going to be a very big issue for the employees and for the employers as well. One
proposal is to borrow some money from the STIP (short-term investment pool) fund for the short
term. This means that any unit or PI that has some funds in STIP from which they think they are
gaining some interest, they will be potentially seriously impacted. There is currently resistance
from the Medical Center in particular because they view this as a very important part of their cash
management program.
Chair Karagozian reminded the members (particularly the FEC chairs) that the meeting on January
21, 2011 that will be focused on assisting the FEC’s in understanding the budgeting process, what
they should be looking for in the budgets that their Deans are obligated to share with them, and
what questions they should ask. David Lopez (Chair, Council on Planning and Budget) and
Michael Shin (Vice Chair, CPB) will be assisting with that process.
Steven Wallace (School of Public Health): Chair Wallace reported to the members that the
California Endowment recently capped its benefit rate so when a proposal is put in they will only
pay up to 20%. This means that the employer must pay 10% more for retirement for the staff.
Vice Chair/Chair-Elect Leuchter stated that borrowing from STIP is in some ways shifting the pain.
That is, the campus does get money from STIP interest and if we cap the interest, we will
potentially get less money down the road if rates increase. He stated that the real problem is that
there are simply not enough dollars in the system, and there needs to be more investment in
education by the state and the people of California.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
5