HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY
Academic Senate Minutes
07/08:08
01/29/08
Chair Larson called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. on Tuesday, January 29, 2008,
Nelson Hall East, Room 102, Goodwin Forum.
Members Present: Arizzi, Bliven, Butler, Cannon, Chapin, Dunk, Gleason, Goodman,
Harrington, Holschuh, Larson, MacConnie, Marshall, Meiggs, Mola, Mortazavi, Moore,
Moyer, Powell, Rentz, Richmond, Riordan, Robo, Sanford, Schwetman, Shellhase,
Snyder, Thobaben, Van Duzer, Ward, Zoellner, Yarnall.
Members Absent: Coffey, Gunsalus, Haag.
Proxies: Holschuh for Bolick-Floss, Thobaben for Fulgham, MacConnie for Cheyne,
Feliz for Sanford.
Guests: Susan Higgins, Colleen Mullery, Randi Darnall-Burke, Steve Smith, Scott
Paynton, Claire Knox.
Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of December 4, 2007
M/S/P (Riordan/Mortazavi) to approve the minutes from the meeting of December 4,
2007, as corrected.
Reports, Announcements, and Communications of the Chair
[See page 2 of the Agenda for a written report]
Chair Larson clarified that Senate meetings are scheduled until 6 pm and that,
according to the Senate’s bylaws, no new agenda items are to be introduced after 5:30
pm. The Senate will continue holding the open forum at 5:45 pm.
Proxies were announced.
New members of the Senate were introduced: Amy Moore is replacing Eric Syverson
and Monty Mola is replacing C.D. Hoyle. Claire Knox, newly elected Senate
representative for 2008/2009, from the College of Professional Studies, will be attending
meetings as a guest.
The Senate office will be closed January 30 – February 6.
The Senate Executive Committee is invited to a WASC meeting on Friday, February 8,
from 11:15-12:00 in BSS forum. Since a number of committee members are unable to
attend, Chair Larson invited other senators to attend.
Dr. Glen Toney, a relatively new member of the CSU Board of Trustees, will be on
campus Feb. 6-7. There will be an open meeting on Thursday, February 7, at 2 pm.
Information will be forwarded and senators were encouraged to take the opportunity
meet with Dr. Toney.
HSU Academic Senate Minutes
January 29, 2008
2
Reports of Standing Committees, Statewide Senators, and Ex-officio members
[See page 2 of the Agenda for written reports]
Educational Policies Committee (Chair Moyer): Senator Moyer noted that due to the fire
in the music building she has limited access to her office and computer; senators may
still send in comments on the ATI resolution, but were asked to consider the
circumstances.
Chair Larson reported that one faculty volunteer is needed to attend the CSU meeting
on General Education at the Chancellor’s Office. Eric Van Duzer agreed to be the
delegate and will report back.
General Faculty (President Powell): Nominees for the University Faculty Personnel
Committee are needed soon and senators were asked for their help with finding people.
Faculty need to keep paying their dues; another reminder will be sent out.
1. TIME CERTAIN: 4:10 P.M. Resolution on Changes to Appendix J, Section
V.E.2. Related to the organization of the Working Personnel Action File
(WPAF) (#07-07/08-FA)
M/S (MacConnie/Mortazavi) to place the resolution on the floor.
Resolution on Changes to Appendix J Section V.E.2 Related to the Organization of the
Working Personnel Action File (WPAF)
#07-07/08-FA – January 29, 2008
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommend that Section
V.E.2 of Appendix J be revised as follows:
2. Materials shall be in one or more three ring binders with 9 tabbed sections. Material in
each section shall be in reverse chronological order, most recent material first.
a)
Section 1 - Index of materials submitted for evaluation. 15.9
b)
Section 2 - Pertinent documents concerning original appointment, subsequent
retention, tenure and promotion; evaluations of leaves intended to count as time in
academic rank; and clarification of the terminal degree status if not readily
apparent. Tenured faculty need not include data from before their last promotion.
c)
Section 3 - Initiating unit and college personnel policies and procedures, and
Department/Unit RTP Criteria and Standards.
d)
Section 4 - Personnel Data Sheet (PDS) and Professional Development Plan
(PDP).
e)
Section 5 - Evaluation materials provided by evaluating committees and
administrators rather than the candidate. 15.12a
f)
Section 6 – Evaluative letters that address areas of performance from faculty and
professional colleagues (on and off campus), administrators, staff, and other
relevant individuals (non-students).
HSU Academic Senate Minutes
January 29, 2008
g)
Section 7 - Evidence of teaching effectiveness/librarianship/counseling
effectiveness (in addition to collegial letters).
(1)
(2)
(3)
h)
3
Student letters, identified by name. 15.16b
Student evaluation data collected as part of the classroom student
evaluation process. 15.16a.
Any other relevant evidence.
Section 8 – Non-evaluative evidence of scholarly/creative activities. .
i) Section 9 – Non-evaluative evidence of service.
RATIONALE: The recommended changes reflect the revisions to Appendix J that were
approved May 2007, that reduced the non-teaching areas of performance
from three to two. In addition, these recommended changes clarify the types
of evidence that should be included in each section.
Senator MacConnie introduced the resolution from the Faculty Affairs Committee. The
resolution is intended to bring this section of Appendix J in line with the changes that
were made last year, including the number of areas of service. The only other changes
were to add the term “non-evaluative” and to clarify which types letters go into each
section. Also, the new department RTP criteria and standards have been added to
section 3.
There was no discussion. Voting occurred and PASSED with 3 Abstentions.
2. TIME CERTAIN: 4:15 P.M. Approval of HSU Academic Calendar 2008/2009
Interim Provost Snyder introduced the academic calendar, which sets the beginning and
ending dates for each semester, etc. The calendar has been a contentious subject in
the past, so a perpetual calendar was created and approved several years ago. With
the addition of the Veteran’s Day celebration in November, mandated by the State, the
perpetual calendar no longer works, and will have to be re-done. It was noted that the
academic calendar should have been approved last fall. The responsibility for the
calendar and for bringing it to the Senate needs to be clarified.
M/S (Snyder/Zoellner) to approve the HSU Academic Calendar 2008/2009.
Discussion:
Fall semester needs to be carefully considered; spring and summer are not problematic.
HSU Academic Senate Minutes
January 29, 2008
4
There is tension with starting so early that HOP can’t do what it needs to do and
finishing so late that the Registrar’s Office can’t process the students for the next
semester. The draft calendar has the semester beginning and ending a little earlier.
A concern was raised about changing the calendar to ending on Monday and using
Sunday as a grading day. It was noted that this draft of the calendar does this. It was
noted that there is now only one grading day; “Grading Days” should be singular.
Has the Senate received a response from the Registrar as to why grades need to be in
so early? It was not clear why grades have to be in so early.
Another concern was raised was about having more than the forty days in a pay period.
It was noted that this calendar has been vetted by Payroll and the calendar is in
compliance.
What is the difference between evaluation and grading days? They are technical terms
and it is not clear what the exact difference is.
Does the Senate have any flexibility in changing any of these dates or are they already
pre-determined? It is possible to shift this calendar 1-2 days one way or the other; but if
it is changed at this point, it would need to be vetted by a number of people.
It used to be possible to extend the dates at the back end; in the past grades were not
due until after January. For various reasons, that cannot be done now.
It was recommended that the Senate approve the calendar, since it is already overdue.
It would be difficult to implement any changes in the calendar at this point.
The perpetual calendar will come back to the Senate which will allow for more
discussion. An ad hoc calendar committee will be formed in the near future to revise
the perpetual calendar and bring it back to the Senate.
Voting occurred and the motion to approve the HSU Academic Calendar 2008/2009
PASSED Unanimously.
M/S/U to make this an emergency item for immediate transmittal to the President.
3. TIME CERTAIN: 4:30 P.M. Discussion of “Budget Review Recommendations”
(1/22/08) from ad hoc Budget Review Task Force (Scott Paynton, Steve Smith,
co-chairs)
The report is an official response from the ad hoc Budget Review Task Force, which
was formed and charged by Senate resolution #18-06/07-SF. Scott Paynton and Steve
Smith presented the report and summarized the group’s process and recommendations.
In mid-October, the Task Force received its charge to review the University Budget
Process and the University Budget Policy and to report back to the Senate and the
University Executive Committee by the last Senate meeting of Fall semester.
HSU Academic Senate Minutes
January 29, 2008
5
The Task Force reviewed existing documents and interviewed various individuals,
including past and current members of the University Budget Committee (UBC), Senate
Finance chairs, Senate chairs, Vice Presidents, University Budget Analysts, College
Budget Analysts, Deans, the President, and the past Provost. The Task Force report is
an attempt to represent, as accurately as possible, the concerns and suggestions of the
individuals who were interviewed.
Many of the same concerns were consistently raised by those who were interviewed.
The core problem is a lack of trust and lack of transparency in the process, for a number
of reasons. Other concerns included the charge of the UBC as it varies from year to
year, the composition and training of members of UBC, the budget timeline, and the
lack of consistent data. The recommendations focus on ways to establish needed trust.
The charge is tightened up, but not very different from what was established in the
memo from President Richmond last year. It is essential that the UBC is competently
informed of the budget processes and so a training period for all UBC members is
recommended. The UBC should be viewed as an oversight body on campus, to
monitor the budget throughout the year, not just during budget deliberations. The UBC
should provide timely communication to the Senate and to the campus, and make
recommendations to the President. The UBC seems to be better designed to work with
new allocations, as opposed to making decisions on reductions. The UBC should be
involved as a review and consultative body regarding decisions on making budget
reductions.
A recommendation on how the UBC might be constituted is included. The group
discussed many different scenarios, and regards this as one option among several.
The primary concern is to establish an environment of trust. The proposed composition
of the UBC is based on conversations with many individuals. The major change
proposed is that the UBC employ a consensus decision making model rather than a
voting model, and that facilitators be used, rather than chairs. The UBC is a
recommending body, not a decision-making body.
The campus has a well-thought out budget process and timeline that it has not been
following. It would help to follow what is already in place. It is important for the
President, in consultation with other bodies on campus, to establish budget priorities
every year. The priorities should serve as a guide for the UBC.
Almost all who were interviewed emphasized the need for a formalized office of
institution research on campus, and the Task Force supports that recommendation.
There is a tremendous amount of data available from the Office of Analytic Studies and
the Office of Enrollment Management, but the campus lacks someone to coordinate the
data research projects needed. If an office is formed, the campus needs to carefully
define its purpose and responsibilities.
The good news is that there is a good budget policy in place; we just need to follow it
more closely. A central resource for data that publishes an online budget book would
help. Currently data exists, but it is not easily accessible. And finally, each division
should have performance standards or benchmarks in place, so there is a better
understanding of division budgets and more accountability.
HSU Academic Senate Minutes
January 29, 2008
6
Discussion:
Kudos to the work done by ad hoc groups in 2003 on the current budget process and
budget policy.
Did the Task Force look at the composition of other budget committees in the CSU?
The proposed UBC composition has no similarity to the Long Beach model which has
been used on this campus before. In the original composition of the UBC and the
revised composition from last year, the faculty have 50% of the vote. Since that is now
reduced, is the Task Force suggesting that the faculty cannot be trusted?
Absolutely not, and the Task Force expected that this would be a contentious issue for
the Senate. The Senate and the President need to work out a composition for the UBC,
that does not have the vice presidents reporting to themselves and also does not have
faculty representation based on college elections. Rather than specify who would serve
as facilitators of the UBC, the Task Force came up with criteria for choosing those
leaders. The Task Force is not suggesting that the UBC should or shouldn’t have 50%
faculty on it. The Long Beach model is very different from what HSU has implemented;
there is great disparity from the two versions.
The Best Practices document on university budget committees from the Statewide
Senate in 1996 specifically states that the composition or membership of a budget
committee does not impact the effectiveness of the committee as much as the actual
structure of the committee. It doesn’t recommend percentages of representation across
campus. Instead, it recommends structural features, for example, the leadership of the
committee should be at the vice president or provost level, in order to provide staffing
for the committee and access to information. The Task Force tried to get away from the
idea of committee members serving as representatives and focus on all members of the
UBC taking a campus-wide approach. There will be faculty on the UBC who are
connected with the Senate and able to facilitate consistent communication back and
forth.
The Task Force was thanked for submitting the report and most of the
recommendations should result in good changes. The office of institutional research is
of concern and causes worry that this will lead to the creation of another administrative
position.
There will be a cost involved and the campus will need to determine what the role of the
office will be. There are already people on campus who provide some of the services
this office could provide; it may just be a matter of bringing them together somehow.
Concern about the accessibility of the online budget document was expressed. Did the
common concern regarding the lack of a clearly defined charge for the UBC inhibit the
process of making recommendations? It was clarified that the Task Force is separate
from the UBC. It became clear to the Task Force after interviewing people, that over
time the UBC’s charge and purpose has not always been clear. There are background
documents on the Senate web site, including the UBC’s original charge (2003/2004)
HSU Academic Senate Minutes
January 29, 2008
7
and the revised charge from President Richmond (November 2006).
The idea of using a consensus decision making process is applauded; given the task at
hand, it will require some very talented facilitators.
The Task Force discussed various possibilities for the co-facilitators and basically
agreed that the ability to facilitate and lead a group to making recommendations was
more important than having budget experience. A facilitator could even come from
outside.
A consensus model is one where members come to a general agreement through
discussion, rather than voting. The agreement may not be 100%. The committee
would need to establish a working definition for itself.
The section on trust, accountability, and transparency is especially good. Establishing
performance measures will be one of the single most important items to enhance trust.
Concerns were expressed about the UBC’s charge. There doesn’t appear to be anyone
taking a look at the overall allocations or how the committee operates in a status quo
situation. Who reviews how the budget is allocated, against the goals and priorities, etc.
The President’s charge is a little broader. There seems to be a gap there.
The charge can be read differently; the second part of the charge is to monitor the
campus budget. The wording of the recommendation may not be exact enough.
The charge of the UBC may vary from year to year; this recommendation represents a
more generic charge that will serve from year. The charge may be changed or modified
over time.
The spirit of the charge is to monitor the budget, past and current year, and review that
expenditures and reductions are in line with the Strategic Plan, etc. Establishing
baseline budgets is a good idea, but the Task Force didn’t intend that the UBC would do
that; it is too large of a task.
A better process would be for the President to propose budget allocations to the UBC
and have the UBC review, on the basis of data they have, and then make a
recommendation back to the President. To wait until after decisions have been made is
of concern to the faculty. The word “monitoring” is insufficient; the UBC needs to be an
evaluative and recommending body, as opposed to monitoring. The proposed budget
book would have mitigated many of the concerns expressed over the past few years.
Raising the issue of trust and reducing the role of faculty on the committee is
counterintuitive. It would be interesting to know who the Task Force interviewed. It was
agreed that the list of names would be provided.
The timeline would allow for priorities to be set a year in advance to the UBC so it can
make recommendation in regard to allocations.
The UBC needs to have a broader role in terms of the overall budgeting process,
including cuts.
HSU Academic Senate Minutes
January 29, 2008
8
The original charge to the UBC was allocation of the budget to the divisions of the
university. Allocations can be positive or negative.
It seems that it would be easy to incorporate into the charge, under number 2, that the
UBC reports on base budgets and allocations.
Concern was expressed about the link between the committee operating by consensus
and the concerns about lack of trust. People have an overly optimistic view of what
consensus is capable of. Consensus can help with building trust. But it may be better
to have a report based on a vote and then a minority report in which arguments can be
presented to those who will be making the decision. Consensus works well when things
are easy, but not as well when things are difficult. It tends to silence those who are
presenting an outsider’s point of view.
For those who haven’t worked with a consensus process, it can be very difficult. The
end product resulting from a consensus model is much stronger, that what results from
a vote. The consensus model encourages getting all ideas out on the table. Whether
or not everyone agrees with all ideas, at least all are on board. If everyone is not on
board, the effectiveness of the recommendation and/or decision-making is greatly
reduced.
Should the process for allocating new monies be the same as for making cuts? The
reason behind the recommendation was the ongoing conversation about how budgets
for cuts are put together. Budgets are built in the fall and cuts come in the spring. If the
UBC is considering budgets a year in advance this would be alleviated. The UBC
needs to respond ahead of time, not after the fact when budgets are in place. The
current timeline is not working.
If a strategic plan existed that outlined where new monies could go, a campus-wide
program of prioritization would allow reducing money from the bottom as necessary.
In the recommended charge for UBC, number 4 addresses enrollment growth funds.
On many campuses, this is formula driven. On approach would be to develop a plan for
how to distribute this every year. Another approach would be to have the UBC argue
over the distribution of these new funds every year, which doesn’t seem like a very
productive approach. On the budget reduction side, what is the role of the UBC before
the divisions create their plans for reductions? Does the UBC make recommendations
on whether cuts are across the board or targeted? Who decides the strategy before
recommendations for augmentation or reduction are made? What role does the UBC
have in this? Is the UBC going to participate in any university-wide discussion of
strategies?
These are recommendations; the campus needs to decide if it is going to have a
formula for allocations and reductions or if it is going to have the UBC do this every
year?
It is hoped that the campus will come up with priorities and goals for each budget year
and that these be considered across the divisions. The UBC shouldn’t micromanage
division budgets, but it should look at proposals and ascertain what affect the cuts will
HSU Academic Senate Minutes
January 29, 2008
9
have university-wide. One of the reasons for the recommended composition of UBC is
the level of expertise needed.
The job of the UBC would be to review the processes and whether or not the vice
presidents are making recommendations in line with the campus priorities set at the
beginning of the academic year. Vice Presidents are hired to manage their divisions
and they get feedback within their divisions. The UBC would review proposed
reductions to make sure they are in line with campus priorities. The UBC has gotten
into micromanaging in the past; it should serve as a watchdog for accountability, etc.
What is the process now; what will the outcome of this conversation be? The same
comments are being repeated.
Monitoring the implementation of the budget is not the function of a committee; it is the
responsibility of the University Budget Office. It is not the function of the UBC to be a
watchdog. The University has auditors and CPAs for this job. The UBC’s job is to
make recommendations to the President.
The proposed recommendation is not for the UBC to monitor the implementation of the
budget, but to look across divisions at proposed cuts. Cuts in one division may affect
programs in another division, etc.
The Task Force does not expect that the report and its recommendations will be
accepted as a whole by the Senate. The Senate is encouraged to review the minutes
from the meeting, the various suggestions that have been made which fill in gaps that
the Task Force didn’t have time to address, and improve upon the recommendations.
This kind of review should be done by the Senate and the President every three or four
years in order to continuously refine the budget process. Everyone interviewed
expressed a genuine desire to have an open and transparent process that benefits the
campus.
It will be up to the Senate to proceed. Maybe HSU should be the model that other
campuses follow. Difficult budget times force us to look at our processes and policies
and try to strengthen them.
The Task Force was encouraged to report to other groups, and was invited to the UBC
on February 15. The Senate needs to propose what steps it wants to take. The
recommendations have also been forwarded to the President and the University
Executive Committee. The Senate has the authority to recommend policy to the
President.
It was recommended that the UBC be asked for suggestions for resolutions to be
brought to the Senate, and for the UBC’s opinion on the recommended composition and
charge of the UBC.
The Senate needs to have a resolution acknowledging the Senate’s receipt of the report
and then refer it back to the Senate Executive Committee.
HSU Academic Senate Minutes
January 29, 2008
10
M/S/U (Van Duzer/Goodman) to suspend the rules to make a motion after 5:30 pm, to
allow for several resolutions to be made.
M/S/U (Van Duzer/Goodman) that the Senate request that the President refrain from
reformulating the UBC until the Senate has had a chance to review the
recommendations.
M/S/U (Powell/Zoellner) that the Senate thank and acknowledge receipt of the report
and refer the report to the Senate Executive Committee for discussion and ask the
Executive Committee to set in motion procedures for developing resolutions for the
February 26, 2008 Senate meeting.
If the recommendations are accepted, will they impact this year’s UBC?
M/S/W (Van Duzer/Robo) to approve and forward the section of the report on “Trust,
Accountability, and Transparency” (p.6), in particular the creation of a campus-wide full
disclosure of economic data for all units on campus.
Discussion:
It would be good to move forward, but this recommendation may not be one we want to
support entirely.
Having read it through only once, it would be nice to have a little more time to really
think about the recommendations and their implications. The Senate needs to move
quickly, but needs to fully understand the recommendations.
A motion was just passed to send the report back to the Senate Executive Committee
for further consideration.
The motion was withdrawn.
M/S/P (Goodman/MacConnie) to adjourn the meeting at 5:45 pm.
TIME CERTAIN: 5:45 P.M. Formal adjournment of Senate meeting and fifteen minute
open forum for the campus community
Sara Shoenberger, a student intern with CFA, explained how CSSA and CFA are
working together to help get students to the polls to vote on Feb. 5. Drivers are needed
for mini-vans to get students to the polling sites. Also, help is needed for with
information booths. Sign-up sheets were distributed.