FROM THE CHAIR’S DESK

--Kevin Roddy, Chair

Academic Federation

This year celebrates the thirtieth anniversary of the Academic Federation, and we might look back on those past thirty years with some satisfaction: though there were plans for every UC campus to have a Federation, only UC Davis accomplished it; our presence on a vast array of standing and ad-hoc University committees has guaranteed us a voice in many critical issues over the years; we have succeeded in recognizing scores of our members through the prestigious Meyer Award and the Excellence in Teaching Award; the Development Stipends have benefited many members, as have the Travel Awards; and we have gained the respect of the entire campus. Throughout, we have shown ourselves loyal and dedicated.

It would take this entire letter to acknowledge the individuals who have, entirely through voluntary and scarcely recognized efforts, been responsible for these gains; in this year, we hope to sponsor the luminaries of the Federation through a series of speaking engagements and receptions, culminating this spring in a fitting celebration hosted by the Chancellor. Federation members are in charge of Summer Sessions, the Writing Center, vast and lucrative research projects in the Primate Center, the Medical School and the School of Veterinary Medicine, and countless other units; Federation members guarantee that our Libraries are among the best in the country; members have re-invented outreach in University Extension; the Cooperative Extension program can take credit for a dynamic series of initiatives that are transforming rural society; through the efforts of members of the Federation, the Athletics program has maintained the ideals of scholarship and honor in a culture where they have otherwise disappeared.

However, the lesson of the Federation is not success, but rather persistence. Even the change of our name, from the misleading “Academic Staff Organization” to the current title, took years to accomplish. The concession that allowed Federation members Principal Investigator status by exception was hard-won, and even now not automatic, though a blanket permission would cost the University nothing and potentially gain everything. So, even after a long history of achievement, members of the Federation must constantly re-prove their potential and their worth to new administrators, chairs, and fellow faculty.

It is within that context, of persistence, of persistent demonstration and proof, that two critical Federation initiatives are now going forward: the joint Personnel Policy Committee, co-chaired by Barbara Goldman and Charles Nash; and the Equity Committee, chaired by Karen Williams. Both of these committees seek fairness and equitable treatment in Federation matters: the first, now nearing completion of its report, will call for consistent regard for and professional recognition of members of the Federation; the second, modeled on the equity reform achieved by the Academic Senate, seeks to guarantee just compensation, irrespective of gender, race, or other potentially prejudicial circumstances. Both of these efforts are five years old; their slow and often discouragingly small progress is a result of a cautionary administrative culture, not any deliberate ill-will. Nevertheless we will continue to exert pressure to move them to completion, as we have in the past, and will, probably, in the future.

In the meantime, we of the Federation can be proud that the progress, however slow, by which the reputation that we have gained has vindicated us; we have taken on more than our load, our reward has been commensurately less, but we have served throughout with distinction, and with integrity.

ANTHONY T.W. CHEUNG

RECIPIENT OF 1998 MEYER DISTINGUISHED ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

--Kathy Lin, Chair, Public Affairs Committee

Dr. Anthony T.W. Cheung, Adjunct Professor of Medical Pathology, was chosen as the 1998 recipient of the James H. Meyer Distinguished Achievement Award by the Academic Federation. Named for Chancellor James H. Meyer, this 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.

The author of more than 250 papers and a presenter at more than 150 national and international conferences, Dr. Cheung's expertise lies in leukocyte

and vascular biology. In addition to his research and teaching, he has contributed countless hours to the

academic and surrounding communities. Dr. Cheung was chosen to receive this award from a list of nine outstanding nominees. He is the 27th recipient of the annual award, since the award's inception in 1971. The award was presented at an award dinner on November 5, 1998, at the University Club with 45 dinner guests. Provost/Executive Vice Chancellor Robert Grey presented the recipient with an award plaque and a check, followed by a slide presentation by Dr. Cheung. We also were very honored to have

Chancellor Emeritus Meyer in attendance.

NINTH 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 1, 1999. For more information, call the Federation Office at 752-2220.

1997-98 STANDING COMMITTEES ANNUAL REPORTS

Administrative Series Personnel Committee

As of August 31, 1998, the Administrative Series Personnel Committee had received 35 personnel actions, including: 15 appointments, 6 merit increases, 4 promotions, 1 no salary action, and 9 appointment screenings.

The AF Administrative Series Personnel Committee began the year by responding to a request

from the Office of the Provost to review guidelines for processing actions for the Academic Administrator (APM UCD-370) and Academic Coordinator (APM UCD-375) Series. The guidelines were designed as a chart to differentiate between the two series that would be available on the Office of the Provost’s Web Page. The committee provided a number of comments, most of which were incorporated in the final chart. Following this exercise, the committee determined that these two sections of the APM needed closer scrutiny. APM UCD-370 was written in 1990 and APM UCD-375 was written in 1989. Upon closer review of both sections, the committee determined that APM UCD-370 describing the appointment and promotion of Academic Administrators was adequate; however APM UCD-375, describing Academic Coordinators, did not provide adequate flexibility and distinction between the ranks within this series to be useful for either departments in designing positions or for the committee in screening positions for classification and dossiers for review.

The committee spent a significant amount of time defining the problem areas in APM UCD-375 and determined that the distinction between Ranks II and III needed to be more clearly defined as well as those between Ranks III and IV. In addition, the language in all ranks was too prescriptive, specifying specific numbers and classifications of employees supervised for eligibility for promotion to the next rank. In the time since this APM section was written, the campus has undergone many changes resulting in a flatter organizational structure. Academic Coordinators’ positions have changed so that individuals in these positions often work collaboratively with a number of people within their units or across units and may supervise fewer staff, if any at all. As a result they are called upon to take on additional responsibilities and must have a broader range of skills, and work much more independently. The APM does not adequately recognize these current organizational realities, nor the higher level skills required of individuals classed in this series.

The committee drafted revised language for APM UCD-375, including a chart to help distinguish between the ranks within this series.

The bulk of the committee’s work was in reviewing dossiers for merit and promotion and in screening positions for classification. In all, thirty-five personnel actions were received and reviewed by the committee. The bulk of the screenings and personnel actions was for Academic Coordinator positions. A number of these had to be returned to departments for additional information. There were a number of reasons for returning dossiers; however, several stand out as being problems for some units. These include: 1) incomplete dossiers, e.g. no organization chart, no position description; and 2) no letters supporting a promotion request. In the case of screenings, incomplete information was also a problem and the committee had to request additional information which slowed the review process considerably. Similar information was missing from screenings, including: 1) no organization chart (or unclear/ incomplete chart); 2) inadequate/ambiguous position description; and 3) no academic credentials identified for the position. This latter omission often occurred when the department was not planning to recruit for the position, but planned to recommend reclassification of an existing employee (whose name frequently appeared on the organization chart for the screening). A checklist of required and optional materials for each dossier is provided with the Annual Call, so incomplete dossiers and screening documentation should not occur.

The committee reviewed two dossiers for appointment which had incomplete documentation and where appointments had already been offered and accepted. This occurred for positions that are at UC Davis but are administratively part of the Office of the President. Whenever, possible every effort should be made to have the review occur prior to the official offer of a position.

Due to the problems encountered with incomplete documentation, the committee recom-mends that the Academic Assistant to the Vice Provost provide guidance to departments in how to prepare documentation for the Academic Administrator and Academic Coordinator Series. It is also hoped that the draft revision of APC UCD-375 will be approved for the UCD APM and that it will assist departments in distinguishing between Academic Coordinator positions and Academic Administrator positions when designing new job descriptions and when recommending promotions.

Academic Federation Personnel Committee

Activities:

The Academic Federation Personnel Committee reviewed actions on Academic Federation titles, and during the academic year 1997-98 the Committee reviewed a total of 48 personnel action files.

As of August 7, 1998, the Academic Federation Personnel Committee had received 25 personnel actions including: 4 appointments, 9 promotions (5 accelerated), 7 merit increases (2 accelerated), and 5 reappointments.

In addition, various members of the Committee also reviewed the documentation for one-step merit increases (13) or career plateau points (10).

Issues and recommendations:

During the deliberations of the Academic Federation Personnel Committee, various issues were raised and discussed. The Committee would like to point out these issues to the Office of the Vice-Provost for Academic Planning & Personnel:

1. The issue of incomplete personnel packets came up for discussion several times. There were cases where letters of reference had been requested, but apparently not received and consequently not included in the packet. This impeded the resolution process of the Committee since a clear decision could not always be reached when letters of reference were missing. In one case, the Committee felt it necessary to write to the Continuing Education division, asking about the omission of such letters in a packet. The AF must emphasize the importance of preparing satisfactory personnel review packets. In another case, reference letters were added after the packet had been sent to the Vice-Provost’s office and the Committee questioned the legitimacy of this procedure. No satisfactory answer was found.

2. The question of what constituted a quorum was raised. With the development of technology and electronic communication, discussions can be held and decisions reached without the Committee even seeing each other. Is this considered a quorum? Another predicament that occurred was that if a Committee member could not attend a meeting, he/she might visit the AF office, review a file, and leave a message with an action decision. The Committee was unsure if this constituted a legal vote, since there was no physical quorum. The AF may need to address this question.

3. The issue of salary equity adjustment was again raised this year, as it was last year, in the summary letters. Even though the Committee understands the magnitude of this inequity, it is not within the charge of the Committee to consider this matter when deliberating the merits of a promotion. Perhaps the AF can establish a proceeding for addressing gender equity adjustments, since there appear to be many cases that require redress among AF members.

4. The Committee found that Statements of Responsibility are not regularly updated and the professional activities of a candidate may not always match what is outlined in the Statement of Responsibility. In today’s environment, with rapid technological advances, an individual’s job responsibilities may change equally rapid. It is up to the candidate to see that his/her Statement reflects what the actual job entails.

Joint Academic Senate/Federation Personnel (Period covering 5/13/97 – 5/18/98)

As of May 18, 1998, the Joint Personnel Committee had received 119 personnel actions, including: 41 appointments, 59 merit increases, 7 promotions, 1 emeritus status review, 2 off scale requests, and 1 sent to us that did not require a vote by this committee. 8 cases were pending.

Issues and General Comments:

1. We again felt the need for some more detailed and current list of faculty fields of interest, for help in choosing ad hoc committees. Many "Programs" do not list their faculty in the general catalogue; some Departments list all their courses as taught by "the Staff." Lacking further guidance, we are forced to rely on personal acquaintance, or anecdote, in choosing appropriate committee members. We have also been burdened, this year, with many requests for additional names, after we have exhausted all our reasonable choices. This suggests a general problem in persuading faculty to serve on ad hoc committees.

2. Files are still not prepared as uniformly as would be desirable. In particular, all programs should be required, regardless of title, to separate out Category I publications from all others, and refereed from non-refereed publications; to provide some information about the candidate's contribution to jointly authored publications; and to provide a current job description with percentage breakdowns, signed by the Department Chair.

3. We remain concerned with the School of Veterinary Medicine's insistence on setting its own criteria for initial levels of appointment. These criteria are inconsistent with those used elsewhere in the University, in that they are entirely based on degrees and prior experience, not on the quantity or quality of peer-reviewed research. In the Medical School, too, initial levels are often determined by funding rather than the research record. These practices lead to long-term problems of equity. We can only hope that our advice will be listened to, when such recommendations are inappropriate in terms of standard University practice.

4. This year the JPC chose to exercise its option to recommend ad hoc committees for CE Specialists at all levels above Step V. We did so because of a philosophical difference, within the committee, as to whether such extraordinary steps required major scientific accomplishment, or whether a continuing and important impact on clientele groups was enough. The number of people now switching from the Specialist to the Professional Research salary scale makes this a still more complicated issue, which future committees will have to address. We would not necessarily urge subsequent JPCs to continue our practice of appointing high-level ad hoc committees. Often, we found, these committees simply voted their philosophical bias on the same issue, and we were back where we started.

5. One Academic Senate member expressed the strong opinion that the JPC should be composed exclusively of Federation faculty. This proposal did not gain majority support, some members citing the desirability of bringing different sections of the faculty closer together, others the need for strong spokesmen for the perspectives of particular programs, such as the Medical School. One Federation member even said a counterbalance was needed to a sense of collective grievance among Federation faculty. There was a consensus, however, that all the widely varying Federation series should be represented within the Committee, if possible.

Professional Development Committee

This year the Professional Development Committee had five members: Pat French (Shields Library), Gene Crumley (Extension), Kim Coontz (CC & Business Consortium), Raquel Scherr (English), and me (Mary Bly). All members worked diligently to fulfill the committee’s primary charge of reviewing the applications for the Professional Development Awards (PDAs).

The committee received eight proposals that we placed into two groups of four, recommending that the candidates in the first group be given the strongest consideration for funding and the second group some consideration as allowed by the budget. Since five awards were made last year, we were surprised that only the top three proposals were funded this year. (The only reason I can see for not funding at least the fourth proposal was that it was more tenuously tied to the applicant’s assigned teaching activities than were the first three).

In my report to Vice-Provost Harvey Himelfarb, I mentioned that we hoped to continue the practice of offering consultation with the chair of the committee to those applicants whose proposals were not funded as to how they might be more successful in the future. (One of the successful applicants this year received such help last year after an unsuccessful attempt.) Himelfarb included such an invitation in his letters to applicants, and two of the five did consult with me and said they found the feedback useful.

(continued on next page)

REMINDER FOR AF PIS

All Academic Federation members at 50 percent or more of full time in the Adjunct Professor, Agronomist, Clinical Professor, CE Specialist, and Professional Researcher series have Principal Investigator status under Sponsored Research Manual Section 105, available at: http://www.mrak.ucdavis.edu/web-mans/srm/105.htm

This confers upon you status as Principal Investigator on extramural grants, as well as intramural programs such as the AF Research Travel Awards.

(continued from previous page)

In addition to reviewing the PDAs, the committee was responsible for setting up a workshop in November for Academic Federation members who were interested in applying for PDAs. Since it would be inappropriate for the committee to conduct a workshop to prepare proposals we would later review, we arranged for former chair of the committee, Eric Schroeder, to conduct the session assisted by John Boe (English) and Deborah Canington (Biology), both of whom had received awards last year. While only four people attended the workshop, two of them went on to write proposals that were funded this year.

The committee also organized and presented a workshop in December for lecturers who were up for either a one-year or three-year review. We were assisted at the workshop by Margaret Eldred, Susan Palo, Raquel Scherr, and Cynthia Bates from English and by Ellen Lange from Linguistics. Approximately ten lecturers from eight different departments attended, and we had a lively discussion during which were able to clarify many points and dispel some misconceptions about the process. The feedback we received from the participants was very positive.

Public Affairs Committee

The Public Affairs Committee members, Jann Donnenwirth, Laurie Glover, Sandra Lamprecht, Susan Llano and Kathy Lin successfully organized for two award events this year. On November 3, 1997, the Academic Federation presented the James H. Meyer Distinguished Achievement Award to L. Peter Christensen, a Cooperative Extension Viticulture Specialist. On June 15, 1998, the Academic Federation presented Excellence in Teaching Awards to Deborah Canington, Academic Coordinator and Lecturer of Division of Biological Sciences, Section of Plant Biology and Alida Morzenti, Lecturer in Animal Science.

The Committee met formally three times this year to plan these two events, then through individual efforts, the invitations, programs, flyers, publicity, dinner and reception arrangements were completed. It was our pleasure to contribute to the recognition of these three outstanding Federation members and to help publicize our organization through these two events.

In addition, the Committee discussed and drafted an outline for a Public Service Award, which was charged to us by the Chair of the Federation, for further discussion and consideration by the Executive Council.

Committee on Research

Some of the activities undertaken by the Research Committee included:

1. Research Travel Awards The 1997-98 year saw 61 Travel Awards funded, with all funding for this purpose ($25,000) allocated. It was noted the single annual Call for proposals led to people traveling early in the academic year getting funded preferentially over those traveling later in the year, when funds had all been expended. Accordingly the Call now has two annual deadlines. Also, wording on the Call was changed to further emphasize that the candidates must be presenting their own original research, at a meeting with broad participation.

2. Extramural Research Funding: The Com-mittee attempted the first comprehensive assessment of extramural funding by AF PIs. The data showed that in the year 1997-98 AF members were PIs on 372 extramural grants with a total of $24,872,246 in funding. The Committee suggested ways for OVCR to improve their tracking of extra-mural funding, and requested that co-PI data be tracked.

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 include subject header or signature.

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: Kevin Roddy

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.