Appendix II

Legislative Rulings
by the University Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction


[Numbering indicates the month and year in which the ruling was made, i.e. April 1964 = 4.64A (A means 1st ruling that month.]

Formal rulings have been made as follows in response to requests for interpretation of Senate legislation where there has been no subsequent legislative or Regental action:

2.85 Baccalaureate Credit in English Composition [superceded by the 23 May 96 Assmembly amendment of Senate Regulation 761]

3.06A Emergency Meeting of The Assembly

In general, if the Chair of the Assembly wishes to call an emergency meeting of the Assembly pursuant to Bylaw 110.A.3.d, and a majority of the Academic Council votes to concur, then the Council can only block the meeting if a majority votes to withdraw their concurrence and communicates the withdrawal to the Chair before the Chair calls the meeting.  Once a call for an emergency meeting is made, the meeting cannot be cancelled. 
 
 

3.06B Removal of An Officer of the Assembly

The Assembly has the power to remove an officer of the Assembly with a two-thirds vote under Bylaw 35.D.5.  The Assembly should only remove an officer for valid reasons, and the Assembly should provide for adequate notice to the accused officer, a fair hearing, the right to counsel, and a reasonable opportunity for the officer to present a defense. Nothing in the current bylaws specifies the standards or procedures to be used for judging what constitute valid reasons for removal of an officer, adequate notice to the accused officer, a fair hearing, the right to counsel, or a reasonable opportunity for the officer to present a defense; therefore, the Assembly must decide these questions. The Assembly has both the authority and the responsibility for these decisions.

6.06  Consistency of the Academic Senate Regulation 904 with the Code of the Academic Senate

UCR&J maintains that Senate Regulation 904 is consistent with the Code of the Academic Senate.  Any Division wishing to assume responsibility for the disqualification of graduate students must submit a request for a variance to Senate Regulation 904, in accordance with Senate Bylaw 80.D.


7.06   Concerning Procedures for Senate Voting on non-Senate Instructional Faculty Personnel Actions

In matters delegated to the Academic Senate, an academic department acts as an agency of the Academic Senate. Since authority over and supervision of courses and curricula is delegated to the Academic Senate by Standing Orders of the Regents 105.2(b), it is the right and responsibility of the Academic Senate members of an academic department to provide the administration with advice on the instructional performance of non-Senate faculty. In accord with Academic Senate Bylaw 35.C, and re-affirming Legislative Ruling 12.75, only members of the Academic Senate may vote on the departmental recommendation in a merit action involving non-Senate instructional faculty. A department may solicit a recommendation or vote from non-Senate instructional faculty to be used in its deliberations.

Explanation of Ruling 7.06 Concerning Procedures for Senate Voting on non-Senate Instructional Faculty Personnel Actions

UCR&J was asked a series of questions. The questions and our answers are as follows:

Question: Does the Code of the Senate (including the Standing Orders of the Regents) give the Academic Senate the right and duty to provide definite advice to the Administration on the instructional performance of non-Senate personnel?

UCR&J Response: Yes. The Standing Orders of the Regents (SOR 105.2 (b)) state clearly that “The Academic Senate shall authorize and supervise all courses and curricula offered under the sole or joint jurisdiction of the departments, colleges, schools, graduate divisions, or other academic agencies approved by the BOARD…” As part of that supervisory responsibility, the Academic Senate has both the right and the duty to provide advice to the Administration on the instructional performance of non-Senate faculty.

Question: Do academic departments act as committees of the Senate when giving advice on the instructional performance of non-Senate personnel?

UCR&J Response: Yes. Academic Senate Bylaws 20 and 45 clearly indicate that an academic department is an agency of the Academic Senate. As indicated in your letter, an academic department serves two functions—one as an administrative unit, and the other as a committee of the Academic Senate. It is in the latter role that the academic department derives its authority and responsibilities over courses and curricula.

Question: Is voting on a departmental recommendation in a merit action involving non-Senate instructional personnel limited to members of the Academic Senate?

UCR&J's Response:  In cases where final action is to be taken on matters falling within the authority and responsibility of the Academic Senate, only Academic Senate members may vote. Academic Senate Bylaw 35.C. states: “Only members of the Academic Senate may vote in Senate agencies and their committees when those agencies or committees are taking final action on any matter for the Academic Senate, or giving advice to university officers or other non-Senate agencies in the name of the Senate. Persons other than Senate members may be given the right to vote on the other questions, such as those that involve only recommendations to other Senate agencies, but only by explicit Bylaw provisions.”

Question: If departments consult with non-Senate instructional personnel regarding the personal actions of departmental non-Senate instructional personnel, may the department letter report the results of this consultation in the form of a vote distinct from the vote and recommendation of Senate members of the department?

UCR&J’s Response: No, SOR 100.4 Duties of the President of the University, states:

“The President of the University, in accordance with such regulations as the President may establish, is authorized to appoint, determine compensation, promote, demote, and dismiss University employees, except as otherwise provided in the Bylaws and Standing Orders and except those employees under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, Treasurer, and General Counsel of The Regents. Before recommending or taking action that would affect personnel under the administrative jurisdiction of Chancellors … When such action relates to a Professor, Associate Professor, or an equivalent position; Assistant Professor; a Professor in Residence, an Associate Professor in Residence, or an Assistant Professor in Residence; a Professor of Clinical (e.g., Medicine), an Associate Professor of Clinical (e.g., Medicine) or an Assistant Professor of clinical (e.g., Medicine); a Senior Lecturer with Security of Employment, or a Lecturer with Security of Employment, the Chancellor shall consult with a properly constituted advisory committee of the Academic Senate.”

UCR&J’s position is that non-Senate instructional faculty have the right to have their opinions presented to the Administration; but such opinions should be submitted separately from the departments’ letter containing the vote and recommendation of Senate members. Of course, copies of any written material submitted to the department by non-sentate instructors should be forwarded to the administration.

 

10.08 Jurisdiction of Divisional Privilege and Tenure Committees        

 

A divisional P&T committee has jurisdiction to hear the grievance of an Academic Senate member asserting retaliation in violation of the University's Whistleblower Protection Policy, provided that "the allegations as stated in the written grievance, if true, would constitute a violation of the faculty member's rights and privileges." [Senate Bylaw 335.B.2]If no faculty right or privilege would have been violated, then P&T does not have jurisdiction to hear the grievance.

 

Inasmuch as having an at-will administrative appointment is neither a right nor a privilege of Academic Senate members, a divisional Privilege and Tenure Committee does not have jurisdiction to hear a grievance that is asserted with regard to the loss or withdrawal of such an appointment.

 

However, if the grievant were to allege that concomitant with the loss/withdrawal of his/her at-will administrative position there was a violation of that person's faculty rights or privileges and gave adequate indication in the written grievance of the respect in which this were so, then P&T would be required, as with all other complaints, to consider "whether or not the grieving Senate member has made out a prima facie case" [Senate Bylaw 335.B.2] and to proceed accordingly.

3.09 Scope of variance to SR 764 limitation on number of special study courses for which an undergraduate may receive credit

SR 764 provides: “Credit in special study courses for undergraduates is limited to five units per term.


Assembly approved variance A.6.5.4, for Santa Cruz, provides: “Ordinarily a student may include no more than one course 49 or 199 in his program in any term. But with the permission of their College or Board of Studies, students in go[o]d standing may undertake an independent study project 199 equivalent to two or three courses in one quarter . . . Except in special circumstances and for students of outstanding demonstrated ability, only one such augmented (block of two) or full-time (block of three) 199 may be taken during a student’s undergraduate career. . . .”

Question: Does SR 764 apply only to upper division tutorials (course 199) or to all categories of individual studies courses including those enumerated in SCR 6.5.1? Does the Santa Cruz variance apply to all categories of individual studies courses?

Which of the following categories are covered by SR 764 and which categories are covered by the variance?
93 Lower Division Field Study
193 Upper Division Field Study
198 Independent Field Study
99 Lower Division Tutorial
199 Upper Division Tutorial
195 Senior Thesis

UCR&J Response: SR 764 covers all of the above categories. The variance applies only to upper division tutorials (course 199).This follows from the fact that the variance notes the existence of both courses 49 and 199, yet explicitly allows an exception only for 199. Further, the exception does not apply if course numbers are not in use, since the variance is explicitly just for course 199.

If it is desired to have a variance apply to situations not explicitly addressed in an earlier provided variance, then it is necessary to apply for a new variance.

Question: Does the phrase in the variance, "Except in special circumstances and for students of outstanding demonstrated ability" mean that both conditions have to be satisfied for a student to be allowed to take multiple augmented/full-time blocks of 199 courses (or depending on the answer to the previous question, all individual study courses)? Or is either condition sufficient?

UCR&J Response: UCR&J members are of divided opinion as to whether both or only one of the two stated conditions need(s) to be satisfied. The variance was not precisely worded and it could be interpreted in either way. The variance could have been worded "Except in special circumstances affecting a student who..." to show that both conditions are needed, or it could have been worded "Except in special conditions or for a student who..." to show that only one condition is needed. Either one of these phrases would be clear and unambiguous.

 

6.09 Regarding the locus of authority for approving credits for enrolled, continuing students who take courses at other institutions

Question: UCR&J was asked to clarify SR 474 regarding the locus of authority for approving credits for enrolled, continuing students who take courses at other institutions, as requested by UCD. Council considered the ruling and declined to comment.

UCR&J Response (Legislative Ruling 3.10): Regulation 474 only applies to transfer credit for entering students, not for students who have already matriculated. This is evident from the title of Chapter 4 of the Regulations, "Admission to Advanced Standing." The charge for the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) in Bylaw 145.B is restricted to entering students; any policies regarding transfer credit approved by BOARS or any delegation of authority to implement such policies only applies to entering students. As per Bylaw 311.D and 312.A.1 read with Bylaw 311.C, decisions regarding curricula offered within the jurisdiction of only one Division are supervised by that Division. With a narrow exception for courses prefixed XCal, even courses offered by University Extension that earn UC transfer credit require approval by the corresponding Divisional Committee on Courses of Instruction or equivalent according to Regulation 792 and 790.

Thus decisions regarding transfer credit for students who are already enrolled in the University (such as students in the Education Abroad Program) clearly rest with the individual Divisions and their appropriate committees, which may delegate this authority as they see fit. The customary practice in many Divisions, where the evaluation of transfer credit for previously enrolled students is done through departments, colleges or Registrars and not Admissions, is consistent with this.

 

6.11.A Definition of Residence

 

The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction of the Academic Senate of the University of California renders the following Legislative Rulings in regard to the interpretation of “residence” as defined by Senate Regulation 610 (SR 610, “Residence in any regular term is validated by a program of courses or other exercises approved by the Faculty of a student’s college or school. For undergraduates this shall be at least six units of resident courses of instruction. Graduate Students validate residence with programs of instruction or research approved by the appropriate Graduate Council.”(EC 15 Apr 74)(Am 9 Mar 83; Am 6 Mar 85)). At issue are requirements for physical presence and close interactions between faculty and students on sites of campus and approved off-campus instruction and research.

 

1) By a vote of three ayes and two nays, UCR&J determined that the definition of “residence” endorsed by the Academic Senate Special Committee on Remote and Online Instruction and Residency (residency determined by course approval by the relevant Faculty and Senate governing entities of the University of California, not linked to the physical presence of a student on campus) is consistent with SR 610. The majority opinion was based on a liberal interpretation of SR 610, which may permit on-line, off-campus instruction when courses have been duly reviewed and approved by Faculty and Senate governing entities. The minority opinion was based on a literal interpretation of SR 610, where a requirement for the physical presence of a student at on- and off-campus sites may limit or even exclude on-line, off-campus instruction regardless of review and approval by Faculty and Senate governing entities.

 

2) By a vote of five ayes and zero nays, UCR&J determined that the interpretation of “residence” employed by SR 610 in its present form is sufficiently ambiguous, and of such significant consequences, that the issue should be taken under consideration by the Assembly of the Academic Senate of the University of California. The issue should be resolved finally by legislative amendment of SR 610 to reflect explicitly either, but not both, of the liberal or literal interpretations of “residence” proffered by the preceding Legislative Ruling. This recommendation is consistent with Academic Senate Bylaw 205.B.2, whereby it is the duty of UCR&J “to prepare and to report to the Assembly or to any of the Divisions such changes and additions to the Bylaws and Regulations as may seem to it advisable”.

 

Dissenting Opinion:

SR 610 states that residence for undergraduates will require "at least six units of resident courses of instruction". Senate Regulations do not define the term "resident courses" anywhere, but I believe it was intended to mean courses where a student is physically present at a campus of the University. While definitions can adapt in the presence of new technology, allowing "any course approved by the appropriate Divisional Committee, regardless of the mode or location of delivery" is too big a change to be accommodated by the wording of SR 610.

 

Such an interpretation would also render meaningless SR 694 which places strong restrictions on "off-campus graduate instruction", including SR 694.2 "No more than one-half of the total unit and residence requirements for the degree of Master of Arts or Master of Science may be satisfied by off-campus graduate study." How can online courses approved by the appropriate Divisional Committee be less restricted than off-campus courses (including those that are approved by the appropriate Divisional Committee)?

 

6.11.B Eligibility of an associate dean to serve as a member of the Assembly

 

The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction of the Academic Senate of the University of California (UCR&J) renders the following Legislative Ruling in regard to the interpretation of Academic Senate Bylaw 105.A.4 (ASB 105.A.4, “Membership...Forty Divisional Representatives chosen from other than chancellors, vice chancellors, deans, chief administrative officers of colleges and schools, and members of the University Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction…”). The particular question involves the eligibility of an associate dean for appointment to represent the Division in the Assembly of the Academic Senate.

 

By a vote of three ayes and two nays, UCR&J determined that ASB 105.A.4 does not explicitly exclude associate deans from service in the Assembly. The majority opinion was based on a strict, literal reading of the Bylaw, which excludes deans but contains no mention of associate deans or comparable academic administrative officers. The appointment process of each Division was seen as adequate to weigh potential conflicts of interest between the academic administrative and Faculty roles of colleagues during the course of their selection. The minority opinion was based on the ease of delegation of decanal authority to associate deans (the term “dean” is often understood generically to mean anyone holding a decanal title, with or without an associate prefix), which presents de facto the same conflict of interests underlying the explicit exclusion of the deans, and is consistent with the spirit if not the letter of the Bylaw. It was the unanimous opinion of UCR&J that there is no constitutional impediment to the legislative amendment of ASB 105.A.4 to explicitly extend the exclusion list to include associate deans and comparable academic administrative officers.

 

In response to the specific question posed by the request for this Legislative Ruling, the associate dean duly appointed to the Assembly by the Division is eligible for this service.

 

6.11.C Scholarship requirements for undergraduate students

 

The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction of the Academic Senate of the University of California (UCR&J) renders the following Legislative Rulings in regard to the interpretation of Senate Regulation 900.C.2 (SR 900.C.2, “Undergraduate students in particular schools or colleges may be subject to more stringent norms with respect to academic probation or disqualification, but only on the basis of regulations adopted by a Division of the Senate and approved by the Assembly of the Senate.”). At issue is the constitutionality of proposed revisions of program requirements for an undergraduate degree.

 

1) By a unanimous vote of five ayes and zero nays, UCR&J determined that the proposed revisions of degree program requirements cannot be implemented without the approval of both the Division and the Assembly of the Senate consistent with the final oversight clause of SR 900.C.2.

 

2) By a unanimous vote of five ayes and zero nays, UCR&J determined that the stated purpose of the proposed revisions, enrollment management of an undergraduate major, is an insufficient justification in regard to educational merit so as to be consistent with the provision of more stringent norms with respect to academic probation or disqualification permitted by SR 900.C.2.

 

3) By a unanimous vote of five ayes and zero nays, UCR&J expressed concern that the more stringent norms of the proposed revisions according to SR 900.C.2 may result in cases of academic probation or disqualification (not simply transfer to a less demanding major) for students who meet the minimum qualifications of the University as delineated in Senate Regulations 634 (“Except as provided in Senate Regulation 782 for the grade of Passed/Not Passed, to receive a Bachelor's degree a student must obtain a grade-point average of at least 2.00 for all courses attempted in the University.”) and 900.A.1-2 (“The following minimum provisions or their equivalents, as ratified by the Assembly, govern the scholastic status of undergraduate students as indicated in strictly internal University records. 1. Academic Probation. An undergraduate student is normally subject to academic probation (a) if at the end of any term the student's grade-point average for that term, or the student's cumulative grade-point average, is less than 2.0 (C average) computed on the total of all courses undertaken in the University (however, see paragraph (E) below); or (b) by other provisions approved by the Assembly. 2. Academic Disqualification. An undergraduate student is subject to disqualification for further registration in the University (a) if at the end of any term the student's grade-point average for that term is less than 1.5 (however, see paragraph (E) below), or (b) if the student has completed two consecutive terms on academic probation without achieving a cumulative grade-point average of 2.0 as provided above.”). At minimum, a variance would have to be obtained before implementation of the proposed revisions in order to eliminate this inconsistency.

 

4) UCR&J advises amendment of the proposed revisions including, perhaps, systematic employment of a “pre-major” and clear due notice statements of the more stringent degree program requirements before entry into the major to reduce or mitigate the discrepancy noted above in Legislative Ruling 3. This approach should provide for adequate enrollment management consistent with the recommendations of the Committee on Educational Policy (UCEP) of the Academic Senate of the University of California in their “White Paper on Impacted Majors” of 8/5/09. 

6.11.D. Ex officio member voting rights.

 

The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction of the Academic Senate of the University of California (UCR&J) renders the following Legislative Ruling in regard to the interpretation of ex officio member voting rights as defined by Academic Senate Bylaw 50.C (ASB 50.C, “Each Faculty shall elect the Chair of the Faculty and members of its Executive Committee. The chief academic administrative officer of the college or school shall be an ex officio member of the Executive Committee but may not serve as Chair of the Faculty or the Executive Committee.”). The particular question involves the ex officio member voting rights of the chief academic administrative officers (typically deans) in the associated Faculty Executive Committees (FECs).

 

By a vote of four ayes and one nay, UCR&J determined that in and of itself, ASB 50.C implicitly allows voting rights for chief academic officers in the associated FECs. The majority opinion is based on ASB 35.C.3 (“…ex officio members have the same powers as other members unless otherwise specified.”), ASB 45 (“…the membership of each Faculty is defined by the bylaws of the Division to which it is responsible, or by the Bylaws of the Senate for those Faculties directly responsible to the Assembly. Membership in a Faculty is limited to the following Senate members: the President of the University, the Chancellor, the chief academic administrative officer of the school or college, all members of the Academic Senate who are members of departments assigned to that school or college (Academic Senate members who have retired and transferred to emeritus/a status retain departmental membership.), such other Senate members as are specified in Divisional Bylaws or these Bylaws. Only voting members of the Senate may vote in Faculties of which they are members.”) and the provision of ASB 50 for the ex officio membership of the chief academic administrator in the associated FEC. The majority opinion is concordant with the usual description of ex officio member voting rights as described in Sturgis’ Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. However, UCR&J finds no constitutional impediment for an explicit nonvoting ex officio membership category in these and comparable committees based on duly approved bylaws, as shown in the current Bylaws of the Academic Senate and the Divisions. The minority opinion is based on ASB 128.H (“Members holding an administrative position higher than department chair may not serve as members of Assembly committees.”), the de facto function of FECs as comparable standing committees of the Faculty of a School or College, and concern for potential conflicts of interest between academic administrative and Faculty roles of such chief officers. 

 

In response to the specific questions posed by this request for Legislative Ruling:

 

Question 1: Does UCR&J concur regarding the inherent conflict of interest between decanal administrative authority and faculty authority, and, if so, can (and will) UCR&J remedy the matter with a legislative ruling?

Response: This Legislative Ruling of UCR&J provides an interpretation of ASB 50.C that does not directly address the issue of inherent conflicts of interest between decanal administrative authority and Faculty authority on FECs. Pursuant to its majority opinion, UCR&J will not at this time seek to remedy the issue by Legislative Ruling or propose relevant amendments of Academic Senate Bylaws for consideration by the Academic Assembly. However, UCR&J finds no constitutional impediment for an explicit nonvoting ex officio membership category in these and comparable committees based on duly approved bylaws should the Divisions or the Faculties of the Schools and Colleges employ this means of addressing the issue.

Question 2: If deans should be excluded from voting on FECs, what, if any, are the implications of other administrative ex officio members of other Senate Committees? Should they also be excluded from voting?

Response: This Legislative Ruling of UCR&J finds that deans have implicit voting rights in FECs (a baseline of voting ex officio membership) unless these voting rights are constrained by explicit exclusion through duly approved bylaws (a constitutionally defined category of nonvoting ex officio membership). By extension of the principle, administrative ex officio members of other Divisional and Faculty committees have implicit voting rights except when these rights are explicitly excluded in the bylaws that establish the committees and/or their parent organization(s).

6.11.E. Relationship of the Academic Senate with the Faculties of schools and colleges offering postbaccalaureate, first professional degree programs leading to the award of M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M., D.Pharm. and J.D. degrees.

 

The Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction of the Academic Senate of the University of California (UCR&J) renders the following Legislative Rulings in regard to the interpretation of Standing Order of the Regents 105.2 (SOR 105.2, “The Academic Senate, subject to the approval of the Board, shall determine the conditions for admission, for certificates, and for degrees other than honorary degrees” (SOR 105.2(a)) and “The Academic Senate shall authorize and supervise all courses and curricula offered under the sole or joint jurisdiction of the departments, colleges, schools, graduate divisions, or other University academic agencies approved by the Board, except that the Senate shall have no authority over courses in the Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco Art Institute, in professional schools offering work at the graduate level only, or over non-degree courses in the University Extension. No change in the curriculum of a college or professional school shall be made by the Academic Senate until such change shall have been submitted to the formal consideration of the faculty concerned.” (SOR 105.2(b))). At issue is the constitutional relationship of the Academic Senate and Faculty of exceptional “graduate degree programs”, particularly postbaccalaureate, first professional degree programs leading to the award of M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M., D.Pharm. and J.D. degrees.

 

1) By a unanimous vote of five ayes and zero nays, UCR&J determined that the 8/29/08 statement of the Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs of the Academic Senate of the University of California (CCGA), as approved on 7/23/08 by the Academic Council of the Academic Senate of the University of California (“CCGA is reinstating its plenary role in the approval of new M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M., Pharm.D., and J.D. degree programs effective immediately. It leaves the discretion of oversight of established degree programs to their campus Graduate Councils or their designees.”), is consistent with SOR 105.2(a) and (b), and defines the exceptional nature of Academic Senate authority for these degree programs only. Under normal circumstances, the academic oversight of these degree programs is delegated to the Faculty of the Schools wherein the programs are located, consistent again with the cited CCGA statement (“…CCGA concurs that ongoing oversight is best left to professional schools offering these five degree titles pursuant to Standing Order of the Regents 105.2(b)…”).  

 

2) By a unanimous vote of five ayes and zero nays, UCR&J determined that the academic oversight of all other graduate and undergraduate degree programs and courses is governed through the Faculties, Divisions (Graduate and Undergraduate Councils) and Senate by means of the regular Bylaws and Regulations of the Academic Senate as per SOR 105.2(a).

 

3) By a unanimous vote of five ayes and zero nays, UCR&J determined that in circumstances where a School or academic unit operates degree programs included in both Legislative Rulings 1 and 2 above, M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M., Pharm.D., and J.D. degree programs will be governed pursuant to Legislative Ruling 1 and all other degree programs and courses of the School or academic unit will be governed pursuant to Legislative Ruling 2.

 

Given the unanimity of UCR&J opinion in these Legislative Rulings, recusal of Member Mattey was not requested.

 

The following responses pertain to the direct questions posed in this request for Legislative Ruling:

 

Question 1: What criteria determine whether a professional school offers work at the graduate level only?

Response: For present purposes, only the exceptional academic programs noted above (M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M., Pharm.D., and J.D. degree programs) meet the criteria as determined above by Legislative Ruling 1. These are all postbaccalaureate, first degree professional degree programs. They consist of two parts: a taught academic component supervised by practicing and/or non-practicing Faculty and, usually (elective in some J.D degree programs), a “clinical” experience component closely supervised by practicing Faculty. Unlike regular graduate degree programs governed by broader Senate authority as determined above by Legislative Ruling 2, there are no requirements for satisfactory completion of examinations (i.e., qualifying and/or comprehensive examinations), production of original creative work (i.e., “research”) and successful defense of this original creative work. The exceptional degree programs are all subject to regular and substantial academic review by professional accrediting agencies, and graduates must pass significant examination requirements before entering into practice.       

 

Question 2: If a professional school meets the criteria for offering work at the graduate level only, does it have sole jurisdiction, without Senate approval beyond that of the faculty of the professional school, over its courses, grading policies, and/or degree programs?

Response: Under normal circumstances, Faculty in the Schools offering the exceptional degree programs (M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M., Pharm.D., and J.D.) have authority delegated by the Academic Senate and its Divisions for the academic oversight of these degree programs including courses, grading policies and degree program requirements as determined above by Legislative Ruling 1.  

 

Question 3: If a professional school does not meet the criteria for offering work at the graduate level only, how does this fact affect the sole jurisdiction that it has? Does only the portion of the curriculum involving non-graduate level work fall under broad Senate authority, or does such authority extend to all matters, so that the exception in SOR 105.2(b) does not apply to it at all?

Response: The exceptional authority related to the M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M., Pharm.D., and J.D. degree programs is independent from the offering of other academic programs by the same Faculty or academic unit as determined above by Legislative Ruling 1 and 3. The unexceptional authority for all other academic programs proceeds as determined above by Legislative Ruling 2.