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