April 25, 2002
University of the Pacific – Stockton Campus
Academic Council Meeting
Minutes of April 25, 2002
Business: T. Brierton (a), N. Perry (a)
Conservatory: D. Brock (a), J. DeHaan (a), N. Waldvogel (p)
COP: B. Beal (p), B. Cox (p), M. Kelly (p), C. Kramer (p), C. Ostberg (p), M. Sharp (p), L. Spreer (p), D. Tedards (a), W. Zimmermann (p)
Dental: D. Castagna (a), R. Cohan (p), J. Cohen (a), J. Levy (a)
Education: M. Draheim (p), P. Hensley (p)
Emeriti: G. Blum (a)
Engineering: D. Besch (a), G. Litton (p)
Law: W. Jones (p), C. Manolakas (a), Glendalee Scully (p)
Library: R. Ray (p), T. Calvo (p)
Pharmacy: R. Abood (a), D. Fries (a), S. Smith (a)
SIS: S. Pasztor (p)
Students: A. Hudson (p), J. Farrell (a)
Ex-Officio: S. Blalock (a), J. Boelter (a), R. Brittin (a), R. Childs (a), A. Freedman (p), P. Gilbertson (p), B. Gundersen (a), K. Hughes (a), L. Knight (a), T. Kulisch (a), J. Livesey (a), J. Mansoor (a), F. Muskal (a), D. Parker (a), G. Pearson (a), S. Scully (p), C. Smith (a), D. Smith (a), L. Webster (a), B. Weick (a), B. West (a)
Guests: Tom Rajala, Roland di Franco
Chair Ron Ray called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
1. Approval of Minutes
Motion: Becky Beal moved, Marisa Kelly seconded to approve the minutes of April 11, 2002. Council made a friendly amendment to page 3, item 5 to place () around “excluding research one”. Motion unanimously approved with amendment.
2. Chair’s Report
3. Provost Report
Provost Gilbertson announced that for the third time, our Moody Bond Rating has improved. Moody’s was impressed with the Universities consistent operating surpluses and reserve fund. This brings our rating to A2, which is up from a Baa in 1998. A bond issue for $24.5 million was signed on April 25, 2002. Provost Gilbertson stated that the Board committee with Pat Cavanaugh’s leadership has made us more decisive in overseeing Pacific’s endowment fund managers. Motion: Richard Cohan moved, Glee Scully seconded to applaud the efforts of the Vice President for Business & Finance and the finance staff. Motion unanimously approved. Provost Gilbertson saluted the participants of the University research poster presentations yesterday. Both the students and faculty felt affirmed and would like this event to continue. Provost Gilbertson is working with the President to increase support for research.
4. IPC Report
5. Discussion on Enrollment Trends, Associate Provost Tom Rajala
Associate Provost Rajala informed Council that he would be showing a condensed version of the enrollment plan toward 2010 part three with a focus on Stockton numbers. The enrollment goals are to improved student quality and enrollment growth. Feedback following the January Board meeting has emphasized the importance of keeping the Enrollment Plan focused on improving academic credentials of entering students. In 2002, selectivity is 70% with SAT scores at 1130 and high school GPA’s are 3.45. In 2010, selectivity will be 62% with SAT scores at 1175 and high school GPA’s will be 3.65. An extensive wait list has been developed to ensure the enrollment of 730 to 750 freshmen. This wait list contains 214 marginal applicants and has not been used yet. Other quality measures are strong curriculum choices, well-written essay that accomplishes its purpose, enthusiastic recommendations from teacher(s) and counselor(s), and co-curricular and extracurricular involvement. Quality improvement leads to increased retention. Graduate enrollment growth will be driven by new graduate programs and growth in the MBA program. Focus on increased academic quality/selectivity will likely limit enrollment growth in the short run, lead to possible long-term enrollment growth, and limit immediate financial gains to assure long-term stability & growth. Targeted moderate growths coupled with achievable quality improvements are the dual goals of this Enrollment Plan. To achieve highest quality improvement and moderate enrollment growth merit scholarship programs will need to be expanded, tuition discount rate will increase, and investments in high quality academic programs will be necessary. The next steps are to proceed with execution of this plan, including Pacific Leaders Scholarship and program, secure funding for scholarships and related programming, invest in high-quality programs including four-year Honors program, and continuously evaluate progress toward achieving enrollment goals. Associate Provost Rajala entertained the following questions from Council: 1) is any attention being focused on getting more humanities, social science and math students? Associate Provost Rajala stated that they are trying hard to aim efforts at balancing enrollments but aren’t having much luck even with gearing financial aid awards toward the goal. Professor Cox stated that there are 30% more applicants in the English department thanks to the efforts of Tom and his office and over time they will be more successful in other areas; 2) when admissions schedules prospective students to attend classes they do not allow time for a one on one meeting with the professor. Is anything being done to allow more time to visit departments? Associate Provost Rajala agrees that more time is needed to visit departments however there is no set schedule until the student expresses interest and then it is arranged. Associate Provost Rajala will take this back and try to implement although faculty support will be required to uphold the offers they make to students; 3) Are we primarily getting California students, what are the demographics of the state? Associate Provost Rajala stated that in California there would be 50 thousand more high school graduates between 2007 and 2010. A large percent will be low economic and non-English speaking numbers. Provost Gilbertson stated that out-of-state enrollment would increase when the University profile is launched nationally.
6. Faculty Handbook, Chapter 6, Section 6.1
Chair Ray informed Council that this section was overlooked during the first approval process. Motion: Becky Beal moved, Cindy Ostberg seconded to approve Section 6.1 of Chapter 6 in the Draft Faculty Handbook. Motion unanimously approved.
7. Faculty Handbook, Chapter 12
Chair Ray informed Council that reformatting was done and medical leave was added under section 12.10. Motion: Becky Beal moved, Phyllis Hensley seconded to approve Section 7.6.4 of the Draft Faculty Handbook. Chair Ray mention an e-mail that Jennifer Farrell, Graduate Student representative on Council, sent regarding the clarity of section 12.6.10 on page 6 in regard to continued registration and the fee that is charged. Friendly amendment was made to combine the first two sentences “Continuing Registration (CR) students will be charged a CR fee of $25 for the first semester, and each consecutive semester the fee doubles, to a maximum of $400 per semester.” Provost Gilbertson then informed Council that the last sentence of 12.5.4 was not clear to him and handed out Dean Dennis Meerdink’s suggested revision. Motion unanimously approved with friendly amendments to 12.6.10 and 12.5.4.
8. Faculty Handbook, Chapter 7, Section 7.6.4
Provost Gilbertson stated that this section was identified as a concern in his meetings with the President. Concurrent teaching should be discouraged and the level of approval should be heightened. Provost Gilbertson hopes this will bring about conversations to help better track it. Concurrent teaching is not prohibited and in some cases should be encouraged. Friendly amendment was made to add “by full-time faculty” in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Professor Scully inquired about the time frame for obtaining approval since law professors are often called at the last minute to cover a class. Provost Gilbertson said that many decisions are made over e-mail and this would qualify. Provost Gilbertson also stated that the unit administrators should be alert to the summer activities of full-time faculty in order to protect their time for scholarship and research work and to maintain a high quality of teaching during their contract. Motion: Marisa Kelly moved, Larry Spreer seconded to accept the revised version of Section 7.6.4 of the Draft Faculty Handbook with Friendly amendment. Council inquired if lawyers have reviewed this section. Provost Gilbertson stated that this conversation came up during the Intellectual Properties discussions while a lawyer was present but he will review again with legal counsel before the Regents vote. Council argued that it is not concurrent teaching if you have a nine-month contract. Provost Gilbertson stated that there is a great deal of latitude and flexibility and this will allow better tracking. The University is making a reasonable request since faculty members should not work for another school and undermine enrollment.
9. Faculty Handbook, Chapter 8, Section 8.8
Provost Gilbertson stated that he is in the process of having Administration approve the Draft Faculty Handbook. After consultation with Human Resources, Council’s review (not approval) is required for the recommended changes to Section 8.8, Benefits During Leaves. Provost Gilbertson stated that the University contribution to benefits would be limited to the amount of what it currently contributes. Even if a faculty member’s salary is higher during leave (through outside sources of income), the University’s medical and dental contributions will remain constant. This does not include contributions to the retirement plan. Provost Gilbertson will ask Human Resources if life insurance is covered. Council recommended that “currently” be added between “amount” and “contributed” in the first paragraph and that “months” be added after “18” in the third paragraph.
10. What’s On Your Mind?
Professor Bob Cox informed Council that several members of the faculty have asked him to raise the issue of functionality of the new University home web page. It is understood that the new version is aimed at marketing and recruitment, however, it is not useful to people already on campus. For example there is no direct link to get to the Library page. More work needs to be done; this isn’t the one yet. Associate Professor Marisa Kelly advised Council that last fall ITPC created a sub-committee to deal with the web page and ITPC has been unhappy in the way this has unfolded. The organization of this sub-committee should be reconsidered. Kelly requested all e-mails concerning this matter be forwarded to CIO Larry Frederick. Faculty observe that the process has not been consultative and their suggestions are not seriously considered. Provost Gilbertson stated that CIO Frederick sees alternative solutions (such as an intranet) and has been distributing books on the topic to encourage people to think differently about our website architecture. CIO Frederick will play an important role in defining matters since the approach he is suggesting is more future-orientated. The first step is universal authentication. IPC did not endorse funding so the interim web page will have to do for now. Associate Professor Kelly stated that changing the charge and structure of the web policy committee might help before we get to the CIO’s long-range plan. Provost Gilbertson will meet with CIO Frederick on this matter.
Professor Spreer inquired if the $25 Million bond issue included the design of a bridge over the Calaveras. Provost Gilbertson stated that the bridge is part of the Monagan II residence hall design and should be completed at the same time. The City of Stockton is considering proposed solutions. One option is extending the bridge over Brookside, but the amount of money now allocated for the bridge would not cover the cost of the extension. However, reallocating money from other projects may be considered. Provost Gilbertson assured Council that he is an advocate for the bridge.
Professor Richard Cohan reported on his meeting with Ed Garrick, Director of Human Resources, regarding the study of alternative options for retirement funds. Director Garrick informed him that there are mechanical issues to consider and TIAA-CREF’s options may already provide sufficient choice and flexibility. Professor Cohan requested a more formal study to clarify options. He handed out a survey to measure Council’s knowledge of TIAA-CREF’s performance. Many Council members admitted ignorance on this point. Professor Cohan stated that they are in the majority and aims, by the survey, to stress to Director Garrick the lack of knowledge. Professor Cohan informed Council members that they can monitor performance at www.tiaa-cref.org. He will report back at Council’s next meeting.
Chair Ray informed Council that the May 9th meeting has a full agenda and asked members to anticipate a long meeting.
11. Other Business
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Denia Andersen, Academic Council Secretary