View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
ebruary 5, 2009 F
O: Chair)
ysics and Astronomy (Vicerliamentarian)
T Ward P. Beyermann, Department of Ph Andrew S. Jacobs, Religious Studies (Secretary Pa Richard Arnott, Economics (Research) Steven Axelrod, English (Preparatory Education) Richard A. Cardullo, Biology (Committees) Mary Gauvain, Psychology (Planning and Budget) John Haleblian, AGSM (AGSM Executive Committee) Manuela Martins‐Green Cell Biology (Junior Rep to the Assembly)
tive Committee) e Assembly)
Douglas Mitchell, GSOE (GSOE Execu Mart L. Molle, Computer Science and Eng. (Sr. Rep to th Kathleen Montgomery, AGSM (CAP)
ing) Committee)
Leonard J. Mueller, Chemistry (Academic Comput Thomas C. Patterson, Anthropology (CHASS Executive
elfare) Richard A. Redak, Entomology (Faculty W Pete Sadler, Earth Sciences (Undergraduate Council) Dan S. Straus, Biomedical Sciences (CEP) Christopher Y. Switzer, Chemistry (Graduate Council)
ee) Kambiz Vafai, Mechanical Engineering (PRP) Frank Vahid, Computer Science and Engineering (COE Executive Committ
ed Executive Committee) (CNAS Executive Committee)
Ameae Walker, Biomedical Sciences (BiomMarylynn V. Yates, Environmental Sciences
ropology, (Diversity) Juliet McMullin, Anth
R: r
Tony Norman, ChaiRiverside Division
F E: Executi
R
ve Council Agenda, February 9, 2009
This is to confirm the meeting of the Executive Council on Monday, February 9, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. in Room 200 University Office Building.
1
2
Item Enclosures
Action/Information 1:10 – 1:15
I. Approval of the 01262009 Agenda and Notes of 01122009 meeting. Conflict of Interest Statements – COC, CODEO , CAP
1 2
Information 1:15 – 1:30 Action/Information 1:30 – 2:15 Action/Information 2:15 – 2:30 Action/Information 2:30 – 2:35 Action/Information 2:35 – 2:40 Action/Information 1:40 – 2:50 Action/Information 2:50 – 3:00
II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII.
EVCP Wartella – Community Colleges REPORT FROM THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM Review the proposed “pilot” concentrations that have been compiled by the Ad Hoc Committee on Education Reform and determine whether they are acceptable for presentation to the Division for approval. Coming separately PROPOSAL TO MOVE PROCESSING OF PAPER UCR FACULTY COURSE EVALUATIONS TO ONLINE Review and approve the proposal to move processing of paper UCR Faculty Course evaluations to online. NAMING OPPORTUNITIES FOR EC APPROVAL France Cordova Auditorium ‐ review and approve PROPOSED CHANGE IN BYLAW 8.6.3 Review and approve the proposed bylaw change by the ommittee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity regarding the ommittee name change. Cc PROPOSED CHANGE IN BYLAW 8.14.1 eview and approve the proposed bylaw change by the Graduate ouncil regarding additional members. RC A NY OTHER BUSINESS – Anthony Norman, Chair
3
4
5 6 7
Encl. 1
Current Year – Fiscal Year 2008‐09 Capital and Construction Issues at UCR
• What is on the horizon for the Next Fiscal Year – 2009‐10
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 12, 2009
PRESENT:
Chair) Anthony W. Norman, Biochemistry, (Chair)
ysics and Astronomy (Vicerliamentarian)
Ward P. Beyermann, Department of PhAndrew S. Jacobs, Religious Studies (Secretary PaRichard Arnott, Economics (Research) Steven Axelrod, English (Preparatory Education) Richard A. Cardullo, Biology (Committees)
ncil) Mary Gauvain, Psychology (Planning and Budget)
ou)
Martin Johnson, Political Science (representing Undergraduate Ce Assemblyportunity
Manuela Martins‐Green Cell Biology (Junior Rep to thsity and Equal OpJuliet McMulin, Anthropology, (Diver
Douglas Mitchell, GSOE (GSOE Executive Committee) Kathleen Montgomery, AGSM (CAP)
ing) utive Committee)
Leonard J. Mueller, Chemistry (Academic ComputSS ExecThomas C. Patterson, Anthropology (CHA
Richard A. Redak, Entomology (Faculty Welfare) Dan S. Straus, Biomedical Sciences (CEP) Christopher Y. Switzer, Chemistry (Graduate Council)
ee) Kambiz Vafai, Mechanical Engineering (PRP) Frank Vahid, Computer Science and Engineering (COE Executive Committ
, Biomedical Sciences (Biomed Executive Committee) ates, Environmental Sciences (CNAS Executive Committee)
Ameae WalkerMarylynn V. Y ABSENT:
the Assembly) John Haleblian, AGSM (AGSM Executive Committee) art L. Molle, Computer Science and Eng. (Sr. Rep to ete Sadler, Earth Sciences (Undergraduate Council) MP UESTS: hancellor White GC ONSENT CALENDAR: he items under the consent calendar were accepted as written. CT CHANCELLOR WHITE fter introductions from the EC members, Chancellor White indicated that there were hree is ted to the budget, namely: At
sues that he wanted to address rela
• •
The Chancellor noted that the current year continues to be one best described as uncertain. 8 million dollars was pulled out of this year’s budget, and what is on hold is an additional 5 million. If the legislature does not come to a decision soon, we will have to forego a total
Encl. 1
million to about $80 million. The Culver Center downtown has about 30 days before we have to start using any of our funds. Geology Phase 2 has nothing but state money. We have students and faculty
$of $13 million altogether. The second thing is in respect to labor relations – there has been settlements made for the Police and skilled and craft workers which adds to about 1.5% to 2% increase in salary adjustments, but the AFSCME and UPTE are unsettled. UC has about $26 million on the able as a settlement for AFSCME. The union organizers have about $54 million on the ttable which leaves a very large gap. With request to the governor’s order to close state offices twice a week as well as the mandatory furloughs for all state agencies, Chancellor White indicated that the UC is not part of that conversation. The UC and the California State Colleges have been asked to come up with comparable cost saving measures. The steps that UC has agreed to take include less travel, a freeze on hiring and delaying equipment purchases. The freeze on senior salaries and for our campus this will include all the senior management positions i.e., Vice Chancellors, Deans, Executive Vice Chancellor as well as the Chancellor. The freeze went into effect on January 15, 2009 and will be in effect for the next 18 months. This means there will be no salary increases for merits, equity or for retention cases. However, he indicated that when it comes to Deans and Campus Counsel, and others, if there is a real eed for retention, the request for exception to this freeze has to be approved by the nChancellor, the President and the Regents. Regarding Capital programs, there is a government freeze on spending state bonded funds. An Executive order has been issued not to spend any more bond money but if you have other money such as private gifts or institutional money, go ahead and spend that. There is a group in Sacramento called the PMIB (Pool Management Investment Board) – which is a group of state agencies that manages the total cash flow of all the construction projects in the state of CA. They currently have a cash flow of $500 million and they have asked all the entities in the state of which we are one to come back on the 15th of January to see if they will provide any exception to this executive order. The UC has about $200 million in onstruction projects but across the state it exceeds $2 billion and there is only $500 cmillion to spend. He thought that there was a 1 in 4 chance of anything being released. Material Science and Engineering – The Chancellor indicated that we have private money and some campus money that we will need to use until we have nothing left but bond money. Roughly speaking there is about 3 months worth of private and university funds and construction will probably continue for about 90 days. The thing that is difficult to reconcile is that they are all supposed to be money saving requests but if we indeed do shut down the MSE, we have about a $6 million penalty fee to pay for a building that has a burn rate of about 1.5 million dollars a year. If this continues, not only will we spend our money first, but we will also have separation cost and all the costs associated with stopping a roject to deal with and this will make the cost a lot higher, bringing the cost from $60 p
displaced and we will need to find a way to accommodate them for a longer period of time. here may be an impact on the opening of the genomics building due to this crisis. Boyce
Encl. 1
Presentation by Martin Johnson: Chair Norman introduced Prof. Martin Johnson who is also the Director of the UCR Survey Research Center and David Crow his associate Director. The EC members wanted to know
THall will not go to bid. Regarding the operating budget for next year, the Chancellor distributed copies of the letter from President Yudof to the Chancellors regarding the Governor’s Executive Budget. It has a couple of positive things for us and a couple of issues. The Executive Budget does not really become fodder for serious politics until the May revise. The May revise will not really be what the state will fund. There is some acknowledgement of our retirement fund. No money in the budget for our school of medicine. He is not overly concerned at the moment – there is a $65 million cut for next year, and he is concerned about that. The good news is the recognition to put some money into the UCRP. There is about $20 million (which is 1%) that the State will put into the budget, and come April of 2010, the University will put in money into the UCRP. Employees will be asked in April of 2010, to put in 2% of their paycheck and the UC will put in 4%. He wanted the EC members to take away these three issues; the first one was that the state has recognized an obligation to start refunding the program, secondly, we will start putting in our own funds as employees, and third there ill be a rethinking of the retirement program for the future of the university that should
ut will affect future hires. wnot affect current employees b Regarding student fees, there will be a significant increase being proposed for next year. The Government and the Regents are currently discussing a 10% increase but that is low. He also mentioned that a proposal was being passed around for review – namely “the Blue and Gold opportunity plan” ‐ which will guarantee qualified students who are California residents, and have income below $60,000 an opportunity to enroll in a UC College. dditionally, the students must meet campus satisfactory academic progress standards, Aand must be enrolled at least half‐time. The Chancellor also responded to questions regarding the ad that was placed in the New York Times regarding the economic stimulus and stated that the Chancellors were behind the whole idea about economic stimulus packages, and that they were also signing another letter to Obama about the importance for investing in higher education. Regarding the UCR Medical School he indicated that the Business plan asked for $15 million in the coming next year and the Regents put $10 million but the budget out of the governor’s office had zero. Chancellor White mentioned that he was not overly concerned at the moment but that come May 2009, if there was not a line item in the budget then he would begin to worry. He was going back to Sacramento to work on the political side of things. He also said that we had very significant gifts, and we are on the cusp of announcing another significant gift and there are possibilities of giving ourselves a line of credit and having someone else pay the debt service. Regarding the Dean search he mentioned that the process was moving along well and there is a wonderful pool. We have a lot of friends who want the Medical chool to happen so for now, he is not going to worry. He also mentioned that the Surge uilding was still on because it was being built using our own money. Sb
what the results from the survey would be used for. What exactly was the survey trying to accomplish and how about confidentiality. The EC members recalled that the main issue with the previous attempt to do a climate survey was confidentiality. Most of the members had no problem with the contents of the questionnaire. The Chancellor, who stayed for the presentation, also mentioned to the EC that he thought the exercise was a worthwhile one to undertake. It was important to evaluate the “climate of civility at our campus”. He also mentioned that he was very concerned with the issue of bullying on our campus and this ssue, he felt was one that had to be taken care of. Other questions raised by the EC em e
Encl. 1
im
b rs included the following:
ke survey? 1. How will the faculty be pe2. How will the survey be dis
rsuaded to ta aggregated?
3. Who will do the analysis? It was mentioned that pointing out identifiable problems as well as stressing the mportance of the survey will be very important. The members felt that a strong letter of isponsorship from Faculty Welfare and CODEO should be included with the survey. At the end, Chair Norman mentioned that he will be working with the Survey Center, Faculty Welfare and CODEO to put together a rough draft and asked the members to please ake some time and provide him with some feedback/suggestions/advice concerning the roject. tp NAMING OPPORTUNITY: he EC members unanimously approved the proposed names for the Highlander Union uilding and Highlander Plaza. TB PROPOSED CHANGE IN REGULATION R2.1.2, R2.1.3 AND R2.1.4: he EC members unanimously approved the proposed regulation changes to R2.1.2, R2.1.3 nd R2.1.4. Ta PROPOSED CHANGE IN BYLAW 8.18.1: he EC members unanimously approved the proposed regulation changes Bylaw 8.18.1 ith editorial amendment that Bourns be added before College of Engineering.
Tw PROPOSED MIDQUARTER GRADES: The EC reviewed the request from the Executive Committee of the BCOE College as well as the recommendations received from the committees that reviewed the request, namely, CEP and Academic Freedom. Many members felt that a one size fits all policy will not work and suggestions were made that the Chair of the Senate send out a letter at the beginning of every academic year encouraging faculty to communicate regularly with the students regarding their grades. A suggestion was also made that the Executive Committee of BCOE work with the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education to find ways to notify students who are in danger of failing a course early in the quarter. Other suggestions given were the se of Freshmen Advising Seminars. The EC Committee decided not to pass a legislative ction addressing this issue. ua Any other Business – Anthony Norman, Chair
Chair Norman indicated that the biggest issue since the last EC meeting was the EAP budget crisis. In general, all the campuses felt that the EAP was an important part of the UC system and that although budget cuts were necessary, the way the President approached it was wrong. As a result, a letter was sent by Council to the President asking him to further
any formal cuts.
Encl. 1
review the issue before making
0 PM. Meeting adjourned at 3:1
espectfully submitted, R Sellyna Ehlers Executive Director Academic Senate
Encl. 2
January 21, 2009 TO: A. W. NORMAN, CHAIR RIVERSIDE DIVISION FR: R. A. CARDULLO, CHAIR COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES RE: CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Committee on Committees adopted the following Conflict of Interest statement: If any member of the Committee on Committees (hereafter referred to as the Committee) has a concern about a potential conflict of interest in the discussion of possible appointments, they should refrain from participating in those Committee discussions. The Committee does not regard as a conflict of interest departmental affiliation as the Committee considers departmental colleagues to be a useful and necessary source of information regarding suitability for committee appointment. Members of the Committee on Committees are committed to avoiding conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflict involving the appointment of those with whom they have a familial relationship or intimate partnership. At the first meeting of each academic year, committee members are responsible for identifying the names of any university employee with whom they are so connected and who might be considered by the Committee for future appointment. The member shall recuse her/himself from any discussion involving the appointment of said person and leave the room when the relevant discussion begins to ensure that all other Committee members can engage in open and honest discussion. The Committee will refrain from making appointments from its current membership, with the exception of appointing out-going members for service after their term on the Committee on Committees has expired and when a Committee member is clearly and uniquely the most qualified Senate member to fill the assignment. Any conflict-of-interest situations not covered here that arise will be dealt with by the Committee on an ad hoc basis, according to the following procedure:
Should any member of the Committee feel that a conflict of interest exists, that member should, in confidence, discuss the matter with the Chair of the Committee
Encl. 2
(or, if the alleged conflict of interest involves the Chair, with one of the "third-year" members of the Committee). The Chair (or other member as specified above) shall attempt to resolve the matter by discussing it with the individual alleged to have a conflict. Should informal efforts to resolve the issue fail, the Chair (or other member as specified above) shall call a meeting of the Committee to consider the matter. The member alleged to have a conflict of interest shall not participate in the meeting, though he/she may attend part of the meeting for the purpose of responding to the allegation. After considering the matter to the extent necessary to act in an informed manner, the Committee shall vote. If a majority of the Committee agrees that a conflict of interest exists, the member found to have such a conflict shall absent himself/herself from that portion of any Committee meeting when the subject matter creating the conflict is before the Committee.
JANUARY 28, 2009 TO: A.W. NORMAN, CHAIR RIVERSIDE DIVISION FR: J. MCMULLIN, CHAIR COMMITTEE ON DIVERSITY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY RE: CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT 2008-2009 The Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity adopted, by unanimous vote, the Conflict of Interest Statement below. “In any situation wherein the personal affiliation of a committee member could be interpreted as a source of bias in committee deliberations, that member shall recuse her/himself from supporting or opposing any motion, from voting on any motion made in the course of the deliberations, and leave the room when the relevant discussion begins to ensure that all other Committee members can engage in open and honest discussion. This exclusion will be noted in any report issued by the Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity. In case of uncertainty, the Chair, in consultation with other committee members, shall make the final decision.”
Encl. 2
September 24, 2008 Revised January 21, 2009
To: Anthony Norman Chair, Riverside Division Academic Senate Fr: Kathleen Montgomery Chair, Committee on Academic Personnel Re: Conflict of Interest Statement for 2008-2009 In accordance with Division Bylaw 8.2.5, the Academic Senate Committee on Academic Personnel has adopted the following conflict-of-interest statement for 2008-2009 by a vote of +10-0-0. There is an expectation that Committee members will neither participate nor vote in departmental meetings when formal discussions and votes are held for merit, promotion or appraisal actions. Individual exceptions to this understanding will be reviewed by the Committee, and exception statements will be filed with a copy of this statement and maintained in the Academic Senate Office. In these exceptions, the Committee member will not participate in related discussions or votes taken by the Committee on Academic Personnel. In addition, Committee members will notify the Chair of the Committee whenever they believe a conflict-of-interest exists regarding their own participation or the participation of any other Committee member in any action under consideration by the Committee. If the matter concerns the Chair of the Committee, members will notify the Chair of the Academic Senate. Faculty members who are members of departmental search committees, or those voting on appointments in their home departments, will not participate in related discussions or votes taken by the Committee on Academic Personnel. The Vice Chair of the Committee on Academic Personnel will assume the duties of the Committee Chair for the review of personnel files from the Chair’s home department. A standing committee (Shadow CAP) of six members will exist to review personnel actions that involve current CAP members or their spouses/partners. This committee will consist of former CAP members who have previously served on CAP. The membership will be appointed by the Committee on Committees. cc: 08-09 CAP Encl. 2
February 2, 2009 TO: David Fairris, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education Tony Norman, Chair, Academic Senate Elizabeth Lord, Vice Provost for Academic Personnel FROM: Kathleen Montgomery, Chair Committee on Academic Personnel RE: iEval Concerns CAP is well underway with its review of personnel files and has again noted a troubling pattern with regard to very low response rates for teaching evaluations conducted using iEval – often far less than 50%. Despite the cost benefits of iEval, such low response rates render the evaluations of little worth in helping to assess a faculty member’s classroom performance. Especially troubling is the potential that skewed results may disadvantage faculty members during the personnel review process.
Although the campus has been experimenting with iEval for several years, from CAP’s perspective the problem of low response rates remains a serious one. We urge that this persistent problem be aggressively addressed. One approach may be to convene a joint task force with members representing the Senate, the Office of Instructional Development, and other units on campus involved with teaching effectiveness. This task force could be charged with collecting relevant data about the iEval program, in order to assess the scope of the problem, and developing creative approaches to increase response rates. In the meantime, CAP strongly recommends that the Senate reiterate its position that the use of iEval should voluntary. CAP/cmp
Encl. 4
August 11, 2008 To: Thomas Cogswell Chair, Riverside Division Academic Senate Fr: Chris Chase-Dunn Chair, Committee on Academic Personnel Re: Required adoption of iEVAL format for teaching evaluations CAP was asked by the Senate Executive Committee to comment on whether or not the UCR campus should move processing of paper UCR Faculty Course Evaluations to online iEVAL format. CAP discussed the proposal to eliminate the old paper student course evaluations and to make the use of iEVAL course evaluations mandatory for all classes. The arguments in favor of doing this are valid, but CAP members believe that it may be premature to shift entirely over to the new system until existing problems have been resolved. The main problem of concern is the large reduction in “sample size” with the iEVAL system. CAP’s concern also pertains to the circumstances for how the evaluations are completed (e.g., as a party event). Having a wider sampling of student opinion is critical for CAP’s use of student evaluations in gauging the teaching effectiveness of faculty. Concern was voiced about the ability of a few students to make it appear that problems exist when they do not when the sample size is small. Some CAP members also think that iEVAL results should be made public, but others disagreed with this. The consensus was that iEVAL should not be made mandatory until the very low return rate problem is at least partly resolved. Until the circumstances can be better monitored and the response rates improved (without compromising course integrity by giving bribes of "extra credit" to those who do iEval), we should continue to have them be voluntary while we gather more data and try more ways to fix it.
Encl. 4
October 13, 2008 TO: ANTHONY NORMAN, CHAIR RIVERSIDE DIVISION
FR: DANIEL STRAUS, CHAIR COMMITTEE ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY RE: PROPOSAL FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF ONLINE TEACHING
EVALUATIONS ON iEVAL The CEP met on October 10 and discussed the proposal to move to exclusive use of online teaching evaluations on iEVAL. Although the iEVAL teaching evaluations have lower student participation than in-class paper evaluations, processing of the paper evaluations is laborious and expensive. Looking toward the future, we realize that electronic online evaluations will eventually replace the paper ones. At present, both types of evaluations are used, creating a problem of comparing the results of electronic and paper evaluations. Thus it would be desirable to move to exclusive use of one type or the other. The committee unanimously (9 Yes votes, 0 No votes) supports the proposal to move to all electronic evaluations, provided that two essential principles are preserved:
• Academic credit is to be awarded only for completion of academic work. Incentives offered to students for participating in iEVAL are not to include award of exam points or any other extra credit for academic assignments. Other incentives such as making grades available earlier to students who submit evaluations might be acceptable.
• Participation of students in teaching evaluation is to remain voluntary. Students are not to be coerced into participation.
We also discussed the recent comment of some students on iEVAL that the results should be made public. We believe that this may have arisen from a feeling of frustration that the evaluations do not lead to improvement of teaching. We therefore recommend that on the opening iEVAL webpage, students should be informed in detail of the important role that teaching evaluations have in course improvement and in academic personnel review.
Encl. 4
October 27, 2008 TO: Tony Norman, Chair
Riverside Division
FM: Chris Switzer, Chair QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.
Graduate Council
RE: Proposal to move processing of paper UCR Faculty Course Evaluations to online iEVAL format Graduate Council has discussed the proposal to move processing of paper UCR Faculty Course Evaluations to online iEVAL format. The Council recommends retention of policies currently in place that allow a choice of online or paper processing formats. With regard to faculty evaluation when teaching graduate students, iEVAL forms are not written with small graduate classes in mind, and other alternatives can reveal more useful feedback both for improving the class in the future and for evaluation of faculty. Effective evaluation of small graduate seminars, for example, usually need more than the traditional format of numbers/statistics and one sentence of commentary that we often see on standardized forms currently in use. Accordingly, some faculty or Departments opt to use their own teaching evaluation questions in place of the standardized evaluation questions. In these cases, teaching evaluations commonly assume a paper format. The ability to add questions to section D of iEVAL is considered insufficient to overcome the shortcomings noted. Counter to prevailing wisdom and independent of the class size issue noted, some faculty have experienced less constructive teaching evaluations for their particular courses through online iEVAL. On a separate note, online iEVAL emphasizes one type of teaching evaluation to a degree that is not supported by the APM. APM-210 requires that a file for advancement or promotion include evidence of effective teaching of more than one type; however, it does not place limits on the types of evidence submitted. APM-210 specifically notes that “cases for advancement and promotion normally will include: (a) evaluations and comments solicited from students for most, if not all, courses taught since the candidate’s last review...” This latter passage indicates faculty teaching need not be evaluated for all courses. Further, there is no mention of requirements as to the format, or content, of evaluations and comments solicited from students. Additionally, publication of UCR Faculty Course Evaluations may well be a violation of APM-158, which includes the right to privacy in relation to the academic personnel process and records.
Encl. 4
Date: January 9, 2009 To: Tony Norman, UCR Academic Senate From: Rick Redak, Chair, UCR Committee on Faculty Welfare Re: iEVAL. The Committee on Faculty Welfare met with David Fairris, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education on November 5, 2008 to discuss various aspects of the online faculty evaluation process (iEVAL). The CFW recognized several strengths and weakness of the current iEVAL system. Specific positive aspects of the system include (1) a net savings of $20,000 to $25,000 should the campus move from a optional electronic evaluation system today to one in which paper evaluations are eliminated in the future, (2) most students that actually participate in faculty evaluations, prefer the iEVAL system, and (3) the nature of the comments from the students appear to be more thoughtful, detailed, and useful to the faculty than comments received through the paper evaluations. Negative aspects of the iEVAL process include (1) a relatively low response rate (between 40 and 50%) among enrolled students, (2) the ability of students who do not come to class to evaluate the instructor, and (3) the limited ability of the instructor to constrain the ability to evaluate to those students who do attend class. It was the unanimous view of the CFW that moving toward electronic evaluations as the mechanism for administering standard faculty evaluations will likely proceed, but should be done with caution with an emphasis placed on increasing the response rate and developing methods to ensure only those students who actually attend class have the option of evaluating faculty. Furthermore, the CFW was quite concerned that the paper evaluation process be replaced with iEVAL without proper faculty consent. Consequently, the following motion was passed (7 in favor, 1 absention), “Before the UCR Administration dispenses with paper evaluations in favor of iEVAL, a proposal for such action should be brought before the UCR Division of the Academic Senate for a faculty vote”.
Encl. 4
uly 30, 2008 J
O: UNN, CHAIR
CHRISTOPHER CHASE‐DT ACADEMIC PERSONNEL
PIERRE KELLER, CHAIR EDUCATIONAL POLICY
ILYA DUMER, CHAIR
GRADUATE COUNCIL
RICK REDAK, CHAIR Y WELFARE
FACULT
M: CHAIR
THOMAS COGSWELL, F RIVERSIDE DIVISION E: Proposal to move processing of paper UCR Faculty Course Evaluations to online
iEVAL format R
At the last meeting of the Executive Council, there was discussion on whether the campus should move processing of paper UCR faculty Course Evaluations to online iEVAL format. VP Fairis cited two major reasons for the need to switch and these were: (1) reduction in staff workload and (2) increased security. Also noted was the fact that iEVAl has a much ower response rate than paper evaluations and this would be a continuing challenge. lHowever, despite the lower response rate, the comments were more thoughtful. fter some discussions, the committee voted to have the proposal submitted formally your Acommittees for a thorough review.
lease send your comments to me by August 20 P
, 2008.
Encl. 4
Encl. 4
June 9, 2008 To: Executive Council of the UCR Academic Senate Fr: David Fairris, Vice Provost
Undergraduate Education
Gladis Herrera-Berkowitz, Director Office of Instructional Development
RE: Proposal to move processing of paper UCR Faculty Course Evaluations to online iEVAL format Introduction Course evaluations are an integral part of the teaching experience; they provide students an opportunity to comment on their education and faculty the opportunity to enhance their teaching through this feedback. The evaluations also play a significant role in promotion and merit review. Since Spring 2006 UCR has provided faculty the option of administering their course evaluations through either a paper or an online format. Over the past two years use of iEVAL has grown from 125 courses to over 400. As of this Spring 2008 42% of the courses used iEVAL with an overall response rate of 46% (SEE TABLE 1). The Need for On-line Course and Instructor Evaluations There are four primary reasons to switch from a paper evaluation system to an on-line process: 1. Efficiency in Processing Course Evaluations. The current procedure for course and instructor evaluations requires significant time and effort by staff. Office of Instructional Development (OID) staff provide department staff with course evaluation materials. Departmental staff verify the courses that will be evaluated and provide faculty with the evaluation materials. Faculty take time away from their classes to administer the evaluations. Completed evaluation forms are counted, sorted, logged in, scanned, transcribed, and printed by OID staff. Estimates of staff time required to process one medium size class section (100-150 students) range between 8-10 hours. Each quarter OID processes 600-700 courses. Total processing time for paper evaluations is between 10-12 weeks. The estimated cost of operating the current paper based evaluations is $30,000 per year, including labor, equipment, and materials. 2. Increased Security. iEVAL protects evaluations against tampering, or loss of evaluations in route to OID. The system requires students to log on using their UCR USER NAME and PASSWORD, this authenticates their enrollment and restricts students from submitting more than one evaluation for each course. iEVAL ensures that student evaluations are anonymous – all evaluations that are submitted to OID are stripped of identifying information before being processed. iEVAL also allows the campus to identify students who make threats. (Note this would only be done at the request of the OID Director and with the approval of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education.) iEVAL is protected by the same firewall as UCR’s financial systems. 3. iEVAL allows for the collection of data that can be used to better analyze trends in student responses to course evaluations. iEVAL can generate a profile of student respondents (ie gender, major, grade level, GPA). We can determine if there are correlations between grades received and evaluation ratings, we can look at evaluations from students in the major vs those from outside of the major, etc… 4. The increased use of iEVAL raises concerns over how having two different teaching evaluation systems affects the teaching data that is submitted for the merit and promotion process, given the difference in response rates and quality of comments that are submitted for each evaluation mode. How does iEVAL compare to paper evaluations:
Encl. 4
iEVAL is administered during the last two weeks of instruction and results are made available to the faculty on the first day of instruction of the following quarter. iEVAL significantly reduces staff workload by automatically storing numerical data and written comments to an electronic database. iEVAL is environmentally friendly as evaluations are administered electronically and final reports can be provided to the faculty and departments electronically. Political Science has adopted iEVAL as the sole mode of evaluation for all courses. Other departments with strong use of iEVAL include AGSM, School of Education, Mathematics, and Women’s Studies. The primary reasons for these departments to select use of iEVAL are the quick processing of the results and the security that iEVAL provides against tampering. A survey of faculty who used iEVAL in Winter 2008 yielded the following results: 44% of the respondents liked the fact that it freed up class time for instruction, 55% disliked the poor response rate, 40% felt that the quality of the comments were better, 15% did not see a change in quality, and overall 70% identified iEVAL as their preferred mode of course evaluation. Response Rate: iEVAL has a lower response rate than paper evaluations (see TABLE I). TABLE II shows that there is a drop in the response rates when departments move to iEVAL, but that the response rate may improve in future quarters. A recent survey of students who used iEVAL in Winter 2008 found that 79% of the respondents preferred to use iEVAL, whereas 14% preferred the paper format (6% had no preference). Of the respondents that preferred to use iEVAL, 54% found the system to be user friendly, convenient and efficient, 21% felt that iEVAL allowed them time to reflect and provide more thoughtful comments and ensured their confidentiality, 13% liked the fact that it did not take away from class instruction time. As more and more faculty adopt iEVAL students have started asking why other courses are not online. This has caused confusion as some students assume that they will also have the opportunity to submit a paper evaluation in class. Another challenge to getting students to log on to iEVAL on their own time is that 40% of the students surveyed indicated that they did not understand the purpose or value of course evaluations. Efforts to educate students and improve their response rate have included posting flyers around campus, placing ads in the student newspaper, and setting up tables with laptops encouraging students to complete their course evaluations. Each of these efforts highlighted the purpose of the course evaluations and the value of student feedback in helping the campus enhance teaching. Comments: Students who use iEVAL tend to provide more comments and are more thoughtful in their feedback. In processing the evaluations OID has found that less editing of inappropriate comments or foul language is required on iEVAL than on Scantron evaluations. In Winter 2008 only two edits were made for foul language out of 449 courses that were evaluated using iEVAL. Faculty who have used iEVAL comment that the quality of the student comments is better on iEVAL. TABLE III shows the Winter 2008 courses broken down by enrollment, the number of courses in each enrollment category, the average number of responses per course, the average number of comments submitted, and the average number of words used in the comments. The average number of words used in student comments when using iEVAL is almost always at least double that for paper comments. This supports our survey findings that Sixty-four percent of students feel that they provide more feedback online because doing the evaluations on their own allowed more time for reflection on the course. Overwhelmingly both the students and the faculty expressed that they liked iEVAL because it takes the course evaluations outside of the classroom allowing more time for instruction. Ratings: Although the response rate may fall as faculty move to iEVAL, the ratings of courses and faculty remain the same as in the paper format (TABLE IV).
Encl. 4
TABLE 1: University Course Evaluation Participation
Paper Evaluations iEVAL
QRT Courses % Response Courses
% Response
% of UCR Courses using IEVAL
06S 873 71% 125 47% 13% 06F 856 69% 153 47% 15%07W 848 67% 264 46% 24%07S 736 68% 323 46% 31% 07F 794 71 % 287 49% 27%08W 696 71% 449 47% 39%08S 616 TBA 439 46% 42%
Encl. 4
TABLE 2: Response rates by department Political Science Dept Course Evaluation
Participation Paper Evaluations iEVAL
Courses % Response Courses
% Response
05F 48% N/A 06W 0 N/A 19 48% 06S 0 N/A 19 43% 06F 0 N/A 19 40% 07W 0 N/A 26 39% 07S 0 N/A 24 42% 07F 0 N/A 20 45% 08W 0 N/A 28 42% 08S N/A N/A 24 41%
School of Education Course Evaluation Participation
Paper Evaluations iEVAL
Courses % Response Courses
% Response
06S 54 84% 06F 45 83% 07W 61 62% 07S N/A 61 60% 07F 16 82% 38 68% 08W 22 89% 38 67% 08S N/A N/A 27 58%
Encl. 4
AGSM Course Evaluation Participation Paper Evaluations iEVAL
Courses % Response Courses
% Response
06S 41 62% 13 38% 06F 43 70% 13 44% 07W 33 63% 12 49% 07S 30 64% 23 41% 07F 25 73% 27 46% 08W 21 65% 33 47% 08S N/A N/A 27 44%
Encl. 4
TABLE 3: Average number of Responses, Comments, and words used in course evaluations base on mode of evaluation
Paper Evaluations
QTR course enrollment
# of Courses in this category
Avg # of Responses per course
Avg # of Comments Submitted
Avg# of Words used in the comments
08W 0-25 510 13 8 198 26-50 83 36 19 437 51-75 44 61 31 760 76-99 17 89 49 1222 100-199 26 146 75 1742 200-299 2 238 96 2136 300-399 2 360 200 5091 400-499 1 407 209 4303 QTR iEVAL
08W course enrollment
# of Courses in this category
Avg # of Responses per course
Avg # of Comments Submitted
Avg# of Words used in the comments
0-25 289 11 6 289 26-50 76 36 20 1154 51-75 174 64 33 1810 76-99 12 85 41 2124 100-199 23 128 67 3925 200-299 3 243 130 6974 300-500
Encl. 4
TABLE 4: Paper evaluation ratings vs. iEVAL ratings Small course Medium course Large course
Paper 06F
iEVAL 07W
Paper 06F
iEVAL 07W
Paper 06F
iEVAL 07W
Enrollment 9 9 84 51 110 104
Response 9 6 65 29 64 54 Response Rate 100 67 77 57 76 52 Mean Score
Instructor was prepared & organized 4.4 4.7 4.1 4.8 4.9 4.9
Instructor was effective as a teacher overall 4 4 4.2 4.8 4.9 4.9
The course overall as a learning experience was effective 4 4.2 4.2 4.7 4.7 4.9
*Data based on course and instructor being the same and using paper mode for 06F and iEVAL for 07W for each course example
From: Gladis Herrera-Berkowitz [mailto:gladis@ucr.edu] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 3:23 PM To: anthony.norman@ucr.edu Cc: sellyna.ehlers@ucr.edu; David Fairris Subject: Student Comments on Course Evaluations Dear Dr. Norman: I wanted to make the Senate aware of a group of e-mails that I recently received from students who refuse to participate in the course evaluation process. I know that David Wall has made requests to several administrative offices requesting the public release of the course evaluations, and it seems that he is now recruiting other students. For Spring 08 paper evaluations there were 1-2 similar comments. The comments below come from the Summer Session 1 course evaluations. I will keep you posted if these comments continue. 1) I won't participate unless I am able to see the outcomes of the evaluations I submit. Thank you, Maria A. Castillo 2) I will not use ieval unless the information that i'm going to be providing will be made public. If UCSD can make their evaluations public, I don't see any reason why UCR can't. Since it is my information that I'm giving out, I would like to know what I contributed. Sincerely JunBo 3) I respectfully refuse to participate in the iEval evaluation process. I strongly believe that UCR students should have access to faculty evaluation data -- comparable to the access enjoyed by students at UCSD (www.cape.ucsd.edu). There is no valid reason why UCR students should not enjoy the same status and privileges as students at UCSD. This situation is unfair, and accordingly I decline to share with you my valuable insights and observations. I urge you to forward this email to all members of the administration and faculty who may be interested in this matter, in the hope that the university may one day reevaluate its policy in this matter. Respectfully, Jake Bachman 4) I respectfully refuse to participate in the iEval evaluation process. I strongly believe that UCR students should have access to faculty evaluation data -- comparable to the access enjoyed by students at UCSD (www.cape.ucsd.edu). There is no valid reason why UCR students should not enjoy the same status and privileges as students at UCSD. This situation is unfair, and accordingly I decline to share with you my valuable insights and observations. I urge you to forward this email to all members of the administration
Encl. 4
Encl. 4
and faculty who may be interested in this matter, in the hope that the university may one day reevaluate its policy in this matter. Respectfully, Jennifer Doyle 5) I respectfully refuse to participate in the iEval evaluation process. I strongly believe that UCR students should have access to faculty evaluation data -- comparable to the access enjoyed by students at UCSD (www.cape.ucsd.edu). There is no valid reason why UCR students should not enjoy the same status and privileges as students at UCSD. This situation is unfair, and accordingly I decline to share with you my valuable insights and observations. I urge you to forward this email to all members of the administration and faculty who may be interested in this matter, in the hope that the university may one day reevaluate its policy in this matter. Respectfully, David Wall Managing Director Student Access to Faculty Evaluations 6) I decline to fill out a course evaluation until I am given the right to view the results like UCSD. These results would have helped me tremedously in my registering process. Most importantly it would have replaced my dependence on ratemyprofessor.com. That forced me to use a flawed system that includes a useless and degrading appearance or "hotness" rating of your fellow coworkers (professors). As a soon to be UCR alum I want this right to be given to the new UCR students. Feel free to pass this on to whomever it may concern. Thank you, Emma Seuferer 7) I will not use iEVAL unless the information on the professors will be made public. 8) How can this information become available for students? Gladis Herrera-Berkowitz, M.A. Director of Instructional Development Office of Undergraduate Education 321 Surge University of California Riverside, CA 92521 Office - 951-827-4751 951-827-7750 951-827-6170 Fax - 951-827-7745
ACADEMIC PLANNING & BUDGE IRIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92521
January 20, 2009
Chair NormanAcademic Senate
RE: Campus Naming Committee - Building Name Change
Dear Tony:
As Chair Designee of the UCR Committee on Naming Campus Properties, Programs andFacilities, I am requesting the review and approval by the Academic Senate Executive Councilfor this naming opportunity. This naming will be effective as of July 151, 2009 in order to meettwo years of separation from the University needed for naming in honor of an individual asstated in the Roles and Responsibilities, Procedures and Polices for Naming Campus Properties,Academic and Non-Academic Programs, and Facilities
• France Cdldova Auditolium is the proposed name for the auditorium located in the newGenomics Building This naming opportunity has been recommended and approved by anumber of faculty and the Director of the Institute for Integrative Genome Biology andCenter for Plant Cell Biology, Natasha RaikheL
Please review the attached request and summary details.. This proposed name needs approval bythe Academic Senate before it is endorsed by the Campus Naming Committee Please respondwith your recommendations by Friday January 30th
, 2008.
Gretchen BolarVice Chancellor
Attachments
xc: Vice Chancellor DiazInterim Vice Chancellor AldrichDirector Lehr
UNIVERSIIY OF CALIFORNIA - (Letterhead for interdepartmental use)Encl. 5
January 20, 2009
SUMMARY INFORMATION
UCR: NAMING CAMPUS PROPERTIES, ACADEMIC ANDNON-ACADEMIC PROGRAMS, AND FACILITIES
Proposed Name: France Cordova AuditoriumIn the Genomics Building
Building and Room Background:• Official Building Name: Genomics Building• Building Name (l2-byte): GENOMICS• Capital Asset Account Number: P5l96• Building Basic Gross Square Feet: 109,072 gsf• Room Number: I 102 and 1102A• Room Assignable Sqmlle Footage: 2,340 asf
Description: Name the auditorium in the Genomics Building the "France Cordova Auditorium"to honor fCJlmer UCR Chancellor France Cordova. Chancellor Cordova played a pivotal andindispensable role in making the Genomics Building a reality (the sale ofthe land) and worked andtraveled tirelessly to persevere on behalf ofthis venture.
See attached Background Information
Floor Plan:
---
Encl. 5
BACKGROUND INFORMATIONFOR
France Cordova AuditoriumUCR Genomics Building
ucRIVEJisloE
ME!\IORANnOl\'I
OFfICE Of Ifff CHANcELLOR
To:
Dale:900 UnivrJrsfttJ Avenue
Riv.rsla~. CA 92521
rei 951 827 5201
Po> 951827 $<>66
wwwlJcredu
December 18, 2D08 /
Gretohen Bolar t/jAAfJ-" ""Ellen Wllltella lNatasha Raikhe!Thomas Baldwin
From: Iimothy P Whit. 1-::'::;"Re: FacuIty Namin8 Request
Tbis ran I ";>ceived a request to llllme the alldltodum ill the Un've:rsity's new
Genomics Buildillg for former Chancellor France Cordova I concttr that France
provided strOllg and nCClJssary lClldership to the project, and would Ilke you to
engage the necessalY Unive::sity offices end process to evaluate this ,eques! It would
be helpful to have YOlJI lCsponsc in January 2009
Attachments: Lettel and signatures
Encl. 5
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE
RIV~RSUjE
Clmncellol T1motlly P. WhileClmncelloi's Office410S HJndeH1b,. HallUIli,,<mIlty ofCalifumiaRWer.ide, CiI. 92521
Institute for lntegrativeGenome Bjl}fogy
INSllIII[r!: FOR Oft1bORATlVE GENOME mm DGY :t8'9mvz~lD:e~ CA 92521-0124'J'ilk 195IJ "",~,,70
FAX; 19511ll:l7-~lSS
Jl.llle 30, .2003
.1 would lib to folmally requesttllili the Ioo-.eat I1oo1t"num that will serve as the !bcai point 01 !nll::l:l:bathmaJconferences, semmam aDd events In the new Geoomics Building be named in 0000r of fotm.eJ: UCR ChIlIl<;~ll,,[
Fraooe CorOOvii. The lmilding, wl'lmooereseatelllllool1ltQlles mel. $pliO\! far more than 200 lclet<li~~ipli11""Y
faI:1.!lty, academiC/;, .!!mdunle stodcom aed pos!·docltltal zao;ealCnelS, Is se!:leduled for completion in December2008 wltl> a gmnd <:>)1'trlinll 00 Apdl22, 2009 F<:>rmeI Cbarn:c11Ql CQloova aoo femm Dean Clegg .greed toal:rert<I tlle "l'ening cen:mony aoo France will C\lt the libbon. r h""" provided bookgiOUlJd lnfmmath:m below allthe eslabfulrrnem ,,1 bolh the InstitUte fm Integrative Genome Biology and the new O'lnom]C$ Building f",your «lnsideralion
Ewtablishmml "rveR's G""<Jmlc5 butlmto:In lncuary 2000, tben-GOWlOOt GmyI::llMs put out a cali f",proposals lOr the eOi!llbJ:isiJment0134 C1ilifo:nlaInstirotas fOlScience mid lmlovaiion Tllllcali went ;oo:lnslvelY to CllmJlll1!8S oftlle lJlli"llrliity 01Callforlli",which w"", enco1J1ogcd ro wOlk together lllld wilh lcdustty paltllm to crell!e lnsiilules tll,,! would !!ell' fuel thesr.m'. """nom)' 1llll UnM>rsity1JfCallfurnia Riverside (VCR.) became tlle lead camJlll' for a proposedCa11f"mia ll\stitUte f« Agricultural Gcnomics, undertlle leadeJshll' "fCNAS D«mDr,. Mlcllacl Clegg~r3l!llg with VCR were lhe agricultoral ""lieges at tiC BllJkll!ey aed lJC DaVis 1he G"vomar waswilling to ]JUt u.p $100 millioo m starelirruls fur eadl oftbe lIUC<;i:S5ml!nstilules, known!L~ CallSf, willll!lete<luiretll~llllallhe jlIliiicij>irtJng ClmIp!ISlO$ ralse doMtions aed pledges for ,,2:1 mmclt
Althmlgh tlCR aoo lIS cooperaro~W<!re not succassMin the fimrl rOUlJd o[CaI·lS! fundfug, the """'P'" ",,,xll!le pmces. to generate lremendfllJS llrJerest, !llltll internallY and externally, for the eOi!Ilb!tflIlmllill ofa UCRGenomlcs !tl$I,t\JI<> ill Zool Dr C1ilgg agreed10 be the fOUlJdingdiJ:ecl:Or aoo Dr F\lter Atlclllilon wasappomred associate dlleelOr
(leBom!ell RuUdlngtueR'" tism-ChmlC"IIor Raymond Orbach made II COll1Jl11lmen! llla!·the camJlll1! woold ollW:l agenOllticsImiWlng lrom the proooads offllaOO sale, estima!ed 1& be wmlh -SSO mlIllM I !:Ie College ofNalmaJ aooAgrioUll!:m:1 SeIenoo9 (mAS) also S""lIr:ed a oornmltmen! fur six faculty FTE f", the Dew campu:HJasedInstitore, including a permallemdireetol tOi l!le GenQmles Tnslltute: and fim<l:$ for a ge:rromic" 1ll5lnJrmmtaJioofacility In eddition, Chence110r Orbach aoo Dean Clegg were actiwly involved In recrulJlng a plJml cellbiologist (mysell) to ."""" as director end form the Conte! for PlalltCell Biology CEPCEB In JWlIflllY 2Q1JZC1Ianeellm- Olbooh also s"""red futllfacull:y fIE fO!t the Cen!el: aed provided $2 million 1l,I ~.mPllS funds Wf aCEPCBB oore Ill.tnlmen!lltIoolll1::llity (wilh microscopy alld blolnfoITnlllies suitu, aDd ongoing support fortwo phD ·Ievel Academic COOrdIOOlor.;) Tire tOrme? blo-agricwturn; fWrnJ:y Wlls ldalltlfj@d M tM site ",mi.
Encl. 5
facility, aoo renQva!iollS were made ill what was to booame K<:ell Hall Orn;;c completed, ""ademiccool1linalQfS were hiled to QV~nee "'<!CD of!lle major comllilfien15 of!lle facility
CbID:lcellor France Corooviljoilled UeR in lui)' 2002 am! was extremely &upport,ve of CEPCEB and lis stlltl!of.'ih"-art COll~ mmumerJtation F""tilly, A Yoitfu, adV3ncad llroleomicsitlstlulne1llation was edded to !lieexislio~ miClOOOOpy, moinfoonati<;s and genomics suil.. iu 21103 afteI UCltrecetverl a 125M Otant [10m lheWiIliam M Ke<:K Foundation Ihis, and tile funding fOI a full·lime PhD,l.vell'IQtoomics AcademicCoordinator, was accom;:>lishlld with ChaneetIol Co,dova's strong support am! ""nve participation Ahhotrghor(ginally organized under the l""del5rnp ofCEPCEB, t~ Core IllstnunerrtatiooJ'acili\;' Was inol~v. fromlhe beginning and "vailabl~ 10 all campus researcl1er&, Ihe Geoomics Institute soon evc!vadilltowhat is newfuelnstiMe iQI lntJegtaUw Genome Biology (fiOB; please see website: !:rttp:l1www4lelllln.jlfS,llCt,edul) In2004, Dr Jiatl-Kang Zllll WlIs hiIed lIS the 1IllxllJOB Wlootm and in October 2006, I ilSSUllled tltistespollSibility til addition to being dtreetol of CEPCEB Ail unIts: of lhe Core facility are now und., JJGB'.dilCCtiOli and the new Gcnoml<::s lJuilding will h. populated by nOll membeIs
Namillg of Alldltol;'lum:Chelle.lior Q:m:lova played a pi"otal "nd indispensable 10le in malcin~ I!le Geoomies BuDding" reolily (thesale of til'" land) and wmked and tnwelad tirelesslyto petS<:Vt1e <lll hehalfofthis "elltm. This boillding wouldsimply not exist wday wll!loU! !leI positive l"ad",sllIp, menstve lobbj'ing, and determination, aoo itseSl:l1:>l~ntwill beJUSl one offll!tlCe's legacies l'mnce Coldovawa~ an energizing, 'effe<:ti"" and """"nli.[rorce at om UnivelSity during her tenure as UCR's Chancellor She eslabtlabed .. """". offiltward movem""lam! can he credited fin elreltlsing vision, stmtetolt lllamting, aJNl aggxesslve action ID I'",mnte UCR'.'l1IlIge ""a!llIHated am! tOlllpetitive insIil:IIlitm The ootwme of lIex ei'forn is oolioeal>le OIl many fronls, nom thegmm light 00 ow: medl"'l1 scllo\ll to lIle doobling ofpIivaw dot1elJons, the recrultmont of exc"llont stlJdenlSaJNl facuity, !he ll'l1r<lductkm Qfgladllate and~ fields ofSIody, !he <!<>velopment ofjuint ptujeetswhh the Rlvemd. community, am! the vast additiOll ofnew '" re_d "l"'i'" on """'pus, ioolud1ng the newG<momics BuJ!dlng, to namejust a fiow of lIe:lac;;omplishimmts, liCR Is a different place .1""" h", arrival am!is ;;nJoJ'ing 3 SUlge of1lI<!WIhand academic acllievement lIu:e ro her dil1.ction
!JOB's ('".(lte Instrunlmtmoll l'acility l:ial;recclved folemalinnal recognition ami is l\iI;ncr~dihle altlaetion fo,new bJIes, inc!uding medieaJly-inclinedtlwulty Many HGB soi<mllsls are wotltkenown an'" their soientificreputations wm lIIso assist in the """"Wnenl of3 S!rollg medical cohort of faeully, Ihe f<llIDdaoOIl fm theseimpn:ssiW~ opportunities ls primmii)' due to the groundlnelcing effm:ts of Chanc",U<ll F''''''''' CordovaiIIld Elien Warlelin
in ronclusion, 1would like to request yow: suppoxt in acknowiedging ChellcetlorC"rdovil,'$ legacy b>' namingilic atldilotlum at ow new G<momics Building inbet honm Ih. signnl1ll"" ofmuI\;' moving inllJ the newbuilding who support !hi> 1"'l1lest ar" _h.d I will sendtllis r,,~uest to llJ. 2008..1)9 lJCR A"",I.mi~ s:"nateChail, Ox Anthony N<mnJll'llll1d !he new CNAS no"", D, 1homas Boldw1tl
Looking fOlWard lO h<>arln,g from yonSlrweIely,
NaI:lShaRJiikhei~Univ",.ity DistinguishedPmfessorEmst aJNl Holen Leib..he, Endowed CAtali:1'JIreetot. l'nsliMil for intognilivo """"me Biology aoo
Cootex fur Plant cell Biology
GC CNAS Deal' D:t Thomas HallIwinAcademic S"""te Chair, D:t AIltllony Ntmrum
R lnstltute fOllfitegrativeGenome Biology
Encl. 5
Faculty In Support of tlle France Cordova Auditorium in new Genomlc:s Building:Dall!: 7f11OS
NAME DEPARTMENT
f)f'5 C
pl.'\.1\{ y£d~v /{I'j '}_
p/)S C
CCA./
CA~Mutrd-'
gPS0;1~ R. Institute for Integrative
Picut}IC{ ~'- Genome BiologVcl f'" I"W,
Encl. 5
pdtJft<6J&J:;t
,Bf..rc, ;!' .
br;l\.-
Encl. 5
COMMITTEE ON RULES AND JURISDICTION REPORT TO THE RIVERSIDE DIVISION
Proposed change in Bylaw 8.6.3
Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity
To be adopted: PRESENT: 8.6.3 This committee also represents the Division on all matters concerned with student affirmative action and diversity including efforts to monitor and to increase the number of students from underrepresented groups who enter undergraduate, graduate and professional programs. In this regard, the committee will promote efforts to support these students in the successful completion of their program. The committee may initiate studies and evaluations of the effects of administration and Faculty policies and practices on student affirmative action and diversity. Normally, the Chair of the divisional Committee on Affirmative Action and Diversity will represent the Division on the University Committee on Student Affirmative Action. (En 5 Feb 87)(Am 28 May 98)
PROPOSED: 8.6.3 This committee also represents the Division on all matters concerned with student affirmative action and diversity including efforts to monitor and to increase the number of students from underrepresented groups who enter undergraduate, graduate and professional programs. In this regard, the committee will promote efforts to support these students in the successful completion of their program. The committee may initiate studies and evaluations of the effects of administration and Faculty policies and practices on student affirmative action and diversity. Normally, the Chair of the divisional Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity will represent the Division on the University Committee on Affirmative Action and Diversity (En 5 Feb 87)(Am 28 May 98)
Encl. 6
Justification: The Student Affirmative Action Committee was incorporated into the University-wide Committee on Affirmative Action and Diversity on May 12, 2004. The divisional committee name change to Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity was previously approved in November 2006. Approved by the Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity: December 11, 2008. The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction finds the wording consistent with the code of the Academic Senate: December 19, 2008 Endorsed by the Executive Council:
Encl. 6
COMMITTEE ON RULES AND JURISDICTION
REPORT TO THE RIVERSIDE DIVISION FEBRUARY 17, 2009
To Be Adopted
Proposed Changes to Charge of the Graduate Council (Bylaw 8.14.1)
PRESENT PROPOSED 8.14.1 This committee consists of at least eleven members of the Division, including a member from one of the professional schools. The Dean of the Graduate Division serves ex officio, and may not serve as Chair or Vice Chair of the Council. One member of the committee will serve as the Divisional representative to the University Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs (Am 5 Nov 87) (Am 29 May 97) (Am Nov 02)
8.14.1 This committee consists of at least fifteen members of the Division, including at least one member chosen from the professional schools. The Dean of the Graduate Division serves ex officio, and may not serve as chair or Vice Chair of the Council. One member of the committee will serve as the Divisional representative to the University Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs (Am 5 Nov 87) (Am 29 May 97) (Am Nov 02)
Justification: The Graduate Council should consist of at least 15 members to efficiently address an increased workload due to the number of new programs, tracks, and courses. This size is also consistent with other UC campuses. The former clause “including a member from one of the professional schools” can become too restrictive. The new clause “including at least one member chosen from the professional schools” is more consistent with the proposed increase in Graduate Council membership, and with a growing number of professional schools. Approved by Graduate Council: March 19, 2008 The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction finds the wording to be consistent with the code of the Academic Senate: February 5, 2009 Endorsed by the Executive Council:
Encl. 7
Recommended