A Framework for Oversight and Stewardship at UC Berkeley
I. Background and Purpose
This document offers a non-binding evaluative framework to support Senate members and committees in assessing the necessity, efficacy, and proportionality of proposed policies. It is designed to protect the university’s terminal goals—excellence in research and excellence in teaching—from policy drift, overregulation, or bureaucratic accumulation.
II. Core Principles
- Terminal Goal Alignment Policy should directly advance or protect research and teaching quality.
- Proportionality of Burden Faculty time and discretion are limited resources; burdens must be justified with demonstrated benefit.
- Evidence and Justification Policy should be grounded in meaningful evidence, not anecdote or precautionary logic alone.
- Stakeholder Consultation The proposal should reflect meaningful input across schools, divisions, and ranks—especially those disproportionately affected.
- Least-Cost, High-Yield Design Preference should be given to alternatives that achieve the intended goal with the least cost in time, complexity, and autonomy.
- Review and Sunset All policies should have clear ownership and where appropriate, a sunset.
III. Key Evaluative Questions
A. Policy Rationale
- What specific institutional value is this policy designed to advance?
- Is the motivating concern localized to a subset of units, or demonstrably campus-wide?
B. Evidence of Effectiveness
- What is the evidence that this policy will produce net benefits?
- If compliance or legal mandates are invoked, has a formal legal opinion been provided and reviewed?
C. Direct and Indirect Costs
- What are the expected costs in faculty and staff time, and how are those costs distributed? Will it necessitate hiring more staff?
- Has there been meaningful consultation with faculty from across disciplines—e.g., STEM labs, humanities, social sciences, professional schools?
- Will the policy disproportionately burden junior faculty, research-intensive units, or those without administrative support?
D. Design Quality and Flexibility
- Does the policy allow for equivalent alternative compliance (i.e., flexibility to achieve the same goals through different means)?
- Is there a less burdensome, “good enough” alternative policy?
- Does it erode professional judgment or decision-making authority by imposing process controls or by withholding information where regular professional discretion should suffice?
- Does it “punish the innocent” to regulate rare misconduct or error?
E. Incentives and Unintended Consequences
- Will this policy create disincentives for faculty to:
- Take on graduate students?
- Apply for or administer large grants?
- Provide department or university service?
- Use campus services vs. off-grid alternatives (e.g., shadow IT, shadow OPS)?
- Will it divert attention from scholarly productivity toward bureaucratic compliance?
F. Accountability and Review
- Who is accountable for implementation, monitoring, and support?
- Is there a mechanism to evaluate policy effectiveness after implementation?
- Should a sunset clause be added to ensure reevaluation (e.g., automatic review or expiration after 3 years)?