UNIVERSITYWIDE REVIEW PROCESSES FOR
ACADEMIC PROGRAMS,
ACADEMIC UNITS, AND RESEARCH UNITS
Effective July 1, 1999
University of California
Academic Senate and Office of the President
The Compendium was first prepared in 1993-94, under the auspices of the Academic Planning Council (APC). The APC Subcommittee for Expediting Systemwide Review Processes brought together and formalized a variety of Universitywide review processes and, to the extent possible within the established review framework, instituted changes to increase efficiency without reducing effectiveness.
Subcommittee members strove to conform to, rather than change, existing rules, regulations, and policies. Thus the major strategies adopted for expediting systemwide reviews were concurrent reviews, direct distribution of proposals to reviewing agencies, increased accountability of reviewing agencies, assignment of a coordinator for multiple reviewing agencies, feedback on campuses' preliminary plans, preapprovals, separation of extraordinary cases from routine handling, reduced reporting, and use of electronic communications. In addition to streamlining and expediting established systemwide review processes, the Compendium for the first time formalized some review processes, most notably those for transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, and discontinuance actions.
When the Compendium was adopted in 1994-95, it was agreed that the processes it established would be evaluated in three years to assess their effectiveness in streamlining and expediting Universitywide reviews. Accordingly, in 1997-98, the APC established the APC Ad Hoc Compendium Review Subcommittee. The charge was to learn how the Compendium had been received on the campuses and systemwide, to correct any problems resulting from the efficiencies established in 1994-95, and to establish further efficiencies without reducing effectiveness. Feedback indicated wide appreciation for the information available in the Compendium and for the efficiencies it had established.
In contrast to 1994-95, it was agreed that the 1997-98 Subcommittee could propose changes that moved outside the established review framework as well as changes that remained within it. This turned out to be an important agreement in that some major changes to the 1994-95 review framework were adopted. The most significant of these changes were eliminating systemwide review and approval processes for actions involving undergraduate degree programs, departments, and organized research units (ORUs). Other notable simplifying changes were made for the Five-Year Plans (also renamed Five-Year Perspectives) and for uncomplicated name changes for graduate degree programs and multicampus research units (MRUs).
This version of the Compendium (effective July 1, 1999) incorporates
the major changes recommended in the 1997-98 review and some further efficiencies
and clarifications. To make it easier for those familiar with the previous
version of the Compendium to use this new version, it retains the same
structure and sections as the previous Compendium.
1993-94 APC Subcommittee for Expediting Systemwide Review Processes
Arnold Binder, UCI, Academic Council Chair
Karen Merritt, UCOP, Director, Academic Planning and Program Review
Daniel Simmons, UCD, Academic Council Vice Chair
Mohan Sitlani, UCOP, Coordinator, Program Review
Neil Smelser, UCB, Special Adviser to the UC Office of the President
Aimée Dorr, UCLA, Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs
Chair, Subcommittee Chair
1997-98 APC Ad Hoc Compendium Review Subcommittee
Carroll Cross, UCD, University Committee on Research Policy Chair
Michael Hanemann, UCB, Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs Chair
Rulon Linford, UCOP, Associate Vice Provost for Research and Laboratory
Programs
Janice Plastino, UCI, University Committee on Educational Policy Chair
Dwight Read, UCLA, University Committee on Planning and Budget Vice
Chair
Carol Tomlinson-Keasey, UCOP, Vice Provost for Academic Initiatives
(represented at subcommittee
meetings by Karen Merritt)
Julius Zelmanowitz, UCSB, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel
Aimée Dorr, UCLA, Academic Council Vice Chair, Subcommittee
Chair
1997-98 Subcommittee of Staff Involved in Systemwide Reviews
Jennifer Lynch, UCOP, Office of Research Assistant Analyst
Carol McClain, UCOP, Director of Multicampus Research Planning and
Programs
Karen Merritt, UCOP, Director of Academic Program Review
Mohan Sitlani, UCOP, Principal Policy Analyst for Academic Initiatives
Louisa Tapley-Van Pelt, UC Academic Senate, UCORP & UCPB Analyst,
former UCEP Analyst
Jeannene Whalen, UC Academic Senate, CCGA Analyst
Aimée Dorr, UCLA, Academic Council Vice Chair, Subcommittee
Chair
Committees Responsible for Compendium Preparation and Revision
I. Campus Five-Year Perspectives for Academic Programs, Academic Units, and Research Units
II. Academic Degree
Programs
A.
Undergraduate degree programs
B.
Graduate degree programs
1. Establishment
of new graduate degree programs
2. Name changes of
graduate degree programs
3. Transfer,
consolidation, or discontinuance of graduate degree programs
C.
Undergraduate and graduate degree programs with unique titles
III. Academic Units
A.
Departments
B.
Schools and colleges
1. Establishment
of new schools and colleges
2. Name changes
of schools and colleges
3.
Transfer, consolidation, or disestablishment of schools and colleges
IV. Reconstitution of Academic Programs and Academic Units
V. Research Units
A.
Organized Research Units (ORUs)
B.
Multicampus Research Units (MRUs)
1.
Establishment of new multicampus research units (MRUs)
2. Name changes of multicampus research units (MRUs)
3.
Disestablishment of multicampus research units (MRUs)
VI. Accelerated Review Schedule
VII. Role of the Academic Planning Council
IX. Disagreements between Divisional Senate and Campus Administration.
X. On-line Reports on Academic Programs, Academic Units, and Research Units
Glossary of Titles and Acronyms
DISTRIBUTION LISTS
DISTRIBUTION LIST
1
Five-Year Perspectives (Section I)
Provost & Senior Vice President Distribution of Review Materials (I3)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
2.
Five-Year Perspectives (Section I)
Distribution of Comments from Systemwide Reviewing Committees (I5)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
3
Five-Year Perspectives (Section I)
APC Chair and Vice Chair Notice of Plan to Address Systemwide Issues (I6)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
4
Establishment of New Graduate Degree Programs (Section IIB1)
Chancellor (or Designee) Submission of Dossier (IIB1.3)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
5
Establishment of New Graduate Degree Programs (Section IIB1)
CCGA Notice of Approval (IIB1.7)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
6
Establishment of New Graduate Degree Programs (Section IIB1)
Coordinator - Program Review Notice of Final Approval (IIB1.9)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
7
Name Changes of Graduate Degree Programs (Section IIB2)
Chancellor (or Designee) Notice of Name Change (IIB2.4)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
8
Transfer, Consolidation, or Discontinuance of Graduate Degree Programs
(Section IIB3)
Chancellor (or Designee) Submission of TCD Proposal Dossier (IIB3.7)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
9
Transfer, Consolidation, or Discontinuance of Graduate Degree Programs
(Section IIB3)
Coordinator - Program Review Notice of Final Approval (IIB3.13)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
10
Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Programs with Unique Titles (Section
IIC)
Provost & Senior Vice President Notice of Undergraduate Degree
Title Approval (IIC5)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
11
Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Programs with Unique Titles (Section
IIC)
Provost & Senior Vice President Notice of Graduate Degree Title
Approval (IIC5)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
12
Creation of New Schools and Colleges (Section IIIB1)
Chancellor (or Designee) Submission of Dossier (IIIB1.5)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
13
Creation of New Schools and Colleges (Section IIIB1)
Provost & Senior Vice President Notice of Approval (IIIB1.14)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
14
Name Changes of Schools and Colleges (Section IIIB2)
Provost & Senior Vice President Notice of Approval (IIIB2.9)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
15
Transfer, Consolidation, or Disestablishment of Schools and Colleges (Section
IIIB3)
Provost & Senior Vice President Notice of Approval (IIIB3.11)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
16
Reconstitution of Academic Programs and Academic Units (Section IV)
Provost & Senior Vice President Notice of Approval (IV11)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
17
Establishment of New Multicampus Research Units (MRUs) (VB1)
Chancellor (or Designee) Submission of Dossier (VB1.3)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
18
Establishment of New Multicampus Research Units (MRUs) (VB1)
Provost & Senior Vice President Notice of Approval (VB1.10)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
19
Name Changes of Multicampus Research Units (MRUs) (VB2)
Vice Provost - Research Notice of Name Change (VB2.4)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
20
Disestablishment of Multicampus Research Units (MRUs) (VB3)
Provost & Senior Vice President Notice of Approval (VB3.6)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
21
Accelerated Review Schedule (VI)
Systemwide Senate Committee Chair Notice of Suspending Review (VI7)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
22
Accelerated Review Schedule (VI)
Council Chair Notice of Favorable Review and/or Approval (VI8)
DISTRIBUTION LIST
23
Accelerated Review Schedule (VI)
Provost & Senior Vice President Notice of Approval (VI11)
APPENDIX 1
Format for Submitting Descriptions
of Anticipated Actions Included in the Five-Year Perspective
APPENDIX 2
Role of the Coordinating
Committee on Graduate Affairs in the Transfer, Consolidation, Disestablishment,
and Discontinuance of Academic Programs and Academic Units
APPENDIX 3
Role of the Coordinating
Committee on Graduate Affairs in Reconstitution of Academic Programs and
Units
APPENDIX 4
Proposed Graduate Degree
Program
Submission Packet, Proposal
Format, and CPEC Information
APPENDIX 5
CCGA Review Procedures --
Proposals for New Graduate Degree Programs
(CCGA Handbook, pages 5-8)
APPENDIX 6
Proposed Multicampus Research
Unit (MRU)
Submission Packet and Proposal
Format
ACADEMIC UNITS, AND RESEARCH UNITS
This Compendium presents Universitywide review processes for creating and changing academic degree programs, academic units, and research units. It is designed to serve as a manual for those who participate in these processes.
URL for on-line review: http://www.ucop.edu/acadaff/accomp/comptxt.html
URL for immediate download: http://www.ucop.edu/acadaff/accomp/comptxt.doc
Specifically, the Compendium presents systemwide review processes for proposals to create, change the name of, transfer, consolidate, disestablish, and discontinue graduate degree programs, schools and colleges, and multicampus research units (MRUs). It also covers the Five-Year Perspectives on anticipated actions that the campuses prepare each year, in part to meet planning needs of the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC). In addition, it covers a variety of minor topics that sometimes arise with respect to systemwide review processes; for example, accelerated reviews and disagreements between Senate and administration.
Note that the Compendium describes review and approval processes for the nine mature UC campuses. Any new campus will have special review and approval processes for some period of time. Such processes will be separately organized in ways that are mutually agreeable to the faculty and administration and that, to the extent possible, reflect processes used for the nine mature campuses.
A few guiding principles underlie Compendium processes. The most important is that academic programs, academic units, and research units work best when both faculty and administrators are supportive of them. All review and approval processes should promote such mutual endorsement of any proposed action. At the same time, the Regents have explicitly delegated to the faculty responsibility for courses and curricula. The faculty through the Academic Senate bylaws have placed authority for graduate programs with a systemwide committee (Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs) and authority for undergraduate programs with divisional committees responsible for undergraduate education. Administrators at the campus level and systemwide retain authority for academic units and research units. The Compendium processes reflect these relative powers of the faculty and administration, on the campus and systemwide.
Compendium processes, most notably the Five-Year Perspective, are also intended to promote the coordination, synergy, and trade-off possible when UC operates as a system of campuses in one university while simultaneously recognizing the vigor and maturity of the individual campuses. Intercampus communication and systemwide perspectives are most valuable early in the campus process of developing a proposal. Compendium processes strive to place each anticipated proposal in the context of UC as a whole and to do so early in the campus process of developing any proposal.
In this version of the Compendium (effective July 1, 1999), systemwide review processes are retained for those proposed actions that by their nature involve several campuses (e.g., creating an MRU), are more likely to have ramifications for other campuses (e.g., closing a school or college), or require more resources in order to carry them out successfully (e.g., creating a new graduate degree program). In these areas, the anticipation of systemwide review can stimulate a broader perspective during the planning phase and the review itself can, as needed, further shape the proposed action to fit well into UC as well as into the proposing campus.
The Compendium refers to several individuals, committees, and agencies who participate in systemwide reviews. Their roles vary according to their mission, the proposed action, and the type of academic program, academic unit, or research unit involved. A glossary of titles and acronyms used in the Compendium can be found at the end of the text.
The Compendium is divided into six principal parts:
2. Sections II through V cover the Universitywide review processes for academic programs, academic units, and research units.
3. Sections VI through X cover miscellaneous special topics.
4. The Glossary provides explanations about the various people, committees, and organizations participating in systemwide review processes.
5. The Distribution Lists provide explicit information about those to whom communications should be directed and those who should be copied.
6. The Appendices provide submission requirements and details of some review processes.
In Sections II, III, and V, three major types of actions are described: (1) establishing a new program or unit, (2) changing the name of an existing program or unit, and (3) transferring, consolidating, discontinuing, and disestablishing existing program(s) or unit(s). Note that in this version of the Compendium the campus makes the final decision for all three types of actions when they involve undergraduate degree programs, departments, or organized research units. In addition, in certain circumstances, the campus makes the final decision about name changes for graduate degree programs and multicampus research units.
Each portion of Sections II through V generally has the same format. It begins with an overview, followed by details of the process presented in rough chronological order. A flow chart illustrates each process and better represents concurrent actions in each process. The processes continue to use the efficiencies adopted in the original Compendium and extend them wherever possible. In particular, there is increasing use of electronic mail and web sites either instead of paper transmission or in advance of a later, and perhaps more extensive, paper transmission. The UC Office of the President and the Academic Senate anticipate further changes in this direction and urge users of the Compendium to look for them.
For ease of presentation, all descriptions in Sections II to V are written
as though each reviewer, depending on the reviewer's role in the process,
offers favorable review of, recommends approval of, or actually approves
the proposal. Writing in this way emphasizes the faculty and administration
belief that shared goals are more likely to be achieved; however, it does
not negate the fact that for different entities either the faculty or the
administration could in the final analysis have the last word, so to speak.
In concluding this introduction, three particularly important points are worth repeating:
Overview of the Process
By February 1, each campus submits materials that provide a five-year projection of anticipated actions to create, transfer, consolidate, disestablish, or discontinue undergraduate degree programs, graduate degree programs, schools and colleges, ORUs, and MRUs. The campus submission includes a list of all such projected actions for the next five years and short descriptions of those actions for which proposals should be ready in the next year or two.
Note that in order to assist in systemwide planning and to participate in annual CPEC reviews, anticipated actions involving undergraduate degree programs and ORUs must be included in each campus’s five-year projection and detailed description, even though formal proposals to implement these plans are no longer subject to UC systemwide review and approval processes.
Once the five-year list and the descriptions are received, UCOP staff prepare summaries of anticipated creations of undergraduate and graduate degree programs (the two frequently proposed actions), placing them in the context of similar existing or anticipated programs. By April 1, these summaries, the URL for the site listing current ORUs and MRUs, and the combined Five-Year Perspectives from the campuses are distributed to the campuses and to systemwide Academic Senate, administrative, and joint Senate-administration committees concerned with academic degree programs, academic units, and research units. Systemwide committees provide reactions prior to the start of the next academic year. Information from the campuses’ Five-Year Perspectives that pertains to projected new undergraduate and graduate degree programs and new schools and colleges is also submitted to CPEC, which may also provide reactions.
Details of the Process
2. Anticipated creations that appeared in last year’s list and are not included in this year’s list (identify those approved and those withdrawn).
3. Anticipated transfers, consolidations, discontinuances, or disestablishments (TCDD) of academic programs, academic units, and research units.
4. Anticipated TCDD actions that appeared in last year’s list and are not included in this year’s list (identify those approved and those withdrawn).
2. For every other anticipated action included in the Five-Year Perspective list, a 1- to 2-page description should be submitted at least one year before a formal proposal would be ready for campus review.
3. If a description was submitted in a previous year and is still accurate, it need not be submitted again.
3. By April 1, the Provost & Senior Vice President distributes the summaries, the URL for the database of existing ORUs and MRUs, and the combined Five-Year Perspectives (lists and detailed descriptions) for all UC campuses to various systemwide bodies and to the campuses. The Provost & Senior Vice President also provides CPEC with the list of proposed new undergraduate degree programs, graduate degree programs, and schools and colleges and with the descriptions for proposed new graduate degree programs and schools and colleges. See Distribution List 1.
ORU/MRU List URL (as of 7/99): http://patron.ucop.edu/ucaccess/rescenters/searchform.html
4. In April, May, June, and July, the UCOP summaries of the Five-Year Perspectives and the detailed descriptions in them are discussed by systemwide groups. A particular anticipated action may be reviewed in order to provide early feedback about crucial issues to consider in the further development of the proposal. In general, however, reviews focus more on systemwide than campus-specific issues. Among the issues that could be considered are the following:
5. If a systemwide Senate committee should wish to distribute written comments on the Five-Year Perspectives, the Chair will notify the Council Chair who will be responsible for coordinating committee responses and for facilitating their distribution to interested parties. See Distribution List 2.
6. In the fall, at the discretion of the APC Chair and Vice Chair, the Five-Year Perspectives, UCOP summaries, URL for the ORU/MRU lists, and Senate and administrative comments on them may be an APC agenda item. If so, the APC discusses the material, recommending how any Universitywide issues in need of attention over the upcoming year should be addressed. Further planning activities may include referral of the issue to existing groups, creation of an ad hoc group, a special staff study, or other approach to gather expert advice. If APC is going to pursue any such issues, the Chair and Vice Chair send a joint letter to the Chancellors (or designees) and relevant systemwide groups identifying the Universitywide issues that may affect campus planning. See Distribution List 3.
7. Generally, campuses are expected to include anticipated actions in
the campus Five-Year Perspective at least one year prior to the proposal
being reviewed on campus (two years for proposed new schools and colleges).
However, on occasion, a campus may identify and want to move very quickly
on a particular action (e.g., a new ORU responsive to a federal initiative,
a new intercampus graduate degree program, a change in a school arising
from a TCDD action). If so, the usual Five-Year Perspective description
(see Appendix 1) should be prepared and sent to the Provost & Senior
Vice President at the time the proposal begins the campus review process.
The Provost & Senior Vice President will notify everyone who would
have learned of the proposed action via the usual Five-Year Perspective
process (see Distribution List 1) and, in consultation with the Council
Chair, will transmit any reactions back to the campus. If the proposed
action would ordinarily be reviewed systemwide, then the systemwide review
process will begin by addressing any systemwide perspective that would
have been considered had the proposed action first been analyzed as part
of a Five-Year Perspective.
With the exception of undergraduate degree programs involving a title unique to the campus, all actions involving undergraduate degree programs are carried out on the nine established campuses. That is, creating a new undergraduate degree program, changing the name of an existing undergraduate degree program, and consolidating, transferring, or discontinuing an existing undergraduate degree program are campus decisions and there is no systemwide review of them. If approved by the responsible divisional Academic Senate committee and supported by the campus administration, a proposed action involving an undergraduate degree program is implemented.
Anticipated actions involving undergraduate degree programs should be included in the Five-Year Perspectives, and all final campus actions involving undergraduate degree programs should be reported to systemwide offices in a monthly report to the Coordinator - Program Review, copied to the Director Academic Planning and Program Review and to the Records Manager, Information Resources and Communications. E-mail use is encouraged.
The one action that would continue to require systemwide review and
approval is the creation of an undergraduate degree title unique
to the campus (e.g., the first BFA program of any kind on the campus).
See Section IIC.
Overview of Process
At least one year before a new graduate degree program proposal is approved on the campus, it should have been included in the campus’s Five-Year Perspective. Proposals for all new graduate degree programs, including self-supporting degree programs, degrees offered under the new Master of Advanced Studies title, multicampus degree programs, and degree programs jointly sponsored by UC campus(es) and other higher education institutions (e.g., CSU), are reviewed systemwide. In the case of multicampus or joint degree proposals, all sponsoring parties should approve the proposal and the lead UC campus should then submit it for systemwide review. The review process is written as though the degree program were offered by a single UC campus; appropriate adjustments are made for other circumstances.
Once the new graduate degree program proposal is submitted for systemwide review, it is simultaneously considered by the UCOP Coordinator - Program Review, CPEC, UC campuses with similar degree programs, and CCGA. The CCGA review typically requires several months and includes interchange with the campus, evaluation of the written materials by two disciplinary experts, and a site visit by the CCGA lead reviewer. For a new degree to be offered by the campus, CCGA must approve the final version of the proposed degree program and the President must approve implementation of it.
1. At least one year before a new graduate degree program proposal is approved on the campus, the anticipated action will have been included in the campus’s Five-Year Perspective. The Chancellor (or designee) will have received from the Provost & Senior Vice President a summary of any issues raised by CPEC in its review. Systemwide Senate, administrative, and joint Senate-administrative committees that have reviewed the Five-Year Perspectives may also have sent comments to the Chancellor (or designee) with copies to the relevant parties.
2. If the proposed graduate degree program was not included in any prior Five-Year Perspective, then at the time the proposal becomes public on the campus the campus prepares and submits the 1- to 2-page description that would have been in the Five-Year Perspective (see Section I1b and Appendix 1). The Provost & Senior Vice President notifies everyone who would have learned of the proposed action via the usual Five-Year Perspective process (see Distribution List 1) and, in consultation with the Council Chair, transmits any feedback to the campus. The CCGA and UCOP reviews also address the systemwide perspective that would have been considered had the proposed action first been analyzed as part of a Five-Year Perspective.
3. Upon approval by the Divisional Senate and favorable review by the campus administration, the Chancellor (or designee) sends all required materials (see Appendix 4) to systemwide reviewers. See Distribution List 4.
4. The Coordinator - Program Review asks other UC campuses with similar programs to comment on the proposal and to send their comments directly to the CCGA analyst with a copy to the Coordinator - Program Review. Respondents are encouraged to use e-mail.
5. The Coordinator - Program Review analyzes the proposal, sends the analysis to the Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives for review, and, upon his or her approval, sends the analysis to the CCGA analyst. E-mail is used.
6. Upon notification by the CCGA Chair that the initial discussion of the proposal suggests that it will be favorably reviewed, the Coordinator - Program Review sends the CPEC Summary to CPEC for review that runs simultaneously with CCGA's. If any issues remain to be resolved before CPEC concurs with the proposal, the Coordinator - Program Review works with the campus to resolve them. CPEC reports its concurrence to the Coordinator - Program Review, with a copy to the Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives.
7. CCGA carries out its review (see Appendix 5), which normally includes full committee discussion, interchange with the campus to clarify issues, written review of the proposal by at least two disciplinary experts, and a site visit by the CCGA lead reviewer; CCGA transmits its approval to UCOP (see Distribution List 5). E-mail use is encouraged.
8. After the Coordinator - Program Review has compiled the CCGA approval, lead reviewer’s report and any appended materials (see CCGA Handbook, Appendix H for format), the CPEC concurrence, and his or her own analysis, he or she notifies the Provost & Senior Vice President who recommends to the President that the proposed graduate program be implemented. E-mail use is encouraged.
9. After the President approves implementation of the proposed program, the Coordinator - Program Review uses e-mail to notify the campus and CCGA of final approval by e-mail (see Distribution List 6) and then sends a print copy of the President’s formal recommendation to the campus.
Overview of Process
If the proposed name change is not associated with a fundamental change in the nature of the graduate degree program or a need for substantial new resources, then the decision making process on the campus is final. There is no systemwide review, but the action must be reported systemwide to the CCGA chair and analyst, Council Chair, and Coordinator - Program Review and certain supporting materials must be provided. Campus decision making must involve approval by the Divisional Graduate Council and favorable review by the campus administration. If such a "simple" name change is contemplated, the faculty member responsible for the degree program is encouraged to consult with the Graduate Council Chair, CCGA Chair, and Coordinator - Program Reviews.
Details of Process
When faculty want to change the name of a graduate degree program, the responsible faculty member should consult with the Graduate Council Chair, CCGA Chair, and Coordinator - Program Reviews to determine whether it is a "simple" name change. The process described here is for "simple" name changes and is relevant only when the name change does not also involve (or signal) a fundamental change in the nature of the graduate degree program and the graduate degree program does not require substantial new resources. If either condition pertains, particularly a fundamental programmatic change, most likely systemwide review will be requested.
Note also that the process is described as though the degree program were offered by one UC campus only. If it is a joint degree program, then the other participating campuses or higher education institutions must also approve the name change and confirm that it does not signal a fundamental programmatic change or need for substantial new resources.
2. The Graduate Council approves the name change and confirms that the action does not involve a fundamental change in direction nor require substantial new resources and so informs the Chancellor (or designee).
3. The Chancellor (or designee) favorably reviews the name change and confirms that the action does not involve a fundamental change in direction nor require substantial new resources.
4. The campus transmits all materials from the responsible faculty,
Graduate Council, and Chancellor (or designee) systemwide in a monthly
report (see Distribution List 7). E-mail use is encouraged if all material
is available in that form.
Overview of Process
The process varies according to three factors: when the campus first informed systemwide bodies of the proposed transfer, consolidation, or discontinuance (TCD), whether it has Universitywide implications, and whether the Divisional Senate is appropriately involved in review and approval processes. If the proposed TCD action was included in a Five-Year Perspective, the Divisional Senate is appropriately involved in campus process, and Universitywide implications (if any) are being addressed satisfactorily, then the campus’s decision is final. There is no systemwide review.
However, either CCGA or Academic Affairs can request systemwide review if there are concerns that the Divisional Senate is not or has not been appropriately involved and/or that Universitywide implications are not being addressed satisfactorily (both more likely if there is late announcement of the proposed TCD action). Once the proposal is submitted for systemwide review, it is simultaneously considered by the UCOP Coordinator - Program Review, CPEC (if it requests it), UCEP (if CCGA requests it), and CCGA. If systemwide review has been requested, then CCGA must approve the final plan for a TCD action and the President must approve implementation of it.
Details of Process -- First Steps for All Proposed TCD Actions
b. Immediately before or at the time the proposed action is announced publicly on the campus, the Chancellor e-mails or faxes to the Provost & Senior Vice President, the CCGA Chair and analyst, and the Council Chair the 1- to 2-page description that would ordinarily have been included in the Five-Year Perspective (see Section I1b and Appendix 1).
3. Based on the 1- to 2-page description provided either in the Five-Year Perspective or immediately before the proposed action becomes public, Academic Affairs notifies the campus of any concerns it has regarding potential Universitywide impacts and decides whether it wishes to review the TCD proposal after it has completed campus review. If the first notice is 1b, then Academic Affairs responds to the campus within 30 days. Use of e-mail is encouraged.
4. As soon as CCGA learns of the proposed action, it considers Universitywide implications and appropriate involvement of the Divisional Senate (see Appendix 2). CCGA conveys any questions or concerns in these two areas in writing to the Divisional Senate and/or campus administration, with copies to the Council Chair and Provost & Senior Vice President. If the first notice to CCGA is 1b, then CCGA responds to the campus about these matters within 30 days. Use of e-mail combined with written notification is encouraged.
5. CCGA notifies via e-mail the Provost & Senior Vice President, with a copy to the Council Chair, whether or not it wishes to review the TCD proposal after it has completed campus review.
7. Upon approval of the Divisional Senate and favorable review by the campus administration, the Chancellor (or designee) forwards the TCD proposal (see Appendix 2) for systemwide review (see Distribution List 8).
8. The Coordinator - Program Review analyzes the proposal and, upon review and approval by the Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives, e-mails the analysis to CCGA members and analyst.
9. When actions involving graduate degree programs are likely to affect the functioning of associated undergraduate degree programs, CCGA refers the proposal to the UCEP Chair and analyst. UCEP reviews it, and the UCEP Chair notifies the CCGA Chair and analyst by e-mail of its opinions.
10. CCGA completes its review of the proposal and reports approval by e-mail to the Provost & Senior Vice President, with a copy to the Council Chair.
11. If CPEC has requested that it review the proposal, the Coordinator - Program Review arranges that the CPEC review runs simultaneously with CCGA's. CPEC reports its concurrence to the Coordinator - Program Review, with a copy to the Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives.
12. If needed, the Provost & Senior Vice President works with the campus to resolve any Universitywide issues identified in reviews by Academic Affairs, CCGA, or CPEC. CCGA must approve the final resolution.
13. The Coordinator - Program Review notifies the campus and CCGA of final approval by e-mail (see Distribution List 9) and then sends a print copy to the campus.
II.C. Undergraduate and Graduate Degree Programs with Unique Titles
Most proposed actions involving undergraduate and graduate degree programs are complete after the procedures described in Sections IIA and IIB. However, those actions that would create a new degree title on a given campus or would remove the last degree program carrying a particular degree title on that campus are subject to additional review and approval procedures, all of which are described in this section.
Undergraduate and graduate degree programs are identified both by the title of the degree conferred and by the disciplinary area in which the degree is awarded. As one example, an undergraduate degree program such as a BS in Mathematics is offered in the disciplinary area of mathematics with the Bachelor of Science degree title. As another example, a graduate degree program such as an MFA in Theater is offered in the disciplinary area of theater with the Master of Fine Arts degree title.
The Standing Orders of the Regents contain a section that specifies the degree titles, but not the degree programs, that each campus is authorized to offer. Accordingly, when a campus proposes a new undergraduate or graduate degree program that bears a degree title whose use by that campus is not already authorized in the Regents’ Standing Orders, additional review and approval procedures are necessary in order to authorize the campus to offer that degree title. Similarly, when a campus proposes to discontinue an undergraduate or graduate degree program that is the only one on the campus bearing that degree title, additional procedures are necessary in order to remove that degree title from the Regents’ Standing Orders. If all approvals are granted, these additional procedures result in the campus either being authorized to offer a new degree title (for the proposed degree program and for future degree programs bearing that degree title) or no longer being able to offer any degree program using that degree title. After a degree title on a campus has been removed from the Regents’ Standing Orders, the campus must go through the entire establishment process if it wishes to use the degree title again.
Details of Process to Create a New Undergraduate Degree Title
2. Campus use of the new degree title is approved by the appropriate Divisional Senate body.
3. The Divisional Chair notifies the Chancellor (or designee) who notifies the Provost & Senior Vice President of the Divisional committee’s approval of the undergraduate degree program, the approval of the degree title by the appropriate Divisional Senate body, and the administration’s favorable review of the undergraduate degree program and new degree title.
4. The Coordinator - Program Review prepares the recommendation that the President authorize use of the new degree title and sends it by e-mail to the Provost & Senior Vice President.
5. The Provost & Senior Vice President transmits the campus recommendations to approve to the President, to whom the Regents have delegated authority to authorize campus use of a new degree title (SOR 110.1). The President authorizes campus use of the new degree title and the Provost & Senior Vice President notifies the campus Chancellor (or designee) and others. See Distribution List 10.
6. The Secretary to the Regents changes the Standing Orders of the Regents to reflect campus authorization to use the new degree title henceforward.
2. Five years after the discontinuance becomes effective, if the degree title is still not being used on the campus, the Provost & Senior Vice President notifies the Chancellor (or designee), with copies to the Council Chair and Divisional Chair, that in three months the President intends to authorize removal of the degree title from those the campus is authorized to use under the Standing Orders of the Regents.
3. If the Chancellor (or designee) concurs or does not respond, then at the designated time the President, to whom the Regents have delegated authority, approves removal of the degree title from the Standing Orders of the Regents and the Secretary to the Regents changes them.
4. If the Chancellor (or designee) does not concur, then the Chancellor (or designee), Divisional Chair, Council Chair, and Provost & Senior Vice President confer to determine a (short) timetable for the campus to establish a new undergraduate degree program utilizing that title or to agree that the title should be retired from those the campus is authorized to use.
2. Campus use of the new degree title is approved by the General Assembly or by the Academic Council acting on behalf of the General Assembly.
3. The Council Chair notifies the Provost & Senior Vice President of CCGA approval of the graduate degree program and of Assembly (or Council) approval of the degree title and copies the CCGA Chair and analyst.
4. The Coordinator - Program Review prepares the recommendation that the President authorize use of the new degree title and sends it by e-mail to the Provost & Senior Vice President.
5. The Provost & Senior Vice President transmits the CCGA and Assembly (or Council) recommendations to approve the new degree title to the President, to whom the Regents have delegated authority to authorize campus use of a new degree title (SOR 110.1). The President authorizes campus use of the new degree title and the Provost & Senior Vice President notifies the campus Chancellor (or designee) and others. See Distribution List 11.
6. The Secretary to the Regents changes the Standing Orders of the Regents to reflect campus authorization to use the new degree title henceforward.
Details of Process to Discontinue a Unique Graduate Degree Title
1. CCGA receives notice from the campus of the discontinuance of the graduate degree program or CCGA itself approves discontinuance of the graduate degree program. CCGA notifies the Divisional Chair, Chancellor (or designee), Council Chair, and Provost & Senior Vice President that there are no longer any graduate degree programs using the particular degree title on that campus.
2. Five years after the discontinuance becomes effective, if the degree title is still not being used on the campus, the Provost & Senior Vice President notifies the Chancellor (or designee), with copies to the Council Chair and Divisional Chair, that in three months the President intends to authorize removal of the degree title from those the campus is authorized to use under the Standing Orders of the Regents.
3. If the Chancellor (or designee) concurs or does not respond, then at the designated time the President, to whom the Regents have delegated authority, approves removal of the degree title from the Standing Orders of the Regents and the Secretary to the Regents changes them.
4. If the Chancellor (or designee) does not concur, then the Chancellor
(or designee), Divisional Chair, Council Chair, and Provost & Senior
Vice President confer to determine a (short) timetable for the campus to
establish a new graduate degree program utilizing that title or to agree
that the title should be retired from those the campus is authorized to
use.
Actions involving departments are carried out on the nine established campuses. That is, creating a new department, changing the name of an existing department, and consolidating, transferring, or disestablishing an existing department are campus decisions for which there is no systemwide review. If favorably reviewed by the relevant divisional Academic Senate committee(s) and approved by the campus administration, a proposed action involving a department is implemented. Any proposed coordinated actions involving undergraduate or graduate degree programs associated with affected department(s) should be handled according to the procedures described for the proposed action for either undergraduate or graduate degree programs.
All final campus actions involving departments should be reported to
systemwide offices in a month report to the Coordinator - Program Review,
copied to the Director Academic Planning and Program Review and to the
Records Manager, Information Resources and Communications. E-mail use is
encouraged..
Overview of Process
At least two years before a new school or college is approved on the campus, a 2- to 5-page description should have been included in the campus’s Five-Year Perspective, several systemwide bodies should have considered the proposition, and the Chancellor should have received a summary of reactions and suggestions from the APC Chair and Vice Chair.
When the complete proposal is ready, the campus may choose to have it reviewed by campus and systemwide bodies either concurrently or sequentially. Whenever the proposal is submitted for systemwide review, it is simultaneously considered by Academic Affairs, CCGA, UCEP, UCPB, any other systemwide Senate committees the Council Chair chooses to involve, and CPEC. For a new school or college to be created, the Universitywide Senate favorably reviews, CPEC concurs, and the President recommends approval to the Board of Regents, who must give final approval.
1. At least two years before a new school or college proposal is approved on the campus, the anticipated action is listed and the 2- to 5-page description (see Section I1b and Appendix 1) is included in the campus’s Five-Year Perspective.
2. Systemwide Senate committees (ordinarily CCGA, UCEP, and UCPB), UCOP committees (e.g., COVC), CPEC, and APC review the Five-Year Perspective description, and the Board of Regents is informed of the campus’s intent. The APC Chair and Vice Chair send a written review to the proposing campus in which they summarize the reactions and suggestions of systemwide reviewers (without implying approval or denial).
3. When the campus has then developed a complete proposal for the new school or college, it may choose whether to have it reviewed concurrently (see Section VI), on the campus and systemwide, or sequentially, first on the campus and then systemwide. If the campus chooses concurrent review, then the systemwide processes take place while the proposal is also being reviewed on the campus. With concurrent review, final systemwide approval is given after the proposal has been approved on the campus and it is verified that what was approved on the campus is substantially the same as what was approved systemwide. The remainder of the process is written as though the campus chose sequential review, but the process is virtually the same for concurrent review.
4. If the proposed new school or college was not included in any prior Five-Year Perspective, at the time the proposal becomes public on the campus the campus prepares and submits the 2- to 5-page description that would have been in the Five-Year Perspective (see Section I1b and Appendix 1). The Provost & Senior Vice President notifies everyone who would have learned of the proposed action via the usual Five-Year Perspective process (see Distribution List 1), and the systemwide Senate and administrative reviews also address the systemwide perspective that would have been considered had the proposed action first been analyzed as part of a Five-Year Perspective.
5. Upon approval by the campus administration and favorable review by the Divisional Senate, the Chancellor (or designee) submits the proposal for systemwide review. See Distribution List 12.
6. Academic Affairs designated staff complete analysis that is sent via e-mail to the Chairs of CCGA, UCPB, and UCEP, and to the Council Chair for distribution to any other Senate committees reviewing the proposal.
7. The Coordinator - Program Review sends necessary materials to CPEC for review that runs simultaneously with the Senate's. CPEC reports its concurrence to the Coordinator - Program Review, with a copy to the Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives.
8. A Senate subcommittee consisting of the Chairs of CCGA, UCEP, and UCPB, and any other participating Senate committees, to be convened by the Chair of CCGA, expedites Senate review by coordinating their committee reviews, as appropriate. Ordinarily, the Senate committees will be expected to complete their reviews within 60 days of receipt of the proposal.
9. Senate review committees report their recommendations to the Academic Council. The Academic Council acts as an arbiter if there is not a concurrence among the review committees on their final recommendations.
10. The Council Chair reports the Senate recommendations to the Provost & Senior Vice President, with copies to the chairs and analysts of the committees that reviewed the proposal and to the Coordinator - Program Review.
11. If needed, the Provost & Senior Vice President works with the Chancellor to resolve any issues raised by reviews up to this point.
12. The Provost & Senior Vice President recommends approval to the President.
13. The President recommends approval to The Regents.
14. The Regents approve the proposal and the Provost & Senior Vice
President reports the approval to the Chancellor and others. See Distribution
List 13.
Overview of Process
1. Upon approval by the campus administration and favorable review by the Divisional Senate, the Chancellor (or designee) sends the proposal to the Provost & Senior Vice President and the Council Chair. The Coordinator - Program Review assesses whether the change is substantive and advises the Council Chair. The review process is determined by whether the name change is accompanied by major changes in the program or substantial need for new resources. If more than one unit or program change is associated with the name change, the campus should follow the procedures in Section IV (Reconstitution of Academic Programs and Academic Units).
2. If in the judgment of the Council Chair there are not substantive changes associated with the name change, he or she puts the change directly on the Academic Council agenda and then notifies the Provost & Senior Vice President of the Council’s favorable review. The next step in this "simple name change" process is number 8.
3. If in the judgment of the Council Chair substantive changes are associated with the name change, the Council Chair notifies the Provost & Senior Vice President that the Senate wishes to review the proposal and the proposal is sent to CCGA, UCEP, UCPB, and any other Senate committees designated by the Council Chair.
4. The Coordinator - Program Reviews analyzes the proposal and, after review and approval by the Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives, sends it to CCGA, UCEP, UCPB, and the Council Chair for distribution to any other review committees.
5. If the program will change substantially or there are major new resources required, the Coordinator - Program Review sends the proposal to CPEC for review that runs simultaneously with the Senate's. CPEC reports its concurrence to the Coordinator - Program Review, with a copy to the Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives.
6. A Senate subcommittee consisting of the Chairs of CCGA, UCEP, and UCPB, and any other participating Senate committee, to be convened by the Chair of CCGA, expedites Senate review by coordinating their committee reviews, as appropriate.
7. The Senate committees report their recommendations to the Academic Council, which serves as arbiter if there is not concurrence among the committees. The Council Chair notifies the Provost & Senior Vice President of favorable review by the Senate committees.
8. The Provost & Senior Vice President recommends approval to the President.
9. Upon approval by the President, the Provost & Senior Vice President
notifies the campus and others. See Distribution List 14.
Overview of Process
Ordinarily, the proposed transfer, consolidation, or disestablishment (TCD) would be included in a Five-Year Perspective, but it may be announced just before the proposal becomes public on the campus. As soon as the 1- to 2-page description of the proposed action is provided, any concerns about Universitywide implications of the proposed action or about inadequate involvement of the Divisional Senate are examined and, as needed, addressed. Once the proposal is submitted for systemwide review, it is simultaneously considered by Academic Affairs staff, CPEC (if it requests it), CCGA, UCEP, UCPB, and any other Senate committees the Council Chair selects. Upon favorable review by the Senate, CPEC’s concurrence (if it has requested review), and the President’s recommendation to approve, the Regents approve the proposed TCD.
1. Ordinarily, a proposed transfer, consolidation, or disestablishment (TCD) of a school or college is included (listed and described) in a Five-Year Perspective that is submitted by the campus at least one year before the action is formally submitted for campus review.
2. If the first formal campus description of the proposed action occurs immediately before or at the time the proposed action is announced publicly on the campus, the Chancellor (or designee) e-mails or faxes to the Provost & Senior Vice President and the Council Chair the 1- to 2-page description that would ordinarily have been included in the Five-Year Perspective (see Section I1b and Appendix 1). The Provost & Senior Vice President immediately notifies everyone who would have learned of the proposed action via the usual Five-Year Perspective process (see Distribution List 1).
3. Based on the 1- to 2-page description provided either in the Five-Year Perspective or immediately before the proposed action becomes public, Academic Affairs or one or more Senate committees notify the Council Chair and Provost & Senior Vice President of any concerns regarding potential Universitywide impacts or inadequate Divisional Senate involvement. The Council Chair and Provost & Senior Vice President are responsible for investigating the concerns and, as needed, determining how to address them.
4. Upon approval by the campus administration and favorable review by the Divisional Senate, the Chancellor submits the TCD proposal to the Provost & Senior Vice President and designated Academic Affairs staff; CCGA, UCEP, and UCPB chairs and analysts; and the Council Chair, who may distribute it to additional Senate committees.
5. The Coordinator - Program Review analyzes the proposal, and, after review and approval by the Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives, sends it via e-mail to CCGA, UCEP, UCPB, and the Council Chair for use by other review committees.
6. A Senate subcommittee consisting of the chairs of CCGA, UCEP, and UCPB, and any other participating Senate committee, to be convened by the Chair of CCGA, expedites Senate review by coordinating their committee reviews, as appropriate.
7. The Senate committees report their recommendations to the Academic Council, which serves as arbiter if there are differences among final recommendations of the review committees.
8. If CPEC has requested that it review the proposal, the Coordinator - Program Review arranges that the CPEC review proceed concurrently with the Senate review and that any CPEC questions are conveyed to and answered by the campus. CPEC reports its concurrence to the Coordinator - Program Review, with a copy to the Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives.
9. The Council Chair conveys the Senate comments and recommendation to approve to the Provost & Senior Vice President, who recommends approval to the President.
10. The President recommends approval to the Regents.
11. Upon Regental approval, the Provost & Senior Vice President
notifies the campus, copying others. See Distribution List 15.
Overview of Process
Reconstitution refers to any combination of actions treated as a unified plan and intended to transfer, consolidate, discontinue, disestablish (TCDD), change the name of, or establish an academic program or academic unit. Most often, one or more TCDD actions are central to the plan, which may include name changes or establishments as concomitant actions.
All actions proposed in the reconstitution should have been included in the campus’s Five-Year Perspective. If not, various steps are taken to ensure that systemwide perspectives are introduced into the review. Once the reconstitution proposal is submitted for systemwide review, it is simultaneously considered by the UCOP Coordinator - Program Review, CPEC (if so requested), and relevant Senate committees (ordinarily CCGA, UCEP, and UCPB). Usual review processes are followed, using usual standards; however, the various actions involved in the reconstitution are considered as part of a unified plan and reviewers' reports address all portions of that plan. Proposed actions that CCGA would ordinarily approve continue to require CCGA approval. All other proposed actions would be endorsed by the reviewing Senate committees and approved by the President and, if needed, the Regents.
Details of Process
2. If the proposed reconstitution includes any actions that would ordinarily be included in any Five-Year Perspective but have not been included, then the Chancellor (or designee) sends notice to the Provost & Senior Vice President and Council Chair immediately before or at the time of public release (see Appendix 1 for specifications). The Provost & Senior Vice President circulates the notice immediately to everyone who would have learned of the proposed action via the usual Five-Year Perspective process (see Distribution List 1). He or she indicates that the proposed actions constitute a proposed reconstitution. Based on the notice, if the proposed reconstitution includes any TCDD actions, Academic Affairs or the Senate quickly notifies the campus of any concerns regarding potential Universitywide impacts of or inadequate Divisional Senate involvement in the just announced proposed actions.
3. Upon approval and favorable review, as appropriate for the various constituent actions in the proposed reconstitution, by the campus administration and Divisional Senate, the Chancellor (or designee) submits the proposed reconstitution to the Provost & Senior Vice President. Ordinarily, the Chancellor (or designee) will also send the proposal directly to the CCGA, UCEP, and UCPB chairs and analysts, and the Council Chair, who may distribute it to other Senate committees for review. However, if the proposed reconstitution involves actions all of which would ordinarily be considered only by certain committees, then the Chancellor (or designee) sends the proposal to only these committee chairs and analysts and the Council Chair.
4. If the proposed reconstitution was not included in any Five-Year Perspective, then the systemwide Senate and administration reviews also address the systemwide perspective that would have been considered had the proposed reconstitution actions first been analyzed as part of a Five-Year Perspective.
5. Throughout the ensuing Universitywide review process, the various actions involved in the reconstitution are considered as part of a unified plan and reviewers' reports address all portions of that plan. However, no proposed action receives less review nor is reviewed with less documentation than would ordinarily occur if the action were not part of a proposed reconstitution.
6. The Coordinator - Program Reviews analyzes the proposal, sends the analysis to the Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives for review, and upon his or her approval sends the analysis to the Senate committee chairs and analysts reviewing the proposal and to the Council Chair. E-mail is used throughout.
7. If CPEC has made a request to review the proposal, the Coordinator - Program Reviews submits it to CPEC. The CPEC review occurs at the same time as the Senate review. The Coordinator - Program Reviews works with the campus to resolve any issues raised by CPEC. CPEC reports its concurrence to the Coordinator - Program Review with a copy to the Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives.
8. In dealing with any proposed reconstitution, the chairs of all Universitywide committees participating in the review (ordinarily CCGA, UCEP, and UCPB participate; the Council Chair may involve others) seek to coordinate their reviews and conclusions. If only undergraduate programs are affected by the proposed reconstitution, UCEP is the Senate's lead committee for reviewing the proposal. Otherwise, CCGA is the Senate's lead committee.
9. The Senate committees participating in the review report their comments, recommendations, and -- if usually given -- approvals to the Academic Council. For any proposed graduate degree program actions for which CCGA would ordinarily act on behalf of the Senate, CCGA’s approval continues to represent final Senate action. For all other proposed actions, the Academic Council serves as arbiter if there is not concurrence among the final recommendations of the review committees.
10. The Council Chair conveys Senate comments, recommendations, and approvals to the Provost & Senior Vice President, who recommends authorization and approval to the President.
11. As appropriate for the proposed actions in the reconstitution, the
President approves or authorizes implementation of or recommends approval
of the proposed actions in the reconstitution and the Provost & Senior
Vice President notifies the campus. If Regental approval is required for
any portions of the proposal, the President recommends approval to The
Regents and the Provost & Senior Vice President notifies the campus
of Regental approval. See Distribution List 16.
Actions involving ORUs are carried out on the nine established campuses. That is, creating a new ORU, changing the name of an existing ORU, and consolidating, transferring, or disestablishing an existing ORU are campus decisions for which there is no systemwide review. If favorably reviewed by the relevant divisional Academic Senate committee(s) and approved by the campus administration, a proposed action involving an ORU is implemented.
Anticipated actions involving ORUs should be included in the Five-Year
Perspectives, and all final campus actions involving ORUs should be reported
to the Office of Research, UCOP. A report should be submitted as soon as
the action becomes final on the campus and again at the time the annual
report is requested by the Office of Research, UCOP.
V.B. Multicampus Research Units (MRUs)
V.B.1. Establishment of New Multicampus Research Units (MRUs)
Overview of Process
At least one year before a proposal for a new MRU (or new branch of an MRU) is approved on the host campus, it should have been included in the host campus’s Five-Year Perspective. Once the proposal is submitted by the host campus for systemwide review, it is simultaneously considered by the Office of the Vice Provost - Research, all UC campuses, UCORP, UCPB, and CCGA (with all three reporting to the Academic Council for the final recommendation). Review is based on the submitted written materials and answers to any questions reviewers may have. For a new MRU to be established, the Senate favorably reviews the proposal and the Vice Provost - Research must recommend approval to the Provost & Senior Vice President and to the President, and the President must approve it.
Details of Process
2. If the proposed MRU (or branch) was not included in any prior Five-Year Perspective, the host campus prepares and submits the 1- to 2-page description that would have been in the Five-Year Perspective (see Section I1b and Appendix 1). The Provost & Senior Vice President notifies everyone who would have learned of the proposed action via the usual Five-Year Perspective process (see Distribution List 1), and the UCORP, UCPB, CCGA, and UCOP reviews also address the systemwide perspective that would have been considered had the proposed action first been analyzed as part of a Five-Year Perspective.
3. Upon approval by the campus administration and favorable review by the Divisional Senate (ordinarily, at a minimum, the Committee on Research and the Graduate Council, or their equivalents) on the host campus, the Chancellor (or designee) simultaneously sends all required materials (see Appendix 6) to the systemwide Senate and UCOP administration. See Distribution List 17.
4. The Office of the Vice Provost - Research reviews the proposal for completeness, collects any missing information from the host campus and distributes it to the UCORP, UCPB, and CCGA chairs and analysts and the Council Chair with a letter including a due date for comments. The Vice Provost - Research also sends the proposal to the Chancellors (or designees) and Divisional Chairs of the non-host campuses and requests comments.
5. Review at non-host campuses includes consultation with the relevant divisional committee(s) (ordinarily, at a minimum, the Committee on Research and the Graduate Council, or their equivalents) and appropriate administrators. The Chancellors (or designees) notify the Vice Provost - Research of all campus comments, both the Senate’s and the administration’s. E-mail may be used.
6. UCORP, UCPB, and CCGA review the proposal. UCORP is the lead committee. If additional information is needed from the campus by any of the reviewing Senate committees, the committee communicates in writing (e-mail may be used) with the campus to request the additional information and copies the chairs and analysts of the other reviewing committees, the Council Chair, and the Vice Provost - Research.
7. The Senate committees report their recommendations to the Academic Council, which serves as arbiter if there is not concurrence among the committees. The Council Chair notifies the Vice Provost - Research of favorable review by the Senate committees.
8. In cases of disagreement about whether to establish an MRU (or branch), the Vice Provost - Research, Council Chair, and host campus Chancellor (or designee) establish a process of adjudication; however, the Vice Provost - Research retains final authority for the decision to recommend establishment of a new MRU (or branch) to the Provost & Senior Vice President and to the President.
9. After receiving all comments, the Vice Provost - Research recommends establishment of the new MRU (or branch) to the Provost & Senior Vice President and to the President.
10. After Presidential approval, the Provost & Senior Vice President
notifies the host campus Chancellor (or designee) and others of the establishment.
See Distribution List 18. Notification of non-host campus Chancellors and
Divisional Chairs may be done by e-mail.
Overview of Process
If the proposed name change is not associated with a fundamental change in the nature of the MRU or a need for substantial new resources, then the decision making process by the participating campuses is final. There is no systemwide review, but the action must be reported systemwide to the Vice Provost - Research and certain supporting materials must be provided. Campus decision making need only involve approval by the MRU advisory committee, favorable review by the participating campus Committees on Research (or equivalent) and Graduate Councils (and any other Senate committees the Division stipulates), and approval by the appropriate participating campus administrators. If such a "simple" name change is contemplated, the MRU director should consult with the Vice Provost - Research and the UCORP Chair.
Details of Process
When faculty want to change the name of an MRU, the MRU director should consult with the Vice Provost - Research and the UCORP Chair to determine whether it is a "simple" name change. The process described here is for "simple" name changes and is relevant only when the name change does not also involve (or signal) a fundamental change in the nature of the MRU and the MRU does not require substantial new resources. If either condition pertains, particularly a fundamental programmatic change, most likely systemwide review process such as that for establishing a new MRU will be requested.
2. The director of the MRU submits the material to the participating campuses’ Chancellors (or designees), Committees on Research (or equivalent), and Graduate Councils, with copies to the advisory committee of the MRU, Divisional Chair (in case other divisional committees need to review the proposal), and the Vice Provost - Research, who consults with the Chair of UCORP to be certain the two agree it is an uncomplicated name change proposal. E-mail may be used.
3. After the participating campuses’ Divisional Senates favorably review and appropriate administrators approve the proposal and communicate that to the host campus Chancellor (or designee), the Chancellor (or designee) of the host campus immediately notifies the Vice Provost - Research. His or her letter approves the proposed name change, confirms that the action does not involve a fundamental change in the nature of the MRU or require substantial new resources, and indicates that favorable reviews and approvals have been obtained. This notification also includes the MRU director’s proposal and letters from the host campus’s Senate committees (each letter indicating favorable review and confirming that the action does not involve a fundamental change in the nature of the MRU or require substantial new resources) and from the advisory committee of the MRU and from the participating campuses’ Committees on Research (or equivalent), Graduate Councils, any other Divisional Senate committees asked to comment, and Chancellors (or designees) (each letter, as appropriate, endorsing or approving the name change). The Chancellor (or designee) copies the UCORP chair and analyst and the Council Chair on the notification letter only. E-mail may be used if all materials are available in that form. The approved name change shall also be reported at the time the annual report is requested by the Office of Research, UCOP.
4. The Vice Provost - Research informs all relevant parties of the name
change. See Distribution List 19.
V.B.3. Disestablishment
of Multicampus Research Units (MRUs)
Overview of Process
1. Following a five-year regular review, a fifteen-year review, or other process of review established by the Vice Provost - Research and following consultation with the advisory committee of the MRU, the Vice Provost- -Research prepares a recommendation for disestablishment of the MRU (or branch). This recommendation will cover, at a minimum, all the information specified for a notice of a proposed disestablishment (see Appendix 1).
2. The Vice Provost - Research forwards the proposal and supporting materials to the chairs and analysts of UCORP, UCPB, and CCGA for comment, with a copy of the transmittal letter to the Council Chair. The Vice Provost - Research also requests comment from all Chancellors (or designees). On those campuses where the MRU has an active presence, the campus review should include consultation with the appropriate Divisional Senate committees (ordinarily, at a minimum, the Committee on Research or equivalent and Graduate Council). The campus Chancellor (or designee) should organize that consultation.
3. The Chancellors (or designees) submit all campus comments, including those from the Divisional Senate committees, to the Vice Provost - Research. E-mail may be used.
4. UCORP, UCPB, and CCGA review the proposal. UCORP is the lead committee. The committees report their recommendations to the Academic Council, which serves as arbiter if there is not concurrence among them. The Council Chair notifies the Vice Provost - Research of favorable review by the Senate committees. E-mail may be used.
5. After receiving all comments, the Vice Provost - Research recommends disestablishment of the MRU (or branch) to the Provost & Senior Vice President and to the President.
6. After Presidential approval, the Provost & Senior Vice President
notifies the host campus Chancellor (or designee) and others of the decision.
See Distribution List 20.
Overview of Process
The campus may request that the systemwide Senate and UCOP initiate Universitywide review simultaneously with campus review. Such a request would be most likely to occur when very rapid action is needed; for example, to institute budget reductions that might be achieved through reconstitution. Campus and systemwide representatives of the Senate and administration agree on the schedule, materials, distribution procedures, and problem resolution processes. Usual campus and systemwide review and approval processes are carried out simultaneously. If the campus proposal begins to diverge markedly from that under review systemwide, systemwide review can be suspended. Final systemwide approvals are given after the campus has approved the proposal and it is verified that the approved campus proposal is consistent with that reviewed systemwide.
Details of Process
2. As necessary, the Coordinator - Program Review negotiates with CPEC a schedule for concurrent review and assures that all CPEC questions are answered by the proposing campus. On all proposed actions on which its concurrence would ordinarily be sought, CPEC reports its concurrence to the Coordinator - Program Review, with a copy to the Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives.
3. Upon sending notice of the proposed academic program or academic unit action(s) to the Provost & Senior Vice President, the Chancellor (or designee) also sends review materials to the reviewers, as agreed to in step 1.
4. The Coordinator - Program Review prepares a review of the proposal, obtains approval of the review from the Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives, and distributes the review to the designated Senate review committees. E-mail may be used.
5. The Senate review committees that would ordinarily review the proposed action, and any other committees the Council Chair designates, convey questions regarding the proposal directly to the campus for response, copying other reviewing committees and the Coordinator - Program Review. E-mail may be used.
6. The Chair of the systemwide committee that would ordinarily be the lead Senate committee for the proposed action (e.g., the CCGA Chair for a school that would offer graduate degree programs, the UCORP Chair for an MRU) is responsible for coordinating the systemwide committees participating in the accelerated review. As necessary, this Chair convenes the Chairs of the other systemwide Senate committees participating in the review. The Chair of the Divisional Senate may be included in these discussions.
7. The systemwide Senate committees make their final recommendations only after the Divisional Senate and campus administration have variously approved and completed favorable review of the proposal. If the proposal undergoes significant change in the course of campus review, the systemwide Senate may suspend further review until the fully revised proposal is available and near campus agreement. If any systemwide Senate committee suspends review under these circumstances, the committee Chair informs relevant parties. See Distribution List 21.
8. The Senate review committees report their comments, final recommendations, and any required approvals to the Academic Council. If CCGA would ordinarily act on behalf of the Senate with regard to all or part of the proposed action, then its decision is also final in an accelerated review. If there is not concurrence on other actions among the reviewing committees, the Academic Council serves as arbiter. If any part of the proposal requires Assembly action, the Council Chair makes appropriate arrangements. The Council Chair reports the Senate comments, recommendations, and approvals to the Provost & Senior Vice President. See Distribution List 22.
9. The Provost & Senior Vice President reviews the Senate materials, resolves any issues arising from the reviews with the campus, and makes a recommendation to the President who, depending on the proposed action(s), approves, approves implementation, or recommends to the Regents approval of the action(s).
10. If Regental action is required, the President recommends approval to the Regents who approve it.
11. The Provost & Senior Vice President informs the Chancellor (or
designee) of final approval, copying others involved in the process. See
Distribution List 23.
The Academic Planning Council (APC) was established in January 1994 to give guidance on planning issues of Universitywide concern. It is chaired by the Provost & Senior Vice President, with the Academic Council Chair serving as Vice Chair. Membership includes the Chairs of CCGA, UCPB, and UCEP, the key Senate committees responsible for academic planning issues, plus the Academic Council Vice Chair; key administrators, including the Vice Presidents for Health Affairs and for Agriculture and Natural Resources, and representative Academic and Student Affairs Vice Chancellors; and faculty and students. Key Academic Affairs planning staff support the work of the APC.
Although this Compendium outlines roles for the APC that can be characterized as attentive to Universitywide concerns that may have implications for individual campus proposals that are reviewed systemwide, the APC does not take action on such proposals. Section I describes the APC's optional role in reviewing the annual Five-Year Perspectives for academic units, academic programs, and research units and/or any planning issues arising from their review. In addition, Sections I and IIIB1 describe APC’s role as the designated committee for coordinating early feedback to a campus that is planning to propose creation of a new school or college. Moreover, throughout the Compendium, there are references to routes by which the Senate or Academic Affairs can identify potential Universitywide issues to be referred to the APC for deliberation. These are mechanisms by which APC may bring a systemwide perspective to the attention of those on the campuses who are developing proposals that will ultimately be submitted for systemwide review and approval; the composition of the APC and of its staff assures that the process of referral and disposition can be handled efficiently.
While most questions raised by the Senate or Academic Affairs can be resolved by interactions with the campuses, some may be of a magnitude that goes beyond the single-campus resolution. Universitywide issues of this sort usually have implications for efficient use of the University's resources across the system and can include:
* Potential for cooperative planning/cost-effective alternatives
* Disappearance of programmatic area from the entire system
* Appropriateness of a major new programmatic direction to campus mission
* Student interest in various programmatic areas
* Needs of the state and nation
* Resource needs and opportunities
Such planning issues should be referred to the APC for discussion and
advice on how to proceed with resolving them. The APC might recommend referral
to existing groups, creation of ad hoc groups, a special staff study, convening
of an APC subcommittee, or other approach to gather information and expert
advice. At the conclusion of the planning activity, the Chair and the Vice
Chair of the APC would determine how to transmit the results to the campuses.
The composition of the APC assures ready incorporation of results into
future deliberations and planning activities.
Throughout this Compendium, terminology for academic programs, academic units, and research units corresponds with that used in University policies and guidelines. However, from time to time, campuses may use terms other than those cited in policy or guidelines, terms that are applied to a variety of disparate entities. An example is the term "division." A division can be a subunit within a department or a subunit of a school or college, or it may transcend college boundaries.
When the entity being described in a proposed action (for example, establishment or a name change) corresponds in the details of its organization, content, or level of self-governance to one of the programs or units covered in this Compendium, even though its label does not conform to the terminology used here, it should be reviewed according to the pertinent guidelines.
IX. Disagreements between Divisional Senate and Campus Administration
Historically, the Divisional Senate and campus administration have generally concurred in sending forward for Universitywide review proposals for actions affecting academic programs, academic units, and research units. There is little reason to anticipate significant change in this pattern. There is every reason to want it to continue. Given the nature of the University and its work, campuses will function better when the Divisional Senate and campus administration reach agreement. On the other hand, the Standing Orders of the Regents provide for a separation of responsibilities of the Academic Senate and administration, delegating responsibility for courses, curricula, and degrees to the Academic Senate and responsibility for academic units and budgets to the administration. Particularly in difficult financial conditions, there is a possibility that the Divisional Senate and campus administration will disagree about how to organize academic programs, academic units, and research units. The Compendium treats every proposed action as though the campus sent it for Universitywide review only after it had been reviewed and supported by both the Divisional Senate and campus administration. However, a disputed proposal will receive Universitywide review.
A disputed proposal for any of the entities and actions included in
Sections II, III, IV, and V of the Compendium may be submitted for Universitywide
review when it has been reviewed by both the Divisional Senate and the
campus administration and has been approved by the relevant party (Divisional
Senate for academic degree programs; campus administration for academic
units and research units). The campus submission for Universitywide review
shall include the standard review dossier plus statements from both parties
explaining the reasons for their respective positions. The Provost &
Senior Vice President, Academic Council Chair, Chancellor (or designee),
and Divisional Chair shall discuss the proposal and agree on the systemwide
review process and timetable. Ordinarily, they will opt for a process as
close as possible to the usual Universitywide review process for the particular
entity(ies) and proposed action(s), as described in Sections II, III, IV,
or V, and the Senate-administration disagreement would be an additional
factor considered by Universitywide reviewers in arriving at their decisions.
X. On-line Reports on Academic Programs, Academic Units, and Research Units
The Coordinator - Program Review maintains an on-line report on campus proposals for the changes in the academic programs, academic units, and research units that are described in this Compendium. The purpose of the on-line report is to keep certain UC constituencies informed of the progress of proposed changes through the Universitywide review stages.
The on-line report is organized according to the Table of Contents of the Compendium. Each entry for in-progress and recently completed systemwide review transactions includes a chronology of review steps that have been completed. The report is updated every couple of weeks.
Report URL (as of 7/99): http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/appr/apprtoc.html
Academic Council of the Systemwide Academic Senate. The Academic Council consists of a Chair and Vice Chair, the Chairs of the nine Divisional Senates, and the Chairs of six systemwide Senate committees (University Committees on Academic Policy, Educational Policy, Faculty Welfare, and Planning and Budget, the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, and the Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs). The Academic Council advises the President of the University on behalf of the Assembly of the Academic Senate. When more than one committee reviews a proposal during the systemwide review process, the Council integrates responses and serves as arbiter if the committees do not agree in their recommendations. The Council may act on behalf of the Assembly in approving the establish of new graduate degree titles.
APC
Academic Planning Council. This systemwide administration-Senate committee consists of the Provost & Senior Vice President (Chair), Council Chair (Vice Chair), Vice President for Health Affairs, Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources, Council Vice Chair, three campus administrators (Chancellor, Academic Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs Vice Chancellor), Chairs of UCEP, CCGA, and UCPB, two faculty at large, an undergraduate student, and a graduate student. APC provides universitywide guidance and advice on academic and strategic planning, coordinates universitywide academic planning activities with pertinent related activities, guides innovation and redirection of academic efforts within UC as a whole, and advises on interactions with CPEC. Any issues arising from review of the Five-Year Perspectives would be brought to APC. APC also reviews the early announcement of an anticipated proposal for a new school or college and makes recommendations to the President on approval of new schools and colleges.
Assembly
Assembly of the Academic Senate. The Assembly consists of the President of the University; a Chair and Vice Chair (who are also ex officio Chair and Vice Chair of the Academic Council); a Secretary/Parliamentarian; 16 ex officio members (the Chairs of the nine Divisional Senates; the Chairs of the same six systemwide committees included in the Academic Council membership; and the Vice Chair of UCEP) and 40 Divisional Representatives allocated proportional to faculty in each Division. The Assembly is authorized to consider any and all matters of concern to the Academic Senate as a whole and has the power to take final action concerning all legislation substantially affecting more than one Division or the statewide University. In the Compendium processes, it approves the establishment of new graduate degree titles.
CCGA
Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs, Academic Senate. CCGA consists
the President, one representative from each Divisional Graduate Council,
and two at large members, one serving as Chair and the other as Vice Chair.
CCGA reviews and approves proposals for new programs for established and
graduate degrees, and recommends approval for new graduate degree titles.
It also comments on proposed actions involving schools and colleges and
MRUs, as well as the proposed actions in the Five-Year Perspectives, particularly
those involving graduate degree programs. CCGA advises the President of
the University and all agencies of the Senate regarding the promotion of
research and learning related to graduate affairs.
Chancellor (or designee)
Chancellor of a UC campus or his or her designee. In most Compendium actions, the Academic Vice Chancellor or Executive Vice Chancellor acts as designee. The Chancellor (or designee) approves proposals involving departments, schools and colleges, ORUs, and MRUs, and favorably reviews proposals involving undergraduate and graduate degree programs.
COGD
Council of Graduate Deans. COGD consists of the Graduate Deans (or equivalent) from the nine campuses, one of whom serves as convener. It meets regularly, with the Provost & Senior Vice President and other UCOP administrators and staff joining them, to discuss graduate education in UC. In the Compendium processes, it has the opportunity to review and comment on the Five-Year Perspectives.
COVC
Council of Vice Chancellors. COVC consists of the Executive (or Academic) Vice Chancellors (or equivalent) from the nine campuses, one of whom serves as convener. It meets regularly, with the Provost & Senior Vice President and other UCOP administrators and staff joining them, to discuss academic issues and initiatives of mutual interest. In the Compendium processes, it has the opportunity to review and comment on the Five-Year Perspectives.
COVCR
Council of Vice Chancellors for Research. COVCR consists of the Vice Chancellors for Research (or equivalent) from the nine campuses, one of whom serves as convener. It meets regularly, with the Provost & Senior Vice President, the Vice Provost - Research, and other UCOP administrators and staff, to discuss research initiatives and issues. In the Compendium processes, it has the opportunity to review and comment on the Five-Year Perspectives.
Coordinator - Program Review
Coordinator - Program Review, UCOP. The Coordinator reports to the Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives in Academic Affairs. He or she handles all the coordination, reporting, and recordkeeping associated with actions involving academic programs and academic units. He or she also prepares analyses of proposals of new graduate degree programs and of anticipated undergraduate and graduate degree programs included in the Five-Year Perspectives.
Council Chair
Chair of the Academic Council and Assembly of the Academic Senate. The Council Chair is elected as Vice Chair by the General Assembly, serves one year as Vice Chair, and then one year as Chair. He or she organizes Council consideration of committee reactions to proposals involving schools and colleges and MRUs, manages Senate commentary on the Five-Year Perspectives, and provides leadership as needed in the systemwide review processes.
CPEC
California Postsecondary Education Commission. This state agency coordinates
postsecondary education, representing the public interest and serving the
public good (Donahoe Higher Education Act, Section 66903 of the Education
Code). It prepares a five-year state plan, drawing in part from the UC
Five-Year Perspectives and reviews and concurs with actions involving UC
graduate degree programs, schools, and colleges.
Director – Multicampus Research
Director – Multicampus Research Planning and Programs, UCOP. The Director reports to the Vice Provost – Research in Academic Affairs. He or she is responsible for programmatic oversight of MRUs and other multicampus research programs, for fostering new intercampus research collaborations, and for managing competitive grants programs housed in the Office of Research. He or she coordinates systemwide reviews of MRUs and serves as liaison to and point person for the various reviewing entities that participate in such reviews.
Divisional Senate
The Nine Campus Divisions of the Academic Senate. Under authority from the Regents, faculty belong to an Academic Senate that is organized into divisional Senates, one for each campus, and a systemwide Senate. On each campus, review processes for academic programs, academic units, and research units are similar to those used systemwide, with committees of the divisional Senate variously approving and favorably reviewing proposed actions in these three areas. Divisional Senate committees also have the opportunity to review the UC Five-Year Perspectives.
President
President of the University of California. He or she is responsible for the overall organization, budget, and well functioning of all components of the University of California. In the Compendium processes, he or she approves establishment and disestablishment of MRUs; under a delegation from the Board of Regents, approves the creation of a new graduate degree title, and recommends to the Board of Regents their approval of the establishment and disestablishment of a school or college.
Provost & Senior Vice President
Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, UCOP. He or she reports directly to the President and, with the exception of the health sciences and agriculture and natural resources, is responsible for all systemwide engagement with UC academic life. The UCOP portions of all systemwide review processes are managed by the Provost & Senior Vice President, acting as the President’s designee.
The Regents
Board of Regents of the University of California. The Board of Regents consists of 7 members ex officio (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, Superintendent of Public Instruction, President and Vice President of UC Alumni Association, and UC President), 18 members appointed to 12-year terms, and one student appointed for one year. Two alumni regents designate and two faculty representatives also participate in meetings of the Board of Regents. The Regents have ultimate responsibility for the well being of the University. Many responsibilities have been delegated to the President, Chancellors, other administrators, and the faculty. In the Compendium processes, the Regents approve the establishment and disestablishment of schools and colleges.
Senate
Universitywide Academic Senate. Under authority from the Regents, faculty
belong to an Academic Senate that is organized into divisional Senates,
one for each campus, and a systemwide Senate. In the Compendium, the term
Senate refers to this formal faculty structure. Whether it is systemwide
or divisional will be clear either because that is explicitly stated or
because the context makes it clear. In the Compendium processes, either
on the campus or systemwide, the Senate has approval authority for actions
involving academic degree programs and consults on actions involving academic
units and research units.
TCDD
Transfer, Consolidation, Disestablishment, and Discontinuance. These four processes substantially transform academic programs, academic units, and/or research units. Transfer involves moving a program or unit into another one that subsumes it. Consolidation involves bringing together two or more programs or units to form a new unified program or unit. Disestablishment involves doing away with an academic unit or research unit. Discontinuance involves doing away with an academic program.
UC
University of California. UC refers to the University as a whole and to any part of the University -- students, faculty, staff, and administrators on the nine campuses and systemwide.
UCEP
University Committee on Educational Policy, Academic Senate. UCEP consists of a Chair, a Vice Chair, the Assembly Chair, and a representative from each Divisional Committee on Educational Policy. UCEP initiates appropriate studies and reports on the establishment or disestablishment of curricula and academic units, and on legislation or administrative policies involving educational policy. In the Compendium processes, it comments on and recommends approval of proposed actions involving schools and colleges. UCEP also analyzes the Five-Year Perspectives, particularly those involving undergraduate degree programs.
UCOP
University of California, Office of the President. UCOP refers to the systemwide administrative arm of the University, including senior administrators and staff.
UCORP
University Committee on Research Policy, Academic Senate. UCORP consists of a Chair and a representative from each Divisional Senate, one of whom is Vice Chair. UCORP considers matters pertaining to fostering research, general research policies, and procedures. In the Compendium processes, UCORP comments on and recommends approval of proposed actions involving MRUs. UCORP also analyzes the ORU and MRU proposed actions included in the Five-Year Perspectives.
UCPB
University Committee on Planning and Budget, Academic Senate. UCPB consists of a Chair, a Vice Chair, the Assembly Vice Chair, the UCORP Chair, and a representative from each Divisional Committee on Planning and Budget (or equivalent). UCPB advises university administration on policy regarding planning and budget matters and resource allocations. In the Compendium processes, UCPB comments on and recommends approval of proposed actions involving schools and colleges and MRUs. UCPB also analyzes the Five-Year Perspectives.
Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives
Vice Provost for Academic Initiatives, UCOP. He or she reports directly to the Provost & Senior Vice President and is responsible for systemwide engagement with academic planning, academic programs and units, and various academic initiatives. The Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives supervises the UCOP portions of systemwide recordkeeping and review processes involving undergraduate and graduate degree programs, departments, schools and colleges, these portions of the Five-Year Perspectives, and engagement with CPEC.
Vice Provost - Research
Vice Provost for Research, UCOP. He or she reports directly to the Provost
& Senior Vice President and is responsible for systemwide engagement
with research. The UCOP portions of systemwide recordkeeping and review
processes involving ORUs, MRUs, and these portions of the Five-Year Perspectives
are supervised by the Vice Provost - Academic Initiatives.
Five-Year Perspectives (Section I)
Provost & Senior Vice President Distribution of Review Materials (I3)
To the extent possible, the UC Five-Year Perspective (including the lists and detailed descriptions from all campuses), the UCOP summaries, and the ORU/MRU lists will be placed on a UCOP website rather than distributed as paper copies. Again, to the extent possible, the information at this website could be downloaded and would be in a format that could be manipulated, once downloaded (e.g., a database). Distribution would then consist of notifying people (by letter, e-mail, or both) of the website location and contents.
Sender
Five-Year Perspectives (Section I)
Distribution of Comments from Systemwide Reviewing Committees (I5)
The distribution of comments from systemwide Senate, Administrative, and joint Senate-Administrative committees will vary from year to year. Depending on their nature, comments could be sent only to systemwide people and/or committees, to the campuses with copies systemwide, or perhaps both. The following general points should be followed in constructing a distribution list:
Five-Year Perspectives (Section I)
APC Chair and Vice Chair Notice of Plan to Address Systemwide Issues (I6)
Senders
Establishment of New Graduate Degree Programs (Section IIB1)
Chancellor (or Designee) Submission of Dossier (IIB1.3)
Sender