• Print

February 14, 2002

University of the Pacific - Stockton Campus
Academic Council Meeting
Minutes of February 14, 2002

Attendance:
Business:
T. Brierton (p), N. Peery (a)
Conservatory: D. Brock (p), 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 (p), W. Zimmermann (p)
Dental: D. Castagna (a), R. Cohan (p), J. Cohen (a), J. Levy (a)
Education: M. Draheim (p), Phyllis Hensley (a)
Emeriti: G. Blum (p)
Engineering: D. Besch (p), G. Litton (p)
Law: W. Jones (p), C. Manolakas (a), G. Scully (p)
Library: T. Calvo (p), R. Ray (p)
Pharmacy: R. Abood (p), D. Fries (p), S. Smith-Stubblefield (p)
SIS: S. Pasztor (p)
Students: A. Hudson (p), J. Farrell (a)
Ex-Officio: S. Blalock (a), R. Brittin (a), R. Childs (a), A. Freedman (a), P. Gilbertson (p), B. Gundersen (a), K. Hughes (a), L. Knight (a), J. Livesey (a), J. Mansoor (a), F. Muskel (a), D. Parker (a), J. Purnell (p), S. Scully (a), D. Smith (a), L. Webster (a), B. Weick (a), B. West (a)
Guests: Roland di Franco, Denis Meerdink, Jonathan Meer, Carol Brodie, Louise Stark

Chair Ron Ray called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.

1. Approval of Minutes

Motion: George Blum moved, Simalee Smith-Stubblefield seconded to approve the minutes of December 13, 2001. Professor Mike Sharp asked who decides what is put in the minutes because some critical remarks were excluded. Chair Ray informed Council that Denia Leach types them for his review along with the Provost who reviews his report. Professor Sharp will e-mail his comments to Chair Ray but made no request for change. Request was made to replace “Sports Sciences Department” with “College of the Pacific” on page 3 under Section 7.4.5. Motion unanimously approved with amendment.

2. Chair's Report: Ron Ray

Chair Ray informed Council that item #9 has been removed from the agenda to allow time for the Engineering faculty to discuss the proposal. The proposal is in your packets for review and this will be on the March agenda as a discussion/action item. Chair Ray introduced and welcomed Bob Cox, COP and Suzanne Pasztor, SIS as new members. Chair Ray announced that a Campus Master Plan discussion with faculty members is scheduled for Wednesday, February 20, 2002 from 12 – 1:30 p.m. in the Pine Room. Chair Ray will e-mail details to members of Council so they may pass on to their unit faculty. Chair Ray noted that due to Spring Break, the March meeting has been changed to March 21, 2002 in the Westgate Center located on the east end of Weber Hall room 112. Chair Ray mentioned that starting next week COP dean candidates will be on campus. COP faculty will be meeting with Mark Padilla on Thursday, February 21 from 9 – 10 a.m. in the Spruce room and Gary Miller on Monday, February 25 from 10 – 11 a.m. in the Pine room. Watch for a notice in campus mail regarding an all faculty meeting with both candidates.

3. Provost’s Report:

Provost Gilbertson stated that the COP dean search is in the final stage of interviews. Provost Gilbertson announced that Registrar J.T. Brown will resigned effective March 8, 2002, however, he will be available to help with the transition. Under Registrar Brown’s leadership, Dede Sanchez has assumed greater responsibility in the Office of Records and Research. Registrar Brown has been commuting from Berkeley and has accepted a position in the Bay area. On the request of the Academic Council Executive Board, Provost Gilbertson informed Council of the Ad Hoc Faculty Compensation Task Force, which has been meeting since last spring. Members include Chris Snell, Chair; Ken Beauchamp, Peter Meyer, Phyllis Hensley, Cynthia Eakin, Jim Mansoor and Ravi Jain. Ex-Officio members include Pat Cavanaugh, Rob Brodnick, Mike Rogers and Ed Garrick. Their focus is in the initial stage of establishing the next level goals for the salary plan on the Stockton campus in relation to rank and discipline. The responsibility of this committee is parallel to FSP1, which is not to identify goals but to offer options on how to manage funds. The area perused less is workload and it is time to start this conversation. Apprehensions, that the University is expecting faculty to work harder when they are already working hard, are misplaced at this point since it is just a start up of the conversation. There is more variety now then before which allows more flexibility to keep equity separated until the very end. Provost Gilbertson is willing to meet with groups of faculty to discuss.

4. IPC Report

Chair Ray informed Council that copies of the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 Budget Recommendations were available for anyone who has not received them in campus mail. Professor David Brock reviewed the following changes to the recommendations: 1) Tuition and Fees, page two, the energy surcharge is being decreased so tuition will be slightly lower; 2) page eight, item #2 is $175,000 and item #4 is 100,000 but the total comes out the same. A footnote will be added that these two items are for the Stockton campus only. Professor Brock then reviewed the recommendations related to the priorities of Academic Council stating that the whole package for faculty and staff benefits has increased by 4%. Operating Budgets is a long term discussion and the suggested approach is one time use. IPC recognizes the issue of funding needs to be revisited. Program Review recommendations include one faculty in Engineering and endowments for equipment expense. Desktop computers for COP refresh/restore amount given. High tech classrooms, library upgrades and fitness center, the Jacoby Center (which is also a program review recommendation), and the new Dental Hygiene program have been recommended. IPC is still analyzing the issue of department funding but more work is still required.

5. ITPC Report

Professor Marisa Kelly reported that ITPC has unanimously approved the Information Technology Policies and it will appear on the agenda for the March 21 Council meeting if legal review goes well. Professor Kelly complimented Larry for his work on draft after draft after draft. Professor Kelly informed Council that a committee has been formed, chaired by Sharon Hudson, to work on standardizing web issues.

6. A Conversation with Jonathan Meer, VP, Institutional Advancement

Vice President Meer stated that the University is engaged in initiatives to promote itself more effectively with directives from faculty, student and alumni with three main concerns summarized as marketing, marketing, marketing. Several key and focused projects are underway including Capital Campaign, University Identity Project and On Campus Initiative. The Capital Campaign is still in the quiet phase since the Regents approved a seven-year campaign to raise funds to support endowments split between faculty positions and endowed faculty/students and other ½ to be used for major capital projects. The start date of the initiative for the Stockton campus was on July 1, 2000 and will conclude on June 30, 2007. The Dental schools campaign started on July 1, 1998 and will conclude on June 30, 2005. The Law school campaign will be July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2008. Secure dollars will count towards the goal and $175 million will be augmented over the transits. Vice President Meer was unable to go over details but did state that the last campaign was for $77 million and this campaign is for $200 million. When either in-hand or written pledges get between 40 to 60% of the goal, then a formal announcement will be made. Working at going public in Spring 2003. If we are close to the $200 million mark in Spring 2003, the Regents will raise the goal. The single largest grant in our University’s history is from Thomas J. Long for $13 million. There are five Regents serving on steering committee and each unit is working to get volunteers. These volunteers will carry many of these solicitations. In addition to the $200 million another bi-product will be leadership for future campaigns. Vice President Meer addressed the fact that some faculty are offended by being solicited and asked Council to encourage key constituents to participate in philanthropic and engage the internal and external community. Endorsements are also given in the direction of the academic and co-curriculum not just the Eberhardt and Spanos families. Participation should be at a level you are comfortable with and any amount counts. Every faculty member is a fundraiser both in and out of the classroom. Vice President Meer and Provost Gilbertson are willing to speak with anyone who is reluctant or unwilling to participate. Council inquired if there was a standard policy on soliciting non-tenure faculty. Vice President Meer stated that no policy exists and reminded Council that staff members are also non-tenure and at-will employees. Vice President Meer informed Council that all campaign objectives were merged from seven panels of the National Commission, reviewed by Regents, and tested in feasibility. Some tested high and some tested low. The Board has required that each project be funded through gifts with a 15% maintenance fund. The hope is that people make multi-year pledges. The default ration on bad pledges is 10%, which is recognized by the Government and the new FABEE report. Vice President Meer thanked Council for the invitation.

7. Intellectual Properties Policy

Motion: Marisa Kelly moved, Simalee Smith-Stubblefield seconded to approve the February 1, 2002 draft of Policies Related to Intellectual Property. Discussion followed. Dean Denis Meerdink stated that this document is explicit because each unit is different. Goal is to create guidelines ahead of time with an appeal process with your Dean to establish copyright prior to work. Council made a friendly amendment to page three F. Academic Unit Protocols – add “and approve” after “develop” in the first sentence. Approved with friendly amendment. Two abstentions.

8. Faculty Handbook, Chapter 9

Chair Ray stated that this is an action item and that sections 9.1 and 9.3 will be distributed for an all faculty vote. These two sections are the main focus. Motion: Becky Beal moved, Dave Fries seconded to approve the October 25, 2001 version of Chapter 9. Faculty Development of the Draft Faculty Handbook. Professor Spreer stated that section 9.3 is “ambiguous as hell”. Chair Ray stated that this is a University level Handbook and does not need to be defined at this level. Professor Glendalee Scully informed Council that the Law School is currently running a seven-year leave cycle and asked if there is an exception that units elect to have different procedures on compensation? Professor Richard Cohan stated that the Dental school is once every five-years and you are responsible for replacing funds of substitute. Past Chair Kelly mentioned that the language is open and makes it clear that if the unit faculty and dean can establish longer years. Council is concerned that if the language is not spelled out then the unit faculty and dean can approve and then be denied by the Provost. The Professional Relations Committee suggested adding, “all university approved faculty development leaves are considered active service. Amendment: Mike Sharp moved, Walt Zimmermann seconded the addition of “All university approved faculty development leaves are considered active service.” at the end of paragraph one of section 9.3.1. Provost Gilbertson suggested that leaving it ambiguous and moving ahead might have some advantages. Practice varies within each unit and needs further deliberations. Professor Fries stated that by adding “active service” it does not change the document but defines service. Professor Emeritus Roland di Franco noted that section 9.4 is for the San Francisco Campus and section 9.5 is for the Sacramento Campus. Provost Gilbertson stated that the University’s leave policy is remarkable and is at the top of the list as a competing resource for the University with prospective faculty. Provost Gilbertson made the suggestion to move forward and take a broader complete look at resources. This is a very important issue and should be discussed in the appropriate faculty committees. Professor Curt Kramer confirmed that ambiguity is best and old guidelines are the same with the general policies and protocol maintained within the units. Chair Ray reaffirmed that these sections will go out for an all faculty vote. Professor Scully stated that this is the wrong section to specify this point. It should be in the benefit section. Amendment Approved (yes=14; no=3; abstentions=8). Council requested “Leave” be capitalized throughout the document. Council asked if the Intellectual Properties Policy previously approved, conflicts with section 9.6.1. Amendment: Bob Cox moved, Glendalee Scully seconded to exclude section 9.6.1 from approval for further review on the recently approved Intellectual Properties Policy and what is currently stated in the handbook. Approved. Council requested the “Professional Development Leave” be capitalized in section 9.4 and 9.5. Motion Approved.

9. Recommendation to Relocate the Department of Computer Science into the School of Engineering

This item will appear on the March meeting agenda.

10. What’s On Your Mind

Andrew Hudson, ASUOP Student Involvement Commissioner informed Council that a survey of the bookstore is being done by the students and the input of faculty would be welcomed. Chair Ray requested that Andrew work with Denia for distribution to Council members. The surveys should be returned to the ASUOP office in the McCaffrey Center.

11. Other Business

Motion: Simalee Smith-Stubblefield moved, Larry Spreer seconded to adjourn. Motion unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Denia Leach, Academic Council Secretary