HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY Academic Senate Minutes October 22, 2002

Chair MacConnie called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. on Tuesday, October 22, 2002, in Nelson Hall East, Room 102 (Goodwin Forum).

Members Present: Adkins, Bicknell, Butler, Cheyne, Coffey, Dalsant, Derden, Dunk, Fonseca, Fulgham, Goodman, Kinney, Klein, Knox, Little, MacConnie, Marshall, Martin, Meiggs, Mortazavi, Moyer, Novotney, Oliver, O'Rourke-Andrews, Paselk, Sanford, Schwab, Shellhase, Snyder, Stokes, Thobaben, Varkey, Yarnall

Members Absent: Gill, Richmond, Travis

Proxies: Klein for Paynton

Guests: K. Carlton, College of Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences; S. Higgins, College of Professional Studies; J. Howard, College of Natural Resources & Sciences; D. Schafer, Office of Research & Graduate Studies; S. Smith, College of Natural Resources & Sciences; R. Vrem, Office of Undergraduate Studies; W. Wood, Department of Chemistry

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved and seconded (Meiggs/Klein) to approve the submitted minutes of October 08, 2002. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

2. Announcements and Communications

October 10 Senate Chairs' Meeting:

Chair MacConnie attended the October 10 senate chairs' meeting at which a workshop on the role of faculty in the budget process was held. Speakers included Patrick Lenz from the Chancellor's Office, William Griffith and David Hood from Long Beach, and William Fasse from Fresno. Long Beach has two major committees: a broad-based campus budget planning committee and a financial affairs committee. Fresno's main objective in the budget process is to provide stability for the different units. The maximum amount a given unit's budget could increase or decrease is 2 percent. Key points included: (1) the academic policy committees determine the quality of the program and the budget committees review the fiscal aspect; (2) the committees focus on macro and policy level objectives as opposed to specific objectives; and (3) allocation process is top down; policy method is bottom up.

David Spence's report included: (1) encouraging campuses to increase graduation rates; (2) the possibility of streamlining the reporting system for accountability measures by using the outcomes and assessment materials; and (3) the importance of enrollment management, particularly for campuses that are struggling to stay within their target zones.

Senators are still needed to serve on the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Equal Rights & Diversity Committee; appreciation was expressed to Jack Yarnall for volunteering to serve on the Facilities Naming Committee. The Senate Appointments Committee is seeking nominees for the Intercollegiate Athletic Advisory Committee.

At the October 10 meeting of the Executive Committee, the Academic Senate Chair was added as a permanent member.

3. Committee and State Senate Reports

Faculty Affairs - Chair MacConnie announced that the Faculty Affairs Committee continues its work on gathering information regarding the RTP process. Faculty can participate in the discussion using Blackboard.

Associated Students - The Associated Students recently passed two resolutions. One resolution supported the creation of a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered studies program at Cal Poly Humboldt. The other resolution addressed the digital broadcast royalty fees for KRFH and called for digital broadcast royalty reimbursement to be a centrally managed commitment of the university.

OAA - The budget was approved by the Executive Committee and will be discussed at tomorrow's OAA Budget Committee meeting. OAA will be cut by approximately 1.93 percent. Benefits and summer money will be included so the budget will look different. Several people participated in a demonstration and lecture event on the research vessel, the Coral Sea. There were several cruises over the three-day period. Alumni and donors also were on the cruises; $30,000 was donated to the math department for equipment.

Educational Policies - The Committee continues its work on the writing component in upper division courses and the completion of basic subjects and quantitative reasoning, and is reviewing the issue of double counting. The Committee will be reviewing the course repeat policy, wherein grades received at a community college are replaced by grades earned in comparable courses at Cal Poly Humboldt.

Development & Administrative Services - The first meeting of the President's Council will be held October 30 at 8 a.m. in the Kate Buchanan Room. Rather than use the lot at Rossow & Harpst Streets for parking, the current plan is to plant grass there. Parking is a known problem and possible options regarding the parking situation are under discussion.

Student Affairs - The Committee continues its review of the Student Grievance process; Randi Darnall Burke, Ralph McFarland and Bob Foster have met with the Committee and Ken Dutro will be meeting with the Committee next.

UCC - Two additional DCG courses have been approved and there are several ready for final review.

General Faculty - The constitution and bylaws committee will meet this week.

4. First Reading: Resolution on Reorganization of Humboldt State University Foundation (#07-02/03-EX)

WHEREAS, Research, scholarship and creative activities are essential activities of faculty, staff and students at Cal Poly Humboldt, are a part of our mission, and contribute in fundamental ways to student learning; and

WHEREAS, Research, scholarship and creative activities are often supported by non-state funds; and

WHEREAS, The successful completion of activities supported by non-state funds requires efficient and competent fiscal and administrative management; and

WHEREAS, Humboldt State University Foundation has reached a stage of development at which it has become necessary to consider alternative models of organization to accomplish its functions in support of research, scholarship and creative activities; and

WHEREAS, Three models are under consideration for the future of HSU Foundation activities including:

1. Placing grants and contracts management within campus State offices for fiscal management,
2. Splitting HSU Foundation into two foundations, one that would manage grants and contracts and one that would manage gifts, endowments, scholarships and other similar trust accounts,
3. Continuing with the present model,

; and

WHEREAS, Management of grants and contracts under the auspices of an auxiliary with more flexible policies and procedures than are possible on the State-side has benefited grant and contract activity and fostered the growth of research, scholarship and creative activity; and

WHEREAS, Activities designed to develop the potential of the University through fostering relationships with non-State funding sources may benefit considerably from a dedicated foundation for that purpose with its own board of individuals knowledgeable in areas such as fund raising, community development, real estate, and investment; and

WHEREAS, In addition to the HSU Foundation, the university already has at its disposal an additional "501 c 3" authorized auxiliary, the College Improvement Foundation, which has in the past few decades been administered through the HSU Foundation; and

WHEREAS, It may be feasible, at least initially, to establish the College Improvement Foundation as an independent foundation using little or no additional staff; therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend the reorganization of the Humboldt State University Foundation into two separate foundations, HSU Foundation for the management of grants and contracts reporting to the Dean for Research & Graduate Studies, and the College Improvement Foundation for university development activities whose organization and reporting line shall be the subject of further consultation; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt encourage the university administration to move forward with all possible speed to put in place management personnel at HSU Foundation to facilitate reorganization and to proceed with the evolution of grants and contracts management functions necessary to foster the continued and increased success of research, scholarship and creative activities at Cal Poly Humboldt.

Senator Bicknell provided background on the resolution stating that it is the result of ongoing discussions at the HSU Foundation Board of Directors and recent conversations among principal investigators facilitated by Dean Donna Schafer. The recent departure of Greg Lee has resulted in a challenge for the university. The long absence of an executive director in that position has created some operations problems and has led to consideration of three alternatives for reorganizing the Foundation. The resolution is brought forward at this time because, while it is desirable to fill the position of executive director of the HSU Foundation as soon as possible, it is difficult to write a job description and conduct a search until the formation of the Foundation is decided. Dean Donna Schafer distributed a handout outlining the three options under discussion. Research into the organization of other Foundations had been initiated when the executive director position became vacant.

Historically, the HSU Foundation has not been involved in the fund raising process, and this is one issue that needs to be addressed. Using the President's charge and input from Board discussions, a series of scenarios or options for Foundation reorganization has been developed. This item will be discussed at the Board meeting later this week. There was a two-fold purpose to the meetings of the principal investigators on campus convened by Dean Schafer: (1) as a result of recent audits, the Foundation's procedures were revised and this information was provided to principal investigators; and (2) it provided an opportunity to begin discussion regarding organizational issues. This is only the beginning; there is still much to decide and the resolution is a good place to begin.

Senator Bicknell summarized the resolution: 1) It would recommend to the President that the functions of the HSU Foundation would be split into two foundations. The second foundation referred to in the resolution, the College Improvement Foundation (CIF), already exists and is quite old. It has been inactive for many years and its functions have been managed by the HSU Foundation. 2) The main support for research, scholarship and creative activities, in the form of grants and contracts, and some of the trust activity directly related to research, scholarship and creative activities, would remain in Humboldt State University Foundation. The CIF is not prescribed by this resolution except to cite that its reporting line and organization will be the subject of future consultations.

Discussion included:

There is no reason why there should be two structures like the HSU Foundation. When principal investigators were asked about putting grants and contracts activity into state accounts and managing it on the state side, there was general agreement that having an auxiliary, such as HSU Foundation, manage grants and contracts was beneficial because of the inherent flexibility, particularly with regard to personnel practices and purchasing.

It seems likely that there would be a fiscal relationship between these two foundations.

In the past, basically all CSU campuses housed the administration of post award grants and contracts in a foundation; within the last eight or ten years, there are a couple of campuses that have moved the administration of post award grants to the state side.

It is not accurate to say that on campuses where grants and contracts are administered by the state, there are more indirect costs coming back to the campus.

If the Foundation is split into two foundations, it is possible that additional staff may be needed. Another option is to create a virtual foundation, one that has a board of directors, which would address fund raising issues, and perhaps a staff person, but most of the actual administration and accounting activity would be subcontracted to another entity.

The salaries of current staff of the HSU Foundation are paid from the indirect costs of grants and contracts. There currently is not enough money coming in from the administration fees to support a staff person so if it is a "stand-alone" foundation, where the accounting work would take place in that foundation, clearly state positions would be needed or such work would have to be subcontracted to the state.

It was suggested that this item be put on a future agenda so that senators may have sufficient time to digest the information.

There are pros and cons to both directions; it seems more advantageous to move grants and contracts into the state because it has administrative advantages and reduces the need for dual policies. However, in terms of its relative advantage or disadvantage to principal investigators, it seems as though the flexibility argument clearly is on the side of keeping grants and contracts in a foundation rather than moving them to a state.

The principal investigators involved in the meetings were in favor of keeping grants and contracts in a foundation; they were tentatively in favor of splitting the Foundation into two so that a stronger grants and contracts foundation for research, scholarship and creative activities would be possible. They expressed similar reservations as were expressed at this meeting. One problem is that many projects would end up having part of their sources of support in both places and may have to deal with both foundations. They also had reservations regarding the potential costs of setting up a second foundation and these issues need to be addressed.

It was agreed that this item will be included as a future agenda item.

5. Discussion Item: Draft of Criteria for Humboldt Budget Reductions

Chair MacConnie introduced this discussion item reminding senators that previous discussion occurred at the October 8 senate meeting. This document was developed during the President's first cabinet meeting and taken to the URPBC and the Executive Committee for discussion.

Discussion included:

This statement of principles should be used both in the process and in determining cuts. There are several references to the quality of academic programs, differential reductions and redundancy in curriculum. A bullet identifying a principle of faculty involvement in all discussions and decisions related to quality redundancy and/or potential of academic programs is important.

Interdisciplinary programs are more costly so Humboldt does not have many of them and more information on why this is listed would be helpful. [A definition of interdisciplinary program is needed because while there are reasons that an interdisciplinary program would be able to use courses in a variety of different ways, it is not necessary that they be a separate department and interdisciplinary programs can be cost effective for the university.] [Clarification and additional definitions are needed.]

A concrete definition of programs is needed; does this term apply to a major? a department? a college? And what criteria will be used to determine which programs are of high quality and which are of low quality? This is a difficult process, and there is a contradiction in labelling programs in this way. For example, if a program is deemed central to the academic mission of the university but the criteria requires a specific number of graduates in order to be seen as successful, then a contradiction may result.

Concern was expressed that some of the criteria have serious curricular impacts. It was suggested that the senate ask President Richmond to bring these criteria back to the senate for formal approval before implementation. Faculty ought to be central in determining the process for budget cuts.

If criteria for budget reductions are being defined, then a definition of a minimum essential program is needed.

In the past statements have been made to the effect that if there is a program, it will be supported; all programs will be supported equitably to give every program an opportunity for excellence. Decisions about programs are based on curricular need, not on the budget.

There is a program review process in place and the criteria listed are not contrary to this process. It is important that this process be maintained.

Faculty who have been through the process of program elimination do not want to revisit that experience. If such decisions are to be made, a different process is needed.

Who will interpret and administer such criteria once they are finalized needs to be known before final approval of the criteria is granted.

Ideas about what is wanted or not wanted should be offered now since decisions will be made soon and if opinions are not voiced, they will not be heard.

One way to proceed would be to get agreement from the senators on all listed items that are not controversial, pass a resolution supporting such items, and voice reservations regarding the other bulleted items calling for further consultation before any final decision is made. Another way to proceed would be to send this list of criteria to committee for review and resolution. Another option would be to list any of the items that relate to the curriculum and academic programs and indicate that further scrutiny is needed on these items. [It was suggested that Chair MacConnie forward pertinent comments from today's meeting to President Richmond.]

The appropriate academic units should be scrutinizing their own programs to determine ways to economize while preserving academic quality and centrality in their own unit.

This seems to be a set of principles inherently intentioned and contradictory, yet they offer a variety of things to consider when deciding budget reductions.

Are some of the administrative items even within the purview of the senate for debate or charge, such as reducing energy costs.

The items more likely labeled academic carry more detail and a possible plan; it would be helpful if the administrative ones also carried such detail. [The last few bullets were added at the URPBC meeting.]

It was moved and seconded (Goodman/Cheyne) to forward to the President bullets 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13. It was offered as a friendly amendment to remove number 8. This was not considered friendly. It was moved and seconded (Snyder/Derden) to remove number 8 from the list of criteria to be forwarded to President Richmond.

Voting occurred to remove number 8 from the list and MOTION PASSED WITH 14 YES VOTES, 9 NO VOTES AND 3 ABSTENTIONS.

Voting occurred on the motion to forward items 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 to President Richmond and MOTION PASSED WITH 2 ABSTENTIONS.

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

Meeting adjourned 5:20 p.m.