Academic Senate Minutes December 11, 2001

Chair Bicknell called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. on Tuesday, December 11, 2001, in Nelson Hall East, Room 201 (Goodwin Forum).

Members Present: Adams, Bicknell, Bockover, Braggs, Christensen, Fulgham, Goodman, Jenkins, Kenyon, Klein, Little, Martin, Mayer, McFarland, Mortazavi, Novotney, Oliver, Paselk, Paynton, Sanford, Sheppard, Thobaben, Thompson, Travis, Wang, M. Wilson, Yarnall

Members Absent: Burroughs, McCrone, Smith, F. Wilson

Proxies: Paynton for MacConnie; Travis for Meiggs; Vrem for Stokes; Siering for Varkey

Guests: Steve Bulter, Student Affairs; Robert Hensley, Registrar's Office; Ronald Maggiore, Enrollment Management; Shirley Messer, Budget Office

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved and seconded (Wang/Fulgham) to approve the submitted minutes of November 27, 2001. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

2. Announcements and Communications

Chair Bicknell announced the following:

President McCrone has indicated that he is referring to Dean Donna Schafer and the Research & Creative Projects Advisory Committee Chair Bicknell's letter to him regarding the draft Intellectual Property Policy. President McCrone has asked for a senate representative to participate in these discussions. Anyone interested in serving on this committee should let Chair Bicknell or Greta know and an official appointment will be made.

A copy of a letter to President McCrone from Chair Bicknell was distributed. This letter articulates the senate's reactions to the President's responses on the resolutions regarding Athletics and invites the President to meet with either the full senate or the Senate Executive Committee to discuss these issues.

The 27th Annual California State University Academic Conference was held November 28-30. The theme of the conference was "Quality Education through Diversity." Anyone interested in learning more about the content may contact Chair Bicknell or Senators Thobaben or Snyder for a copy of abstracts of the presentations. The conference was well attended by presidents, academic vice presidents, trustees and Chancellor Reed. The closing session was an interesting presentation given by Chancellor Reed, Trustee Goldwhite and State Senator Alpert wherein the Chancellor made a commitment to Senator Alpert that CSU would admit an additional 4 percent of students above the budgeted level for this year only.

A call for proposals from the CSU Commission on the Extended University has been received. Proposals are to advance the CSU's principal continuing education objective of 1) outreach to underserved populations; 2) development of statewide and regional instructional programs; 3) development of distance education programs, and 4) development of international programs. Awards may be up to $50,000 for individual campus projects and up to $100,000 for multi-campus projects. The proposal deadline is April 12, 2002. Guidelines are available from Chair Bicknell or the senate office.

The International Faculty Partnership Seminar titled "A Common Future: What Divides and Unites Us" will take place June 23-28, 2002, in Mexico; the deadline for applications is January 4, 2002. Additional information is available through the senate office.

The GE Embedded Assessment Conference is scheduled for March 6, 2002, in Fullerton. The ITL will provide up to $410 each for three faculty from this campus to attend the conference. Contact the senate office for additional information.

Senator Kenyon announced that the School of Business & Economics will be sending a faculty member to the IMPAC meeting on January 5th. This is a joint effort by the legislature to get the UC, CSU and community colleges to work toward common lower division core requirements in a number of majors. The computing science and nursing programs from Humboldt also will be represented at this meeting.

3. Committee and State Senate Reports

Student Affairs - There is an item on today's agenda.

Faculty Affairs - The campus violence policy will be discussed at the beginning of next term.

OAA - Dean Vrem announced that four searches are underway: the Budget Director and the Director of Institutional Equity (these searches are in the final stage); the Director of Admissions; and the Dean of the College of Professional Studies (applications will be reviewed January 18).

Regarding the budget, Dean Vrem announced that the 1 percent reduction is being covered at the university level; the second cut has been assessed and will be applied on a pro rata basis across the campus. The campus is being asked to plan for a 5 percent cut next year.

The enrollment target for Summer 2002 will remain the same as last year; that is, 750 FTES. Most likely, the budget for Summer 2002 will be similar to the budget for Summer 2001.

CFA - The primary focus of the most recent mediation meeting was on the grievance procedures established under Senate Bill 1212 which change some of the contractual arrangements that the bargaining units have with the CSU. The implementation of such changes is of concern to the Unions and the CSU administration. Movement into fact finding should be occurring soon. The Board of Directors met last weekend and discussed the proposed actions to be taken in the spring. The strike authorization vote will be conducted in late February or early March.

Senate Finance - The topic of budget reductions is scheduled as an information item at URPBC's next meeting. The OAA Budget Committee is scheduled to meet tomorrow. The Senate Finance Committee has developed several questions that the members would like to have included in the questions to presidential candidates. A copy of these questions will be forwarded to the Senate Executive Committee.

General Faculty - The holiday party was held last night; for those who were not able to attend, there will be one held during the spring term. Senators were reminded to please pay their faculty dues of $10; dues may be forwarded to Greta in the senate office, to Ken Fulgham in Range and Wildland Soils, or to Diane Benson in Nursing. A notice describing the open positions for the upcoming general faculty election has been distributed. Anyone interested in serving in one of these positions should inform Greta or a member of the Nominating Committee.

4. Approval of Fall Graduation List

It was moved and seconded (Yarnall/Fulgham) that the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt accept the graduation list of Fall 2001 and recommend the graduation of all persons whose names appear on that list subject to the provision that any student whose name is on that list and who has not fulfilled the requirements of graduation, will have his/her name removed from the list and that student will not be graduated.

Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

It was moved and seconded (Yarnall/Fulgham) to make this an emergency item for immediate transmittal to the President. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

5. Resolution on University Quad Amplified Sound Levels (#13-01/02-SA)

It was moved and seconded (Wang/Thobaben) to place the resolution on the floor.

WHEREAS, The Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt has been asked to review existing noise policies for the University Quad and make recommendations to the Office of the President, the University Center Board, and Associated Students; and

WHEREAS, Associated Students desires the continuance of live musical events in the University Quad on a regular basis from Noon to 1 p.m. Monday through Friday; and

WHEREAS, A detailed study of sound levels in and around that area has been completed using General Industry Safety Orders, Occupational Noise, Control of Noise Exposure from the California Code of Regulations (attached) with findings of an average between 90-100 dBA for amplified voice or non-amplified music; and

WHEREAS, Sound levels also were measured in classrooms and offices fronting that area, where average student attendance numbers between 150-168 each weekday and office workers number nearly two dozen, finding the average interior sound levels to be less than 90 dBA when amplified voice or non-amplified music is being produced in that area; and

WHEREAS, Amplified music will exceed all other measured sound levels; therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that university policy that allows amplified music performance from Noon to 1 p.m. be instituted, with measured sound levels not to continually exceed 105 dBA at any time when directly in that area per the California Code of Regulations for Exposure Limits for Noise; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that should a complaint arise, sound level measurement be done through the campus Office of Environmental Health and Safety or their designee; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that bands performing in this area be required to post a $100 fee which will be forfeited for non-compliance with sound level policy established in this document; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that this entire process be reviewed at the end of the Fall 2002 term to evaluate effectiveness or make any changes necessary to enact this as permanent policy.

Background to the resolution was provided by Senator Wang who stated that the Academic Senate was asked by President McCrone to review the policy regarding noise on the Quad. Members of the Student Affairs Committee consulted with various constituencies on campus and performed several tests using a sound meter before drafting the resolution; however, there was no opportunity to monitor a live band.

Discussion included the following comments:

The measured sound levels may differ depending on proximity to the speaker.

Any continuous level over 85 dBA will cause some hearing loss.

The location of the measurement needs to be specified, and perhaps language should be added indicating that sound may not exceed 85 dBA at any location and shall not be more than 105 dBA at the source.

The fifth Whereas clause is not true; for example, the sound level of a marching band would exceed a folk guitar and singer with a microphone, and drumming groups with no amplification have been shut down.

Several comments were made regarding the fee of $100, claiming it is not a good decision because most likely exceptions will be made and it is not clear how this policy will be dealt with over time. Clarification also is needed regarding the logistics of paying this fee. [The students suggested this fee.] [An explanation from the students regarding why they made this recommendation would be helpful.] [What are some examples of exceptions being made?] [It is not right to charge a group or band for playing music on the Quad.] [It is demeaning for a faculty member to pay a deposit in order to provide free entertainment for the campus community.]

While there is concern regarding any hearing damage, the primary point should be how to conduct classes at the same time that Quad activities occur.

This issue was brought forward primarily because of noise that was disruptive to the conduct of business and classes in Siemens Hall, especially the rooms that face north. The current policy existed under the jurisdiction of the University Center; however, the University Center has no jurisdiction over the Quad so the policy was rewritten by Steve Butler, Vice President for Student Affairs. The issue is one of students wanting entertainment on the Quad and the simultaneous offering of classes. The students suggested a $100 fee as a monetary control measure because there was one band that refused to lower the volume of the music and had to be physically removed.

The students would like to have the noon hour on Mondays through Fridays available for music on the Quad.

President McCrone has asked for responses from other areas.

Personnel at the registration desk in the University Center will be responsible for the monitoring described in the resolution.

There are several aspects to the problem of allowing music on the Quad and scheduling classes in the rooms that face the Quad. On the day when complaints were filed, students were scheduled to make professional presentations and it was very disturbing. The problem is not based so much on health and safety, but on the inability to conduct a class while loud noises are occurring. This appears to be a conflict between entertainment and academics. It may be that classes should not be scheduled during the noon hour in those rooms.

Through friendly amendment, the word fee was changed to deposit.

It is not the intention of Associated Students to disrupt the learning process of students, and it was suggested that a statement outlining an agreement that bands not be scheduled toward the latter part of the term be included in the resolution. [The same problem would occur when any examinations are given so such a compromise is not sufficient.]

It is not known if the suggested dBA level would be reasonable while students are taking an exam.

Once the Buchanan project is completed, Quad activities could be moved north of the Depot and then the volume would be significantly reduced for those in Siemens Hall. A compromise is needed; perhaps the center of activities could be moved to the other side of the Quad.

It was moved and seconded (Snyder/Fulgham) to return this item to the Student Affairs Committee.

Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

It was requested that a copy of the current policy be distributed when this issue is discussed again.

6. Discussion Item: Progress Report on Budget Reduction Planning for 2002-2003 [Carolyn Mueller]

According to Carolyn Mueller, Executive Assistant to the President, the following comments have been discussed with the URPBC at recent meetings and brought to the Senate by Senator Little, or they will be discussed at future URPBC meetings.

In November the Chancellor sent two memoranda to the campus regarding budget reduction: the November 7 memo referenced the executive order in which the Governor requested a state agency hiring freeze and reduction in spending. The CSU system was asked to help reduce state expenditures without sacrificing its educational mission by 1) continuing to hire tenure track faculty; 2) instituting a partial hiring freeze on all nontenure track positions, although some exceptions may be granted; 3) planning for a 5 percent one-time budget reduction by the end of this fiscal year; and 4) for the next fiscal year, considering how a 5 percent reduction could be met while remaining committed to essential projects.

At URPBC's November meeting, consideration of the remaining proposals was included as an agenda item. The November 7 memo was distributed to the committee members, and the available unallocated funding was reviewed by Shirley Messer. The URPBC recommended against funding additional proposals, but requested that the remaining proposals be held for any future funding and that no additional proposals be requested this year. The URPBC declined to make any recommendation regarding the 1 percent reduction until additional information is available.

The University Executive Committee approved the URPBC's recommendations and determined that to avoid the reductions in the four administrative areas, the 1 percent reduction (approximately $686,000) would be covered from unallocated funds. This is the third year that enrollment is under the budgeted target. Although no payback has been required yet, this could change and based on this reasoning, the URPBC consistently has recommended that an unallocated balance be retained rather than spent. It has been reported that there will be no payback this year, but payback may be required in 2002-03 from campuses that are 2 percent or more under their enrollment target this year. The good news is that President McCrone has reached an agreement with Vice Chancellor West that in the interest of a smooth transition, Humboldt will not be assessed payback next year (approximately $1.5 million to $2.5 million).

Regarding the November 7 memorandum from the Chancellor, recruitment requests are being scrutinized, and each administrative area is beginning to plan for a 5 percent budget reduction. No dollar amount has been seen yet. Such planning will allow information to be gathered and priorities at the unit and administrative levels to be analyzed before comment is requested from the URPBC. The intention at this point is that the 5 percent budget reduction will not necessarily be pro rata, although planning is based on a pro rata cut.

A second memorandum from the Chancellor, dated November 19, was distributed. Contained in this memorandum was the statement that the Department of Finance had requested an additional specified reduction, and Humboldt's share of this request is $267,000. Notification was received that the implementation of these reductions (the 1 percent plus this additional amount) could be required any time after January 1, 2002, so the turnaround time is very short. The memo also urged that hiring tenure track faculty continues to be a high priority. In response to this additional reduction, the University Executive Committee has determined that given the size of the budget and the time table, this reduction will be identified pro rata in all four administrative areas. This issue continues to evolve over time as additional information is received. The governor's January budget proposal is expected to contain more specifics regarding budget cuts and reductions in the budget will be discussed at the state legislature in January.

Discussion comments included the following:

Humboldt is using money from natural gas overpayments to offset this budget reduction.

Over $1 million has been budgeted for CMS this year; in previous years, contributions totaled between $100,000 and $200,000. [Unallocated money was used three to four years ago to cover the cost of CMS. In addition, there were a couple of years when the base budget was reduced before the budget was allocated to the campus and this money went to CMS.] [Funds from Humboldt to CMS total $1 million to $1.5 million.]

Since URPBC meets on call, why was the time frame so short that a decision on how to accommodate the additional cut for this year was made by the Executive Committee, without consulting the URPBC? [In 1992, the URPBC recommended that the Executive Committee through the vice presidents, develop recommended reductions and then forward such decisions to the URPBC.]

Questions were raised regarding the methodology behind the 5 percent reduction; that is, that each of the four units will plan for a 5 percent cut and then take such information to the URBPC. The URPBC then may request that an area take a different cut. This seems to be a backwards approach to the situation. [When incorporating a 5 percent cut, entire programs or large segments of them will need to be considered. The hope is that many items will be considered in order to generate a 5 percent cut, and URPBC will be looking at university priorities in addition to specifics.]

Concern was expressed that scheduling classes for next fall will need to occur soon and hiring decisions and class offering decisions will need to be made. When the 5 percent reduction is moved to the college level, things such as program elimination cannot be undertaken since that needs to occur at the university level. [Planning for 5 percent budget cuts will result in significant drops in enrollment and more than a bureaucratic approach is needed.] [A 5 percent cut is linked to program elimination and if such rumors start, then the effect will be devastating. The Chancellor said no tenured/probationary faculty would be eliminated and the process for tenure track hirings should not be stopped. Someone needs to be in touch with the Chancellor, especially regarding the effects of such actions on small campuses and on the communities surrounding these campuses.]

A 5 percent reduction may be a conservative figure; the revenue picture for this state is dismal. Approximately 24 to 28 percent of what the state receives every year is from capital gains and there will not be any capital gains this year. If the economy takes on a U-shape recovery, rather than a V-shape recovery, the budget reduction could be 10 percent, and this would be devastating. Also, the likely increase in utility costs must be considered.

While Humboldt has been granted a reprieve in that no payback will be required from us, there are 22 other campuses who collectively will have to absorb Humboldt's "share"; we need to face the fact that eventually Humboldt will be taken to task for not meeting enrollment targets, which will add an incremental cut to Humboldt's budget.

Planning for budget reductions is a must; however, there needs to be sufficient time to complete this exercise at all unit levels. However, there does not seem to be sufficient time for this to happen, and the apparent lack of leadership is problematic. [The community needs to be involved in these discussions and everyone needs to have a chance to speak on these issues. The revenue picture is unclear, and the current legislature has only experienced surpluses, not shortages. Also, there has been a significant turnover of personnel in the Department of Finance. And the state has an energy issue that has not been addressed. It is likely that the problem may become greater than it is now.]

Appreciation was expressed to Dr. Mueller for her report.

7. Discussion Item: Enrollment Management Report [Ronald Maggiore]

Dean Maggiore reminded the senators that last fall he visited the senate and presented several initiatives that were under consideration. The President had charged Dean Maggiore with developing a strategic enrollment plan, which was presented last spring. At the same time a request for an additional $98,000, which was approximately 10 percent of the previous plan, was forwarded to the President for his consideration. In September 2001, the budget given to Dean Maggiore was approximately $74,000 less than last year's budget which equalled approximately a 3 percent cut in the Office of Enrollment Management (OEM) budget. Owing to such budget restrictions, many of the proposed initiatives have been held back for now.

Charlotte Stokes, Vice President for Academic Affairs, has asked that strategies be developed to absorb the 5 percent cut next year. Given that OEM has had several ongoing initiatives, as well as plans to expand the outreach capabilities and a project underway to develop a university prospectus (Humboldt is the only CSU campus without a prospectus), use of the approximate $3 million budget requires careful consideration.

A large proportion of OEM's budget is in terms of labor. Several ongoing or anticipated searches are scheduled: the director of admissions, the director of financial aid, and several clerical level vacancies. Given the nature and extent of potential salary savings, Dean Maggiore believes that next year's payback can be covered by deferring searches, reorganizing within the unit (join admissions and records again), and leaving vacant the records specialist position in the Registrar's Office. The initiative to reduce by 50 percent the $30 charge to Preview visitors is still active. There are plans in place to expand international recruitment and out of state recruitment; to add a Spanish language option to the website; and to bring alumni into the process by hosting a variety of receptions around the state. A thorough review has been conducted to locate operational deficiencies. The prospectus is close to completion and the Graphics people are to be commended for a job well done; the video will be transferred to a CD and will have new material added for prospective students. Savings in shipping the CD will total approximately $12,000, and the CD will have a link to Humboldt's website. Attempts will be made to establish links to individual college or department websites.

Dean Maggiore stated that he is convinced that Humboldt has a rich academic environment and there should be little difficulty in attracting students here; however, there are some issues that need to be addressed. The personnel in OEM are committed to moving to a position of enrollment viability and are willing to explore ways to reduce budget items without negatively affecting service to students.

Chair Bicknell stated that given the time, it is unlikely that agenda item number 6 will be discussed today. The reason for this item being on the agenda is that it could prove to be a potential threat to future enrollment at Cal Poly Humboldt. The recruitment brochure from Channel Islands lists several programmatic areas in which that campus is now engaged in recruiting their second round of faculty. Programmatic areas such as environmental science and resource management may have an effect on Cal Poly Humboldt. Although Channel Islands is described as a regional institution, any recruitment efforts made by that institution may have an impact on Humboldt's recruiting efforts. Dean Maggiore stated that many changes have occurred in the last few years, and our "competitors" have caught up to us. Many of the programs that had a natural niche in Humboldt's curriculum have been challenged and reshaped by competitors. Much of Dean Maggiore's agenda is getting back to basics and developing a consolidated consistent message that can be personalized and sent to prospective students. With some of the changes that are under consideration, Dean Maggiore believes that the enrollment will shift in a more positive direction.

Discussion comments included the following:

Perhaps the structure of OAA should be considered. The Dean for Enrollment Management sits at the Joint Council and makes recommendations regarding OEM's budget, then the information is discussed by the OAA Budget Committee, of which the Dean for Enrollment Management is not a member, and the OAA Budget Committee decides how to allocate the money. [The college deans are represented at the table, and there is a rotating administrator who represents administrative areas. Most likely, the college deans could speak to the resource demands in the college.]

According to the master plan for the CSU, Cal Poly Humboldt is designated as the campus for the natural resource curricula.

If students are not actively recruited, then the retention issue becomes moot since the students are not here and the FTES targets are not met. [Associated with the strategic enrollment plan is a retention plan which is awaiting consideration.]

The OAA Budget Committee makes recommendations to the Joint Council so nothing is hidden. Part of the dilemma is that admissions is a university responsibility, not just an OAA responsibility. It seems obvious that the 5 percent reductions mark the beginning of an era which carries with it more limited resources for everything we do, and it is a time when creativity is needed. Has OEM invited Associated Students to offer assistance and suggestions with recruitment? It also is effective to have faculty involved in recruitment. [In October Dean Maggiore was approached by two members of the Associated Students with a proposal to involve students in recruitment, and the students were encouraged to meet with the acting director of admissions. Maggiore is not sure of the status of this proposal at the moment, but he is in favor of the idea.]

The only successful recruitment for bringing African American men to this campus has been athletics, an idea that is bothersome to many people. What are some obstacles that Enrollment Management encounters; is there a recruitment strategy available and what are target communities of Enrollment Management? [It is difficult to target minority populations for admission and recruitment. There is a program headed by R. W. Hicks, which is an outreach program for underrepresented populations that has been moved to Enrollment Management. The geographic location of Cal Poly Humboldt plays an important role in attracting or not attracting students to this campus.]

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

Meeting adjourned 6:10 p.m.