• Print

April 27, 2006

Academic Council Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2006
University of the Pacific
Community Conference Room, Library

Business: E. Typpo (a), N. Peery (a)
Conservatory: F. Rose (p), L. Wang (a)
COP: D. Borden (a), L. Christianson, (p), K. Day (p), L. Fox (p), L. Koehler (p), B. Klunk (p), A. Smith (a), L. Spreer (a), B. Swagerty (p), C. Vierra (a), D. Maxwell (a)
Dental: H. Chi (a), C. Lyon (a), R. Cohan (a)
Education: Robert Oprandy (p), L. Webster (a)
Emeriti: R. DiFranco (a)
Engineering: C.W. Lee (a), M. Shami (a)
Law: W. Jones (p), G. Scully (a), G. Harris (a)
Library: R. Imhof (p)
Pharmacy: D. Abood (a), D. Fries (p), S. Bellamy (p), J. Livesey (p)
SIS: D. Keefe (p)
Students: N. Tran (p), TBD (a)
Ex-Officio: B. Gundersen (a), G. Pearson (a), D. Parker (a), T. Little (a), B. Jasti (a), F. Wiens (a), L. Itaya (a), D. Keefe (p), S. Wheeler (a), J. Sprankling (a), D. Brennan (a), J. Kenrow (a), P. Gilbertson (a), H.Trexler (a), M. Canniff (a)
Observer: J. Preisser, Chaplain (a), Jean Purnell, Asst. Provost, (p)
Guests: Asst. Provost Heather Knight

Chair Dave Fries called the meeting to order at 3:08 p.m.

1 Approval of Minutes
Motion: F. Rose moved, K. Day seconded to approve the minutes of March 13, 2006 meeting.
Motion unanimously approved.

2. Chair's report
Chair Dave Fries reported that he and Brian Klunk attended the Regents meeting in Sacramento on April 26, 2006 for the Academic Affairs session. He reported that nothing of urgency, mostly informational meeting. He reported that he made a report on the status of the faculty survey and 8 recommendations from the survey. Progress is being made on the 8 recommendations and progress is coming along well. One of the recommendations will be discussed at today's meeting. The Regents are very complimentary of our efforts
and progress.

There was also a report of the Pacific Rising draft that was presented to the Regents by the Provost at that meeting. The Regents made a few comments. An email was sent out giving Academic Council members one more week to respond to the Pacific Rising draft with a May 1st deadline. Dave Fries feels that there are a couple things that need comments/additions. He urged members to respond to that email with regard to the draft document.

Institutional Technology Panel Report
There was a panel of three well known distinguished, very qualified individuals who came in and reviewed our OIT and they have written a 30 page report which is broken down into a summary. The summary will be out in a couple of days but not until the President has a plan for implementation. Chair Fries shared that there are four main bullet points on the summary and one of the primary points is academic computing. To that end, the committee is thinking about how to gather faculty input to that OIT group from the academic standpoint of what is needed for teaching, learning and scholarships. He informed the committee that we are thinking of formalizing the Technology and Learning Committee. At this point it is not a formal committee but more of an advisory committee/discussion group who meets with OIT and with Jim Phillips from the academic computing side and gives advice. The Executive Committee is in the process of drafting a description of what we would like to have done and then it would be sent to the Professional Relations Committee to review and approve. Chair Fries invited law and dentistry to join the committee. He also explained that the committee will be made up of 7-10 members but there would also be room on the committee in a non-voting capacity for key deans or technology experts as ex-officio/non voting members. He asked Warren Jones to ask around the
McGeorge campus. The committee's responsibility will be to make all recommendations and ranking prioritization of computer needs for teaching research, learning, etc. Also it would act as an advisory to the whole educational technology. There will be a proposal presented to Council in the future.

3. Provost Report
In the absence of Provost Gilbertson, Associate Provost Heather Knight gave the Provost Report. Heather reported to the council that Provost Gilbertson has asked her to briefly give some updates. One item was a little background on the Diversity Retreat that was held on April 21, 2006 at Wine & Roses. She reported that there were approximately 50 participants with half being faculty and the other half being staff and students.
She reported that they began with an overview of what was really happening as far as demographic, numbers and data from the campus with regards to diversity. There was a series of reports discussed as to accomplishments over the last five years. Reports were on gender studies, ethnic studies, the Pride Center on work in terms of sexual orientation and disability awareness. Heather felt that they covered a large umbrella for diversity on the campus. The group then spent time creating action plans for different key areas with hopes of tying it all in to the University Wide Planning Process. The minutes from the Diversity Retreat will be sent out early next week. The Diversity Planning will be an ongoing process.

Promotion and Tenure
Heather Knight reminded the committee that at last Academic Council Provost Gilbertson had announced that there were about 4-6 Promotion and Tenure letters that wouldn't be going out until May 28, 2006. This delay was due to the large number of candidates, 37 candidates in all and also awaiting some documentation from committees on a final few. As of today, all letters have gone out and the process is over for the year. Heather also reported that today she and Dave Fletcher had met regarding the upcoming candidates for next year. There are 27 candidates for next year.

Heather Knight announced that she has provided a bookmark to each Academic Council Member at today's meeting. She reported that the Provost Office has received several inquiries about the Faculty Handbook since we no longer provide hard copies. The bookmark lists the website address to the Academic Council Website and then if you go to Faculty Handbook you can access the document. David Keefe asked if it would be possible to make available a hard copy for new faculty. Heather Knight confirmed that the Provost Office would honor any requests for hard copies of the handbook. The committee suggested that possibly one hard copy per department or division would be helpful.

4. Election of Committee Replacements for Fall 2006
Chair Dave Fries asked members to take a couple of minutes to mark ballots for election for committee replacements for Fall 2006 and return them to Wendy Conley. Dave thanked everyone and again expressed how easy it was to put together the slate of nominations due to the overwhelming response from faculty.

Brian Klunk informed the committee that the All Faculty Committee Election Ballot will be going out beginning of next week so that we can have all voting completed before the next Academic Council meeting on May 11, 2006.

5. Proposal for changes in Service Requirement Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure
Chair Dave Fries reported on the proposal for changes in Service Requirement Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure. Dave Fries informed members that the proposal consists of four pages; pages one and two have the proposed changes in red; pages three and four are copies of what is currently handbook policy. Dave Fries gave an overview of the proposed changes. He informed the committee that there has been some concern that it is becoming an attitude among faculty that service is not important. It was thought that this topic should be clarified and strengthened. This item is in response to a recommendation from the Ad Hoc Committee on the Teacher/Scholar Model and was addressed in the Faculty Survey; a couple of the questions on the Survey were directed to service and service requirements. Recommendation 8 from the Ad-Hoc Committee was to change the guidelines for service relative to Promotion and Tenure. The draft that is before the committee today came from the Professional Relations Committee and has been approved by them. If the draft is approved by the Academic Committee, it then would go to an all Faculty vote because it is a Handbook change. The new wording is a clear statement "Relevant University and professional service is expected of all faculty. While teaching and scholarship are weighted higher in promotion and tenure decisions, university and professional service is required and will be evaluated according to unit guidelines and the professional rank being considered". A faculty member in a lower rank is expected to spend more time in teaching and establishing their research scholarly artist background and at a later point in their professional careers would devote relatively more time in service. Dave then drew committee members attention to the second page where it is reflected in the statements under the requirements of the various ranks; assistant, associate and full professor. The big change is under the rank of the professor rank being "substantial contributions and leadership in university and professional service".

Following discussion, a motion was made by D. Keefe to approve the proposed change in the Service Requirement Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure. The motion was seconded by R. Imhof and unanimously approved.

6. Draft Revision of Program Review
Chair Dave Fries reported that the Academic Affairs Committee has been working on a Revision of Program Review. Academic Affairs finished a draft a couple of weeks ago and circulated it and have asked for feedback.

The Executive Committee felt that this item was significant enough for the Academic Council to discuss and to give feedback where appropriate. Some of the points up for discussion are: 1) Should the Program Review become more forward looking (i.e. " . . .shift from a retrospective to a prospective process . . .")? Chair Dave Fries asked if faculty generally agree with this? Committee members agreed that we should be looking more ahead but need to keep a balance and not forget where we have been. 2) Should our current procedure, that includes Faculty Review Panels, be abandoned? Dave asked the committee if everyone was still in agreement with the consensus formed during last years retreats. Committee was still in agreement that the current procedure should completely be replaced. 3) Should we have an external review team for each review? Is it appropriate for " . . . the dean in consultation with the provost" to select the external review team? Committee discussion included concern of giving all the power to Deans and the Provost and excluding faculty and costs of external review team. Assistant Provost Jean Purnell informed the committee that faculty would not be excluded. She explained that details of the review process had not been completed and that additional procedural details would be forthcoming. Committee members felt that essential details were not clearly outlined in the document and are necessary before further evaluation of the Revision of Program Review can be made.

7. What's on your mind?
Committee members were curious if Clint Eastwood will be coming for University Commencement. Associate Provost Heather Knight announced that Dave Brubeck will be receiving an Honorary Degree and that should help to get Mayor Eastwood to attend as he and Dave Brubeck are close friends. It was also announced that Doug Eberhardt has offered his plane to provide transportation for Mayor Eastwood. Announcements as to Commencement speakers, parking concerns, times and places will be distributed as Commencement draws closer.

8. Adjournment
Motion: F. Rose moved, R. Oprandy seconded to adjourn. Motion unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m

Respectfully Submitted,
Wendy L. Conley
Academic Council Secretary