ACADEMIC FEDERATION

NEWSLETTER Fall 1997

FROM THE CHAIR’S DESK

--Dan Wick, Chair

Academic Federation

After extensive discussion of Dr. Steve Blank's "Study of Initial Salary Determination Procedures for Academic Federation Positions," (see page 3) the Academic Federation Executive Council has requested that an equity review process for Federation members be established as soon as possible by the Vice Provost - Academic Planning and Personnel.

Because the salary determination criteria employed by the respondents in Dr. Blank's study varied so widely, it is likely that some Federation members were offered initial salaries significantly below the level of their qualifications.

The Executive Council wrote Interim Vice Provost Harvey Himelfarb that the equity review process should be designed to meet the following criteria:

1) It should apply to all Federation title series;

2) It should be appropriately funded so as not to create disincentives for departments and units to recommend equity adjustments;

3) It should be flexibly structured to accommodate the various personnel review processes that Academic Federation members undergo; i.e., it should follow the same path as the merit and promotion packets;

4) It should be based on a clear set of standards and guidelines established by the Office of the Vice Provost, Academic Planning and Personnel;

5) It should be widely publicized to Academic Federation members, making clear that any member can request an out of cycle review;

6) It should be fully instituted prior to the beginning of the 1998 personnel review process.

Vice Provost Himelfarb's office is currently requesting comment from deans and department chairs on Dr. Blank's study. But without strong input from Academic Federation members, it is unlikely that deans

and department chairs will respond quickly or positively. If you agree with the recommendations listed above, we urge you to contact your department or unit chair on this matter as soon as possible.

--Kevin Roddy, Vice-Chair &

Barbara Goldman, Secretary

Academic Federation

This year's Chancellor's Fall Conference took place on September 18-20, 1997, with an outreach theme that had been visited some years previously. This focus was particularly welcome to the dozen or so members of the Federation attending, nearly all of whom were and are deeply engaged in outreach. And it certainly represents a more manageable and compelling mandate than the computer theme in 1996, which has yet to produce the dramatic changes the participants had requested.

As might be expected, the small breakout sessions provided the most valuable experiences and information for the attendees, some two hundred students, staff, faculty, and administrators. The three breakout sessions--one each discussing ways that UC Davis outreach initiatives could affect important issues of K-12 Education, Community Development, and

(Continued on next page)

(Continued from previous page)

Business and Economic Development--were generally

valuable in increasing our awareness of major areas of work to which UCD could contribute. Conference participants, split into three work groups and delivered the following recommendations for UC Davis Outreach efforts:

K-12 Education

1. Outreach of all kinds, not just K-12, be made an integral part of each academic department's mission.

2. Programs that support K-12 teachers be expanded and enhanced.

3. Meaningful dialogue be facilitated between UC Davis and K-12.

4. Teacher preparation training programs at UC Davis be expanded and enhanced.

5. Involvement of undergraduate and graduate students in K-12 education be increased.

6. UC Davis should inform legislators, policy makers and the public about educational issues.

Business and Economic Development

1. A two- to three-year marketing plan to enhance regional, national and international recognition be developed and implemented.

2. An Innovation Partnership Center to advance technology transfer and industry relationships be created.

3. Opportunities to reward excellence in outreach be provided in the personnel process of faculty and staff.

4. Campus hubs of excellence in such areas as biological sciences, environmental sciences and engineering continue to be developed through a coordinated academic planning process.

5. A business plan for physical infrastructure and campus land use be developed to link academic programs to regional economic engines.

Community Development

1. Build on history, strengths and existing partnerships.

2. Create and support a clearinghouse with the functions to inform, link and evaluate.

3. Convene internal and external conferences and summits.

4. Optimize our continuum of learning and involvement.

5. Encourage, permit and reward this initiative.

The General Sessions were not so successful; Tony Eames, the Chair of the Research Committee, Valley Vision, gave the inaugural presentation on Wednesday evening, but this provided little that was specific to the University's role in the region, and many of the issues addressed were beyond the presumably advisory role of the University. We can, for example, advise the region on the effects that population growth will have on the region, but we have no power to control those effects.

The Friday morning general session featured James Ryan, Outreach and Cooperative Extension Vice President for Pennsylvania State University. Though there are a few similarities between Pennsylvania State and Davis, there are even more differences, especially in the ring of satellite colleges that Pennsylvania State uses for outreach purposes. On the very important and sensitive issue of rewards for faculty and staff engaging in outreach, Ryan had few specifics, and I suspect this segment of the program is proceeding only with difficulty.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment, though, was the morning panel, following the break that was meant to offer representative examples of Davis' own outreach activities. The three speakers were articulate enough, but it became clear that they did not in fact represent the range of outreach at Davis, and that few in the audience could really be said to know exactly what the University was already accomplishing. We all suspected that it was a great deal more than UC Davis has been given credit for, and it was a general and sincere expectation that the Office of University Outreach will continue its efforts to gather and publicize the scattered activities of the University community.

The Chancellor is to be congratulated for emphasizing the critical role the University might play in the region; historically, the Yolo Bypass has been more of a moat than an opportunity for access, and if this conference has served to change that thinking, it is well on the way to becoming a success.

STUDY OF INITIAL SALARY DETERMINATION PROCEDURES

FOR ACADEMIC FEDERATION POSITIONS

--Steve Blank

Academic Assistant to the Vice Provost

During the 1996-97 year a project entitled "Study of Initial Salary Determination Procedures for Academic Federation Positions" was undertaken by Steve Blank, Academic Assistant to the Vice Provost. This project identified and analyzed procedures used at UC Davis to arrive at the salary offer level when hiring people into Academic Federation (AF) positions. A full copy of the project report is on the web at

http://www.mrak.ucdavis.edu/app.htm.

Data was collected with a survey sent to both current and past department chairs of all UCD academic departments. First, Chairs were asked to indicate all factors that they used when arriving at their salary recommendations from a list of 26 on the questionnaire. In general, the results are striking in their diversity. No factor was considered by all Chairs and 23 of the 26 factors were used by at least one current or past Chair. Also, there was a surprising range in the number of factors considered by individual Chairs (range 1-16, average of 7). However, statistical analysis of initial salaries of people hired into Academic Federation series show that the UC's system of fixed rank, step and salaries dominates most factors except for one market factor. Also, the Medical School is unique, relative to the remainder of UCD, in terms of the factors that appear to influence salary levels.

Next, a direct comparison of salaries received initially by men and women was conducted using statistical methods. No difference was found in the average salaries of the two groups. Also, a "gender" variable was included in multiple regressions, but was never statistically significant in the salary determin-ation process. In other words, UCD's system appears to be gender neutral overall, but individuals involved can make decisions which vary from the average due to the differences in factors considered.

In summary, the study indicates that differences in the markets for people in particular disciplines will create differences in salary amounts for new appointees, but fairness and uniformity require that identical rank and step levels be assigned to appointees with identical qualifications and experience, no matter what disciplines are involved. This degree of precision will require that departments specify and follow detailed guidelines for merit and promotion advancements.

AF BALLOT RESULTS: PROPOSED SEMESTER CONVERSION & BYLAW REVISIONS

Academic Federation members cast their votes on two different issues recently. The votes have been tallied and the results are as follows:

Proposed Semester Conversion

Eligible voting membership: 750

Ballots received: 309

Invalid ballots: 3

Blank ballots: 3

Results:

I prefer to convert to the early semester system: 121

I prefer to remain on the quarter system: 134

I have no preference about the academic calendar UCD chooses: 48

Proposed Revisions to the AF Bylaws

Eligible voting membership: 750

Ballots received: 218

Invalid ballots: 0

Blank ballots: 0

Results:

Accepted the proposed revisions to the Bylaws: 195

Rejected the proposed revisions to the Bylaws: 4

Those wishing to vote individually on each change: 19

(See below for the detailed count.)

III. B. Addition of Clinical Professor to AF membership Yes: 12 No: 7

IV. (B) 2. & 3. Changes in the Election and Term of Office

and Duties of the Committee on Committees Yes: 15 No: 4

X. B. 1. & 2. Addition of Administrative Series Personnel

Committee to list of standing committees of the AF Yes: 13 No: 6

EIGHTH ANNUAL CALL FOR NOMINATIONS

ACADEMIC FEDERATION

AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING

All members of the University community (students, faculty, staff, and alumni) are invited to nominate a member of the Academic Federation for the ACADEMIC FEDERATION AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING. Students especially are encouraged to submit nominations.

QUALIFICATIONS: This Award for Excellence in Teaching is given annually to a non-Senate faculty member for demonstrated teaching excellence at UC Davis. Nominees must hold a regular teaching appointment.

Some criteria for the award are as follows:

• knowledge of the subject field taught.

• ability to convey that knowledge to students.

• ability to stimulate independent thought and creative solutions to intellectual problems.

• innovative approaches to teaching.

• contributions to the educational experience at UC Davis.

• effectiveness in student advising.

NOMINATIONS: Nominations should be in the form of a short letter describing the attributes and accomplishments of the nominee. The letter should be specific and comprehensive, but no longer than three double-spaced typewritten pages. It should describe the characteristics that set the nominee apart from his or her colleagues as an excellent teacher. Nominators should include their name, campus and/or local address, and telephone number.

The following materials should be submitted with the letter of nomination:

• at least 3 support letters, at least one of which should be from a student and one from a colleague or the chair.

• 3 sets (or summaries) of student evaluations.

Additional information will be requested for nominees who are finalists for the award. The recipient of the award will give a public lecture.

DEADLINE: Nominations must be received in the Academic Federation Office, 356 Mrak Hall, by

5:00 p.m., Monday

FEBRUARY 2, 1998

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL THE FEDERATION OFFICE AT 752-2220

THE 25TH ANNUAL JAMES H. MEYER DISTINGUISHED ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

--Kathy Lin, Chair

Public Affairs Committee

L. Peter Christensen, Cooperative Extension Viticulture Specialist with the Department of Viticulture and Enology has been chosen as the 1997 recipient of the James H. Meyer Distinguished Achievement Award by the Academic Federation. The award recognizes a member of the Academic Federation for exceptional career achievement and is based on a distinguished record in research, teaching and/or public service. Pete was chosen to receive this award from a list of seven outstanding nominees.

The Federation has honored 25 members since the award's inception in 1971. The award was presented at an annual award dinner on November 3, 1997 at the University Club. The Academic Federation has received donations from various California winemakers who wanted to pay tribute to Pete's exceptional contributions to the grape and wine industries. Preceding the award dinner, Pete hosted a wine tasting for more than 60 dinner guests.

THIS YEAR'S DISTINGUISHED RECIPIENT: L. PETER CHRISTENSEN

L. Peter Christensen has served the raisin, table grape and wine industries of the central and southern regions of the State for 38 years--first, as a Cooperative Extension Farm Advisor in Fresno County and then as a Specialist serving the state's raisin and wine industries. His location at the Kearney Agriculture Center in San Joaquin Valley has enabled him to be closely connected to the growers, processors, industry organizations, and Farm Advisors and their needs and problems. Kearney is well centralized for these industries, so that research and educational activities can be closely tailored to immediate and long-range problems and technological advances.

Much of Christensen's research has centered on grapevine nutrition, grape cultivar and clonal evaluation, trellising, pruning and mechanization. Many of the diagnostic and fertilizer practice recommendations for California vineyards are based on his research and extension activities. He has published more than 200 reports, articles and abstracts in agriculture journals, has served as editor or reviewer for several of those journals, and twice has received the honor of Best Paper in Viticulture from the American Society of Enology and Viticulture. He has been awarded over $150,000 in grants for his research projects.

Christensen received his BS and MS degrees in viticulture studies at CSU-Fresno and UC Davis, respectively. He credits the knowledge and research leadership of the Dept. of Viticulture and Enology at Davis as his inspiration to pursue an academic career with the University of California. "I have also had the opportunity to extend my activities into professional society service and traveling to raisin and wine producing areas in Australia, South America, South Africa, and the Mediterranean. But, working with the many talented California growers and other industry personnel has been the most satisfying part of my career", he concludes.

1996-97 ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE

STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE ACADEMIC FEDERATION

Committee on Committees

1996-97 Committee on Committees members: Steve Anderson, Patsy Inouye, Pamela Major, Dan Parfitt, Cathy VandeVoort, Bob VanDyne, Joan Wright, Barbara Jahn (Chair)

Report of Activities:

Members of the Committee on Committees (C on C) met several times during the 1996-97 academic year. Following is a report of those activities.

The purpose of the initial meetings in May was to select and recommend new members to the various Academic Federation Standing committees, Joint Academic Senate/Academic Federation subcom-mittees and to appoint the Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary of the Academic Federation. The process was accomplished expeditiously due in part by the summary sheet compiled with results from the "Call for Volunteers for Committee Service" form.

Contact (by phone or e-mail) was made by the chair of C on C to all those recommended to serve as chair of an Academic standing committee requesting confirmation of their willingness to serve as chair.

Recommendations were presented to the Exec-utive Council for approval. A letter was then gener-ated to respective committee members thanking them for serving on the committee and included a copy of their duties as per Academic Federation By-Laws.

Adjustments were made by the chair as necessary to fill vacated positions during the course of the year. Replacements included membership on the (1) Personnel, (2) Affirmative Action, (3) Professional Development, (4) Undergraduate Scholarships, Honors and Prizes, (5) Honors Council, and (6) Rules and Elections committees.

The C on C was also requested to select the Excellence in Teaching Award subcommittee.

In March the C on C met to revise the "Call for Volunteer Service for Academic Federation Committees" form. The committee's recommend-ations were presented to the Executive Council and after a few minor revisions were approved for use in the 1997-98 call for service.

Recommendations:

The Committee on Committees recommends changes in the By-Laws to eliminate a confusing situation wherein the C on C terms are different when acting on the C on C vs. when the members sit on the Executive Council. (See 2 May 1997 minutes). The Executive Council vote was unanimous in favor of the proposed changes.

Academic Federation Personnel Committee

Activities:

The Academic Federation Personnel Committee reviews actions on a variety of AF titles. During the

1996-1997 academic year, the Committee met 12 times, concluding its work August 1997. The

Committee reviewed 38 personnel actions, including:

Appointments: 2

Promotions: 8

(4 with acceleration; 1 removal of acting title)

Merit Increases: 8

(3 with acceleration)

No Actions (Plateau Points): 2

In addition to cases pertaining to the above types of action, the Academic Federation Personnel, Committee read the documentation for eighteen academic appointees who were reviewed for one-step merit increases (15 cases) or career plateau points (3 cases). The Committee found these packets well organized and thoroughly documented.

Issues and Recommendations:

During the course of the year, a number of issues were discussed by the Academic Federation Personnel Committee. The Committee recommends further action by the Office of the Vice-Provost for Academic Planning & Personnel on several issues listed below.

1. The Committee notes that several AF series participate in department votes on personnel actions. The Committee will include instruction to new committee members regarding participation at department level on peer review actions at its orientation meeting. A committee member may not vote on personnel actions at both the department level and at the Academic Federation level. It would be helpful if members were aware of the potential conflict and participated at the Academic Federation level instead of voting in the department.

(Continued on next page)

(Continued from previous page)

2. The Committee experienced the resignation of one member because the individual was unfamiliar with the work and time commitment involved. The AF Committee on Committees documentation summarizing the workload and schedule of each committee should ease this situation.

3. The Committee recommends clarification on recognition for ongoing accomplishments. The Committee discussed the dilemma of review bodies unfamiliar with earlier actions rewarding outstanding achievement over again in subsequent review actions.

4. The Committee reviewed several files where evidence of equity adjustment was included in the case for merit. This special problem is not part of Academic Federation Personnel Committee's review criteria. The Committee notes AF Executive Board attention to rectify this situation. The charge to the Academic Federation Personnel Review Committee to develop procedures for merits and promotions for specific title series includes establishing procedures to redress gender equity adjustments.

5. Committee members reviewed the flowchart on Delegation of Authority for non-senate AF titles. The Committee clarified that the Academic Federation Personnel Committee is an advisory, standing committee and the standing committee referred to in the flowchart is an ad hoc committee. The ad hoc committee acts on more than one action and title series and members serve for three years.

6. The Committee sees a trend in the actions coming from Continuing Education Specialist series which are not completely justified by the stated criteria. The Committee finds this year's merit and appointment cases more similar to employment practices in a market based environment rather than an academic department. The Committee recommends that each candidate's case include goals and objectives mutually agreed upon between the candidate and supervisor and the extent to which these specific criteria were met.

Rafaela Castro, Karleen Darr (Chair), David Hodapp,

Anna Kato, Norma Lopez-Burton, Sue Williams.

Internet Activity Committee

The Internet Activity Committee had minimal business this year, thanks to Jennifer Kantorowski's active role in maintaining the Federation Web Site. No policy issues were treated, but future committees might want to formulate the following lines of inquiry:

1) It is anecdotally true that members of the Federation are both more computer literate and more engaged in furthering campus computer literacy than most any other unit (librarians are notable in this regard). Can this be measured?

2) The PC-FIT report will treat the inequality on campus in the distribution and quality of equipment among the disciplines, but it isn't clear if there is documentation for inequalities among members of the Federation. Can this be measured?

3) A longstanding issue is the equity with which Network 21 has been distributed to units and individuals on campus. Are Federation suspicions in its share of these resources warranted?

Kevin Roddy (Chair) , Curt Acredolo, Karl Karcher

Professional Development Committee

This year's professional Development Committee consisted of five members: Mary Bly (English), Pat French (Shields Library), Gene Crumley (Extension), Prabhakara Choudary (Anatomy Engineering Lab) and Eric Schroeder, Chair. As you know, the committee's primary charge is to review the applications for the Professional Development Awards (PDAs), and all of the members took an active role in this charge.

The committee received nine proposals that we placed into four groups, recommending that the candidates in the first three of these groups be considered for funding (this was a total of five individuals). Although we had been told that there was only money for four awards, we were delighted to learn that all five of the candidates we recommended received awards.

Our one major concern was that the committee continued to have no policy nor practice regarding providing feedback for those applicants who did not receive awards. We saw this as an important issue; since the committee is charged with "professional development" it seemed imperative that it have a mechanism for providing advice to unsuccessful candidates. The problem seemed particularly relevant since four out of nine applicants had applied for awards previously, and two of them had been turned down in the past (and weren't recommended this time). As the records for the Professional Development Committee indicate, this issue has been a concern in the past that was mentioned to the Provost's Office but that has

(Continued on next page)

(Continued from previous page)

never been acted upon. This year it was not only reiterated in the PDA report to Carol Tomlinson-

Keasey, but I made an appointment to see her and convey the importance of this issue.

I was pleasantly surprised at the readiness with which she accepted the suggestion and said that it would be appropriate for me to provide individual feedback to unsuccessful applicants. To that end she included a line in her letter to them suggesting that they should contact me if they wished to discuss their proposals. Four out of five of the applicants did so, and all of them seemed to think that my suggestions would be helpful if they decided to resubmit their proposals next year.

In addition to reviewing the PDAS, the committee was also responsible for two different workshops regarding review procedures for members of several different Academic Federation title series. The first of these was actually organized by Steve Blank and Jo Anne Boorkman and presented during orientation week last fall. It was for all title series members who are reviewed by the joint Federation/ Senate Personnel Committee; the titles included the following series: Agronomist, Coop Extension Specialist, Education Extension Specialist, Profes-sional Research, and Specialist. Steve reported that people who attended commented that it was very useful.

Mary Bly and I organized and presented the second one, which was held in mid fall quarter and intended for lecturers who were up for either a one-year or a three-year review. We were assisted at the workshop by Margaret Eldred and Marlene Clarke from English and Ellen Lange from Linguistics; Steve Blank also attended. The two-hour workshop was attended by 10 lecturers from eight different departments, and the word-of-mouth feedback we received was very positive.

The other workshop that the committee organized but did not present was for Federation members who were interested in applying for PDAS. The committee did not think it appropriate that we conduct the workshop since we would be reviewing the proposals. We arranged for former committee member Marlene Clarke to conduct the session, assisted by Jared Haynes from English and Patricia Bulman from Comparative Literature, both of whom had received awards this past year. Despite the fact that attendance was low (five members), Marlene reported it went well and at least two people who attended later remarked to me that it had been extremely helpful.

Joint Academic Senate/Federation Personnel Committee (JPC)

Issues and General Comments:

1. An improvement was noted in the consistency of the format of the program reviews. Continued emphasis on the matter is still needed.

2. A problem continues to exist with Cooperative Extension Specialists and Professional Researcher Series researchers formally teaching classes and performing other departmental duties that are inconsistent with their position responsibilities. Formal classroom teaching is not part of the responsibilities of these positions. Classroom teaching is considered as university service for CE specialists, and it is not considered at all for PRS researchers since research/creative activity is the only criterion used to evaluate these positions. As such, neither group receives the appropriate credit for their effort. If formal classroom teaching is to be part of the duties of a CE Specialist or PRS researcher, then an appropriate teaching FTE with salary should be sought. In addition, some PRS researchers have been engaged in developing computer networks in their department. This type of activity is not part of their position description, and it will not be considered in the merit/promotion process. This problem was listed in last year's report, but no action appears to have occurred on the matter.

3. Training of the JPC committee is needed each year because of the variety of types of positions evaluated by the committee. Trying to sort things out by referring to the APM is somewhat of a futile task. The committee needs to be educated on the criteria of the various positions for merits, promotions, and appointments. It was discovered this year that Vet Medicine has its own criteria for Professional Researcher Series appointments. This information was not made available to the committee until we started recommending levels of appointments different from those recommended by Vet Med.

4. Information on the significance of the sequence of authors of category 1 papers needs to be provided. There appears to some differences between the various schools on campus.

5. Recommending personnel for ad hoc committees is a difficult task. Several notebooks listing

(Continued on next page)

(Continued from previous page)

academic personnel and their areas of interest are available for selecting ad hoc committee members. However, these notebooks are out-of-date. They need to be updated. They also should contain information on PRS researchers.

6. An increase in the inclusion of computer-based materials as supporting documents has been noted. These include the development of web sites and specialized computer programs. The JPC recommends that guidelines for evaluating these materials be developed.

Dan Parfitt, Susan Shideler, Steve Southwick, Ellen Sutter, Alan Williamson, Vincent Ziboh, Blaine Hanson, Chair

♦The Academic Federation’s home page address:

www.mrak.ucdavis.edu/acadfed/federation.htm

♦ To subscribe to the AF listserve:

1) E-mail your request to listproc@ucdavis.edu;

2) Do not enter anything in the subject header

and please do not include Signatures;

3) Place in the body of the letter:

subscribe federation yourfirstname yourlastname

The AF Newsletter is published by the Academic Federation of the University of California, Davis.

Chair: Dan Wick

Secretary/Editor: Barbara Goldman

Layout & Design: Jennifer Kantorowski

Opinions expressed in this newsletter are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect AF policy. Permission to reproduce material from

this newsletter in copy, print, or electronic media

must be obtained in advance from the Editor.

AT THE HELM

Officers and Ex Officio Members

Name Title

Dan Wick Chair

Kevin Roddy Vice Chair

Barbara Goldman Secretary

Steven Blank Ex Officio-

Acad Asst to Vice Provost

Pam Gill-Fisher Ex Officio- Past Chr of AF

AF Representatives on Senate Committees

Committee Chairs

Committee Name

Academic Freedom Beth Goodlin-Jones

Admin. Series Personnel Jo Anne Boorkman Affirm. Action & Diversity Margaret Durkin

Committee on Committees Steve Anderson

Educational Affairs Deborah Canington

Internet Activity John Stenzel

Joint Personnel Alan Williamson (Sen.)

Personnel Rafaela Castro

Public Affairs Kathy Lin

Planning & Budget Review Marta Marthas

Professional Development Mary Bly

Research Jeff deRopp

Rules and Election Sharon Baker

Academic Freedom & Responsibility Patsy Inouye

Academic Planning & Budget Review Marta Marthas

Admissions and Enrollment Judith Kysh

Affirmative Action and Diversity Margaret Durkin, Mari Golub, Pauline Holmes

Courses of Instruction Gary Goodman, Pamela Major

Education Abroad Program Simone Clay

Educational Policy Deborah Canington

Executive Council Dan Wick

Faculty Welfare Beth Goodlin-Jones

Grade Changes Ellen Lange

Graduate Council (and Subcommittees) Desmond Jolly, Kathleen Ward, Peter Klavins,

Mona Ellerbrock, Essam Enan

Library Jane Kimball

Preparatory Education Jill Wilson

Public Service Monte Blair, Michael Lawler

Student-Faculty Relationships Jim Schaaf

Teaching Carole Hom, Alida Morzenti

Undergrad., Scholarships, Honors & Prizes Lawrence Marx, Axel Borg

Special Committee on Honors Amy Clarke, Nora McGuinness

Special Committee on Undergraduate Education Eric Schroeder

Campus Union Reve Rocke

Dateline Kevin Roddy

Search Committee Representatives:

• Cynthia Bates, Lecturer in English has been appointed to the search committee for the Dean of Humanities, Arts, and Cultural Studies.

• Gregory Hereck, Research Psychologist in Psychology has been appointed to the search committee for the Dean of Social Sciences.

• Pamela Major, Lecturer in English, George Bynon, Assoc. Univ. Librarian, Shields Library, and Desmond Jolly, Director Small Farm Center, Ag Econ & DANR have been appointed to the Campus Council on Community and Diversity.