8
ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES – NOVEMBER 28, 2007
Minutes
of the Academic Senate Meeting
November 28, 2007
The Executive Committee received a petition for an Emergency/Special Meeting in accordance with Article VII, Section 4A of the Bylaws of the Academic Senate.
An Emergency/Special Meeting of the Academic Senate has been called for Wednesday, NOVEMBER 28, 2007, FROM 3:00 – 5:00 p.m. in the CLA Building, 98, P2-7 to consider the following Agenda item:
PRESIDENT’S RESPONSE TO THE ACADEMIC SENATE PRIORITIZATION AND RECOVERY RESOLUTION, DATED NOVEMBER 14, 2007
PRESENT: Aaron, Alex, Almaraz, Ballinger, Cholbi, Curl, Delgado, Garver, Goldman, Green, Gruber, Halati, Humber, Ibrahim, Janger, Kashefinejad(Proxy-Halati, Kellner, Kopplin, LaBreck, Leon, Lord, Marshall, Monemi, Morehouse, Morgan Ortenberg, Peters, Radnitz, Sancho-Madriz, Sandelin, Self, Shenoda, Soroka, Speak, Stallones, Turner, Whitaker
GUESTS: M. Ortiz, S. Davis, R. Rhodes, L. Bricker, P. Yates, E. Gibson, L. McPheron, A. Morad, T. Spalding, R. Navarro, B. Burke, N. Fernandez, D. Klock. H. Lujan, D. Hoyt, J. Rego, P. Oelschaleger, H. Mireles, K. Day, J. Klasik, D. Berry, E. Walton, G. Cadena, C. Regan, P. Kilduff, M. Keith, F. Flores, D. Straney, D. Brum, E. Barnes, D. Freer, and others who did not sign the visitor sign in sheet
Chair Self called the meeting to order.
The first order of business to establish whether there is an emergency per the Academic Bylaws, Article VII, Section 4 (C).
If an emergency meeting is called, the first order of business shall be a simple majority vote that such emergency exists. This is not necessary for a special meeting, nor for Executive Session.
The Academic Senate voted that an emergency existed.
Chair Self stated that the meeting was called at the President’s request.
President Ortiz will deliver his response to the Resolution, followed by a Question and Answer period. Senators will have priority since it is their right and responsibility to review the response. Once all senators have had a chance to speak, the floor will be opened up to visitors with a limit of one minute. Vice Chair Sancho-Madriz will be in charge of the speaker’s list and the speaker’s time limit.
President Ortiz presented the response.
Dr. Ortiz thanked the Senate for the meeting at short notice. Dr. Ortiz gave a background of the Prioritization and Recovery.
Prioritization was originated by two driving forces – first, the fact that the campus sent back 10% of the budget the first year President Ortiz was on campus; second, what happened in the early nineties. Budgets were reduced and there were no plans to determine how the university could move forward. Dr. Ortiz stated that is the point of recovery.
President Ortiz met with the Executive Committee, the Cabinet, a student representative, and a staff representative to embark on the P & R Process. The first step was for the Senate to appoint faculty to serve on the Academic Programs Committee and to establish a charge. President Ortiz worked with the Executive Committee in the appointment of the administrative representatives to the Committee. From the beginning, it was understood that the members of the Academic Programs Committee were to be trustees of the university. The trustees would not have any allegiance to individual colleges. The criteria were established on how to evaluate programs. The process was initiated and data was collected. The committee worked within their charge and completed Phase 1 last June. It was distributed campus wide. At the same time the Support Programs Committee was conducting a parallel review of their programs/units using the same criteria.
Dr. Ortiz stated that during the process he was not involved.
The Steering Committee, consisting of the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate and the President’s Cabinet, was established in August and met to vet the recommendations, review the Phase 1 recommendations, Support Programs recommendations, and Phase 2 recommendations. The deadline was set for January 31. The Senate objected to the short deadline.
President Ortiz stated that it is now clear that the road we are going down is the wrong road. The amount of information we have gathered on campus and off campus indicates that Phase I is something we are not prepared to do at that is point in time. We will not do it at this point in time. It is also clear, the time spent gathering valuable information should not be wasted. We have received a significant amount of responses. My position is that what we need to do as an institution is take advantage of the data we have and work together to process it and determine the direction of the university. In my opinion, we have significant information and very valuable trends that we are not taking advantage of. President Ortiz proposed that since Steering Committee has a retreat scheduled for Friday, November 30, 2007 the retreat should be refocused with the intention of developing a plan how the Steering Committee can be inclusive and engage the entire university community. He proposed that the Steering Committee use the data and forge the direction the university should go with it. This should be done jointly.
Questions and Answer Period
The point was made that the campus is real uncomfortable with this process. There is not any itemized list or description of why or how any of these proposals will improve the campus. Nor is there a statement of what these proposals will cost. Also, the impression is that there are errors and missing information that will not be considered by the Steering Committee.
President Ortiz responded that the Academic Programs Committee did not go into depth with the numerical data. The cost was not developed because this is recommended, not proposed.
The point was made that the how can the Steering Committee recommend if the above points are not complete?
Dr. Ortiz stated that is part of the process for the Steering Committee. They could work with IRAP and the Chief Financial Officer for the data. Dr. Ortiz stated he did not want to minimize the work of the Academic Programs Committee.
The opinion was expressed that the process as described seems to be steering around the Senate instead of working through the Senate. Any revised process should recognize and pay proper attention to the Senate and the ordinary governance process.
President Ortiz did not disagree. He stated again the open process did include the senate. The Executive Committee selected the faculty to serve on the Academic Programs Committee. I submitted the names of administrators, and two were decided upon. The process did involve the Senate during its formation. The fact is that the outcomes might be different than were expected.
It was acknowledged that the back end cannot be altered; but, the original governance structure is legitimate and the Academic Senate should not be subverted.
Dr. Ortiz was asked to restate his proposal. It was clarified that the Phase 1 recommendations would not be considered as part of the P & R Steering Committee deliberations. We need to come together as a university community and determine how we can move forward with this information. We cannot stand still. How do we process the information collected by the Steering Committee?
Several individuals stated the opinion that some of the information is flawed. The point was made by several that data changes over time and the data collected may not give a clear picture of the departments/programs. Dr. Ortiz was asked if he had total confidence that the data gives a clear picture of the university.
President Ortiz stated that the data had been collected in isolation. If it is flawed it was done by the program. If the data is not correct, correct it.
The point was made that people were not involved.
Discussion ensued regarding the way the data was collected. There was confusion on how to submit reports and everything was not always clear. The second round was clearer than the first.
President Ortiz was pressed on the issue that data changes. And he was questioned how seriously the committee would take the new data. The opinion was expressed that the consideration of the new data should have priority over the Phase 1 data. Also, whether the Phase 1 recommendations are not going to be considered now or at all?
Dr. Ortiz stated that when he met with the Steering Committee on Friday, that would be topic of discussion as well the direction of the university.
Questions were raised regarding the CSU and State level requirements that impact campus autonomy, for example, master plan implications, budget issues, access to excellence. How does the Steering Committee address this issue and the impact of the requirements in their deliberations?
Dr. Ortiz acknowledged the requirements.
Several senators expressed appreciation to Dr. Ortiz for reconsidering the prioritization and recovery process. The data and how it was analyzed was questioned. Will the campus have direct input on how to focus the measure for analyzing the data? Some of the statistics used did not measure out in some of the departments.
Also mentioned was the function of outside agencies within some colleges and departments. CEIS for example has many outside agencies and entities that impact their programs as well as space and enrollment management issues. This creates a fragmentary process to address the issues in the 500 words required. The Steering Committee did structure how to address these types of issues but did not have a technique for handling them. Do you have any recommendations on how to bring the university community into that conversation?
Dr. Ortiz stated that part of the intention was to have a university community engaged in that type of conversation. It is a given that we will not receive additional funding from the State. How do we reallocate internally to maximize the funding? Space is allocated by legislative support. Research space is rarely included in new building. The university community needs to address these issues.
A point of clarification was stated that Phase 1 will not be addressed now. Comments on Phase 2 are less relevant.
The point was made that the resolution identified core problems – budget transparency, enrollment management, space management. These are foundations that need to be in place before this process goes forward. What concrete steps are your suggesting?
President Ortiz stated that the campus is educating a little over 3% more than we should. Enrollment Management -- The last three years we had mandatory orientation. It is estimated that 95% of the students attending will enroll, 97% plus have enrolled and the FTE mushroomed. We are using the best data to determine the enrollment. As imprecise as it is, it is a judgment call. This year we will not grow.
A concern about budget transparency is that quantity is important but quality is more important. It is hard to talk about quantity when the SAT scores for our students are below the average in the state.
President Ortiz stated that this issue is being addressed. He has contacted the Chancellor’s Office and the Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs to change the primary service area for the campus. The issue is access. The CSU guarantees access to students in the primary service area. The goal is to change this campus from a regional campus to a statewide campus. In doing that we can have stricter admission requirements.
A senator pointed out that next year the campus will not grow, except for the 50% growth that can be attributed to the foreign student program. He referred to the Malaysian student program. Concern was expressed that this is costing the university, specifically the Department of Biology. These costs are not being reimbursed.
Dr. Ortiz stated that the international students are not included in the target. Only resident students are counted in the target.
Enrollment Management – a senator asked if there is an existing CSU that has a good model. Dr. Ortiz stated that Cal Poly Pomona is as close to the target as any.
The observation was stated that enrollment management impacts the space. The opinion was stated that there should be a better use of space and how it is defined. It should be monitored to make sure it is used efficiently.
A member of the Executive Committee asked if the charge of the Steering Committee is now changing and sending a new prioritization scheme.
President Ortiz restated that Phase 1 will not be implemented. The university has to develop a plan to engage the university in that decision. Dr. Ortiz emphasized that he thought the process was a good process when he implemented it.
The idea of prioritization is a good idea. Trustees are ideal. All faculty have a vested interested. The recommendations are boiler plate statements and there are items of concern mentioned. Departments think their livelihood is on the line. The Steering Committee has been told they cannot go back and revisit the data. The analysis of the Academic Programs Committee was subjective. There are key similarities. One example mentioned is the use of the word “environmental”. It means different things to different disciplines. This is not analyzed in an appropriate manner. The opinion was expressed that part of the problem is that the Steering Committee is looking at recommendations and not themes or strands.
A senator referenced Dr. Ortiz’s statement that he had stayed out of the process at first. The senator referenced the Marshall Plan which is controversial. He suggested that there be an Ortiz Plan.
Dr. Ortiz was asked whether he could affirm that he would recommend the Steering Committee seriously recognize the importance of the Senate in its tradition functions as a part of the process.