Davis Faculty Association

Archive for 2000

DFA Response to Dateline article re. AB 1773

Early in the quarter, the DFA sent a press release regarding AB 1773, a new bill co-sponsored by the Council of UC Faculty Associations which makes it illegal to distribute or publish with a commercial intent any unauthorized, contemporaneous recording in any medium of a presentation in any California classroom. Subsequently, Dateline published an article on this issue that contained some factual or interpretive errors. We sent a letter to the Editor in an attempt to correct the misperceptions that the article created. To date, Dateline has not published our letter. Since the quarter is nearing an end, we feel compelled now to publish a somewhat amended version of the letter so that all Senate faculty will know the true story about AB 1773. We provide it for you below:

TO: The Editor of Dateline

Sir: Both fairness and accuracy require that the recent front page article headlined “UC Davis keeps lecture notes off the Internet” not go unremarked. The University of California had nothing to do with the introduction of the legislation in question (AB 1773, Romero). In fact, spokesmen from UC and CSU as well as the Chair of the Academic Council of the systemwide UC Academic Senate testified against the bill at its first legislative hearing. The bill was co-sponsored by two organizations: the Council of UC Faculty Associations (to which the Davis Faculty Association belongs) and CSU’s California Faculty Association. The bill was amended several times as it evolved, with the result that the Universities no longer opposed it. In brief, AB 1773 makes it illegal to distribute or publish with a commercial intent any unauthorized, contemporaneous recording in any medium of a presentation in any California classroom. It also empowers the Attorney General, District Attorneys or other similar public officials to pursue violators of the statute.

For more than 30 years it has been known that, under California law, academic institutions are almost powerless to intervene when a determined note-taking entrepreneur invades a campus. That is because according to the Legislative Counsel’s digest of AB 1773: “Existing case law provides that without evidence to the contrary, a teacher, rather than the institution for which he or she teaches, owns the common law copyright to his or her lectures.” The bill itself also states: “Nothing in this chapter is intended to change existing law as it pertains to the ownership of academic presentations.” What this means in practice is that before AB 1773 was enacted, individual professors had to initiate legal action to halt the misappropriation of their lecture materials on a case-by-case basis at personal expense. Now they can ask the State to do it for them.

It is entirely correct that administrative representatives from UCDavis talked with versity.com “regarding possible acceptable ways the latter might do business on campus.” As a result of those conversations the firm actually pulled all the UC Davis course notes down off of their Website in the last week of the winter quarter. What the Dateline article failed to mention, however, is that in the spring quarter they were back up again.

In mid-May, when the Davis Faculty Association got into the act, versity.com was posting notes for more than 200 courses on six UC campuses, including 43 from UC Davis. With the financial support of the Davis Faculty Association and the assistance of a private practice attorney who specializes in intellectual property matters, a Davis faculty member whose notes were mounted on the versity.com website threatened legal action in the Yolo County Superior Court if those notes were not removed immediately. The threat cited the “existing case law” mentioned above. The offending notes came down within 24 hours and as a fringe benefit no further notes were posted for any UCDavis courses for the rest of the quarter. During the spring quarter versity.com merged with the San Diego-based firm, “college club.com.” During the summer the latter evidently overreached itself, and declared bankruptcy.

All of this works to explain why, in the words of the Dateline article: “The company eventually pulled UC Davis notes from its site.” The DFA is planning a winter forum to promote campus discussion and to further explain faculty rights on copyright issues.

Faculty time-clock-punching: proposed regulation APM 025

The draft of the revised APM-025, entitled “Conflict of Commitment and Outside Activities of Faculty Members” is not only a substantial revision of existing policy, but even re-titles the policy. See the full document at http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/rev-025etc.html The existing APM-025, instituted 7/1/96, is simply entitled, “Outside Professional Activities of Faculty Members.” Events since 1996 have apparently motivated the University to decide that the policy was insufficient and in need of drastic change. According to the June 22, 2000, transmittal letter from Provost King, “The revision of APM-025 was undertaken in response to the findings of an administrative task force convened by the President….The proposed policy is intended to provide a framework through which University administrators and faculty can assure all of the University’s constituencies that potential conflicts of commitment are identified and appropriately managed, while at the same time assuring that faculty may engage in a wide array of outside activities without unnecessary limitations.”

Present APM-025 obligates faculty “…to have a significant presence on campus, to be accessible to students and staff, and to be available to interact with University colleagues throughout every quarter or semester of active duty…A faculty member’s failure to meet classes, to keep office hours, or to hold examinations as scheduled is unacceptable conduct under the Faculty Code of Conduct.” Currently, each faculty member is supposed to provide a nonconfidential annual report on her/his outside professional activities to the department chair. These activities are considered in regular reviews for possible recommendation for advancement.

The revised policy elaborates expansively on these issues. The detailed and extensive definitions, categories, time limits, forms, and regulations in the draft policy are daunting. Upon reading through the elaborate procedures, one would expect that these draconian measures are meant to rein in rampant and indiscriminate shirking of duties and responsibilities by UC faculty across all the UC campuses. What motivated the changes and what indeed is the extent of faculty negligence or dereliction in meeting their responsibilities? A comment from a UCOP source who participated in the discussions suggested the following explanation.

“A few years ago there was major publicity about a few faculty who started a very successful company and made lots of money. This raised questions in the press, the Regents and the President about how faculty could be so successful with only one day a week of outside professional activity. There were other related issues that also surfaced, mainly concerning conflict of interest in licensing. The President asked us to look again at the policy on conflict of commitment.”

Because conflict of interest for research grants, patents, and licensing are dealt with in separate policies, and are not addressed in APM-025, these matters do not appear to be the real issue. Questions have also been raised as to whether the problem that apparently led to the new review — the incident of several UCB faculty who operated an extremely successful consulting business in their spare time– warrants any action. At the time of this incident, UCB administrators tried to have the federal government indict the faculty members for allegedly violating “rules” about over-commitment of time on “outside work.” The chair at that time of the UCB Committee on Privilege and Tenure has recently commented, “…the campus and the feds dropped the case after P&T issued its 95-page abundantly footnoted report that, among other things, proved that there were no rules on the matter and that therefore none could possibly have been violated, and in any case it was questionable whether the administration had the right to limit what a faculty member did with her/his own time. The UC Berkeley administration subsequently apologized to the accused, and has taken steps to compensate for the anguish, lost time, and financial costs to the individuals who had been victimized by its false accusations.” Whatever the merits of this particular incident and whether some new policy is needed or not, the question is whether the new APM 025 is a sensible and reasonable policy.

The administration has apparently seen fit to promulgate the necessary rules so that it can control what faculty members do with their own time. Thus, rather than rely on the straightforward principle that a faculty member must fulfill her/his teaching, research, and service obligations, the University is proposing a bureaucratic approach involving definitions, categories, time limits, forms, and regulations. But even here the draft policy trips over its own bureaucratic convolutions — it does not define a “day.” The draft allows that nine-month faculty may engage in outside professional activities “for up to 39 days from the start of the fall term through the end of the spring term (including inter-session).” The guidelines provide no definition of a “day,” but instead place the onus on the faculty member to provide an explanation for the definition of “day” when she/he fills out the forms. Furthermore, including inter-sessions as part of the formula restricts what faculty can do while on vacation. The policy generously does not restrict what nine-month faculty members do with their summer months.

There is no doubt UC is coming under scrutiny for its increasing ties and obligations to the private sector. But most of the controversial ties are solicited and negotiated at the administrative level. The UC administration, in its entrepreneurial zeal to raise research dollars through corporate partnerships, has a “conflict of commitment” of its own. Is it possible that UC hopes to deflect the scrutiny and criticisms of its own liabilities by imposing on and burdening the faculty with a new policy?

The DFA Board believes that it is ill-conceived to increase the number and complexity of rules governing the one day a week that current policy allots to outside professional activities. Regents’ Standing Orders dictate that faculty must fulfill teaching, research, and service obligations. This rule is sufficient. The UC academic merit and promotion system offers ample opportunity for UC to hold faculty accountable for failing to meet their obligations. The system also allows non-departmental faculty committees and administrators to comment on deficient faculty performance. As long as obligations are met, there should be no reason to inquire further into faculty members’ private lives. Performance is evaluated every year in biography-bibliography reports, in student evaluations, in professional publications and other academic achievements, and in department chairs’ appraisals. Enough already!

The DFA welcomes your opinions regarding this issue. Simply reply to this message; we will forward your pertinent comments to the appropriate Academic Senate committees.

Copyright Protection for Lectures

As a new academic year is about to begin, the Board of the Davis Faculty Association once again urges its colleagues to take a few simple steps to safeguard the original material which they distribute to their classes in tangible form; in effect material that you produce and distribute that can be picked up and carried around. What you say in class does not fall into this category. The distinction is an important one because material in tangible form is covered by Federal Copyright law while what you present verbally in a classroom is the province of California Civil law.

With regard to tangible course materials such as your syllabus, original problem sets and their solutions, course web-site postings etc, we recommend that you put on the bottom of each page a statement such as the one proposed last year by the UC Davis Business Contracts Office:

“Copyright [your full professional name], [year]. All federal and state copyrights reserved for all original material presented in this course through any medium, including lecture or print.”

THIS WILL PROTECT BOTH THE TANGIBLE AND VERBAL CONTENT OF YOUR WORK.

We further recommend that faculty members whose distributed tangibles include substantial amounts of original material, such as lab manuals or drafts of papers/chapters formally register those copyrights. This is a relatively simple and inexpensive exercise ($30.00) which would make it much faster and simpler to pursue a copyright infringer if one should surface. The forms and instructions for registering a copyright are readily available on the Library of Congress website: www.loc.gov/copyright/.

We continue to discourage faculty members from including the Regents of the University of California as co-copyright holders because we believe that doing so would severely compromise ownership rights which faculty currently enjoy under California State Law. We say that because according to the California Legislative Counsel: “Existing case law provides that in the absence of evidence of agreement to the contrary, a teacher, rather than the institution for which he or she teaches, owns the common law copyright to his or her lectures.” An inclusion of the Regents in a copyright statement would clearly constitute “…evidence of agreement to the contrary.”

DFA Board Elections

by Myrna Hays

A nominating committee consisting of Terrence Murphy (Plant Biology), Kathryn Radke (Animal Science), and Roslyn Isseroff (Med: Dermatology) has proposed candidates to fill DFA Board positions as listed below with the following code (C – continuing; E – elect):

Officers:
Chair: Ben McCoy (Chem. Engr.) C
Vice Chair: Alan Elms (Psych.) E

Board members:
Judy Stamps (Evol. & Ecology/DBS) E
Charles Nash (Chem. Emeritus) C
Floyd Feeney (Law) C
Don Abbott (English) C
Peter Richerson (Env. Sci.) C
Andrew Waterhouse (Vit. & Enol.) C
Lynn Roller (Spanish & Classics) C
Bill Lasley (VM: Pop. Hlt.) C
Hugo Bogren (Med. Sch: Radiology) E

All nominees have agreed to serve. Their two-year terms of office will begin Sept. 2000. Further nominations may be made upon petition of 5% of the membership (15 members) in good standing as of April 1, 2000. Such petitions must be delivered on or before June 10, 2000, to the Executive Director (address above). If no nominations are submitted, the slate shall be accepted as elected.

Members leaving the board are Sid Gospe (Med: Neurology), and Bob Powell (Chem. Engr.). We thank them for their service to the DFA.

Dues

Since 1995, when the DFA last raised dues, faculty have received annual COLAs. The board has determined that a dues increase is now needed to meet normal cost of living increases of the organization. So, effective July 1, 2000, dues for active faculty will be $19.50 per month thru payroll deduction; emeriti dues will be $30 per year, due in Nov. 2000.

Parking Committee Update

by Ben McCoy

The Academic Senate Special Committee on Transportation and Parking was appointed in June of 1999 in response to growing faculty concern regarding escalating parking fees and the increasing practice of replacing existing parking lots, which had already paid for from parking fee revenues, with expensive multi-level parking structures. The Committee was given the charge “to investigate matters related to the availability and cost of campus parking and to make recommendations to the Senate regarding appropriate strategies aimed at securing convenient and affordable campus parking for all faculty, staff and students who have need for it.” Although commissioned to present its final report to the Academic Senate in the fall of 2000, the Committee has issued an interim report, providing some details on their investigations and findings, and putting forth a collection of principles and recommendations intended for immediate consideration by the Academic Senate.

The interim report lists five recommendations:

1. A moratorium should be declared on parking fee increases through June 2001, in order to allow faculty, staff, and students the opportunity to systematically review and discuss policies and plans of the Administration regarding parking and transportation on the UCD campus.

2. Budgets for capital construction should include replacement costs for any parking facilities and spaces removed by construction, or that have to be temporarily constructed because of building projects. Continuing projects such as the campus Center for Performing Arts should be included. In that specific case, the fund raising campaign should be expanded to cover the entire project, including the parking that the Center would require as a major regional venue for artistic events. Campus employees should not be asked to pay twice for capital costs of parking facilities.

3. A transportation and parking impact analysis should be required for each capital construction project that is embodied in the five-year planning document of the campus. The Academic Senate Divisional Committee on Academic Planning and Budget Review should review each analysis.

4. Campus Administration should investigate the financing of parking facilities on the campus of CSU, Sacramento, and neighboring community colleges. A study should determine how those institutions are able to provide parking for much lower fees than are charged, or projected to be charged, on the Davis campus. The Administration should report its findings to the Academic Senate.

5. The Divisional Academic Senate should adopt legislation that fixes responsibility systematically to review campus parking problems and policies by creating a Joint Standing Committee (DDB 30) on Transportation and Parking. That Committee should include representatives from all impacted campus constituencies (faculty, Academic Federation, UCD Staff Assembly, and students), and report annually to their various constituencies including the Academic Senate Representative Assembly.

Some Thoughts on COLAs

by Barry McLaughlin, who serves on the systemwide FWC and on the Faculty Association board at UCSC

Most faculty do not think about their retirement plan until late in their careers. They have heard that the University offers a good plan, but they do not know much about the details. They know that there is a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) built into the plan, but few faculty know how it is determined. In particular, few realize that the value of their benefit shrinks considerably as they get older. Presently, the UCRS Board makes certain adjustments to assure that the benefits of a given cadre (based on year of retirement) do not fall below 75% of the consumer price index (CPI) for the Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas. However, there is no guarantee that the COLA will stay above 75%.

The current formula for determining the COLA for retired faculty is a complicated one. The Regents allow 100% up to 2% COL increase; nothing additional between 2% and 4%; and 75% of everything from 4% to 9%. If the COL is between 2% and 4% in a given year, the faculty receive only a 2% increase. This is what happened this past year. The COLA allowed by Social Security, which is pegged to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), was 2.4%. However, the Regents’ formula only allowed for a 2% increase.

Over the years, this leads to a considerable loss in real income for retirees. For example, look at a hypothetical situation of a faculty member retiring in 1984 with a benefit of $50,000. In 15 years that amount would have grown to $68,302 with the COLAs allowed by UC. If COLAs were the same as those given by Social Security over this period, the amount would have grown to $78,665. If the COLAs were tied to the Consumer Price Index in California over that period, the amount would have grown to $82,394.

For some years now, the Regents’ cost of living assumption has been 4%. This means that that retirees’ future compensation is estimated with a 2% increase each year (the remaining 2% falling in the 2-4% gap). The difference between 2% and 4% is considerable over a period of time. Consider a UC faculty member retiring today with a $100,000 retirement income. In 15 years this amount would have grown to $134,587 with a 2% increase annually; with a 4% annual increase the amount would have reached $180,094.

Presently the retirement fund is at an all-time high—over $32 billion. This is a staggering amount of money. In 1991 when the University was concerned about the surplus in the fund and began the VERIP programs, the amount of the fund was about $12 billion. The fund has almost double that amount now—after the VERIPs. No one has paid into the retirement fund since 1992. Indeed, active faculty will have two sources of retirement income—their benefits from the retirement fund and their required 401(a) contributions.With the enormous surplus now in the UC retirement program, it seems appropriate to discuss ways to assure that the real value of faculty retirement benefits does not suffer severe erosion. Two actions seem especially worth considering: (1) eliminating the 2%-4% gap, and (2) providing retired faculty with a guarantee that their income will not fall to less than 85% of the cost of living in California.

Active and retired faculty should be concerned about the Regent’s conservatism regarding the retirement fund in the light of future economic realities. It is true that the University of California has a very good retirement program. The benefits exceed those of many other programs. Most retired faculty are happy with the program. However, current and future retirees can expect to live longer than their predecessors—with increasing health care costs. As matters stand presently, they can expect to see a severe decline in the real value of their income relative to the cost of living in California.

AB 1773 Legislation Update

by Charles Nash

The following is a brief update regarding the status of AB 1773, legislation which the UC and CSU Faculty Associations are co-sponsoring. The bill attempts to delineate the role played by the faculty in controlling the subsequent use of original material presented in their lectures, and in particular preventing the posting of class notes on off-campus commercial web sites. This issue strikes home because Versity.com lists some 40 UCD courses in their recent ad in the California Aggie. In at least several cases that we know of, the faculty members whose courses have been so posted on the Web did not know of it and, furthermore, they object to such posting. The notes are inaccurate and potentially damaging to the faculty members’ reputations.

The Faculty Associations and the Administrations of UC and CSU have very different views about the content—and indeed the very existence of such legislation. The FAs believe that case law has established that Section 980 of the California Civil Code gives faculty members an exclusive ownership of original material presented in their lectures. The University Administrations have adamantly opposed the inclusion of any language in the proposed legislation that would give the faculty such ownership either overtly or by implication. In testimony before the Assembly Judiciary Committee the Chair of the UC Systemwide Academic Council opposed the very existence of legislation dealing with disposition of lecture materials, arguing that this subject would better be dealt with via “shared governance.”

The members of the Council of UC Faculty Associations believe otherwise. The 1969 California Appellate Court decision which confirmed that a faculty member could (and did successfully) sue a commercial note-taking firm for damages arising from the sale of unauthorized course notes contains the caveat: “We are…convinced that in the absence of (contrary) evidence the teacher, rather than university, owns the common-law copyright to his lectures.” We see a real possibility that “shared governance,” which often implies that each side gives a little, could result in “contrary evidence” which would afford the university intellectual property rights which we believe it does not currently have.

The faculty ownership of classroom utterances has been clearly recognized in both English and American law since Abernethy v. Hutchinson in 1825, and we have no wish to allow that situation to change so early in the 21st century. The UC and CSU Faculty Associations commissioned an independent intellectual property practitioner to prepare a White Paper on the current status of State and Federal Copyright laws as they pertain to classroom lectures. The interested reader can find this document on the DFA website on the Current Activities page. Copies of it have also been sent to all the members of the new UC Standing Committee on Copyright, which had its first meeting on May 3.

The fate of our proposed legislation (AB 1773) is by no means certain. Indeed, the text has been changing virtually on a daily basis in an attempt by ourselves and the bill’s author, Assemblymember Gloria Romero (herself a CSU Professor of Psychology), to find compromise language that would induce UC and CSU to rescind their present formal opposition to the bill in question. Whether it succeeds or fails, our hope is that the introduction of AB 1773 may have raised the consciousness and attracted the interest of enough faculty members across the system to insure that any policies stemming from “shared governance” will not jeopardize the existing rights of the faculties in California’s public post-secondary institutions.

DCP Retirement Accounts – Why They Should Be Larger

UC faculty do not receive retirement credit for supplementary work paid out of grants or for summer school teaching. Medical school faculty likewise receive retirement credit for only a portion of their salary. Here is the background on this problem. The UC retirement plan is a Defined Benefit Plan (DBP). That means that at retirement, each faculty member will receive a defined monthly amount based on years of service (service credit), average of the highest three years of compensation (HAPC), and age at retirement (age factor). Employer and employee contributions each month have built up a substantial pool of funds for these monthly disbursements. Employee contributions are automatically deducted from pretax wages at roughly the rate of 2% to 4% less $19 a month for faculty with Social Security and 3% for those without.

Recently, the UCRP pool of funds has been large enough to meet payment obligations without receiving any employee or employer contributions. For good reason, UCRP management decided not to stop employee contributions but to continue the monthly deductions. The pretax amount deducted each month is defined according to the level of employee compensation, and thus is considered a Defined Contribution Plan (DCP). If employee contributions to the UCR pool of funds would be required again in the future, then it would be simple to stop the DCP contributions and resume the UCRP contributions without affecting the amount in the monthly paycheck. At retirement, the amount an employee withdraws is based on how the employee has invested these funds and not on a predetermined formula. The employee can direct DCP funds into any of the UC managed investment funds, such as Money Market, Equity, or Fidelity. If the employee does not specify, the monthly DCP employee contributions are invested in UC-managed Savings.

The current controversy is the level of employer and employee contributions to DCP accounts for summer teaching and funded summer research salaries. The University has come under pressure to include summer teaching salary and funded summer research in retirement compensation. So far, the administration has been reluctant to do so because those amounts may vary each year. The reason is that faculty could increase the highest three years of covered compensation by teaching summer school or working on funded summer research for three consecutive years near the end of employment. This would have a major impact on the actuarial levels required for the UCRP pool of funds to meet obligations.

Instead, the University is considering making a contribution to an employee’s DCP account. To get this employer contribution, the employee would be asked to make a matching contribution on the eligible amount for summer teaching salary or summer funded research. The university has suggested the rate of 7%, with 3.5% from the University and 3.5% from the faculty member. The Faculty Associations have argued for a higher level, 14%, corresponding to University contributions on covered compensation to the UCRP pool. Of this 14%, we believe the employer portion should be 10% and the employee 4%. Recently the Faculty Associations wrote a letter (please see below) to President Atkinson and circulated it widely throughout systemwide Senate committees to explain why the higher contribution level is more equitable.

Feb. 14, 2000

Dear President Atkinson:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Council of UC Faculty Associations, which are, by far, the largest independent, dues supported organizations representing the faculty at the campuses of the University of California. Our members have urged us– and we urge you– to support an important policy change in the University of California retirement plan. The Council would like to address the issue of level of employer and employee contributions to DCP accounts. We believe the University should make a comparable contribution to retirement for summer salaries and funded summer research as it does for regular gross earnings. The normal cost of the UCRP Defined Benefit Plan is currently about 14% of salary. Using this amount as the guideline, the employer should contribute 10% of summer teaching salaries or funded summer research to employee DCP accounts and the employee 4%. Moreover, we urge that this change in policy take place as soon as possible, preferably at the beginning of fiscal 2001.

The FA’s understand that there has been discussion of a 7% contribution level, to be divided between employer at 3.5% and employee at 3.5%, based on the current contribution rate used for DC Plan temporary and part-time employees. We believe that the proper contribution comparison is to full-time faculty. For example, at the Comparison 8 institutions that offer only a Defined Contribution Plan (DCP), Harvard, University of Michigan, and Stanford, all of them include summer school or summer research salary in their benefit formula. At Harvard, there are no employee contributions and the employer contributes 10% up to the Social Security wage base and 15% of salary over that level for faculty aged 40 or over. At Princeton, the employer contribution is 9.3% up to the SS wage base and 15% over on all salary paid by or through the University. The lowest level of employer contributions at Stanford is 5%, with escalating amounts up to 10% for increased employee contributions. At the University of Michigan, a large public university system much like UC, the employer contribution is 10% of eligible gross salary, which includes summer teaching and funded summer research.

The Faculty Associations believe that 10% would also be a fair level of contribution for the University of California, with the employee contributing 4% into the DCP accounts. Such a policy would bring the University of California in line with the policies at the Comparison 8 and with other major universities. It would preserve the same level of contribution for summer teaching salary and funded research as it does for the regular academic year. This policy would be welcome by faculty in all disciplines who regularly teach summer school or engage in funded summer research. Given the high level of competition for faculty in all fields, this change in policy would help make the University of California retirement benefits more attractive in faculty recruitment and retention.

Sincerely,
Mary Ann Mason President, UC Faculty Associations

DFA Invites Senate Response to SCAPP

SCAPP Reminder: Recently, the Academic Senate appointed a special committee to study faculty pay and promotion practices. The committee has been asked to finish their tasks and submit a final report by May 1. We have heard from the Committee that they are greatly concerned that they may not receive sufficient input from faculty. We are reminding DFA members that the Special Committee has established an e-mail address (SCAPP@geology.ucdavis.edu) to which members of the Academic Senate may address their concerns and comments; all communication will be confidential. The committee has organized its work by forming three sub-committees to address: (1) Comparison of salary data; (2) Campus Personnel Policies, Procedures, and Practices; (3) Inter campus Comparison of Personnel Policies, Procedures and Practices. We also encourage you to contact members of the Special Committee with information relative to their task. The committee members are: Howard Day (Geology), Anna Marie Busse Berger (Music), Colin Cameron (Economics), Robert Hansen (Vet. Med. Mole. Sci.), Ines Hernandez-Avila (Native Am. Studies), Martin Privalsky (Microbiology), John Robbins (Medicine, Med. Sch.), Robert Rucker (Nutrition), and Edward Schroeder (Civil & Env. Engr.). The DFA has commented on the issue in email bulletins that are provided on our web site http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~dfamhays/

DFA Election: According to the bylaws of the DFA, it is time to appoint a nominating committee and fill vacancies on the DFA board. Maintaining strong leadership is essential to DFA success in pursuing faculty interests. Please contact Myrna Hays by return email to nominate yourself or a colleague to either serve on the nominating committee or on the DFA board. We need your help.

Who Are the DFA Members? As we hope you know, the DFA board is actively seeking to recruit new members in order to strengthen our base of support. Often, as we talk with faculty to invite them to join the DFA, they ask who on the campus currently are members. In past DFA newsletters we have often listed the DFA membership. We plan to provide such a membership list on our web site. We would like to include your name and hope you agree that this will be useful; if you disagree, please let us know. And we urge you to actively seek new members to recruit. The new web site is a good place to start by informing potential members of DFA activities.

You are currently browsing the Davis Faculty Association blog archives for the year 2000.