At its meeting of October 1, 2014, CCGA discussed the pre-proposal regarding the reconstitution of the Herb Alpert School of Music and the re-definement of the School of Arts and Architecture at UCLA. At this point, CCGA sees no problems with the proposal and invites UCLA to continue in the development of a full proposal regarding this change.
The UCLA pre-proposal is enclosed with this letter for your convenience.
Sincerely,
Jutta Heckhausen, Ph.D.
Chair, CCGA
cc: Dan Hare, Academic Council Vice Chair CCGA Members
Hilary Baxter Academic Senate Executive Director Todd Giedt, Academic Senate Associate Director
Jocelyn Banaria, Senior Policy Analyst, Academic Planning Michael LaBriola, Academic Council Analyst
Enclosures (1)
UCLA
November 10, 2014
To: Judi Smith
Dean/Vice Provost (on recall) From: Linda Bourque, Chair
Rules & Jurisdiction
Re: Response to Memos (October 25, November 1, November 6) on establishing a school of music and reconfiguring the School of the Arts and Architecture
The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction has reviewed the three questions that you sent to us on October 25, November 1, and November 6, 2014. We will answer and opine on them in the order in which they were received.
First, can the date of the vote be changed from January 28, 2015, to a 48-hour period of December 15-16, 2014, and, in the absence of a Secretary for the affected units (since they span the School of the Arts and Architecture and the College of Letters and Science), can Professor Smith serve as the neutral faculty member that certifies that the vote has been handled correctly and that the faculty’s identity and voting rights have been protected?
The Committee understands that the vote will occur over a 48-hour period on December 15-16, 2014, instead of the originally proposed date of January 28, 2015. Consistent with Senate Bylaw 95, the vote will be by electronic ballot. Since there is no secretary in the current school, a neutral party will set up the voting process to protect the identity of all voters. In our opinion, it is appropriate for Professor Smith to serve as that neutral party. Votes for each department will be tallied and reported to each department chair. Consistent with SB 95, final drafts of the two proposals along with pro and con arguments will be sent to faculty on December 1, 2014, 14 calendar days before the deadline for completing the vote.
The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction finds this proposal consistent with the Code of the Academic Senate.
Second, can the final drafts of the proposals for a new school of music and a
reconfigured School of the Arts and Architecture that are circulated to each department faculty include all of the “pro” (called benefits) and “con” (called challenges) relevant to that
department which are received by November 24, 2014, rather than a “short list” of pros and cons?
Senate Bylaw 95 reads as follows.
A. At least fourteen calendar days before the deadline for completion of voting, the appropriate Secretary shall provide to each voter, either through the mail or
Page 2 of 3
electronically, accompanied by all relevant texts, such background information prepared by the Secretary as the Assembly or Division may direct, a brief summary of arguments pro and con, and the deadline for the return of the ballots or for electronic voting . . .
The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction has reviewed the proposed procedures for informing faculty about the “pro” and “con” arguments for the creation of a school of music and the reconfiguration of the School of the Arts and Architecture, and finds them consistent with the Code of the Academic Senate.
SB 95 specifies that all information relevant to a vote should be distributed fourteen calendar days before the deadline for the completion of voting. The proposal distributes information on November 24 which is 16 days before the close of voting on December 15-16.
Substitution of a Secretary by a “neutral party” is addressed above.
As regards the presentation of “pro” and “con” arguments, the Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction interprets SB 95 to be establishing the minimal standards for distributing “pro” and
“con” arguments. Professor Smith proposes separating the arguments by their relevance to each department from whom they have been received, the Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction finds this a reasonable way to precede.
Professor Smith proposes that all “pro” and “con” arguments received by the deadline date of November 24, 2014, be included in the documents circulated to each of the department faculties who are enfranchised to vote on the proposals. The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction finds that this proposal exceeds the minimum for “pro” and “con” arguments established under SB 95.
Third, what is the status of emeriti faculty with regard to the “affected faculty eligible to vote” on the creation of a school of music and the reconfiguration of the School of the Arts and Architecture?
Emeriti faculty remain members of the School or College of which they were members prior to attaining emeriti status. Senate Bylaw 55 (D) Rights and Privileges of Emeritae/i Faculty states the following.
1. Emeritae/i members of the Academic Senate retain membership in the departments to which they belonged at the time of their retirement. They do not have the right to vote on departmental matters, except as provided in this Article D.
. . .
2. (SHOULD BE 3). Emeritae/i, while recalled to service in a department from which they have retired, regain voting rights on all departmental matters, except personnel matters, during the period of such service. . . .
Page 3 of 3
The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction has reviewed this question. Consistent with Senate Bylaw 55, emeriti faculty do not retain the right to vote on departmental matters unless they have been recalled. The Committee recommends that each department that is voting on the proposal to create a new school of music and to reconfigure the School of the Arts and Architecture issue ballots to all emeriti who were recalled for any period since the department’s last 8-year review.
The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction hopes that this memo answers all of the questions that you have sent us.
cc: Jason Throop, Committee on Rules & Jurisdiction James Crall, Committee on Rules & Jurisdiction Joel Aberbach, Chair, Academic Senate
Leobardo Estrada, Vice Chair, Academic Senate Jan Reiff, Immediate Past Chair, Academic Senate Linda Mohr, CAO, Academic Senate
Serge Chenkerian, MSO, Academic Senate