U NI VER SI TY O F C A LI FO R NI A, A C A DEM I C SENA TE BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ Robert L. Powell Chair of the Assembly and the Academic Council Telephone: (510) 987-0711 Faculty Representative to the Board of Regents Fax: (510) 763-0309 University of California Email: [email protected] 1111 Franklin Street, 12th Floor Oakland, California 94607-5200 December 20, 2012 SUSAN CARLSON VICE PROVOST, ACADEMIC PERSONNEL Dear Susan: As you requested, I distributed the proposed changes to APM 700 for systemwide review. All ten divisions and two committees (UCAP, UCFW) responded. In general, respondents questioned the need for new policy language, and suggested that other sections of the APM can be, and in fact have been, used to handle the situations apparently envisioned by the proposed policy. In particular, APM 75, Termination for Incompetent Performance, could be revised to include language on presumptive resignation. Respondents also commented that any final version of the proposed new APM section should include a definition of the term “absence from duty” and specify who determines that such an absence has occurred. Finally, respondents felt that the time period following the expiration of an approved leave should be extended prior to initiating a process of dismissal. Council unanimously supported a motion to recommend that UC abandon the proposed APM 700 and instead modify APM 075 to incorporate a process that addresses presumptive resignation. Sincerely, Robert L. Powell, Chair Academic Council Cc: Academic Council Martha Winnacker, Senate Executive Director December 3, 2012 ROBERT POWELL Chair, Academic Council Subject: Proposed revisions to APM 700, Leaves of absence/general, presumptive resignation Dear Bob, On November 5, 2012, the Divisional Council of the Berkeley Division considered the proposed revisions to APM 700, informed by reports of the divisional committees on Budget and Interdepartmental Relations (BIR), Faculty Welfare (FWEL), and Privilege and Tenure (P&T). While we appreciate the intent of the proposed revisions, we agreed with FWEL: “It is true that the policies concerning faculty absences are under-enforced in higher education … We think however that UC can do better than this attempt at such a policy.” In general, we find the proposed revisions to be poorly drafted, and conceptually flawed. We echoed FWEL’s concern about the lack of clear definitions for many of the terms used: “If the university is proceeding to dismiss a tenured faculty member on the basis of such definitions, the language must be much more precise.” Our discussion highlighted numerous examples when such a policy could be a useful tool. Yet, given the ambiguities and lack of clarity in the proposed revisions, it is unclear to us how the revised APM provisions would apply. We also noted that a number of tools and options are currently available, such as APM 075. The proposed revisions should be drafted to dovetail with these. Finally, we are pleased that the right to a hearing by the divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure is explicit in the policy. We agreed with P&T that the final policy should include a timeline that balances the interests of both faculty members and the institution. In sum, we strongly recommend that the proposed revisions be reconsidered and redrafted. We note that APM 075 might serve as a useful example in this regard. Sincerely, Christina Maslach Chair, Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate Professor of Psychology Cc: Shannon Jackson, Chair, Committee on Budget and Interdepartmental Relations Calvin Moore, Chair, Committee on Faculty Welfare Robert Powell, Chair, Committee on Privilege and Tenure Martha Winnacker, Executive Director, Academic Senate Andrea Green Rush, Berkeley Division Executive Director staffing Committee on Privilege and Tenure Aimee Larsen, Manager, Committee on Budget and Interdepartmental Relations   2 December 11, 2011 ROBERT L. POWELL, CHAIR University of California Academic Council 1111 Franklin Street, 12th Floor Oakland, CA 94607 Re: APM 700 – Leaves of Absence General Revision Proposal The proposal was forwarded to all Davis Division of the Academic Senate standing committees and Faculty Executive Committees within the schools and colleges for comment. Responses were received from Committee on Academic Personnel-Oversight (CAP), Committee on Elections, Rules and Jurisdiction, and Faculty Welfare Committee. The Davis Division has reviewed the proposed APM 700 revision, and generally supports the proposal. CAP noted some ambiguity as to when the 30 days of absence period will begin. CAP believes this could cause some confusion when an academic appointee is absent for a few days or even weeks before their supervisor officially notices the absence. This raises the issue of whether the 30 days should begin when the employee’s absence is first noted by a supervisor or when evidence indicates it to have begun. CAP therefore offers the following suggested wording: “In such cases the supervisor shall make appropriately diligent efforts to establish the starting date of the unexplained absence.” Aside from the ambiguity noted by CAP, the Division is not concerned with any other aspects of the proposed revision. Sincerely, Bruno Nachtergaele, Chair Davis Division of the Academic Senate Professor: Mathematics U NI VERSI TY OF CA LI FORNI A , I RVI NE BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ Office of the Academic Senate 307 Aldrich Hall Irvine, CA 92697-1325 (949) 824-2215 FAX December 5, 2012 Robert Powell, Chair, Academic Council th 1 111 Franklin Street, 12 Floor ORaEk: l andSy, CstAe m94w6i0d7e- 5R2e0v0ie w of Proposed Revisions to APM 700: Leaves of Absence At its meeting of December 4, 2012, the Irvine Division Academic Senate reviewed the proposed revision to APM 700, leaves of absence, which would create a p resumption of resignation and spell out procedures for notifying the academic eCmoupnlocyile oe no fF tahcaut lptyre Wsuemlfpatrieo,n D. i vTehres fiotyll,o awnidn gA Ccoaudnecmilsic c Formemedeonmte d( CoFnW th)e proposal. T he Council felt the proposed revisions offer a reasonable means of handling uCnoeuxnpceilc toend Alecaavdeesm ofi ca bPseernscoen annedl u(CnAanPi)m ously endorsed the proposal. In discussing the proposed policy, CAP noted that it is unclear what “absent” means and how it can be proven. For instance, if a faculty member asserts he/she has been working in the lab at night, but no one has seen him/her, is he/she absent? Other than pointing out this concern, the members of CAP endorsed the proposed revisions to APM-700. The Irvine Division appreciates the opportunity to comment. Mary C. Gilly, Senate Chair C: Martha Kendall Winnacker, Executive Director, Academic Senate UCLA Academic Senate November 27, 2012 Robert Powell Chair, Academic Council Re: APM 700, Leaves of Absence Dear Bob, Thank you for the opportunity to review and opine on the proposed policy 700, for the APM. I specifically requested responses from the Faculty Welfare Committee, the Council on Academic Personnel, the Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity, and the Faculty Executive Committees; I’ve attached their responses for your information. UCLA supports the proposal, but this is contingent on substantive revisions detailed below. • The Executive Board is concerned about the short timeframe for triggering this policy. Several committees agreed with this concern that 30 days is not a long enough period to wait before beginning the process of presumptive resignation. We propose that a 90 day period of attempted contact with the faculty member be utilized before the process begins. • Generally speaking, faculty found the proposal to have been lacking a clear rationale. Faculty were puzzled as to why the University needs a separate, presumptive resignation policy. Clarification is required regarding why disciplinary proceedings—already clearly outlined in the APM and generally understood by faculty—should supplanted by this new policy. • Finally, faculty were concerned that the phrase “absence from duty” was too vague. As the College FEC remarked, the phrase “suggests the absence of a work product (e.g., teaching, research, service). We believe the APM should include a definition of ‘absence from duty’ in the manner that ‘leaves of absence’ are defined.” Thank you again for the opportunity to opine. Sincerely, Linda Sarna Chair, UCLA Academic Senate Cc: Martha Winnacker, Executive Director Jaime R. Balboa, Chief Administrative Officer, UCLA Academic Senate UCLA Academic Senate November 13, 2012 To: Linda Sarna Chair, UCLA Academic Senate From: Gerald Kominski Chair, UCLA Faculty Welfare Committee Re: Senate Item for Review: APM 700, Leaves of Absence/General The UCLA Faculty Welfare Committee (FWC) discussed APM 700, Leaves of Absence/General at their meeting on November 6, 2012. The Committee endorses the proposal contingent upon the below specified revision. While the members felt that the proposal was reasonable on principle, the members felt that the defined 30-day absence of a faculty member was too brief. The members felt that the time period should be extended to 60-days following the expiration of an approved leave/absence from academic duty without approval. Should you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. cc: Jaime Balboa, Academic Senate Chief Administrative Officer Dottie Ayer, Academic Senate Policy Analyst UCLA Academic Senate October 23, 2012 To: Linda Sarna, Chair Academic Senate From: Council on Academic Personnel RE: Leaves of Absence/General – APM 700 CAP has reviewed the Revised APM 700 and has no comment at this time. UCLA Academic Senate November 06, 2012 To: Linda Sarna Academic Senate, Chair From: Francisco Ramos-Gomez Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity, Chair Re: APM 700 – Leaves of Absence/General The Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity reviewed the proposed changes to APM 700 and is supportive. Cc: Jaime Balboa, Chief Administrative Officer, Academic Senate Dottie Ayer, Assistant to Chief Administrative Officer, Academic Senate Carolynne B. Hogg, Principal Policy Analyst, Academic Senate MEMORANDUM November 2, 2012 To: Jaime R. Balboa Chief Academic Officer, UCLA Academic Senate From: Dominique M. Hanssens Chair, UCLA Anderson Faculty Executive Committee The UCLA Anderson Faculty Executive Committee (FEC) met on Friday, October 26, 2012 to review and discuss the following five Academic Senate items: • Open Access Proposal Policy • Revised APM – Leaves of Absence/General • New APM – Visiting Scholars • Negotiated Salary Pilot Plan • Re-benching Report After review and discussion, the FEC agreed that they had no comments to provide in relation to the Open Access Policy, and the new Academic Personnel Policy 430 - Visiting Scholars. With respect to the three remaining items, they wished to relay these comments: Revised Academic Personnel Policy 700 – Leaves of Absence/General, Presumptive Resignation: Suggest that absence from duty be defined as a 60-day period rather than 30 days, following the expiration of an approved leave or 30-day absence from academic duty without approval. The FEC endorses this proposal. Negotiated Salary Pilot Plan: A concern was raised that the proposed plan institutionalizes inequity and promotes a compensation (rather than excellence) based culture. The University’s focus should be on excellence in research and teaching. This proposal also removes the first and last tiers of the evaluation system (Faculty, Chair, Dean and AVC) of academic work and teaching contribution. The removal of the first tier, wherein the greatest level of scrutiny occurs, is particularly disturbing as it opens up the system to non-transparent side deals. The FEC does not endorse this proposal. Re-benching Report: The FEC agreed that they support UCLA’s opposition to this proposal. Please let me know if you require any further information. c: R. Bucklin, Faculty Chairman & Deputy Dean, Academic Affairs, UCLA Anderson J. Olian, Dean & John E. Anderson Chair, UCLA Anderson