October 2003
NOTES FROM THE ACADEMIC SENATE CHAIR
LAWRENCE PITTS
LIMITS, LABS, LIBRARIES AND LEGISLATION
Dear Colleagues —
Welcome back to another challenging year. We greet Robert Dynes, former chancellor at UCSD, as the eighteenth president of the University of California. President Dynes has had a distinguished academic career as a physicist and UC faculty member, and arrives just in time to confront a number of serious issues facing UC. We wish him all possible success in his new stewardship of the University.
Although budget woes seem to occur about every decade, the one facing us now is probably the worst in UC’s history. In past budget crises the University has, with difficulty, been able to live up to its commitment of offering admission to the top 1/8 of California’s high school graduates. Since 1960, with the adoption of the Master Plan for Higher Education, the State has funded UC by way of a series of formal and informal “partnerships” that have committed state resources to funding the core needs of the University for instruction, research, and public service. As a result of budget cuts over the past few years, though, UC is currently funded $1B less than the $4B that the current Partnership Agreement with the Governor calls for. In addition, the 2003-04 budget specifies that the State does not plan to fund UC enrollment increases next year, which means that as many as 5,000 of the more than 45,000 newly admitted students may not enroll. This is the first time that the Legislature has said explicitly that UC may not receive the funding needed to fulfill its historic role of offering admission to the top 12.5% of California high school graduates. This possible enrollment limit is the subject of intense discussions by the Regents, the Administration and the Academic Senate. Opinions range from “take the students even without funding—things will work out over time” to “maintaining excellence is the most important task of the University, and we can’t maintain this excellence by admitting students with no accompanying funding.” These positions and everything in between are being explored, so that when the budget is clearer and the outcome of the recall election is known, plans can be made accordingly for the 2004-05 enrollment. We will keep you informed on these discussions as they move forward.
UC’s role in managing (or sponsoring) the Department of Energy National Laboratory at Los Alamos (LANL) has been much in the news over the past year; the DOE Labs at Livermore (LLNL) and Berkeley (LBNL) have also recently received adverse publicity. These controversies prompted the DOE to announce last April that it planned to compete the LANL contract, and it now seems likely that LLNL’s contract will also go out for bid at the same time. (The LBNL contract currently is in a non-competitive review for renewal.) The bid RFP will probably become public next fall. UC has managed the DOE Labs for nearly 60 years, primarily as a service to the country. UC’s Lab contracts have largely been “no cost, no gain,” with actual management fees paid and some additional funds generated (about $15M a year), which the Labs have reinvested in research often in conjunction with UC faculty. Other UC faculty have research projects either at the Labs or in collaboration with Lab scientists and engineers. The University is beginning to position itself to submit a bid when the time comes, although a final decision to do so will be made after the RFP conditions are known.
Opinions vary as to whether or not UC should continue to manage LANL and LLNL. Some say that this is an important task for the nation and that the quality of the science at these Labs is greatly enhanced by UC's involvement. Others feel that it is inappropriate for UC, or perhaps any university, to be involved with managing facilities where the science of maintaining nuclear weapons is the primary undertaking. Some faculty and others feel that "stockpile stewardship" (the effort to ensure that current weapons are functional without testing) is appropriate for the University to manage, but that new weapons design or new testing may not be. Many UC faculty, however, may not have enough information on these important questions. Thus, the Academic Senate will begin to examine the pros and cons of UC's continuing management of the DOE Labs, particularly LANL and LLNL, and present these findings to the faculty early next year. Late in the spring we will seek faculty’s opinion on the most appropriate role for UC in the future of the DOE Labs, which we will convey to senior management and the Regents for consideration when they make their final decision on this issue.
In this issue of The Senate Source there is a brief accounting of some of the issues surrounding the campus libraries, and the effect that UC's severe budget reductions could have on library services and access to periodicals and monographs. UC's current contracts have had price increases that are unsustainable. Negotiations are in progress with publishers or will be soon for the availability of journals, both in print and electronically. Unless very favorable terms can be reached, UC's California Digital Library (CDL) and campuses will be unable to offer all the journals and books currently available to faculty and students. Faculty will have a dominant role in determining what happens in the next 12-18 months by their involvement in the selection of books and journals for their libraries, and by their contributions to journals as authors and editors. Academic publication will undergo enormous changes in the next decade, and UC faculty can and likely will contribute greatly to these changes. The Senate's University Committees on Library, Academic Personnel, and the Editorial Committee will begin an investigation of these issues to help shape UC's future in academic publication.
Finally, the California Legislature has completed an extensive evaluation of education in the state, and a proposed new Master Plan for K-16 has been presented. The Academic Council completed a review of this work last year, raising concerns about a number of the new Plan's features. We feel it important not to substantially alter the Master Plan for Higher Education of 1960, which defines important roles and differences between California's higher education segments, and includes the directive that UC accept the top 1/8 of high school graduates and that CSU accept the top 1/3. The Legislature’s intention not to fund enrollment growth next year is entirely contrary to the state's obligation to honor the terms of the 1960 Master Plan. The Academic Senates of the California Community Colleges, the California State Universities and the UC administration will be reviewing in great depth any legislation (of which there are a number of bills before the Senate and the Assembly) that is moving forward to ensure that UC's faculty and student interests, as well as those of the CCC and CSU systems, are well served.
Every year many important issues come before the University and the Senate and, given that we are facing the worst budget crisis in the University's 140-year history, this year will be no different. The Academic Senate will represent what we feel is in the best interest of the University and of the faculty. I am happy to represent the broad spectrum of faculty opinion, but to do that accurately I need to hear your views on the important issues either through your campus Senate committees, your campus Academic Senate Chair, or by contacting me directly. The Senate Source, which is meant primarily to update and inform faculty on current issues, will be sent to you throughout the year. Please use its arrival to look over what is under review, and let us know what you think.
Lawrence Pitts, Academic Senate Chair
lawrence.pitts@ucop.edu