Chair Bicknell called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. on Tuesday, March 12, 2002, in Nelson Hall East, Room 201 (Goodwin Forum).

Members Present: Adams, Bicknell, Fulgham, Goodman, Kenyon, Little, MacConnie, Martin, McFarland, Meiggs, Mortazavi, Paselk, Sanford, Sheppard, Snyder, Stokes (4-5 p.m.), Thobaben, Travis, Varkey, Yarnall

Members Absent: Braggs, Burroughs, Hennessy, Jenkins, Mayer, McCrone, Novotney, Oliver, Paynton, F. Wilson

Proxies: Snyder for Bockover; Mortazavi for Klein; Little for Smith; Paselk for Thompson, McFarland for Wang; Vrem for Stokes (5-6 p.m.)

Guests: Steven Butler, Student Affairs; Jeff Dunk, Department of NRPI; Carolyn Mueller, Office of the President; Richard Vrem, Undergraduate Studies

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved and seconded (Fulgham/MacConnie) to approve the submitted minutes for the February 26, 2002, meeting. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

2. Announcements and Communications

Chair Bicknell announced:

A copy of a coded memorandum regarding modification of the accountability process has been received from David Spence, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The intent is to simplify the process while maintaining its usefulness. Areas 11, 12 and 13 have been eliminated (faculty scholarship and creative achievement, contributions to community and society, and institutional effectiveness). Additional details regarding the other indicators and reports still needed are available from Chair Bicknell, or questions may be directed to Dr. Gary Hammerstrom, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (562-952-4718).

A copy of a report titled CSU Analysis of Staffing Changes and Program Expenditures 1995-2000: Response to Questions posed by the Legislature Regarding CSU Expenditures has been received. The report examines questions in four areas including 1) staffing increases, particularly in administrative positions; 2) budget growth at the Chancellor's Office; 3) comparison between growth in expenditures for instruction and whether they are keeping pace with enrollment and appropriations; and 4) CMS implementation. A copy of the report will be provided to the Senate Finance Committee.

The Senate Executive Committee has decided not to bring the resolution regarding sound levels on the quad back to the Senate floor, but rather to write a letter to President McCrone describing senate concerns with the policy as it is currently implemented and the Senate's attempts to address at least one way in which the policy is potentially unfriendly to students. A copy of the letter will be included in a future senate packet.

Additional announcements:

Senator Yarnall announced that soon there will be a ballot distributed to all faculty describing changes in the CSU Academic Senate Constitution. A majority of all CSU faculty and a majority on each campus are required. The ballot describes two changes to the Constitution: 1) a change in statewide senate membership; and 2) the addition of an emeritus faculty member on the statewide senate selected by the CSU ERFA (Emeritus Retired Faculty Association). Senator Yarnall asked for support of the second change citing that many emeritus faculty still teach and they often possess an "institutional memory" which is a valuable resource.

3. Committee and State Senate Reports

Statewide Senate - Senator Snyder announced that the foreign language resolution was withdrawn. There was a first reading of a resolution on CMS requesting that, given the budget situation, campuses have flexibility in implementing the modules. Chancellor Reed and Vice Chancellor Spence attended the senate meeting and discussed several items. Apparently, some campuses are attempting to solve the budget problems by not approving many tenure track searches and Chancellor Reed was asked for comment on this practice. Reed responded that he has made it clear to the campus presidents that conducting tenure track searches is an absolute priority and if campuses are not moving forward with such searches, then one should write the Chancellor directly and tell him because he has not heard anything about this. [No specific mention was made of what body on campus should be contacting the Chancellor; Chair Bicknell stated that this will be a discussion item for the Senate Executive Committee.]

Chancellor Reed also indicated that he has made it clear to the campus presidents that the faculty need to be involved fully in discussions on budget reductions. Vice Chancellor Spence talked about how campuses implement chancellor policy and Board of Trustee policy. The idea behind the simplification of the accountability process announced earlier this meeting is an attempt to relieve the departments from their increased reporting obligations and the Chancellor's Office is trying to streamline this process.

Senator Thobaben announced that the statewide senate voted No on the ballot, except for the addition of an emeritus faculty member, and urged faculty to vote similarly. The revision will increase the number of senators on the larger campuses and there does not seem to be any benefit for adding more senators. Such a change will make the senate larger and more costly. Vice Chancellor Spence stated that what is wanted now is a program review that deals with accountability and is more in line with WASC requirements. There is some concern that since the quality measures of a campus have been suspended (scholarship, community service, etc.), what they will be doing is conducting comparison studies of key programs, probably starting with engineering. National experts will join CSU people in reviewing how well a program is doing, the cost of it, enrollment, etc. There is a joint study on tenure track/lecturer percentage based on the law passed last year, and work is being done to reach that target. There is a new teaching associate classification that affects all new graduate programs regarding the hiring of such graduate assistants.

Senate Finance - There is a first reading item regarding MSF fees before the senate today.

Student Affairs - A group of students attended the California Higher Education Student Summit in Sacramento, which included attending workshops and lobbying at the Capitol on the facilities bond, student fee increases and budget cuts. The conference to be held here at Humboldt is scheduled for February 8-10, 2003.

OAA - Vice President Stokes announced that a budget meeting is scheduled tomorrow and the budget principles will be reviewed. The deans have been told to present proposals and move through the process for hiring faculty; approximately 20-25 searches are in progress at this time.

Dean Vrem announced that the accountability standards include items 1-14: items 1-9 are calculated for all campuses; items 11-13 have been removed; and item 14 is a campus defined performance area wherein a campus may define whatever it likes. Collection of data is done primarily by the Undergraduate Studies Office, and such data may be helpful for WASC purposes.

Student Affairs - No report.

Educational Policies - Comments and recommendations made at the last senate meeting regarding the discontinuance and suspension policies have been considered and incorporated into the documents and probably will be on the agenda for the next senate meeting. The review of the final evaluations week policy has been completed and will be sent to the Senate Executive Committee next week.

Additional Report - Faculty at the Joint Council meeting were comfortable with the subcommittee moving forward with a review of student evaluations and whether such evaluations ought to be on line; however, the senate reserves the right to review any kind of policy proposal. According to Vice President Stokes, it is not so much a policy issue as it is a matter of equipment breakdown. Since evaluations need to be completed, either purchasing new equipment or moving to online evaluations will be necessary. The budget committee will be discussing this issue at tomorrow's meeting; Vice President Stokes stated that probably she will recommend that the equipment be purchased rather than forcing a shift to online evaluation. Senate comment was invited. This particular piece of equipment is not the same scantron machine used in the Testing Center, although the machine in the Testing Center also is aging. Vice President Stokes was commended for her analysis of this issue. One major advantage of having online student evaluations is that comments may be typed directly by the students and someone else's time will not be needed to type comments. However, this is in the future. The scantrons used by the Testing Center are different and not easily programmable for student evaluations. It is important that the use of online student evaluations be investigated carefully; there are many problems on campuses where such evaluations are in place.

4. TIME CERTAIN 4:30

Report on Budget Planning [C. Mueller]

Carolyn Mueller, Executive Assistant to the President, reported that in January when the Governor's budget proposal was received, it was discovered that although it was a 4.5 percent increase for CSU General Fund, it also was a decrease from the trustees' budget proposal. In February, it was expected that the state deficit was at least $5 billion greater than expected. Budget planning is not getting any easier. On February 26, confirmation was received that the current year budget reduction for CSU would be $29.5 million, and campuses were notified of their share. For Humboldt, the 1.1565 percent reduction equals $793,000 or approximately $100,000 more than the one time unallocated funds available. The original 1 percent reduction was offset with one-time unallocated funds; we now know that the figure is 1.1565 percent so that is more than the amount in one-time unallocated funds. However, we also had been asked to set aside an additional $270,000, which had been done on a pro rata basis, so additional funds were identified that will be used to cover the 1.1565 percent reduction in the current year. The directive to plan for a 5 percent reduction still is in effect; most likely this will be a permanent reduction but nothing definite has been seen yet.

Discussion included the following comments:

It seems more prudent to be ready with the worst case scenario of a 5 percent reduction. If the situation turns out better than a 5 percent cut, then it would be easier to scale back the cuts than it would be to find additional funds.

What is the strategy for proceeding from here? [The preliminary plans have been made in each unit and those plans were presented to URPBC on February 26. At URPBC the suggestion was made that the all-university budget also be considered in looking at the 5 percent target before any more decisions are made. This suggestion was forwarded to the University Executive Committee and review of the all university budget has started. Hopefully the results of these deliberations will be known in a week or so.]

Concern was expressed that a 5 percent reduction is not planning for the worst case scenario. [The intent of identifying a 5 percent reduction is to have such issues discussed in the administrative units so that areas of reduction, such as classes, services, operating expense, deferred purchasing, vacant positions, etc., can be identified.]

The all-university budget is a collection of items not assigned to any particular area; for example, state university grant money, lease of facilities, liability payments, utilities and telecommunications. Some of these items are set; other items that are more flexible need to be analyzed to determine if reductions are possible.

It is important to remember that the reductions being discussed are system wide reductions; there will be additional specific campus reductions unless the enrollment problem is solved. It may be a good idea to identify such possible costs so that any additional monies needed are earmarked.

In the memoranda and letters from the Chancellor and the reports from the vice presidents' meetings, the 1.1565 percent reduction ($793,000) will be permanent next year.

Chair Bicknell expressed appreciation to Dr. Mueller for her report.

3. Committee Reports (continued)

CFA - A tentative agreement has been reached. There are several places where information on the tentative agreement, which is based closely on the fact finder's report, is available. Voting for ratification will take place between March 11 and 22; results should be known by March 25. The agreement will then need to be ratified by the CSU. The text of the tentative agreement is available on both the CSU website and the CFA website.

Much of the funding is based on enrollment growth. There is agreement to cooperate with the CSU administration and work on marginal cost funding, which is how the enrollment growth is funded to the campuses. Humboldt has a higher cost per ftes than the system average. The commitment language in the contract to engage in reducing the ratio of tenure track faculty to lecturer/part-time temporary faculty will not be distributed on a pro rata basis; vigilance will be needed regarding the filling of vacancies created by retirements. The goal is to have 75 percent of courses taught by tenured and tenure/track faculty.

General Faculty - A runoff election is scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday this week.

5. Resolution on Searches for Administrators (#17-01/02-EX)

Chair Bicknell stated that the resolution is brought before the senate because it is the sense of the Senate Executive Committee that the campus is moving forward with administrative searches during a period of time in which directive from the Chancellor's Office has indicated that while campuses should move forward with probationary faculty positions, there is at least a partial freeze on all other positions. The concern of the Senate Executive Committee is that the campus is moving forward with administrative searches in these uncertain budget times and also at a time when we are on the verge of identifying a new president who may have different ideas regarding the organization of the university.

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

WHEREAS, In the context of current budgetary uncertainty and likelihood of budget reductions in the coming year, Cal Poly Humboldt received a memorandum from Chancellor Reed directing our president to: "1) Continue hiring tenure track faculty as planned, and 2) Institute a partial hiring freeze for all other (i.e. non-tenure track) positions. You may grant exceptions to the freeze based on an assessment of the position's direct contribution to our educational mission. While not necessarily imposing a total freeze, you should make every effort to defer non-instructional hiring." (November 7, 2001); and

WHEREAS, Cal Poly Humboldt is in the process of searching for a new president; and

WHEREAS, The search process is on schedule to designate a new president by mid March; and

WHEREAS, The new president should consider current administrative vacancies as opportunities for reorganization and to build an administrative team that complement her or his own strengths, interests and vision; therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that all administrative searches be reinitiated when justified as essential at the discretion of the new president designate; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that a copy of this resolution be distributed to the Board of Trustees Chair, the Chancellor and the statewide and local academic senates

Discussion included the following comments:

There should be language in the resolved clause indicating that all administrative searches are to be stopped.

It was moved and seconded (Goodman/Kenyon) to postpone definitely to the next senate meeting discussion of this resolution since there is insufficient information.

This motion is not debatable, except for the time element. If there are questions and issues regarding the motion, then it could be voted down and debate continued. Discussion at the next senate meeting (April 2) would be problematic time wise.

Voting occurred and MOTION FAILED.

There should be a first resolved clause which reads:

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that all senior administrative searches in progress be suspended until the new president is designated.

This language appears to reintroduce ambiguity since the designation of a new president is forthcoming. Specific language is needed; e.g., suspended until September 1, 2002; the language must be much clearer so that the intention of the senate is not questioned.

The intent is to stop the searches and after the new president is on board, s/he may decide if or when such searches are to resume.

It is not known how much control the new president designate will have over ongoing searches; the search for the Dean of the College of Professional Studies is coming to a conclusion, and this is one search that should have been suspended until the new president arrives since s/he may have thoughts on college structuring. The current administration needs to slow down all searches and wait for the incoming president.

Chair Bicknell stated that the intent of the Senate Executive Committee was to have only two resolved clauses in the resolution and the first resolved clause would read:

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that all administrative searches be terminated to be reinitiated only when justified as essential at the discretion of the new president designate.

Through friendly amendment, the word immediately was added after the language recommend that all administrative searches be terminated.

It was hoped that this resolution would assist the new president in concluding that a task force should be formed to look at the (re)organization of academic and nonacademic units on the campus, particularly in light of the current budget constraints, and study the issues that have led to the current conditions on campus.

It would be possible to convey such sentiment with a transferral memo with the resolution to the current president and to the president designate.

Perhaps a resolution could be drafted before the end of the term urging the new president to consider a task force to look at reorganization at the college level and the campus level.

With the modification of the resolved clause, the first suggested resolved clause is eliminated.

This resolution does not preclude filling positions on an interim basis; it stops the searches and prevents positions from being filled in a permanent way, thus allowing for possible future reorganization. Regarding the Director for Diversity and Compliance, there is no known external requirement that says we have to fill that specific position; however, there are specific functions of that position that need to be carried out. Since the time is short before the new president will be on campus, the president designate could decide if a position is so essential that a search should move forward.

It was accepted as a friendly amendment to add president designate to the second resolved clause.

The revised resolved clauses read:

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that all administrative searches be terminated immediately to be reinitiated only when justified as essential at the discretion of the new president designate; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that a copy of this resolution be distributed to the Board of Trustees Chair, the Chancellor, the statewide and local academic senates and the president designate.

Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

It was moved and seconded (Thobaben/Yarnall) to make this an emergency item for immediate transmittal to the president.

Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

6. First Reading: Resolution on MSF Fees

Senator Little provided background stating that students are not being charged for materials for a variety of courses because of a decision made by President McCrone in 1997. The idea was that since students produce "things" they should not be charged for the materials needed for the items they are producing. The criteria which need to be satisfied to justify fees also are included. Originally $100,000 was allocated to OAA to cover this cost; it has now been increased to $130,000. At this point the College of Natural Resources and Sciences receives $52,000 toward MSF fees, and there is concern that some department chairs have not been billing appropriately for MSF fees and the bill for Fall 2001 is in excess of what had been allocated for that term. The College of Professional Studies receives $1,000 for the MSF fee; this amount has never been increased and all money goes to the Department of Industrial Technology. The College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences receives $77,000 for MSF fees. The problem is getting worse; there are no provisions for adjusting or modifying the money and there is no review mechanism.

The Senate Finance Committee has developed two draft resolutions; one implements a return to assessing these fees to students and the other, which is the preference of the Senate Finance Committee, states that since every MSF compensation needs to be appropriately justified by the rules and regulations in place, that those costs be fully reimbursed to the departments so that providing instruction which carries an MSF fee does not drain the limited resources of a department.

Discussion comments included the following:

If MSF fees are abolished, then the programs suffer. In the past when MSF fees were collected, it was a budgetary and accounting nightmare. What is needed is lump sum funding that should come from the all-university budget or have a simple system whereby students are charged a flat fee either across the board or per major. The preferred resolution is the one that should be adopted.

MSF fee money comes from the all-university budget to Academic Affairs for distribution. This policy was introduced by the President and Associated Students and the reason was that in approximately 1996, the Board of Trustees adopted a new fees policy that made it very cumbersome to alter any fees. The fees committee was spending its time responding to individual departments or faculty asking for an increase in the MSF fees being charged. The President decided that the best solution to this situation was to allocate an approximate amount of determined MSF fees. The problem that became apparent is that there was no mechanism in place to increase the funding. The second resolution would be difficult to pass; the best course of action would be to approve the first resolution and include a method of adjusting the MSF fees.

From a student's perspective, each new fee that is imposed, including when student fees in the CSU system are raised, continue to add up and students do not want to pay any extra fees.

What are the policies at other campuses? [There is an executive order that spells out how fees will be approved on the different CSU campuses, which involves a fee committee and in some cases the Chancellor. Cal Poly either instituted or proposed instituting a flat fee that would cover a number of fees. Such an act would require a student referendum.]

When the decision was made to provide the offset for the MSF fees, part of the original discussion was that in the next year or two there should be an analysis of whether the amount designated for MSF fees was adequate. An analysis was attempted; however, there was no final report provided.

Humboldt was a pioneer in taking this approach and several campuses followed suit, using Humboldt as a model. Incorporating an MSF fee, rather than having a flat fee, seemed desirable since there is only a small proportion of students per term who are taking classes with an MSF fee and it seemed fairer than requiring all students to pay such a fee without receiving the benefit.

There is an economic need to establish a flat fee and then add user fees if needed. Ultimately some type of system is needed.

Concern was expressed that it is difficult for the administration to have a reliable model for increasing fees on the current program, and a mechanism is needed that solves this problem.

It was moved and seconded (Little/Paselk) to suspend the rules and take up new business after 5:30 p.m. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

7. Discussion Item: Program Review

Senator MacConnie provided background on the program review document stating that the proposed revisions are quite different from the current department self-study procedures. Copies of the proposed revision were sent to department chairs for review and discussion at the end of spring term last year and again in the fall. A comparison of the proposed policy and the current policy is included in the packet, as well as commentary received. The most overriding concern was that while there is more structure to the proposed policy, which may be helpful, there also is more of a prescriptive nature to it in terms of the definite information that is requested. The Committee is seeking assistance in its deliberation on this document.

Discussion comments included the following:

Concern was expressed that there is much information requested that may require a lot of time gathering it, and there is quite an increase in workload.

What is the motivation for the proposed changes? [Some of the changes are to add more structure in an attempt to help departments during program review, some changes were the result of the WASC review.] [One problem has been an inability to meet the time line so a more realistic deadline has been proposed. The CSU requires the incorporation of tracking degree programs that exceed 120 units into the program review process. The CSU accountability process requires that the results of learning outcomes and assessment be built into the program review process.]

One recommendation is to make specific references in the document where information requested is a requirement. If the CSU is mandating this process, then this should be identified and that would help alleviate resistance to completing some of the portions of this report. Also insert a statement so reviewers will know that departments have addressed the possibility of collaborative efforts among departments regarding sharing of equipment and facilities.

The purpose of a program review is to help asses a program; it is not to satisfy reporting functions to the Chancellor's Office or to WASC.

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

Meeting adjourned 5:58 p.m.