Academic Senate Minutes April 02, 2002

Chair Bicknell called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. on Tuesday, April 02, 2002, in Nelson Hall East, Room 201 (Goodwin Forum).

Members Present: Adams, Bicknell, Burroughs, Goodman, Hennessy, Jenkins, Kenyon, Little, MacConnie, Martin, McFarland, Meiggs, Novotney, Oliver, Paselk, Paynton, Sanford, Snyder, Stokes (4 to 5), Thobaben, Thompson, Varkey, Yarnall

Members Absent: Braggs, Fulgham, Mayer, McCrone, Sheppard, Travis, F. Wilson

Proxies: Snyder for Bockover; Paynton for Klein; Kenyon for Mortazavi; Little for Smith; Vrem for Stokes (5-6); McFarland for Wang

Guests: Steve Butler, Student Affairs; Ron Fritzsche, Academic Affairs; Gail Fults, Faculty Athletic Representative; Claire Knox, Chair, Athletic Review Committee; Carolyn Mueller, Office of the President; Richard Vrem, Office of Undergraduate Studies

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved and seconded (Kenyon/Meiggs) to approve the submitted minutes for the March 12, 2002, meeting. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

2. Announcements and Communications

Chair Bicknell announced:

A letter from President McCrone has been received acknowledging receipt of the senate's resolution on administrative searches passed unanimously at the March 12 senate meeting. President McCrone indicated in this letter that he will be discussing the implications of the resolution with the University Executive Committee and with President-designate Rollin Richmond.

A copy of the Final Report on the Implementation and Recommendations of CSU Special Investigation Report Number 01-93 has been received; the Senate Executive Committee will review it and it may be referred to the Senate Finance Committee for comment and advice.

The Faculty Affairs Committee has examined the issue of TA compensation at Cal Poly Humboldt and found that TAs on this campus are paid $20 per month above the CSU average. The Faculty Affairs Committee recommends no change in the TA pay schedule at this time and the Senate Executive Committee concurs.

It is noteworthy that Dr. Mary Scoggin, Department of Anthropology, has been appointed as the 2002-2004 International Programs Resident Director for China.

Contained in the agenda packet is a projected schedule for senate meetings for the remainder of the term. There are two more scheduled meetings after today for this term and all meetings have full agendas. If business cannot be completed during the scheduled times, then an additional meeting may be called for May 7 and/or May 14. Immediately following the April 30, 2002, meeting there will be a reception for incoming, continuing and outgoing senate members hosted by President McCrone.

The election of senate officers occurs at the last senate meeting after the new senators have been seated. It is the practice of the Senate Executive Committee to present the senate with a slate of candidates for that election. Elected senators are eligible to hold a position of officer of the Academic Senate. The offices include chair, vice chair (and chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee), and secretary (and chair of the Educational Policies Committee). If anyone would like to submit a nomination, please contact a member of the Senate Executive Committee. There will be a formal call for any additional nominations from the floor at the April 30 senate meeting.

3.Committee and State Senate Reports

Senate Finance Committee - There is a resolution on today's agenda.

Faculty Affairs - There is a discussion item on today's agenda.

Educational Policies - There are three resolutions on today's agenda, and the Committee continues its work on program review.

UCC - The Committee is working on learning outcomes and assessments for the areas for which it is responsible; the Committee has been hearing its subcommittees year end reports for distance learning and the information competency initiative.

OAA - Enrollment figures look positive for next year; more detail will be provided at the next senate meeting. In an effort to increase student retention, plans are underway to reopen the Air Center, hopefully by Fall 2002. The Center is located in SH 211.

4. Resolution on Cal Poly Humboldt Procedures for Discontinuance of Academic Programs (#15-01/02-EP) and Resolution on Cal Poly Humboldt Procedures for Suspension of Academic Programs (#16-01/02-EP)

These two resolutions were discussed previously on the floor of the senate, and adjustments to the policies were made by the Educational Policies Committee.

Senator MacConnie stated that editorial changes included addressing the concern regarding who could initiate a discontinuance procedure; making the flow charts as consistent as possible; converting time lines to academic days in both documents; and including in the discontinuance policy a statement acknowledging the option of suspension.

The UCC reviewed and approved these documents. One concern is that the suspension document does not offer sufficient protection for students and a statement encouraging student input should be added.

It was moved and seconded (MacConnie/Varkey) to place the Resolution on Cal Poly Humboldt Procedures for Discontinuance of Academic Programs (#15-01/02-EP) on the floor.

WHEREAS, The potential discontinuation of an academic program affects students, faculty and the university; and

WHEREAS, The Chancellor's Office in 1980 issued a memo stating that all campuses "shall have written procedures, approved by the Chancellor, for the discontinuance of academic programs", and

WHEREAS, According to the Chancellor's directive, the procedures should be based on certain provisions: be the result of a program review (ad hoc or regular), include broad consultation, provide mechanisms for enrolled students to complete their degrees, and include advice from the academic senate and appropriate committees, and

WHEREAS, The current Humboldt document titled Procedures for Discontinuance of Academic Programs (dated 1980) does not very clearly or specifically address the Chancellor's provisions,

WHEREAS, The current Humboldt document does not address what constitutes an ad hoc program review, therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt approve the revised and updated Procedures for Discontinuance of Academic Programs.

Discussion included the following comments:

There was extensive discussion on the language found in the last paragraph on page 1 of the procedures that indicates who may initiate an ad hoc program review. Concern was expressed that no reasons are stated as to why an initiation of an ad hoc program review might occur. Is it sufficient for any academic administrator or anyone listed in said paragraph to contact a department chair or program leader and inform that person that they are initiating an ad hoc program review? [The Committee members discussed possible scenarios that would trigger a review and found that they could not consider all the possibilities. Their decision was to avoid describing any such possibilities since doing so would add another layer of review. The goal was to have an open forum so that programs could not disappear without adequate discussion.] [The concern is how does such a review begin.] [The document was intended as a procedural document; perhaps revising the discontinuance and suspension documents and attempting to make them similar, made it more confusing.] [As a procedural document, the reasons for initiating an ad hoc program review, as well as clarification on who has the authority to initiate such a review and how that individual or group would go about doing that are needed.]

The problem with articulating criteria is that criteria change; for example, what is relevant now may not be so in three years. Providing some examples that describe when a program might be discontinued is the best that could be done, as opposed to providing a list of criteria.

Is there language in the AAUP that speaks to the line of authority in such processes?

The specific mechanisms that permit enrolled students to earn their degrees vary with the department and the program. [There are systemwide policies that suggest mechanisms for phasing out a program. If phasing out a program is not possible, then students are assisted with attending other campuses to finish the program.]

How much weight does the college curriculum committee carry?

It was accepted as a friendly amendment to add the following language as the second sentence in the last paragraph on page one of the document: That group or individual will present a rationale to the Academic Senate which will formally recommend to the president the initiation of the process.

Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

It was moved and seconded (MacConnie/Varkey) to place the Resolution on Cal Poly Humboldt Procedures for Suspension of Academic Programs (#16-01/02-EP) on the floor:

WHEREAS, The Chancellor's Office in 1980 issued a memo stating that all campuses "shall have written procedures, approved by the Chancellor, for the discontinuance of academic programs"; and

WHEREAS, The Chancellor's directive does not include suspension of academic programs, which is a local issue; and

WHEREAS, There may be instances when it is necessary to suspend a program for a period of time; and

WHEREAS, The potential suspension of an academic program affects students, faculty and the university; and

WHEREAS, It is important for constituents affected by such a suspension to have an opportunity to express support or concerns; and

WHEREAS, Cal Poly Humboldt currently has no clear policy and procedures for the suspension of academic programs; therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt approve the attached Procedures for Suspension of Academic Programs.

Discussion comments included the following:

It was offered as a friendly amendment to add the same sentence to the Initial Phase section of the suspension policy as was added to the discontinuance policy.

Discussion on the friendly amendment included: (1) the point is to make this an open process so that no de facto suspensions occur, (2) in order to allow a suspension to occur in a timely fashion, it may not be best to require that it to go before the senate; (3) there is language regarding justification in the Initial Phase section of the suspension policy that was not contained in the discontinuance policy; and (4) this is not friendly since the proposed language is in conflict with the last sentence in the first paragraph on page one of the document. The amendment was not accepted as friendly.

Neither of these policies are definitive. For example, should a department chair not schedule classes or the dean not provide resources for such classes or the vice president not authorize positions to the department to teach such classes, the end result is the same; the program has been suspended.

This policy provides a mechanism by which the affected department may bring such a situation into the open and make it public.

Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

5. Resolution on MSF Fees (#19-01/02-SF)

There was a first reading on this resolution at the March 12 senate meeting.

It was moved and seconded (Little/Novotney) to place the resolution on the floor.

WHEREAS, The MSF fees were established to cover extraordinary costs associated with certain class offerings; and

WHEREAS, There are no mechanisms for automatically adjusting MSF offsets to the Office of Academic Affairs or colleges from university budgetary resources; and

WHEREAS, Budget allocations to the colleges are inadequate to cover shortfalls in MSF offsets; therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that the Office of Academic Affairs and, ultimately, the colleges should be fully reimbursed for the actual deferred MSF costs on a semester-by-semester basis. (term-by-term?)

Senator Little stated that it appeared clear from the previous discussion that the Senate Finance Committee's preferred resolution was also the preferred resolution of the senate.

Discussion comments included:

It was suggested that language in the resolved clause be stronger, i.e., the colleges will be reimbursed.

This resolution is not recommending a method by which colleges are to be reimbursed since a method already exists; the resolution is only dealing with the fact that no adjustments to this reimbursement have been made to compensate the colleges.

It seems as though the intent of this resolution is to elevate the reimbursement of MSF fees to a high level of importance; that is, that such fees should be paid first. [Since the reimbursement of MSF fees is in excess of the allocation, then adjustments to this part of the budget should be a high priority.]

It was accepted as a friendly amendment to delete the word should from the resolved clause.

Humboldt is one of the few campuses in the system that takes this allotment out of all-university funds; many universities have established procedures whereby the students are charged directly for each class. Perhaps Humboldt needs to return to this system. [At the first discussion of this topic there was little sentiment to return to such a process; many described the process as a nightmare.]

What money will be used to reimburse the colleges for such fees? Clarification is needed regarding the source of the money to reimburse colleges for MSF fees. If students will not be charged for such fees, then the money will have to come from another source. [This resolution also may be undone if it becomes clear that drastic reductions in the budget make it impossible to sustain this policy.]

The MSF monies are monies the departments have expended under the promise of reimbursement, and they may differ from other expenditures.

Discussion will continue after completion of the time certain item.

7. TIME CERTAIN 5:00 P.M. [for approximately 20 minutes or less]

Athletics Progress Report - [Gail Fults, Faculty Athletic Representative]

Gail Fults, Humboldt's Faculty Athletic Representative, distributed a handout and stated that she would like input from the senate members.

Much of the report centered around scholarships including the current situation, future issues and policy issues. The chronology of scholarships reads: the first year Humboldt raised funds and made no awards; the second year Humboldt awarded approximately the total funds raised the first year and raised funds for the next year; the third year Humboldt awarded more scholarship dollars to those in sports with revenue and recognition potential than had been raised the year before; this year Humboldt awarded nearly $200,000 in scholarships, after having raised $55,300 for scholarships (currently Athletics is approximately $54,000 overspent in scholarships and believes it can raise these funds at the upcoming auction); and for next year, Athletics is making awards in the amount of $200,000 to students now, intending to raise $100,000 by the end of August to cover the fall awards and another $100,000 later in the year to cover spring awards. There are several issues regarding the fiscal deficit that need to be identified and addressed, such as funding the scholarship cash shortfall, Humboldt's vulnerability to cash flow difficulties if Athletics does not raise sufficient funds to cover the scholarship commitments, what options are open to Humboldt if adequate funds are not raised, and Athletics has not completed its 5 percent campus-wide budget reduction in state funding yet. Also there are several policy issues that need to be addressed such as administrative ramifications of the move of Athletics to Student Affairs; faculty influence with Athletics now that it is in Student Affairs; what the ideas and desires of the new president may be; gender equity; the influence of a revenue and recognition emphasis, a student equity emphasis and/or a recruiting emphasis in making decisions; and setting priorities.

Dr. Fults stated that the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights is conducting an investigation of Cal Poly Humboldt, and she anticipates that a report will be available soon. In addition, new NCAA rules may affect the number of sports Humboldt is required to offer as well as the number of sports the Conference must offer. Dr. Fults encouraged the Academic Senate to be involved in the committee structures regarding Athletics, and to make Athletics one of its central issues in working with the new president.

Discussion included the following comments:

The same amount of money is not needed to make every team competitive.

Fiscal integrity and accountability require that reasonable amounts be spent on scholarships.

The general fund contains $42,000 and this money may go to anyone; money raised by a particular sport will not be transferred to another sport, but it may be used to cover another sport's commitment. [Some sports have a negative balance but are expecting to make sufficient money to cover the $200,000 commitment.] [The role of the advisory committee, which includes two faculty members in its membership, is to determine how the money should be spent.]

Many positive changes have occurred since the new athletic director has taken over and there are feelings of optimism regarding Athletics being able to improve its financial situation. [Perhaps Athletics would not be in this situation if the responsible administrators had done their jobs in the first place and managed the Athletic Department properly.] [Athletics has been informed that it must reduce its budget by 5 percent next year.] [Projected fund raising is not only to cover equipment needs, but also to provide scholarship dollars.] [Athletics has always met its scholarship obligations.]

According to the report Dr. Fults received, which was reviewed by Steve Butler, Vice President for Student Affairs, there are two different budgets: one for scholarship and one for operations. These are fungible dollars and if the appropriate parties believe that money needs to be moved, then it could be moved.

Questions posed to the senate include: what direction is important? how can we keep the faculty influence strong? what should the role of Athletics be with respect to enrollment and retention?

The exact number of endowments to be used for scholarships is not known; track and field, cross country and softball are the three areas having rather substantial cash balances. Questions of this nature may be directed to Dan Collen or Steve Butler.

It is disturbing that decisions regarding the required sports to be offered can be made by those who meet nationally, say at the Division 2 level, and we have to conform to such decisions. [There is an impetus in Division 2 for an elevation of the level of competition and increased recognition of Division 2.]

According to Dr. Fults, her interpretation is that student equity has not been achieved; preferential treatment has been given to two teams who have the potential for revenue and recognition (men's football and men's basketball). Dr. Fults has been trying to advocate a more equitable distribution to all student athletes, and she would like input on this thinking.

There is a campus commitment to facilities upgrades regarding the lockers and ADA accessibility issues.

It was suggested that the Senate Executive Committee look at the senate representatives on the committee.

Chair Bicknell thanked Dr. Fults for her report.

5. Resolution on MSF Fees (#19-01/02-SF) (continued)

Approving this resolution does not provide any indication as to the amount of MSF fees.

An accounting for the shortfall of MSF fees is not available since bookkeeping is not done that would provide this information. There are some department activities that were supported by MSF fees in the past but are no longer. In order to not have to charge students such fees, $100,000 was allocated as backfill. The amount was then increased to $130,000. The idea now is to allow both the MSF fee aspects of the budget and the backfill to continue to inflate.

The language actual deferred MSF costs is confusing; perhaps deferred could be deleted.

It is not really an MSF fee; it is an in-lieu fee. The question is: are we giving priority to the departments that want an in-lieu fee returned to them?

The faculty in the Music Department would celebrate the return of MSF fees. The current system has proved to be very limiting in this department.

Approving this resolution may raise this issue to a higher level of awareness thereby assisting in its evaluation and solving any problems connected to it.

The inequity regarding what MSF fees do or do not cover needs to be addressed.

If the resolution would ask the administration to review the policy because it is not working, then the resolution could be supported; if the resolution is dictating that MSF in-lieu fees are more important than any other category, then it cannot be supported.

This fee issue is one of the most crippling items in terms of organizing international programs and we need to consider the full range of problems,

It was moved and seconded (Jenkins/Thobaben) to refer the resolution back to the Senate Finance Committee. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH 1 NO VOTE AND 1 ABSTENTION.

It was moved and seconded (Goodman/Meiggs) to adjourn the meeting.

Meeting adjourned 6:03 p.m.