Appendix G: Role of CCGA in the Transfer, Consolidation, Disestablishment, and Discontinuance of Academic Programs and Units

Adopted by CCGA November 16, 1993.

Introduction 

Because actions to transfer, consolidate, disestablish, or discontinue academic units and programs are proceeding on several University of California campuses and the role of the Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs (CCGA) in these actions is not well established, CCGA has prepared and adopted this statement.  At the end is a description of CCGA’s specific roles in the transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, and discontinuance of academic units and programs. Preceding it is an accounting of the processes followed to develop the statement, an analysis of the range of roles possible under existing formal and informal policies, and a rationale for those CCGA intends to follow.

Development Process 

There are several formal documents relevant to determining the role of CCGA in transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, and discontinuance. These include the 9/19/79 system- wide “Policy on Transfer, Consolidation, Disestablishment, and Discontinuance of Academic Programs,” similar policy statements by each of the 9 campuses, the CCGA bylaws, and the divisional Graduate Council bylaws. These documents were all reviewed prior to preparation and adoption of this document. Also reviewed were correspondence, minutes, draft statements, and formal statements (from 1976 forward) identified by Karen Merritt (Director, Academic Planning and Program Review, Office of the President) as relating to transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, and discontinuance.

A search of CCGA minutes for the last several years revealed no agenda items dealing with transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance. Karen Merritt and Mohan Sitlani (Coordinator of Program Review, Office of the President) stated that previous transfers, consolidations, disestablishments, and discontinuances have been few in number and for the most part non-controversial. An Office of the President review of such actions, “University of California Degree Programs Established and Disestablished Fall 1980 to Spring 1993,” identified 22 undergraduate degree programs and 15 graduate degree programs that were discontinued. Some involved consolidations and several were actually replacements of one degree with another (e.g., a Ph.D. in Social Welfare replaced the Doctor of Social Welfare degree). Thus, the total number of true discontinuances is smaller than this record suggests. By comparison, about 115 bachelor degree programs and 120 graduate degree programs (excluding certificate programs) were established during this same period. The discontinuances of degree programs were reported by individual campuses to the Office of the President, where records were adjusted accordingly.  Up to now, these actions have been reported in the monthly “Report of the Status of New Academic Program Proposals and New ORU and MRU Proposals” prepared by the Office of the President and considered by CCGA as an information item on the monthly agenda. This arrangement has apparently been satisfactory to all concerned, no doubt because the discontinuances were few in number and for the most part non-controversial.

In developing this statement of CCGA’s role in transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, and discontinuance actions, Aimée Dorr, 93-94 Chair of CCGA, in September 1993 discussed options with Arnold Binder, 93-94 Chair of the systemwide Academic Senate and the Academic Council, Calvin Moore, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, Office of the President, and Karen Merritt, Director of Academic Planning and Program Review, Office of the President. In doing so, she drew upon the materials described above and discussions by 92- 93 CCGA members in Spring 1993. Chair Dorr then prepared a working document that was discussed at the October CCGA meeting. A draft statement was subsequently prepared and distributed for comment to Chair Binder, Director Merritt, and Coordinator Sitlani, with an invitation to share it with as many people as they wished. The draft statement and reviewers’ comments on it were discussed at the November CCGA meeting. This document presents the final statement that was unanimously approved by CCGA members on November 16, 1993.

Language

In written materials and conversation, the terms “disestablishment” and “discontinuance” vary in their meaning, causing difficulties of interpretation. At times, disestablishment refers to the permanent closing of an academic unit and discontinuance refers to the permanent closing of an academic degree program.  At other times, disestablishment refers to the permanent closing of an academic unit or degree program and discontinuance refers to the temporary closing of an academic unit or degree program. Throughout this statement, “disestablishment” refers to the permanent closing of an academic unit and “discontinuance” refers to the permanent closing of an academic degree program. A term such as “temporary suspension” will be used for actions that put existing academic units or degree programs on hold without permanently removing them from those offered by a given campus. 

Range of Options

The 9/19/79 systemwide policy statement, the CCGA bylaws, and other Academic Senate bylaws neither explicitly describe nor expressly forbid any particular role for CCGA in transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance. It is generally agreed, however, that campus and system-level administrations have final authority over academic units and the Academic Senate has final authority over academic degree programs. Recognizing that academic degree programs can only function when relevant academic units are also functioning, various bylaws attempt to provide for Academic Senate response should an administration act upon an academic unit in a way that significantly affected degree programs (e.g., a budget cut for the academic unit that was so severe that courses required for the degree program could not be offered).

Nonetheless, final authority for the allocations to, and organization of, academic units rests with administrators.

There are several explicit statements that provide ample justification for considerable CCGA involvement in transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, and discontinuance. The CCGA bylaws state that CCGA coordinates the activities of the separate divisional Graduate Councils and reviews the standards and policies applied by them. Given that divisional Graduate Councils are involved in transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, and discontinuance actions (both de jure and de facto actions) involving graduate degree programs, CCGA could therefore also be involved in all these actions. The 9/19/79 systemwide policy statement (p. 1) also provides a firm basis for CCGA involvement:

The decision to transfer, consolidate, disestablish or discontinue an academic unit or program should be founded on considerations as careful and thorough as those for establishment. For the most part the same issues need to be examined, and the same Senate agencies and administrative officers should have the opportunity to participate consistent with the traditional system of shared governance in which the Academic Senate has the responsibility for approving academic programs and evaluating the quality of courses and curricula, and the administration has the responsibility for allocating resources and determining administrative organization.

Historically, CCGA has had a central role in the establishment of new graduate degree programs, both those using a degree title that is already on the sponsoring campus (e.g., Ph.D.) and those using a degree title new to the sponsoring campus (e.g., Doctor of Music). Each proposed new graduate degree program is developed by the responsible academic unit(s) on the local campus. Each campus routinely informs the Office of the President of the degree program proposals that are being developed. When a formal proposal for the new degree program has been prepared, it is reviewed by the divisional Graduate Council, other divisional Academic Senate committees, and the divisional administration. All such degree proposals cannot go forward without approval from the divisional Graduate Council and Chancellor. If the proposal involves a title new to the campus, it must also be approved by the divisional representative body. If a formal proposal obtains all needed divisional approvals, it is sent forward to CCGA and the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs in the UC Office of the President.

CCGA members review the proposal itself, an analysis of it from the OP Office of Academic Affairs (OAA), and often commentary from other UC campuses. A lead reviewer is appointed from among CCGA members. He or she obtains written reviews of the proposal from two or more experts in the field and conducts a site visit. CCGA may ask for revisions to the proposal that can be communicated in a letter or addendum or for verification of support by relevant divisional administrators.  It may return the proposal for substantial revision or disapprove it. If CCGA approves the proposal and sends it forward, the OAA completes the analysis and adds a recommendation for approval or non-approval. In the past, OAA then submitted the proposal, its analyses, and its recommendation to the Academic Program Planning and Review Board (APPRB), an Office of the President 79 committee that included Academic Senate representatives. APPRB was recently disbanded.  In its place is the Academic Planning Council (APC), also an Office of the President committee that includes Academic Senate representatives. It is anticipated that the APC will review degree program proposals early in the planning stage on the local campus (before a formal proposal has been written) and not review any formal degree program proposals that have been approved by CCGA. However, the APC has not yet met. The details of its operation and whether they affect transmission of an approved proposal from CCGA to OAA and from OAA to the President cannot be known. As of now, it seems most likely that OAA will continue its well established pattern of sending to the President the proposal CCGA approved, its analyses, and its recommendation. If the President concurs in approval, then the California Post-secondary Education Commission (CPEC) is given an opportunity to comment. If CPEC does not respond within 60 days after the proposal was sent, the University assumes concurrence. If CPEC raises questions, these are answered by the Office of the President with help from the originating campus.  Proposals for degree programs with titles that are new to the campus must also be approved by the Assembly of the Academic Senate and the Regents. If all parties are satisfied with the proposal, the program is approved and the President notifies the campus. Note that in this system CCGA’s approval of a degree program proposal is necessary but not sufficient for implementation of the degree program.

Given the well-practiced precedent for CCGA’s role in the establishment of new graduate degree programs and existing bylaws and policy statements, particularly the 1979 system- wide policy statement quoted earlier, CCGA could easily justify procedures as elaborate as those for new degree programs for the de jure or de facto transfer, consolidation, or discontinuance of every graduate degree program and for every transfer, consolidation, or disestablishment of an academic unit that significantly alters the ability of that unit to offer any of its graduate degree programs. Given CCGA’s historical lack of participation in transfer, consolidation, and discontinuance decisions and the absence of any explicit requirement for CCGA participation in transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, and discontinuance, CCGA could just as easily justify minimal involvement.

Rationale for CCGA’s Role

Although the 9/19/79 systemwide policy statement suggests that procedures for the transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, and discontinuance of academic units and degree programs should be similar to those for their establishment, CCGA believes otherwise. In good times, academic units or degree programs could be consolidated for several reasons but they are only transferred, discontinued, or disestablished when campuses no longer have any investment in them. In bad times, they are likely to be transferred, consolidated, disestablished, or discontinued after a decision-making process rather like that for triage. Suffering will be widespread and any campus decision to transfer, consolidate, disestablish, or discontinue an academic unit or degree program will have been painful and hard fought. If a review and approval process like that for establishment were followed, CCGA would receive transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, and discontinuance proposals too late to reverse effectively any decision the campus has managed to make. If the only implementable CCGA decision is endorsement of a campus decision to transfer, consolidate, disestablish, or discontinue an academic unit or program, there is little reason for CCGA to review such a proposal.

Following this line of reasoning, CCGA believes that for transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, and discontinuance actions CCGA needs to exercise its responsibilities for graduate education by devising procedures different from those for the establishment of new graduate degree programs. Specifically, it needs to find the means to become informed of possible actions when they are first being considered by a campus, to assure itself that the divisional Graduate Council is appropriately involved, to intervene if it is not, to assess the systemwide implications for graduate education, and to interject any serious systemwide issues into the campus’ deliberations at the earliest possible moment. Very early involvement is necessary if CCGA is to have any impact on what actually happens to graduate degree programs that could be affected by transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance. Assuming that CCGA is able to effect early involvement when deemed necessary, then when campuses have actually made decisions to transfer, consolidate, disestablish, or discontinue, review by CCGA should not become another hurdle before that action is implemented. Because CCGA is a systemwide committee, it should examine divisional actions from that perspective. In addition, in line with well-established principles of UC governance, CCGA needs to retain its responsibility for actions directed at graduate academic programs and recognize its vested interest in actions directed at academic units when these actions directly affect associated graduate academic programs.

To some extent, CCGA also needs to concern itself with the status of undergraduate education. The same faculty ordinarily serve both undergraduate and graduate education. Undergraduate courses offer teaching assistantships that provide graduate students with opportunities to learn to be good teachers and are a source of financial support for them. Some undergraduate students participate in research with graduate students, providing both assistance to graduate research projects and opportunities for graduate students to learn how to train researchers. Proposals to transfer, consolidate, disestablish, and discontinue academic units and degree programs for undergraduates can have repercussions for graduate education. Thus, CCGA also needs a means for early knowledge of and, if needed, early commentary on any transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance that is being considered for undergraduate academic units or degree programs. 

Specific CCGA Roles

Based both on its reading of established bylaws, policy statements, and practices and on its analysis of how best to fulfill its responsibilities for graduate education in the University of California, CCGA has determined that it should handle proposed transfers, consolidations, disestablishments, and discontinuances of academic units and programs in the following manner:

1. CCGA should review transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, and discontinuance proposals while they are still at the divisional level to make certain that the divisional Graduate Council is appropriately involved and that any systemwide issues are fully considered.
   1. CCGA should use the occasion of its meetings to have divisional representatives identify transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, and discontinuance proposals at any stage of consideration on their campuses.
   2. Members should make preliminary determinations about whether the divisional Graduate Council is appropriately involved and whether the proposed action raises any systemwide concerns. So long as the divisional Graduate Council is appropriately involved and systemwide issues either do not exist or are being considered by appropriate persons and groups, CCGA should not be involved in any way in divisional reviews of the proposed action.
   3. If there are ever doubts about the involvement of the divisional Graduate Council or concerns about systemwide issues, a subcommittee should be appointed to explore the matter further. The subcommittee should include the Chair or Vice Chair of CCGA and two CCGA representatives from campuses other than that (or those) considering the transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance. The subcommittee should complete its work in 30 days.
   4. If the subcommittee should determine and the CCGA agree that the divisional Graduate Council is not appropriately involved, the CCGA Chair should endeavor through informal conversation and formal communication to persuade those responsible to alter their procedures so as to include the divisional Graduate Council appropriately. The Chair should follow-up to ascertain that the divisional Graduate Council has become adequately involved in considering the proposal.
   5. If the subcommittee should determine and the CCGA agree that the proposed transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance raises systemwide issues, the CCGA Chair should so inform the division(s) involved (presumably, the Chairs of the Academic Senate, Graduate Council, Committee on Planning and Budget, and Committee on Educational Policy, the Chair of any campus planning board, the Graduate Dean, the Academic Vice Chancellor, and the Chancellor), the systemwide arm of the Academic Senate (presumably, the Chairs of Planning and Budget and of Educational Policy, and the Chair of the systemwide Academic Senate), and the Office of the President (presumably, the Director of Academic Planning and Program Review, the Assistant Vice President for Planning, the Chair of the new APC, and the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs). The Chair should follow-up to ascertain that the systemwide issues are being adequately considered.

2. CCGA should receive a report on every transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, and discontinuance adopted by a campus. When the action involves an academic degree program directly, then CCGA approval is necessary but not sufficient for its acceptance systemwide. When the action involves an academic unit, then CCGA should have the opportunity to recommend to the Chair of the systemwide Academic Senate and the Office of the President that the proposed action be accepted or rejected. CCGA’s approval or recommendation should be based on the impact of the proposed action on graduate education in the University of California. As a rule, CCGA should approve the proposed action on a graduate degree program and recommend acceptance of the proposed action on an academic unit.
   1. Receipt of the report and transmission of CCGA’s response should both be carried out in a timely fashion. Campuses should be required to provide reports for systemwide review within 30 days of final approval on the home campus. CCGA should normally have 60 days within which to respond.
   2. When CCGA has determined that the Graduate Council was appropriately involved in campus decision making and that any systemwide issues were considered (see 1 above), then the campus report need be no more than a one-page statement with a supporting letter from the Chair of the Graduate Council. If, however, CCGA believes that the Graduate Council was not appropriately involved or that systemwide issues were not adequately considered, then a longer report is needed. This longer report should include description of the processes followed, the participants in these processes, how and why the final decision was made, all undergraduate and graduate degree programs associated with the involved unit(s), the impact on undergraduate and graduate degree programs, and any provisions needed to ensure that currently enrolled undergraduate and graduate students can finish their degree programs.
   3. If the activities described in 1 above work as they should, CCGA’s comments should be brief and, depending on whether it is a graduate degree program or an academic unit or undergraduate program that is under consideration, CCGA should either approve or recommend acceptance of the proposed transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance. CCGA’s judgments would be based upon its early consideration of the proposed action (see 1 above) and the written report; they would not involve any additional, independent assessment by When actions involving academic units and/or undergraduate degree programs are likely to affect the functioning of associated graduate degree programs, CCGA’s letter would identify these graduate degree programs and suggest that they be reviewed by relevant divisional Academic Senate committees.
   4. Should CCGA disapprove a proposed transfer, consolidation, or discontinuance of a graduate degree program, that action cannot proceed (analogous to CCGA’s role in the approval of proposals for new graduate degree programs).
   5. Should CCGA recommend rejection of the proposed transfer, consolidation or disestablishment of an academic unit or the proposed transfer, consolidation or discontinuance of an undergraduate degree program or express any serious concerns about any such proposals, these would be handled in a manner analogous to the handling of CPEC opinions about the proposed establishment of new degree programs. That is, the Office of the President and the originating campus(es) would be responsible for addressing CCGA’s concerns prior to the President approving the proposed action.

Coordination with Other Systemwide Committees

CCGA believes that it should coordinate its consideration of any proposed transfer, consolidation, disestablishment, or discontinuance of an academic unit or program with similar consideration by the University Committee on Planning and Budget (UCPB) and the University Committee on Educational Policy (UCEP). We propose that these two committees adopt “early warning” systems too and the three committee chairs then share information and coordinate action. The three chairs should confer to share information about divisional proposals to transfer, consolidate, disestablish, or discontinue academic units and degree programs, to coordinate as appropriate any efforts to ensure adequate Academic Senate participation on the campus level, and to consider any systemwide issues raised by the proposed divisional actions. In difficult times, such conferences should occur monthly. In normal times, they should occur whenever any of the three Chairs believes it desirable but not less than twice a year in the fall and in the spring. CCGA directs its Chair to work with the Chairs of UCEP, UCPB, and the systemwide Academic Senate to determine how best to coordinate with each other and to come to an agreement just as soon as possible.

 

Adopted by the University Committee on Educational Policy, February 10, 1994

Adopted by the University Committee on Planning and Budget, February 15, 1994

Presented to the Academic Council, February 16, 1994