LAUC Committee on Committees, Rules, and Jurisdiction
Mid-Year Report for LAUC-LA Spring Assembly

Members of the Committee: Peter Brueggeman (CHAIR) San Diego; , Berkeley; Elaine Franco, Davis; Jim Crooks, Irvine; Ken Wade, Los Angeles; Heidi Hutchinson, Riverside; Paul J. Wakeford, San Francisco; Gerardo (Gary) Colmenar, Santa Barbara; Gregory A. Careaga, Santa Cruz

The final day of October, 2001, the Committee received a two-fold charge from the LAUC President: 1) review its standing charge and make recommendations as appropriate; 2) explore issues connected to an alternative structure for the committee, under which not all campuses would need to be represented on the committee, thus reducing its size, and under which structure the LAUC Executive Board might be designated as a final review body when necessary.

Excerpted from the first portion of the LAUC President's charge:
As specified in the Bylaws (Article VIII, Section 1.J.1), the standing charge to the Committee on Committees, Rules and Jurisdiction is the following:

a) Review annually, or at the special request of the LAUC President, the LAUC Bylaws and submit recommendations to the LAUC President.

b) Review the Divisions' Bylaws to assure that they are consistent with the LAUC Bylaws. (See Article VI, Section 2.d.)

c) Address other subjects at the request of the LAUC President and consider and develop recommendations upon matters concerning LAUC's committees, rules and jurisdiction. The Committee suggested several modifications in its standing charge, to the LAUC Executive Board. 1)

The Committee suggested removing the requirement to review the statewide Bylaws annually. This provides flexibility in the language. 2) Divisions should review their bylaws after a revision in the statewide bylaws, and Divisions should notify the Committee upon completion of revisions in divisional bylaws, thereby prompting a review by the Committee. This would require changes in the language of Article VI, Section 2.d. of the LAUC Bylaws. Specific language to implement these suggestions has been sent by the Committee to the LAUC President for consideration.

After considering the second portion of the LAUC President's charge, to consider an alternative structure for the Committee, the members concluded that the current structure, utilizing individual representatives from each campus, is appropriate. The current structure provides each campus with a simple structure to make its views known on any matter before the Committee. The variety of viewpoints is often helpful in the work of the Committee, and the size of the group facilitates sufficient collective discussion. The Committee found it difficult to conceive an efficient alternative structure with fewer members that would ensure the views of all campuses would be taken into consideration. Committee Chair Peter Brueggeman communicated the Committee's response to this aspect of its charge to the LAUC President.

Respectfully submitted,

Ken Wade LAUC-LA representative LAUC Committee on Committees, Rules, and Jurisdiction