From kdhoover@ucdavis.edu Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:58:17 -0700 From: Kevin D. Hoover To: Joe Kiskis Cc: wgdavis@ucdavis.edu, mamarino@ucdavis.edu Subject: Writing Program Dear Joe, Thanks for bringing the reporting-lines documents to me on Friday. They were not what I expected, showing the organizational charts of other writing programs rather than anything clarifying your own proposal. Given that, I don't really think that I (nor apparently my colleagues on CERJ) have anything more to add to the comments that I have given you earlier. You have given me many reassurances that you understand the key points: the Senate must control the curriculum and that there is room for confusion and conflict between the Board (not exclusively Senate) and the Program Committee (Senate) over authority. To me this seems like an accident waiting to happen. In any case, I will look forward to seeing the more detailed proposals as it develops. Best wishes, Kevin ============================================================ From kdhoover@ucdavis.edu Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:19:47 -0700 From: Kevin D. Hoover To: Joe Kiskis , aycheer@ucdavis.edu, bajaffee@ucdavis.edu, farrens@cs.ucdavis.edu, Joe Kiskis , jfquinn@ucdavis.edu, psrodman@ucdavis.edu, Academic Senate Chair Cc: wgdavis@ucdavis.edu, mamarino@ucdavis.edu Subject: Re: Proposal for a University Writing Program Dear Joe, Thanks for your latest proposal on the proposed writing program. Please note that the proposal indicates three attachments, none of which were attached nor available at the web address that you gave in a subsequent e-mail message. I have forwarded it to the members of CERJ, and we will respond by your 12 May date if there are any matters beyond the ones that I want to raised immediately. On 4 March 2004, I sent you comments on an earlier version. As far as I can tell, these comments still apply completely to the current version. I copy them here with some additional thoughts: From 4 March message: >Section 2. Governance: > >The Chair of the Division and the Provost shall jointly appoint the >members of UWB. I am worried by the bald "jointly." It is better to be >crystal clear about how appointments are made. Also, normally such >appointments are made by Committee on Committees. This is not a >requirement -- I merely observe. > >The scope and authority of the UWB is not well defined. Are they in >charge of the curricular design? Of personnel? Do they act as a >surrogate department in the manner that program committees act as >surrogate departments elsewhere on campus? If so, some of their >responsibilities are exclusively Senate matters. On both curriculum and >personnel matters final votes of such a committee must be restricted to >its Senate members. I am also concerned about the heavy Administrative >representation on UWP. Deans are members of the Senate, but generally do >not function on departmental level Senate committees. This is especially >anomalous since the UWB, which may have, say, the Dean of Engineering, and >the Associate Dean of A&ES as members, reports to the Dean of HaRCs. If >UWB does not function as a surrogate department, then exactly who would be >responsible for protected Senate functions in the UWP? I would guess that >the motivation here was to include all interesed parties. But combined >with the failure to specify the responsibilities of the UWB, it is a bit >of mess. It really needs to be carefully rethought with attention to the >functions that UWB must accomplish and the constraints of Senate and >Administration rules. Additional comments: Your proposal calls for two-year staggered terms -- but for whom? Some of the people on the UWP are there by virtue of their offices. The whole structure and appointments to the UWP needs significant clarification. Similarly, the plan says that the Dean of HArCS shall appoint the Director. I doubt that is acceptable in a formal sense. All such appointments are in the hands of the Chancellor, who in practice delegates. It is also seems that the budget to support the center is left in a muddle in the proposal. It needs to be specific about the source of its funds. Do the funds come directly from the Provost office or through the Dean of HArCs? Confusion on such a point may lead to tears and recriminations later. From 4 March message: >Section 8. CAI > >Am I the only one who has no idea what CAI is? Joe, you have mostly seen these comments before. I take the governance issues to be highly important. The main lines of the proposal seem good to me. It would be a pity not to straighten these matters out. But a proposal that did not make these matters absolutely clear would not just be imperfect, but would deserve active opposition. Best wishes, Kevin