UCLA Academic Senate
June 15, 2011
Chair, Academic Council
University of California
Re: UCLA Senate evaluation of the Final Report and Recommendations of the
“Academic Council Special Committee on a Plan for the University of California”
The UCLA Senate is in receipt of your request of May 27, 2011 to provide a “reaction” to
the Final Report and Recommendations of the Academic Council Special Committee on a
Plan for the University of California dated January 2011, a.k.a., the “Powell Committee
Report”. Upon receipt of this final version of the Powell report, I specifically requested
review by the UCLA Council on Planning and Budget, the Faculty Welfare Committee,
Graduate Council, Undergraduate Council, the Committee on Diversity and Equal
Opportunity, and all Faculty Executive Committees. As is our custom, all other
committees were welcome to opine, if they so chose. The UCLA Senate Executive
Board, which speaks for the Division on such matters, reviewed all responses received in
this highly abbreviated review period, this being the end of our spring quarter. The
responses are attached.
The Executive Board shares the very serious concerns noted by its Senate committees on
the complete exclusion of the UCLA Senate in the constituency of the Powell
Committee and thus a disenfranchisement of this Division in the generation of the
committee’s recommendations. This committee was supposedly created (according to
the July 2010 Academic Council minutes) to “provide advice to Council by November
 on the future of the University…and then, if approved, [to be sent] to the president
[UC President Yudof]”. Despite the promised importance of the output from this
committee, which was selected by the UC Senate leadership from the list of Senate
members serving on the Workgroups of the UC Commission on the Future, this
committee was constituted with zero representatives from UCLA out of a
membership of 24. Despite the fact that there were UCLA Senate faculty members on
each of the COTF workgroups, and despite the fact that the UCLA Senate leadership
could have easily encouraged their COTF representatives to serve if we had been
informed of any reluctance on their part, UCLA was completely excluded from this
membership. This exclusion comes as a great surprise to the UCLA Senate and its
leadership. Even the incomplete draft Powell committee report shown to the Academic
Council in January 2011 had no listing of committee constituency, nor did earlier
versions of the report, and thus we did not learn of this exclusion until late May of this
year when we received the final report. The fact that the establishment of the Powell
committee occurred nearly simultaneously to the contentious Council debates last
summer on the weakly-supported “Council statement” vs. the “UCLA statement” on the
future of the UC is all the more troubling.
This exclusion calls into question the legitimacy of this entire report. The fact that
most of the recommendations of the Powell committee report are either non-controversial
(e.g., on “advocating for state support of UC”) or outdated (e.g., “sharing revenues from
NRT” is explicitly excluded in the Funding Streams model) is immaterial. This report is
the foundation of the Senate’s ongoing Implementation Task Force, which is making
detailed recommendations to the UC Rebenching Task Force on a number of important
issues. The foundation on which these Senate efforts are ongoing appears to be highly
irregular, if not illegitimate. Hence the UCLA Senate objects, in the strongest possible
terms, to the manner in which this committee was constituted, and hence calls into
question the legitimacy of this report as being representative of the UC Senate.
Processes should be put in place now so that this situation does not arise again in the
future; it is a waste of everyone’s time for a systemwide Senate committee to
deliberate on important matters without representation from all campuses.
In the spirit of providing some specific documentation on the report itself, the Executive
Board, guided by UCLA committee responses, does provide separate comments on the
various recommendations of the Powell committee report, below. As noted above, most
recommendations are non-controversial, and many are issues on which the Council and
various Divisions have opined already over the past several years.
But it is our position that the Powell committee report itself is not a reflection of the UC
Senate and thus should not be endorsed at all by the UC Academic Council. We ask that
the Academic Council rejects this report in the spirit of cooperation and
collaboration so cherished amongst the ten Academic Senate divisions and the
Chair, UCLA Academic Senate
Cc: Martha Kendall Winnacker, Executive Director, Academic Senate
Jaime R. Balboa, CAO, UCLA Academic Senate
UCLA Senate Comments on Powell Committee Report Recommendations
(numbering scheme per that used in the “Compiled Recommendations” list)
The “Principals (sic)” listed are not controversial and we have no comments on items 1-5.
Comments on items 6 – 25 are as follows.
6. The size of the University should be determined by its ability to maintain
high-quality instructional and academic research programs. We understand
that the size of the faculty must be adjusted and perhaps shrink in response to
budget pressures, but these decisions should be managed at the campus level.
Moreover, some of the specific recommendations here, e.g., “increasing the
number of students paying NRT within a predetermined cap per campus”, “better
capitalizing on the teaching expertise of other members of the academic
community”, etc. can only be managed and determined locally. This appears to
be consistent with the directions of the Implementation Task Force.
7. We recommend that the Academic Senate not approve the establishment of
any new programs without documentation on the availability of adequate
resources. This is already required in evaluations of new programs at UCLA, and
it is likely so at most, if not all, UC campuses. Any new program proposed at
UCLA, from an undergraduate minor to a Ph.D., requires that an assessment of
resources be conducted by the Academic Planning and Budget office (APB) and
submitted to the Senate for review, including CPB review.
8. Curtailing capital projects. We repeat our support for the position our Division
took when a similar proposal came up under the auspices of the Choices Report
10GoldsteintoPowell_re.UCLAResponsetoUCPBChoicesReport.pdf ). The
UCLA Senate takes a nuanced position that speaks to the fact that many capital
projects have private funding, and that curtailing capital projects also frequently
curtails new faculty hires, an unintended consequence of capital project
restriction. Moreover, capital projects at much older campuses are often required
to meet safety and maintenance requirements, and those at new campuses, e.g.,
UC Merced, should also be considered as part of the UC’s broader mission.
9. Senate participation in fiscal decisions that affect programs should be
increased. We agree that the Senate must be vigilant, but the extent to which
participation should be “increased” and the Senate’s specific new responsibilities
here are unclear.
10. Resisting underfunded mandates. This recommendation contradicts positions
the Senate has taken on a number of issues, including UCRP contributions.
Moreover, there are funding matters over which the Senate has no control, such as
collective bargaining agreements, contracts for postdoctoral researcher unions,
and the like. These are all unfunded or underfunded mandates. We find this
recommendation that the Senate should “reject any unfunded or underfunded
programmatic mandates” to be naïve and inconsistent.
11. Effectively advocating for state support of UC, and making the cost of
educating students transparent to the students and their parents by
separating tuition from the state subsidy. Better advocating for state support is
non-controversial. “Transparency” in publicizing the state subsidy is naïve at
best. Accounting for the graduate student and research missions of UC in the
effective state subsidy for undergraduates is extraordinarily difficult to do.
Documenting the state subsidy for various types of graduate students is even more
complicated. Publicizing this nuanced and complex information would not be
useful or beneficial.
12. Providing total compensation sufficient to recruit and retain the best faculty
across the University. In the past the Division has supported bringing salary
scales to market levels concomitantly with changes to post-retirement benefits
(see UCLA response to UCFWC/TFIR Report:
10GarrelltoPowell_reUCLAResponsetoUCFW-TFIRReport.pdf ). While the
UCLA Senate supports a merit-based approach to salaries, salary scales are only
one aspect of a complex problem, and this problem varies from campus to
campus. We are concerned about singling out this aspect of a complex problem
in the discussion here. Whatever the solution, we have to consider compensation
within the broader context of the State’s economic crisis.
13. Providing sufficient support for academic graduate students. UCLA agreed
without comment to a similar recommendation advanced by the Access &
Affordability Workgroup of the UC Commission on the Future:
"Recommendation 3: Reaffirm the University’s commitment to fulfilling graduate
education’s role in serving UC’s research enterprise, UC’s teaching mission, and
the diverse knowledge and workforce demands of the State and beyond. (pp. 61-
63)"; see http://www.senate.ucla.edu/issues/documents/05-21-
mmissionontheFut.pdf. In principle we do not oppose the removal of NRT for
academic graduate students; indeed, it is our understanding that imposition of
such fees is at the discretion of UCOP, not part of state requirements as they are
for undergraduates. We view this change as unlikely to occur, however, and note
that it would certainly lead to an increased fraction of non-US citizens among our
UC graduate population, with attendant political consequences.
14. Assess state support for Master Plan commitments with a ten year horizon.
As with other recommendations, this one is already being examined vis-à-vis
UCOP’s five year planning horizon and the alteration in the “relative proportion
of residents and non-residents” that is happening each year at the undergraduate
level at many campuses already, due to the budget crisis. Clearly this
recommendation is the primary focus of the Implementation Task Force and is
part of the charge of the Rebenching committee.
15. Consider sharing revenues derived from non-resident tuition. This
recommendation was rejected as part of the Funding Streams model and is
opposed by the UCLA Senate. This NRT-sharing approach would substantially
reduce the incentives for campuses to spend time and resources on recruitment of
and specific educational programs for non-residents, and overall would reduce the
funds coming to the UC for undergraduate education.
16. Raise tuition only as a last resort. This recommendation is poorly worded and
thus is opposed by our Division. The categorical phrase ‘last resort’ means the
UC will only increase tuition after imposing faculty hiring freezes or furloughs,
selling assets, staff layoffs, and other measures. In fact, this recommendation is
essentially irrelevant now, given recent tuition increases and the possibility for
more, depending on the California budget deliberations. We certainly urge
caution when increasing tuition, but recognize that it is only one aspect of a
balanced UC budget.
17. Assess the impact on student fees of revising or reducing return-to-aid. On
the surface this recommendation seems logical, and could be supported in general
by our Division, but its impact could vary significantly from campus to campus.
UCLA, for example, has a very high percentage of Pell Grants students.
Reduction of the population eligible for Blue & Gold scholarships could make a
UC education prohibitively expensive for many Californians, and the political
implications here could be considerable.
18. Shield UC Merced from the effects of the budget crisis. UCLA was asked to
opine on a similar recommendation when proposed by the UCPB "Choices"
report (see http://www.senate.ucla.edu/issues/documents/06-23-
10GoldsteintoPowell_re.UCLAResponsetoUCPBChoicesReport.pdf ). Our
faculty was divided and could not reach a consensus: "On this matter there were
strongly held views that ranged from acknowledging the unique role of this
campus to an insistence that no single campus be favored over others in the need
to accept cuts. In sum, there is no consensus on this matter at UCLA." The
concerns raised then are even greater now on our campus.
19. Explore the benefits of developing a process that would respond to
entrepreneurial ideas. This is non controversial.
20. UC should expand and market self-supporting instructional courses and
programs to subsidize its core functions. As noted by the UCLA Graduate
Council, this recommendation contradicts the more thorough and nuanced policies
on self-supporting programs recently recommended by the Coordinating
Committee on Graduate Affairs (CCGA). CCGA has developed a strong position
on this issue; noting concerns about faculty workload, maintaining a quality UC
educational program even in SSPs, etc. We defer to CCGA’s leadership on this
21. Auxiliary operations must be evaluated rigorously to ensure that they
support the University’s mission and do not undermine its reputation. In
principle the Division does not object to this, but we note that our Council on
Planning and Budget is charged with the evaluation of building projects and
auxiliary operations already, and does so effectively. The term “entrepreneurial
ventures” is vague; the Senate is already engaged in developing and evaluating a
range of such programs.
22. Examine the growth of administrative FTE vis-à-vis faculty FTE and student
enrollment, as well as conducting an administrative audit. UCLA already
agreed without comment to a recommendation by the UCPB "Choices" report that
called for review of administrative growth:
23. UC also should consider developing a merit-based compensation system that
rewards staff for a job well done. While non-controversial in principle, in
practice this would be challenging. Each campus already administers its own
staff compensation plan for policy covered staff. Collective bargaining
agreements bind all 10 campuses and UCOP, and hence would constrain any such
24. The Special Committee recommends caution in the pursuit of production-
based efficiencies that may diminish educational quality in an effort to
address budgetary shortfalls. This is vague but non-controversial in general.
25. The Special Committee endorses the Academic Council’s approval of the
continued exploration and evaluation of online instruction as a supplement to
classroom teaching. In principle this is not controversial. But the recent reversal
of the funding mode for the UC Online Education pilot program, in opposition to
the Senate’s strong stance in May of 2010 on not using internal funding for the
pilot, renders this recommendation and link to the Council approval of UCOE
almost irrelevant. It certainly points to the ineffectiveness of the 2010 Council
letter on UCOE.
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON A PLAN FOR THE UNIVERITY OF CALIFORNIA
Size and Shape Working Group, Commission on the Future
Don Brenneis Professor of Anthropology, UC Santa Cruz
Margaret Ferguson Professor of English, UC Davis
Deborah Greenspan Professor, School of Dentistry, UC San Francisco
James Posakony Professor of Biology, UC San Diego
Education and Curriculum Working Group, Commission on the Future
Keith Williams Associate Professor of Exercise Biology, UC Davis
Joel Michaelsen Professor of Geography, UC Santa Barbara
Mark Appelbaum Professor of Psychology, UC San Diego
Bruce Schumm Professor of Physics, UC Santa Cruz
Judy Stepan-Norris Professor of Sociology, UC Irvine
Molly Cooke Professor, School of Medicine, UC San Francisco
Access and Affordability Working Group, Commission on the Future
Michael Brown Interim Dean, University Extension, UC Santa Barbara
Bob Jacobsen Professor of Physics, UC Berkeley
Akos Rona-Tas Associate Professor of Sociology, UC San Diego
Funding Strategies, Working Group, Commission on the Future
Linda Bisson Professor of Viticulture and Enology, UC Davis
Henning Bohn Professor of Economics, UC Santa Barbara
Sandra Faber Chair, Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, UC Santa Cruz
David Gardner Professor, Metabolic Research Unit, UC San Francisco
Research Strategies Working Group, Commission on the Future
Gail Hershatter Professor of History, UC Santa Cruz
Chris Kello Associate Professor of Cognitive Science, UC Merced
Stanley Prusiner Professor of Neurology and Biochemistry, UC San Francisco
Dan Simmons Academic Senate Chair; Ex-officio member, Commission on the Future
Anil Deolalikar Professor of Economics, UC Riverside; Member, Commission on the Future
Bob Anderson Academic Senate Vice Chair
Harry Powell Former Academic Senate Chair; Ex-officio member, Commission on the Future
UCLA Academic Senate
June 6, 2011
To: Professor Ann Karagozian, Chair
UCLA Academic Senate
From: Professor Joseph B. Watson, Chair
UCLA Undergraduate Council
In Re: Undergraduate Council Response to the Powell Report
On behalf of the Undergraduate Council, I would like to extend the Council’s appreciation for seeking
our input and thank you for the opportunity to review and opine on the Powell report and its
recommendations. The Council discussed the report at its June 3, 2011 meeting. Members found the
report’s guiding principles concordant with UC’s pursuits of its tripartite missions and concurred with
the majority of its recommendations, while strongly endorsing or opposing to some. Members
expressed a sentiment that overall, the recommendations should have been more clearly articulated.
Some members were bothered by a few glaring typological errors, e.g., lynch‐pins (Line 14 on p. 12 ),
principals (p. 1, Compiled Recommendations). More importantly, members observed the lack of UCLA
representation on the Special Committee on a Plan for the University of California. The Council’s
discussion mainly centered on six recommendations:
(1) Maintain UC’s educational and research stature – Recommendation (a) with regard to the
size of the University (p.5). Members felt that the following language was too vague and
questioned where and how the line should be drawn in decreasing the number of faculty: it may
be necessary to adjust the number of faculty to match available resources.
(1) Maintain UC’s educational and research stature – Recommendation (c) with regard to
capital projects (p.6). Members strongly endorsed this recommendation.
(1) Maintain UC’s educational and research stature – Recommendation (h) with regard to
support for graduate students (p.7). Members were unanimous in their support of mitigating
NRT. Concerning the recommendation to increase graduate student enrollment, however, some
(2) Establish a Realistic Funding Model – Recommendation (b) with regard to revenues derived
from NRT (p.8). Members strongly opposed to the recommendation that the income derived
from NRT be shared among the ten campuses, underscoring that UCLA is compliant with the
Master Plan requirements for educating residents.
Implementation (2) Cost Reductions and Efficiencies – Recommendation (a) with regard to
administrative efficiencies (p.11). Members found this recommendation confusing and vague
and suggested that not only the growth but also value should be examined in evaluating
administrative efficiencies, i.e., we further recommend examining the growth and value of
administrative FTE vis‐à‐vis faculty FTE and student enrollment… In addition, members agreed
that a better approach to appropriate compensation for staff would be to adjust pay scales
rather than developing a merit‐based compensation system, adding that such approach can also
eliminate the need to reclassify staff for higher level positions in order to provide appropriate
Implementation (2) Cost Reductions and Efficiencies – Recommendation (c) with regard to
online instruction (p.11). Lastly, members reiterated that the proposed UC Online Education
Project Plan dated March 24, 2011 should not be implemented and recommended that any
subsequent plan be carefully vetted.
If you have any questions regarding the Council’s discussion on the Powell report, please feel free to
contact me (x57587; email@example.com) or Academic Senate Principal Policy Analyst Jisoo Kim
(x51194; firstname.lastname@example.org). Again, thank you for considering the opinions and concerns included
in this letter.
cc: Dorothy Ayer, Executive Assistant to the Senate Leadership, Academic Senate
Jaime Balboa, Chief Administrative Officer, Academic Senate
Jisoo Kim, Principal Policy Analyst, Academic Senate
UCLA Graduate Council
June 6, 2011
Ann Karagozian, Chair
UCLA Academic Senate
At its meeting on June 3, 2011, the Graduate Council reviewed and discussed the compiled
recommendations of the Powell Report, per your May 27th request. Given the System-wide Academic
Senate’s desire for a ridiculously quick turnaround on this issue and the Graduate Council’s significant
end-of-year workload, we distributed the report and recommendations in advance of the meeting and
asked members to come prepared with their comments. Upon reviewing the document with the full
Council, members voted unanimously (13 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstentions; GSA Reps: 1 in favor) to
not endorse the report or its recommendations for the reasons detailed below.
The consensus of council members was two-fold; either the recommendations were so ambiguous that
members were unsure of what they were being asked to endorse, or they were deemed mere platitudes
with which no one could disagree and/or to which various Senate units have already responded on
several occasions over the past two years. Given the amount of time and energy expended to produce
the report and its recommendations, members were disappointed with the outcome as well as with the
last-minute request for comments, which led many to believe that substantive, thoughtful feedback on
these important issues is really not desired by the System-wide Senate.
Rather than provide commentary on each recommendation, the Council elected to identify relevant
recommendations (in the compiled recommendations document) that led to the body’s conclusions and,
ultimately, to this response.
For example, recommendation #6, which maintains that “the size of the University should be
determined by its ability to maintain high quality instructional and academic research programs (and) to
achieve this under the current budgetary conditions, it may be necessary to adjust the number of faculty
to match available resources,” was deemed by members to be ominously vague. Some even surmised
that the recommendation was more of a euphemism for down-sizing the UC and/or eliminating faculty
positions or academic programs. All members felt that the recommendation was ambiguous and lacked
the clarity needed to truly consider any endorsement of it.
Council members reported mixed feelings about recommendation #15: “Consider sharing revenues
derived from non-resident tuition.” Such a recommendation promotes the UC as one campus, yet, as
you know, is counter to responses registered by the UCLA Senate in the past and presumably by the
Administration, as well, about keeping the NRT revenue stream at the divisional level. Members felt that
recycling the input it has already registered was counter-productive.
Members were not supportive of recommendation #18: “Shield UC Merced from the effects of the
budget crisis.” As noted above, we have already opined on such a statement and doing so again seems
With respect to recommendation #20: “UC should expand and market self-supporting instructional
courses and programs to subsidize its core functions,” members felt that this recommendation blatantly
counters its previously expressed position, as well as the position of the Coordinating Committee on
Graduate Affairs, and that publicizing such a statement seemingly disregards the significant efforts that
have been made to rein in and mitigate the potential negative impacts of promoting self-supporting
programs in the UC. The recommendation is also tantamount to an explicit endorsement of UC
privatization and withdrawal from the public trust, two accelerating moves across UC campuses that this
body does not blindly support.
Last, members were unsure of the purpose of the document and what impact it was expected to have
on the University of California. The UC is a complicated system in a compromised position wherein
difficult decisions will likely need to be made. What sits before us now is a report that is overly obtuse
and opaque. It is clearly aimed at some agenda that has not been fully articulated. In this light, the UCLA
Graduate Council cannot, in good conscience, endorse it.
Steven Nelson, Chair
UCLA Graduate Council
cc: Jaime Balboa, Chief Administrative Officer, Academic Senate
Dorothy Ayer, Executive Assistant, Academic Senate
Kyle Cunningham, Sr. Policy Analyst, Graduate Council
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES UCLA
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ
CH AIR, FACULTY EXECU TIVE CO M M ITTEE
SCH O O L O F PU BLIC H EALTH
10960 W ILSH IR E BLVD ., SU ITE 1550
LO S AN GELES, CA 90024
TELEPH O N E: (310) 794-0910
FAX: (310) 794-2686
EM AIL: SW ALLACE@ U CLA.ED U
June 6, 2011
UCLA Senate Chair
3131 Murphy Hall, UCLA
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1408
Dear Dr. Karoagzian:
The UCLA School of Public Health FEC reviewed the Powell Report and endorses the
recommendations, subject to the following reservations:
1. The principles section should reference the need for both professional as well as graduate
academic program growth in future years (Principle #5, p. 4). A growing population and
dynamic economy will require a growing number of the full range of graduate professionals that
the UC-system leads in educating.
2. In this period of increasing pension and health care costs that are impacting faculty as well as
their immediate hiring units, it is critical that “total compensation” be a priority issue. The
changing annual budgets of academic units need to be transparent by including total
compensation at the unit level, i.e. the university and legislature must acknowledge the cuts
being imposed by pushing costs down from the system to the unit level and to faculty for
benefits (see recommendation 1.G, p. 7).
3. There should be a recognition that escalating graduate student fees have reached the point
where there is a disincentive to hire graduate students on funded projects as GSRs where fees are
paid from the grant. For example, a half-time GSR-IV currently makes $1744/month in salary
and in 2011-12 will be compensated approximately $1400/month in tuition and fees. This is
relevant for tuition increases (see recommendation 1.H and 2.C, pp. 7,8)
Given the quick turnaround, this letter was circulated via email to all FEC members and only
affirmative responses were received. So you can consider this a consensus document, but not one
with a formal vote.
Steven P. Wallace, Ph.D.
Chair, School of Public Health Faculty Executive Committee
Professor, Department of Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health
Associate Director, UCLA Center for Health Policy Research
Date: May 6, 2011
From: AndreaFraser Chair, Faculty Executive Committee School of the Arts and Architecture
To: UCLA Academic Senate Jaime Balboa, CAO
Re: The Powell Report
The FEC of the School of the Arts and Architecture discussed the final report of the Academic
Council Special Committee on a Plan for the University of California, or the Powell Report, as
requested by the Chair of the Academic Senate. At our Friday, June 3 meeting, we voted to
endorse plans recommendation with one exception and one comment.
Our committee does not endorse the recommendation in section 2, paragraph b, to “consider
sharing revenues derived from non-resident tuition.” We acknowledge the danger that financial
incentives to enroll non-resident students may lead some campuses out of compliance with the
Master Plan. However, we believe that a system-wide cap combine with revenue sharing is not
the appropriate remedy. It would not hinder but may actually further the bifurcation of the UC
system into a two tier system. Rather, we believe that caps on non-resident enrollment should
apply to each campus so that all campuses remain in compliance with the Master Plan. We
believe also that campuses should keep their revenue from non-resident students.
Our committee also was concerned about the language in the recommendation in section 1,
paragraph a, which states that “under the current budgetary conditions, it may be necessary to
adjust the number of faculty to match the available resources.” We cannot endorse this
recommendation without more specificity with regards to what is meant by “adjust the number
of faculty to match the available resources.” We believe that any discussion of adjusting the
number of faculty should be linked to a discussion of the ratio of faculty and students and must
include an acknowledgement that reducing the number of faculty relative to the number of
students will negatively impact the quality of education and research in the UC system.
UCLA Academic Senate
June 6, 2011
To: Ann Karagozian
Academic Senate, Chair
From: Rebecca Jean Emigh
Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity, Chair
Re: Senate Item for Review: Powell Report
Because of the short notification period, CODEO was not able to discuss this report at a meeting.
Instead, I solicited email input, and I incorporated all of the comments I received into this memo.
In general, these reports omit the importance of diversity and equity at the University of California. They
are crucial to the University’s excellence. We suggest that the documents be revised to recognize this.
Since this is a UC wide document, UCAAD (the UC‐wide University Committee on Affirmative Action and
Diversity) should conduct a thorough review of these documents before any action on them is taken.
We also have some specific suggestions:
1) For the “Compiled Recommendations Powell Report:
Page 1, point 3. Add “Doctoral Programs should encourage a diverse student body.” at the end of this
Page 1, point 4: Add “Guaranteeing access strengthens the university’s commitment to diversity and
Page 2, point 6: Change to “The size of the University should be determined by its ability to maintain
high quality and diverse instructional and academic research programs.”
Page 2, point 12: Change to “Providing total compensation sufficient to recruit and retain the best, most
diverse faculty across the University.” And, at the end, add “Special care must be take to assure that
faculty salaries are equitable across gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as other underrepresented
Page 2, point 13: Change to “…and are critical to the University’s teaching mission. The graduate student
body should be diverse.”
Page 2, point 14: Add “The contribution of resident and non‐residents to diversity should also be
2) For the UC Senate Special Committee Report
Page 1, intro.: Change to “Exceptional and diverse students and faculty are at the heart of the
Page 3, point 1: Change to “The University’s Excellence is directly attributable to the academic quality,
breadth, and diversity of the faculty and the programs ….”
Page 3, point 2: Universities serve society by educating the citizenry, fostering creativity, diversity, and
equity, encouraging cultural discovery….” And “…in an diverse environment rich in research…..”
Note, pages 5 and 6 of this document seem to repeat the other document, so please refer to our
changes above, which should apply to any section that is repeated in both documents.
Page 12, conclusions: Change to “Its pursuit of excellence, diversity, and equity has resulted in six
Cc: Jaime Balboa, Chief Administrative Officer, Academic Senate
Dottie Ayer, Assistant to Chief Administrative Officer, Academic Senate
Brandie Henderson, Policy Analyst, Academic Senate
SEAS FEC Response
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 7:57 PM
To: Balboa, Jaime
Subject: Re: Senate Item for Review: Powell Report
I have waited to see if there were "any other" responses to the Powell Report from the
HSSEAS FEC. The only comments (from email) are as follows:
I found recommendation 4 in the summary recommendations interesting. Here is one
sentence "As such, talent and academic merit, not socio-economic status, determine
students’ eligibility to attend UC." I presume then that they are recommending no
"holistic" admission policies? I agree but I am not sure it is politically correct.
While they explicitly address possible reductions in faculty and administration, there is
only a rather weak suggestion of reduction in enrollments. In the past few years the
budget cuts have resulted in fewer course offerings with higher enrollments per course
for required courses and sometimes complete elimination of important electives.
Students are finding it more and more difficult to get the courses they need to
graduate. I would like a stronger statement that we are nearing the point where it
would be *unethical* to admit the same number of students with the implied promise
that we will provide them with access to a strong program and in manner that allows
them to make timely progress.
Thanks much for the FEC correspondence over the past 3 years. I'll be stepping down
now. Best wishes,
UCLA Academic Senate, Council on Planning and Budget
June 2, 2011
Professor Ann Karagozian
Chair, UCLA Academic Senate
Re: Council on Planning on Budget Statement on the Powell Report
Dear Professor Karagozian,
Procedural Note: CPB was obliged to review the Powell Report via email discussion, and that
over just a few days. However, individual views expressed were quite consistent.
The Council on Planning and Budget questions the utility and purpose of this rushed review of
an academic year-old document at this time, and we are unclear about the standing and
legitimacy of the document itself. It is quite general in tone, and most of its positions and
recommendations are unexceptionable restatements of basic academic principles. One general
principle that several CPB members felt should be more present is the importance of integrating
student participation in the campus review processes, recognizing that teaching and research
assistantships are not just apprenticeships, but also integral components of the university’s
pedagogy and research (Recommendations 9 and 13). CPB is unanimous in its concern that
self-supporting programs, necessary as they may be, should not drain energy from the
academic graduate programs that are the core of the University (Recommendation 20). On the
other hand, any expansion of academic graduate programs needs to be mindful of academic
market conditions and student interests; it makes no sense to encourage talented young people
into careers that may no longer exists.
CPB’s strongest objection is to Recommendation 15, which suggests that undergraduate non-
resident tuition and fees should be shared among campuses. This directly contradicts the
position taken by the UCLA Senate last year, and it also is contrary to the new Funding Streams
model, the core principle of which is that income produced on a campus stays on that campus.
Perhaps the Powell Report drafters thought this was an unsettled matter when they were doing
their work a year ago. If so, this underscores the oddity of reviewing this outdated document at
this time. In addition, the entire argument sketched out in support of the suggestion is
constructed upon a dubious assumption, that increased undergraduate non-resident enrollment
on some campuses will oblige other campuses to bear the burden of increased in-state
enrollment. Campuses that are increasing non-resident enrollment are not necessarily doing so
at the expense of in-state students. For example, UCLA has been clear that we will continue to
meet or exceed our in-state undergraduate targets of freshmen and transfer students. And in
fact, for Fall 2011, we are on track to increase the size of the in-state freshman class, by
perhaps double our increase in non-residents. Some campuses are reducing in-state enrollment,
but for the most part that is because they find themselves heavily over-enrolled. They may or
may not be increasing non-resident enrollment at the same time; that depends largely on their
ability to attract non-residents, not the size of their in-state enrollments. Only Berkeley has
chosen to reduce its resident enrollment at the same time that it ramps up non-resident
enrollment. If campuses do fail to meet their in-state undergraduate quotas, then the proper
consequence is that they not receive their full share of state funding. It would be disastrous and
contrary to the logic of Funding Streams to force them to share campus generated income.
Chair, UCLA Council on Planning and Budget
cc: Andy Leuchter, Vice Chair, Academic Senate
Robin Garrell, Immediate Past Chair, Academic Senate
Jaime Balboa, Chief Administrative Officer, Academic Senate
Linda Mohr, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, Academic Senate
Council on Planning on Budget Members