Resolution on Senate Committee on University Governance and Leadership

Approved in a mail ballot of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate

• Results of the Ballot
• Text of the Resolution
• Ballot Arguments For and Again
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QuickTimeª and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
TEXT of the Resolution
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Whereas, There is widespread concern about the financial future of the University;

Whereas, The Regents and the President of the University have established a
Commission to study alternative future arrangements;

Whereas, It appears that consideration of Major Reforms in the Top Level Governance
and Leadership of the University is unlikely to occur within that Commission;

Whereas, Numerous members of the Faculty of the University have thoughtful

contributions to offer in that regard; and

Whereas, Such Reforms might be a significant factor in efforts to restore public

confidence in and public support for the University; therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate asks its Divisional Council
to convene a special Committee charged to collect, study and formulate a set of Reform
Proposals concerning the Governance and Leadership of the University, which will then
be distributed to the membership of the Division for a ballot assessment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Statement FOR Resolution:

What is the motivation for this Resolution concerning Reform of the Governance and
Leadership of the University of California? It is in the last Whereas:

“Whereas, Such reforms might be a significant factor in efforts to restore public

confidence in and public support for the University.”

We have heard from some Working Groups of the UC Commission on the Future that
maintaining a strong share of financial support from the State will be essential to a
healthy future for UC; and the two officials from the Office of the President who attended
the April 22 meeting of the Berkeley Division made that same point.

How does one achieve that? The standard reply is to advocate for all the wonderful
benefits that UC provides to all of California. We all support that effort.

But that is not enough. We are well aware that there are problems and there are criticisms
from outside, about how University officials handle the public money and the public trust
placed in the hands of The Regents and their top executives.

Many of us inside UC share some of those criticisms; and this endeavor, being led by
faculty, can be relied upon to protect the integrity of academic functions within the
University.
So here is a chance to act in a way that can serve both objectives: to advocate for reform
in University management as we see it is needed and, at the same time, to respond
positively to a public disapproval of mismanagement.

This Resolution does not ask you to endorse a preformed list of complaints; rather it
seeks the creation of a constructive process, within the Academic Senate and initiated by
the membership. This path should achieve the most uninhibited approach to this problem
– and that independent character is also essential for gaining credibility in the public
domain.

The Committee created by this Resolution will invite, collect and evaluate proposals for
reform in the governance and leadership of the University. It will then select the most
significant proposals, solicit arguments for and against each one, and then submit all that
to the full membership of the Berkeley Division to be voted on, item by item.

This process will not guarantee the achievement of those reforms supported by the
majority of the faculty; nor can it guarantee that this exercise will produce the influx of
new public money that we all desire for the University. Yet, it is a chance to pursue those
goals, something that we the faculty can initiate; and it seems better to try than to forego
the opportunity.

While the scope of this endeavor covers all of UC and might best have been undertaken
by the systemwide Academic Senate, that has not happened. Therefore, we at Berkeley
now have an opportunity to take this initiative, inviting colleagues at other campuses to
join as they see fit.

For additional background materials, see what was provided for the April 22 meeting:
http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/meetings/meeting_background_Spring2010_2.html

Submitted by: Charles Schwartz, Professor Emeritus of Physics

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Statement AGAINST Resolution:

We recommend a no vote on this resolution. We understand the proposed resolution to

have the goal of improving management of the entire University of California System by
targeting the organizational structure of the University of California Office of the
President for review. While we fully support that goal, we believe that the mechanism
proposed has the potential to make matters worse because of the vagueness of the charge
and because the action is not being taken in concert with the other campuses and their
divisions of the Senate. The charge in the resolution does not make clear the extent to
which its focus is UCOP or the campuses or how overlap between the two should be
addressed. The resolution calls for creation of a Berkeley committee and then a
subsequent Berkeley faculty vote on the recommendations of that committee. We believe
that a Berkeley go-it-alone approach to systemwide issues will do more harm than good.
Currently faculty across the system are aligned with the goal of the resolution--reducing
inefficiencies at UCOP. However, our experience with the systemwide Academic Senate
leads us to believe that this go-it-alone approach from Berkeley is likely to be perceived
as an attempt by our campus shape the outcome to Berkeley’s singular advantage, and
thus create hostility to what would be widely supported proposals, were they developed
by a systemwide committee. Should the current resolution pass, we hope the vague
charge leaves room to insist that the committee formed actively involve our sister
campuses and to put the recommendations to a vote on all 10 campuses.

Submitted by:
Ronald C. Cohen, Professor of Chemistry and of Earth and Planetary Science
Ignacio Navarette, Professor of Spanish and Portuguese
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-