HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY Academic Senate Minutes April 01, 2003

Chair MacConnie called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. on Tuesday, April 1, 2003, in Nelson Hall East, Room 102 (Goodwin Forum).

Members Present: Adkins, Butler, Dalsant, Derden, Dunk, Fulgham, Gill, Goodman, Klein, MacConnie, Meiggs, Mortazavi, Moyer, Oliver (5-6 p.m.), Paselk, Paynton, Sanford, Schwab, Shellhase, Snyder, Thobaben, Travis, Varkey, Vrem, Yarnall

Members Absent: Coffey, Knox, Leung, O'Rourke-Andrews, Post, Richmond

Proxies: MacConnie for Bicknell; Green for Cheyne; Platin for Kinney; Meiggs for Klein; Fulgham for Martin; Marshall for Nelson

Guests: R. Darnall-Burke, Student Affairs; R. Fritzsche, Academic Affairs; K. Earls, Budget & Insitutional Data; S. Higgins, College of Professional Studies; J. Howard, College of Natural Resources & Sciences; V. Phillips, Undergraduate Studies; N. Sprotte, Enrollment Management; D. Schafer, Research & Graduate Studies; S. Smith, College of Natural Resources & Sciences; C. Terry, Budget Office

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved and seconded (Varkey/Goodman) to approve the submitted minutes for March 11, 2003. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

2. Announcements and Communications

Chair MacConnie announced:

The provost search committee is reviewing files and will be meeting Friday to select phone interview candidates.

A call will be going out for a faculty member from each college to serve on a subcommittee of the Enrollment Management Advisory Committee to discuss retention and time-to-degree.

The budget summit was held March 14 in Long Beach. During the morning session presentations by Betty Yee, from the governor's office, Patrick Lenz, Assistant Vice Chancellor, and Jolene Keoster, President of CSU Northridge, offered different perspectives on the current budget situation, with the general message being that the situation probably will not get better. During the afternoon session working groups were formed and budget ideas were discussed. The web site address for the summit will be forwarded to all senators.

3. Committee and State Senate Reports

Associated Students - The budget action week will take place next week. Time to address students will be available; a faculty perspective is welcome. Some Associated Students' members will be making short announcements in their classes; if faculty are approached, it would be appreciated if they would assent to this request. Caitlin Gill announced that she is not running for Associated Student president; she has decided to run for Chair of CSSA.

Resolutions passed by Associated Students include: 1) a resolution supporting the day of silence project to protest the discrimination, harassment and abuse faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to take place April 9, 2003; and 2) a resolution for ballot initiative regarding student satisfaction with academic advising. A resolution on the smoking policy will go to the Council next Monday. A parking symposium will be held April 10; student permits are expected to be raised from $54 to $67.50 on April 4 . There will be open time for discussion on alternative transportation. One proposal is to prohibit those who live within a one-mile radius of campus from getting a parking permit.

Student Affairs Office - Vice President Butler announced that Dan Collen has been appointed as the new Athletic Director. During the last week two functions regarding the conflict in Iraq occurred. Faculty played a leadership role in the presentation and organization of these functions and both of them were informative and well supported.

Faculty Affairs - A first reading of a resolution is on today's agenda. The Committee is looking at a system wide mandate for a whistleblower protection policy, and has met with members of the Faculty Awards Committee to revise and revisit the process for selecting the Outstanding Professor of the Year Award.

CFA - Sunshine proposals from the CSU administration were distributed at the first bargaining meeting and an open discussion took place. Given the budget that the State of California is facing, CFA is interested in exploring with the CSU administration the idea of opening traditional non-reopener articles. The only articles being discussed include salary and compensation, benefits, workload and YRO. CFA is hoping to resolve some longstanding differences on issues that are out of scope. It appears that the administration is willing to discuss some items; for example, the order of layoffs regarding lecturers and temporary faculty. Contracts were bargained for these people, but one thing that was overlooked at the end of the last bargaining round was the assurance that the contract conformed to such issues. CFA hopes to address this as an example of the kinds of things that are not costly to CSU, but are of interest to faculty. This promises to be a grueling set of negotiations. The assembly of the CFA will meet this weekend and elections for officers of CFA will be held.

CFA Chapter President Travis stated that the bargaining climate feels more relaxed than it has in previous years, and discussion items have not been met with complete resistance. The administration seems receptive, probably for several reasons: 1) given that the CMS audit has been published and there has been harsh criticism of the chancellor and other top officials, the administration does not want another major battle; 2) legislative hearings on CMS will take place this Thursday in Sacramento and CFA will be testifying and expressing its concerns about the cost associated with CMS, particularly given the state of the budget; 3) the administration is concerned with this budget item and probably feeling some pressure so they may be more flexible; and 4) the idea of putting retirement incentives on the table, such as the golden handshake, has not occurred yet but there may be such a proposal soon.

Local CFA elections will be occurring soon for president, vice president and delegate at large; terms are two years. Anyone interested in running for one of these positions should contact CFA Chapter President Travis or Senator Green.

OAA - Interim Vice President Vrem announced that preliminary projections for fall enrollment show that Humboldt will reach, or may be higher than, the target level. This item will be discussed at the Joint Council meeting tomorrow.

General Faculty - Elections occurred last week and results will be available soon. A runoff is expected.

4. Election of Senate Representative to the Strategic Planning Steering Committee

Chair MacConnie announced that the ballot has three names, with room for write-ins if someone is interested in adding his/her name to the list. Chair MacConnie included her name on the ballot in the event senators believe it is important for the senate chair to be involved. If the chair's involvement is not needed, Chair MacConnie urged senators to vote for someone else. There were no write-ins. Voting occurred and Chair MacConnie was elected as the senate representative.

5. TIME CERTAIN: 4:30 p.m.

Discussion Item: Budget Review Process Proposal

A copy of Chair MacConnie's PowerPoint presentation is attached to these minutes.

Chair MacConnie announced that contained in today's agenda packet is a copy of the proposed budget process that the ad hoc committee has been developing. At this point the committee is seeking input from the campus community. The work of the committee evolved over time, starting with a desire to have a more open and accessible budget on Humboldt's campus. In an effort to reach this goal, the Senate Executive Committee and the President's Executive Committee worked together and decided to form two ad hoc committees, the ad hoc budget process committee and the ad hoc budget policies committee.

Chair MacConnie expressed her appreciation to the committee members for their commitment and hard work. The structure of the ad hoc budget process committee included faculty, administrators, staff, students, different budget officers, and was co-chaired by Interim Vice President Vrem and Academic Senate Chair MacConnie. In some ways the committee structure modeled the Long Beach committee structure. There are two main charges to the committee: 1) develop a governance structure which would allow recommendation of a budget to the president; and 2) establish time lines and procedures which would allow for a more open budget process.

The different general principles that the committee wanted to address included 1) tie budget decisions to the strategic plan as much as possible; and 2) make it an open, transparent, inclusive and objective process. The committee began its deliberations by reviewing materials from different sources, including the Campus Advisory Committee Survey on Best Practices, the CSU Long Beach model, and the UC Berkeley model. According to information from the Best Practices Survey, those campuses viewed by many as having more effective budget processes had similar characteristics such as 1) it allowed for honest and full disclosure of information and a significant investment of training for the participating committee members; 2) it was well-organized and allocated time for deliberations and review; 3) leadership of the committee was at the provost or president level; and 4) the required time commitment was acknowledged. Based on the survey results, CSU Best Practices were identified and included: 1) appoint a diverse and dedicated committee; 2) provide strong leadership and clear goals; 3) establish an environment of trust; and 4) allow for open and frequent communication. Key features of the proposed model include a process that begins with 1) a base budget and moves upward; 2) a broad representation of the campus on the committee; and 3) the assurance of a transparent budget.

The final structure of the committee, called the University Budget Committee (UBC), calls for nonvoting co-chairs, voting faculty members with representation from the different colleges and other areas, student representation, staff representation, and observers including labor council representative, vice president for student affairs, and vice president for administrative affairs and budget officers from different units.

Regarding the time table, the goal was to develop a continuing cycle from year to year beginning in August. A handout titled Budget Cycle: A Continuous Process was distributed, which includes information from the division schedule, the campus schedule and the CSU & state schedule.

Chair MacConnie discussed briefly the ad hoc budget policies committee stating that its membership consists of the Senate Finance Committee and an equivalent number of administration and staff. The charge of this committee is to review Humboldt's current policies and revise them or develop new ones, whatever is necessary.

The Budget Committee is looking for comment from the senators today. A presentation will be made to the President's Cabinet Monday, April 7; to the University Executive Committee, possibly to the President's Council, and attempts will be made to get feedback from the campus community. Eventually, the process committee will meet to review all comments received, determine any needed adjustments, develop an operational format and distribute its findings to the campus community for more input.

Interim Vice President Vrem expressed his appreciation to Chair MacConnie and members of the committee for their hard work in gathering this information in a short period of time. He described it as a collaborative and positive environment resulting in a good start on the process.

Discussion comments included:

Eventually the UBC will replace the URPBC. [The idea is for the UBC to be more involved with making recommendations at an earlier date so that when requests are received, everyone involved has more information at the start.] [In all likelihood, the UBC will be much more active than the URPBC has been in recent years.] [URPBC is more of a reactive committee, rather than a budget planning committee.]

The goal is to have the base budgets set and then only augmentations will need to be considered for the following year so that there should be no problems regarding scheduling of classes.

One of the intents of the committee is to incorporate the auxiliary units and other functions of the university into the budget process so that the entire university budget is available for viewing. [There are three auxiliaries on campus and each one has separate reporting and approval budget processes; the senate body does not play an approval role regarding such budgets so there was confusion as to how the auxiliaries would fit in the time line.] [The intent is to help the campus community see the entire budget from all areas of campus; there is no intent to have the senate approve such budgets.] [As long as the auxiliary budgets are transparent, there is no need for them to be tied to this time line.] [The auxiliary units should be included in the schedule just to show where they fit in.] [It is true that the auxiliary units have their own independent directors that approve their budget, but it is important for them to come before this committee and make an annual presentation. At the least, this may prevent another John Sterns situation.] [It would be advantageous to know about all money that comes to campus. Many departments have access to other funds such as IRA money, trust funds, and grants.]

Concern was expressed regarding the number of student representatives; more than the Associated Students president should be involved. It was suggested that a student representative from each college be appointed to the committee.

There were positive comments regarding the proposal acknowledging that it is a remarkable and enormous change from past practice.

A more final draft form of the process will be brought back to the senate and the cabinet, etc.

It is not known how many campuses have a transparent budget; some campuses have adopted the Long Beach model and there are other campuses with an open process.

There are student budget segments that need to be considered such as the student IRA fees and students may want to include a reporting process for such allocations.

The policy committee currently is an ad hoc committee but it may become a permanent committee if needed. [It was thought that this ad hoc committee would gather all policies (for example, use of salary savings), review them and then make recommendations to the senate and other units. If the Budget Committee sees the need for an additional policy, it would take such policy to the regular policy recommending bodies on campus, such as the senate.

One critical point is determining what factors would influence the amount of the base budget for individual units and how revisions to this amount would be determined.

The library is part of academic affairs so the dean of the library will consult with library faculty and staff and develop a budget request that would then be discussed in academic affairs along with all other units in academic affairs.

Perhaps responsibilities of URPBC, other than those related to budget, should be examined to determine if any other recommendations are needed, such as the work of URPBC's standing committees.

Perhaps an explanation of unmet needs in the budget process should be added to the bullets included in the General Process section.

Perhaps language should be added to the last sentence in the General Process section addressing the issue that if the President's decision differs from the committee's recommendation, then an explanation would be provided so that everyone knows the rationale.

The letter on the ad hoc committee to review current budget policies from Chair MacConnie and President Richmond should be distributed soon.

6. TIME CERTAIN: 5:15 p.m.

First Reading: Resolution on Revisions to Appendix J (#15-02/03-FA)

Senator Paynton provided background to the resolution stating that the Faculty Affairs Committee began its work on this issue after a letter had been circulated and signed by a number of faculty members who wanted to see the RTP process become more efficient. The letter was initiated by junior faculty members who did not want to submit a full Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) every year and was then supported by associate and full professors who wanted to limit the number of letters that needed to be written for the WPAFs.

As determined by the Faculty Affairs Committee, the process of reviewing Appendix J includes four basic levels of revisions. The first revision would be updating the general language (for example, including counselors, changing MOU to CBA, etc.). The other three levels will occur in stages and evolve after sufficient discussion has occurred and a vote of the general faculty has been taken. The issue on the floor today is the submission schedule. The remaining two issues are the structure of the review levels (that is, the administrative and peer levels of review) and the criteria for evaluation. This last item is the most heated and debatable topic regarding changes to Appendix J. The Committee discussed with several bodies on campus the possible strategies for dealing with the criteria, and the members of the Committee believe that changes in criteria for evaluation will be most effective if they are revisited after the Strategic Plan is in place and after the campus reviews its Mission Statement. The Committee met with the UFPC and the deans in both separate and combined meetings. Many issues were raised; those issues will be dealt with at a later date.

Regarding the submission schedule, the proposed language on reappointment to second year, third year, fifth year and reappointment and/or promotion with tenure remains essentially the same, although the Provost needs to be added to the list of those reviewing the WPAFs. The primary change suggested in the fourth year and sixth year reappointment process is to request that only the Personnel Data Sheet (PDS) and student evaluation summaries be submitted to the department chair, the dean, the college committee, the UFPC and the president. In effect, this changes the review process to an every other year system.

The intent of the resolution is to assist everyone involved in the RTP process, who are required to spend much time in the preparation and review of the files, by relieving some of the pressure behind the annual submission of complete files without jeopardizing the integrity of the files.

WHEREAS, Guidelines for Retention, Tenure, and Promotion are set forth by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and Appendix J of the Cal Poly Humboldt Faculty Handbook; and

WHEREAS, Current policy requires submission of the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) each academic year; and

WHEREAS, A significant number of other CSU campuses do not require submission of the WPAF each academic year; and

WHEREAS, A simplified submission schedule can significantly reduce workload for those involved in the RTP process, while at the same time protecting the integrity of the RTP process and those involved in the process; therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that the General Faculty vote on whether to include in Appendix J of the Cal Poly Humboldt Faculty Handbook the attached Review Process Schedule.

Discussion comments included:

Comment was made that any ballot language would need to carry current text from Appendix J with strikeouts and underscoring to reflect language changes.

The third whereas clause is not appropriate and not a good precedent to set; it should be deleted.

Questions regarding service credit were raised. Those who come to Humboldt with two years of service credit would have only one full review before they applied for tenure. This could be problematic for some individuals. Perhaps language is needed that specifies the problems with service credit. [Candidates need to be informed of the possible ramifications if they accept an appointment with service credit, and service credit could be dealt with by calling for a full review.] [Perhaps there could be an alternate schedule for those candidates with two years service credit.]

The members of UFPC are the gatekeepers in the personnel process. Historically, the UFPC often was the committee that raised issues and concerns not addressed by the IUPC or the college committee. This is not the intended role of the UFPC, but it is what occurs. It is of benefit to the candidate to go through the complete process.

Regarding who may request a review of the complete WPAF, the UFPC, the college committee and the administrators also should be added to this list.

Concern was expressed regarding what material from a candidate would be seen by evaluators in the fourth and sixth year reappointments. Without benefit of seeing past student evaluation summaries and letters of review, it would be impossible for current committee members to address the improvement of a candidate's teaching and to assess the performance level. [The Committee did not know how to deal with the dilemma of candidates being evaluated and then re-evaluated on the same materials in the file year after year, even though the candidate was evaluated on this material in the first year.] [The abbreviated files would update what was done the previous year. The department chair, the IUPC and the dean would have access to a candidate's file to review previous letters. If there is any concern regarding a candidate's performance, a more in-depth review could be requested.] [Concern was expressed about the equity and consistency of review when one candidate submits an abbreviated file for fourth year reappointment and another candidate submits a complete file for fourth year reappointment. Candidates in such situations may feel pressured to submit a complete file.]

The intent of the resolution is a good idea; however, it may increase the workload since twice as many materials would need to be reviewed in the same amount of review time.

The materials for reappointment to fourth and sixth years also should be submitted to the Provost, or if the goal is to shorten the process then materials should be submitted only to the department chair, the IUPC and the dean.

Concern was expressed that a process would be approved by the faculty, but not supported by the administration, which would put the president in the position of having to make a decision. It would be best if the two groups worked together to develop a policy that is agreeable to all. Perhaps the Faculty Affairs Committee could be expanded to include some administrators so that a joint decision can be reached.

Regarding the fourth and sixth year reviews, which call for summaries of student evaluations, both Appendix J and the CBA state that the primary source of evaluation should be peer evaluation. With this proposed change, no collegial letters are submitted nor is there a grade distribution summary. [No evidence indicating that student evaluations are of any great value in terms of determining teaching effectiveness has been seen; they are one of the worst measurements around and their status should not be raised to being the only evaluative tool used. They should not be discarded; they may contain valuable information. However, they should not be the means for determining a candidate's teaching effectiveness.] [Student evaluations are important and student comments are useful.] [Student evaluations on campus are directed toward the personality of an instructor, not necessarily teaching effectiveness.]

The function of the RTP process is to assess, make comment and submit recommendations regarding the candidates. To deal with the dilemma of insufficient information for review, perhaps a certain base level of information that is to be forwarded can be established and any reviewing agency can request specific additional information if needed, providing sufficient notice was given to the candidate.

Regarding the issue of reducing workloads, this past year the suggestion was made that not every faculty member had to write an evaluative letter and this was the best reduction in workload. It is hoped that the UFPC will not change its mind next year and inform all faculty that they must all write letters. [It was clarified that the UFPC has not changed its mind regarding submission of collegial letters; Appendix J is clear on this. The UFPC has attempted to remind the faculty of the specific language contained in Appendix J, and inform the faculty that full professors are invited to write letters and both junior and associate faculty are not required at any level to attend their colleagues' classrooms.]

It would be helpful to have a model of recommendation or a guideline, perhaps in Appendix J, regarding what is required in terms of evaluating colleagues. One department has developed a system whereby one or two senior faculty members evaluate in depth the junior members; they attend several classes and gather enough information to write a decent evaluative letter.

Perhaps reappointments could be made with a two-year contract so that there would be no abbreviated files submitted. It is not a good idea to have just student evaluations with no collegial evaluations.

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

Meeting adjourned 5:58 p.m.