Academic Senate Minutes October 07, 2003

Chair MacConnie called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. on Tuesday, October 07, 2003, in Nelson Hall East, Room 102 (Goodwin Forum).

Members Present: Butler, Cheyne, Dalsant, Dixon, Fonseca, Fulgham, Green, Kinney, Knox, Kornreich, MacConnie, Meiggs, Mortazavi, Moyer, Mullery, Oliver, Paselk, Paynton, Sanford, Schwab, Shellhase, Snyder, Sonntag, Thobaben, Varkey, Vrem, Wieand, Zendejas

Members Absent: Coffey, Dunk, Marshall, Richmond, Yarnall

Proxies: Platin for Kiesling; Snyder for Derden; Snyder for Klein; Sweeton for O'Rourke-Andrews

Guests: A. Bolick-Floss, YES; P. Brown, Department of Social Work; K. Carlton, College of Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences; S. Deffenderfer, Faculty Personnel Services; J. Gai; Department of Social Work; C. Mueller, Library; K. Nakamura, Department of Social Work; L. Phillips, Office of the Registrar; D. Schafer, Research & Graduate Studies; C. Terry, Budget Office

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved and seconded (Fulgham/Schwab) to approve the submitted minutes of September 23, 2003. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

2. Announcements and Communications

Chair MacConnie announced:

There are three new senators at the table today and a warm welcome was extended to them: Chip Dixon, who is completing Susan Bicknell's term; and two new student representatives, April Zendejas and Manuel Fonseca.

Greta will be leaving the Academic Senate Office to assume a position in the President's Office. She will continue to assist with senate work while a search is conducted for her replacement.

President Richmond approved the Resolution on Revision of the Financial Aid Section in the September 2003 Edition of the Athletics Grants-In-Aid Policies and Procedures Manual (#03-03/04-SA)

At the October 1 Provost's Council meeting discussion occurred regarding the budget process in OAA, and the deans will be asked for their 2004-2005 budget requests October 15.

Please review the President's executive committee notes on the web site. If anyone would like additional information on any of the items or if you would like to discuss specific items, contact Greta or Chair MacConnie.

The Master Plan is an agenda item today. Chair MacConnie provided a brief overview of the presentation at the public forums. A.C. Martin gave a slide presentation on the background of the process, an historical perspective of the physical campus and a layout of the structural issues on campus. Smaller working groups then discussed what people like or do not like about the campus. Approximately 25 people attended Friday's session; approximately 60 people attended the Thursday session.

Patrick Lenz, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Budget Development, and Rodney Rideau, Budget Director, were on campus today and met with the President's Executive Committee, members of the Senate Executive Committee and members of Associated Students. Their goal is to visit as many campuses this year as possible to learn what kind of an impact the budget situation has had on the different campuses and to answer any questions regarding the budget. Chair MacConnie stated that according to Lenz, a significant component of the budget status is related to the legislature. In fact, Lenz said that this was the first time he heard the UC and the CSU referred to as discretionary funding items. Apparently alternative means of funding higher education are being considered, but the details are not known yet. There are times now when the legislature makes budget changes, particularly regarding the CSU and higher education, and public policy discussions related to the impact of such budget cuts (for example, no enrollment growth money granted or time-to-degree) are not included. At the meetings with Lenz, the impact of the budget situation on Cal Poly Humboldt was described including reduction of core sections, student services (EOP, testing center, learning center, counseling and health) and library services.

3. Committee and State Senate Reports

Statewide Senate - Senator Snyder commented that regarding the legislative hearings on different models to fund higher education, one model is the earn, learn, return model, which involves payback after one gets out of school; another model is the voucher model, which means that money is given to students and then they pay the university; and a third model involves payment to the university based on the number of graduates each year.

Senator Thobaben announced that the executive order regarding research and grants is being revised. The statewide senate has submitted comments on this order, and it may be advisable to review Humboldt's research policies for compliance with the new executive order.

Associated Students - The drive to encourage students to vote continues. AS voted on a resolution regarding the revised Humboldt smoking policy indicating that they will abide by the governor's approval of AB 846, and the resolution supports designated community smoking areas.

Associated Students also met with Patrick Lenz today and developed an agreement that faculty, students and staff need to work together as a system with a common vision and message to give to the legislature. CSSA meets in Chico next week. Senator Platin will be representing the CSU students in the California Educational Round Table.

Educational Policies Committee - The Committee currently is working on reviewing the distance learning report, the policy for reinstatement of suspended programs and on-line evaluations. A replacement resolution will be distributed today regarding the MSW proposal.

CFA - There is no bargaining news; discussions may not occur until late October or early November. Approximately 11,000 CFA members had an error on their pay check showing the dues to be $11; the problem is being worked on. Campus equity week will take place October 27 - 31. This is a statewide week of activities with the primary focus on lecturers, and there probably will be an activity on the Quad on Wednesday.

General Faculty President - A runoff for the HSU Foundation Board of Directors position will take place October 15 and 16.

Student Affairs Office - Homecoming and Family Weekend are scheduled for this weekend, and several activities are planned. Faculty were reminded that some family members may be visiting classes. The first of five welcoming receptions planned by the Multicultural Center will take place tonight.

OAA - Provost Vrem commented that the visit from Patrick Lenz was informative and helpful for this campus. Vice Chancellor West sent an email to Provost Vrem regarding the proposed MSW program, and indicated that if Humboldt proceeds with this program we will be receiving $150,000 this year and $150,000 next year to help with start-up funding.

Senate Finance Committee - The Committee has been meeting with the ad hoc budget policy group and hopes to have a budget policy by the end of this term.

Faculty Affairs Committee - Senators were encouraged to read the Statement from Robert Cherny that was sent electronically; of particular interest are pages 7 through 9 on marginal cost formulas.

The Faculty Affairs Committee continues its work on the different options regarding the RTP process, and Option F is now under discussion. Chair MacConnie, Senator Fulgham, Rick Botzler, Chair of the UFPC, Provost Vrem and President Richmond met to discuss the progress to date regarding the RTP process and to ascertain what views the upper administration had regarding the components of Option F. Three expanded meetings are planned this term: one with the college personnel committees; one with the academic deans and the librarian; and a general faculty forum. It is hoped that a resolution will be forwarded to the senate by the end of this term.

Other Announcements

Chair MacConnie receives email correspondence from the statewide office regarding current items of interest, such as the budget situation. Senators who would like to receive copies of such communications were asked to add their name to the sign-up sheet that was distributed.

Chair MacConnie reminded senators that there are two time certain items on today's agenda plus the Master Plan discussion, and we need to discuss all three items. If we are still discussing a time certain item at 5:25, she will entertain a motion to suspend the rules and take up new business after 5:30.

Chair MacConnie apologized to the Social Work faculty members and to the senators for the confusion surrounding the MSW proposal discussion at the last meeting. Senators were reminded that the proposal was recommended by the College of Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences' Curriculum Committee, Dean Carlton of the College of Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences, the Graduate Council and the UCC. The three options include 1) recommend, 2) recommend with reservation, and 3) do not recommend. The senate's recommendation will go to Provost Vrem; the Provost's Council and the resource review group are reviewing the proposal now. The final review will be made by President Richmond.

4. TIME CERTAIN 4:30 P.M

Resolution on Review of the Proposed Masters in Social Work (#04-03/04-EP) [Electronic copies of the MSW documents were forwarded to all senators September 23; PDF versions of the documents have been posted to the Reference section of the senate home page]

A revised copy of the resolution was distributed. Senator Knox introduced the resolution stating that it was the Committee's best effort at clarity regarding conflicting sets of circumstances, and that the quality of the program is not an issue. She appreciates the funding information contained in Provost Vrem's report. The only change to the copy of the resolution distributed at today's meeting from the resolution contained in the agenda packet is the last resolved clause.

It was moved and seconded (Knox/Fonseca) to place the resolution on the floor.

WHEREAS, The faculty of the Social Work Department have put forward a proposal for a new Masters in Social Work program (MSW) which clearly addresses current local needs and involves a significant professional and financial collaboration between local agencies and the university to initiate this program; and

WHEREAS, The Masters in Social Work program provides graduating Cal Poly Humboldt students and local professionals with an opportunity to complete professional preparation necessary for licensure that currently is not available in this region except through distance education from distant sources; and

WHEREAS, This proposal comes to the Cal Poly Humboldt Academic Senate at a time when there are no additional funds for programs, indeed funding is being cut from established programs; and

WHEREAS, The ratio of undergraduate students graduating to graduate students projected for the program (approximately 32:20) is a very high yield rate so that once the current community need has been addressed, it will be necessary to attract graduate level students from outside the region; and

WHEREAS, The Social Work Department faculty have worked very closely with the accrediting organization to ensure that the proposed program will meet accreditation requirements, but to become accredited and maintain accreditation the program will require faculty, staff and library resources not currently available to the Social Work Department; therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt applaud the stellar work of the faculty of the Social Work Department and the community partners who have collaborated in the design of this innovative MSW program; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt commend the quality curriculum put forward in the MSW proposal; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt appreciate the commitment of funds offered to the Social Work Department by the Humboldt County Children and Families Commission and the Del Norte County DHSS for start up of the MSW program; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt express concern that the reallocation of faculty lines from the undergraduate program to the graduate program may compromise the accreditation status or weaken the Bachelor in Social Work (BSW) program during the start up period of two to three years if the MSW is initiated; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt express concern that diverting funds to support the creation of a new program at this time of drastically reduced resources could be detrimental to the efforts being made to maintain the quality of existing programs; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that the MSW proposal go forward, on the condition that the Provost budgets sufficient funds to ensure that the MSW program can obtain and maintain accreditation without detriment to other academic programs.

Discussion comments included:

It was offered as a friendly amendment to revise the last resolved clause so that it reads, " . . . recommend that the MSW proposal go forward, on the condition and that the Provost . . . ." This was not accepted as a friendly amendment.

It was moved and seconded (Fulgham/Thobaben) to revise the last resolved clause so that it reads, " . . . recommend that the MSW proposal go forward on the condition and that the Provost . . . ."

Discussion on the amendment included:

It is not in the senate's purview to place a condition on the approval of a program; the senate is a recommending body only and cannot dictate the Provost's actions.

The Committee's concern is that given the current budget crisis it may not be in the best interest of the campus to undertake a new program at this time, and it is important for the senate to make this point.

It was suggested that the recommend with reservation be used.

If the amendment is approved, then the penultimate resolved clause becomes meaningless and the issue was concern regarding funding.

The final phrase of the last resolved clause would protect other programs.

The difficulty with using the with reservation language is that the proposal is an excellent proposal, and by adding with reservation the quality of the program may be questioned and that is not an issue; the concern was how this proposal would be implemented without financial resources and without compromising other undergraduate programs and this was the reason for using the conditional language.

Concern was expressed that because of the budget constraints, we are fearful of moving forward and that this resolution puts the Provost in a position of having to predict the future and no one can do that.

Voting on the amendment occurred and MOTION FAILED WITH 11 YES VOTES, 12 NO VOTES, AND 3 ABSTENTIONS.

Discussion continued:

The senate's resolution will go to the President; but once the proposal is recommended, it will go to the Provost as part of the parallel track

Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

It was moved and seconded (Fulgham/Knox) to make this an emergency item for immediate transmittal to the President.

Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

7. Resolution on Adjusting Physical Capacity Enrollment Ceilings Through the Master Plan Revision Process (#05-03/04-EX)

Chair MacConnie provided background on the resolution stating that it adopts the principles of the resolution from the Academic Senate CSU which ties the consideration of physical capacity enrollment ceilings to the master plan revision process. This served as a means to get the process formalized on this campus. The process includes assessment of the effects of enrollment ceiling increases on the campus and academic programs and that campus academic senates should be part of the process.

It was moved and seconded (Snyder/Knox) to place the resolution on the floor.

WHEREAS: As enrollment growth in the CSU is likely to put pressure on Cal Poly Humboldt to increase its enrollment ceiling; and

WHEREAS: Any increase in the campus physical capacity enrollment ceiling should not compromise the academic integrity of Cal Poly Humboldt; and

WHEREAS: Increasing the physical capacity enrollment ceiling requires a revision of the campus Master Plan and a review of the physical capacity of Cal Poly Humboldt; and

WHEREAS: The enrollment ceiling affects the physical capacity of the campus as well as the academic goals of the institution; and

WHEREAS: The Chancellor and the Board of Trustees agree that faculty and faculty senates must be consulted in enrollment management decisions; and

WHEREAS: The Academic Senate CSU unanimously approved the attached resolution AS-2604-03/AA Adjusting Physical Capacity Enrollment Ceilings for Individual Campuses through the Master Plan Revision Process; and

WHEREAS: Any requests for an increase in the physical capacity enrollment ceiling should include careful analysis and support from the Cal Poly Humboldt academic senate and/or the general faculty; therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that a physical capacity enrollment ceiling adjustment analysis include a written explanation of how the enrollment ceiling may affect such academic matters as institutional identity, the range and quality of academic programs, student mix, internal organization, library, faculty and staff resources, student/faculty ratios, and the campus community; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that the request for an increase in physical capacity enrollment ceiling also include a recommendation by the Cal Poly Humboldt academic senate.

Discussion comments included:

The resolution came from the Statewide Academic Affairs Committee and the policy has many requirements regarding environmental assessments and a short comment on consulting faculty. Since consultation has a different meaning to different people, the intent at the statewide level was to provide specificity on the meaning of consultation. The resolution does this by calling for the production of a document that becomes part of the master plan revision process that addresses academic concerns and documentation of the senate's recommendation on any increase in the enrollment ceiling.

Through friendly amendment, the last resolved clause was revised so that it reads, ". . . recommendation by the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt."

Through friendly amendment, the first resolved clause was revised so that it reads, " . . . student/faculty ratios, and the campus community and the greater surrounding community."

Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The revised resolution reads:

WHEREAS: As enrollment growth in the CSU is likely to put pressure on Cal Poly Humboldt to increase its enrollment ceiling; and

WHEREAS: Any increase in the campus physical capacity enrollment ceiling should not compromise the academic integrity of Cal Poly Humboldt; and

WHEREAS: Increasing the physical capacity enrollment ceiling requires a revision of the campus master plan and a review of the physical capacity of Cal Poly Humboldt; and

WHEREAS: The enrollment ceiling affects the physical capacity of the campus as well as the academic goals of the institution; and

WHEREAS: The Chancellor and the Board of Trustees agree that faculty and faculty senates must be consulted in enrollment management decisions; and

WHEREAS: The Academic Senate CSU unanimously approved the attached resolution AS-2604-03/AA Adjusting Physical Capacity Enrollment Ceilings for Individual Campuses through the Master Plan Revision Process; and

WHEREAS: Any requests for an increase in the physical capacity enrollment ceiling should include careful analysis and support from the Cal Poly Humboldt academic senate and/or the general faculty; therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that a physical capacity enrollment ceiling adjustment analysis include a written explanation of how the enrollment ceiling may affect such academic matters as institutional identity, the range and quality of academic programs, student mix, internal organization, library, faculty and staff resources, student/faculty ratios, the campus community and the greater surrounding community; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that the request for an increase in physical capacity enrollment ceiling also include a recommendation by the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt.

8. Resolution on Campus Consultation with Faculty Before Establishing Enrollment Targets and Enrollment Management Policies for an Admissions Cycle (#06-03/04-EX)

Chair MacConnie announced that this resolution calls for inclusion of the Academic Senate when enrollment targets are set or when enrollment policies are developed or revised.

It was moved and seconded (Snyder/Platin) to place the resolution on the floor.

WHEREAS: Section 3561(b) of the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) recognizes that joint decision making and consultation between the administration and the faculty are central to the mission of the California State University (CSU); and

WHEREAS: It has long been the policy of the CSU that faculty have primary responsibility for curriculum; and

WHEREAS: Admissions and enrollment management are so closely connected to curriculum and the academic programs of the university that the policy should recognize the role of faculty in these areas; and

WHEREAS: The Academic Senate CSU unanimously approved the attached resolution AS-2569-02/AA Campus Consultation with Faculty before Establishing Enrollment Targets and Enrollment Management Policies for an Admissions Cycle ; therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that the president consult with the Academic Senate before developing enrollment targets and enrollment management practices that have implications for each admissions cycle.

Discussion comments included:

This resolution also came from the Statewide Academic Affairs Committee and it is important for Cal Poly Humboldt because it asks that the President consult with the Academic Senate before setting an enrollment target for the next enrollment cycle. Given the budget situation this academic year, it would have been helpful if the senate had been in a position to encourage the President to negotiate a lower enrollment target with the same amount of money we are receiving, and it would be helpful to the President in such negotiations to have the faculty viewpoint included.

A friendly amendment was offered to change the language in the resolved clause to read, " . . . that the President consult with and receive the recommendation of the Academic Senate . . . ."

Concern was expressed that the language in the resolved clause is not clear and while the intent is commendable, perhaps different language could be found that would provide the necessary information with more clarity.

Concern was expressed regarding the lack of clarity on (1) what falls under this requirement and (2) who makes the decision about the appropriateness of what falls under this requirement.

Since this was passed in May 2002, do other campuses have experience in implementing this? [Other campuses have a large inclusive enrollment management committee and a smaller enrollment management committee. The smaller committee has a larger faculty component and is more closely connected to the senate. This committee discusses general enrollment management practices that they believe affect the academic side on an enrollment cycle such as when to cut off applications, will applications be cut off, etc. Because of the closer connection to the senate, the smaller committee is more similar to a policy body and the larger group is more of an advisory body. This may be a good idea for Humboldt.]

Discussion was postponed to consider the time certain agenda item.

5. TIME CERTAIN 5 P.M. Resolution on Humboldt Budget Process (#01-03/04-SF)

Chair MacConnie provided background on the resolution stating that two ad hoc committees were formed last year; one to deal with the budget process and the second one to deal with the budget policy. The budget process committee created a draft proposal last spring and asked for commentary on it from several entities. The proposal was revised to include such suggestions and is now attached to the resolution. The primary reason for development of the proposal was to make Humboldt's budget process more transparent, open, inclusive and understandable.

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

WHEREAS, Budgeting is an integral part of strategic planning; and

WHEREAS, An effective method of budgeting based on resource priorities is necessary for the success of the strategic plan; and

WHEREAS, Budget transparency is of utmost importance to faculty, staff, and students at Humboldt; and

WHEREAS, The Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee of the CSU Academic Senate conducted a survey of campus budget advisory committees in 1998; and

WHEREAS, The survey identified the following elements necessary for the effectiveness of a budget advisory committee

• Frequency of meetings
• Membership structure and make-up of the committee
• Meeting attendance and time devotion to meetings
• Staff support for research
• Connection to Academic Senate
• Training of committee members

; and

WHEREAS, The survey found strong faculty participation in fiscal planning crucial to the success of a budget advisory committee; and

WHEREAS, The survey identified Humboldt as having the lowest faculty representation among the CSU campuses in the budget advisory committee; and

WHEREAS, The survey found the leadership at the President or Provost level to be essential in smooth functioning of budget advisory committee; be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend approval of the attached document, prepared by the Ad hoc Budget Process Committee, for the formation of a new University Budget Committee and the implementation of the budget process recommended; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that the budget process be coordinated with the enrollment cycle as much as possible; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that the budget process be reviewed during the Fall 2006 term.

Discussion comments included:

The results of the survey used by the committee showed that Humboldt's budget group, the URPBC, had the fewest number of faculty representatives among all CSU campuses. One objective of the resolution is to create for this campus a new budget group with faculty as the majority so that faculty will have a voice on budget matters.

It was moved and seconded (Kinney/Fonseca) to amend the committee membership to include an additional student voting member for a two-year term appointed by the Associated Students.

Discussion on the amendment included:

The meetings are open to the general university community.

The term Faculty representative, Non-College Affiliated Faculty refers to faculty such as counselors, librarians, etc.

The students can be observers and ex officio members, and increasing the number of students as voting members may open the door to increasing other groups of voting members thereby diluting the vote of the faculty. [Students have an important role in shared governance, just as faculty do; having one voting student to five voting faculty members is demeaning to students.]

Voting on the amendment to add a voting student to the membership occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH 1 NO VOTE AND 3 ABSTENTIONS.

Discussion on the resolution continued:

It would seem that the strategy behind any serious decision making efforts, in difficult budget times such as we have now, would require a larger body than just the proposed committee to make decisions such as pro rata cuts across the university. [If a budget decision included program reduction, this idea probably would begin at the academic affairs level and then work its way up.] [The survey found the URPBC, which was a larger group, to be ineffective so the purpose of this recommendation is to form a smaller, more cohesive group.]

Voting occurred on the resolution as amended and MOTION PASSED.

The revised resolution reads:

WHEREAS, Budgeting is an integral part of strategic planning; and

WHEREAS, An effective method of budgeting based on resource priorities is necessary for the success of the strategic plan; and

WHEREAS, Budget transparency is of utmost importance to faculty, staff, and students at Humboldt; and

WHEREAS, The Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee of the CSU Academic Senate conducted a survey of campus budget advisory committees in 1998; and

WHEREAS, The survey identified the following elements necessary for the effectiveness of a budget advisory committee

• Frequency of meetings
• Membership structure and make-up of the committee
• Meeting attendance and time devotion to meetings
• Staff support for research
• Connection to AcademicSenate
• Training of committee members

; and

WHEREAS, The survey found strong faculty participation in fiscal planning crucial to the success of a budget advisory committee; and

WHEREAS, The survey identified Humboldt as having the lowest faculty representation among the CSU campuses in the budget advisory committee; and

WHEREAS, The survey found the leadership at the President or Provost level to be essential in smooth functioning of budget advisory committee; be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend approval of the Ad hoc Budget Process Committee's proposal for the formation of a new University Budget Committee and the implementation of the budget process recommended in the attached document and amended by the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that the budget process be coordinated with the enrollment cycle as much as possible; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that the budget process be reviewed during the Fall 2006 term.

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

6. Master Plan

A. Resolution on the Budget for the Master Plan Revision (#07-03/04-EX)

Chair MacConnie announced that originally this was on the agenda as a part of the Master Plan calendar distributed at the last senate meeting. After the discussion at that senate meeting, concerns were expressed regarding budgetary issues and a resolution on this topic was sent electronically to each senator. President Richmond was not able to be here today, but he did write a memorandum to the senate regarding the revision of the Master Plan. Copies of the memorandum were distributed.

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

WHEREAS, Cal Poly Humboldt is facing both a fiscal and an academic crisis from the budget reductions for Academic Year 03/04; and

WHEREAS, The Department of Finance has directed all state agencies, including the California State University, to plan for a 20% reduction for next fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, The Legislature passed supplemental reporting language, which both CSU and CFA endorse, that the CSU prioritize "core classroom instructional needs, student services, and libraries" in making budget reductions; and

WHEREAS, The Master Plan Revision process will cost Cal Poly Humboldt approximately $300, 000; and

WHEREAS, The budget for the Master Plan Revision process could be used to offset campus reductions such as the unprecedented cut in the library periodical budget, additional class sections for Spring 2003 or essential student services; and

WHEREAS, The Strategic Plan, which is being revised this year, is more important for short-range planning than the Master Plan, which is important for long-range planning; therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that the President defer the Master Plan Revision process until the campus can better afford this important long-range planning process.

Discussion comments included:

Clarification was sought regarding the fiscal impacts and annual savings of the rather significant amounts referred to in the penultimate paragraph of the President's memorandum. [The BSS is a replacement project partly for the university annex. The annex currently is costing the university $144,000 annually and upon completion of the BSS and elimination of the annex, we will have gained 30,000 square feet. In addition, since we do not receive state support for temporary space but we do receive state support for new permanent space, the BSS building, which is new permanent space that will be replacing temporary space, will provide us with another $100,000+ state support. Such support dollars would be available for any replacement building done on campus. The positive net economic benefits will vary depending on the project. When a project replaces a temporary building there will be significant operational savings owing to the efficiency and easier maintenance of the new buildings.]

There is no connection between development of the Master Plan and the construction of the BSS building. There will be subsequent projects this campus will want to complete, and the financial implications of not completing them must be considered. The work on the Forbes Complex also is not affected.

The portion of the $300,000 allocated for the Master Plan that is part of the general fund allocation may be used anywhere President Richmond chooses. The portion of the $300,000 that is from auxiliaries, such as housing or parking, may not be redirected toward instruction. [Last year's $100,000 reserve money from President Richmond was general fund money; there will be another general fund contribution going forward. Discussion has included a cost sharing model wherein parking and housing pick up an appropriate percentage of the cost of the Master Plan and such appropriate percentages are not general fund money.] [Approximately $140,000 of the $200,000 will be general fund money and $60,000 will be from auxiliaries. There also is approximately $60,000 or $70,000 remaining from the original $100,000.] [The speculation is that the $140,000 would come from general funds, but there has been no final determination on this. There is the possibility that another funding source may be found.]

These are very difficult times and it may be that by not developing the Master Plan now we may lose out on a future building, but this is speculative. Most other campuses in the CSU system are growing at a rate faster than Humboldt so there is a greater need on other campuses compared to Humboldt.

Approximately $120,000 is being cut from the library's budget for periodicals. [This is a substantial cut from the library and many are concerned about this.] [It was suggested that we look for resources for a short term loan of $140,000 and then reimburse the general fund money from the BSS money. In that way, the library will not lose its publications.]

This may not be the best use of the money; it may be better to say that Humboldt cannot produce the FTES we have been asked to produce, and we will need to cut some classes and put that money toward the library.

Budget cuts that have occurred this year have affected not only the library, but have reduced travel opportunities, reduced the number of colleagues in the instructional ranks, changed the working hours of the custodians and increased security issues. The issue is whether it is timely to spend any money at this time.

It is more important to complete the work on the Strategic Plan this year, and follow it up with a revision to the Master Plan.

Completing the Master Plan so that Humboldt can find its niche in the funding que may not be critical since Humboldt's enrollment growth is less than the other campuses and there is little likelihood that the state will turn around financially in the next year or two. [There is a business strategy that is involved in pursuing the capital outlay funding. One reason Humboldt is to receive funding for Forbes in 2005-06 is because in the first year of budget limitations, $165,000 was set aside to fund the feasibility study that detailed the cost and program requirements of the Forbes renovation. Without that investment, the Forbes project would not be a possibility. There are several reasons that developing the Master Plan now is important. Projects to be pursued in 2004-05 are known and already determined. During 2005-06, it is very unlikely that Humboldt would receive a major capital allocation because there is a regional balancing that occurs. Humboldt's first good opportunity at a follow-up project is the 2006/07 year since the deadline for this application is July 2004. The projects for which we may receive funding include the performing arts center, a visual arts replacement building or a student services building. However, these projects do not exist on the current Master Plan and may not be funded at the basic level. They could be put in the capital outlay book and a formal request can be made; however, the chance of receiving funding is zero. Capital allocation is a very competitive process, and the fact that we are a low enrollment growth campus makes it more challenging. It does make the requirements to invest the money on feasibility issues more important if we want to achieve completion of these projects. All of these projects have profound impacts on Humboldt's academic activities. The funding cycle on such projects is typically three years in advance of the request.

This is a difficult decision because there are many unknown factors so we are having to make a decision without all of the information.

Ultimately things need to be replaced; given the current state of deterioration and disrepair, the time will come when replacement is inevitable. [This will not have an impact on our maintenance dollars; the budget cut this year will have an impact on plant operations and its ability to maintain the current structures. It is important to realize that recognition of future projects for this campus and the identification of saleable projects are necessary when Humboldt approaches the Department of Finance and the Chancellor's Office. The fact that Humboldt is a low-growth campus does play a role, and we will not be getting large capacity projects. However, it does affect our ability to seek replacement space. The BSS building is largely a replacement building. It is space that is largely self maintaining for the first 15-20 years of its life span, and it comes with money to maintain that space and those dollars may then be used to maintain older buildings on campus. The creation of these replacement buildings has huge impacts on the remainder of the campus.

Voting on the resolution occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH 11 YES VOTES, 10 NO VOTES AND 5 ABSTENTIONS.

There was general agreement that since the vote was so close, and given that the President is arguing against the resolution, the best course of action is to continue with discussion as though the resolution will not be approved by the President.

6. Master Plan

B. Input and Goals on the Master Plan

Chair MacConnie announced that Bob Schulz is willing to provide the senate the same Master Plan information that he presented at the public forums held this week or he can give a short presentation now of the information. There also is a master planning web site from the home page, which is another means of providing comment.

Bob Schulz stated that the Master Plan is in place to support the mission of the university over an extended time frame. Among the things to be discussed are how well does the current configuration of the campus meet our present needs as well as future needs, and what is the ideal enrollment ceiling for this campus. The enrollment ceiling should not be set by the master plan process; however, the university does have to let the designers know in November what the ceiling will be.

There are four major campus forums scheduled and each one is followed by a presentation to the Academic Senate and then to the Master Planning Committee, which has been established to provide the consolidated feedback to the architects. The architects will provide us with information on the implications of given enrollment ceilings.

The first step is to review where the campus is today. The architects will consider the physical constraints and topography. A three-dimensional model of the campus has been built so that different formations may be considered. Also under consideration are such things as vehicular circulation, car pathways through campus, entry sequences into campus, pedestrian traffic, functional organization, academic interrelationships, possible building locations, possible development of open sites, landscaping and projection of major renovation or replacement needs.

Senators were encouraged to consider several factors: the wide variety of architectural designs on campus; the difficulty in finding a main campus entry; the diversity of campus signs; the current location of roadways, parking and service areas; and what does the community think about the current campus layout.

At the web site found on the Humboldt home page are links to the Master Plan and the Strategic Plan, which contain detailed information and allow for comment. Senators were encouraged to participate in some brainstorming sessions so that senate feedback can be received.

Appreciation was expressed to Bob Schulz for his report.

Meeting adjourned 6:05 p.m.