HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY
Academic Senate Minutes
February 06, 2001
Chair Cheyne called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. on Tuesday, February 06, 2001, in Nelson Hall East, Room 102 (Goodwin Forum)
Members Present: Bicknell, Bockover, Cheyne, Dixon, Kenyon, Knox, Larson, Little, MacConnie, Martin, Mayberry, Meiggs, Novotney, Sheppard, Smith, Snyder, Thobaben, Travis, Varkey, Wang, F. Wilson, M.Wilson, Yarnall
Members Absent: Christensen, Fulgham, Giovannetti, McCrone, Pecot, Stokes, Thompson
Proxies: Chip Dixon for Burroughs; Benjamin Shaeffer for Goodman; Michael Bezanson for Mayer; Cassandra Tex for McFarland
Guests: Ben Allen, School of Business & Economics; Steve Butler, Student Affairs; Phyllis Chinn, Department of Mathematics and UFPC Member; Kay LaBahn, Department of Modern Languages and UFPC Member; Mimi Mace, Department of Theatre, Film and Dance and UFPC Chair; Carolyn Mueller, President's Office; Jack Turner, Department of English and UFPC Member; Richard Vrem, Undergraduate Studies and President of HSU Foundation Board of Directors
It was moved and seconded (Thobaben/Larson) to approve the submitted minutes of December 12, 2000. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.
2. Announcements and Communications
Chair Cheyne announced:
The CSU Institute for Teaching and Learning has awarded $17,000 in funding for a team proposal titled Application of instructional Technology in Nursing Programs. Congratulations were extended to Senator Thobaben who is one of the authors of this proposal.
The CSU Commission on the Extended University has issued a request for project proposals concerning outreach to under-served populations, development of statewide and regional instructional programs, development of distance education programs, and development of international programs. A brief concept paper is to be submitted by February 16, 2001; the final project proposals are due April 27, 2001. Anyone interested may contact the Academic Senate Office for additional information.
The Advisory Board of the Institute for Teaching and Learning and the Office of the Chancellor are inviting nominations and applications for the position of Faculty Director of the CSU Institute for Teaching and Learning. The review of resumes will begin March 12, 2001, and the position is available July 1. Additional information may be obtained from the Academic Senate Office.
The Los Angeles Community College District will host a Symposium on Teacher Recruitment & Development in Los Angeles on March 8 and 9, 2001. The Symposium will focus on issues related to teacher recruitment and preparation for the K-12 system. Program topics will include collaborative relationships between high schools, community colleges and four-year institutions; outreach programs; curriculum redesign and renewal; and a smooth transition through the credentialing process that avoids duplication of coursework. Handouts describing the Symposium are available from the Academic Senate Office.
From February 28 to March 2 the CSU will host its annual academic conference to be held in San Diego this year. The theme is Strategic Partnerships: Critical for Higher Education in California. Each CSU campus has been asked to make a formal presentation regarding a significant strategic partnership. Robert Gearheart, Professor of Environmental Resources Engineering, and Dan Hauser, Arcata City Manager, will be making Humboldt's presentation on the Arcata Marsh Project.
3. Committee and State Senate Reports
Student Affairs - The Committee will be meeting tomorrow.
Statewide Senate - Senator Snyder announced the following: (1) It is hoped that year round operation will be occurring on all campuses within the next two years. (2) A doctorate program is under consideration in the revision of the master plan. (3) The Chancellor is interested in a common calendar; most likely the biggest roadblock will be those campuses on the quarter system. (4) The Senate is working on a reporting requirement regarding education for teachers that is part of a national bill. (5) The Senate is urging the Chancellor and the Union to meet outside of bargaining to promote better communication. (6) There is much concern regarding the implementation of CMS and the increase in cost. The plan is to go online with the experimental campuses this spring. (7) Executive orders regarding the assignment of grades will be reviewed at the upcoming meeting. Senators were asked to contact Senator Snyder with any concerns, ideas, thoughts, etc. on this issue. (8) The Master Plan report has been sent to the local campuses for comment and is available on line. It is an attempt to discuss the status of the system in relationship to the UC and the community colleges and what the future holds. Anyone interested may review the document in the senate office and provide Senators Snyder or Thobaben with comment.
Educational Policies - There is a resolution on today's agenda regarding the continuous enrollment policy for graduate students. The Committee has completed its review of the service learning course designation policy and the new degree policy which will be forwarded to the Senate Executive Committee. The Committee will begin discussing the graduate degree program review and the policy for the use of instructional media services. A service learning conference is scheduled for February 16-18.
Faculty Affairs - The Committee has been working on the policy for processing complaints of misconduct including unlawful discrimination and hopes to have it on the agenda at the next senate meeting. The Committee also discussed today's agenda item no. 6, Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) Transfer. Several items will be reviewed soon: the counselors' personnel document; lecturer appointment policies and procedures; a document from Indiana University which outlines a method for evaluating service; a new edition of the campus policy on externally funded grants and contracts; and practices in three different colleges regarding the placement of lecturers on the salary range.
General Faculty Association - Senators were reminded of the upcoming February 7 brown bag luncheon presentations by Professors Eugene Novotney and Michael Eldridge. General Faculty President Larson announced that there are sufficient candidates for the HSU Foundation Board of Directors in the upcoming election; however, candidates are needed for the General Faculty President position, for the Professional Leave Committee and for the University Faculty Personnel Committee.
There are plans to present a faculty leadership workshop this term whereby those who are in faculty leadership positions will invite other people to join them in a discussion about faculty governance. It is hoped that more individuals will become active in faculty governance.
Associated Students - The new student representatives were introduced: Michael Bezanson will be Elexis Mayer's proxy for this term; Kymber Mayberry will be Lindsay Ogden-Herrera's proxy for this term; and Fiona Wilson is a new student representative. At yesterday's Associated Students' meeting, adjustments to the administrative code, the personnel code, and the elections code were discussed. The resolution regarding the location of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Building has been tabled; a new resolution will be presented at the next meeting. Discussion of the renovation that will be happening with the UC Center is underway. An AS/CSSA forum is scheduled for next week to discuss the many unresolved issues.
Senate Finance - In the Office of Academic Affairs, discussion occurred on the budget allocations for the academic units. The preliminary budget numbers probably will not be available until the end of March. Senators were reminded that Humboldt has been requested to lower its FTES target by 75 for next year, which has created additional considerations. At URPBC, Bill Cannon's request to purchase a new server was discussed. Apparently the demand on the servers has increased tremendously and many new problems have occurred. The $1.1 million in unallocated funds has dropped to $400,000 in unallocated funds. Proposals from the different areas will be submitted soon for such unallocated funds. There is some confusion surrounding the drop in the amount of unallocated funds; however, some possible reasons include (1) the additional energy costs expected for this university have been estimated at $300,000; (2) the amount needed for PERS was approximately $300,000 more than the amount budgeted; and (3) perhaps the remaining reduction is attributable to the cost of the new server. If there is to be a call for proposals, URPBC affirms that some of the proposals from the different areas will have to be funded. There are still many uncertainties regarding demands on unallocated funds.
[A short summary of Humboldt's recent expenditure patterns separated by major categories would be very helpful.]
[Regarding the role of URPBC, does the committee make budget decisions or is the Committee told what to do and the decision is made by others?]
[URPBC 's mission is to look at the general fund budget, and historically, this has included lottery money. The campus budget officer brings to URPBC general fund budget spreadsheets showing the proposed allocation to the different administrative areas. The division of that money to the different areas has been calculated before URPBC sees it and the methodology for such calculation is outlined in a 1998 policy document. The figures seen by URPBC are contained in broad categories; no figures at the college level are seen. The numbers are generated by basing the current year's budget on the previous year's budget according to what was earned by certain individuals on a specific date, called the snapshot date. What is not known is where, if ever, any discussions occur regarding any possible redistribution of resources, rather than relying on historical practice to determine the distribution. In addition, the methodology does not produce expected results. For example, in Fall 2000 the campus received an increase in its budget; yet, by the time the colleges received their allocation, at least one college was told it was in deficit. When questioned, the Budget Officer was not aware of such deficiencies so there appears to be a definite lack of communication.]
Discussion Item: Realignment of Humboldt State University Foundation [Richard Vrem, Dean for Undergraduate Studies and President of the HSU Foundation Board of Directors]
Chair Cheyne announced that since discussion of this agenda item is approximately 15 minutes later than designated, the next agenda item will be moved to a 5:15 time certain.
Richard Vrem, Dean for Undergraduate Studies and President of Humboldt State University Foundation Board of Directors, announced that the Foundation is an 18-member Board which includes faculty, students, administrators and community representatives. Jim Hamby, long-time director of HSU Foundation, retired last spring which meant that a search for the position of executive director of the HSU Foundation needed to be conducted . The search was not successful, and in December the Board requested that the previous search committee review the search process and make recommendations for any changes needed. At a meeting in January the Board agreed to these recommended changes, with minor modifications. The vacancy announcement used in the first search contained a sentence referring to a liaison between the executive director of the Foundation and the Vice President for Development and Administrative Services which may have caused confusion regarding the role of the executive director. The primary function of the HSU Foundation has been to administer grants and contracts and to work with individuals who have been awarded grants and contracts. A major suggestion made by the search committee was to change the liaison from the Vice President for Development and Administrative Services to the Dean for Research & Graduate Studies. Reasons for this suggestion include (1) to refocus the attention on grants and contracts, which is the primary function of the Board; and 2) hopefully, to remove some of the confusion surrounding fundraising activities. It is hoped that this will allow for more of a connection between the Foundation and the academic side of the university. It also was suggested that the search be completed by the end of this term and that the candidates be brought to campus while members of the university community are present. The President has written a letter to the campus community reporting this change in liaison between the Foundation and the University. There has been no change to the Foundation bylaws.
A copy of the vacancy announcement for the Executive Director of the Foundation Board was distributed.
Discussion included:
1) The language regarding the liaison change is ambiguous and means that the individual serves at the pleasure of the President. Historically, the position of the general manager, now executive director, has been a state reimbursed position. This individual is employed in a state position as a management personnel plan (MPP) employee and administrator of Humboldt State University who reports to the Foundation Board of Directors, and also serves at the pleasure of the President. The Foundation gave the state the money to cover that position. There is nothing in the Foundation bylaws that outlines this arrangement; the bylaws state that the general manger/executive director reports to the Board of Directors. Now the reporting line has been changed from Don Christensen to Donna Schafer. This change was approved by the University Executive Committee before it was proposed to the Foundation Board of Directors. In addition, the possibility exists that another change will occur which involves splitting off the development part of the Foundation and forming a new Foundation with a new Board of Directors that will report through the Development and Administrative Services office. The predominate work of the Foundation has been grants and contracts. However, last year the fund raising activity was almost of the same magnitude as grants and contracts: both were close to $10 million. These are not minor changes; they are major reorganizations that deserve discussion with the faculty.
[These changes were discussed at the Foundation Board and there are faculty representatives on the Board. The HSU Foundation is an auxiliary organization of the University. The Board oversees the Foundation.]
2) The advantage of having the executive director be an MPP employee who reports to the Board but serves at the pleasure of the President, is that it makes recruitment for this position easier.
3) The Foundation does not receive state funding.
4) The recommended change in liaison does not affect the auxiliary nature of the Foundation; nor is there a change in the funding.
5) There is no conflict of interest with the Foundation administering both grants and contracts as well as gifts.
6) The benefits package is one of the recruiting advantages in having this position be a state position. The disadvantage may be a dual reporting function; the Board has overall responsibility for the director but there also is a liaison function with the university as an MPP employee.
7) If there were a reorganization which resulted in the formation of a new foundation that would not have faculty or student representation, would there be broad discussion regarding this change and not have it be just a discussion item on the Board's agenda?
[Such a change would require a revision of the Foundation's bylaws. Part of the difficulty is that with the auxiliary organizations, there is not a direct connection with the Academic Senate or the University so there is no requirement that such an organization would have to come before the Academic Senate or any similar body. The Board would have to decide how it wants to proceed and would be responsible for any changes in the bylaws. The Board is not required to accept an administrative decision.]
[Disagreement with the last statement was voiced and the comment was made that it was believed that such a decision would be made by the University Executive Committee. The university policy stating that money managed by clubs and university organizations will be managed by the HSU Foundation would need to be changed since there would be two different places to manage funds. And not much of a change would be required in the HSU Foundation bylaws, if any.]
8) Is there a possibility that the Foundation will split?
[Dr. Vrem stated this was a possibility since it has been discussed; however, he had no idea of when it may happen. One reason for such a split would be to enhance the Advancement side and get a Board that would be an activist Board in terms of recruitment and solicitation of funds. The current Board is not designed for this purpose.]
9) How is it determined if a position will be an MPP position or an auxiliary position?
[The Board has decided that it would like the director to be a university employee.]
Chair Cheyne thanked Richard Vrem for his report and his willingness to answer questions.
Discussion Item: Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) Transfer
Chair Cheyne apologized for the delay in starting the 5 p.m. time certain item. There are two items included in the agenda packet. The first is a letter from Ron Fritzsche, Special Assistant to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, to Mimi Mace, Chair, University Faculty Personnel Committee, dated January 25, which relates to an interpretation of the CBA regarding the custodianship of the Working Personnel Action Files and their location, and requests that such files be physically relocated to the Office of Academic Affairs after the UFPC has completed its recommendations. The second item is a memo dated January 30 from Susan Bicknell, Acting Chair of the Academic Senate, to Vice President Stokes, which offers an historical perspective regarding the custodianship and location of the WPAFs during the RTP process and includes discussion of issues related to the CBA and Appendix J. The matter has been brought to the Senate for its advice.
Discussion included the following:
1. One of the difficulties is the unilateral decision by the Office of Academic Affairs that this is a violation of the CBA. Normally a decision regarding a policy's compliance with the CBA is a matter of negotiation. The Union has not questioned that the arrangement the University Faculty Personnel Committee has with the President and/or his designee to read files in the UFPC Conference Room satisfies the requirement of forwarding the files. It was unusual that the Vice President for Academic Affairs and/or her designee did not contact the Union to discuss this matter. This is not viewed by the Senate Executive Committee as a violation of the CBA.
2. Members of the UFPC introduced themselves: Mimi Mace, Chair; Kay LaBahn, Phyllis Chinn, Jack Turner, and last year's chair, Ben Allen. Another issue of unilateral action taking place without consultation with the senate and not following a process is the Vice President retrieving letters from the department chairs, the IUPCs, the college committees, and the deans as soon as the letters are completed. There is no problem in the Vice President having copies of the letters; the problem includes the lack of following procedure and the lack of senate involvement in the procedure. The UFPC is asking the Senate to review this situation and amend the policy if necessary so that everyone involved knows the procedure and is able to follow the guidelines. Concern was expressed regarding the overriding of the current policy.
3. Variations of this issue have arisen in the past. At one time the request was made to make photocopies of each file and those photocopies were for a dean (who is no longer on campus) and one time for a vice president (who is no longer on campus) and most recently for the current vice president. The UFPC responded that this is not appropriate because there is supposed to be one file. The CBA could be interpreted just as easily to be consistent with Appendix J.
4. When the Vice President requested that copies of evaluation letters from the personnel committees and the administrators be forwarded to her, this was discussed with Ron Fritzsche at a Labor Management Council meeting. It was pointed out at this meeting that there is nothing in the contract prohibiting the materials going to the Vice President for Academic Affairs prior to her reviewing them, but the decision according to the contract and Appendix J requires an evaluation of the entire file. The concern behind this practice of sending the letters early is the possibility there may be some prejudice on the part of the vice president. This concern could not be established; however, it seems likely that in a faculty status grievance this issue would be raised if recommendations were made without having access to the file in its entirety. In such cases, it would be very difficult for the Vice President to prove that she was not affected by such satellite files. The concern was that any faculty person in the process may be dealt with unfairly. It appears as though the Vice President responded to the concerns voiced regarding early submission of evaluation letters by asking for the entire file. The difficulty is that on one hand there is the issue of possible prejudice with partial files and now the subject is custodianship. There is a long-standing policy on this campus that the appropriate administrator reads the files where they have been protected for the period of review. The three areas where such files are housed, as provided for in Appendix J, include the IUPC, the college committee and the deans' office, and the UFPC. For years this system has worked.
5. In essence, the files are forwarded twice on this campus. The IUPC and the department chair review the files at the same physical location; the college committee and the dean review the files at the same physical location; and, as has been the practice, the UFPC and the President or designee review the files in the same physical location. This practice has provided for the security and integrity of the personnel files. Personnel files for staff and administrators may not be removed from Human Resources. It is good and fair personnel practice to maintain the integrity of the files. There are many details that have not been considered. For example, the first set of files has been moved from the UFPC location and is locked in a cupboard in the Vice President's office. This may create a problem for access to the files. Wear and tear on the files is another matter. If this practice is done for the Vice President, will it need to be done for the deans as well? Will the files need to go to the President's office after they leave the Vice President's office?
6. The first set of files has been moved already. There was no response from the Vice President to the Acting Senate Chair regarding the senate's desire to discuss this issue at today's meeting.
7. From a standpoint of consultation and shared governance, this is appalling.
8. The communication regarding the transfer of files came from the Vice President's office to the Senate office. There was little turnaround time from when the phone call was received in the senate office to 4 p.m. that afternoon, when the files would be picked up.
9. If the only reason for this change in policy is that it may not comply with the CBA, and if the Union has no argument with the current system, then this reason is not valid. It appears as though we have had a system that works reasonably well, where there is a secure room that allows people access to the files. Unless there is some overriding reason not to continue the long-standing practice, it should remain in effect.
10. Senators were reminded that many years ago the President made a unilateral decision regarding Appendix J which came very close to getting the President censured. There is no reason that we need to go through this sort of trauma again. Let's discuss this issue and work out a reasonable approach.
11. Concern was expressed over the lack of control regarding the files if the files are taken to the Vice President's office and then, possibly, to the President's Office, and then returned to the UFPC to remain sealed there for 21 days as outlined in Appendix J. There is no way for the UFPC members to assure that the contents of the files have remained unchanged from the time they left the UFPC room.
12. A reasonable person may interpret the language of Appendix J to mean that the forwarding of files from UFPC to the President or his designee is to be accomplished in the same manner as when the files are forwarded from the IUPC to the college or from the college to the UFPC.
13. There appear to be two fundamental occurrences: one is an interpretation of Appendix J which can be interpreted in more than one way; another is the process that has taken place whereby a unilateral action of the Vice President moves the files. The primary issue is one of collegiality.
14. Surprise that the files have been returned already was expressed since the memo implies that once the files are taken from the UFPC, then the Vice President is the custodian of them.
15. This is an issue of shared governance. The faculty have been responsible for developing a policy on retention, tenure and promotion. That policy is reflected in Appendix J and the responsibility of amending Appendix J has resided with the senate and the general faculty at large. This would need to be changed. The proper action would be to engage in the process of suggesting a proposed change for the following reasons. This did not happen. This is seen as a serious failure, again, as has happened on other occasions whereby faculty are not able to participate in the decision making process at this university. There was no invitation to participate in a dialogue to accomplish such a change; there was a only a directive informing the faculty what would happen.
It was moved and seconded (Bicknell/Thobaben) to place on the floor a resolution discussed by the Faculty Affairs Committee.
Resolution Regarding Forwarding Files (#08-00/01-FA/FLR)
WHEREAS, The security for faculty personnel action files is the joint responsibility of faculty, staff, and administrators; and
WHEREAS, Personnel file security and integrity are essential to assure fair evaluations and fair employment practices; and
WHEREAS, Appendix J and our long-standing practices are consistent with the Collective Bargaining Agreement regarding the forwarding of files; and
WHEREAS, It is a long-standing practice that administrators at all three levels read the files in the same secure locations that the peer review committees read them; and
WHEREAS, This long-standing practice has provided a high level of security for the Working Personnel Action Files (WPAFs), and has maintained their integrity; and
WHEREAS, The Senate Executive Committee requested in writing that the Vice President for Academic Affairs allow us the opportunity to discuss the "forwarding" of WPAFs for the purpose of her review; therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University objects to the movement of the personnel files from the office of the University Faculty Personnel Committee to the office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University request that the Vice President for Academic Affairs follow the long-established policies and procedures for handling personnel files unless and until any changes have been carefully considered by those faculty, staff, and administrators who are jointly responsible for the integrity of the files; and if she does not voluntarily comply, be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommend that the President direct the Vice President for Academic Affairs to follow the long-established policies and procedures for handling personnel files unless and until any changes have been carefully considered by those faculty, staff, and administrators who are jointly responsible for the integrity of the files.
The resolution asks that the Vice President return to following the long-established policies and procedures for handling personnel files unless and until any changes have been considered and adopted. If the Vice President does not comply with this wish, the final resolve clause asks the President to direct her to do so.
Through friendly amendment, the resolution was revised by amending the
last two Resolve clauses to read, " . . . unless and until any
changes, if any, have been carefully considered by those faculty,
staff and administrators who are jointly responsible for the integrity
of the files through shared governance procedures . . . "
Voting on the resolution occurred and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The revised resolution reads:
WHEREAS, The security for faculty personnel action files is the joint responsibility of faculty, staff, and administrators; and
WHEREAS, Personnel file security and integrity are essential to assure fair evaluations and fair employment practices; and
WHEREAS, Appendix J and our long-standing practices are consistent with the Collective Bargaining Agreement regarding the forwarding of files; and
WHEREAS, It is a long-standing practice that administrators at all three levels read the files in the same secure locations that the peer review committees read them; and
WHEREAS, This long-standing practice has provided a high level of security for the Working Personnel Action Files (WPAFs), and has maintained their integrity; and
WHEREAS, The Senate Executive Committee requested in writing that the Vice President for Academic Affairs allow us the opportunity to discuss the "forwarding" of WPAFs for the purpose of her review; therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University objects to the movement of the personnel files from the office of the University Faculty Personnel Committee to the office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University request that the Vice President for Academic Affairs follow the long-established policies and procedures for handling personnel files unless and until changes, if any, have been carefully considered by those faculty, staff, and administrators who are jointly responsible for the integrity of the files through shared governance procedures; and if she does not voluntarily comply, be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommend that the President direct the Vice President for Academic Affairs to follow the long-established policies and procedures for handling personnel files unless and until changes, if any, have been carefully considered by those faculty, staff, and administrators who are jointly responsible for the integrity of the files through shared governance procedures.
It was moved and seconded (Thobaben/Larson) to make this an emergency item for immediate forwarding to the President. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. Committee Reports (continued)
Senate Finance Report (continued) - It was suggested that a request be made to the OAA Budget Committee to learn more of the budget details.
CFA - Senators were asked to encourage their colleagues to 1) complete and submit the survey; and 2) consider attending a northern California bargaining meeting, which will be held in Sacramento on the 17th to express any ideas on what issues should be pursued in the upcoming negotiation. If anyone wishes to attend the meeting, contact CFA Chapter President Travis and he will assist with getting that person a position on the agenda.
University Curriculum Committee - The written report was read by Chair Cheyne.
UCC subcommittees are working on recommendations for short-term restructuring of GE, for consensus on the structure of LSEE oversight, for a policy on Distance Learning, for a policy on integrating information competency into the curriculum and other issues.
The UCC is waiting for additional campus comment on proposed Learning Outcomes and Assessment for GE (comment period ends 28 February; see http://www.humboldt.edu/~ugst/ucc/GELearningOutcomes.html for the proposals).
The UCC is considering a proposed revision in the departmental guidelines for program review. The hope is to modify the existing guidelines to make them clearer and more useful. While there is no intended change to policy, such revisions, if approved at the UCC level, will then be brought to the Senate.
The UCC is considering the frequency with which GE courses should be evaluated. Requests for information about current practice as well as suggestions for possibly improving current practice are now out to the college curriculum committees.
The UCC Diversity and Common Ground subcommittee has received no proposals for recertification of DCG courses. (Recertification period is three years beginning Fall 2000).
It was moved and seconded (Thobaben/Snyder) to adjourn the meeting.
Meeting adjourned 5:50 p.m.