Academic Senate Minutes February 10, 2004

Chair MacConnie called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. on Tuesday, February 10, 2004, in Nelson Hall East, Room 102 (Goodwin Forum).

Members Present: Butler, Coffey, Dalsant, Derden, Dixon, Dunk, Fonseca, Fulgham, Green, Klein, Knox, Kornreich, MacConnie, Meiggs, Mortazavi, Moyer, Mullery, Oliver, O’Rourke-Andrews, Paselk, Paynton, Richmond, Sanford, Schwab, Shellhase, Snyder, Sonntag, Varkey, Wieand, Yarnall.

Members Absent: Cheyne, Marshall, Newsom, Thobaben, Vrem.

Proxies: Meiggs for Paynton (1st half of meeting); Knox for Cheyne; Platin for Kiesling.

Guests: Rick Botzler, Karen Carlton, Sharon Chadwick, Carl Hanson, Jim Howard, Nancy Hurlbut, TK Koesterer, Kathy Munoz, Val Philips, Bob Schulz, Thomas Swanger.

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved and seconded (Klein/Yarnall) to approve the minutes of January 27, 2004 as submitted. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

2. Announcements and Communications

Chair MacConnie announced the following:

University Budget Committee

The following individuals were elected as faculty representatives to the University Budget Committee:

• Steven Carlson (CNRS)
• Judith Little (CAHSS)
• TK Koesterer (COPS)
• Wayne Perryman (Non-College Affiliated Faculty).

Campus-Wide Budget Forum - There will be a campus-wide budget meeting/forum on Friday, February 20, 8-10 a.m. in Goodwin Forum. The forum is intended to provide an update to the campus community on what is happening with the budget, and to provide an opportunity for questions, and for input.

Senate Chairs Meeting - There is a Senate Chairs meeting this Thursday in Sacramento. Most of the agenda is related to the budget.

Thank You – A belated thank you was conveyed to the members of the Ad Hoc Budget Policy Committee for their hard and thoughtful work in putting together the budget policy proposal that was discussed and recommended at the last Senate meeting.

Update on Resolutions – Chair MacConnie conveyed the President’s responses to the following resolutions:

• § Resolution #02-03/04-EP (Resolution on Inclusion of Graduate Council in Program Review): Approved.
• § Resolution #05-03/04-EX (Resolution on Adjusting Physical Capacity Enrollment Ceilings Through the Master Plan Revision Process): “I approve this resolution. I am concerned by the second resolve clause as it implies that I might not ask the Senate for advice on an issue of such import for the University. I would hope that my efforts to date to work with the Senate on matters of substantial import to the University would have rendered such a clause unneeded. I would hope that it would, in the future, become a presumption of the Senate that the President and senior administrators will routinely ask the Senate for its advice on important matters.”
• § Resolution #06-03/04-EX (Resolution on Campus Consultation with Faculty Establishing Enrollment Targets and Enrollment Management Policies for an Admissions Cycle): “I believe this resolution is unnecessary, and I am not able to support it. The Enrollment Management Advisory Committee is an existing committee (with faculty representation appointed by the Academic Senate) that advises the Administration on issues related to enrollment management.”
• § Resolution #7-03/04-EX (Resolution on the Budget for the Master Plan Revision): “I do not support this resolution since this is a University management issue and as such is not within the purview of the Senate.

Ed Policies Chair Needed – Senator Knox is not able to continue as full-time chair of the Educational Policies Committee. If there are other senators who are interested in either taking on the position of chair, or co-chairing it with Senator Knox, talk to Chair MacConnie.

3. Committee Reports

Statewide Senate (Senator Snyder) – There is a push at the statewide level, because of the budget crisis, to try and get students through more quickly. Some of the policies being considered include penalties to campuses or students if more than a standard number of units needed to graduate are taken. Other possible actions include: 1) standardizing lower division requirements for all majors system-wide; 2) requiring students to declare a major after freshman year and making it difficult (not impossible) to change majors; 3) limiting the number of units that can be required for a major. A lot of these policy issues are coming together at the statewide level, and everyone needs to be aware them and be concerned about them. Things will be moving pretty quickly because of the combination of responding to the budget crisis, and possibly taking advantage of the crisis as a way to push some policies through that some have wanted in place for a while. At the system-wide budget advisory meeting, it was announced that budget estimates would be sent out to all of the campuses. Question for the President: How soon will we get a number to work with? Will the estimate be valuable for figuring out our strategy. Answer: We haven’t received the official number yet, but we do have some unofficial estimates. It looks like Humboldt’s cut will be about $5.7 million. The President doesn’t expect the numbers to change a lot from the unofficial estimates.

Administrative Affairs - There are plans to build a tower on campus for cell phone service – plans are currently awaiting signatures on the contract. There will be up to four providers on the tower. Construction will begin in about a month, and will last two to three months. In conjunction, an RFP is being developed to offer cell service for the entire campus. If you have any suggestions for the contract, contact Dick Giacolini or Carl Coffey.

The sale of bonds for the fieldhouse renovation and addition have been approved. There are bids in hand, the project is currently in design, and should be starting construction sometime in late spring, with the construction completed sometime around the first of next year. Rainbow Construction out of Ukiah was the successful bidder.

President Richmond: Two of the Chancellor’s Office administrators who run the Summer Arts program are visiting campus today. The Summer Arts program is up for re-bidding. It is currently located on the Fresno campus and the current bid is up in the summer of 2005. If you have perspectives on Summer Arts (positive or negative) please share them. Mark Larson (Journalism) is organizing the visit and is collecting information. He will be organizing a meeting to gather input from the campus for a proposal in response to the RFP.

The Chancellor’s Office is still debating the issue of whether or not Humboldt can run a summer program through Extended Education. Further clarification is needed, but it is still hoped that it will be possible.

Educational Policies – The Committee is looking at some of the issues mentioned by Senator Snyder, such as time to completion, etc. Senator Knox will be happy to talk with anyone interested in chairing or co-chairing Ed Policies.

University Curriculum Committee – There will be some significant actions on program reviews not previously done before in the next few months. On behalf of UCC, Senator Dalsant conveyed that Senator Knox will be missed at the meetings.

Student Affairs – Resolution to be presented at 4:30 today.

CFA – CFA is getting ready to kick-off a spring campaign and is also building a coalition to “Save the CSU”. CFA is trying to target a larger base than students, faculty, and staff. They will be reaching out to alumni, parents, civic organizations, and local businesses. Senator Meiggs distributed information on “Yes on Prop 56” to be disseminated to students.

CFA is supporting Prop 57/58. The status of the golden handshake is still pending; currently at the legislative analysts.

Faculty Affairs – The Committee has discussed the RTP review process. A presentation was made to the Senate Executive Committee and is being presented today. The Committee has begun work on a number of other issues, including: the whistle blower campus policy; fact-finding on Appendix U in the Faculty Handbook and the Committee on Professional Responsibilities. The Committee has been assigned to look at the coaches evaluation process and also to look at the idea of department fee assessment for late grades that was discussed at the Deans Council a couple of weeks ago.

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

Resolution Recommending the Faculty Athletic Representative to Check Cal Poly Humboldt Grade Point Averages for Student Athletes at the Beginning of Both the Fall and Spring Terms (#12-03/04-SA)

Senator Klein offered a friendly amendment to the resolution, changing the wording at the beginning of the last Whereas clause from “At least three institutions” to “Half of the institutions”. The amendment was accepted.

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

Whereas, Cal Poly Humboldt, as a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II, is currently required to check Cal Poly Humboldt Grade Point Averages for student athletes once per year at the start of the Fall term; and

Whereas, The purpose of such checking is to verify eligibility of student athletes for continued participation in intercollegiate sports; and

Whereas, Such checking effectively screens student athletes participating in Fall semester activities; and

Whereas, Student athletes not checked at the start of the Spring term could potentially be competing while their Grade Point Averages are below minimums required for participation due to poor grades in the preceding Fall term; and

Whereas, Half of the institutions in the Great Northwest Athletic Conference check Grade Point Averages both Fall and Spring terms; therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends that the Cal Poly Humboldt Faculty Athletic Representative check Cal Poly Humboldt Grade Point Averages for student athletes eligible for intercollegiate competition at the start of both the Fall and Spring terms.

Discussion included:

Question about the resolve clause: what is the action beyond just checking eligibility? Suggest friendly amendment to include wording from the second Whereas clause in the Resolve clause to clarify what action will occur.

It was moved and seconded (Mullery/Fulgham) to revise the wording of the Resolve clause so that it reads:

Resolved, That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends that the Cal Poly Humboldt Faculty Athletic Representative check Cal Poly Humboldt Grade Point Averages, to verify eligibility of student athletes for continued participation in intercollegiate sports, at the start of both the Fall and Spring terms.

Additional discussion and comments:

Not sure if this is necessary and it is an additional workload. It will affect some sports and not others; it will have no effect on fall sports. Sports that span both semesters will be most impacted – need to be aware of consequences. We should be looking at a wider field, including other extracurricular activities such as student governance, theater, etc. so athletes don’t feel picked on, if we are concerned about this from an academic point of view.

Clarification: Why is it specifically stated Cal Poly Humboldt Grade Point Average? Does that mean only courses taken at Humboldt are counted? It means that the transfer GPA is not calculated, only the GPA since the athlete has been enrolled at Humboldt is counted.

At the last NCAA convention, the Division II Council passed a rule that states that as of August 2005, all Division II schools will check grades every term to make sure that athletes have passed six units. (Six units is an average) Humboldt never ranks in the top five, academically, of the GNAC schools; would like to see that change and see Humboldt in the top five. This type of monitoring would allow for better counseling and help for students.

A minimum 2.0 GPA is needed for eligibility. This must be maintained each term so it will affect athletes in all sports. This is the overall/cumulative GPA.

An additional friendly amendment was suggested to add the word “cumulative” to precede “Cal Poly Humboldt Grade Point Averages, in the Resolve clause.

Voting on the resolution as amended occurred and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The resolution will take effect at the beginning of Fall 2004 term.

The revised resolution reads:

Whereas, Cal Poly Humboldt, as a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II, is currently required to check Cal Poly Humboldt Grade Point Averages for student athletes once per year at the start of the Fall term; and

Whereas, The purpose of such checking is to verify eligibility of student athletes for continued participation in intercollegiate sports; and

Whereas, Such checking effectively screens student athletes participating in Fall semester activities; and

Whereas, Student athletes not checked at the start of the Spring term could potentially be competing while their Grade Point Averages are below minimums required for participation due to poor grades in the preceding Fall term; and

Whereas, Half of the institutions in the Great Northwest Athletic Conference check Grade Point Averages both Fall and Spring terms; therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends that the Cal Poly Humboldt Faculty Athletic Representative check cumulative Cal Poly Humboldt Grade Point Averages, to verify eligibility of student athletes for continued participation in intercollegiate sports, at the start of both the Fall and Spring terms.

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

Summer Schedule [Ken Fulgham]

When Humboldt first went to year-round operation and had a summer session, a schedule was created, but never officially approved. The schedules included in packet are an attempt to create a more uniform template for when classes can be offered, in order to maximize students’ ability to take classes when needed, especially if taking more than one class.

It was moved and seconded (Fulgham/Knox) to accept the ad hoc Calendar Committee report and recommendation for Classroom Time Scheduling for Summer Session and forward said report and recommendations to the Provost and President for implementation beginning Summer Session 2004.

The Ad Hoc Calendar Committee has been working on developing a perpetual calendar, looking at calendars up through 2007/2008. The Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Studies approached the committee about looking at the summer session classroom time template. The template that was developed about five years ago was never officially adopted. Over the years, there has been some “drifting” of when classes were scheduled, and it has begun to create a problem for students, especially those wanting to take multiple courses.

Three handouts are included in the packet, including a 15-week Schedule, and Meeting Time Patterns for both 5 week session and 10 week session. They were developed by Thomas Swanger from the Registrar’s Office and Carl Hanson from Extended Education has been involved in the discussions. The templates would be run through either the state-supported summer session or Extended Education.

Discussion and Comments:

There is no three lecture/two lab combination. It was noted that not all combinations are included in the grid.

Chemistry courses don’t fit well in 10 week pattern or 5 week pattern – 6 and 8 week sessions work best – plea for some flexibility.

A survey on summer was taken a few years ago and the results favored 5 and 10 week models ; there may be a need to be revisit and consider an eight week session.

When departments start deviating from the 5 and 10 week models, there are problems with drops, etc. and it becomes very labor intensive for the Registrar’s Office to handle. There is a desire to get a majority of courses standardized.

Need to have the majority of classes following the matrix ; but exceptions will be made,

The templates are geared to try and help students achieve the purpose of summer school, which is having students move towards completion of degree. The template is designed to allow students to take more than one course. Almost 70% of the students enrolled in summer school are seniors. It is an attempt to achieve the most good for the most students.

Could recommendations be included that provide workable guidelines for departments, e.g., something to help keep courses within standard blocks?

It is difficult to come up with a policy that would cover every department; perhaps an advisory memo could be sent out to departments.

If the recommendations are accepted and forwarded to the Provost, then it would be taken to the Council of Deans, for implementation.

To what extent is this a policy issue? If it is a policy, then we need a written statement explaining what the policy is. Is this a model to give guidance?

Note on timeline – the first round of summer session class proposals are due Friday 13th. We need to view this as a work in progress. There will be a greater level of central coordination this year, more so than in the past.

A recommendation was made to change the wording of the motion to reflect the necessity for flexibility, by adding “recognizing that there will need to be flexibility within the template.”

Voting on the motion occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

The revised motions reads:

Move to accept the ad hoc Calendar Committee recommendations for Classroom Time Scheduling Template for Summer Session and forward said recommendations to the Provost and President for implementation beginning Summer Session 2004, recognizing that there will need to be flexibility within the Template.

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

6. RTP Presentation/Discussion [Ken Fulgham]

The Faculty Affairs Committee has been working with several groups and has had several meetings with both faculty and administration to look at some revisions of the current RTP process.

The Faculty Affairs Committee began the process of reviewing the RTP process last year. A series of models was presented to two faculty forums and one meeting with members of the Administration.

Senator Fulgham’s slide presentation provided an overview of the objectives of the review. The first objective, Physical Process and Levels of Review, will be addressed today.

Slides and handouts showed:

• § The Current Process
• § Proposal “F”, which was reviewed at the faculty forums and with the deans
• § A subsequent Proposal “G” that was generated from comments from discussions. The proposal provides for an alternating year review with department mentoring in between. The proposal was taken to Senate Exec, and after extensive discussion, it was taken back to Faculty Affairs committee and revised.
• § Proposal “H” was generated; inherent in proposal is the idea of multiple year appointments ; it is a model for the majority of candidates who have no problem with their files; if the model is accepted, language in Appendix J would be created, with caveats for those who want to have more periodic reviews ; or need to have a higher level of review more often. It is very difficult to create a model that would fit every possible permutation for all candidates. This model would be the standard model that most candidates would follow.
• § Pathway of Review Options: The current pathway and a series of options that have been discussed at different points are shown.

Discussion and comments:

Would not vote yes on Proposal “H” without legal counsel looking at is first. Does a candidate have a legal case if they are not given enough information to indicate that they are going to be denied tenure? If a candidate receives “bad mentoring”, does the candidate have legal recourse? Lack of higher level of review throughout process may present problems. Concerned about the level of feedback candidate receives and also what the legal ramifications of the level of feedback are.

Uncomfortable with the term “mentoring”. The contract is specific that an elected personnel committee must be involved in the performance review. The role of the committee goes beyond mentoring.

Clarification needed on Proposal “H” – have IUPC and CPC been cut off?

Concern expressed about age, that is some ways dealt with in Proposal “G”. Feedback in fifth year is more critical; in that sense, Proposal “G” is more supportive of the candidate.

How do other CSU campuses do this; how do these proposals fit in with what other campuses are doing? Department mentoring would work differently for different units; for example, for Counseling, since there are no tenured faculty in the department, none of the IUPC members come from within the department.

There is a high degree of variability within the CSU; Humboldt is one of the most “review-laden” campuses; the second question is harder to address – language would need to be developed to address non-academic departments.

Are there any campuses in the CSU using this type of model? There is one example of a campus using a model similar to Proposal “G”. An every other year review process model is not unusual.

In the Proposal “H”, year two, what is the “Plan Review”? It is the candidate’s Professional Development Plan, developed by the candidate and the IUPC see as important to the candidate’s progress; it is tailored professional development.

Concern expressed about the need to get top administrators into the process sooner for contract purposes. Concern expressed also about multiple year appointments; what if after one year an individual is found to be totally unacceptable.

Straw poll between “G” and “H” attempted and failed.

Discussion will be continued on the agenda for the next Senate meeting. Share and discuss the proposals with your colleagues. Send comments via email to Senator Fulgham.

6. TIME CERTAIN: 5:30 P.M.

Master Plan Presentation/Discussion [Bob Schulz]

An abbreviated version of the Master Plan Presentation from the architects from AC Martin was presented.

The document is intended to serve the University for a minimum of forty years. Humboldt is about halfway through the process, at the point of beginning to talk about scenarios. The presentation is being made to a variety of venues. Comments will be reported back to AC Martin at the end of the month.

The Master Plan is based on the physical campus as it exists today. Some of the issues that have been considered include:

• § Pedestrian Circulation
• § Vehicular Circulation
• § Spatial/Functional Organization of the Campus
• § Conditions of Facilities (output from space/facilities database that the Chancellor’s Office maintains) – numbers represent cycle until the next major renovation
• § Potential Development.

A series of campus forums were conducted on October 2003 with attendance of about 100 people. All of the comments were transcribed and recorded (and are available online). Comments broke out into major categories:

• § Pedestrian/bicycle type circulation was a major issue
• § Parking facilities was another major issue; more controversial
• § Concern about open space
• § Safety/Accessibility and improvement of facilities
• § Push from students to build a more sustainable campus, reflecting Humboldt’s environmental ethics.

The Master Plan Committee made a series of recommendations to the President and to the architects, including closing the campus core to vehicles, strong push to develop more open space, need to physically group related academic activities, need more parking by Forbes, etc.

Architects provided three scenarios, all three of which included 12,000 FTES, main entry to campus at L.K Wood and 14th Street, pedestrian malls, student housing, the idea of a campus residential village (developed on south side of campus), trying to connect the lower and upper campus with a parking structure, student housing, etc.

The three scenarios differ primarily in the ways they deal with “icon” buildings, the Library and the Performing Arts Center. Scenarios are oriented around where these buildings are located. Considerations include the fact that the Library is currently the largest space on campus, and do we want to increase its size or have a separate additional structure. There are two schools of thought regarding the placement of the Performing Arts Center; 1) placing it on the outside of campus makes it easier for people to locate and get to, 2) placing it in the center of campus ensures visitors see and experience the Humboldt campus when they attend events.

The Master Plan Committee reviewed all three scenarios, plus a fourth one that AC Martin provided based on initial feedback. The fourth scenario pulls the proposed parking structure to the edge of campus and combines it with academic space.

The Committee digested their comments on the scenarios and developed their own scenario.

For the complete presentation, go to: http://www.humboldt.edu/~mastplan/pdf/Humboldt%20ForumNo-3.pdf

Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.