Program Review: Geosciences 2009 Facilities and Position Request Update
Questions/Data Elements for Institutional Program Review:
Name of Academic Discipline: Geosciences (Geography, Geology, Environmental Science,
Geographic Information Systems)
Date: September 25, 2009
Name of Person Preparing Program Review Document: Steve Palladino and Luke Hall
6. Describe the major trends you expect to impact your program in the next five years. Based
on these trends, what will your program need to do to maintain currency/relevance or an
optimal level of instructional quality?
Space needs for the GIS Program: The present location of the Geographic Information
System (GIS) lab was a temporary solution more than 10 years ago when part of an
existing classroom (Sci-113) was converted over to accommodate twenty computer
stations, leaving the remainder of the room with a limited 30 regular seats for smaller
sized classes. The department’s goal was always to move the GIS lab and GIS
instruction to a dedicated facility and return the converted classroom to full use
giving us a second large lecture classroom that could accommodate 45+ students.
This change would provide our department with two full-sized classrooms (Sci-113
and Sci-119) for our large geography lecture/lab program which offers a combined 20
sections each semester. Currently, we are near full utilization of Sci-113 and Sci-119
during mornings, midday, and evenings. At the same time we also occupy the lecture
hall in Sci-116 for many of our geography lecture sections during most of those same
time slots. We find we often have a scheduling need for a fourth classroom for our
core Geography/Geology classes, which severely hinders scheduling. Our GIS
program has been limited to the evenings due to this space limitation.
Overall Geosciences Space Needs: Enrollment and class offerings have grown nearly
three-fold since our predecessors designed and planned our existing two dedicated
classrooms. Since that time, we have added the GIS program, the ESRM program,
taken over some agriculture courses and our basic geography program has grown
from a total of four or five offerings to twenty plus. We have very simply, outgrown
our facilities in recent years due to growth.
Proposal To Occupy Soon-to-be-Vacant Facilities: With the upcoming move of the
computer-aided design (CAD) and drafting programs to the new Advanced
Technology Center (ATC) building on the north side of campus, our department is
planning to occupy some of the space vacated by those programs as part of a
secondary effects phase of that project. This available space is adjacent to our
current work area. One of these rooms (Sci-106) is already set up for computers
which long ago we identified as working very well for our GIS instruction and the
adjacent small workroom (Sci-105) would be perfect for a GIS projects room
(including storage and large format printing).
During the Facilities Master Planning done a number of years ago, new GIS program
facilities were a prominent part of the ATC building project. When the overall size/cost
of the ATC appeared to be ballooning beyond available funds, the GIS program
1
director, Steve Palladino, volunteered to pull the GIS program out of that building with
the understanding that, instead of the new building, Sci-105 and 106 would be
allocated to the GIS program upon CAD/drafting vacating that space. The expectation
has not changed since that tacit agreement was made years ago in FOG.
In the intervening years since that agreement, the Multimedia program that might have
occupied the rest of the current CAD/Drafting space has ceased to exist and a new
program, Environmental Science and Resource Management (ESRM), is growing, but
without a home. We have noted that Sci-107 would make an excellent ESRM home
base due to its proximity and versatility (it has a sink, work counters, and extensive
storage space for ESRM labs and adequate space for large lectures). Since ESRM is
part of Geosciences and also involves the Biology department, its location in the
Sciences building is an advantage. We would like to suggest Sci-107 be considered
for this function.
If not needed for other programs, the remaining rooms CAD/Drafting will vacate (Sci108 and 109) might also be adapted to handle overflow from our area. Sci-109 also
has a sink, counters and storage providing the option of doing Geosciences/ESRM
labs. There has been discussion of Sci-108, due to its original design as a secure,
climate controlled technology repository, serving as the home for specialized
equipment such as the STEM grant-purchased Scanning Electron Microscope and
other expensive and sensitive equipment. The Physics/Engineering program, which is
also nearby, may also find periodic use of these rooms helpful for overflow needs.
Thus our priorities are: (1) outfit and occupy Sci-106 and Sci-105 for the GIS Program
as per the Master Planning agreement, (2) investigate the possibility of Sci-107
serving as a home for ESRM classes and materials, and (3) evaluate the potential uses
of Sci-108 and Sci-109 with the possibility of Geosciences/ESRM making some use of
those spaces. Any modifications to these spaces from the unique configurations
established by CAD/Drafting to future uses should be covered as Secondary Effects
from the ATC/GPC. This has been brought up before with the Heery construction
mangement staff. Steve Palladino will work on this topic as part of his participation as
an active FOG member. It is likely that the modifications will be minor, but fuller
evaluation of the programs/classes occupying those spaces will determine the needs.
The possibility of these rooms being converted to the above mentioned uses has
been discussed with our dean as we toured the space with him and the department
chair from Physics. While the allocation of some of the space for GIS has been
established for years, we want to use this program review as an opportunity to
communicate this plan and the other possible uses of this space early enough in the
campus planning process to facilitate a smooth transition for these spaces at
completion of the ATC building.
7. Requests for Faculty
Please submit the requested information if you are requesting additional (growth) faculty
members in your area, requesting an replacement for a current or anticipated vacancy due to
retirement or resignation, or anticipating the need for a categorically-funded grant faculty
2
position to be picked up by the general fund at the end of the grant. List your requests in
priority order and for each provide:

A function statement that describes the major responsibility of the position requested and
(where relevant) how the position relates to the college-wide planning priorities:
Growth, New Programs and New Responsibilities: Over the past 15 years, the
Geosciences Department offerings and enrollments have grown dramatically. This
change has been precipitated by the introduction of very successful physical
geography labs (and the resulting increase in lecture sections), the creation of a GIS
program, and the creation and oversight of a new Environmental Science (ESRM)
program. In addition, one of our instructors (Budke) teaches two Geosciences-related
courses in the Agriculture area (Conservation of Natural Resources and Soil & Water
Science).
Staffing Changes: In that same time period our staffing, rather than growing to match
program growth, actually shrank from 3 full-time faculty members to just one (Luke
Hall). After a couple years at that level, Steve Palladino was hired and six years later
Bill Budke came on board, returning our department to 3 full-time instructors. These
staffing changes do not address the large increase in course offerings or the adding
of additional programs that have occurred in recent years.
Geology Program: Since 1994 with the retirement of Bill Ramelli the Geosciences
Department has been without a full-time geologist. A review of the table (below)
showing FTEF will support this contention. [Note: On the table, the drop in FTEF for
Spring 2006 is due to a sabbatical leave during which Geology offerings were
reduced and staff were used to cover Geography sections for that semester. Our
departmental FTEF total for the past 5 or so years has adjusted slightly up and down,
but has remained solidly in the 5.1 to 5.8 range. If the new ESRM course and the 2 AG
courses related to Geosciences taught by Budke are included our average will
consistently be well over 6 FTEF, especially if we recover the courses we gave up this
year due to budgetary constraints.]
New Proposed Hire: One of our full-time instructors (Hall) is qualified to teach
geology, but has his emphasis, degrees and teaching assignments largely in
geography. This program has been staffed almost completely by hourly instructors
for 15-plus years. The geology portion of our department has been ongoing and
consistent in its enrollment for many years, but would benefit from a full-time
instructor to ‘grow’ the program. In addition to the ‘bread-and-butter’ geology classes
(GEOL V02, GEOL V02L and GEOL V11), several other key classes in geology have
been cut from this area in recent years (due to budget decisions) and need to be
offered again including Historical Geology (GEOL V03), Geology of National Parks
(GEOL V07) and Natural Disasters GEOL V21). With a dedicated position in Geology,
we could also reinstate our field studies activities.
Additionally, a new hire in geology would probably have the academic preparation to
teach several of the basic geography labs where the need for instructors is also great
or may have background in GIS or Environmental Science and could help us in those
areas. We would like to advertise a position that would leave the door open to hiring a
Geosciences generalist who could help with ESRM, GIS, and/or Geography. If the
3
best candidate is not a Geologist, we could have Professor Hall focus on Geology
while the new hire could help with the other areas. We also have to keep in mind that
Professor Hall is nearing the end of his career and could retire in the next half decade
or so. Over the past several years our geology position has been rated as one of the
top positions for hiring by the Staffing Priorities Committee.

The following data (transferring the information from the Program Planning Data Report
that has been provided):
Semester
Hourly FTEF
Full-Time
FTEF
Total FTEF
Spring
2005
Fall 2005
GEOG = 2.400
GEOL = 1.050
GEOG = 2.650
GEOL = 0.850
GEOG = 3.083
GEOL = 0.950
GEOG = 1.900
GEOL = 0.500
GEOG = 1.950
GEOL = 0.900
GEOG = 3.050
GEOL = 0.700
ESRM = 0.000
GEOG = 2.500
GEOL = 1.050
ESRM = 0.200
GEOG = 2.500
GEOL = 0.850
ESRM = 0.000
GEOG = 2.250
GEOL = 1.050
ESRM = 0.000
GEOG = 1.683
GEOL = 0.000
GEOG = 1.683
GEOL = 0.400
GEOG = 0.950
GEOL = 0.000
GEOG = 2.283
GEOL = 0.600
GEOG = 2.283
GEOL = 0.200
GEOG = 1.533
GEOL = 0.400
ESRM = 0.200
GEOG = 1.733
GEOL = 0.200
ESRM = 0.000
GEOG = 1.533
GEOL = 0.400
ESRM = 0.200
GEOG = 2.083
GEOL = 0.200
ESRM = 0.200
GEOG = 4.083
GEOL = 1.050
GEOG = 4.333
GEOL = 1.250
GEOG = 4.033
GEOL = 0.950
GEOG = 4.183
GEOL = 1.100
GEOG = 4.233
GEOL = 1.100
GEOG = 4.583
GEOL = 1.100
ESRM = 0.200
GEOG = 4.233
GEOL = 1.250
ESRM = 0.200
GEOG = 4.033
GEOL = 1.250
ESRM = 0.200
GEOG = 4.333
GEOL = 1.250
ESRM = 0.200
Spring
2006
Fall 2006
Spring
2007
Fall 2007
Spring
2008
Fall 2008
Spring
2009
Dept
Total
FTEF
5.883
5.133
5.783
5.283*
5.333*
5.883*
5.683*
5.483*
5.783*
* NOTE: Does not include teaching of one or two Agriculture classes by our staff (Budke)

A description of the degree of difficulty in finding hourly faculty in this discipline.
Part-time Staffing: Our department normally has from 8 to 12 hourly instructors.
About half of our instructors have been teaching the previous maximum hourly load
of three classes (9.0 units) for the last decade. Some of our instructors have been
moved to the new maximum (10 units) of four classes including lectures and labs.
Four of our very long time instructors, several with 20 to 30 years teaching at VC,
have moved on, retired or died in the last few years. Two present instructors have
4
about 10 years teaching with us, while the rest will stay a few semesters before either
finding a new job elsewhere and/or finishing their advanced degrees at UCSB. In the
past few years we have had to replace the several long-time teachers whose
combined teaching assignment had been well in excess of one full-time equivalent
load. Finding instructors was easier in past years when the ‘oil patch’ and the
groundwater remediation professions were booming in Ventura County. Recently
however, the task has become more difficult and nearly all the new hires were
selected from a scant few individuals who our existing staff members had
encountered through the department’s various community and professional
connections. Now, rarely does a file arrive in the Human Resources office with a fully
qualified applicant ready for hourly teaching in our area.
It should also be noted that during the years of data (shown above) four elements
have combined to reduce the ‘Full-Time FTEF’ column numbers recorded in the table:
(1) two full-time instructors (Hall and Palladino) took sabbatical leaves which required
modifications to the schedule resulting in reduced offerings in either Geology or
Geography, (2) grant work has resulted in full-time faculty having from 20% to 50%
release time for any given semester, (3) one instructor (Hall or Palladino) received a
20% release for department head duties each Spring semester and (4) one instructor
(Hall) served on the Academic Senate Executive Committee for the first part of this
period receiving a 20% release each semester for those duties. The most recent
major grant will allow one full-time instructor (Budke) significant release time for the
next two years to fulfill grant requirements. It is likely that grants will continue to be a
part of our department’s activities.

An assessment of the consequences/repercussions if the position is not approved.
Include a discussion special licensing or accreditation considerations and any other
information the committee needs to know in considering this request.
There are no licensing or accreditation effects of not hiring a geology position, but it
is sad that at one time there were two full-time geologists on staff and now there are
none. It is difficult to compete academically with other colleges and/or strengthen the
geology side of the department if it does not have a full-time overseer to tend to its
stability and future growth. Field trips which were a normal part of the geology
experience at VC for decades have vanished for the lack of attention and staffing. Our
extensive rock collection is in a state of disarray and really needs a specialist to bring
it back to where it is a highly effective pedagogic too. At the current staffing level, all
department staff are extremely busy maintaining the large geography program,
building the GIS program and creating the Environmental Science program and thus
Geology often gets overlooked.
5