Academic Senate Minutes April 27, 2004

Chair MacConnie called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, in Nelson Hall East, Room 102 (Goodwin Forum).

Members Present: Butler, Cheyne, Dalsant, Derden, Dixon, Dunk, Fulgham, Green, Kinney Newsom, Klein, Knox, Kornreich, MacConnie, Marshall, Meiggs, Mortazavi, Moyer, Mullery, Oliver, O’Rourke-Andrews, Paselk, Paynton, Platin, Richmond, Schwab, Shellhase, Snyder, Sonntag, Thobaben, Varkey, Vrem, Wieand, Yarnall.

Members Absent: Coffey, Kiesling, Sanford, Stamps.

Proxies: Platin for Kiesling, Meiggs for Paynton (1st half).

Guests: John Meyer (Government and Politics), Bob Sathrum (Library).

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved and seconded (Klein/Meiggs) to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2004 Senate meeting as submitted. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH 1 ABSTENTION.

2. Announcements and Communications

Chair MacConnie reported that she received a phone call from Mark Thompson, Chair of the Statewide Senate Academic Affairs Committee, expressing appreciation for the thoughtful resolutions forwarded from the Humboldt Senate.

New senators will be seated and elections will be held for new senate officers at the next Senate Meeting on May 4, 2004. Nominations are still needed for two representatives to the Senate Appointments Committee.

The University Budget Committee continues to meet and discuss budget reduction scenarios. The next meeting is May 7, 3-5 p.m.

The published deadline for comments on the Diversity Plan is April 30. A request has been made to extend the deadline so that the Senate can have an opportunity to review and provide comments on the Plan. The Senate will discuss the document early next Fall. The Plan is on the web, and senators were encouraged to take a careful look at the document.

There will be two public forums on the Master Plan: Thursday, May 6, in the evening, at the Arcata Community Center and Friday, May 7, 9-noon, Kate Buchanen Room. There may be another Senate meeting during finals week so that the Senate can review and make a recommendation, most likely in the form of a resolution, that goes forward to the President and the Master Planning Committee.

3. Committee Reports

Statewide Senate: Senator Snyder reported that a letter from the Department of Finance had been sent out asking the CSU to respond on how it would plan for an additional 3% cut. The system budget advisory committee doesn’t expect that the additional 3% will happen with the May revise, but it may come later. There has been talk of tracking categories of transfer students next year. The number of FTES that fall into undesirable categories would be deducted the following year from enrollment targets. This has the potential to be a worrisome development, if the funding is reduced as well as the enrollment targets. Provost Vrem provided brief background on the categories of transfer students. At the statewide provosts’ meeting, there was discussion of the potential of tracking the categories, and using those numbers for negotiating enrollment targets the following year.

CSSA: Thousands turned out for the rally in downtown L.A. and the event was well-covered by the media. Work continues on the long-term student fee policy as well as the excess units initiative. There is student concern about both policies. Four finalists were submitted for the student Trustee position. Work continues on the strategic plan for CSSA – it is the first time the organization has had a strategic plan. Elections will be held in June and the new Board will begin July 1.

Associated Students: The results of the election are in and Samantha Williams will be the new A.S. President. The energy fund initiative was overwhelmingly passed. It still needs to go to the Student Fees Advisory Committee for approval, then to the President and the Chancellor, before it will actually be implemented on campus. The last A.S. meeting of the year has a very full agenda, including a resolution on the long-term student fee policy, resolutions opposing the excess units initiative, resolution in support of campus recycling, and several other items. A new mural project has been approved. The new mural will be in Nelson Hall. The annual study lounge will be held Sunday-Wednesday of finals week. The Oceanography Club will be having a dunk tank on the quad, 10-3.

General Faculty : Due to a resignation on the University Faculty Personnel Committee, nominations are needed for the next General Faculty election. Nominations from Professional Studies, and Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences are encouraged, since there is currently no representation from those Colleges on the committee. The CFA/General Faculty Social will be on May 10, 5-7 pm,in the Plaza Grill View Room. It was announced that three newer Humboldt faculty will receive McCrone Promising Faculty Scholars Awards at an awards ceremony on Monday, May 3, 2-4 p.m. in Goodwin Forum. The faculty members are: Brian Arbogast, Biological Sciences, Erick Eschker, Economics, and Matt Johnson, Wildlife.

Student Affairs: The Outstanding Student Awards ceremony will take place tomorrow afternoon. The Man and Woman of the Year will be announced, in addition to the recognition of the outstanding students.

Office of the President: In response to ongoing concerns and requests from several students, a small task force has been created to review some concerns that have been raised about Athletics, both management and budget. The President has requested a report from the group by the end of the May, at the very latest, in a format that can be at least partially made public. A faculty member has been included in the task force. The President emphasized the importance of having the faculty review the Diversity Plan. The Plan has already generated some controversy in the community outside of the University, and it is important for the University to be behind the Plan and support it.

The President congratulated students on their overwhelming support of the energy initiative, and expressed his support for the initiative. He extended thanks to Gretchen Kinney Newsom and her colleagues on the Associated Students, for their fine leadership and many accomplishments this year.

Information from the Chancellor’s Office suggests that it is relatively unlikely that the CSU will face additional cuts beyond those already in the Governor’s January budget. The May revision should come out May 14 or 15.

Office of Academic Affairs: It was noted that the “golden handshake” is on the Governor’s desk.

Educational Policies: The repeat policy has been re-drafted and will be on next week’s agenda. The Committee is also working on the issue of double-counting institutions and also reviewing parts of the Strategic Plan.

Statewide Senate: Senator Thobaben reported on her experience, as a representative from the Statewide Senate, of opposing a bill concerning the eroding of academic freedom of faculty. The bill was defeated. The Statewide Faculty Affairs Committee is presenting a resolution to the Statewide Academic Senate that clearly supports the AAUP 1940 document on academic freedom, with the 1970 interpretations. However, some of the data gathered to support the bill shows that there are faculty members who are irresponsible and misuse their academic freedom. The Statewide Academic Senate is taking the concerns seriously, and next year the Statewide Academic Senate will be encouraging local campus to look at their policies to make sure the rights of students are protected. The two textbook bills are moving forward.

Senate Finance Committee: The OAA Budget Committee is meeting regularly, drafting an OAA budget policy document, and reviewing budget cuts to OAA.

University Curriculum Committee: The UCC sponsored a visiting consultant on writing across the curriculum, from Cal Poly Pomona. There will be a meeting on Thursday to discuss plans for proceeding with a program of writing across the curriculum.

CFA: Senator Mullery reported on the recent assembly meeting. The primary topic was the budget and pending lay-offs. Time was spent discussing coalition building, and some concern was expressed by CFA activists about some of the unusual partnerships being created, in particular with certain individuals with influence in Sacramento. Two resolutions were passed expressing support for protection of programs threatened by budget cuts: Women’s Studies and Ethnic Studies and Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender academic programs.

4. TIME CERTAIN: 4:30 P.M.

Resolution on Revision of Appendix J (#18-03/04-FA)

Based on input from the Senate and the Senate Executive Committee, a substitute resolution, along with an edited version of Appendix J, is submitted by the Faculty Affairs Committee.

It was moved and seconded (Fulgham/Cheyne) to place the substitute resolution on floor.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends the proposed revisions of Appendix J, FACULTY PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR RETENTION, TENURE, AND PROMOTION, of the Humboldt Faculty Handbook be forwarded to the General Faculty for a vote of acceptance or rejection.

RESOLVED: If this revision is passed by the vote of the General Faculty, then the implementation date would be for the 2005-2006 RTP cycle and the Administration, the University Faculty Personnel Committee, and the Faculty Development Committee would develop and provide educational workshops and training on the role of Mentoring in the RTP process.

RESOLVED: If this revision is passed by the vote of the general Faculty, then the new process will be applicable to all current and new faculty.

RATIONALE: During the past two years the Faculty Affairs Committee of the Humboldt Academic Senate has been working on a revision to this appendix that addresses the following issues:

1. The amount of personnel time involved in the annual process is great for:
   1. the faculty member/librarian/counselor during the construction of the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF);
   2. the peers requested and required to provide review of teaching/librarianship/counseling effectiveness; and
   3. the peer committee and administrative reviews of the WPAF.
2. While teaching, scholarship and creative activities, and service are continuing endeavors for faculty, the time between the notice of reappointment during one-year’s cycle and the deadline for submission of a completed WPAF in the next year’s cycle is relatively short.
   1. the necessity of multi-year appointment periods to generate meaningful input into the WPAF on the various areas of performance; and,
   2. the sheer volume of materials gathered to support the Personnel Data Sheet (PDS) and generate the content of the WPAF.

Changes in the Resolution include:

• § 1st resolved: change “accept” to “recommends”
• § 2nd resolved clause outlining implementation was added
• § 3rd resolved was added.

The following corrections were noted:

• § The title on PDP form should be: Biennial Professional Development Plan
• § The statement: “The following have been consulted in the development of this Professional Development Plan” was also added, to indicate that signature did not represent “approval”.
• § Page 5, Appendix J, Section V. A.: replace “Director of Health and Counseling Services” with “Vice President for Student Affairs (Counselors)”.
• § Page 11, Appendix J, Section VIII. A.2.b.: Add to last sentence, “unless specifically authorized by the Provost in accordance with the Presidential Memorandum …

Discussion and comments:

The PDP seems unnecessary; informal discussion at the department level should suffice. The PDP is too contractual in nature.

The faculty won’t have enough time to fully consider the proposed changes; should not rush into voting this year.

The additional workload with PDP defeats the stated intention of cutting down on workload.

The proposed changes will reduce the workload, for both candidates and those involved in the review process. The PDP would promote a more serious dialogue between candidates and their departments so that expectations are more closely aligned; this would be valuable.

Support was expressed for sending to the revision to the General Faculty for a vote this year; it shows that the Senate is willing to listen to the younger faculty who want a change.

Certain clarifications of the changes were offered again: 1) If everything looks okay, the probationary faculty member will get a two-year contract, however, if it is felt that improvements need to be made, there is the option of only granting a one-year contract to the probationary faculty member; 2) the PDP is an evolving, dynamic, flexible plan; it is not written in stone the first year; 3) The resolution is to decide whether or not to forward the revision to the general faculty for a vote. If the answer is yes, then there will be presentations to the faculty, a Q & A sheet developed, etc., to provide the faculty with information on the changes and implications, before the election.

The PDP was developed based on feedback the Faculty Affairs Committee received last year regarding issues with Appendix J. Some probationary faculty felt that RTP was a “moving target”, and needed a clearer understanding of expectations from the department and the Dean. The PDP is NOT a contract.

If the PDP will stop the process of making changes to Appendix J, then removing the PDP should be considered.

Further discussion was postponed to consider the next time certain agenda item.

5. TIME CERTAIN: 4:50 P.M.

Revision to Appendix E, Faculty Handbook – First Reading

Revision to Appendix F, Faculty Handbook – First Reading

General Faculty President Wieand reviewed the history and process of the ad hoc committee. Both appendices were revised primarily to improve clarity and consistency. No changes in policy are proposed; changes will be dealt with in another year.

Appendix F is a first reading, and will be voted on by the Senate at next week’s meeting.

If Appendix F is approved, then the Senate will vote on a resolution to forward the Appendix E to the General Faculty for a vote.

Discussion:

Thanks were offered to the members who served on the committee over the last two years, for their work. Return to Agenda Item #4

Discussion on the resolution to forward the proposed changes to Appendix J to the General Faculty for a vote continued:

The suggestion was made to change the wording of the third resolved clause from “applicable to all current … faculty” to “available to all current faculty”; giving current faculty a choice.

Under the Rationale, number 2, the word “for:” should be added at the end.

The changes should be forwarded to the faculty for a vote. If, when put into practice, problems arise, changes can be made later. It is not possible to anticipate all problems; personnel problems will occur regardless of what is written in Appendix J.

Concern was expressed about the statement on page 8, Section VI.C., last sentence: “The approved Professional Development Plan constitutes a commitment by the department and college to provide necessary support for professional development.”

It was moved and seconded (Snyder/Sonntag) to strike the last sentence of Section VI. C., p. 8 of Appendix J.

Discussion:

The sentence could be read as a protective measure for probationary faculty, it should be left.

It would be better to have the obligation of support provided at a higher level, i.e., the University, rather than the department or college. It should reflect a general commitment to RTP and professional development, not to specific individuals.

The Faculty Affairs Committee intended this as a protection for the candidate. The commitment for support goes beyond financial; it is also collegial and moral support at the department and college level.

It is important to read the sentence within the context of the paragraph; which supports the interpretation the process as a mutual one and supports the language as it exists.

The statement indicates that the department approves the plan; it would be cleaner to just eliminate the last sentence.

On the PDP, it is stated that the signers were consulted, not that they are approving the document. The PDP is not a contract. The sentence under consideration implies more that is intended by the PDP.

Voting on the amendment to strike the last sentence of Section VI. C., p. 8 of Appendix J. occurred. MOTION FAILED WITH 12 YES VOTES, 14 NO VOTES, AND 1 ABSTENTION.

Discussion returned to the resolution on the floor.

Comments continued on whether or not the PDP should be dropped, and whether or not it would reduce or increase the workload.

It was moved and seconded (Green/Dixon) to eliminate all references to the PDP from Appendix J.

Discussion continued on whether or not the PDP should be dropped, and whether or not it would reduce or increase the workload.

It would be better to drop the PDP, than prevent the changes to Appendix J this year.

Concern was expressed that removing the PDP may not be in compliance with the contract. Clarification was offered: The PDP is Humboldt’s addition to the periodic evaluation; Appendix J would still be in compliance if the PDP was removed.

The faculty should have the opportunity to vote on the two issues separately, voting first on the changes in Appendix J, and voting later on the PDP separately.

The language on p. 8 of Appendix J, includes the word “approved”, while the PDP includes the word “consulted”, so the two documents conflict.

The PDP reduces the ambiguity of expectations of faculty members that can occur during the review process. The idea behind PDP is that it is a goal-setting process. Expectations are articulated, and ambiguity is resolved through the discussion process.

Voting occurred on the amendment to remove all references to the PDP from Appendix J. MOTION FAILED WITH 11 YES VOTES AND 13 NO VOTES.

Discussion returned to the resolution, as it stands:

It was moved and seconded (Klein/Yarnall) to call the question. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH 2 NO VOTES.

Voting on the Resolution on Revision of Appendix J occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH 14 YES VOTES, 10 NO VOTES, AND 1 ABSTENTION.

It was moved and seconded (Fulgham/Cheyne) to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.