All faculty should take part in review process

Dear editor:

Although Professor Kevin Hoover's Dec. 3 Perspective piece on shared governance (http://www-dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.lasso?id=8064) brings up many issues worthy of further discussion, the Academic Senate's conflict with the administration is not the primary concern of the Academic Federation. Last year, the Academic Senate Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction, chaired by Professor Hoover, issued the opinion that only Academic Senate faculty could vote on personnel actions for non-senate instructional (Academic Federation) faculty.

If fully implemented, this ruling would eliminate peer review for hundreds of faculty, thereby ending the peer review process in personnel actions that the majority of non-senate faculty have responsibly exercised for three decades here and on other UC campuses. To justify an exclusive system of personnel review that would prevent any faculty except senate members from directly advising administration, Hoover cites Standing Order of the Regents 105.2b (the Academic Senate shall authorize and supervise the curriculum) interpreting it as giving the Senate the sole vote when considering personnel actions, even for non-senate instructional faculty.

However, two other Standing Orders contradict this interpretation: §100.4.c and §101.1 specifically assign to the Administration authority for all personnel actions, requiring consultation with the Academic Senate only when the personnel action concerns a senate member. Non-senate instructional faculty have played a critical role in instruction and governance on UC campuses for a number of years. The regents have never been moved to disenfranchise this group from peer review in their personnel actions, as the senate's CERJ and Executive Council seek to do with their senate-only readings of the Standing Orders of the Regents and senate By-laws.

We wish to make two points clear to the campus community: 1) the changes recommended to the UC-wide CERJ would significantly dilute faculty involvement in peer review throughout the UC system, and 2) the Standing Orders do not univocally support the CERJ position.

-- Catherine VandeVoort, chair of the Academic Federation

With Matsui's death, UC Davis loses a friend

Dear editor:

I was shocked and saddened to learn of the death ... of Congressman Robert Matsui. During his long career, both on the Sacramento City Council and in the U.S. Congress, Mr. Matsui never wavered in his support of our institution. His steadfast commitment to education and health care were critical to UC Davis Health System and the fulfillment of our mission.

Most recently, Mr. Matsui secured congressional approval of a $700,000 appropriation to help fund the school of medicine's new education building and library. Through his leadership and influence, he persuaded his north state colleagues to join him in bipartisan support of this critical, regional health-care initiative. Thanks to his support, we will break ground next month on this new facility which, ultimately, will enable us to expand our role as the primary provider of medical education in a very large area of Northern California. We will be forever grateful for his role in bringing this project to reality.

Congressman Matsui demonstrated extraordinary leadership in tackling the kinds of tough challenges we face today. His passing makes me mindful, again, of the value of building strong relationships with all our elected representatives at local, state and federal levels.

To Mr. Matsui's family and others who knew and loved him, I extend my sincere condolences. He was truly an extraordinary leader whose legacy will be recognized and appreciated for many years to come.

-- Robert Chason, CEO of the UC Davis Medical Center