Skip to content
  • Print

March 20, 2003

Academic Council Meeting
Minutes of March 20, 2003
University of the Pacific - Stockton Campus

R. Hoverstad (p), N. Peery (p)
Conservatory: J. DeHaan (a), F. Wiens (p)
COP: B. Beal (p), D. Borden (a), C. Dobbs (p), B. Klunk (p), C. Kramer (p), P. Meyer (a), C. Ostberg (a), L. Spreer (p), D. Tedards (p), K. Whittington (p)
Dental: D. Castagna (a), R. Cohan (a), J. Levy (a), B. Peltier (a)
Education: M. Draheim (p), V. Snyder (p)
Emeriti: G. Blum (p)
Engineering: T. Wrensch (p), D. Turpin (p)
Law: F. Galves (a), W. Jones (p), G. Scully (a)
Library: L. Knight (p), R. Ray (p)
Pharmacy: R. Abood (p), S. Smith-Stubblefield (p), D. Umphred (p)
SIS: C. Smith (p)
Students: A. Hudson (p), TBD (a)
Ex-Officio: D. Brennan (a), R. Brittin (a), A. Freedman (a), P. Gilbertson (p), J. Gonsier-Gerdin (a), B. Gundersen (a), K. Hatschek (a), C. Hawbaker (a), J. Herche (a), R. Koper (a), T. Kuhlman (a), T. Kulisch (a), T. Nelson (a), J. Sprankling (a), R. Sylvester (a), J. Preisser (a), J. Purnell (p)
Guests: Jona Meer, Beverly Byl, Lou Matz

Chair Becky Beal called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.

1. Approval of Minutes
Motion: M. Draheim moved, K. Whittington seconded to approve the minutes of February 13, 2003. Motion unanimously approved

2. Jona Meer and Beverly Byl - Capital Campaign Update
In June 2001 Board of Regents endorsed a capital campaign for $175,000,000 During the January 2003 Board of Regents meeting the members amended their prior authorization to endorse a campaign of $200,000,000. Keep in mind that the last campaign Pacific ran, it wrapped up in 1997 with about $77,000,000 in hand. Looking at a campaign that was roughly 3 times the size of the previous one was seen as ambitious, the goal for the wrap-up of the quiet phase (about two weeks from this meeting) is to get beyond the fifty percent mark in the campaign, the sense is that in a quiet phase if you can raise 40%, 50% or better, you then have earn the right to go public with the full announcement. Success to this campaign is due to the foundation laid in prior years of understanding about the importance of providing for Pacific, many of the commitments that are being made now were set up as a result of conversations that have been taking place over the last 20 to 25 years. The success of this campaign will be driven by volunteers, each of the 9 units (7 Stockton campus, 1 Sacramento and 1 San Francisco) are staffed by people like Beverly and Jona, but they are run by volunteers. The one thing they would like to have as an outgrowth to this campaign is a reconnection with alums, historically in the alumni gift rate have been in the 11 to 12 percent rate for Stockton Campus, last year was bumped up just under 14%, they would like to see the rate climb and ultimately exceed 20% of Stockton campus alumni by the end of this campaign.

Gala weekend agenda includes: on the evening of Thursday April 3, 2003 there will be a dinner with the Board of Regents, Deans and spouses, administrators and committee chairs. Also a press conference has been schedule for 12:00 noon on Friday April 4, 2003 in the Presidents Room. At 2:00pm the National Steering Committee meets for the first time, it is now called the Campaign Cabinet. This cabinet will be the chairs of every volunteer committee working on a particular program for a given unit as well as selected members of the Regents. On Friday evening a reception and dinner at the Presidents house for specific donors. Saturday events include a Fashion show hosted by the Dental School, Alumni awards reception and Award luncheon, Gala reception starts at 5:00 pm and dinner is at 7:00 pm.

3 Chair's Report
Next three Academic Council meetings will be very busy, 8 program reviews to come for action, annual elections for faculty/administrative committees, AC members votes for 14 different committees, including Academic Council, new AC executive board and chair-elect need to be elected. Nominations are being requested from department unit chairs.

The Board of Regents finance committee has approved the faculty salary plan, it now will be voted on the next April Board of Regents meeting.

Special thanks to Andrew Hudson and Craig Hawbaker for their work in the student academic grievance process.

4. Provost's Report
Now that the war has began we welcome your continued support to the students, during this difficult time, most of Pacific students haven't been exposed to these kind of experiences. It is really difficult to know in a university setting how to help to the students, because there is an inclination some times either because of our own personal feelings about it or the students. When you have something so profound that is changing the world, could take a broader perspective and step back and there some wisdom in allowing some latitude in our exchange with each other. There is a meeting schedule for 3/21/03, with the group that created the forums after the events of 9/11, similar group is being created to create a public platform, for Pacific community to express their feelings and views.

Fall enrollment update: Admissions office sent out 3,000 admit letters, most of them included financial aid packages, those that did not include financial aid info was due to student not filling out the appropriate forms on time. Comparatively last year we had fewer than 2,000 admit letters mailed. Last year one reason we came up short in the freshman enrollment was because of the yield rate, the percentage of students that we admitted did not conform to our prior experience, we had been at about 29% the last two prior years, last year because of our selectivity in academic profile students had more options yield rate dropped to 26%. We are admitting more students, academic profile is strong as it's been, we project about 750 students. Institutional Research Office spent the year doing a complex model to do a better projections of the students based on four key predictive factors: Geography, Academic Program, Academic Profile and Ethnicity, four factors that seem to actually make the difference in predictability. The model is based on a 25% yield rate, based on this model we should have 750 students. Depending on how things are in the world these numbers may change and have an impact on our enrollment, we will just move ahead with our best projections, with a solid plan that's more mature and sophisticated, with better service than we've ever had.

This year the faculty developmental leave packages have been more difficult then they've been in the last couple of years, everyone probably has sense on the campus that in the last few years there has been a greater sense of accountability, some of you may have experienced with your deans, turning back applications, asking to strengthen it, sharpen the focus, increase the accountability, develop a level of evenness of quality of the same order that we are trying to achieve in promotion and tenure. This year it didn't work as well, fifteen application were turned back, no one was turned down, but Deans struggled with this, suggested we have better written guidelines, form will be revised, we will have an annual forum, to help people understand what makes a good proposal for faculty developmental leave. Academic Council thoughts and suggestions are welcome, we will be working with a faculty committee to establish a forum for faculty to help applicants each year. Questions:

What committee will be more closely linked with the process? CAPD probably, there is no committee directly associated with faculty developmental leave, or FRC or both committees together, helping define what the key questions should be, new guidelines will be developed this spring. The goal for the new guidelines is not to restrict the number of developmental leaves is to assure that they are of high quality and that there is accountability to the university programs and departments and their productivity.

5. Program Review
Motion: Darcy Umphred moved, Newman Peery seconded to accept Academic Affairs Program Review recommendations for the Department of Philosophy.

a) Philosophy - Ron Hoverstad, Chair Academic Affairs stated that the program review panel made seven recommendations. In summary, the panel recommends:
I. adding a new faculty position in eastern philosophy;
II. scaling back the department's commitment to the mentor program so they can .increase upper division offerings to philosophy majors;
III. Introducing a capstone seminar and senior thesis option for seniors;
IV. building links to the natural sciences by hiring a faculty member in the Philosophy of Science upon Professor Heffernan's retirement;
V. encouraging greater scholarly accomplishment;
VI. maintaining its close links to the study of law by lobbying for a share of Professor Hewitt's line after his retirement; and
VII. exploring methods of learning assessment that are appropriate for teaching and learning in the Philosophy Department.

While the Academic Affairs Committee accepted the report by the panel, we did not fully endorse recommendation number two (II). That is, some members of the committee feel that the level of the Philosophy Department's commitment to the mentor program is appropriate. However, we fully agree with the panel, that if the department receives additional faculty resources, those resources should be used to strengthen the department's offerings and not for increasing the department's teaching in the mentor program. We endorse all the remaining recommendations of the panel.

Discussion followed regarding item VI, anticipating Professor Hewitt's retirement and the role he plays in Philosophy, SIS and Political Sciences departments.

Academic Council accepts the report and endorses the recommendations except for number VI. The concern from Academic Council is trying to line up professor Hewitt's position vs. the philosophy of law class, not Professor's Hewitt's position. Motion to approved friendly amendment to address philosophy of law separate from Professor's Hewitt's position. Approved with 1 exception. Report was approved with 1 abstention. (Cover sheet from AC Executive Board to follow)

6 Ron Hoverstad, Chair, Academic Affairs - Course Syllabi -
Chair Hoverstad presented council member with a draft of a memo to Deans, Department chairs, and Curriculum Committee chairs talking about course syllabi and the interpretation from Academic Affairs to Faculty Handbook section 11.7

At the beginning of each semester, each faculty member must provide a course syllabus in writing to students. The course syllabus constitutes an agreement between the instructor and the student.

The course syllabus must include the following:
a. Course objectives, goals and description of material to be covered
b. Student responsibilities
c. All major assignments and examinations
d. A clear statement of attendance policies.
e. A clear statement of the modes of assessment and grading policy
f. Description of violations of the honor code and a statement of procedures for handling such violations. (See 11.24)
g. Course instructors and their means of contact
The Academic Affairs Committee interprets "course objectives" to include specific learning objectives for students in the course. We also interpret "modes of assessment" to include a procedure for collecting evidence that can be used for program improvement, not simply a process for assigning a grade. Therefore, we would suggest that the following language be included in all syllabi.

"As measures of their having achieved stated course learning objectives, student's assignments may be retained for purposes of ongoing assessment of the (program/department)'s learning objectives."

Discussion followed regarding how important student learning assessment is and the impact it will have on faculty's work load. Some members commented on the fact that in some areas, such as Music department exams or evaluations were done on a oral basis, and how are they to store/keep such evaluations unless it's being recorded or video taped. Chair Hoverstad commented that the idea is to have general guidelines to be modified to individual curriculums, the important point is to gather information about student learning and to use that information to improve the quality of the course. Assistant Provost Purnell suggested that interpretation of the phrase "modes of assessment" is in essence a mandate for faculty to express their intent regarding in their report. Topic to be further discussed in the next AC meetings.

7 Jean Purnell Update on Assessment
Assistant Provost Purnell handed out document titled University of the Pacific Assessment Plan (see attachment) Dr. Purnell in collaboration with Rob Brodnick have been working to define or organized into one outline. She has been working with each department since 1997, requesting reports on assessment plans.

8 Adjournment
Motion: Andrew Hudson moved, Simalee Smith-Stubblefield seconded to adjourn. Motion unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Ana T. Orellana, Academic Council Secretary