Academic Senate Minutes September 23, 2003

Chair MacConnie called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. on Tuesday, September 23, 2003, in Nelson Hall East, Room 102 (Goodwin Forum).

Members Present: Butler, Cheyne, Dalsant, Derden, Dunk, Fonseca, Fulgham, Green, Kinney, Klein, Knox, Kornreich, MacConnie, Marshall, Meiggs, Mortazavi, Moyer, Oliver, O'Rourke-Andrews, Paselk, Paynton, Richmond, Schwab, Shellhase, Snyder, Sonntag, Thobaben, Varkey, Vrem, Wieand, Yarnall

Members Absent: Coffey

Proxies: Platin for Kiesling; Mortazavi for Mullery; Welch for Sanford

Guests: P. Brown, Department of Social Work; J. Gai, Department of Social Work; Sherry Jones Deffenderfer; Faculty Personnel Services; Susan Higgins, College of Professional Studies; K. Munoz, Health & Physical Education; K. Nakamura, Social Work; L. Phillips, Registrar's Office; V. Phillips, Undergraduate Studies; D. Schafer, Research & Graduate Studies; D. Schaefer, Financial Aid; S, Smith, College of Natural Resources & Sciences

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved and seconded (Derden/Klein) to approve the submitted minutes of September 9, 2003. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

2. Announcements and Communications

Chair MacConnie announced:

Notes from the University Executive Committee meetings are posted on the President's web site:

http://www.humboldt.edu/president

Strategic Planning Update: The web site is on the Humboldt home page, and now contains a listing of the focus groups which are being formed. Senators were encouraged to review the focus groups for one of interest to them or to their colleagues. The breadth of responsibilities for the focus groups will be posted soon.

President Richmond approved the academic calendar recommendation for 2004/2005 and 2005/2006, and he accepted last year's resolution opposing Proposition 54.

Senators are needed to serve on two committees: the Equal Rights & Diversity Committee and the Faculty Affairs Committee.

Reminder dates:

Professional leave applications are due October 6

Outstanding Professor nominees are due 3 p.m., Friday, October 3

Request For Proposals for System-Wide or Multi-Campus Discipline and Program Initiatives are due October 24, 2003. The request contains detailed information and is on file in the senate office.

Today there was a meeting with interested faculty, the UFPC, Provost Vrem and President Richmond to discuss expectations during this year's RTP process, answer questions and address concerns.

Next week is the senate chairs' meeting in Long Beach.

The integrated teacher preparation task force is moving into the development of regions for the community college partnerships and people in liberal studies/elementary education will be reviewing this. Chair MacConnie will forward this information to appropriate faculty. The meeting of the task force is scheduled for October 13.

The integrated teacher preparation proposal task force is working on recommendations for single subjects, beginning with Math and English.

3. Committee and State Senate Reports

Statewide Senate - Senator Snyder announced that Senator Thobaben has been appointed as Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee for the statewide senate.

Associated Students - President Kinney expressed her appreciation for all who participated in yesterday's successful car-free day. Election day will be October 7, and Associated Students will be providing free transportation to different polling places. On the Quad that day there will be several events including a huge blow-up boxing ring, live music and an open mike for comments on Proposition 54. Associates Students also is sponsoring with the Women's Center an informational rally on Proposition 54 at Noon, September 30, on the Quad.

Senator Platin announced that the Associated Student Council passed a resolution that requested the trustees adopt a sustain ability policy in every new and remodeled building. At the September conference in Long Beach ideas were discussed on ways to engage students in all aspects of campus life and promote CSU pride. Also discussed was the topic of textbook prices, which has been on ongoing problem. There is a resolution under discussion regarding parking fee equity, which asks the CFA to remove the parking fee as a negotiable part of the contract. A resolution opposing Proposition 54 has been passed, and each campus will be distributing flyers. Under discussion is the idea of having the Forensics Team debate Proposition 54 on the Quad. Information on shared governance is being compiled, and the addition of a student liaison to the Senate Executive Committee is being discussed.

Office for Academic Affairs - Search committees are being formed for three administrative positions: the Dean for the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, the Dean for Enrollment Management and the Dean for Undergraduate Studies. Searches probably will begin early in spring term. Provost Vrem stated that there was a frank and open discussion at the RTP meeting. The Wildlife Conclave Team won a national championship in wildlife competition. A ceremony to celebrate this win is scheduled for Friday afternoon. Yesterday was census day. The final number for fall is approximately 7100 FTES; if spring term is similar to last year, Humboldt will be approximately 1 percent below target.

The Facilitating Graduation Report will be discussed at the Provost's Council, the Senate Executive Committee, and if appropriate, will be brought to the Academic Senate. Provost Vrem does not know of anything controversial that will go forward; the items under consideration include those suggested for all campuses, the work already in process with the AIR Center and academic advising, and the work with FIGS. The four-year plan may require some additional work from the departments.

President's Office - The legislature and the governor have signed a bill mandating that smoking may not occur within 20 feet of the entrance to a state building. The smoking policy approved last year has been modified to bring it into compliance with this mandate. President Richmond stated he would like the smoking policy to be a topic of discussion at the senate during spring term, and he hopes the senate will work in concert with Associated Students and the President's Office toward further revision of that policy. The trustees approved an energy conservation project for the university which is a win/win situation for all. The cost is approximately $4.8 million and will come from the energy that will be saved by putting in a cogeneration plant on campus. The trustees discussed Proposition 54, the racial privacy act, and took a position in opposition to this proposition. Congratulations were extended to the students for the successful car-free day, and also for the voter registration drive which registered approximately 560 students.

Educational Policies - There are two items on today's agenda. The proposal on distance learning and the on-line course evaluations will be discussed at next week's meeting.

Student Affairs Office - Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation and Reefer Madness, will be on campus Friday. He also will be involved in workshops and presentations at Saturday's leadership conference. October 10-12 is family weekend and homecoming; 300-400 families will be on campus and may be visiting classes. Other activities, receptions, a barbecue, and athletic and music events will be offered. The alumni will be presenting the first Humboldt Bay Paddlefest October 11 and 12. Friday will be the Athletics' Hall of Fame dinner and induction of members. Today on the Quad was graduate school day; representatives from many graduate programs were present and recruiting students. Humboldt will be hosting the first annual Humboldt County Alcohol and Drug Education Conference October 17, 18 and 19.

CFA - CFA will be contacting people to help promote voter turnout for the October 7 election by writing on the chalkboards Help get out the Vote. A student intern has been making in-class presentations on voter registration and soon will be making class presentations on Proposition 54. An email will be distributed offering to schedule such in-class presentations if any faculty are interested. If the governor signs the Golden Handshake document on his desk, it will be discussed at the bargaining table. Most likely this will be a two-year service credit or a two-year age credit; a 2+2 is not likely.

General Faculty - President Wieand announced that the general faculty election will be held October 1 and 2. A sample ballot was sent to all faculty.

Senate Finance - The resolution on budget process is on today's agenda.

Student Affairs - There is a resolution on today's agenda.

Faculty Affairs - The Committee continues to meet with members of the UFPC to discuss revisions to the RTP process. Such revisions have been separated into three areas: (1) physical process and levels; (2) assessment of standards and criteria; and (3) review of the language of equal in weight and compensatory in nature. The physical process has been discussed including time lines, levels of review and the type of file needed, the timing of open faculty meetings for review and input, and the role of the administration in the committee deliberations. The Committee is working on several options, including those from last year.

Other Announcements - Appreciation was expressed to President Richmond for prioritizing funds so that the students and the university benefited rather than his own office.

5. TIME CERTAIN 4:30 P.M. Master Planning Process Update [Bob Schulz]

Bob Schulz, Director of Physical Services, distributed a handout which outlined the proposed meeting schedule for the Humboldt Campus Master Plan. During discussions of the Master Plan other items to be reviewed include locations of new academic space and non-academic space (student services, non state activities, recreation centers), parking, location of housing, circulation on campus, and making the campus a more pedestrian-oriented campus. Parking is one of the more difficult decisions that will need to be made because it encompasses not just the number of parking spaces, but parking ratios in conjunction with any projected enrollment growth, more surface parking, and possible construction of parking structures. The enrollment ceiling for the campus must be discussed. The current enrollment ceiling is 8000, and this may be the optimum number for Humboldt. Whether enrollment is adjusted up or down, both the type of institution we want Humboldt to be and the impact of enrollment fluctuations on the surrounding community must be considered.

A series of public forums will be held during the academic year. The first meetings scheduled in early October will be an opportunity for members of the campus and the surrounding community to voice to the architects what they want the physical embodiment of Humboldt to be, including goals and aspirations. Input also will be gathered by having people photograph various aspects of campus that they like or do not like to determine if there is a consensus on anything. During the second series of forums, the architects will return and provide information on what amount of structure mass is necessary to generate a given enrollment ceiling. Around mid November the architects will be given a probable number of what the enrollment ceiling will be. These discussions are on the final build-out of the university: what the campus will look like in thirty to forty years. The architects will be providing a series of design scenarios based on the input from the public forums. It is hoped that an idea of what the long-term physical build-out of Cal Poly Humboldt will look like will be available in early May. At that point the design work will be finalized, and everything will be submitted to the Chancellor's Office by mid July to be forwarded to the Board of Trustees in September 2004.

Each of the public forums will be followed by a discussion at the Academic Senate; information from all areas will be consolidated and direction will be given to the Master Plan Committee. Final recommendation will come under President Richmond's signature; final decision making rests with the Board of Trustees of the CSU.

Mr. Schulz encouraged everyone to participate in the forums and at the senate, and he stressed the importance of speaking out on what is important to all.

Discussion included:

It was requested to schedule the last set of public forums one week earlier so that the public forums would then be followed by the last senate meeting on May 4. Bob Schulz replied he would try to do this; his hope was that a senate meeting could be dedicated to discussing the Master Plan.

Someone on the Master Plan Committee should review the demographics for the northern California school systems.

The total cost of the Master Plan process is estimated to be $300,000; $100,000 from last year's money will be used for start-up costs. It would be much more expensive to spread this work over two or three years than to do the work in one year.

The reason for working on the Master Plan now is that capital in the university system is a competitive business. When capital dollars are used to build projects like the Forbes renovation or the social sciences building, that places Humboldt in a competitive market place, not only with other CSU campuses but with other institutions in the state. Legislation has been proposed that we should have to compete with CalTrans, with corrections, and with public safety. A business plan and a facilities plan should be in place for such project needs. If we move forward with project proposals based on a statement of need, but do not include enrollment capacity increases or replacement of existing space, we are at a distinct competitive disadvantage.

With the new administration, $165,000 was invested in a detailed technical feasibility study so if the proposition passes in March, Humboldt will get such improvements. Thus, there is a reward process in place for campuses that play the financial game. This is one of the tools needed in order for Humboldt to be competitive with long term capital requests.

Discussions have occurred with Debbie Goodwin, Director of University Advancement, regarding a variety of funding sources so that not all of the needed money will come from the budget, especially since the budget situation is so bad right now. It typically is easier to get funding after a structure has been completed.

Discussion was postponed to discuss the 4:50 p.m. time certain item.

6. TIME CERTAIN 4:50 P.M. Resolution on Inclusion of Graduate Council in Program Review (#02-03/04-EP)

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

WHEREAS, Review of graduate programs is conducted coincidentally with the departmental self-study, and

WHEREAS, The timeline for Department Self-Study and Resource Review as listed in Administrative Memorandum P & VPAA 97-07 and approved by the Academic Senate in December 1996 does not include review by the Graduate Council of the information concerning the graduate program for departments including graduate programs, and

WHEREAS, The Graduate Council is charged with ". . . assuring the high quality of graduate programs, and assuring appropriate support for graduate programs." (Faculty Handbook, Fall 1998, section 825, p. 51); therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that the Department Self-Study and Resource Review Annual Schedule of Events be amended to include review by the Graduate Council of all department self-studies that include graduate programs; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that this review occur the second week in March, placing the review by Graduate Council between the review by the College Curriculum Committee and the review by the Joint Council; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt that the following language be added between the paragraph on College Curriculum Committee and the paragraph on Joint Council review: Graduate Council reviews department report and College Dean's and college curriculum committee's commentary on the curriculum for any Department Self-Study that includes review of a graduate program or programs and forwards commentary to the Joint Council.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt that the language of the section on review by the Joint Council be amended to read, "Joint Council subcommittee reviews department report, College Dean's and college curriculum committee's commentary on the curriculum, and Graduate Council's commentary on the standards and resources relevant to any graduate programs reviewed. The subcommittee provides a recommendation to Joint Council, which recommends to the Provost."

It was accepted as a friendly amendment to revise the second resolved clause so that it reads, " . . .recommend that the Graduate Council's review of the Department Self-Study that includes review of a graduate program or programs occur the second week . . . ."

Voting occurred and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The revised resolution reads:

WHEREAS, Review of graduate programs is conducted coincidentally with the departmental self-study, and

WHEREAS, The timeline for Department Self-Study and Resource Review as listed in Administrative Memorandum P & VPAA 97-07 and approved by the Academic Senate in December 1996 does not include review by the Graduate Council of the information concerning the graduate program for departments including graduate programs, and

WHEREAS, The Graduate Council is charged with ". . . assuring the high quality of graduate programs, and assuring appropriate support for graduate programs." (Faculty Handbook, Fall 1998, section 825, p. 51); therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that the Department Self-Study and Resource Review Annual Schedule of Events be amended to include review by the Graduate Council of all department self-studies that include graduate programs; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that the Graduate Council's review of the Department Self-Study that includes review of a graduate program or programs occur the second week in March, placing the review by Graduate Council between the review by the College Curriculum Committee and the review by the Joint Council; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt that the following language be added between the paragraph on College Curriculum Committee and the paragraph on Joint Council review: Graduate Council reviews department report and College Dean's and college curriculum committee's commentary on the curriculum for any Department Self-Study that includes review of a graduate program or programs and forwards commentary to the Joint Council.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt that the language of the section on review by the Joint Council be amended to read, "Joint Council subcommittee reviews department report, College Dean's and college curriculum committee's commentary on the curriculum, and Graduate Council's commentary on the standards and resources relevant to any graduate programs reviewed. The subcommittee provides a recommendation to Joint Council, which recommends to the Provost."

5. Master Planning Process Update (continued)

Discussion comments continued:

Questions on the future nature of the campus will not be answered by the architects; however, a university cannot be built or designed without considering such questions. The direction and ultimate design of the campus will need to be considered by the faculty and all members of the campus community when discussions occur on the size and scale of the campus. The Master Plan and the Strategic Plan are on parallel tracks. Steve Carlson, Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee, also is a member of the Master Plan Committee. The Strategic Planning Committee has not broached the physical configuration issues; however, when it does Bob Schulz will be participating in such discussions.

The type of campus will influence the build-out. A liberal arts campus would have a different configuration of buildings than a science campus.

The master planning process will move forward based on the assumption that the mix of lab and lecture sections will be the same that we have now. The structures will be built with project specific funding; when we get close to a given project, then particular methods will be discussed and the actual configuration and budget of that building will be adjusted based on whether it will house lab instruction or lecture instruction.

If the money to be used for the build-out were not used for the master planning process, such funding could be used for instruction. Capital outlay dollars may not be used for classroom construction.

Chair MacConnie reminded senators that there are some time certain items on the agenda today and there are guests present who have attended the meeting to discuss such items. If questions are related to public forum topics, the October 7 senate meeting will be another opportunity to discuss such items and Bob Schulz and/or Carl Coffey could be invited to attend that meeting for further discussion. Perhaps today's questions could be kept to the time table.

There needs to be an initial discussion regarding whether this is a good use of the money. Since we are talking about a 30-year build-out, there does not seem to be any urgency; however, the argument for the urgency is that there are certain minor capital outlay projects that we will need to implement in the next one to three years. Given that the budget may turnaround in the next few years, perhaps this project could wait until then. [This is partially true. Plans were underway to spend approximately $750,000 this summer on parking improvement. The expense was deferred to next summer so that long-term plans for the campus could be incorporated into short-term spending. There are significant implications regarding how our capital program is built. If the decision is made to increase enrollment, then there will be enormous implications on the type of projects for which funding could be pursued. Currently the records show that Humboldt has approximately 30,000 more square feet than is supported by our 8000 enrollment ceiling. We also have been informed by the CSU that if we do not include a capacity component in a capital request, funding renovation requests will no longer be funded. Humboldt's capital program for 2006/2007 is being developed now.]

A portion of the architectural costs will be defrayed by deferring some of the design features on the buildings. For example, installation of lights, positioning of windows and doors, installation of a parking lot, etc., are not included in the architectural designs.

It is legal to use parking revenue dollars to build a parking structure that is located under a state capital funded project.

Students are involved in the planning process and are encouraged to participate in any way they can.

Appreciation was expressed to Bob Schulz for his presentation.

7. 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)

Senator Klein distributed a copy of the resolution and provided background on it stating that the Athletics Grants-in-Aid Policies and Procedures Manual details how student athletes are recruited and how their financial aid information is conveyed to them. The current process is rather lengthy and may cause some students to attend another university where they are given such important information in a more timely manner. The resolution supports the revision to the financial aid section of the Manual which accelerates the process and makes Humboldt more competitive in attracting the type of desired student athletes by giving such potential students timely financial aid information. Kathy Munoz, Faculty Athletic Representative, and Don Schaeffer, Director of Financial Aid, are in attendance to answer any questions.

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

WHEREAS, Cal Poly Humboldt seeks to attract and retain student athletes of the highest caliber; and

WHEREAS, The ability of the University to do this is based in part on the timely delivery of Grants-in-Aid information to prospective athletes; and

WHEREAS, The revised financial aid section of the September 2003 edition of this manual facilitates conveying this information in a more timely and efficient way to athletes who visit campus; and

WHEREAS, These revisions are only a streamlining of the financial aid procedure; therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend the approval of the revised financial aid section of the September 2003 Athletics Grants-in-Aid Policies and Procedures Manual; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt convey this recommendation to the Cal Poly Humboldt Financial Aid Director, the Chair of the Athletic Compliance Committee, and the Cal Poly Humboldt Athletic Director.

Discussion included:

The distinction between letters of intent and letters without intent has been dropped. The national letter of intent is what must be executed between the athlete and the athletic department; it is not a financial aid issue. For financial aid purposes, a student is dealt with in the same way whether or note such student has a national letter of intent. The process has been expedited so that now a letter signed by the athletic director, the coach and the financial aid director is sent to the athlete; the letter becomes official once the athlete signs it and returns it.

This revision is in compliance with the NCAA regulations, and has been approved by the Athletic Compliance Committee.

Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

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

8. TIME CERTAIN 5:10 P.M. First Reading of Resolution on the MSW Proposal (#04-03/04-EP)

Professor Ken Nakamura, Department of Social Work, presented the senators with a history of the proposal. Development of an MSW program at Cal Poly Humboldt has been under consideration for quite some time. Some of the other CSU campuses have offered a distance education program or an extended education that helped local students receive this degree. Approximately eight years ago CSU Long Beach offered to help support Humboldt by offering a distance education program here. It was hoped that after the three-year program was complete, this campus would be in a position to develop its own program. This year is the last year for the Long Beach program to be offered at Humboldt. There is a constant need and desire in both Humboldt County and Del Norte County to pursue a graduate program here, and community members have sought to have an MSW program offered at Humboldt. The areas of emphasis are rural social work and working with Native American communities. It is believed that this is not only essential for this area, but it has the ability to attract other people throughout the United States. Also under consideration are two other areas of practice: child welfare and mental health.

Social work often is associated with such issues as poverty, disenfranchisement, mental health, child abuse, and violence. The rural emphasis and the Native American emphasis are important because they have the potential to emphasize the importance of maintaining rural communities as viable ways of living, and to capture the qualities that make such a program different from urban communities. Developing such a program here that focuses on the strengths and qualities of rural life, as well as addressing the unique nature of Native American communities, hopefully will lead to the development of creative ways to look at multicultural issues in rural areas. It is hoped that the social work program envisioned in the proposal will lend itself to community organizing and community development, as well as addressing any immediate needs. Budget projections for the next three years have been offered, along with the number of students and faculty needed to make the program successful. To help defray the cost of the graduate program, two faculty lines will be moved temporarily from the undergraduate program to the graduate program. Accreditation in an MSW program requires six faculty lines; the minimum standard for the accreditation of an undergraduate program requires two faculty lines.

The proposers realize that they are going to be challenged to maintain the quality of the BA program by adding the MA program; however, the commitment to the MA program is there. It is believed that the community desperately wants this program. It also is recognized that as with any accreditation program, there always will be additional costs.

Chair MacConnie clarified that this is a first reading. The documents related to the MSW proposal are voluminous; rather than produce paper copies for all senators, the plan is to have such documents posted to the web site by the next meeting.

Discussion included:

The Long Beach program has 3 cohorts with a minimum of 20 students and a maximum of 25 students.

Professor Nakamura attempted to address the concerns raised in the resolution during his presentation, and stated he has no difficulty with the resolution since the questions and concerns raised are valid. In addition, the last resolved clause states that the senate recommends the concept and structure of the program and the next level is the Joint Council. Concerns such as those expressed in the resolution will be addressed by the Joint Council.

Part of the discussion surrounding the resolution was whether the senate recommendation should be a resolution or a memorandum detailing any concerns. This is part of a new set of procedures regarding the approval of programs and it is the first time the senate has had a role in approving a program proposal.

One concern of the Educational Policies Committee is the impact this program will have on undergraduate education.

Concern was expressed that unless every component of the proposal is supported, there will be no accreditation.

The process already has started; a review has been completed by the department, the college curriculum committee, the council of chairs, the college dean, the Graduate Council and the UCC. A review will occur in the Provost's Council and resource questions will be addressed at that time. This is an expensive but important program, and it must be decided if Humboldt has the resources to offer it. A subcommittee of the Provost's Council has been formed to conduct a resource review and make a recommendation to the Provost's Council. It was hoped that the Academic Senate also will make a recommendation to the president as to whether Humboldt should proceed with this program.

Senate involvement in the review of new programs helps ensure that the senate is a part of the general planning of the university and this is a good precedent. A resolution is the proper form.

In its resolution the Educational Policies Committee attempted to convey its belief that if the program can be offered without damaging other undergraduate programs, then the Committee would be in support of the program. One problem faced by the Educational Policies Committee is that it is not a financial body.

The recommendation that the proposal should not go forward, found in the fourth resolved clause, should be clarified so it is known to whom such a recommendation is made. Clarification also is needed regarding who will identify whether adequate funding is available.

It was suggested that Professor Nakamura withdraw his support of the resolution. [Although some of the resolved clauses are negative, Professor Nakamura recognized that the Educational Policies Committee has identified its concerns about the proposed program, and stated that members of the Social Work Department share the same concerns. The questions raised by the Educational Policies Committee are questions that need to be answered.]

It is incumbent upon the senate to review the documentation and produce a recommendation; it also is incumbent upon the senate to investigate any weaknesses in the proposal. For the MSW proposal there appears to be a lack of institutional commitment on the resource side so the senate's recommendation is for the program to go forward, with any funding concerns expressed to the Provost and the Provost's Council.

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

Meeting adjourned 5:50 p.m.