Dear Editor: In his State of the Campus address, Chancellor Vanderhoef said: “Compared to fall 2004, the percentage of students carrying 13 or more units at the census increased by approximately 4 to 8 percent this fall, depending on their class standing. The number of units that students completed at the end of fall term also showed an increase of about 4 percent overall. These are real gains and, again, it was our partnership that helped this to happen.” First, the chancellor wishes to take credit for a result that he opposed for more than 12 years. In 1992, the enforcement of the minimum progress regulation was dropped by his administration with the excuse of budget cuts. That decision, which was not communicated to the Academic Senate, plunged the UC Davis graduation rate to the bottom of the nine UC campuses. Second, the 4 to 8 percent increase mentioned above is referred to the “census” date which is entirely meaningless with respect to graduation rates. The important figures are “units completed” and, then, the percent increase ranges only from 1 to 5 percent. Also, the average number of units that students completed at the end of the fall term showed an increase of only 1.35 percent, and not 4 percent as said by the chancellor. But the most important figure that was omitted by the chancellor is that 27.2 percent of our undergraduate students did not meet minimum progress. This fact will spell disaster come next fall. Quirino Paris professor of agricultural and resource economics Dear Editor: I write to correct an error I’d inadvertently made when providing information for the chancellor’s recent State of the Campus address to the Academic Senate. The sentence, “The number of units that students completed at the end of fall term also showed an increase of about 4 percent overall” was incorrect. The information I’d intended to convey was that the number of students who completed 13 or more units at the end of fall term also showed an increase of about 4 percent overall. This error has been corrected in the posted speech at chancellor.ucdavis.edu/Resource/commun/2006/020306_State_of_the_Campus.cfm. After realizing this error, I asked University Registrar Frank Wada to calculate the percentage change in the average number of units that students completed in fall 2005 and in fall 2004. This increase was 1.35 percent and I have shared this information with both the Undergraduate Time-to-Degree Task Force and the special committee of the Academic Senate that revised our minimum progress regulation. While this increase may appear modest, such increases in the number of units that students enroll in and complete have positive impacts on the funding we receive from the state and should lead to improvements in time-to-degree. Fred Wood co-chair, Undergraduate Time-To-Degree Task Force, interim vice provost for Undergraduate Studies Editor’s Note: For more information, see the Undergraduate Time-to-Degree Task Force Web site at timetodegree.ucdavis.edu. Dear Editor: As deans, vice chancellors, vice provosts and senior managers at UC Davis, we have had numerous opportunities to work directly with Chancellor Vanderhoef on issues affecting the campus. We know that there are many challenges to leading a campus as complex as ours, requiring that the chancellor make decisions on a broad range of matters. It is our view that Chancellor Vanderhoef makes these decisions after careful thought and, most importantly, with the best interests of the campus foremost in his mind. We have full confidence in his ability to continue to lead UC Davis with passion and commitment. Nicole Woolsey Biggart Kenneth C. Burtis Robert E. Chason Jeffery C. Gibeling Barbara A. Horwitz Barry M. Klein Winston Ko William B. Lacy Enrique Lavernia Harold Levine John A. Meyer Stan E. Nosek Bennie I. Osburn Dennis Pendleton Rex R. Perschbacher Claire Pomeroy Rahim Reed Beverly A. Sandeen Marilyn J. Sharrow Steven M. Sheffrin Dennis W. Shimek Patricia A. Turner Neal K. van Alfen Fred E. Wood Peter M. Yellowlees Dear Editor: The Senate needs to vote “no confidence,” even if only symbolic, to encourage the initiation of positive change. Chancellor Vanderhoef focused his defense on gender and racial bias issues because nothing else is defensible. What about his dishonesty, his covert behavior, his irresponsible spending, his unabashed cronyism and his value of perceptions over truth? The dishonesty in publicly proclaiming Rose’s great value to UC Davis, when, in fact, he was privately firing her? The covert behavior demonstrated in formulating a secret deal with Rose in an attempt to mask the firing, hide the gender/racial bias allegations, and cover the hush money? The irresponsibility of a lavish golden parachute and hush money, in times of fee increases and severe financial hardship for departments? The cronyism of inviting Rose to edit her own letter of recommendation from him? And the chancellor’s public justification to us all? “What others might have thought at the time.” When image becomes more important than the truth, things are doomed. We all want UC’s image to be good; but what image has Vanderhoef given the public, and the legislature, of UC now? The chancellor’s apologies and excuses are not credible. Attempts to justify the Celeste Rose secret agreement, and self-proclamations as “transparent,” “forthright” and “engaged in shared governance,” make it clear that he is ensnared by his own propaganda, imagining that others believe it as well. Much of the campus community, and the public, have lost trust in this Administration. I have no confidence in Larry Vanderhoef, any more, as chancellor. Charles Hunt professor of chemistry Dear Editor: Over the course of my 20-years professional business career in both the for-profit and nonprofit sector, I have seen my share of employee relation issues and the resulting outcomes. Unfortunately, over the last few weeks, the media and others have decided to make the issue of public employment relations the poster child for what is wrong with senior level public sector employment, their compensation and ultimately calling into question the integrity of the UC system. In 2004, the Metro Chamber recognized Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef as its Sacramentan of the Year. I would like to take this opportunity to express our full confidence in Chancellor Vanderhoef. It is our hope that the distinguished faculty of UC Davis will continue to appreciate not only the good work the chancellor has done for both the main campus and the medical center, but also his leadership as a partner in helping to improve the economy and quality of the Sacramento region. Despite the recent difficulties around the handling of one employee relations issue, the leadership of the Sacramento Metro Chamber stands behind the chancellor, and we look forward to many more years of his leadership and his support for the Sacramento region. Matthew Mahood president and chief executive officer MetroChamber Dear Editor: I have known and worked with Larry Vanderhoef for many years, and he is a person of impeccable integrity, honesty and dedication to the University of California and the community it serves. I worked with Larry not only as a county supervisor in Yolo for many years, but, also, I know him as a faculty family member. Larry Vanderhoef is a doer and an achiever whose history of accomplishments and innovation at the UC Davis campus are unequaled in recent memory—everything from the Mondavi Center, new programs and expansion of the medical center, supporting teaching resources for public school teachers via the Internet—and so much more. Space limitations prohibit a complete list, which would be pages long. Now is the time to remember all of these accomplishments. He faithfully attends dinners where faculty and students are honored, meets with UC Davis support groups, hosts events at his house, gives speeches, travels to raise money for this campus—all of the things that a really effective chancellor must do—all the while dealing with a massive state and university bureaucracy. And, lastly, Larry Vanderhoef is a good man who cares deeply about the people who make up the UC Davis community. Many people will tell you, including me, that in a time of need if you need a friend, you can count on Larry. Betsy Marchand former Yolo County supervisor Dear Editor: Regarding Chancellor Vanderhoef’s decision in the Celeste Rose matter, three points deserve consideration: • The action taken was not illegal. The chancellor’s decision was both supported by Oakland officialdom and by the UC Office of General Counsel. And it was made in good faith, with the perceived interests of the university at heart. The process of governance at our university assigns the final call in such matters to the chancellor. He is clearly the one closest to the action and most knowledgeable about the surrounding facts, their implications and potential ramifications. That others of us might have responded differently in this case remains speculation—who knows? And what other, wrongful, decisions might we have made in our turn? • Adding to the complexity of matters is the weight of condemning press coverage. In fact, the university as an institution of higher learning, whether public or private, has always been perceived by the press as “open game” for attack. Part of this stems from its “ivory tower” image. Yet while a public reminder of the university’s responsibility to its stated aims is always warranted in the press, a quick jump to negative judgments based on its coverage is not always so. • In recent weeks, one notes a host of past and present grievances being attached indiscriminately and without logic to the initial issue. The chancellor has become a lightening rod for forces of discontent on campus. Parking fees, football division classification, classroom availability, student fees and breakdowns in infrastructure—clearly, these and more have been matters of genuine concern. But also equally clear is that most of these issues cannot be blamed on the chancellor. We need to detach ourselves from this muddled tangle of issues and refocus our collective energies to fix our flaws. Such action does not include an unmerited vote of censure on a chancellor with a distinguished and honorable career that goes totally unnoticed by such a vote. Aram Yengoyan, professor of anthropology Dear Editor: I have worked closely with Chancellor Vanderhoef since he joined UC Davis more than 20 years ago, and I continue to hold him in the highest personal and professional regard. Over the last two months, I’ve been thinking a lot about his longtime, close association with the health system, not only in his role as chancellor, but also prior to that, when he served as governing body of the medical center. The remarkable growth and vitality we’ve experienced over the last two decades is due in large part to Chancellor Vanderhoef’s leadership. He is a champion of collaboration, steadfastly supporting our efforts to become more integrated with the campus as a whole. With his continued leadership, I believe our efforts to advance our clinical, education, research and public service priorities will be greatly enhanced, especially as resources for all five UC medical centers continue to decline. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that he has our collective best interests foremost in mind with each and every decision he makes, including his widely publicized settlement with a former vice chancellor. (And while some of you may find my comments self-serving, I will be leaving the university in two months and have nothing to gain by such statements, other than the satisfaction of knowing I did not sit silently by while the issue was debated.) It troubles me deeply that an individual who has given so much to the health system and the entire Davis campus could be judged so harshly for a single decision, especially when the decision itself was made in consultation with and on the advice of many others. I know Chancellor Vanderhoef to be a man of ethics and sound judgment. I cannot recall a time in my 26-year history with the University of California when calm, steady, seasoned leadership has been more important. I think we are indeed fortunate to have just that in our current chancellor. Robert E. Chason chief executive officer UC Davis Medical Center Dear Editor: The article on classroom etiquette in the Feb. 24 issue of Dateline is the latest reminder of the crisis in undergraduate instruction on this campus. I was not surprised by the statement that “… only the students who want to learn regularly attend class,” and I share Professor Delaney Kirk’s (Drake University) concern that “faculty are afraid of making the students upset as this reflects on tenure, promotion and salary decisions.” However, lack of classroom etiquette is a symptom of a much greater problem that afflicts so many of our undergraduates—i.e., the lack of commitment to academic excellence. As faculty, we need to come to grips with this problem. It’s not going to go away anytime soon. Les Ehler professor of entomology