Agenda From: April 27, 2004
Academic Senate Minutes
04/27/04
Chair
MacConnie called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 27, 2004,
in Nelson Hall East, Room 102 (Goodwin Forum).
Members
Present: Butler, Cheyne, Dalsant,
Derden, Dixon, Dunk, Fulgham, Green, Kinney Newsom, Klein, Knox, Kornreich,
MacConnie, Marshall, Meiggs, Mortazavi, Moyer, Mullery, Oliver,
O’Rourke-Andrews, Paselk, Paynton, Platin, Richmond, Schwab, Shellhase, Snyder,
Sonntag, Thobaben, Varkey, Vrem, Wieand, Yarnall.
Members
Absent: Coffey, Kiesling, Sanford, Stamps.
Proxies:
Platin for Kiesling, Meiggs for Paynton (1st half).
Guests: John Meyer (Government and Politics), Bob
Sathrum (Library).
It
was moved and seconded (Klein/Meiggs) to approve the minutes of the April 13,
2004 Senate meeting as submitted.
Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH 1 ABSTENTION.
2. Announcements and Communications
Chair
MacConnie reported that she received a phone call from Mark Thompson, Chair of
the Statewide Senate Academic Affairs Committee, expressing appreciation for
the thoughtful resolutions forwarded from the HSU Senate.
New
senators will be seated and elections will be held for new senate officers at
the next Senate Meeting on May 4, 2004.
Nominations are still needed for two representatives to the Senate
Appointments Committee.
The
University Budget Committee continues to meet and discuss budget reduction
scenarios. The next meeting is May 7,
3-5 p.m.
The
published deadline for comments on the Diversity Plan is April 30. A request has been made to extend the
deadline so that the Senate can have an opportunity to review and provide
comments on the Plan. The Senate will
discuss the document early next Fall.
The Plan is on the web, and senators were encouraged to take a careful
look at the document.
There
will be two public forums on the Master Plan:
Thursday, May 6, in the evening, at the Arcata Community Center and
Friday, May 7, 9-noon, Kate Buchanen Room.
There may be another Senate meeting during finals week so that the
Senate can review and make a recommendation, most likely in the form of a
resolution, that goes forward to the President and the Master Planning
Committee.
Statewide Senate: Senator Snyder reported that a letter from the Department of
Finance had been sent out asking the CSU to respond on how it would plan for an
additional 3% cut. The system budget
advisory committee doesn’t expect that the additional 3% will happen with the
May revise, but it may come later.
There has been talk of tracking categories of transfer students next
year. The number of FTES that fall into
undesirable categories would be deducted the following year from enrollment
targets. This has the potential to be a
worrisome development, if the funding is reduced as well as the enrollment
targets. Provost Vrem provided brief
background on the categories of transfer students. At the statewide provosts’ meeting, there was discussion of the
potential of tracking the categories, and using those numbers for negotiating
enrollment targets the following year.
CSSA: Thousands turned out for the rally in downtown L.A. and the event
was well-covered by the media. Work
continues on the long-term student fee policy as well as the excess units
initiative. There is student concern
about both policies. Four finalists
were submitted for the student Trustee position. Work continues on the strategic plan for CSSA – it is the first
time the organization has had a strategic plan. Elections will be held in June and the new Board will begin July
1.
Associated Students: The results of the
election are in and Samantha Williams will be the new A.S. President. The energy fund initiative was
overwhelmingly passed. It still needs
to go to the Student Fees Advisory Committee for approval, then to the
President and the Chancellor, before it will actually be implemented on
campus. The last A.S. meeting of the
year has a very full agenda, including a resolution on the long-term student
fee policy, resolutions opposing the excess units initiative, resolution in
support of campus recycling, and several other items. A new mural project has been approved. The new mural will be in Nelson Hall. The annual study lounge will be held Sunday-Wednesday of finals
week. The Oceanography Club will be
having a dunk tank on the quad, 10-3.
General Faculty : Due to a resignation on the University Faculty Personnel
Committee, nominations are needed for
the next General Faculty election.
Nominations from Professional Studies, and Arts, Humanities and Social
Sciences are encouraged, since there is currently no representation from those
Colleges on the committee. The
CFA/General Faculty Social will be on May 10, 5-7 pm,in the Plaza Grill View
Room. It was announced that three
newer HSU faculty will receive McCrone Promising Faculty Scholars Awards at an
awards ceremony on Monday, May 3, 2-4 p.m. in Goodwin Forum. The faculty members are: Brian Arbogast, Biological Sciences, Erick
Eschker, Economics, and Matt Johnson, Wildlife.
Student Affairs: The Outstanding Student Awards ceremony will take place tomorrow
afternoon. The Man and Woman of the
Year will be announced, in addition to the recognition of the outstanding
students.
Office of the President: In response to ongoing concerns and requests from several
students, a small task force has been created to review some concerns that have
been raised about Athletics, both management and budget. The President has requested a report from
the group by the end of the May, at the very latest, in a format that can be at
least partially made public. A faculty
member has been included in the task force.
The President emphasized the importance of having the faculty review the
Diversity Plan. The Plan has already
generated some controversy in the community outside of the University, and it
is important for the University to be behind the Plan and support it.
The President congratulated
students on their overwhelming support of the energy initiative, and expressed
his support for the initiative. He
extended thanks to Gretchen Kinney Newsom and her colleagues on the Associated
Students, for their fine leadership and many accomplishments this year.
Information from the
Chancellor’s Office suggests that it is relatively unlikely that the CSU will
face additional cuts beyond those already in the Governor’s January
budget. The May revision should come
out May 14 or 15.
Office of Academic Affairs: It was noted that the “golden handshake” is on the Governor’s
desk.
Educational Policies: The repeat policy has been re-drafted and will be on next week’s
agenda. The Committee is also working
on the issue of double-counting institutions and also reviewing parts of the
Strategic Plan.
Statewide Senate: Senator Thobaben reported on her experience, as a representative
from the Statewide Senate, of opposing a bill concerning the eroding of
academic freedom of faculty. The bill was defeated. The Statewide Faculty Affairs Committee is presenting a
resolution to the Statewide Academic Senate that clearly supports the AAUP 1940
document on academic freedom, with the 1970 interpretations. However, some of
the data gathered to support the bill shows that there are faculty members who
are irresponsible and misuse their academic freedom. The Statewide Academic Senate is taking the concerns seriously,
and next year the Statewide Academic Senate will be encouraging local campus to
look at their policies to make sure the rights of students are protected. The two textbook bills are moving forward.
Senate Finance Committee: The OAA Budget Committee is meeting regularly, drafting an OAA
budget policy document, and reviewing budget cuts to OAA.
University Curriculum
Committee: The UCC sponsored a visiting consultant on
writing across the curriculum, from Cal Poly Pomona. There will be a meeting on Thursday to discuss plans for
proceeding with a program of writing across the curriculum.
CFA: Senator Mullery reported on the recent assembly meeting. The primary topic was the budget and pending
lay-offs. Time was spent discussing
coalition building, and some concern was expressed by CFA activists about some
of the unusual partnerships being created, in particular with certain
individuals with influence in Sacramento.
Two resolutions were passed expressing support for protection of
programs threatened by budget cuts:
Women’s Studies and Ethnic Studies and Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender
academic programs.
4. TIME CERTAIN: 4:30
P.M.
Resolution on Revision of Appendix J (#18-03/04-FA)
Based on input from the
Senate and the Senate Executive Committee, a substitute resolution, along with
an edited version of Appendix J, is submitted by the Faculty Affairs Committee.
It was moved and seconded
(Fulgham/Cheyne) to place the substitute resolution on floor.
RESOLVED: That
the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommends the proposed
revisions of Appendix J, FACULTY PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR
RETENTION, TENURE, AND PROMOTION, of the HSU Faculty Handbook be forwarded to
the General Faculty for a vote of acceptance or rejection.
RESOLVED: If
this revision is passed by the vote of the General Faculty, then the
implementation date would be for the 2005-2006 RTP cycle and the Administration,
the University Faculty Personnel Committee, and the Faculty Development
Committee would develop and provide educational workshops and training on the
role of Mentoring in the RTP process.
RESOLVED: If
this revision is passed by the vote of the general Faculty, then the new
process will be applicable to all current and new faculty.
RATIONALE:
During the past two years the Faculty Affairs Committee of the HSU Academic
Senate has been working on a revision to this appendix that addresses the following
issues:
1. The amount of personnel time involved in the annual process is great for:
A.
the faculty member/librarian/counselor during the construction of the
Working Personnel Action File (WPAF);
B.
the peers requested and required to provide review of
teaching/librarianship/counseling effectiveness; and,
C.
the peer committee and administrative reviews of the WPAF.
2. While teaching, scholarship and creative
activities, and service are continuing endeavors for faculty, the time between
the notice of reappointment during one-year’s cycle and the deadline for
submission of a completed WPAF in the next year’s cycle is relatively short.
A.
the necessity of multi-year appointment periods to generate meaningful
input into the WPAF on the various areas of performance; and,
B. the sheer volume of materials gathered to support the Personnel Data Sheet (PDS) and generate the content of the WPAF.
Changes in the Resolution
include:
§
1st
resolved: change “accept” to
“recommends”
§
2nd
resolved clause outlining implementation was added
§
3rd
resolved was added.
The following corrections
were noted:
§
The
title on PDP form should be: Biennial
Professional Development Plan
§
The
statement: “The following have been consulted in the development of this
Professional Development Plan” was also added, to indicate that signature did
not represent “approval”.
§
Page
5, Appendix J, Section V. A.: replace
“Director of Health and Counseling Services” with “Vice President for Student
Affairs (Counselors)”.
§
Page
11, Appendix J, Section VIII. A.2.b.:
Add to last sentence, “unless specifically authorized by the Provost in
accordance with the Presidential Memorandum …
Discussion and comments:
The PDP seems unnecessary;
informal discussion at the department level should suffice. The PDP is too contractual in nature.
The faculty won’t have
enough time to fully consider the proposed changes; should not rush into voting
this year.
The additional workload with
PDP defeats the stated intention of cutting down on workload.
The proposed changes will
reduce the workload, for both candidates and those involved in the review
process. The PDP would promote a more serious dialogue between candidates and
their departments so that expectations are more closely aligned; this would be
valuable.
Support was expressed for
sending to the revision to the General Faculty for a vote this year; it shows
that the Senate is willing to listen to the younger faculty who want a change.
Certain clarifications of
the changes were offered again: 1) If
everything looks okay, the probationary faculty member will get a two-year
contract, however, if it is felt that improvements need to be made, there is
the option of only granting a one-year contract to the probationary faculty
member; 2) the PDP is an evolving, dynamic, flexible plan; it is not written in
stone the first year; 3) The resolution is to decide whether or not to forward
the revision to the general faculty for a vote. If the answer is yes, then there will be presentations to the
faculty, a Q & A sheet developed, etc., to provide the faculty with
information on the changes and implications, before the election.
The PDP was developed based
on feedback the Faculty Affairs Committee received last year regarding issues
with Appendix J. Some probationary
faculty felt that RTP was a “moving target”, and needed a clearer understanding
of expectations from the department and the Dean. The PDP is NOT a contract.
If the PDP will stop the
process of making changes to Appendix J, then removing the PDP should be
considered.
Further discussion was
postponed to consider the next time certain agenda item.
5. TIME CERTAIN: 4:50
P.M.
Revision to Appendix E, Faculty
Handbook – First Reading
Revision to Appendix F, Faculty Handbook – First
Reading
General Faculty President
Wieand reviewed the history and process of the ad hoc committee. Both appendices were revised primarily to
improve clarity and consistency. No
changes in policy are proposed; changes will be dealt with in another
year.
Appendix F is a first
reading, and will be voted on by the Senate at next week’s meeting.
If Appendix F is approved,
then the Senate will vote on a resolution to forward the Appendix E to the
General Faculty for a vote.
Discussion:
Thanks were offered to the
members who served on the committee over the last two years, for their work.
Return to Agenda Item #4
Discussion on the resolution
to forward the proposed changes to Appendix J to the General Faculty for a vote
continued:
The suggestion was made to
change the wording of the third resolved clause from “applicable to all current
… faculty” to “available to all current faculty”; giving current faculty a
choice.
Under the Rationale, number
2, the word “for:” should be added at the end.
The changes should be
forwarded to the faculty for a vote.
If, when put into practice, problems arise, changes can be made
later. It is not possible to anticipate
all problems; personnel problems will occur regardless of what is written in
Appendix J.
Concern was expressed about
the statement on page 8, Section VI.C., last sentence: “The approved Professional Development Plan
constitutes a commitment by the department and college to provide necessary
support for professional development.”
It was moved and seconded
(Snyder/Sonntag) to strike the last sentence of Section VI. C., p. 8 of
Appendix J.
Discussion:
The sentence could be read
as a protective measure for probationary faculty, it should be left.
It would be better to have
the obligation of support provided at a higher level, i.e., the University,
rather than the department or college.
It should reflect a general commitment to RTP and professional
development, not to specific individuals.
The Faculty Affairs Committee
intended this as a protection for the candidate. The commitment for support
goes beyond financial; it is also collegial and moral support at the department
and college level.
It is important to read the
sentence within the context of the paragraph; which supports the interpretation
the process as a mutual one and supports the language as it exists.
The statement indicates that
the department approves the plan; it would be cleaner to just eliminate the
last sentence.
On the PDP, it is stated
that the signers were consulted, not that they are approving the document. The PDP is not a contract. The sentence under consideration implies
more that is intended by the PDP.
Voting on the amendment to
strike the last sentence of Section VI. C., p. 8 of Appendix J. occurred. MOTION FAILED WITH 12 YES VOTES, 14 NO
VOTES, AND 1 ABSTENTION.
Discussion returned to the
resolution on the floor.
Comments continued on
whether or not the PDP should be dropped, and whether or not it would reduce or
increase the workload.
It was moved and seconded
(Green/Dixon) to eliminate all references to the PDP from Appendix J.
Discussion continued on
whether or not the PDP should be dropped, and whether or not it would reduce or
increase the workload.
It would be better to drop
the PDP, than prevent the changes to Appendix J this year.
Concern was expressed that
removing the PDP may not be in compliance with the contract. Clarification was offered: The PDP is HSU’s addition to the
periodic evaluation; Appendix J would still be in compliance if the PDP was
removed.
The faculty should have the
opportunity to vote on the two issues separately, voting first on the changes
in Appendix J, and voting later on the PDP separately.
The language on p. 8 of
Appendix J, includes the word “approved”, while the PDP includes the word
“consulted”, so the two documents conflict.
The PDP reduces the
ambiguity of expectations of faculty members that can occur during the review process. The idea behind PDP is that it is a
goal-setting process. Expectations are
articulated, and ambiguity is resolved through the discussion process.
Voting occurred on the
amendment to remove all references to the PDP from Appendix J. MOTION FAILED WITH 11 YES VOTES AND 13 NO
VOTES.
Discussion returned to the
resolution, as it stands:
It was moved and seconded
(Klein/Yarnall) to call the question.
Voting occurred and
MOTION PASSED WITH 2 NO
VOTES.
Voting on the Resolution on
Revision of Appendix J occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH 14 YES VOTES, 10 NO
VOTES, AND 1 ABSTENTION.
It was moved and seconded
(Fulgham/Cheyne) to adjourn. Meeting
adjourned at 5:50 p.m.