Academic Senate Minutes April 13, 2004

Chair MacConnie called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 13, 2004, in Nelson Hall East, Room 102 (Goodwin Forum).

Members Present: Butler, Cheyne, Coffey, Dalsant, Derden, Dixon, Dunk, Fonseca, Fulgham, Green, Klein, Knox, Kornreich, MacConnie, Meiggs, Mortazavi, Moyer, Mullery, Newsom, Oliver, Paselk, Paynton, Platin, Richmond, Sanford, Schwab, Shellhase, Snyder, Sonntag, Stamps, Thobaben, Yarnall.

Members Absent: Marshall, O’Rourke-Andrews, Varkey, Vrem, Wieand.

Proxies: Matt Pearce for O’Rourke-Andrews, Platin for Kiesling, Meiggs for Paynton (1st half).

Guests: Rick Botzler (UFPC), Susan Higgins (PS), Jim Howard (NRS), Linda Phillips (Registrar’s Office), Val Phillips (Undergraduate Studies), Donna Schafer (Graduate Studies), Steve Smith (NRS).

1) Approval of Minutes

It was moved and seconded (Fulgham/Klein) to approve the minutes of the March 30, 2004 Senate meeting as submitted. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

2) Announcements and Communications

There will be two more Senate meetings following today’s meeting. There will be several action items on the agenda for April 27, including action on the RTP resolution (1st reading is today). The final meeting will be on May 4. New senators will be seated, and the elections for the new Senate officers will be held. The meeting will be followed by a reception at Baywood County Club at 6:15, to which both outgoing and incoming senators are invited. Official invitations will be forthcoming.

An emergency meeting may be called in order for the Senate to respond to the final version of the Master Plan that is scheduled to come out on May 6-7. A date has not been set.

Chair MacConnie reported on the April 1 Senate chairs’ meeting at San Francisco State, and gave highlights of what other campuses are doing to advocate for the CSU and for their local campuses. See the link on the home page to see what Humboldt is doing and how you can be involved. Discussions also included the proposed resolutions from AS-CSU on transfer policy and sanctionable units. The final reading and action on these resolutions will take place at the statewide Senate meeting in May.

The lecture and dinner honoring Susan Armstrong, the 2003/2004 Outstanding Professor will be held on Monday, April 26, 2004.

3) Committee Reports

CSSA: CSSA is meeting this weekend at San Francisco State and will be conducting interviews for the next student Trustee. On Monday, CSSA and the UCSA are holding a rally at the hearing on student fees and financial aid at the State Capitol.

Associated Students: A.S. will be holding online elections next week. The elections are uncontested and there are still some positions without a candidate. The final deadline for write-in candidates is this Friday, 5 p.m.

Student Affairs: The EOP honors ceremony will held be this Thursday afternoon. Applications for the Panetta Institute, which is an internship for work in Washington D.C., are due on April 23. Applications are also available at the Government and Politics department office. The Outstanding Student Awards ceremony will be on April 28, 3 p.m., Kate Buchanan Room.

Administrative Affairs: It was announced that due to legislation recently passed, as of January 1, 2005, all fifteen passenger vans will require a commercial driver’s license (a valid Class B endorsed by the DMV) to drive a van. This applies to all vans originally constructed as fifteen passenger vans, regardless of whether they have been modified or not.

Office of the President: There is no new information on the budget situation. The President has traveled to Washington D.C as part of an effort to promote development of federal funding to support expansion of the agricultural research initiative. If the effort is successful, it could bring in as much as a half a million dollars annually to Humboldt, on a matching fund basis, to support research in areas related to agriculture. Efforts are under way to create the Cal Poly Humboldt Advancement Foundation which will be a philanthropic organization. The members of the founding board have been identified and decisions are being made on how to apportion the resources that the HSU Foundation now has, between what will be the Humboldt Sponsored Projects Foundation and the Humboldt Advancement Foundation. The Master Plan has met with some difficulty, and following a meeting with a concerned neighborhood association it was agreed, for the time being, to take off the table the proposals relating to the development of the southern part of campus. Humboldt is working with local developers who own property in the Arcata area and other areas, to see if there are alternative places to develop affordable housing for faculty. The President offered congratulations to the students, staff, and faculty on the highly effective Diversity Forum held last week. He also thanked the faculty who helped telephone students who have been admitted to Humboldt, but not yet committed to attending. The effort was successful in attracting several students to Humboldt, and additional phone calls will be made in the future.

University Curriculum Committee: The UCC is sponsoring several activities the week of April that are designed to promote writing across the curriculum.

Student Affairs Committee: The Committee has collected data for the revision of the early registration resolution. Because of the number of resolutions on the today’s agenda, the resolution was postponed to one of the next two meetings of the Senate. The resolution would not be implemented until the Spring term 2005.

Faculty Affairs Committee: The Committee has two resolutions on the agenda today.

General Faculty: The results of the Spring 2004 General Faculty election were reported: General Faculty Secretary, Michael Smith ; General Faculty Treasurer, Sharon Tuttle ; UCC Chair, Jennifer Eichstedt ; UCC/AHSS Representative, Ken Ayoob ; UCC/NRS Representative, Sharon Brown ; Professional Leave Committee, Sally Botzler and Pam Brown ; UFPC, Phyllis Chinn, Sharon Chadwick, and Wendy Woodward.

4) TIME CERTAIN: 4:20 P.M.

Resolution in Response to the AS-CSU Resolution With Regard to Systemwide Core/Campus Specific Transfer Pattern (#15-03/4-EP)

Resolution in Response to AS-CSU Definition of Sanctionable Units (#16-03/04-EP)

Both resolutions were developed by the Educational Policies Committee, based on their consideration of the AS-CSU resolutions and feedback from the Humboldt Academic Senate discussion on March 30. Chair MacConnie thanked the Committee members for expediting this review.

It was moved and seconded (Knox/Fulgham) to place the resolutions on the floor.

Resolution in Response to the AS-CSU Resolution With Regard to Systemwide Core/Campus-Specific Transfer Pattern (#15-03/04-EP)

Whereas The faculty of Cal Poly Humboldt have raised a number of serious concerns with regard to the proposal of a plan for system-wide core/campus-specific transfer patterns, in particular the Academic Senate of the California State University resolutions “Support for a Systemwide Core/Campus-Specific Transfer Pattern by Degree Program” (AS-2645-04/AA) and “Principles for Reaching Consensus on Regional and Statewide Program Alignments in the California State University” (AS-2648-04/AA), and

Whereas The need for and the effectiveness of such a plan have not been clearly demonstrated and are not demonstrated by the numbers presented in the rationales given in the Statewide Academic Senate resolutions AS-2645-04/AA (item 7) and AS-2648-04/AA (item 10), to wit: there is only a one unit difference the average number of units taken by native students (141) and the number taken by transfer students (142) (item 7, page 3, lines 18 – 19), and

Whereas The cost in time and resources for staff and faculty work to develop such a plan has not been discussed and is potentially extensive, and

Whereas The work of the Project on Lower Division Major Requirements has made progress toward developing inter-segmental agreements for some of the most often selected majors in which common core programs seem pedagogically feasible, and

Whereas Caution is required to protect the unique character of specialized programs, the articulation of undergraduate programs with graduate education and the accreditation of professional programs under such a plan, and

Whereas A key element in the effectiveness of such a plan would be commitment from the Community Colleges and resources for expansion of Community College advising support and services, and

Whereas The Community Colleges have provided documents to the CSU Academic Vice Chancellor expressing concerns about this plan including concern that serving transfer student needs is only a small part of their mission, and

Whereas The costs involved in the implementation of such a plan have not been determined either for the CSU or the Community Colleges, be it therefore

Resolved the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt affirms that individual CSU campuses should continue to support unique specialties and opportunities for students, providing a broad range of educational opportunities to support California’s economic growth and leadership, and be it further

Resolved the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt holds that any policy which allows representatives of two-thirds of the campuses to dictate pedagogy to the faculty on other campuses were resources, local needs, educational opportunities and facilities may vary is a direct assault on the academic freedom and responsibility of the faculty on the campuses that would be over-ruled, and be it further

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends the language in the Academic Senate of the CSU resolution requesting “specific data that documents the problem to be solved by the transfer pattern, to estimate the cost of implementation of the pattern, and to perform a cost/benefit analysis…” , and further be it

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends the language in the Academic Senate of the CSU resolution requesting that “the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees to recognize … the real costs of implementing this large scale program…”, and be it further

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends that such data and demonstration be provided based on the work already underway by the Project on Lower Division Major requirements (POL) and prior to requiring additional faculty to do the work of creating such plans, and further be it

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends a review and analysis of the implementation of the work begin done by IMPACT and the effect of those models on student transfer and progress to degree prior to further discussion of any systemwide policy, and be it further

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt supports the continued work of the Project on Lower Division Major requirements (POL) for those faculty members engaged in majors where there appear to be effective models for such work, and be it further

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt affirms the principle that the faculty on the campuses must retain control of the curriculum and support academic freedom, and be it further

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends AGAINST adoption of Statewide Academic Senate Resolution AS–2645-04/AA (item 10), “Principles for Reaching Consensus on Regional and Statewide Program Alignments in the California State University System.”

Resolution in Response to AS-CSU Definition of Sanctionable Units, AS –2646-04/AA (#16-03/04-EP)

Whereas The Academic Senate CSU resolution AS-2646-04/AA, “Definition of Sanctionable Units” (also known as the excess units proposal) eliminates the opportunity for students to pursue double majors or to complete minors in association with some majors, and

Whereas Combinations of majors and of particular majors and minors uniquely prepare students for specialized positions in the workforce, and

Whereas To work to the advantage of students, the proposal would require that students come to the CSU with uniform learning styles, abilities and preparation, which data demonstrates not to be the case, and

Whereas The proposal works against the principle affirmed as Principle 2 of the 1998 Cornerstones Report, to wit “Each campus will shape the provision of its academic programs and support services to meet better the diverse needs of its students and society, ” and

Whereas The proposal’s success rests on sufficient resources being available at the Community College and High School levels to ensure a high level of seamless continuing advising particularly in discipline specific areas and data demonstrates that these resources are not in place, and

Whereas The proposal is contrary to the University’s mission to support and encourage lifelong learning, therefore be it

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends supporting and expanding resources that support students in identifying and meeting their educational goals rather than punishing students for the results of circumstances that are often beyond their control, and further be it

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt condemns the Academic Senate CSU resolution AS –2646-04/AA “Definition of Sanctionable Units” as providing definition of and support for a concept in violation of the Cornerstones Report and the mission of the University.

Discussion on the first resolution (#15):

§ It was noted that it would be helpful to add the language from the AS-CSU resolutions to the last two resolved clauses.
§ In the second whereas clause, the word “in” needs to be inserted: “there is only one unit difference in the average number of units taken …”.
§ Comments were made regarding the second whereas clause. From a system viewpoint, there are problems both with the number of units students take transferring in and the number of units they take in residence, but there are different solutions for each of those problems. If the concern is to reduce the number of units, there need to be different strategies for different groups. This is a political issue, and there needs to be some compromise. Need to look at ways to keep this from doing the least amount of damage and causing the least disruption to academic programs. The resolution doesn’t address these concerns. Politically, it may not work.
§ The language recommending that attention be paid to the work currently being done on lower division requirements was intended to help address some of these concerns.
§ The Senate should consider adding a final resolved, sending the resolution forward to the statewide and campus senates, the Chancellor, and the Humboldt President.
§ Correction of typo in the second resolved clause was made: “on other campuses where resources, local needs…”

Voting occurred to approve the resolution as amended and it PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

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

The revised resolution reads:

Whereas The need for and the effectiveness of such a plan have not been clearly demonstrated and are not demonstrated by the numbers presented in the rationales given in the Statewide Academic Senate resolutions AS-2645-04/AA and AS-2648-04/AA, to wit: there is only a one unit difference in the average number of units taken by native students (141) and the number taken by transfer students (142) (AS-2645-04/AA, page 3, lines 18-19), and

Whereas The cost in time and resources for staff and faculty work to develop such a plan has not been discussed and is potentially extensive, and

Whereas A key element in the effectiveness of such a plan would be commitment from the Community Colleges and resources for expansion of Community College advising support and services, and

Whereas The costs involved in the implementation of such a plan have not been determined either for the CSU or the Community Colleges, be it therefore

Resolved the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt holds that any policy which allows representatives of two-thirds of the campuses to dictate pedagogy to the faculty on other campuses where resources, local needs, educational opportunities and facilities may vary is a direct assault on the academic freedom and responsibility of the faculty on the campuses that would be over-ruled, and be it further

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends a review and analysis of the implementation of the work being done by IMPAC and the effect of those models on student transfer and progress to degree prior to further discussion of any systemwide policy, and be it further

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt affirms the principle that the faculty on the campuses must retain control of the curriculum and support academic freedom, and be it further

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt is Opposed to adoption of the policy provisions offered in the first resolve of Statewide Academic Senate Resolution AS – 2645-04/AA, those provisions being: “1. The creation of academic road maps for each degree program specifying a common core of at least 45 semester/68 quarter units acceptable at but not necessarily required by all campuses of the CSU to count as units in the degree program; as nearly as practicable, these units should mirror the road map experience of the native student engaged in lower-division major preparation and general education on that campus. 2. The creation of campus-specific academic road maps for each degree program specifying the additional transfer units which will be acceptable at the campus to count as units in the degree program; as nearly as practicable, these units should mirror the road map experience of the native student engaged in lower-division major preparation and general education on that campus. 3. That community college students electing to fulfill this pattern must commit to a major degree program and campus no later than the completion of [30 semester/45 quarter units] [45 semester/68 quarter units] [at the point of application to the CSU] [the same as a transfer agreement guarantee (TAG)]. 4. That community college students electing to fulfill this pattern must complete the coursework within [2] calendar years from the date of committing to a major degree program and campus. 5. That community college students who have fulfilled the degree program-specific transfer pattern will be accorded the highest admission priority among all transfer students at the campus to which they have committed. Students have the option to sign multiple agreements or an agreement may apply to multiple campuses.”, and be it further

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends AGAINST adoption of Statewide Academic Senate Resolution AS–2645-04/AA , “Principles for Reaching Consensus on Regional and Statewide Program Alignments in the California State University System,” and be it further

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt forward this resolution to the President of Cal Poly Humboldt, the Chancellor of the California State University, and the Statewide and Campus Academic Senates, as the response for the Cal Poly Humboldt Campus.

Discussion on the second resolution (#16):

§ It was suggested that the same final resolved clause, added to the first resolution, also be added to end of this resolution.
§ Concern was expressed about recommending “expanding resources” as stated in the first resolved clause. As it is impossible to implement, given current budgetary restrictions, it lacks credibility. A preferred approach would be minimizing the definition of sanctionable units and moving towards policies (that are student friendly) that would encourage students to take fewer units, for example, requiring students at a certain point to develop a personal plan for graduation.
§ “Sanctionable units” includes units that are attempted, not necessarily completed/awarded. One of the areas that could be addressed is to only include units that are awarded.
§ Why not shift resources that are available (i.e., going towards CMS) to other more educational areas?

It was moved and seconded (Thobaben/Snyder) to strike the first resolved clause.

Discussion:

§ Including the mention of “expanding resources” diminishes the intended message; keep it clean by not including something that would need additional financial support.
§ A suggestion was made to re-word the first resolved, by removing the words “and expanding resources that support”. This would achieve the same result. This was considered a friendly amendment. The motion to strike the first resolve clause was withdrawn.
§ Through friendly amendment, the first resolved clause was revised so that it reads, “…recommends supporting students in identifying and meeting their educational goals …”

The amendment was not considered friendly to the resolution as a whole. Voting on the amendment to the first resolved clause occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH ONE NO VOTE.

§ Concern about the word “condemns” in the second resolved clause was expressed and various terms were proposed. It was moved and seconded (Cheyne/Derden) to amend the second resolved clause by replacing the word “condemns” with “strongly opposes”. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH FIVE NO VOTES.

Voting on the resolution as amended occurred and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

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

The revised resolution reads:

Whereas Combinations of majors and of particular majors and minors uniquely prepare students for specialized positions in the workforce, and

Whereas The proposal is contrary to the University’s mission to support and encourage lifelong learning, therefore be it

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends supporting students in identifying and meeting their educational goals rather than punishing students for the results of circumstances that are often beyond their control, and further be it

Resolved That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt strongly opposes the Academic Senate CSU resolution AS –2646-04/AA “Definition of Sanctionable Units” as providing definition of and support for a concept in violation of the Cornerstones Report and the mission of the University and further be it

5. Resolution on Course Repeat Policy (#17-03/4-EP)

TIME CERTAIN: 4:35 P.M.

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

Whereas The current unlimited course repeat policy for undergraduates could prevent students from accessing some courses due to seat restrictions, and

Whereas The unlimited course repeat policy may lead to delay in graduation of some students, and

Whereas The present policy also allows individual programs to limit the number of times a student may take a course creating inconsistencies across campus, therefore be it

Resolved That the Cal Poly Humboldt Academic Senate recommends the following changes to the existing course repeat policy to make a more uniform university wide policy:

That the Cal Poly Humboldt Academic Senate recommends that with the exception of courses that are designated as repeatable, undergraduate students may repeat no individual Humboldt course more than once. (The current policy of having all attempts appear on the permanent record, but only the most recent attempt counting toward the cumulative Cal Poly Humboldt grade point average –GPA- would remain.)
That the Cal Poly Humboldt Academic Senate recommends that students who fail a course after repeating it at Humboldt, may take an “equivalent” course – as identified by articulation for GE or by the major department for major requirements - at another institution and use it to meet graduation requirements but not to replace the Humboldt grade for grade point average purposes.
That the Cal Poly Humboldt Academic Senate recommends that student be permitted to repeat only those courses in which the student has received a grade of C- or less.

The Educational Policies Committee reviewed a variety of policies from other institutions and gathered data from Humboldt in order to create a policy that could be implemented in Banner. The general purpose of the policy is to try and free up needed seats. A check would run overnight and would notify students the following day if they were not eligible to enroll in a course.

Discussion:

§ Concern was expressed about the resolved clause, section C; some majors will not accept a C- in a required course. Also, limiting the policy to only one repeat seems very strict (section A.).
§ It was noted that a grade of C- would allow a student to repeat. Today’s first resolution, that was passed, maintains the principle of the faculty maintaining control of the curriculum. The resolution under consideration seem to do the opposite, by taking away control from individual programs with a policy that would apply across campus.
§ Why is the undergraduate policy stricter than the policy for graduate students? When would the policy be effective? This was strongly debated back in 1995. The current policy at that time was the policy that is in the resolution under consideration. Students had to petition, and there were problems for Admissions and Records having to deal with the petitions. The policy was revised to allow unlimited repeats, based on the rationale that many students were coming into majors without adequate preparation for succeeding.
§ Concern was expressed about the resolved clause, section B; how much money would actually be saved by implementing this? How many seats would be made available? If the more restrictive policy creates significant savings, would suggest that the provision that a student could take a course through Extended Education, rather than have to go to another institution be added.
§ Another alternative might be to have students who are repeaters drop to the bottom of the registration list. If there is room in the class, then they could repeat it.
§ Students can petition for many things. The policy is intended to discourage habitual repeaters by limiting the number of repeats allowed. A student would be able to petition to repeat a class more than once if needed.
§ It should be up to the student to decide what grade they want, rather than having the faculty determine, so would be in favor is deleting section C. of the resolved clause.
§ Concern was expressed about sequential courses, and whether or not section B. of the resolved clause would create problems by allowing students to take a prerequisite course at another institution that would not be comparable to the Humboldt required course. It was noted that the intent of section B. to allow the department to define “equivalent” courses.
§ Would changing the number of repeats allowed from one to two make a difference, or is the principle of the policy as a whole being rejected as a whole?
§ Support for extending the policy to allow two repeats was expressed.
§ Does a withdraw, recorded as a “W”, count as taking a course? This wasn’t considered.
§ How many students are repeating courses, i.e., how big of a problem is this? In general, the data indicates that the numbers drop off dramatically after repeating twice. Data compiled since the Fall of 1996 indicates 8,742 repeated courses (8,112 repeated once, 541 repeated twice, 69 repeated three times). There would be little savings in limiting the repeats to two. It was noted that particular courses are more likely to be impacted than others.

Further discussion was postponed to consider the next time certain agenda item.

6. Resolution on RTP Revisions (#18-03/04-FA)

TIME CERTAIN: 5:00 P.M.

This is a first reading. Three accompanying documents were sent as email attachments:

Ø Copy of Appendix J from the Faculty Handbook, with proposed revisions
Ø "Culture of Mentoring Through Best Practices"
Ø Professional Development Plan form

Chair MacConnie thanked members of the Faculty Affairs Committee, from last year and this year, members of UFPC, and others who worked and provided input on the revisions.

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

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt accept the proposed revisions of Appendix J, FACULTY PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR RETENTION, TENURE, AND PROMOTION, to the Faculty Handbook, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends that the proposed revisions be forwarded to the General Faculty for a vote of acceptance or rejection.

RATIONALE: During the past two years the Faculty Affairs Committee of the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt has been working on a revision to Appendix J based on the following criteria:

The amount of personnel time involved in the annual process is significant for:
1. A. the faculty member/librarian/counselor during the construction of the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF);
2. the peers requested and required to provide review of teaching/librarianship/counseling effectiveness; and,
3. the peer committee and administrative reviews of the WPAF.
The sheer volume of materials gathered to generate the WPAF.
the necessity of multi-year appointment periods to generate meaningful input into the WPAF on the areas of performance.

FIRST READING - April 13, 2004

The proposed revisions to Appendix J support a new process of evaluation, depicted in Figure 1 of Appendix J. The rationale is included in the resolution.

Discussion:

§ There were several objections to the level of review for the periodic evaluation stopping at the Dean and not going to the College Personnel Committee.
§ If the resolution is approved by the Senate, the revisions will go to the General Faculty for a vote this Spring. There would be training and workshops next year in order to implement the changes for AY 2005-2006. Discussions have not dealt specifically with who it would apply to, i.e., only new faculty or also those who are already invested in the current system. It has been assumed that those in the current cycle would move to the new process. The proposed implementation provides a year for those currently in the review process to move towards the new process.
§ This should apply only to new faculty, and not to faculty currently in the system, especially those who are in their fourth or fifth year.
§ Concern was expressed regarding the wording in Appendix J, Section VI. C., specifically “the plan shall be flexible and open to change as needed, … and it shall be aligned with the department, college, and university needs.” How will this be interpreted? Is the PDP a contractual document, and if so, how is it negotiated? What happens at the higher levels of review, i.e., those who are not involved with the creation of the PDP? In terms of flexibility, how easy will it be to change the PDP? Does everyone who has signed the PDP have to agree to all changes? Overall the plan seems good, but the details need to be worked out.
§ The PDP is developed during the initial one-year of appointment and is evaluated during the first performance review. Then a two-year PDP would be developed working towards the next performance review. The PDP is done between working on the WPAF; they are not done at the same time. The PDP covers the time between the Performance Reviews. The Faculty Affairs Committee felt that the periodic evaluation did not need to go to a higher level, e.g., the College Personnel Committee, with the understanding that if there is concern or contention, a higher level of review can be requested.
§ First year faculty would have difficulty articulating goals for service to the university and the community, for the Professional Development Plan.
§ It may be necessary for the College Personnel Committee(CPC) to be involved in the first year, because the review would result in a personnel action. At the end of the performance review in year two, the personnel action results in either a one-year or a two-year appointment for the candidate. If a two-year contract is given, the following year the candidate will go through the periodic evaluation. Because there is no personnel action, it isn’t necessary for it to go to the CPC. If a one-year contract is awarded, then the candidate goes through a full performance review the following year, which would go up through all levels of review. When no personnel action is needed, it wasn’t deemed necessary to extend the level of review to CPC.
§ Because of the amount of time already invested by faculty in the current process, it would be a reasonable compromise to give individuals a choice of continuing with the current system or going to the new system.
§ The “Culture of Mentoring” document is from Betsy Watson, the Faculty Development Coordinator. It will not be included in Appendix J. It is meant to be an example of best practices, to be used as part of the implementation of the new process.
§ It should not be assumed that IUPC’s will meet their responsibilities in any lesser way than the CPC’s. Was information collected on the usefulness of the feedback from the CPC’s to both successful and unsuccessful candidates going through the current process? Would support keeping the proposed levels of review as they are in Figure 1.

Further discussion was postponed to consider the next time certain agenda item.

7. TIME CERTAIN: 5:29 P.M.

Resolution on Appendix M (#19-03/04-FA)

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

RESOLVED: That the Cal Poly Humboldt Academic Senate accept the proposed creation of Appendix M, PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR COACHES, of the Faculty Handbook and recommends that the proposed revisions be forwarded to the General Faculty for a vote of acceptance or rejection.

RATIONALE: The Coaches and Athletics Administration have been working on documentation to create an appendix that contains three parts:

The Criteria for Awarding Multiple Year Contracts.
Evaluation and Reappointment Process and Timeline.
Coaching Performance Evaluation form.

These have been reviewed and approved by the Humboldt Joint Labor Management Committee and the Director of Faculty Personnel Services. Development of this appendix is in concert with those for other Unit 3 Faculty (Appendix J and Appendix K).

FIRST READING – APRIL 13, 2004

There has been a need to develop a personnel process for Coaches for several years, since they were brought into the Bargaining Unit 3. Other appendices have already been developed to address personnel processes for lecturers, faculty, librarians, and counselors. The Personnel Policies and Procedures for Coaches was created initially by coaches and has been reviewed and revised several times. It was reviewed and approved by Faculty Personnel Services and reviewed and approved by the Humboldt Joint Labor-Management Committee and is now being proposed to be included in Appendix M (a new appendix to the Faculty Handbook).

Discussion:

§ It was accepted as a friendly amendment to revise the first part of the resolved clause to read, “The Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends that the proposed creation of Appendix M, PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR COACHES, of the Faculty Handbook be forwarded to the General Faculty for a vote of acceptance or rejection.”
§ It was clarified that the coaches were involved in the development of the policy.

It was moved and seconded (Fulgham/Meiggs) to strike “First Reading” from the resolution. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

Voting on the resolution as amended occurred and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The revised resolution reads:

RESOLVED: That the Cal Poly Humboldt Academic Senate recommends that the proposed creation of Appendix M, PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR COACHES, of the Faculty Handbook be forwarded to the General Faculty for a vote of acceptance or rejection. RATIONALE: The Coaches and Athletics Administration have been working on documentation to create an appendix that contains three parts:

The Criteria for Awarding Multiple Year Contracts.
Evaluation and Reappointment Process and Timeline.
Coaching Performance Evaluation form.

Return to Agenda Item #6

Discussion on the RTP resolution continued:

§ Is there wording that states how or when a candidate may request to go through a higher level of review? Explicit wording was not included because of the concern that candidates might feel more of a need to request a higher level of review than necessary.
§ There is language in Section VII. B. 5. that indicates any evaluation committee or appropriate administrator may grant a one-year retention period for a candidate, if an additional performance review is needed.

A straw poll was taken to see who supported the following:

Adding the College Personnel Committee as the highest level of review for the 1st year: YES = 3

Adding the College Personnel Committee as the highest level of review for all periodic evaluations: YES = 5

Keeping the levels of review as indicated in Figure 1: YES = 11

The Faculty Affairs Committee will continue to work on the Appendix J revisions and bring them back to the next Senate meeting.

Return to Agenda Item #5

Discussion on Course Repeat Policy continued:

It was suggested that data on the effectiveness of repeating courses, i.e., was there actual grade improvement, would be helpful to consider.

It was moved and seconded (Fulgham/Dixon) to table the resolution for two meetings. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH 2 NO VOTES AND 1 ABSTENTION.

It was moved and seconded (Meiggs/Fulgham) to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

Search form

Academic Senate Minutes April 13, 2004

1) Approval of Minutes

2) Announcements and Communications

3) Committee Reports

4) TIME CERTAIN: 4:20 P.M.

5. Resolution on Course Repeat Policy (#17-03/4-EP)

6. Resolution on RTP Revisions (#18-03/04-FA)

7. TIME CERTAIN: 5:29 P.M.