February 23, 2012 TO: Kenneth Barish (Physics), Graduate Council

Steven Clark (Psychology), Undergraduate Admissions Walter Clark (Music) Academic Personnel

Paulo Chagas (Music), Academic Computing & Information Technology Kevin Esterling (Political Science), CHASS Executive Committee Jay Farrell (Electrical Engineering), BCOE Executive Committee John Ganim (English), Physical Resources Planning (PRP) Mary Gauvain (Psychology), Chair Jang-Ting Guo (Economics), Committee on Committees (COC) Irving Hendrick (GSOE), Faculty Welfare (FW) Jodie S. Holt (Botany and Plant Sciences), Jr. Rep to the Assembly Martin Johnson (Political Science), Educational Policy (CEP)

Bronwyn Leebaw (Political Science), Preparatory Education Umar Mohideen (Physics), Planning and Budget (P&B) Thomas Morton (Chemistry), Senior Assembly Representative Leonard Nunney (Biology), Committee on Research (COR) Michael J. Orosco (GSOE), Diversity & Equal Opportunity (CODEO) Daniel Ozer (Psychology), Secretary/Parliamentarian

David R. Parker (Environmental Sciences), CNAS Executive Committee Melanie Sperling (GSOE), GSOE Executive Committee Daniel S. Straus (Biomedical Sciences), Biomed Executive Committee Ameae M. Walker (Biomedical Sciences), Vice Chair Rami Zwick (SoBA), SoBA Executive Committee

FR: Mary Gauvain, Chair Riverside Division RE: Executive Council Agenda, February 27, 2012 This is to confirm the meeting of the Executive Council on Monday, February 27, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. in Room 220 Floor University Office Building.

1

Item Enclosures

Information 1:10 – 1:15 Information 1:15 – 1:30 Discussion 1:30 – 1:35 Discussion 1:35 – 1:40 Discussion 1:40– 1:45 Information 1:45 – 2:05 Discussion 2:05 – 3:00

I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII.

Approval of the agenda for February 27, 2012 and minutes for February 13, 2012. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY CHAIR GAUVAIN PROPOSED NAMING: INNOVATION ECONOMY CORPORATION Proposed name for the Nano Electrochemical System Laboratory (NESL) located on the floor of the Bourns College of Engineering PROPOSED NAMING: UC RIVERSIDE TRACK FACILITY Proposed naming for the newly renovated track facility GSOE BYLAW CHANGE To be received by EC CEP POLICY/PROCEDURE FOR DISCONTINUATION, MERGERS, SPLITS OF UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS To be reviewed by EC UPDATES FROM COMMIITTEE CHAIRS

1 (pp. 1- 6)

2 (pp. 7 - 14)

3 (pp. 15 - 17)

4 (pp. 18 - 23)

5 (pp. 24 - 29)

2

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

FEBRUARY 13, 2012

PRESENT: Kenneth Barish (Physics), Graduate Council Steven Clark (Psychology), Undergraduate Admissions Walter Clark (Music) Academic Personnel Kevin Esterling (Political Science), CHASS Executive Committee Jay Farrell (Electrical Engineering), BCOE Executive Committee John Ganim (English), Physical Resources Planning (PRP) Mary Gauvain (Psychology), Chair Jang-Ting Guo (Economics), Committee on Committees (COC) Irving Hendrick (GSOE), Faculty Welfare (FW) Jodie S. Holt (Botany and Plant Sciences), Jr. Rep to the Assembly Martin Johnson (Political Science), Educational Policy (CEP) Bronwyn Leebaw (Political Science), Preparatory Education Umar Mohideen (Physics), Planning and Budget (P&B) Thomas Morton (Chemistry), Senior Assembly Representative Leonard Nunney (Biology), Committee on Research (COR) Daniel Ozer (Psychology), Secretary/Parliamentarian David R. Parker (Environmental Sciences), CNAS Executive Committee Melanie Sperling (GSOE), GSOE Executive Committee Ameae M. Walker (Biomedical Sciences), Vice Chair Rami Zwick (SoBA), SoBA Executive Committee ____________ ABSENT: Paulo Chagas (Music), Academic Computing & Information Technology Michael J. Orosco (GSOE), Diversity & Equal Opportunity (CODEO) Daniel S. Straus (Biomedical Sciences), Biomed Executive Committee GUESTS: Vice Chancellor Peter Hayashida Assistant Vice Chancellor Zachary Smith AGENDA: The agenda and minutes were approved as written. The Conflict of Interest Statement of the GSOE Executive Committee was noted as received. PRESENTATION BY VICE CHANCELLOR HAYASHIDA, VC FOR UNIVERSITY ADVANCEMENT: Vice Chancellor Peter Hayashida’s presentation to the Executive Council was about the comprehensive campaign on which his office is currently working. VC Hayashida indicated that his office is currently trying to aggregate priorities from across the campus and that the goals of the campaign will be defined by the priorities that are identified. For the campaign to be successful, VC Hayashida indicated that it is important

3

to think of the needs of the institution and how those needs dovetail with what the philanthropic community is willing to support. The campaign is an effort to raise private resources that will focus on individual and foundation gifts. The institutional priorities and the institutional planning as described in the UCR 20/20 Strategic Plan will form the basis of UCR’s campaign. The funds raised will be used to support some of the plans outlined in the strategic plan. VC Hayashida noted that the strategic plan calls for the tripling of sponsored research funds. VC Hayashida said that his office is planning on quadrupling private support to the University over the next 5 to 10 years. He also stated that donors are more likely to support endowments for faculty, scholarships for students, academic programs and research facilities and equipment. They are unlikely to support budget replacements, basic operations, short-life renovations, and temporary space rentals. VC Hayashida indicated that his office is currently in between the pre-quiet phase and the quiet phase. A request has been sent to all the Deans and faculty inviting suggestions for ideas about campaign priorities and he hopes to have a final document by the end of February 2012. In the spring, these priorities will be sent out to a group of about 100 potential and current donors to test the waters. What follows next will be the quiet phase at which time the office focuses on gaining momentum before the campaign is formally launched. The public phase will take about 3 – 5 years and then the campaign will be closed. VC Hayashida also mentioned that they have hired Doug Stewart, a consultant from the firm Marts & Lundy to work with UCR on the comprehensive fund raising campaign. Mr. Stewart has worked at UCLA, UCSF and Stanford and he is very well versed with these kinds of campaigns. VC Hayashida mentioned that the various ways they define success is as follows:

1. By raising the national/international profile of UCR; 2. By creating excitement around UCR’s research; 3. By achieving the overall campus goal; 4. By achieving the unit goals; 5. By increasing alumni participation and growing loyal annual givers.

VC Hayashida also discussed some of the ways that they will be engaging faculty in the comprehensive campaign. One way to do this will be to determine how faculty members experienced UCR’s Anniversary campaign, which was a 2-year campaign to raise $50 million. At the time UCR was raising $25 million annually. The campaign reached its goal of $50 million in approximately one year and nine months. VC Hayashida’s office is trying to determine what specific roles the individual faculty members will play in the upcoming campaign and how to maintain open communication between his office and the faculty. The EC members also discussed various ways to reach alumni by changing the format of the magazine that is usually sent out to them. In this regard, VC Hayashida mentioned that his office had recently hired James Grant, who came from USC, and his first priority is to make the magazine less research oriented and have more information on other campus topics such as art and the student experience. Another suggestion requested that VC Hayashida find out how the $50 million raised in the 2-year campaign was spent so that faculty could be made aware of how these funds contributed to the campus. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR: Chair Gauvain indicated that President Yudof withdrew the Negotiated Salary Plan Pilot Project that had originally been submitted for review by Provost Pitts. Chair Gauvain also informed the EC that on Thursday February , she accompanied the Chancellor, the EVCP, and Matthew Hull, the Associate Vice Chancellor

4

for Resource Management and Analysis, to the OP to meet with President Yudof and his senior staff as part of the annual meeting where each campus presents its budget plans for the next three years. The discussions went well. The President stated that he liked the way the UCR budget was presented and that the information was very useful for his office. However, the tenor of the discussion was very dour and there was not much expectation that any additional funding will come to the campuses. Chair Gauvain indicated she commented on faculty morale and how the various practices that are in place to raise more funds end up falling on the backs of the faculty in terms of increased enrollment. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE UNIVERSITY CLUB Prof. Ganim, Chair of the Physical Resources Planning Committee briefly described the history of the University Club. Chair Ganim mentioned that there is a plan for a University Club building to be part of the barn renovation, currently in the planning stage. It has become more and more apparent with the closure of the Arroyo Vista Café that the campus needs a venue to take visitors to eat when they come to UCR. Chair Ganim mentioned that there had been talk of the University Club using the Alumni Center, but this did not materialize. The current membership of the University Club is unknown, but it numbered around 350 in 1995. A suggestion was made that the faculty should be surveyed to find out if they are willing to be members of the University Club and what monthly fee they would be willing to pay for membership. Chair Ganim indicated that he did not think it was appropriate for the Physical Resources Planning Committee alone to lobby the administration about the University Club and that he also did not believe that Standing Committees of the Senate, more generally, are the best vehicle to lobby for a University Club. He suggested that a better approach would be to form a taskforce made up of people from Physical Resources Planning, Faculty Welfare, and some individuals from the existing University Club. Chair Gauvain also mentioned that Prof. Tom Miller had contacted her and wanted her to sign a contract that would obligate the Senate to promise to rent the club for a modest number of events per year as a way of raising funds. Prof. Miller had also contacted the Chancellor with a similar request. After further discussion, it was agreed that Chair Ganim will meet with Chair Gauvain and discuss how to proceed next. BYLAW CHANGE FOR COMMITTEE ON SCHOLARSHIPS AND HONORS was received by the Executive Council as written. DEFINING ACADEMIC FREEDOM: Prof. Tom Morton, Chair of Academic Freedom indicated that at its January 31 meeting, UCR's committee on Academic Freedom (CAF) voted unanimously to send the statement below to the EC for comment.

"The right of assembly and expression of views shall not be suppressed. Such assemblies and expressions, however, shall not interfere with the lawful conduct (and public safety) of others on the University."

Chair Morton indicated that recently there has been a move to expand the definition of Academic Freedom to include the right to criticize the administration. He also pointed out that the right of assembly does not exist in APM 10, nor does it exist in the list of Academic Freedom rights. Because of this, it is important that the Senate formulate its own statement that addresses this concern. After some discussion the EC unanimously agreed that the Committee on Academic Freedom should prepare a report to be endorsed by the Division and have the report sent forward to the Universitywide Committee on Academic Freedom with a recommendation that UCAF pursue the issue of changing the APM. Chair Morton will work with his

5

committee to formulate the report to be introduced under New Business of the Division Agenda scheduled for February 21, 2012. Meeting adjourned at 3:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, Sellyna Ehlers Executive Director, Office of the Academic Senate

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION REPORT TO THE RIVERSIDE DIVISION

May 29, 2012 To be adopted:

Proposed Changes to GSOE Committee By-Laws

PRESENT PROPOSED

E4 Committees

1. E4.1 There shall be an Executive Committee consisting of the Chair of the Faculty, ex officio; the Dean of the school, ex officio; four members of the Faculty as provided in E4.1.1 and Director of Teacher

Education, ex officio. No member is eligible for immediate reelection (except as an ex officio member),

but he/she becomes eligible after one year of non-service. The Chair and secretary of the Faculty occupy corresponding offices in the Executive Committee. (Am 25 Jan 72)(Am 25 May 00)(Am May 2005)

2. E4.1.1 The elected faculty membership shall consist of four persons elected at large from the Graduate School of Education who will represent the different program areas. (Am 25 Jan 72)(Am May 2005)

E4 Committees 1. E4.1 There shall be an Executive

Committee consisting of the Chair of the Faculty, ex officio; the Dean of the school, ex officio; a Faculty member from each Area Group as provided in E4.1.1 and Director of Teacher Education, ex officio. No member is eligible for immediate reelection (except as an ex officio member), but he/she becomes eligible after one year of non- service. The Chair and secretary of the Faculty occupy corresponding offices in the Executive Committee. (Am 25 Jan 72)(Am 25 May

00)(Am May 2005) 2. E4.1.1 The elected faculty

membership shall consist of persons elected at large from the Graduate School of Education who will represent each Area Group. (Am 25 Jan 72)(Am May 2005).

18

3. E4.1.1.1 The term of office of members of the Executive Committee is two years.

4. E4.1.1.2 The election of Faculty

members is held by mail ballot as provided in chapter 7 of the bylaws of the Division. For purposes of these elections, members of the Executive Committee are considered Officers of the Faculty of the school. Members of the Executive Committee take office on the first day of September following their election at a regular election or immediately upon completion of the ballot count at a special election.

(En 25 Jan 72)(Am 22 May 07)

5. E4.1.1.3 Whenever the Executive Committee determines that a vacancy exists in its membership, the Secretary-Parliamentarian of the Division conducts an election in accordance with the prescribed procedure, provided the vacancy is to last more than six months. A vacancy shall be declared to exist and the committee member considered to have resigned if

he/she anticipates an absence from the committee of more than six months. Vacancies of six months or less are filled temporarily by appointment by the Chair of the

3. E4.1.1.1 [no change] 4. E4.1.1.2 [no change] 5. E4.1.1.3 [no change]

19

Faculty with the advice and consent of the Executive Committee.(En 25

Jan 72)(Am May 2005)

6. E4.1.2 The Executive Committee has the following functions:

7. E4.1.2.1 The Executive Committee has the general oversight of the academic welfare and discipline of students in the school and has the power to bring before the Faculty any matters that the committee deems advisable.

8. E4.1.2.2 The Executive Committee

appoints and designates the Chairs

of all other standing committees and all special committees of the Faculty unless otherwise directed at a meeting of the Faculty. (Am 25 Jan 72

9. E4.1.2.3 The Executive Committee acts finally for the Faculty (a) in the awarding of all degrees to students of the school in all cases which do not involve the suspension of regulations or that involve only minor adjustments in the curricula and (b) in the awarding of honors at graduation. The committee is likewise empowered to act on petitions of students for graduation under suspension of the regulations. The committee will report all

6. E4.1.2 [no change] 7. E4.1.2.1 [no change] 8. E4.1.2.2 [no change]

9. E4.1.2.3 The Executive Committee acts finally (a) in the awarding of all degrees to students of the school in all cases which do not involve the suspension of regulations or that involve only minor adjustments in the curricula and (b) in the awarding of honors at graduation. The committee is likewise empowered to act on petitions of students for graduation under suspension of the regulations. The committee will report all

20

degrees approved to the Division.

10. E4.1.2.4 The Executive Committee makes recommendations to the Faculty in the establishment, modification, and discontinuation of school instructional programs, curricula, and credential programs. (Am 25 Jan 72)(Am May 2005)

11. E4.1.2.5 The Executive Committee

acts for the Faculty in making recommendations to the Division regarding courses.

12. E4.1.2.6 The Executive Committee reviews and makes recommendations to the Dean of the Graduate School of Education regarding proposals for the establishment of new program areas

or modifications of existing program areas.(Am May 2005)

13. E4.1.2.7 The Executive Committee establishes and maintains liaison with the Executive Committees of the other colleges and schools in the Division.

14. E4.1.2.8 The Executive Committee

assists the Dean on his/her request in matters relating to the administration of the Graduate School of Education.(Am May 2005)

degrees approved to the Division. 10. E4.1.2.4 [no change] 11. E4.1.2.5 The Executive Committee

makes recommendations to the Division regarding courses.

12. E4.1.2.6 [no change] 13. E4.1.2.7 [no change] 14. E4.1.2.8 [no change]

21

15. E4.2 There shall be a standing teacher education committee consisting of one representative from each teacher credential program; two other Faculty; the Director of Teacher Education, ex officio; and the Dean of the Graduate School of Education, ex

officio. The duty of the committee is to advise on the operation of

teaching credential programs.(En 25

Jan 72)(Am may 2005)

16. E4.3 There shall be a standing graduate advisory committee consisting of four Faculty members, the graduate advisor, ex officio, and the Dean of the Graduate School of Education ex officio. The duty of this committee is to advise on the operation of graduate degree

programs except the M.Ed. program. (En 25 Jan 72)(Am May 2005)

15. E4.2 There shall be a standing teacher education committee consisting of one representative from each teacher credential program; two other Faculty; the Director of Teacher Education, ex officio; the Dean of the Graduate

School of Education, ex officio; and, when possible, one graduate student representative selected by the Graduate Student Association of GSOE, without voting rights. The Chair shall have the right to ask for a closed meeting, excluding student member, under certain circumstances, including but not limited to discussions of personnel matters, and of students when student privacy is a concern. The duty of the committee is to advise on the operation of teaching credential programs. (En 25 Jan 72)(Am may 2005).

16. E4.3 There shall be a standing

graduate advisory committee consisting of Faculty members from each Area Group, the graduate advisor, ex officio, the Dean of the Graduate School of Education ex officio; and, when possible, one graduate student representative selected by the Graduate Student Association of GSOE, without

22

voting rights. The Chair shall have the right to ask for a closed meeting, excluding student member, under certain circumstances, including but not limited to discussions of personnel matters, and of students when student privacy is a concern. The duty of this committee is to advise on the operation of graduate degree programs except the M.Ed. program. (En 25 Jan 72)(Am May

2005).

17. E4.4 There shall be a standing M.Ed. advisory committee consisting of two Faculty members, the Director of Teacher Education who shall be the M.Ed. graduate advisor, ex officio, and the Dean of the Graduate School of Education, ex officio. The duty of this committee is to advise on the operation of the M.Ed graduate

degree program.(En May 5, 2005)

17. E4.4 [no change]

JUSTIFICATION These changes to the bylaws allow for limited student participation on certain GSOE Committees. They define the scope, time, and means for student participation. They also specify that each of the Area Groups in the GSOE be represented on some committees so as to ensure fairness and equal representation. Regarding Area Groups, note that the GSOE is one unit, similar to a department of the whole. We break the unit into disciplinary subunits or Area Groups, as follows: Education, Society and Culture; Higher Education Administration and Policy; Educational Psychology; School Psychology; Special Education. Appropriate representatives of Area groups are Senate faculty.

APPROVALS Approved by the faculty of the Graduate School of Education: January 11, 2011 Approved by the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Education: December 7, 2010 Approved by the Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction: February 10, 2012 Received by the Executive Council:

23

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY

February 15, 2012

TO: MARY GAUVAIN, CHAIR

RIVERSIDE DIVISION FM: MARTIN JOHNSON, CHAIR

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY RE: CEP POLICY/PROCEDURE FOR DISCONTINUATIONS, MERGERS,

SPLITS OF UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS In response to concerns raised by the Committee on Rules & Jurisdiction, the Committee on Educational Policy has revised the proposed policy for discontinuations, mergers, and splits of undergraduate programs. In their November 1 memorandum, Rules & Jurisdiction expressed three concerns:

• The indeterminacy of “consensus” over these changes, • The articulations of deadlines for actions with no specified enforcement or

penalty, and • The intended involvement of the Executive Council in decision-making on these

changes, potentially outside the intent of Senate Bylaw 8.5.2. CEP approved the following changes:

• We solicit the reporting of votes for proposed changes, rather than solicit consensus. This will allow CEP, School/College Executive Committees, and the Chair of the Division to learn more about support and opposition to proposals.

• The proposed deadlines for action have been removed. • References to the Senate Executive Council have been replaced with the referral

of these matter to the Chair of the Division.

24

COM MITTEE O N E DUC ATIO NAL POL ICY

POLICY ON DISCONTINUANCE, MERGER OR SPLITS OF UNDERGRADUATE ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

Pre ambl e A dynamic educational institution such as UCR requires transparent procedures for modifying its educational programs. Such procedures, however, do not currently exist for the discontinuance, merging or splitting of undergraduate programs. In view of this, the Executive Council has charged the Committee on Educational Policy with the creation of such procedures; the present document is the result of this charge. The proposed regulations are intended as an extension of Senate Bylaw 10 that provides "Procedures for approval of New Undergraduate Curricula and Changes in Undergraduate Curricula"1

The Compendium2 addresses the issue of transfer, consolidation or discontinuance or disestablishment (TCDD) of programs, but treats graduate and undergraduate programs differently. For graduate programs the document provides a detailed procedure (section IV.B), while for undergraduate programs the procedure is left to the campuses (section IV.A), except in the special case of the discontinuance of an undergraduate program resulting in the elimination of a degree title in the campus3; The procedures described below do not apply to this case and the campus must instead follow the process described in section IV.A of the compendium.

Whenever curricular changes of the types considered here are envisaged, there is a serious concern that, aside from their educational implications, such proposals might entail the loss of faculty lines, or even the termination of employed tenured faculty. This last possibility is the more worrisome since it cannot be forbidden by the Senate4. The procedures below are designed to allow as thorough a discussion as possible, paying particular attention to insuring that all affected faculty will have a voice in the actions being considered. It is to be hoped that any negative effects on the faculty body and the educational excellence of the institution can be

1 ://senate.ucr.edu/bylaws/?action=read_bylaws&code=d&section=10 2 ://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/ucpolicies/documents/compendium_jan2011.pdf 3 This point is not clearly stated in section IV.A of the Compendium, but it is clarified in section II.C 4 The regulations are notoriously vague when presenting the conditions under which tenured faculty might be dismissed from the University, except in case of incompetence (covered in detail in the Academic Personnel Manual APM-075, ://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-075.pdf). The only guideline is contained in the Regent’s Standing Order 103.9 ( ://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/bylaws/so1039.html; repeated in the Academic Personnel Manual APM – 130 – 0 a., ://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-130.pdf), that states “ … The termination of a continuous tenure appointment or the termination of the appointment of any other member of the faculty before the expiration of the appointee's contract shall be only for good cause, after the opportunity for a hearing before the properly constituted advisory committee of the Academic Senate, except as otherwise provided in a Memorandum of Understanding for faculty who are not members of the Academic Senate.”

25

prevented or mitigated through this consultative process, especially in the cases where such actions might be proposed as a result of budgetary or other non-educational exigencies.

When a program is merged, split or discontinued, it is also assumed that the reassignment of teaching duties will be handled by the department(s) involved and, if need be, the corresponding dean(s). The process described below also allows for the Committee on Faculty Welfare to become involved whenever pertinent.

Intro ducti on

Any member of the Academic Senate can propose the merger of two or more majors into a new one, the splitting of an existing major into one or more new ones, or the discontinuance of an existing major.

Such a proposal must contain evidence that the proposed action was fully discussed with all the faculty members participating in the program(s) being affected, and will be first reviewed by the executive committee(s) of the college(s)/school(s) housing the affected program(s). This (these) committee(s) will evaluate the merits of the proposal and will determine whether the proposed changes will (i) result in a reduction of the academic and/or research opportunities for students, or (ii) whether the changes amount to a reorganization of teaching and research programs and opportunities.

Actions of the first type will be referred as discontinuance of the program; actions of the second type will be referred to as program mergers or splits (respectively).

No programs or units shall be discontinued, merged or split until the enrolled students can be accommodated in a fashion that will assure completion of the degree. Arrangements shall be made for the orderly and appropriate accommodation of affected academic and staff employees, whose welfare should be a primary consideration. These arrangements shall be in accordance with existing personnel policies to the extent that they are adequate for each specific case; where existing policies are not adequate, supplemental policies shall be developed by the Administration in consultation with the Senate whenever appropriate. Until such policies are adopted, historical precedent and established practice shall supplement existing personnel policies. Under no circumstances shall a program be discontinued, merged or split without the full approval of the academic Senate through the processes described below.

The approval processes of proposals for discontinuance are detailed in item A below; the corresponding process for program mergers or splits is described in item B.

A. Disc ontinu an ce of pr ogram s

1. The request for discontinuance of an undergraduate program should be first considered by the

relevant College/School Executive Committee(s) irrespective of the originator of the request. This request must contain clear evidence that the proposed action was discussed with all of the faculty members involved in the affected program(s). The request must report a

26

vote, tallied by affected program(s), indicating the number of votes for or against the proposal, as well as abstentions and unavailable faculty. A summary of anticipated positive and negative outcomes should be included; this could include effects on departmental resources, staffing or faculty, in both the program being discontinued and other related programs, as well as possible effects at the level of the campus and/or UC system. The documentation may also involve minority or individual opinions that modify or go counter to the request. The executive committee(s) shall be also diligent in eliciting comments from the participants in any other affected department(s)/program(s).

2. If approved by the College/School Executive Committee(s), the proposal shall be forwarded

to the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP), including all supporting documentation from the affected departments and programs. A letter from the Dean(s) of the affected colleges addressing the proposed changes should be obtained by the Executive Committee(s) and forwarded to CEP.

3. The CEP will review the proposal. If deemed necessary, comments will be requested from

any other committee whose charge overlaps with the proposed actions. CEP may request additional comments from the deans of the colleges/schools affected, but the CEP will not delegate approval or review authority to these parties or any other administrative unit.

4. The CEP will vote on the issue. In cases where a majority of CEP members do not support

the proposal, the Committee will request that the Chair of the Division, in consultation with the College/School Executive Committee(s) and the affected programs, convene a Special External Review Panel to examine the merits of the proposal. This Panel shall consist of two individuals from other campuses or institutions, one of whom shall be a member of the UC Senate. The Charge for this panel shall be drafted by the CEP and forwarded to the Chair of the Division, who shall then determine the details of the visit (including the length of the review and the honoraria for the Panel participants) in consultation with the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education.

5. If a majority of CEP members support the proposal, it shall be forwarded to the Chair of the

Division to circulate to the relevant Senate Committees whose advice might inform the eventual decision of the Division. If deemed necessary, the Chair of the Division may also refer the proposal back to CEP. The CEP decision will also be forwarded to the affected program(s) and to the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, eliciting comments from all these parties. In addition, the CEP may request comments from the EVC/P and/or the Chancellor.

6. The CEP, upon receipt of the comments from the involved parties, will draft a

recommendation that will be forwarded to the Chair of the Division requesting final

27

comments; as a result of these, further review by CEP may be necessary. Upon final approval from CEP, the Committee’s final recommendation shall be forwarded to the Chair of the Division for a vote at the next meeting of the Division; notifications to the VPUE, the EVC/P and the Chancellor will also be issued. The Division agenda shall include the full documentary evidence followed in the above process.

7. After completion of the foregoing procedures, the results shall be reported by the Division to

the Chancellor. If the decision is to discontinue the program, it shall be reported to the System-wide Administration.

8. The campus will report any program discontinuance decisions annually on its Academic

Program Inventory

B. Progra m mer ge rs or s plits

1. The request for undergraduate program merger or splits shall be first examined by the

appropriate College/School Executive Committee(s). This request must contain clear evidence that the proposed action was discussed with all the faculty members involved in the affected program(s). The request must report a vote, tallied by affected program(s), indicating the number of votes for or against the proposal, as well as abstentions and unavailable faculty. A summary of anticipated positive and negative outcomes should be included. This could include effects on departmental resources, staffing or faculty, in both the program being discontinued and other related programs, as well as possible effects at the level of the campus and/or UC system. The documentation may also involve minority or individual opinions that modify or go counter to the request. The executive committee(s) shall be also diligent in eliciting comments from the participants in any other affected department(s)/program(s).

2. The college/school Executive Committee(s) will determine whether the proposed changes are

meritorious, and determine the associated educational and research advantages. If approved, the proposal, together with the supporting documentation form the College(s) will be forwarded to the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP), and to the Planning and Budget Committee (P&B) for a thorough examination. A letter from the Dean(s) of the affected College(s) addressing the proposed changes should be obtained by the College Executive Committee(s) and forwarded to CEP and P&B. CEP will provide an independent evaluation of whether the proposed changes constitute a reorganization that will result in no diminution of the educational and research opportunities for the students. P&B will provide an independent assessment of the resource implications of the proposal.

3. Either P&B or CEP can request additional clarification from the College/School Executive

Committee(s) and/or from the program(s) affected. In case the proposed changes require additional resources, P&B and/or CEP may request the College(s)/School(s) obtain commitments from the Deans as a condition for approval.

28

4. If approved by CEP and P&B, the proposal together with all supporting documentation will

be forwarded to the Chair of the Division to circulate to the relevant Senate Committees whose comments might inform the eventual decision of the Division. Comments and recommendations from other committees shall be forwarded to the CEP for a final recommendation.

5. The final CEP recommendation shall be forwarded to the Chair of the Division for a vote at

the next meeting of the Division; notifications to the VPUE, the EVC/P and the Chancellor will also be issued. The Division agenda shall include the full documentary evidence followed in the above process.

6. After completion of the foregoing procedures, the results shall be reported by the Division to

the Chancellor. If the decision is in favor of merging or splitting, it shall be reported to the System-wide Administration.

7. The campus will report any program mergers or splits annually on its Academic Program

Inventory. Adopted by the Committee on Educational Policy: 5/25/11 Revised and Adopted by the Committee on Educational Policy: 1/25/12 The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction finds the wording to be consistent with the code of the Academic Senate: 2/17/12 Reviewed by the Executive Council:

29