III. Academic Units

III.A. Academic Departments

Actions involving departments are carried out at the campus level and do not involve review by the system-level office. Such actions include creating a new department, changing the name of an existing department, and consolidating, transferring, or disestablishing an existing department. If approved by the appropriate agencies of the Divisional Academic Senate and by the campus administration, an action involving an academic program that appoints faculty who are members of the Academic Senate and who vote as a unit under Academic Senate Bylaw 55 shall be reviewed as an action involving a department. Any proposed actions involving graduate degree programs associated with affected department(s) should be handled according to the procedures described for the proposed action for graduate degree programs. All final campus actions involving departments should be reported by the Chancellor to the system-level offices within a month of the action. 

III.A.1. Establishment of an Academic Department

Establishments of academic departments should be included in the campus Five-Year Planning Perspectives as early as possible in the proposal development process. Appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that systemwide implications are considered. In general, however, establishments of academic departments are carried out at the campus level and do not involve system-level review. The process is as follows.

1. Proposal Development: A proposal to establish an academic department is developed by faculty members of the relevant School and is submitted to the Executive Committee (or equivalent) of the School for review and approval. The proposal should describe the values and capabilities that will be added by the new department and explain why they cannot be achieved within the existing campus structure.

2. Review and Comment:

  1. If the proposal is approved by the department in accordance with its rules of governance, the Dean forwards it to the EVCP. Copies of the proposal must also be sent to the School Dean and the Vice Chancellor of Budget and Resource Management within Finance and Administrative Services. If the School Dean has comments, he or she will forward them to the EVCP and the Academic Senate chair.
  2. The EVCP sends the proposal for action to the School in which the department is housed, the Academic Senate chair, and the Chancellor for review and comment.
  3. Upon favorable review by the Senate Academic Planning and Budget (APB) Committee, the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP), the Committee on Research (COR), and the Graduate Council (GC), the Senate’s Executive Council (EC) reviews and approves the proposal on their Consent Calendar at the next available meeting.
  4. The Senate Chair notifies the Chancellor and the EVCP of the Senate action (endorsement or nor) with a copy to the EC and Office of Budget and Resource Management.

3. Final Approval:

  1. The Chancellor takes a final action and informs the initiators accordingly, copying the Academic Senate, EC, Dean, and Office of Budget and Resource Management. If the proposal is not approved, the initiators may either modify and resubmit or withdraw it.
  2. All final campus actions involving departments are reported to the systemwide offices within a month of final approval. A communication is sent to the Provost, copying the coordinator of program review, the director of academic planning and program review, and the records manager, information resources and communications.
III.A.2. Name Change of an Academic Department

Name changes of academic departments are carried out at the campus level and do not involve system-level review. The process for name changes of academic departments is as follows.

4. Proposal Development: A proposal to change the name of an academic department is developed by the department and submitted to the Executive Committee (or equivalent) of the School for review and approval. The proposal should describe the reasons for the new name, identify any corresponding changes to the unit’s focus, functions, requirements, or degree programs, and document any corresponding changes in staffing and resource requirements. The proposal should also report the unit’s constituents’ feelings regarding the proposal (faculty vote, student support, etc.). Departmental voting should be accomplished in accordance with systemwide UC Senate Bylaw 55.

5. Review and Comment:

  1. If the proposal is approved by the department in accordance with its rules of governance, the Dean forwards it to the EVCP. Copies of the proposal must also be sent to the School Dean and the Vice Chancellor of Budget and Resource Management within Finance and Administrative Services. If the School Dean has comments, he or she will forward them to the EVCP and the Academic Senate chair.
  2. The EVCP sends the proposal for action to the School in which the unit is housed, the Academic Senate chair, and the Chancellor for review and comment.
  3. Upon favorable review by the Senate Academic Planning and Budget (APB) Committee, the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP), the Committee on Research (COR), and the Graduate Council (GC), the Senate’s Executive Council (EC) reviews and approves the proposal on their Consent Calendar at the next available meeting.
  4. The Senate Chair notifies the Chancellor and the EVCP of the Senate action (endorsement or nor) with a copy to the EC and Office of Budget and Resource Management.

6. Final Approval:

  1. The Chancellor takes a final action and informs the initiators accordingly, copying the Academic Senate, EC, Dean, and Office of Budget and Resource Management. If the proposal is not approved, the initiators may either modify and resubmit or withdraw it.
  2. All final campus actions involving departments are reported to the systemwide offices within a month of final approval. A communication is sent to the Provost, copying the coordinator of program review, the director of academic planning and program review, and the records manager, information resources and communications.
III.A.3. Transfer, Consolidation, Discontinuance, or Disestablishment of an Academic Department

All proposed TCDD actions for academic units should be included in the campus Five-Year Planning Perspectives as early as possible in the proposal development process. Appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that systemwide implications are considered. Proposed actions that CCGA would ordinarily review continue to require CCGA approval. All other proposed actions are endorsed by the reviewing Senate committees/Academic Council and are approved by the President as well as the Regents, if needed.

Details of the Process

  1. The Chancellor transmits to the Divisional Chair, the Provost, and the Academic Council Chair a one- to two-page description of the proposed TCDD.
  2. Based on the description provided, Senate committees (i.e., CCGA, UCEP, and the University Committee on Planning and Budget [UCPB]) notify the Academic Council Chair of any concerns regarding potential systemwide impacts or Divisional Senate involvement. The Academic Council Chair is responsible for sending the Provost a recommendation on the proposed TCDD action. Subsequently, the Council Chair and Provost are responsible for investigating any concerns and determining how to address them.
  3. Once the campus completes a reconstitution proposal, it is sent out for formal review by campus administration and by the Divisional Senate. If campus administration and the Divisional Senate approve the proposed reconstitution, then the Chancellor submits the proposal to the Provost and to the Academic Council, CCGA, UCEP, and UCPB. The Council Chair may distribute it to other Senate committees for review.
  4. The Provost distributes the proposal to UCOP staff for analysis, which is then shared with the Academic Council and with CCGA, UCEP, and UCPB Chairs.
  5. UCOP provides the proposal to state officials and agency staff (e.g., Governor, Department of Finance, Legislative Analyst) upon request.
  6. The CCGA Chair convenes a Senate subcommittee with the chairs of UCEP, UCPB, and any other participating Senate committees to coordinate/expedite Senate committee reviews as appropriate. CCGA is the lead committee for these reviews unless the proposed reconstitution affects only undergraduate programs, in which case UCEP functions as the lead committee.
  7. The Academic Council Chair conveys the Senate’s comments and recommendations to the Provost, who makes a recommendation to the President.
III.B. Schools and Colleges
III.B.1. Establishment of New Schools and Colleges

The establishment of new schools or colleges represents a significant outlay of resources and should be given careful consideration by campus administration, the Divisional and systemwide Academic Senates, system-level administration, and ultimately, the Regents. In the face of limited state support for new endeavors, rigor in the reviews of proposed new schools and colleges is very important.

Establishing a new school or college is a two-step process and takes at least two years to complete. At least one year before submitting a full proposal, proponents of the new school must submit a pre-proposal first to the Divisional Academic Senate, and, if approved, to the systemwide Academic Senate and to the system-level Administration. Upon receipt by the systemwide Senate, the pre-proposal is reviewed by CCGA, UCEP, and UCPB as well as by any other systemwide standing committee selected by the Academic Council Chair. After campus proponents receive comments from both the systemwide Senate and system-level administration, the campus may prepare a full proposal. A full proposal is reviewed simultaneously by the Divisional Academic Senate and systemwide Senate Committees (i.e., CCGA, UCEP, UCPB, and any others chosen by the Academic Council Chair).

Approval of a new school of college requires a favorable review by the systemwide Senate, a review by designated state officials, an approval recommendation by the President to the Board of Regents, and approval by the Board of Regents. If a campus fails to establish a new school or college within seven years of the date of Regental Approval, it must submit a post-proposal. The post-proposal updates the original proposal and must provide a clear, compelling justification for the school or college in the context of a budgetary and curricular environment that may have changed since initial Regental approval.

Categories of Review

Every proposal and corresponding Senate review should address each of the following categories of review.

8. Academic Rigor: The academic rigor of the proposed academic unit is of utmost importance. Equal weight should be placed on the academic merits of the program as on its financial aspects.

9. Financial Viability: The proposal should stress the financial stability of the new school or college and should provide multi-year budgets with contingency plans in the event that proposed funding falls through. A detailed budget, including revenue source, start-up costs, build-out costs, steady-state funding expectations, personnel costs, and capital costs/space needs must be provided. Failure to provide a detailed presentation and discussion of the budget will constitute cause for proposal rejection.

  1. FTE Requirements: The proposal should clearly indicate the number of full-time equivalent faculty for each state of development. This information should include the number of faculty FTEs needed at start-up, in various stages of build-out, and in the steady state. The balance between full-time faculty at various ranks and lecturers/other temporary or part-time teaching help also should be provided. The school’s financial plan should detail how FTEs will be funded, including whether any faculty will be shared with other units. The need for FTEs in particular specialties should be articulated. The proposal should highlight both the amount of time and the resources needed to hire new FTEs.
  2. Capital Requirements: All capital requirements must be carefully detailed and analyzed.
  3. Source of Revenue: All sources of revenue must be detailed, including state and philanthropic support. A development plan should be submitted as well.

10. Need for the Program: The proposal must clearly state and make the case for a distinct need for the new school or college within the UC system. Specifically, it should demonstrate: 1) a clear societal need for professionals, researchers, faculty, or academics in the field; 2) student demand for the new school or college; and 3) why societal need and student demand are not fully met by existing UC units and programs. In addition, the proposal should: i) define how the school or college will address this unmet need and demand; ii) articulate how it would attract qualified, fully competitive students; and iii) provide projections of employment opportunities for graduates of the new school or college. If UC already has a school or college of the same type as that proposed, the proposal should include clear analysis of how the new entity will assume a necessary and perhaps even unique role in the University’s systemwide academic program. Comparisons with existing UC units or other schools or colleges of the desired rank or academic distinction should be included.

11. Fit within the UC system and within the segments: The proposal should clearly articulate the fit of the school or college within the UC system as well as other public and private higher education segments in California. The proposal should stress how the new entity will fit within the overall academic profile of the campus - how it will enhance existing programs and how those programs will enhance the quality and development of the new school or college. The capital plan also should demonstrate how the proposal fits with the campus academic and strategic plans.

Overview of the Pre-Proposal

A pre-proposal is required at least one year before the full proposal. The pre-proposal is separate from any documents that accompany the Five-Year Planning Perspectives and should address the categories of review noted above. Even though it will be shorter than the full proposal, it must contain sufficient detail to allow the Divisional and systemwide Senates to complete an initial evaluation of the proposed academic unit.

Details of the Pre-Proposal Process

  1. If the proposed new school or college has not been listed in the Five-Year Planning Perspectives, it should be added to the planning lists, and a description should be drafted and transmitted to the Provost at the time that the campus begins to review the pre-proposal.
  2. At least one year before a proposal for a new school of college is approved on the campus, a pre-proposal is submitted to the local Divisional Academic Senate. If the Divisional Senate approves the pre-proposal, then the Chancellor submits it to the Provost, who forwards it to both Academic Affairs and the systemwide Academic Senate.
  3. CCGA, UCEP, UCPB, and any other relevant committees selected by the Council Chair provide to the Academic Council formal comments on the pre-proposal.
  4. UCOP Academic Affairs provides comments to the proponents of the new school or college, copying the Academic Council Chair. In addition and upon request, UCOP provides the pre-proposal to state officials and agency staff (e.g., the Governor, the Department of Finance, or Legislative Analysts).
  5. The Academic Council’s comments, along with a cover letter from the Academic Council, is sent to the proponents of the school of college, with copies to the Provost and the Divisional Senate Chair.

Overview of the Process for the Submission of the Full Proposal

After incorporating comments on the pre-proposal, campus proponents of the new school or college forward the full proposal to the Divisional Senate. If the Divisional Senate approves the full proposal, the Chancellor forwards it to the Provost and the Academic Council Chair for review.

Details of the Full-Proposal Process

  1. After incorporating comments on the pre-proposal, campus proponents of the new school or college submit the full proposal to the Chair of the Divisional Academic Senate for review and comment.
  2. If the Divisional Senate approves the full proposal, the Chancellor forwards it to the Provost and the Academic Council Chair for review. A concurrent review is not permitted.
  3. Designated staff from Academic Affairs complete an independent financial and budgetary analysis of the proposal, which is sent to the Academic Council Chair and the chairs of CCGA, UCPB, and UCEP. The Council Chair is responsible for distributing the UCOP analysis to any other Senate committees reviewing the proposal.
  4. UCOP provides the proposal upon request to state officials and agency staff (e.g., the Governor, the Department of Finance, and Legislative Analysts).
  5. The CCGA Chair convenes a Senate subcommittee with the chairs of UCEP, UCPB, and any other participating Senate committees to coordinate and expedite these reviews, as appropriate. All reviews should comment on the categories of review noted above. Ordinarily, the Senate committees will be expected to complete their reviews within 60 days of receipt of the proposal.
  6. The proposal should include at least two internal reviews from experts within the UC system. If there are fewer than two internal reviews or if the internal reviews are not rigorous enough, the CCGA Chair may request additional internal reviews.
  7. CCGA will request two external discipline expert reviews and will incorporate these comments in its overall report.
  8. Senate review committees report their recommendations to the Academic Council. If the review committees do not concur in their final recommendations, then the Academic Council Chair acts as an arbiter.
  9. The Academic Council Chair reports the Senate recommendations to the Provost, copying the Divisional Chair, the chairs, the analysts of the committees that reviewed the proposal, and Academic Affairs.
  10. If the Academic Council rejects the proposal, then the Provost informs the Chancellor. The Chancellor decides whether to resubmit a revised proposal to the Divisional Senate or to withdraw the proposal completely. If the Academic Council makes its approval contingent on the resolution of key issues raised by the reviews, then the Provost works with the Chancellor to resolve these issues. The Provost recommends approval or rejection of the proposal to the President.
  11. If Academic Council approves the proposal, then the President prepares a Regents’ Item for the next Board meeting recommending approval of the school or college to the Regents. The Academic Council Chair checks the Regents’ item for accuracy.
  12. If the Regents approve the proposal, then the Provost reports the approval to the Chancellor and other stakeholders.

Process for Submission of the Post-Proposal

If a campus proposal to establish a new school or college is approved by the Regents but not established within seven years of the date of that approval, the campus must resubmit the original proposal along with a post-proposal to its Divisional Senate. If the Divisional Senate approves the post-proposal, steps #2-13 are followed above. The post-proposal addresses any changes in the budgetary environment, the academic field(s) and related curriculum, and the need for and fit of the proposed school or college since the submission of the original proposal.   

III.B.2. Name Changes of Schools and Colleges

In most cases, simple name changes of schools are sought to accommodate popular and accepted changes in the nomenclature of an academic field or discipline (e.g., updated terminology used by current scholars in that area). A simple name change may not be used to accommodate substantial curricular changes or resource requirements of a school of college. To initiate the process for a simple name change, the Dean of a school submits a rationale and justification of the name change to the Divisional Chair for approval. If the simple name change is approved by the Divisional Senate, it is forwarded to the Academic Council Chair.

Campus Review of a Proposal for a Name Change of a School

  1. The School’s Executive Committee initiates the action by approving the name change.
  2. The Dean of the School submits to the EVCP and the Chair of the respective Academic Senate Faculty Council an approved proposal for the name change of the School. A copy is sent to the Department of Budget and Resource Management within Financial and Administrative Services (FAS).
  3. Once the Faculty Council and the School’s Faculty have approved the name change, the Faculty Council analyst forwards the approved proposal to the Academic Senate for further action.
  4. The Academic Senate routes the proposal to its Committee on Academic Planning & Budget and the Graduate Council. Upon review and approval by those committees, the Senate’s Executive Council (EC) includes the proposal within the Consent Calendar for final approval.
  5. If the Senate review at the EC is favorable, the Academic Senate office transmits the Senate action (i.e., an endorsement or not) to the Chancellor and the EVCP, indicating the date of the action.
  6. The Chancellor takes a final action and informs the initiators accordingly, copying the Academic Senate, the EVCP, and FAS. If the proposal is not approved, the initiators may either modify and resubmit or withdraw the proposal.

Systemwide Review of a Proposal for a Name Change of a School

  1. If the proposal is approved by the Chancellor, then the Chancellor submits the proposal to the Provost and Senior Vice President and the Academic Council Chair. CCGA, UCEP, and UCPB assess whether the change is substantive and advise the Council Chair accordingly. If substantive programmatic or curricular changes or a substantial need for new resources are associated with the name change, then the campus must follow the procedures in Section IV of the Compendium (Reconstitutions of Academic Programs and Academic Units). If the name change does not present substantive programmatic or curricular changes or a substantial need for new resources, then the Council Chair places the proposal on the Academic Council agenda.
  2. Upon a recommendation for approval by the Senate, the Provost and Senior Vice President recommends approval to the President.
  3. Upon Presidential approval, the Provost and Senior Vice President notifies the campus Chancellor, copying the Council Chair, CCGA Chair, UCEP Chair, UCPB Chair, Senate Executive Director, CCGA analyst, UCEP analyst, UCPB analyst, campus registrar, and campus conduct (including faculty proposer).
  4. The Chancellor informs the chair of the Divisional Academic Senate, Deans/Chairs, and the appropriate campus units of the President’s approval of the name change and the effective implementation date.
III.B.3. Transfer, Consolidation, or Discontinuance, or Disestablishment of Schools or Colleges

TCDDs of schools or colleges follow the same process as for Academic Units. The President recommends approval of the TCDD action to the Regents, as prescribed in Standing Order of the Regents 110.1. Upon Regental approval, the Provost notifies the campus Chancellor, copying the Council Chair, CCGA Chair, UCEP Chair, UCPB Chair, Senate Executive Director, CCGA analyst, UCEP analyst, UCPB analyst, campus Registrar, and campus contacts (including faculty proposer).

UCSF Compendium | Table of Contents