Skip to main content

Academic Affairs Administration Partnership with the Academic Senate

Under the UC shared governance model, we work closely with the Academic Senate to address campus-wide issues. Our joint senate-administration workgroups perform in-depth analyses and provide recommendations that inform efforts to continuously improve our organizational policies and processes, and develop a more supportive university infrastructure. Visit the Senate's website ( for information about issues under review as well as reports and recommendations from committees and workgroups. The following are a summary of recent work completed by workgroups and task forces.

2021 - Holistic Graduate Funding Task Force

  • 2021 - Holistic Graduate Funding Task Force

2021 - Workgroup on Distance Learning

  • 2021 - Workgroup on Distance Learning

2021 - Academic Advancement in the Wake of COVID-19

  • 2021 - Academic Advancement in the Wake of COVID-19

    The Senate-Administration Workgroup on Academic Advancement in the Wake of COVID-19 was empanelled in Spring Quarter 2021 and charged with assessing the short- and long-term impacts of the ongoing public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic on the research, teaching, and service missions of UC San Diego faculty. 

    Report of the Senate-Administration Workgroup on Academic Advancement in the Wake of COVID-19


    Details about how the workgroup's findings and recommendations may be implemented are forthcoming

2020-21 - Workgroup on Establishing Eighth College

  • 2020-21 - Workgroup on Establishing Eighth College

2021 - Workgroup on Establishment of a DEI Program

  • 2021 - Workgroup on Establishment of a DEI Program

2021 - Workgroup on the Academic Plan for Seventh College

  • Workgroup on the Academic Plan for Seventh College

Workgroup on Establishing Seventh College

  • Workgroup on Establishing Seventh College

2020 - Budget Planning Guidance

  • 2020 Budget Planning Guidance

    The public health emergency caused by the COVID‐19 pandemic has had significant impacts at the national, state, and local levels. One result was a significant budget reduction at UC San Diego.  To guide the academic divisions and other units in Academic Affairs, EVC Simmons charged a broadly constituted task force with developing principles by which budget reductions in the academic divisions could be implemented.  Their recommendations formed the basis for the budget reduction plans created by the academic divisions.

    Report of the Summer General Campus Task Force on Budget Planning (SSO required) 

2019-20 - Faculty Workload

  • Faculty Workload

    Faculty are periodically reviewed for merit and promotion advancement based on their scholarly activity (research and/or creative activity), teaching, both University and professional service, and contributions to diversity. There is considerable variation across campus regarding departmental standards in each of these areas.In some cases, departments have developed internal workload standards that provide broader holistic metrics of faculty engagement. In these cases, there are points assigned to departmental teaching (undergraduate and graduate), service, and graduate student mentoring activities. In addition, teaching is not just quantified by number of courses, but by enrollment as well.

    This workgroup convened in 2019 and was originally charged to document departmental workload standards, consult departments on workload standards in the overall context of the university, and recommend a process through which workload standards may be modified. 

    Report of the Senate-Administration Workgroup on Faculty Workload 


    This workgroup reconvened in 2020 with a supplemental charge to develop university principles on equitable service expectations as well as standardized and consistent guidelines to advise departments on how to account for the work of their faculty. 

    Response to supplemental charge for Senate-Admin Workgroup on Faculty Workload

2019 - Holistic Teaching Evaluation

  • Holistic Teaching Evaluation

    This workgroup was originally charged in 2019 with developing recommendations that would allow the university to: Identify and make available multiple existing tools for teaching evaluation; establish a campus culture where both formative and summative assessment of teaching and learning is standard practice and institute or augment faculty development programs.

    Report of the Senate-Administration Workgroup on Holistic Teaching Evaluations


    Recognizing that a shift to holistic teaching evaluation represents a major culture shift, both the workgroup and the Senate Council recommended the formation of a committee to oversee the process. Thus, a Senate-Administration Holistic Teaching Evaluation Implementation Task Force was convened in Fall 2020 and charged with identifying processes for formative assessments and summative evaluations and developing the necessary infrastructure to move forward with portfolio reviews as the main method of evaluating teaching effectiveness. In addition, the task force will also suggest ways in which the Teaching + Learning Commons may assist with the teaching evaluation process, without participating in individual evaluations.

Workgroup on the Evolution of Extension

  • Full Name

2018-19 - Graduate Funding

  • Graduate Funding

    This workgroup convened in 2018-19 and was charged with proposing alternative graduate funding allocation methods that will (1) be fiscally sustainable, (2) better align the pedagogical demands of graduate and undergraduate education, (3) ideally provide graduate students with a minimum stipend and sufficient time for dedicated scholarship and (4) allow additional graduate students to be access extramural funds. 

    Report of the Senate-Administration Workgroup on Graduate Funding 


    Since the release of the report, the university has undertaken a comprehensive reform of graduate student funding to improve transparency and enhance financial support for Doctoral and MFA students.   

    The Graduate Division has created a collaborative resource to share information about these strategic efforts, including a summary of the overall implementation plan. Please visit their collab site for campus partners for details, including all major communications related to this topic and answers to frequently asked questions.  

2018-19 - Policies and Practices for Teaching Professors

  • Policies and Practices for Teaching Professors

    This workgroup convened in 2018-19 and was originally charged to undertake a study and provide a set of recommendations about how UC San Diego might change its local practices and PPM policies not mandated by APM requirements or non-PPM policies in ways that better support teaching professors and provide appropriate guidance to unit leaders. 

    Report of the Senate-Administration Workgroup on Policies and Practices related to Teaching Professors


    In response to the recommendations from this workgroup, the university is making changes to policies and practices that will lead to greater equity in compensation and appointments, academic reviews, and teaching expectations for ladder rank and teaching faculty. One of the steps involves training department chairs and academic personnel staff on best practices for working with the teaching professor series.  A more tangible outcome is currently underway to regularize the appointment and academic review processes between the teaching faculty and ladder rank faculty regarding the delegation of certain actions to dean’s authority.

2018-19 - Faculty Recruitment

2017 - Abusive Conduct and Bullying by Faculty

  • Abusive Conduct and Bullying by Faculty

    In 2017, a workgroup was charged with providing recommendations to improve the communication of existing campus policies and processes related to bullying or changes to university policies to ensure UC San Diego is operating in accordance with best practices for higher education. This group was convened after reports by Senate members of incidents of bullying by faculty that did not appear to be satisfactorily resolved.  

    Report of the Senate-Administration Workgroup on Bullying


    In the time since the workgroup made its recommendations, we have had the benefit of learning from peer institutions that have initiated formal processes for addressing allegations of bullying. Their experiences demonstrated the need to educate our university community about the standards of acceptable conduct and provide resources to support leaders in responding to allegations of inappropriate behavior by faculty.  

    Academic Personnel Services (APS) has shared resources related to abusive conduct and bullying, including general guidance for administrative leaders and anti-bullying resources for faculty. Department chairs may also contact AP staff to request a detailed Abusive Conduct Toolkit for Administrators, and this topic is addressed at the required quarterly workshops for academic leadership, including department chairs, provosts, and division chiefs. Visit the APS website for details. 

Guidelines for Academic Affairs Workgroups, Committees, and Task Forces

In striving to accomplish elements of UC San Diego’s strategic plan, campus leaders regularly convene groups of faculty, staff, and student representatives to address issues with far-reaching implications. 

The framework articulated in this document has been jointly developed by administrative and Academic Senate leadership to support the success of critical initiatives. These guidelines apply to joint Senate-Administration workgroups as well as administrative workgroups, committees, task forces, or other teams charged by the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor (EVC) or its reporting units, including Academic Personnel Services, Student Affairs, and Office for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. The expectations and protocols outlined below are intended to guide the creation of high-quality reports and recommendations produced by each group in response to its charge.  


Group members are carefully selected based on criteria such as area of expertise, center/scope of responsibility, and ability to represent key stakeholders. It is essential that organizational teams be representative of diverse opinions, experiences, skills, etc. and thus each member is invited to the group for the explicit purpose of sharing their unique perspective. It is important that all workgroup members attend and participate fully. 

Each member is expected to actively contribute to the group’s work both during meetings and outside of meetings by:     

  • Attending meetings and engaging in group discussions, preparing for meetings 
  • Examining, commenting on, and contributing to materials prepared for the group’s review or reference (e.g., meeting agendas, presentations, background information, files for discussion, draft reports)  
  • Assisting the group’s research process and conducting additional due diligence independently as appropriate  

Before agreeing to join a workgroup, prospective members should consider their existing commitments and capacity to contribute to the group’s work within the designated time frame. If a group member is unable to fulfill their commitment to the group, the convener may ask the office(s) that charged the workgroup to provide a replacement. Note that, per existing practice, the group’s designated administrative support staff is responsible for sharing information about faculty service on workgroups to the Academic Senate Committee on Committees.


A group’s charge should include information about the context of the work to be undertaken, specific deliverables requested, associated deadlines, and guidance regarding the due diligence expected to inform the work. 

Groups may choose to develop a team charter to establish the foundation for how the group will work together as a cohesive unit, including additional details regarding conditions of participation, individual roles, and how core business activities will be conducted. 

Groups are encouraged to utilize technology to facilitate efficient project management and to offer several means for members to engage with the group. Information about cloud-based collaboration and communication tools available to faculty and staff is available on Blink (see: 

Since workgroup outcomes have important implications for campus policy and operations, the team should strive to stay within the designated timeline.



Workgroups are expected to conduct robust research to inform evidence-based decision-making. In addition to insights that may be gleaned from individual members’ prior knowledge or experience, teams are expected to incorporate data from relevant internal and external sources. To make the team’s work as effective and relevant as possible, the team should apprise itself of background information, peer best practices, institutional data, and other relevant information.

 At a minimum, groups are encouraged to: 

  • Conduct literature reviews to understand essential principles or theories, academic and/or  industry standards and emerging trends, as well as standard best practices at institutions both within and beyond the U.C.Explore recommendations from related workgroups;  
  • Consult colleagues in other offices to understand organizational dynamics and institutional history; and   
  • Review findings from campus surveys and other relevant campus reports. 

Group chairs and support staff are responsible for facilitating the group’s analysis, but all members are expected to proactively contribute to the group’s data collection and information sharing. 

Institutional Research is available to provide additional support related to data-based planning, evaluation, and assessment. Please visit the office’s website ( to access data and reports from existing analyses or for more information about their services.  


Unless stated otherwise, workgroups dissolve at the conclusion of their project with the submission of their final report and recommendations. 

Reports should be submitted to the office(s) that charged the group. For joint Senate-Administration workgroups, reports should be shared with the EVC Office and Academic Senate concurrently. 

Group chairs may share the near-final draft of their work products with the office(s) that charged the group. This creates an opportunity for campus leaders to ensure that the group’s charge has been addressed comprehensively and completely, and to provide any other overarching suggestions before the workgroup concludes.

The purpose of workgroups is to help develop solutions to systemic challenges facing the campus community and to advance progress towards common strategic goals. With few exceptions, workgroup reports should include specific recommendations for addressing the issues outlined in the charge letter and identified in the group’s analysis. 

The office(s) that charged the group is responsible for responding to the report in consultation with other campus units that may be impacted by or involved with implementing any of the recommendations provided in the report.  When workgroup recommendations propose the creation of new policies or procedures, the group convener should contact the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor for guidance on proper routing. 


  1. Executive Summary
  2. Table of Contents 
  3. Introduction 
  4. Data & Analysis 
  5. Recommendations 
  6. Conclusion
  7. Appendices
    • Final Group Membership 
    • List of Documents Reviewed 
    • Data sources consulted
    • Analysis methodology