ACADEMIC SENATE: SAN DIEGO DIVISION
October 26, 1999

 

ANNUAL REPORT
COMMITTEE ON PLANNING AND BUDGET
1998-99

 

The UCSD Committee on Planning and Budget (P&B) devoted a great deal of time to reviewing and commenting on actions proposed by the Administration and Senate committees. The new block allocation of the University budget prompted the Committee to closely examine the planning aspect of many issues considered on behalf of the Academic Senate. While the Committee continues to advise the Academic Senate in responding to the general budget issues of many proposals and reports, the members believed that long-term budgetary considerations would be better addressed by a Subcommittee on Campus Budget, composed of members who have more extensive budget experience and who serve a longer term. The Subcommittee was established by the Academic Senate this year.

This year, in joint discussions with the Committee on Research, P&B considered two issues: (a) future professional schools at UCSD, and (b) core research facilities. An interim report is summarized in this report.

The Committee thanks Janice Stearns for her helpful suggestions and research of Academic Senate records, and her many contributions to the functioning of the Committee.

The following summarizes the activities of the Committee this year and the feedback on some of its comments and suggestions.

A) Planning & Budget Subcommittee

In October, 1998, Professor John A. Orcutt, Chair of the 1997/98 Committee on Planning and Budget, recommended the formation of a standing subcommittee to focus on long-term campus budgetary issues. This year’s committee agreed that the formation of such a subcommittee was appropriate and timely, particularly in view of the limited impact that previous committees had on issues such as indirect cost recovery and the campus’s five-year Capital Improvement Plan. The Committee recommended that past committee chairs be considered for membership on the subcommittee, and that members-at-large have expertise in the analysis of budgetary matters. The Committee also encouraged the consideration of faculty from Economics, IR/PS, etc., who have the appropriate background. The Chair of the Subcommittee would consult closely with the Chair of the Committee on Planning and Budget, particularly with regard to the Committee's input to other relevant campus committees.

The Representative Assembly approved the formation of the Subcommittee on Campus Budget on November 24, 1998. Members of the Subcommittee met for the first time in the Spring of 1999 and agreed to focus their immediate attention on the distribution of indirect cost recovery (ICR) funds, with exploratory efforts on budgetary issues associated with future professional schools at UCSD.

B) Comments and Recommendations Regarding Divisional Issues

Report of the Sixth College Pre-Planning Committee (SCPPC)

To meet the challenge of the projected enrollment increase in the next ten years, the Sixth College Pre-Planning Committee (SCPPC) reported on the various needs for a new college. Our committee generally agreed that establishing a new college is far more preferable, in terms of maintaining the high quality of education at UCSD, to expanding the capacities of the existing five colleges. The Committee highly recommended a critical review of the successes and failures of current college writing programs to establish the most effective delivery of writing education. The Committee fully agreed with the SCPPC’s recommendations that there should be a campuswide discussion of a number of issues prior to the formal planning process, and with the establishment of a joint faculty/provost/student committee to determine Sixth College's academic orientation. Through consultation with faculty, departments, students, and provosts in the existing colleges, a number of possible visions for the college should be elaborated and developed for eventual examination and confirmation.

The report of the SCPPC suggests that particular attention should be paid to the needs of transfer students. The Committee recommends that these needs should be globally addressed through the joint efforts of COP and CEP, rather than leaving them to be resolved within the new College. With respect to the space and the supporting facilities that will be available to the new College, the Committee recommends that the Sixth College Planning Committee broadly consult with neighboring programs regarding their future growth plans, especially now that the area near the center of campus has been gradually built up.

On June 7, 1999, the Sixth College Planning Committee reported on the proposed academic plan for the new College with input from faculty, department chairs, alumni, and college provosts. A required common core freshman-year sequence integrating a writing component and a speaking skill component was suggested. With regard to the intellectual theme for the three-quarter freshman core sequence, the three themes that have received the most attention are technology and society, arts and technology, and the environment.

Affiliation Agreement between UCSD Graduate Programs and Private Research Organizations

The Vice Chancellor for Research initiated new guidelines and procedures for the development and review of proposed affiliations between UCSD graduate programs and private research organizations. The document was developed from the existing affiliation agreements with the Salk and Burnham Institutes.

The Committee’s views on this document were that: (a) the resource aspect of any affiliation agreement between campus graduate programs and private research institutes should be closely examined in order to ensure the success of the anticipated graduate programs; (b) while UCSD graduate students have access to general facilities on campus, specific facilities and resources at UCSD (such as library journal subscriptions) required in any joint program should be identified early in the negotiation process; (c) the affiliation agreement should identify general research facilities and resources at the private research organization available to the graduate students in the program; (d) specific resources at the private research organization should be negotiated on a case-by-case basis with the Office of Graduate Studies and Research; (e) the graduate students and the faculty serving on the research and dissertation committees should be fully informed of any general and specific agreements that existed between UCSD and the private research organization (the membership in these committees should be examined by the Graduate Council).

The Committee endorsed the periodic Senate review for renewal of the affiliated graduate programs, and agreed that a minimum review period commensurate with the average lifetime of graduate dissertation study (M.S. or Ph.D.) would be desirable. Interim reviews which involve members from graduate students’ research and dissertation committees can be helpful in resolving issues related to graduate study. The Committee also encouraged more explicit policies in this affiliation agreement concerning participating students’ intellectual property rights, financial support, and health benefits.

While it was generally agreed that the adjunct professor appointment (at UCSD) of institute researchers would formalize the participation of the on-site supervision of graduate students involved in the affiliation, the Committee recommended a careful examination of this arrangement, as the expectation, commitment, and review process of the adjunct professor appointment can vary widely among departments.

Sunset Reviews of General Campus Organized Research Units (ORUs)

Under the new Compendium of Universitywide Review Processes for Academic Programs, Academic Units, and Research Units, each campus has been delegated the authority to establish and disestablish ORUs. Within these parameters, the Vice Chancellor for Research developed a procedure for conducting sunset reviews for General Campus ORUs.

Although P&B agreed that most of the proposed policy and procedures closely follow that previously set forth by the University of California, the Committee offered several suggestions pertaining to the reviews of ORUs. These include: (1) the composition of the five-year review committee should be defined to include members from other institutions or UC campuses, (2) the reports of the five-year review committees should be made available to the Senate so that the response to the recommendations in those reviews may be assessed, (3) a five-year plan for resource needs and anticipated sources of funding should be provided for critical Senate review of resource utilization by the ORU, and (4) the Senate should be alerted to any concerns identified in the annual report in the event that a mid-course adjustment is required before the next regular review. With regard to sunset reviews, even though the ORU is viewed as a campus unit in the new compendium, arguments for its continuation should include an account of its achievements in relation to similar ORUs systemwide.

Report of the Task Force on Instructional Technology

The Task Force recommended the establishment of two oversight committees -- the Technology Directions Committees (TDC) and the Instructional Technology Committee (ITC) -- as the core committees for instructional technology. P&B was particularly interested in the roles of these two committees relative to other advisory committees currently in place. The Committee strongly recommended the participation of both faculty and students on the ITC. The Committee commended the "Tech Café" as an effective campuswide service to facilitate the implementation and introduction of new instructional technology to faculty, instructional-related staff, and teaching assistants. However, the Committee felt that the present $800,000 annual allocation may be insufficient to meet the expenditure priorities, and that, with limited resources, a higher priority should be given to campuswide instructional needs over distance learning needs, which are more costly to implement.

Funding for Instructional Technology has now become a permanent part of the universitywide budget.

Proposal to Establish a Program in Pharmacy Education at UCSD

This proposal evolved from a previous one that recommended the establishment of a Joint Program in Pharmacy between UCSD and UCSF. P&B found the proposal well versed in the area of academic visions and objectives for building up a world-class pharmacy program. Nevertheless, concerns remained about FTE and space resources for the new professional school. The proposal requires 17 FTEs in the initial four years to maintain the requested 8:1 student to faculty ratio in the program.

The Committee was later informed by the Chair of the Pharmacy Planning Committee that the FTEs required for starting the school will not be drawn from the regular allocation to the School of Medicine or the General Campus, and that a strong resource commitment from the Office of the President is essential for the execution of the plan for any new professional school. In addition, the Health Sciences has included a building for the Pharmacy program in the campus Capital Improvement Program. As a result, the Committee recommended that the Senate pass a resolution supporting the School's proposed formation in concept with the condition that the Office of the President will support the resource commitment.

Formation of the Division of Biology

P&B invited the Co-chairs of the Natural Sciences Working Group to discuss the draft plan (a three-year long iterative process among the Biology faculty) for the formation of a Division of Biology. Among the various motivations of the plan, discussion focused on: (1) the need for exploiting development opportunities, and (2) the need for leadership and governance.

Under the proposed plan, the dean would provide the divisional leadership. Not having the typical duties of a department chair, the dean would be free to focus on research and development opportunities. The notion is that an energetic and dynamic dean could provide the leadership required to generate outside resources for research programs and capital requirements. Administrative functions, such as contract and grant administration, purchasing, and personnel, would remain centralized. The notion is that all of the faculty will have a vested interest in preserving divisional connections and maintaining a collegial environment. The plan would create separate sections within the division that would then govern themselves. The section heads would have responsibility for appointments, promotions, and other academic personnel duties.

There was much support among the members of P&B for the idea of an administrative leader who is recruited and appointed based, in part, on administrative and leadership talent. The Committee concurred that the current rotating direction of a large complex department (such as Biology) by chairpersons does not work well.

The Committee recognized that, under the current fiscal constraints, the budgetary support for the draft plan would have to come from existing and future incremental resources within the Department of Biology, including the FTE and funding for the dean's position. Under the current formula, there would be $300,000 available for recruitment of the Dean, with additional recruitment funds coming from resources internal to Biology. Some committee members believed that a more detailed fiscal plan should be developed that would consider pertinent expenditures and revenues for the next several years.

The Committee was very much concerned about the budget implications of the draft plan on the teaching and research commitments of Biology. The Committee was also concerned about capping the number of Biology majors to resolve the problem of large class size.

Overall, P&B was satisfied with the Working Group’s response to possible conflicts concerning the graduate program, the coordination of the undergraduate majors, sharing of laboratory space among different sections, and competition within the division and among divisions with related disciplines. The Committee agreed in principle that the draft plan is justifiable based upon the need for exploiting development opportunities in biotechnology, and the need for leadership and governance, both of which appear to be ineffective under the current system.

Proposals to Partition Department of AMES into a New Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and a Department of Structural Engineering

The proposed two new departments would consist of four programs (mechanical, aerospace, chemical, and structural engineering) currently immersed within the AMES Department. Many of the undergraduate programs in AMES are ABET-accredited, and the Structural Engineering program is the only ABET-accredited Structural Engineering program in the United States. The Committee concurred that the proposed curricula are built upon faculty expertise within the programs, as well as cross-disciplinary expertise from other engineering departments, natural science departments, and IR/PS. The justification for the proposed partition is based primarily on enhancing program visibility, with the expectation that the undergraduate curricula will be streamlined. P&B noted that MAE and SE have functioned as independent administrative units for some time and agreed that minimal additional space and staff resources would be needed to make the transition into two separate departments. Several planning and related issues that raised the interest of the Committee include participation and vision of the Structural Engineering program in the joint Aerospace Engineering program, a detailed description of the undergraduate and graduate core courses proposed by the Structural Engineering program, academic and research planning of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, and implications for the interdisciplinary Environmental Engineering program (see below).

Comments on the Proposal to Establish a New Program and Majors in "Environmental Systems"

The Committee endorsed the establishment of a campuswide interdisciplinary program for training undergraduate students in the environmental field that is built upon existing faculty strength in a large number of departments on the general campus and SIO (via the Earth Science Program). The Committee felt that the program, especially the upper division courses, could further benefit from existing faculty strength in SIO and the School of Medicine for areas such as Environmental Microbiology. The Committee also encouraged the development of the Environmental Engineering aspect of the program because of its technological implications. In view of the interdisciplinary nature of the program, the Committee recommended that sufficient funding support should be given to academic coordination and advising functions. Continued discussion in the Fall Quarter of 1999 will focus on concerns regarding the teaching commitment and FTE allocation from various proposed segments of the program.

Report of the Technology Transfer Advisory Committee (TTAC)

P&B agreed with TTAC's recommendation to distribute the portion of royalties for research support on campus in the ratio of 60/40. The Committee later learned that the spending of these funds is free of indirect cost. The Committee also received clarification of the new policy with respect to inventions made before October 1, 1997.

Comments on the Recommendation of the Library Committee

P&B endorsed the Library Committee’s proposal to be included in the review procedure for new departments and programs for the purpose of evaluating the impact of the proposed program on Library resources. Members noted that the adequacy of library support is becoming an aggravating issue on many UC campuses due to the widening gap between the cost of library subscriptions and support for the Library. However, members also expressed concern about placing an additional layer in the review process, and recommended that the Library Committee’s review take place simultaneously with reviews by other Senate committees. The Committee recommended that future proposals for new programs give due consideration to library resources.

Proposal to Establish a Center for Molecular Agriculture

Last year, P&B reviewed the Proposal to Establish a Center for Molecular Agriculture which would coordinate and support interdisciplinary interactions among UCSD faculty, researchers, and students aimed at fostering, promoting, and developing the research and education capacity in modern plant genetics and agricultural biotechnology. The revised proposal examined this year adequately addressed the concerns raised by last year’s committee with regard to resource allocations and graduate education, as well as the interaction with neighboring institutes such as the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the Scripps Research Institute. The Committee agreed that the proposal is well founded with respect to scholarly research in molecular agriculture. The Center for Molecular Agriculture as a campus research unit was established in April 1999.

Response to the Proposed Center of Glycobiology

This proposed program represents a natural expansion of the Glycobiology Program at the UCSD Cancer Center to an interdisciplinary program involving researchers in Biology, Biomedicine, and Bioengineering. P&B generally recognized that the motivation for this campus research center falls in line with the objectives of other research centers to create a visible structure for a newly emerging field that better competes for new sources of funding. This center can be pivotal in attracting the instrumentation and infrastructure funding support that would be vital to the growth and maintenance of the core facility now shared by investigators from many disciplines.

The proposed center calls for little fiscal support beyond the costs of 0.5 FTE in administrative support to run the activities of the Center, provided the Cancer Center and the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine continue their fiscal administration of the Glycobiology Program.

Report of the Joint Senate-Administration Committee to Review Blackhorse Farms Land Development Alternatives

The Joint Senate-Administration Committee to Review Blackhorse Farms Land Development Alternatives reported on several options for the development of the 9.5-acre Blackhorse Farms parcel at the intersection of Salk Institute Road and North Torrey Pines Road. The site was previously approved by the City of San Diego and the California Coastal Commission for the development of a 210-room conference center hotel under ground lease to a local developer.

P&B considered the development of a conference center hotel complex at UCSD a reasonable use of the Blackhorse Farms Land given its prime location, as well as a good means of generating income for the University provided that the financial solidity of the project and the developer are carefully considered before signing a binding contract. Of particular consideration are the potential benefits of this project to the faculty and the students. The data gathered in the report show that there is a strong UCSD demand for a conference center with hotel facilities, especially for Extension and medical school conferences, and a strong demand for housing seminar speakers and recruitment candidates by all departments. A convenient center with a discounted rate for UCSD-organized activities will provide a clear and concrete benefit to UCSD. However, all of these benefits must be reflected up front in the project’s contract.

In April, 1999, UCSD announced that the goals for this project were such that the facilities would: (1) be available and affordable for University campus users (i.e., the facilities would be offered to UCSD organizations at reduced/subsidized rates on a prioritized booking schedule); (2) be creatively redesigned from the original plan to reflect a more academic and executive conference-oriented ambiance while still meeting the requirements of the specific plan and PCD permit; (3) meet UCSD's significant demand for facilities to host University-related meetings and conferences and accommodate overnight visitors attending seminars or participating in recruitment efforts, (4) enhance/realize the value of the land and create a long-term income stream to the University; and (5) provide student employment opportunities.

C) Comments and Recommendation Regarding Universitywide Issues

Revisions to the Compendium of Universitywide Review Processes for Academic Programs, Academic Units, and Research Units

The Compendium describes systemwide processes for reviewing campuses’ five-year plans and for reviewing and approving proposed actions involving academic degree programs, academic units, and research units. The revised Compendium emphasizes the streamlining of the initiation and review process of undergraduate programs and delegates much of the decision-making to the campus level. The Committee generally supported the major features and recommendations of the revision; however, it was noted that the document fails to address proposed actions involving undergraduate/graduate joint degree programs. In addition, the process charts for a "simple" name change of a school, college, or MRU still suggest a lengthy review process. The Committee also supported retaining accountability for major actions involving graduate programs, schools, and MRUs at the systemwide level.

Proposal for New University Policy Granting Rights to Future Research Results Arising from University Relationships with Extramural Parties

The Committee was asked to comment on the proposed new University Policy Granting Rights to Future Research Results. P&B endorsed with caution the principle of granting campus and UC Laboratory negotiators greater flexibility in the process of negotiating terms with extramural funding sponsors. While the basic principles in the proposed policy focus on the fundamental concerns in such negotiations, they do not provide sufficient guidance to the response in every case, especially in view of some perplexing issues such as how to manage potential conflict of interest and how to mitigate different views of intellectual property. For situations involving the local campus and its extramural funding sponsors, it becomes essential that the campus establish clear guidelines for complete disclosure and that the Division participate in the review process. The Committee recommended joint oversight of such activities by the Committee on Research and the Graduate Council. For situations where multiple campuses are involved, joint review among divisions and the Universitywide Senate should take place so that the interests of all parties may be safeguarded. In particular, with respect to the "Open Dissemination of Research Results and Information," maintaining an open academic environment that fosters intellectual creativity at UC requires that the researchers have timely access to pioneering research results. With regard to the provision on "Public Benefit," the time to patent filing and submission of results for publication need to be prioritized. Furthermore, "Informed Participation" should cover all participants that contribute to projects using university facilities, including "visitors" and students who perform research or work-study activities. With respect to "Objective Decision-Making," the Committee found it quite disturbing to consider UC taking a business interest as this can be very expensive to conduct the technology transfer practice and to safeguard against the related liability. An updated draft of the policy is anticipated.

Report on Postdoctoral Education at the University of California

The report attempts to address key issues involved in the supervision of postdoctoral scholars at UC. However, there are many issues that require further consideration and should be addressed in a future draft. The Committee generally felt that uniform benefits should be provided to postdoctoral scholars, if permitted by the funding agency (this policy has been largely adopted at UCSD.) As there can be different salary scales among different disciplines, the postdoctoral salary scale of each discipline should be commensurate with that of the assistant project scientist series within the same discipline to ensure a smooth transition for promotion to this series. Because the report gives special consideration to the duration of the postdoctoral scholar appointment, the Committee believed that more attention should be given to the review process in order to provide fair and timely recommendations for initial and continued appointments in this series.

Universitywide Draft Report and Recommendations of the Task Force on Copyright

The Task Force on Copyright recommended a framework for the development of a copyright policy that can promote the fundamental values of academic freedom, scholarly communication, and institutional integrity. P&B regarded the faculty and students as both producers and consumers of scholarly publications; however, the copyright also involves lecture notes, software, etc., and therefore the introduction of generous fair use rules can affect the University community in many different ways. The Committee shared the opinion that establishing a "high-level faculty-administration copyright advisory body" would be the right move to deal with evolving copyright issues. A systemwide committee should not only involve participation from each campus, but also from other university systems. Among the campus participants, there should be representation from the Office of Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Services, the Senate Committee on Faculty Welfare, the Library, and the Associate Vice Chancellor of Academic Information Technology. There was much support by Committee members for educating faculty and students about the copyright guidelines so that the critical issues of "who owns, who can use free, and who pays for use" can be clarified.

Professorial Salary Scales with Step IX Added

P&B regarded the addition of the Professor Step IX timely for streamlining the current review process beyond Professor Step VIII. The Committee believed that such an addition would have a negligible impact on the total allocation of faculty FTEs because of the number of faculty already in the shadow Step IX and above scale classifications. The new step will be implemented in the year 2000.

Comments on "The Challenge to Higher Education: Accessibility, Affordability, Accountability"

P&B was asked to comment on a collection of materials regarding potential higher education initiatives that were distributed at the Academic Council Meeting in February. In the area of outreach, the Committee felt that streamlining the course requirements for transfer students can reduce the barriers to community college transfer admissions. The Committee also recommended the consideration of early transfer of more academically prepared students prior to the completion of their study at the community college level.

Concerning the proposed year-round operation of UC, a number of issues were considered, including: (1) encroachment upon Summer Session, (2) sufficient time to perform facility maintenance, (3) exceeding the normative time-to-degree (presently at 4 ˝ years), and (4) accepting more students at UC campuses.

With regard to productivity improvements, UC's last four-year Compact with the Governor resulted in annual productivity gains of $10 million per year. However, requiring UC to repeat this process under a new UC Compact would further degrade the infrastructure of each campus. (The productivity improvement is not required in the 1999-2000 budget.)

The Governor's Higher Education Initiative calls for UC to produce more K-12 teachers. P&B regards the quality of the Teacher Education Program as more important than the number of teachers graduated, and believes that establishing an education research program or department will not necessarily guarantee a high quality program in educational research or the production of well prepared teachers. On the other hand, expanding the program already in place with existing campus resources should guarantee a first-rate teacher training program in California.

UCFW Child Care Proposal

UCFW's proposed Child Care Policy set forth three general principles as the basis for developing a Universitywide policy on child care. While the principles are non-controversial, the Committee recognized the need for additional resources to carry out the principles identified. In evaluating the present funding structure of the Early Childhood Education Center at UCSD, P&B concluded that UCSD has been financially very supportive of the Center’s program. The Committee endorsed the continued support of the Center and strongly recommended preliminary planning for the growth of the Center to meet projected student and faculty growth. Future support will require plans for the growth of support in direct proportion to undergraduate, graduate, and faculty growth.

D) Joint Sessions with the Senate Committee on Research and Proposed Initiatives

As in past years, the Committee on Planning and Budget and the Committee on Research held several joint meetings to discuss topics of common interest to both committees. This year, our joint discussions, attended by SVCAA Chandler and AVC Miller, focused on two main issues: (a) future professional schools at UCSD, and (b) core research facilities. Since there are remaining details to resolve, a final report on both issues will be presented to the Academic Senate in the coming year. The discussions involved SVCAA Chandler, VC Attiyeh and AVC Miller as consultants.

With regard to the professional school issue, both committees are deeply concerned that, under the new block funding formula to the campus, it will be very difficult for UCSD to plan and develop new professional schools because of the resource issue. Professional schools inherently have a low faculty-to-student-ratio and typically require new space and facilities. However, there are many benefits and needs for establishing new professional schools at UCSD that can further its mission. In addition to offering professional degree programs that can meet the needs of the community and industry surrounding the university, we believe that professional schools can provide an effective forum for fostering interdisciplinary research at UCSD and serve as a means to enhance the visibility of many successful programs at UCSD. After considering these benefits, we would also like to caution that the schools that would be most appropriate for UCSD, and that will most likely be successful, are those that have the genuine support of a strong core of faculty spanning several related disciplines.

During our last joint meeting, members discussed the possibility of re-establishing the School of Architecture (SOA), an entity that was suspended at the time of the budget crisis in the early 1990s. There is still much interest among the faculty in the Arts & Humanities, SIO, and the Jacobs School of Engineering for restructuring the School of Architecture based upon the strength and collaboration of faculty in a number of different areas. It is our understanding that the SOA was not formally disestablished by the Regents, and we believe that its re-activation will not follow the process outlined by the new compendium. Nevertheless, space and FTE resources, as well as campus and community support, will be necessary prerequisites for its re-activation. (We understand that there is some interest about a possible School of Law at UCSD among faculty from Political Science, History, and IR/PS comprising the Law and Society Program.)

With regard to the campus’s core research facilities, we would like to point out that, in recent years, these facilities have encountered a characteristic set of interrelated problems that have adversely affected the research infrastructure of several units on campus. Needless to say, there are many major benefits in revitalizing the support and infrastructure of the core research facilities at UCSD. While better publicizing the facilities would increase their use by the UCSD community, it would also serve as an effective means for faculty and student recruitment and for serving the industrial community. Consequently, in the Spring Quarter, two joint subcommittees were formed -- one for the Science and Engineering disciplines, and one for the Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities -- to assess the impacts of core research facilities and make recommendations to the parent committees. The Science and Engineering Subcommittee has concluded its discussion and the recommendations are detailed in a report entitled, "Proposal for Research Infrastructure Support at UCSD" which will be submitted to the Academic Senate early in the Fall Quarter. The report of the Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities subcommittee will be issued in the Fall Quarter of 1999. We would also like to point out that there is a common historic background that led to our current situation of core research facilities at UCSD; however, we are hopeful that an equitable approach to meet the challenges facing the research programs across campus can be identified. To proceed, we would like to propose the establishment of a joint Senate-Administration Committee charged with developing a set of recommendations for a centralized review structure for the campus’s core research facilities before the close of the 1999/00 academic year.

Respectfully submitted,

Margo G. Haygood
John A. Marino
Paul A. Price
James Carmody
Jay Yeh (Undergraduate Student Representative)
Michael Skidmore (Graduate Student Representative)
Ellen T. Comisso, Vice Chair
Paul K. L. Yu, Chair

1 This draft report summarizes some of the major weaknesses in the current infrastructure that supports the core facilities. A major weakness in the current organizational model is the absence of a periodic review process. Also lacking is the substantive coordination and ongoing assistance with the management of the facilities. The report also cites the need for increased financial support for core research facilities and recommends the establishment of a single administrative entity to resolve a number of problems related to the establishment, review, and maintenance of core research facilities. If implemented, a review process, with faculty oversight, would serve to identify current subsidized facilities that can no longer be justified as meeting a pressing need, and provide a mechanism for funds released from a terminated subsidy to be exclusively available for redistribution to existing core facilities.