Notes of the

CAMPUS WELFARE COMMITTEE

Meeting of June 5, 2001

 

The Campus Welfare Committee met on June 5, 2001 at 3:00 pm in room 481 McHenry Library.

 

Present: Leslie Sunell (chair), Mark Traugott, Sheila Gottehrer, Janelle Marines, Bill Ladusaw, Marty Chemers, Christina Valentino, Barbara Brogan, Frank Talamantes, Max Ritchie (staff).

 

Absent: Jean Marie Scott, William Domhoff, Line Mikkelsen, Meredith Michaels, Julian Fernald (staff).

 

Guests: Willeen McQuitta, Geri Wolff.

 

 

 1.Announcements and General Discussion.

·          Minutes for the May 15 meeting were approved.            

 

2. Faculty/Staff Housing

 

The CWC’s Housing Recommendation will be delivered to Campus Provost & EVC Simpson tomorrow. The revised draft incorporates a stronger emphasis on the key recommendations to proceed with master planning, to track demand for housing, and to address the questions identified by the CWC in the master planning process. 

 

3. Update on Faculty Senate Committee on Housing (Traugott)

 

Traugott reported that a resolution regarding faculty housing was presented to and voted at the Academic Senate meeting on May 30. The resolution calls for freezing the waiting list for on-campus for-sale housing. In addition, a new special committee of the Academic Senate is proposed as a liaison with the Committee on Faculty Welfare and the Committee on Land Use, Building, and Development (CLUBD).

 

There was a brief CWC discussion of the resolution’s exclusive focus on the faculty’s access to housing.

 

4. Principles of Community Statement (POC)  (Gotterhrer)

 

The document has been presented to many campus groups and individuals, and Gotterher shared with the CWC a summary of their feedback. Feedback is as follows:

 

·          The Vice Chancellors approved of the POC and encouraged CWC to move quickly toward adoption and implementation

·          Roger Anderson, Chair of the Academic Senate, thought the document was good. He suggested the addition of the word ‘honesty’ to the initial introductory paragraph. Anderson will present the document to the Senate Advisory Committee.

·          The SUA thought that the document was “positive and great” and the chair is looking forward to signing it.

·          Chad Sanger, Chair of the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, Transgender Campus Concerns Committee, as well as the UC system wide LGBT group, composed an email to Ombudsmen Gottehrer.  The email stated that Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgender campus members are treated as second-class citizens and feel that they do not have equal rights.  Gottehrer noted that the campus is ‘aspiring’ to the notions set out in the POC statement and that we haven’t necessarily achieved its mission yet.

·          The Graduate Student Association supported the POC. They emphasized a need for wide dissemination of the statement, such as posters and encouraging people to talk about it in many forums.

·          Labor Relations approved provided constructive feedback.

·          University Counsel thought it was fine.

·          Faculty Welfare Committee thought the document was ‘admirable and succinct’.  They will endorse it as a set of guidelines for the University community.

·          The Committee on Privilege and Tenure approved.

·          The College Administrative Officers supported it.

 

Approval is still pending from the following individuals/groups:

·          PAC

·          Chancellor

·          Campus Provost & EVC

·          Council of Provosts

·          Senate Advisory Committee

·          Senate Committee on Academic Freedom

 

ACTION: Present to Provost’s Advisory Council on Tuesday June 12 for endorsement.

 

5. Caesar Chavez Day and Calendaring (Traugott)

 

The state has passed a law that makes March 31 a state holiday to honor Caesar Chavez. Traugotts’ understanding of the law is that public schools will have an option as to when to observe this holiday.

 

UC Vice President Mullinix has proposed that UC honor Chavez on the last Friday of March.  The intention is to schedule it over a quarter break. This won’t necessarily coordinate with the current UCSC calendar.  Also worth noting is that the day doesn’t necessarily need to be observed consistently throughout the UC campuses.  Realistically, this holiday cannot be initiated on campus until 2003-2004.

 

VC Vani was asked to pull together a campus response and forward it back to VP Mullinix.  Vani sent a letter to Deans, Vice Chancellors and the Academic Senate. A response has not been compiled yet.

 

Traugott reported that among the Faculty Welfare Committee there is some sentiment that since this holiday falls on a specific date, and therefore changes days each year, it may be disruptive to the academic calendar. Adding the holiday during the term will alter the number of instructional days, which are already very constrained.

 

Other options/ideas from the CWC:

·          Designate the day as an Administrative holiday over quarter break. This proposal may be disadvantageous to staff.

·          Make it a floating holiday over the December break.

·          Reopen the calendar process and consider, among other options, the possibilities of adjusting the start or end date of the academic year.

 

There was no clear consensus on this issue, and no immediate CWC action is needed. Will revisit the topic.

 

6. Member Announcements

 

·          Willeen McQuita will bring a revised letter about the campus policy on children in the workplace to the next meeting.