MINUTES OF THE UCIEA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2006, 915 A.M.

ACADEMIC SENATE CONFERENCE ROOM, 2701 BERKELEY PLACE SOUTH

Present: Justin Call, Kenneth Dumars, Julian Feldman, Jeri Frederick, Barbara Hamkalo, Ann Heiney, Mark Hoffer, Judd Hubert, Stuart Krassner, Peggy Maradudin, Ronald Miller, Robert Montgomery, Lorie Reed, Myron Simon, John Swett, Jerome Tobis.

Call to order and introductions: New members (Dumars, Hoffer, and Krassner) were introduced, and it was noted that Rui de Figueiredo, Ted Quiilligan, and Stephen Scheinberg may also join us in the future. Vice-chair Miller (in the absence of Chairman Kivie Moldave) elected to change the order of agenda items in order to consider the most substantive items first.

Minutes of November 7 and December 5, 2005 were approved as written except to correct Ann Stephens' name in the minutes of December 5.

Liaison to and from the Academic Senate: Miller suggested we consider such liaison, and Feldman noted that the Senate Committee on Emeritae/i of a decade ago became a subcommittee of the Council on Faculty Welfare when there was Senate reorganization approximately 5 years ago. The subcommittee has three appointed members (Feldman, Tobis, and Simon) and the UCIEA Executive Committee Chair (Moldave). Peggy Maradudin indicated that her husband, Alex, was the Senate representative to the UCIEA Executive Committee for a number of years, but apparently -- perhaps beginning at the time the Senate was reorganized -- no one has taken his place in recent years. It was recommended that our Chair or Vice Chair request the Academic Senate have a representative attend our meetings whenever possible.

Scandals of the School of Medicine: Miller asked if we might again discuss the current emotion-laden problem. There seemed to be interest and concern, and therefore Miller reviewed the discussion at our last meeting for the benefit of the three new members. It had been asked whether the UCIEA might review the scandals that had plagued the School of Medicine as some suggested, but others felt this responsibility might more properly fall on the Academic Senate either of the Campus or of the School of Medicine. Two members thought intense competition and economic factors accounted for the problems. Although several attendees had left the meeting by the time of this discussion, an equal number supported and opposed the recommendation that the UCIEA further consider the matter, effectively ending discussion at the prior meeting.

In raising the issue again on this occasion, Miller suggested that emeritae/i are invulnerable, experienced, knowledgeable, tolerant, and rested but restless (which might contribute to creativity). It was recommended that another attribute is historical memory, and in subsequent discussion several others also mentioned the value of invulnerability for uninhibited commentary. Concern was expressed, however, regarding the value of unsolicited advice and whether the improbability of our ability to make an impact justified the time and energy we would need to expend. Another individual suggested that to create institutional change required the power of money and the advice of attorneys. Several mentioned that there might be committees in addition to the Chancellor's select committee evaluating the liver transplant program problems, but no such committee could be identified other than (1)a bioethics luncheon group (which, at its meeting in December, discussed scandals at UCI and at other academic medical centers, discussed both successful and unsuccessful measures taken, and planned a second meeting after the blue-ribbon committee report) and, (2) following a meeting with three other members of the medical school faculty, the Chair of the UCIMC Medical Ethics Committee and the Director of Medical Ethics Education recently wrote the Chancellor hoping to speak with him. To our knowledge there is no Campus or School of Medicine Senate or Emeritae/i committee considering the matter other than the select committee.

Two members shifted the discussion, which had been focused on the School of Medicine scandal, to the broader issues of the role of faculty in the governance of universities, including UCI. One observed the development of our Academic Senate and similar strong faculty bodies at other universities in the 1960s following Senator McCarthy's hearings and the loyalty oaths of the 1950s. He noted the strength of our Senate when he joined the faculty in 1969 but its lesser influence subsequently. He observed that we (faculty and emeritae/i) have been "too timid". Yet another voice expressed concern regarding the lack of an independent board of visitors (community members, retired judges and lawyers) for public hospitals such as our UCI Medical Center. He felt University governance without external oversight may account for problems being addressed inadequately.

Following an hour of discussion, it was moved (and passed unanimously) that our Chair or Vice Chair appoint an emeritus sub-committee to consider future ethical issues that may arise on our campus (including the Irvine as well as the Orange campuses) and how the Emeritae/i might assist in preventing ethical problems or in detecting them sufficiently early that harm to patients and/or research subjects is minimized. One individual wished to have the minutes of this meeting sent to the Chancellor, but the Chair failed to reraise this suggestion for a decision. Thus, we elected not to provide unsolicited advice from the UCIEA regarding the current School of Medicine crisis, but felt that individual emeritae/i could proceed as they felt advisable.

Program Committee: Gratitude was expressed to Julian Feldman and Marilyn for hosting the holiday evening in December and to Ann Stephens for donating the wine, and to her and Barbara Hamkalo for obtaining the food. By virtue of their generosity, the cost was covered by the door fees. We also owe a debt of gratitude to Chancellor Michael Drake not only for addressing us at the January reception, but for hosting it.

Feldman reported that Ms. Frederick had negotiated excellent arrangements with the University Club for the February 28 UCIEA meeting at which Michael Clark will talk about the UCI 10-year strategic plan, but unfortunately the room is not available for a luncheon meeting that day. Julian indicated we could have lunch in the Senate Conference Room or meet at 2 p.m. at the University Club -- which was our preference. Julian hopes to arrange another meeting in late April on “how to talk with your doctor”. He announced two upcoming University Club fora that are of interest: one by Barry Gough on February 8 on Arthur Marder and his work on the Royal Navy, and Jean Aldrich on February 15 on recollections of a Chancellor's wife. .

University-wide Committee on Faculty Welfare: Feldman, UCI's Representative on the Committee, reported that at the meeting in January the Committee reviewed reports of consultants regarding changes in the retirement system that are under consideration in response to budgetary realities. They will particularly affect individuals near to retirement or recently retired, and there is to be less money available for cost-of-living adjustments. The Regents’ consultants concluded our benefits are high in comparison with other universities (though apparently no comparison was made with CalPers). It is expected that health benefits will be cut to retirees first, and only thereafter to active faculty. This will probably affect both current and future retirees. The Committee meets again this Friday, and more will be known thereafter.

Emeritae/i Subcommittee of the UCI Council on Faculty Welfare: The meeting on January 17 discussed IRBs (institutional review boards or human subjects review committees), the proposed new School of Design, and "affirmative action "or diversity planning (about which Pauline Yahr has written). There was relatively little enthusiasm for free night and weekend parking on the campus.

Myron Simon recommended the Emeritae/i Subcommittee survey all departments at UCI regarding the benefits provided emeritae/i such as office space, mail delivery, mail reception, telephone, computer access, etc. Hearsay suggests wide variability, and Simon thinks there should be some parity of benefits. Hamkalo recommended the survey be well written for statistical validity of results, and Julian Feldman reported statistical fees were $80 per hour and that the statistician's services might be required for three or four hours. Thus, the Executive Committee voted unanimously to approve $300 for this purpose.

Newsletter: Editor Robert Montgomery reported that he now has only one or two obituaries and no other material for the next newsletter. Since there are to be two more newsletters this academic year (the last one traditionally in May to announce the June UCIEA meeting), the other should appear in March and thus should be written this month. Apparently the Geriatrics Department contact has offered to send Jeri Frederick articles on senior health for the newsletter, but we need more recommendations for, or submission of, articles to be sent to Montgomery.

Treasurer's report: We now have a balance (in the account separate from that of the $2000 allotment from the Executive Vice Chancellor) of $1387 which is about $300 less than at this time last year. In addition, only 20 individuals have paid dues thus far this year compared with 77 last year. The amount paid in dues and contributions is $910 less than paid in dues at this time last year. Because of the generosity of additional contributions, this has not had as large an impact on our income as it might otherwise. A request for dues from those who have not yet paid should be prominent in our newsletter. We continue to have difficulty not only with the contact information for emeritae/i but even knowing who are emeritae/i. Feldman noted that privacy concerns limit the information we receive, and in addition if an emerita/us takes a lump-sum buyout at retirement, she or he is lost to the list.

Retirement Relations Center and Director: Ms. Frederick requested updated information for the address, e-mail, telephone number list of Executive Committee members. There was no objection to including phone numbers.

Ms. Frederick was pleased with the approximate 100 responses for the Chancellor/ UCI Reitree's reception in January despite the fact that some of the invitations somehow went to the San Bernardino Post Office and were delayed in delivery. She indicated that the RRC plans to hold this event with the Chancellor, annually.

Ms. Frederick was particularly pleased that there is a possibility of space for the Retirees' Relations Center being considered by the Executive Vice Chancellor. The possible space is that in the trailers currently used by Bio Sci Administration which could become available when the administrative offices are moved to the new Natural Sciences Building. However, Hamkalo informed us that renovations of other space currently occupied by Biological Sciences may require use of the trailers by Biological Sciences for some time yet to come. Support for the concept of space allocation for the Retirees' Relations Center should be sent to EVC/ Provost Gottfredson.

Feldman was concerned that we not burden Ms. Frederick with responsibilities that would not reflect the optimal use of her time (recall she is here halftime). Lorie Reed and Barbara Hamkalo indicated how useful it would be to create a notebook with descriptions of how to accomplish (and "systems" to accomplish) all the things that must be done by the officers of the Executive Committee (who, of course, may change every one to two years) as well as support/maintenance items that are supported by the Student Assistant that Ms. Frederick shares with the EA. Ms. Frederick indicated that attending our meetings is essential for her to get to know each of us, and with her university and program development background, she feels that the one of the most advantageous ways that she would continue to assist the EA would be in continuing to advocate for them in negotiating such matters as meeting costs, parking, computer access, and in helping to secure actual space for our Center. However, she appreciates the sensitivity to the limits.

Awards committee: We await word concerning our nomination for the Panunzio award.

Our awards subcommittee of Reed, Easton, Foltz, McCulloch, and Tobis will meet concerning the Distinguished Emerita/us award. Miller recalled that previous recipients were Henry Fagin, Julian Feldman, Leon Schwartz, Sam McCulloch, and Jerome Tobis. He suggested several individuals the subcommittee might wish to consider.

Reed announced she would send requests for nominations for the mentoring award in the coming month. Last year's awardees were Ed Wagner (lamentably recently deceased, and Barbara Hamkalo reported that a service at the Pacific View Chapel was well attended and quite moving) and Peggy Arps. Miller suggested the subcommittee might wish to consider the five or more other nominees from last year as well as solicit new nominations. The four qualifications for the award are: (1) that the individual be active, emeritus, or retired faculty, (2) that the mentoring be provided to a faculty member, post doc, or fellow, (3) that the mentor not be compensated specifically for mentoring, and (4) that the mentoring be provided outside of a teaching or research relationship. The major criterion is that of outstanding academic or career counseling for which last year, out of a maximum of 20 evaluation points, three to 15 points were assigned with one additional point if the mentoring were of a junior faculty member, and two additional points each if the intent of mentoring was gender equity or ethnic diversity.

Minutes drafted by Ronald B. Miller with the assistance of Lorie Reed.

2-22-06