In addition, Executive Vice Chancellor Golub will give an overview of the Center for Reproductive Health. The UCI Administration is now principally involved in notifying patients and arranging for patient counseling. It was most upsetting and unfortunate to find that one of our outside attorneys, hired by the General Counsel Office in Oakland, had actually received a fair amount of information containing patient names and had not advised us of that until after they had been in his possession for several weeks. This caused public embarrassment because we had said that we did not have the information available to us. We have been notifying patients by letter and telephone calls. We have sent over one hundred letters and over ninety responses have been received. We are now working on enlarging the staff available for counseling. The Chancellor welcomed questions.
The most recent Regent's Meeting touched on a number of issues of particular importance to the Irvine campus. Preceding the two day meeting was a full day meeting of the Health Services Committee. They asked for an update from campuses' with a medical center or school on their plans and activities, prospects and problems. The presentation by UC Irvine was given jointly by the Dean of the College of Medicine, Thomas Cesario, and the Executive Director of the Medical Center, Mark Laret. They described the challenges and the well thought out plan to deal with them, problems that are unique to the Orange County area, and the problems that are common to all academic health centers nationwide. The presentations were very well received by both the Health Services Committee, the Regents, and other university officials. There is a high level of cooperation and good planning going on. Thursday's Regents meeting started with a protest concerning affirmative action and the meeting was delayed. When the session resumed, Chancellor Wilkening gave a report to the Regents on the Center for Reproductive Health and the problems this campus has had in dealing with that issue. The presentation was the first that Chancellor Wilkening has given in open session of the Regents. She has previously given a number of closed session briefings. The forty minute exposition gave the entire history: problems that have been confronted; the actions taken; the new policies instituted as a result of the current situation, including the current attempts to inform patients on what information we have and the vast amount of information that we do not have and are unable to attain. A forceful and clear statement of support was given by President Atkinson for Chancellor Wilkening's actions and UC Irvine's efforts in dealing with this. The Regents also expressed their support for UCI and Chancellor Wilkening. Some specific questions and issues were raised that will be discussed with Senate Chair Binder and others about future policy issues that may emerge.
The last issue that Executive Vice Chancellor Golub reported on from the Regents meeting was the Budget. The prospects for the State are more positive than they have been in the last few years and the State is projecting a surplus. There was a vigorous discussion and consensus reached on a series of priorities. The Regents identified three areas that they would like to see expanded in the University budget and further augmented: increasing faculty salaries, minimizing or eliminating future student fee increases, and expanding of outreach programs.
Professor Hufbauer asked why the pay for the professors from the Center of Reproductive Health is continuing when two of them have left the country. EVC Golub replied that the University put them on leave with pay pending an investigation. UC procedures never envisioned this set of circumstances. The University wants to preserve due process rights of faculty and the University's credibility as an institution. He reported that a number of options are being considered.
The Committee on Academic Personnel's Annual Report for l994-95 is now available on Gopher or printed copies can be requested from the Office of the Academic Senate. The Academic Senate is in the process of setting up its own site on the World Wide Web. With the guidance and assistance of Professor Dennis Silverman, a subpage for conveying Senate information is temporarily available on Physics and Astronomy's site. The Agenda and all attachments for this meeting are available on the World Wide Web at http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/repassembly.html. Chair Binder showed the Assembly a printed copy which included graphics of UCI's Nobel Prize recipients, Professors F. Sherwood Rowland and Frederick Reines.
Motion: Professor Edgar Moran, School of Medicine, made a motion to approve the Memorial proposed by UC San Diego: "The San Diego Division of the Academic Senate supports the right of Professor and Associate Professor In-Residence faculty who are facing termination to a full Privilege and Tenure hearing if requested." The motion was seconded.
Chair Binder reminded the Assembly that the motion is to approve the action initiated by the San Diego Division to conduct a statewide mail ballot on the issue. During the discussion, Dean Cesario, College of Medicine, stated that In-Residence faculty are important and critical to UCI's research mission, as well as to its teaching mission. The In-Residence faculty approximate the number of FTE faculty and goals of the school cannot be accomplished without In-Residence faculty. He said, however, that at this time of budgetary change, the University is unable to meet financial demands as it once did and suggested that it would be beneficial to set in place a group of policies that would detail a step-by-step process for the terminations of In-Residence faculty for lack of funding.
Henry Hulter, Department of Medicine at UCSF, reported that the University Committee on Academic Personnel (UCAP) has been deliberating about the termination process for In-Residence faculty for over a year and has proposed that ending dates be eliminated. Ending dates are the main reason that In-Residence faculty become concerned about the current policy since they make appointments self terminating: even Associate and Full Professor can be terminated for no other reason than their ending dates have occurred. Professor Hulter stated that UCAP had recommended a process that would include CAP and peer review. UCAP's recommendations were approved by the Academic Council and were sent to the President in June, but no action has been taken. The Memorial asks for the specific right to a full hearing in termination cases, a right which is presently enjoyed by senate faculty, non-senate faculty, technicians, and administrative staff under personnel policy rules. The Memorial is not asking for funds, but for a fair assessment of the condition of lack of funds. The In-Residence faculty object to being terminated when funds are available.
Professor Demet, Psychiatry, stated that there seems to be a consensus of opinion that the only difference between the In-Residence faculty and the In Line series was the provision for funding with an FTE. However, there is an inequity in the system when there can be concerns for due process for Line faculty who have left the country, yet In-Residence faculty can be terminated without reason and no guarantee of a hearing.
In answer to a question posed by Professor Stanbridge concerning funding during the Privilege and Tenure hearing process, Professor Hulter responded that there is no provision in Senate Bylaw 335 for In-Residence faculty to remain on pay status after the termination date.
Professor Bostick pointed out that there are considerable extra costs over a period of time. If that were not the case, this proposal would have passed many years ago. He commented on the high quality and productivity of In-Residence faculty, but added that the pie can only be divided so many ways. He recommended that the Regents not be involved in the issue.
In answer to a question concerning the procedural aspects of the Memorial, Chair Binder stated that it must go to a mail ballot of all Senate members if it is approved by at least three Divisions representing at least thirty-five percent of the membership of the Academic Senate. The issue is not one of justification for the In-Residence faculty members to have a full Privilege and Tenure hearing, the issue is the Memorial. To date three Senate Divisions have approved the Memorial: San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. He also reported that he had heard, but not confirmed, that a petition was being circulated at UCLA for a mail ballot to reconsider the action taken to approve the Memorial. Memorials from the Senate go directly to the Regents through the President, although the President may not intercede.
Executive Vice Chancellor Golub stated that he came to the University as an In-Residence faculty. He commented further that the ending date is the contractual basis that depends upon available resources. To change to an undefined end date would be the equivalent to granting tenure. He suggested looking at the real impact and not the symbolic impact of the issue. He expressed concern that many of the In-Residence appointees are at affiliated institutions, such as the Veterans Administration and County facilities, and are governed by other hiring and dismissal processes. Our personnel mechanisms should not make guarantees beyond those made by other agencies. Finally, the role of Privilege and Tenure is to deal with discipline and faculty misconduct, and this issue is a matter of finance.
Professor Hulter stated that the President through UCAP and the Academic Council has already been approached to rewrite the APM to define early termination and the requirements for a hearing but he has not responded. A Memorial is the next step. Chair Binder reported that after discussion with the current UCAP Chair he has complete confidence that the proposed APM revisions will not be approved in the form that was recommended. Professor Robert May, Chair of University and Faculty Welfare, reported that his recollection of the Executive Committee's discussion on the Memorial included not just objections to the Memorial on procedural grounds but also objections to the content of the Memorial. It was unclear to the Executive Committee what was being fixed and why procedures that are already in place were insufficient. Chair Binder added that it is not an efficient way to proceed through the Regents to change APM 270 and SBL 335. Linda Nelson stated that the bottom line is that this is a request for a fair assessment of the lack of funding and for the right to a hearing in such instances. Professor Moran spoke in favor of approving the Memorial as a matter of simple justice. He emphasized that all In-Residence faculty were recruited with the clear understanding that they are members of the Academic Senate and their appointments secure as long as there is funding. Further, he stated, there is no question of the University assuming the salary of an individual.
Motion: A motion to call for the question was seconded and carried. Motion: Chair Binder restated the motion which was to approve the Memorial to the Regents initiated by the San Diego Division. He informed the Assembly that a two-thirds vote was needed for passage. The motion passed with 40 in favor, 4 opposed, and 2 abstained.
Chair Binder responded that the Committee on Affirmative Action has submitted the UC Berkeley Resolution to the Executive Committee for consideration and the resolution will be voted on Tuesday, December 5, l995, for presentation to the Representative Assembly January 25, 1996.
Garland Parten
Recording Secretary
Attest:
Linda Bauer
Vice Chair-Secretary