May 29, 2000
A message concerning the senate's 'mail ballot'
The following message was distributed to members of UCSC's Academic Senate on Friday, May 26, by senate chair Roger Anderson. The message includes an announcement by the senate's Committee on Rules, Jurisdiction, and Elections, which has been evaluating the validity of a "mail ballot" distributed to senate members. The mail ballot followed a vote on UCSC's grading policy that took place at the senate's regularly scheduled meeting in February.
TO: All Faculty
FROM: Roger Anderson, Chair
RE: Announcement from Committee on Rules, Jurisdiction and Elections (RJ&E)
I know that all of you are very interested in the RJ&E deliberations. The announcement and explaination enclosed (below) from RJ&E regarding the mail ballot is for your information, but these items are not a ruling or finding. The legislation appearing on the mail ballot was written several weeks before the draft minutes of the February 23, 2000 meeting were available. As a consequence, there is a possible discrepancy between the mail ballot legislation and the legislation actually passed on February 23.
Until the February 23, 2000 minutes are approved by the Senate, either corrected or as written, the validity of the mail ballot cannot be determined. The transcripts from the meeting are unclear in parts and subject to interpretation. Many senators who attended the meeting have very different interpretations of the meaning of the amendment (#2 on page 8 of the May meeting CALL) passed at the meeting. Several corrections to the minutes have already been submitted. It is for the Senate to come together on Wednesday, May 31, and approve minutes that accurately reflect what occurred at the meeting.
We have a very full agenda for Wednesday's meeting. If we are unable to complete our business on May 31st, we have reserved Kresge Town Hall for the following day, 2:00 pm on Thursday, June 1st.
Sincerely,
Roger Anderson, Chair
Academic Senate
Santa Cruz Division
TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE:
ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING THE MAIL BALLOT ON MANDATORY GRADING
After the mail ballot on mandatory grading was sent to the members of the Academic Senate, it was noted that there were differences between the printed language in the mail ballot and the language on the grading legislation [regulations] as passed according to the minutes of the February 23, 2000 Senate meeting. These differences raised questions about the certifiability of the ballot, and whether the changes were slight or substantive. If the changes were judged to be substantive, the ballot could not be certified and a new one would need to be held.
After a good deal of effort, consternation, and consultation between RJ&E and Senate leadership about possible methods of avoiding a new mail ballot, the Senate Chair suggested that a call to the Chair of UC R&J would be in order, and the members of SC RJ&E concurred. Everyone involved wished to learn whether a new mail ballot could be avoided and the present one certified without generating endless problems, complications, and a high probability of reversal were the outcome to be appealed to UCR&J.
Several alternatives were proposed to the Chair of UC R&J. He advised that, while the language of the legislation passed at the Senate meeting was permissible, the changes appearing in the mail ballot were substantive. Moreover, he knew of no known legally-available alternative methods to certify the ballot. As per the above, and the fact that there is an outstanding petition for a mail referendum which has neither been satisfied nor withdrawn by the petitioners, we have informed the Chair and the Secretary of the Academic Senate that the ballot must be judged invalid. Given the the rapidly-approaching end of the Spring Quarter, and the requirement that any ballot must be conducted with at least ten days of instruction remaining, it will be necessary to postpone any new ballot until Fall Quarter, 2000
The ballots are and will remain unopened and in the possession of the Secretary until a decision is made as to their disposition.
We were also advised by the Chair of UC R&J to make this announcement.
It has also been decided that all communications from the committee to the Senate Membership as a body be in writing.
The Committee on Rules, Jurisdiction and Elections
TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE:
EXPLANATION OF THE MAIL BALLOT PROBLEM
The following text, taken from the call for the February 23, 2000 Senate meeting, is section 9.1.2 in the legislation [grading regulations, SCR's, CEP Substitute amendment, AS/SCP/1258 [in the call for same and at http://senate.ucsc.edu./cep/scp1258.html]
(NEW)
9.1.2 A Pass/Not passed option is available to a student in good standing in the
manner provided for by SR 782. A grade of Passed shall be awarded only for work which
would otherwise receive a grade of C or better. A department may require that any
course or courses applied toward credit in a major be taken on a letter grade basis.
The P/NP option must be exercised no later than the last day to add a course and
may not be subsequently changed.
At the February 23 Senate meeting, an amendment was proposed to this legislation: "For courses taken on a Pass/No Pass basis, a passing grade will be at least at the level of C minus." [See the minutes at http://senate.ucsc.edu./call/00feb/00febmd.html]. The amendment was passed and, with this single amendment, the legislation was passed as above.
The only change thereby made, actually and literally, in the legislation [SCR's] as passed was the substitution of the term "C-" for the term "C" in section 9.1.2. As passed by the Senate, section 9.1.2 now reads as follows:
(NEW, as amended)
9.1.2 A Pass/Not passed option is available to a student in good standing in the
manner provided for by SR 782. A grade of Passed shall be awarded only for work which
would otherwise receive a grade of C- or better. A department may require that any
course or courses applied toward credit in a major be taken on a letter grade basis.
The P/NP option must be exercised no later than the last day to add a course and
may not be subsequently changed.
All other sections of the proposed legislation were passed without change [as per the minutes, the transcript, and the other confirming factual information received as to what the amendment actually (and literally) was].
No other sections of the proposed legislation [including (SCR's) 9.1.8, 9.4.1.F, 10.1.2, 10.2.2.1, and 10.4.7] were amended during the February 23 Senate Meeting. The mail ballot did, however, include difference involving these sections. Consequently, the changes were judged to have been substantive [not editorial or typographical] and not voted on at the Divisional Senate Meeting. Please note that it is not the intent of the proposer but the amendment as actually (and literally) proposed and passed that is relevant.
Therefore, the ballot was judged to be uncertifiable.[The mail ballot language can be found at: http://senate.ucsc.edu./Mailball/Grading/grdregs.html]
Advice was also received from UC R&J that an explanation of this problem should be given as part of any new mail ballot.
The Committee on Rules, Jurisdiction and Elections.
Previous Currents stories on the grades/NES:
Count of 'mail ballot' on grades placed on hold pending ruling (May 15, 2000)
Senate's vote on grades goes to 'mail ballot' (April 10, 2000)
Academic Senate adopts UC's conventional grading system (Feb. 28, 2000)
Debate on NES continues at Convocation on Teaching (Feb. 21, 2000)
Annual Convocation on Teaching will focus on NES (Feb. 14, 2000)
NES forums continue; decision expected at senate meeting (Jan. 31, 2000)
First 'narratives' forum produces two quite different perspectives (Jan. 24, 2000)
Continuing the discussion of the NES (Jan. 10, 2000)
Senate narrowly postpones vote on narrative evaluations (Dec. 6, 1999)
Proposal to eliminate 'narratives' goes before Academic Senate (Nov. 22, 1999)
