Davis Faculty Association

Archive for 1999

Copyrighting your course materials

As an Academic Senate member, you probably received a recent memo signed by Jeffery Gibeling (UCD Academic Senate Chair) and Janet Hamilton (Vice Chancellor – Administration). This memo, dated November 19 and labeled as Directive #99-134, suggests that as “an appropriate first step to prevent unauthorized distribution” of course notes on the Web, faculty can attach a statement to all course material that begins, “Copyright (author’s name) and the Regents of the University of California (year).” The memo also observes that this statement “differs materially from one recently recommended by the Davis Faculty Association.”

We appreciate the efforts of Professor Gibeling and Vice Chancellor Hamilton to help faculty members protect the intellectual property represented by course content. The protective statement they recommend, however, might give the Regents a legal share in the copyright to your own original course materials. Perhaps that would make the Regents (and the UC administration) more aggressive in defending such copyrights against trespass by Web entrepreneurs. But in the long run, you may lose more than you would gain by making the Regents a party to your copyright. As the Gibeling/Hamilton memo indicates, complex issues of federal and state law as well as University policy are involved here, and they will not be resolved quickly. Meanwhile, we continue to recommend that you distribute the following copyright notice at the beginning of your winter quarter classes:

Copyright (author’s name) (year)
All federal and state copyrights reserved for all original material presented in this course through any medium, including lecture or print. Individuals are prohibited from being paid for taking, selling, or otherwise transferring for value, personal class notes made during this course to any entity without the express written permission of (author). In addition to legal sanctions, students found in violation of these prohibitions may be subject to University disciplinary action.

The original DFA memo providing the rationale for this form of the copyright notice is available online at: http://www.ucdfa.org/news_articles/e_report3.htm

Further court decisions will undoubtedly redefine some of the issues. The Davis Faculty Association will continue to monitor developments in copyright law and University policy that are salient to faculty members’ rights. We invite your comments.


Lecture Ownership-Student Notes

Most UCD faculty members go to a great effort to create their lecture materials and feel a strong sense of ownership in them. Student take notes at lectures and the internet has created a new market for the distribution of those notes. The instructor’s legal rights are long-established in terms of California law, but not clear in federal law. What can you do to protect those rights? Here is a summary based on an analysis by Jan Carmikle in the Business Contracts Office.

According to California common law, upheld by an older court case in which a UCLA instructor sued a commercial notetaking service, instructors hold copyrights to their lectures, and notes taken by students in their classes are therefore subject to restrictions as to copying and distribution, requiring prior consent of the instructor, such as the consent requested by Classical Notes on campus. So, as long as your lectures are given in California, this applies.

However, federal copyright protection of faculty lectures is not so clear. Federal law protects works “fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” But, since few instructors lecture verbatim from their written notes, these lectures may or may not meet the legal definition of “fixed,” and therefore may not be fully protected under federal law. National note-distribution firms have taken the position that federal law allows them to conduct their business without the need to respect California law (and that of a few other states) on this issue. This position is facing legal challenges, but final court judgements have not been made.

What Can You Do?

Since it is not clear that federal law protects your work, it is important to mention the protection of state law on notices. Here is one that is suggested you put on class syllabi, handouts and web pages:

Copyright (author’s name) (year).
All federal and state copyrights reserved for all original material presented in this course through any medium, including lecture or print. Individuals are prohibited from being paid for taking, selling, or otherwise transferring for value, personal class notes made during this course to any entity without the express written permission of (author) In addition to legal sanctions, students found in violation of these prohibitions may be subject to University disciplinary action

While faculty do not necessarily want to keep students from sharing notes with other students in the class, this notice makes clear that any other type of distribution of personal class notes is not allowed.

If you find that notes are being distributed without your permission, you should collect any documentary evidence, such as printout of a web page offering the notes for sale which includes the URL and date (standard on most web browser printouts). The Business Contracts Office will take this information and send a “cease and desist” letter to the offending company, retaining documentation in the event you or the Regents eventually take legal action.

There are many other issues related to copyright ownership of interest to faculty members, in particular their ownership of recorded lectures. This is a matter of current discussion, although it is clear that the faculty own the products of their scholarly activities including lectures except when those rights are signed over. So, in the absence of any agreement, the faculty member owns the lecture no matter in what form it exists. DFA may present more details here in the future, and the following resources provide some current thinking from UC sources on the matter.

Additional Resources:

Business Contracts & Analysis website: http://vcadmin.ucdavis.edu/contracts
The UC Report on Copyright Ownership, http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/copyright/reports.html

Faculty Salaries and Personnel Actions at UCD and other UCs Over Past 20 Years

This bulletin contains three tables of data: I. Systemwide Salary Differential Over 20 Years; II. Davis Personnel Actions in Systemwide Perspective; III. Historical Davis Campus Personnel Practices. Notice particularly the low salary ranking in table one and the high CAP denial rate in table three.

Some definitions: The term CCO is long standing UC shorthand for “Chief Campus Officer.”  In principle that is the Chancellor; in practice it is almost invariably the Vice Provost by delegation from the “CCO.” Professional schools are excluded from the Academe survey and main campus faculty who are on 11 months’ appointments have their gross salaries scaled back to their nine-months’ equivalents–roughly a 15% reduction.

Table I: Systemwide Salary Differential over 20 years

The Davis faculty have been at or near the bottom of the systemwide salary ladder for many years. The table recently distributed with data from 1998-99 continues rankings that have held more or less constant for over 20 years. The following information was published in “Academe”, a periodical of the AAUP, which publishes extensive information about faculty economic matters annually. Both salary and “compensation” data are presented. The latter includes employer-paid benefits that have cash equivalents. The last column in the tables is the difference between the Compensation and the Salary at the Full rank.

Year: 1978-79

Compensation

Salary

Campus Prof Assoc Asst Prof Assoc Asst Prof Differential
B 38.2 26.4 22.2 30.8 20.8 17.3 7.4
D 34.5 25.9 21.4 27.7 20.4 16.6 6.8
I 36.2 25.8 21.4 29.1 20.4 16.6 7.1
LA 37.3 26.1 22.0 30.0 20.6 17.2 7.3
R 35.0 25.8 21.1 28.1 20.1 16.4 6.9
SD 36.9 26.0 21.4 29.7 20.5 16.7 7.1
SB 36.0 26.3 21.2 28.9 20.8 16.8 7.1
SC 35.2 25.6 21.2 28.2 20.2 16.8 6.8

1979-80

B 44.8 29.8 25.3 35.8 23.5 20.0 9.0
D 41.1 29.4 24.5 32.7 23.3 19.2 8.4
I 42.3 29.4 24.1 33.7 23.2 19.2 8.6
LA 43.2 29.8 24.6 34.7 23.1 19.3 8.8
R 40.8 29.1 23.4 32.6 23.0 18.3 8.2
SD 43.2 29.3 24.1 34.5 23.2 18.9 8.7
SB 41.8 29.7 24.1 33.4 23.5 18.9 8.4
SC 40.2 28.9 24.2 32.1 22.9 19.0 8.1

1984-85

B 65.4 43.4 37.3 54.3 34.9 29.6 11.5
D 57.4 41.0 35.5 47.5 32.8 28.0 10.4
I 59.4 42.2 36.7 48.7 33.8 29.2 10.7
LA 62.9 42.1 36.3 51.7 33.7 29.2 11.2
R 57.3 41.2 34.5 46.9 33.0 27.2 10.4
SD 61.3 41.8 36.0 50.4 33.4 28.5 10.9
SB 60.0 42.2 36.1 49.3 33.8 28.5 10.7
SC 55.8 40.5 33.0 45.6 32.3 25.9 10.2

1989-90

B 87.0 58.4 49.9 72.4 47.4 39.9 14.6
D 76.1 52.8 46.3 63.5 43.0 37.4 12.6
I 80.4 55.7 48.3 67.1 45.5 39.0 13.3
LA 84.1 54.9 49.4 70.1 44.6 39.7 14.0
R 75.9 52.0 44.6 62.7 42.6 36.1 12.3
SD 82.1 55.6 47.8 68.5 45.2 38.4 13.6
SB 80.2 53.4 48.3 66.8 43.3 38.4 13.4
SC 75.5 53.9 45.8 63.0 43.3 37.0 12.5

1994-95

B 101.6 70.4 60.6 80.1 53.7 45.7 21.5
D 90.5 64.9 55.4 71.1 49.7 42.0 19.4
I 94.0 67.8 58.7 74.0 51.9 44.9 20.0
LA 98.9 69.1 58.6 78.0 52.9 44.3 20.9
R 90.7 62.1 55.0 71.5 47.6 41.9 19.2
SD 96.3 66.0 58.1 75.9 50.4 43.5 20.9
SB 94.9 64.6 55.5 74.9 49.4 42.0 20.0
SC 88.4 63.7 54.3 69.5 49.0 41.2 18.9

1998-99

B 130.8 87.7 73.2 103.6 68.3 57.0 27.2
D 111.1 80.5 67.2 87.4 62.5 52.1 23.7
I 117.5 84.2 68.2 92.7 65.5 53.1 24.8
LA 128.2 84.1 70.4 101.4 65.4 54.7 26.8
R 112.1 78.5 70.4 88.2 61.1 54.8 23.9
SD 122.3 82.3 69.0 96.6 64.1 53.7 25.7
SB 119.3 79.2 65.4 94.2 61.7 51.0 25.1
SC 110.8 78.7 63.1 87.2 61.3 49.2 23.6

Table II: Davis Personnel Actions in Systemwide Perspective

The following is a summary of information taken from CAP annual reports of other Divisions along with similar information for UCD in 1997-98 and 1998-9.

CAP Recommendation CCO Decision
Yes No Split Yes No Pending
UCLA 1997/98
Promotions
8 year limit

43

6

43

6

Associate

38

9

40

8

Full

46

9

46

9

Merits
To VI

29

9

30

8

To AS

13

13

18

8

UCSB 1998-99
Prom to Assoc

15

7

11

7

5

Prom to Full

19

2

16

2

5

To VI (17 cases)

4

6

4

0

13

To AS (23 cases)

10

10

8

8

7

UCR 1998-99
Prom to Assoc

12

2

1

13

2

Prom to Full

11

2

1

11

2

1

To VI and AS

8

1

1

9

1

UCD 1997-98
Prom. Assoc

31

22

39

14

Prom. Full

38

14

38

14

UCD 1998-99
Prom. Assoc

34

10

35

9

Prom. Full

37

17

38

16

To VI

25

7

To AS

13

3

UCSD 1997-98 Approve Modify No
Tenure appt/prom

27

5

1

Full rank appt/prom

20

8

1

Accel:merits

31

7

8

Accel:prom’s

14

3

4

There were 60 modifications in all categories, of which 12 advantaged the candidate and 48 disadvantaged the candidate.
UCI 1997-98
Results reported in aggregates. The UCI CAP seems to be quite willing to reconsider its tentative recommendations.
Promotions: tentatively 74% yes finally 85% yes
Merits: tentatively 84% yes finally 88% yes
In 54 cases CAP tentatively disagreed with departments
in 14 cases CAP wanted to go higher
in 20 cases CAP wanted to go lower
in 20 cases Cap wanted to say no
After reconsideration 25 of the “negatives” were reversed.

Table III: Historical Davis Campus Personnel Practices

The following information was taken from the Annual Reports of the UCD Committee on Academic Personnel at five year intervals for the last 20 years. The committee reports vary in the amount of detail they present about the various actions so what appears below is just the “bare bones” yes/no figures from each of them. “Other” represents mainly actions pending or split votes. Total numbers of actions from CAP and CCO do not necessarily agree exactly because of carry-overs from prior years, etc.

Promotions to Associate Professor

CAP

CCO

Year Yes No Other Yes No Other
1998-99 34 10 35 9 1
1997-98 31 22 39 14
1992-93 37 7 1 39 6
1987-88 35 18 38 9 7
1982-83 32 7 3 32 8 3
1977-78 46 7 6 46 5 6

Promotions to Full Professor

CAP

CCO

Year Yes No Other Yes No Other
1998-99 37 17 38 16
1997-98 38 14 38 14
1992-93 42 11 42 11
1987-88 35 18 38 9 7
1982-83 33 18 2 34 17 2
1977-78 26 11 1 26 10 2

Step VI

AS

Year Yes No Pending Yes No Pending
1998-99 25 7 13 3
1992-93 20 12 2 2
1987-88 17 11 4 0 2 1

UC Ponders Professorial Salary Differences

Faculty salaries at UC campuses vary significantly, according to information being examined by systemwide UC Academic Senate Executive Councils. Concern was precipitated when the 23 April 1999 Chronicle of Higher Education reported average annual faculty salaries (Table) based on the AAUP annual report on the status of the profession. The UC Davis Full Professor average salary is at the bottom of the seven major campuses. Assistant and Associate Professor salaries fit into narrower ranges, but UC Davis ranked near the bottom in these categories also.

UC Campus Full Prof., 1000$ Assoc. Prof., 1000$ Asst. Prof., 1000$ % above Step IV % above Step VIII
Berkeley 103.6 68.3 57.0 74 19.3
Los Angeles 101.4 65.4 54.7 64 19.2
San Diego 96.6 64.1 53.7 65 16.7
Santa Barbara 94.2 61.7 51.0 62 14.8
Irvine 92.7 65.5 53.1 57 8.8
Riverside 88.2 61.1 54.8 47 9.7
Davis 87.4 62.5 52.1 48 5.6

UC Office of the President prepared more statistics to learn what factors might be influencing the numbers. Average age and age distribution of faculty indicated only slight differences among the campuses. A major factor appears to be the distribution of faculty at Professor rank. The last two Table columns show the percent of Full Professors at or above Step V and above scale (above Step VIII). UC Davis is again at the bottom, and for above-scale professors, significantly lower than UC Riverside.

This information raises some questions: Do other campuses have conditions more conducive to academic success? Do campus Deans, Provosts, and CAPs have different standards for promotions and merit increases? Are UC Davis faculty more cautious in recommending promotions? Have standards slipped at some other campuses while UC Davis is holding the line? The answers have implications for our Campus culture and collegial relations. DFA members should also ponder these differences, and urge the UC Academic Senate Executive Councils to give this issue their full attention.

DFA Criticizes Proposed Copyright Policy

by Ben McCoy

The Universitywide Task Force on Copyright, headed by UCSC Executive Vice Chancellor R. Tanner, issued its Draft Report and Recommendations for review in September, 1998.  A quick reading of the Tanner report seemed to promise that US law and custom would be respected, and that the copyright for any independent scholarly work would be owned by the creator of that work.  Indeed, item 6 of the report stated, “The University should reaffirm the policy that a faculty member owns his or her works of scholarship.”  But upon closer reading it became clear that in item 6, “works of scholarship” referred to research but not instructional material. The report noted that recordings of class lectures, for example, may belong to the University.  DFA Executive Board member Charlie Nash outlined the problem:

“Suppose that UC mounted a video camera in the back of 198 Young and videotaped all of my Chem 2A lectures (this in fact happened—my lectures were piped to an overflow room in Olson Hall and were taped en route.)  Suppose also that the following quarter UC decided to save some money by running the tapes of my lectures rather than employ me or another faculty member to revise and redeliver them. What are my rights?  Suppose even further that UC now decides to market the tapes in question commercially because of my expository brilliance, or to include them in the catalog of the California Virtual University and give or sell degree credit to those who enroll in the course via that medium.  It would be easy for UC to hire a grad student to cook up some exam questions for the virtual course and to hold some e-mail office hours.  Again, what are my rights?”

Aside from ownership and possible financial gain that faculty would lose in such circumstances, perhaps just as important is pedagogical and academic quality.  According to UC policy, faculty have authority for what is taught in the classroom.  Many faculty are rightly concerned that courses taught via electronic media not escape careful Academic Senate review.

A key issue is whether faculty work in the classroom is or is not “work for hire.”  An incident at UCLA shows the difficulties that can arise.  Faculty were required to post administrative information about their courses on the web and invited to add other material derived from the course syllabi.  One professor wanted to change some things he had posted on the website.  He discovered that the site was protected in  a manner that precluded him from making the changes without the permission of a gatekeeper.  In effect, his scholarly instructional work had come under the control of an administrative unit of the University.

DFA and the Council of UC Faculty Associations provided detailed criticisms of the Tanner report, including its inconsistency with United States Code—The Copyright Act of 1976.  The law provides that faculty own their classroom lectures, whether typed and placed on the web, written out on paper, or recorded electronically.  Several Academic Senate committees also saw and analyzed the problems. The Council Chair of the Systemwide Assembly of the Academic Senate wrote to the Office of the President saying that too many concerns and objections had been raised to consider the Tanner report close to being finished, and that a new statement was needed with another full faculty review.  We trust that the criticisms will be heeded.

[For another view on copyright  issues, see the AAUP website <www.aaup.org> under Distance Education & Intellectual Property Issues.]

DFA Board Elections

by Myrna Hays

A nominating committee consisting of Alan Jackman (Chem. Engr.), Kathryn Radke (Animal Science), and David Robertson (English) has proposed  candidates to fill DFA Board positions as listed below (with the following code R – re-elect; C – continuing; E – elect):

Officers:
Chair: Ben McCoy  (Chem. Engr.) R
Vice Chair: Bill Lasley  (VM: Pop. Hlt.) C

Board members:
Ariena Van Bruggen  (Plant Path.) C
Alan  Elms  (Psychology) C
Charles Nash (Chem. Emeritus) R
Floyd Feeney  (Law) R
Don  Abbott (English) R
Peter Richerson (Env. Sci.) E
Andrew Waterhouse  (Vit. & Enol.) E
Lynn Roller (Spanish & Classics)E
Sid  Gospe (Med: Neurology) E

All nominees have agreed to serve. Their two-year terms of office will begin Sept. 1999. Further nominations may be made upon petition of 5% of the membership (15 members) in good standing as of April 1, 1999. Such petitions must be delivered on or before June 10, 1999, to the Executive Director (address above). If no nominations are submitted, the slate shall be accepted as elected.

Members leaving the board are Eugenio Amparo (Med: Radiology), Maria Colombi (Spanish & Classics), Yvette Flores-Ortiz (Chicano Studies), and Jonathan Sandoval ( Educ.). We especially want to thank Jonathan for serving as Chair.

Parking Fees Update

by Ben McCoy

The Representative Assembly on April 23 approved the Faculty Welfare Committee’s recommendation to form a Special Committee on Parking Issues. Concern has grown since a 1997 long range plan revealed that “A” parking sticker costs could increase from $360 per year to $948 by 2004.  The thought of paying nearly $1000 each year to park is dismaying to many faculty and staff.

Last summer, DFA offered assistance to Bryan Miller, Chair of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate, to help resolve parking issues. Before his untimely death, Bryan had written to the Chancellor questioning why parking spaces were being replaced by buildings with no compensating funds for the lost parking spaces.  State law mandates that parking must be self-supporting, but using parking income for other purposes is objectionable.

DFA also wrote to the Vice Chancellor for Administration to express concern for the alarming prospect that parking costs could nearly triple in the next several years.  Responses received from UCD administration have not allayed the concerns, and apparently the administration does not wish to reinstate the parking advisory committee that was disbanded four years ago.  Efforts to improve alternative transportation and commuting systems are worthwhile, but overall planning has suffered from insufficient faculty input.

A strong perception among faculty is that the new Center for the Arts will be built on parking spaces that employees have already paid for.  Apparently, the fund-raising plans for the Center do not include sufficient new investment funds for parking facilities at the Center.  Under current plans, new parking facilities to replace those removed for new construction will have to be financed from increases in parking rates paid by UC Davis employees and students.  Such perceptions cannot help the campaign to secure donations for the Center for the Arts.

Similar experiences at UC Santa Cruz confirm that the UC administration is insensitive to employee parking needs.  Between $1 and $2 million in funds received from parking fees have been openly diverted by UCSC to purposes other than parking.  The UCSC Faculty Association, the legal bargaining agent for the UCSC faculty, is contesting the diversion of funds.  Bargaining on the dispute is at an impasse, however, and a Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) ruling has been requested to resolve the matter.  Information on HEERA may be found at <http://home.pacbell.net/ucfa/>.

The disputes suggest that a careful accounting of UC parking fees and investments is needed, with appropriate credit allocated for parking facilities that have been paid for by users.  The new Academic Senate committee should stand firm to resolve this matter fairly for UC employees.

Year-Round Operations

by Peter Hays

As a way of increasing capacity at UC and CSU without having to construct new campuses or new buildings at existing campuses in the near term, a bill ( AB 126) asks CSU and UC to increase summer enrollments and make both institutions year-round schools (YRO). The bill states that no new instructional facilities could be built if any quarter’s enrollment (including summer’s) is less than 90% of peak enrollment and outlines a schedule to achieve summer enrollment at that level by 2007-08. The bill could be replaced by supplemental language to the budget which would require the more reasonable goal of 40%, closer to the nationwide maximum.

The bill states explicitly that faculty would not be required to teach year round; UC and CSU “would provide reasonable accommodation for faculty members to address any additional workload resulting from YRO.”  While  students would  not be required to attend year round, additional incentives could be implemented to encourage students to do so and reduce the time to graduation. The intent is to provide students greater flexibility by offering them a regular schedule of classes in the summer and fees the same as those required the rest of the year.  Chancellor Reed of the CSU system has embraced the idea; at CSU, Los Angeles, there will be no fees for summer attendance in 1999 for new freshman.

How students who  need to work summers to finance their education will be affected and how many additional faculty (and graduate students) will have to be hired to offer four quarters of balanced study, where they will be housed, and how they will be equipped are as yet  unanswered. UC is pressing for maintaining quality by stating that we would need  full funding at the marginal cost of instruction  for all enrollment. Also not addressed  is the impact  on current summer programs. Again, UC has publicly stated that space for summer outreach, teacher training, student orientation, and extension should not be displaced by YRO.

At present the bill may be carried over to next year, giving UC more time to plan. UC, meanwhile, has agreed to phase in YRO initially at one or two campuses  by next summer; these will probably be Berkeley and/or UCLA, which are already at full capacity and could use the addition of more students to justify hiring more faculty. Office and lab space needs, however, would remain, as would the problem of performing needed maintenance on facilities used constantly.

The FA presented  a “white paper” outlining many of these concerns to legislators and will continue meeting with key people on this issue. We will keep you informed.

UC Budget Update

by Myrna Hays

Background: When we reported on the threat to faculty salaries posed by the Governor’s 1999-2000 budget, which included a reduction of $51M from UC’s base budget and discontinuation of the $70M of one-time funding available in the 1998-99 budget, we promised to work hard to persuade legislators that, should  more money become available as was anticipated, some or all of these funds should be restored to UC. In our meetings with legislators, we specifically advocated  providing full funding for UC’s projected enrollment growth at the agreed-upon  marginal cost of instruction; maintaining competitive faculty salaries, which the CPEC methodology shows would require a 2.5% increase for faculty; and continuing to provide targeted funding for the University libraries and the replacement of obsolete instructional equipment–the 1998-99 funding provided $20M for instructional equipment and $10M to begin to restore the print collection in the UC libraries. (At the FA’s request, supplemental language was also included asking UC to develop a funding strategy and multi-year plan to address the library funding problem with attention to traditional print collections.) In the Regents’ request, UC included $7.5M as the first step in a multi-year plan  to address these needs.

May Revise: The Governor’s revised budget and actions by the Assembly and the Senate budget subcommittees together  support full funding for enrollment growth at UC and a restoration of the $51M shortfall from the January budget. This funding, if carried through to the final budget, would permit UC to provide faculty salary increases of 2.5%, the amount required to maintain parity with our comparison institutions.

The Assembly subcommittee has not acted on UC’s request for a repeat of the $70M in one-time funding from last year,
but the Senate subcommittee has proposed approximately  $35M in on-going funds for those same categories: deferred  maintenance, instructional materials/technology, and library materials ($2.5M was also added to the libraries  at the last minute–largely due to efforts by our lobbyist). Now these issues will need to go to the Conference Committee.

The entire budget, of course, is far from final; it must be approved by the Conference committee, the full Legislature, and the Governor. But, so far, things look promising, especially in respect to the FA’s stated goals.

UCD Parking Fee Issue

Late in the academic year 1997-98, DFA learned through Ken Ealy, Employee Relations, that UCD planned to increase parking fees dramatically for 1998-99: “A” stickers (for faculty) rates would rise from $360 annually to $408 (monthly from $30 to $34). We were further  informed that this fee is projected to grow to $948 in 2004-5.

Our response, stated, among other things,  that while we understand that parking fees are needed to construct new lots, “The proposed increases are to finance parking structures and lots that will minimally serve those who are paying for them. These lots are intended to provide parking for the public attending the new arts complex. In the meantime, new buildings are being built on the site of old parking lots that the faculty and others have already financed.”

Bryan Miller, the late  Chair of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate, also wrote to Chancellor Vanderhoef, asking a number of questions regarding this proposed fee increase. He echoed the DFA’s  request for a moratorium on further increases, at least until alternative plans are reconsidered and/or the current plan is fully justified.

In the fall, Janet Hamilton, Vice Chancellor for Administration, replied to Miller, with copies to the Faculty Welfare  Committee and  the DFA. Neither of these organizations are satisfied with what she wrote. Her long response included the following comments:

“The primary utilization …of the Lake District parking facilities is to accommodate day-to-day 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. campus parking patrons (faculty, staff, students, and visitors)…The Center  for the Performing Arts is planned … to be an evening and weekend event venue whose patrons will pay a special events parking fee…”
She  noted that alternatives to building more structures have been considered and rejected. Remote parking  with free shuttles was abandoned due to low usage. To “leave existing surface lots in place and build additional surface  lots… would force academic buildings to be located on sites increasingly distant from the buildings that house like disciplines.” She also said, “The State  Budget Office has not supported the replacement cost of displaced parking—the State chooses to spend its money on the facilities necessary to support academic programs… [Care is taken so that] any surface parking lot that is removed to make room for another structure has been fully amortized [which usually takes] 7 to 10 years.”

Both the Welfare Committee and the DFA responded to one part of her letter. She stated ” The Office of Administration is  currently looking at the appropriate mechanism(s) to collect feedback from  its constituencies for all units reporting to the Office of  Administration.”  The DFA offered to volunteer one of its members to serve on an advisory committee that would address the parking cost issue.

Frank Samaniego, Chair of Faculty Welfare, has requested John Vohs,  Vice Chair of the Academic Senate, to bring before the Representative  Assembly a proposal to create a Standing Committee on Campus Parking that would  be charged with reviewing, monitoring and evaluating the availability, quality and cost of campus parking, and would render advice, as appropriate, to  the Senate and the campus administration regarding these matters.  The DFA will continue to watch this issue.

You are currently browsing the Davis Faculty Association blog archives for the year 1999.