May 3, 2012
Academic Council Minutes
May 3, 2012, 3pm
Library Community Room
Call to Order @ 3:05
Business: J. Post (p), P. Hilsenrath (p)
Conservatory: F. Hsiao (a), B. Phillips (p)
College: M. Bates (a), S. Giraldez (p), C. Goff (p), K. Holland (p), C. Lehmann (p), J. Lu (p), L. Rademacher (p), C. Snell (p), T. Storch (a), B. Swagerty (p), L. Wrischnik (p)
Dental: L. Giusti (p), J. Miles (p), R. White (a)
Education: H. Arnold (p), T. Nelson (p), L. Webster (a)
Emeriti: R. di Franco (p)
Engineering: C. Lee (p) C. Mathews (p)
Law: G. Caplan (a), W. Jones (p), M. Vitiello (p)
Library: S. Sutton (p)
PHS: S. Carr-Lopez (p), X. Guo (p), T. Phelan (a), J. Ward-Lonergan (p)
SIS: A. Kanna (p)
Ex-Officio: P. Eibeck (p), M. Pallavicini (p), B. Gundersen (a), D. Neault (a)
Guests: Larry Boles, Robin Imhof, Bett Schumacher, Alan Gluskin, Ove Peters, Brigid Welch, Paul Turpin, Robert Oprandy, Craig Hawbaker, Arturo Ocampo, Xiaojing Zhou, David Chase, Edie Sparks, Rich Rojo, Phil Oppenheimer, Giulio Ongaro
1. Approval of Consent Agenda (Minutes, Emeriti Faculty, Library Committee change)
Library Committee Change was originally tabled, so it cannot be part of the consent agenda. This item has been pulled and is number eight on the agenda.
All other items, are passed - 4.12.12 meeting minutes, Emeriti Letter - Brennan, Emeriti Letter - Kraynak, Handbook Change 8.14.2 University Services of Benefit to Emeriti
ADDENDUM: On June 1, 2012, members of Executive Board voted on behalf of Academic Council to extend Emeritus status to Paul Fogle as well. We did not know of his retirement in time for the May meeting.
2. Welcome New Members/Thank Outgoing Members
Thank you to those that have served and welcome to new members. New members present: Larry Boles and Robin Imhof. Amy Smith, Bill Herrin, and Christine Wilson are other new members we are aware of. Outgoing members are Gerald Caplan, Lola Giusti, Xin Guo, Tamara Phelan, Tanya Storch, Shan Sutton, Mike Vitiello, and Susan Giraldez. Feilin Hsiao from the Conservatory has been re-elected. There will be a reception in the CTL following the meeting.
3. Chair's Report - C. Goff
At the April 19-20 Regent's meeting, the tuition increase that IPC had recommended, was approved. Contingency plans are in place to cover the anticipated Cal Grant gap. The Regents tasked the President and University with seven strategic items. Chris was contacted by J. Thompson from CTL to assist in making recommendations for the use of Faculty Development funds. Recommendations to make workshops available to faculty were discussed with Academic Council Executive Board and the Chair-Elect. Announcement about MOVE program, they are in process of recruiting faculty to participate. Flyers are available, there is a new 4 hour commitment option available.
4. President's Report - P. Eibeck
A summary of the budget will go out to all university employees. The university is not optimistic about the Cal Grant situation. Announcements: The Board has encouraged having University Day on a half-day (Wednesday) prior to the Stockton Regents meeting. There will be a panel on a current topic, hoping that faculty and alumni will be involved. Hope to bring back alumni, major donors, past regents, as well as current regents and university employees to celebrate the University. She will give a state of the university address, and have a student centered event. Considering a historical theme, celebrating our past, perhaps our spiritual history. United Methodist Church is coming to review us for accreditation. We are no longer a Methodist University, we are a Methodist related university and are eligible for certain scholarships.
This fall we are launching an enterprise risk management system. A committee has put forth a recommended structure to improve communication and minimize/mitigate risk. The primary recommendation is that the university needs a Code of Ethics. She will be asking the faculty to play a significant role to develop this code (at least half faculty).
The Board had a full day retreat, the president and provost attended. What are the biggest issues that deserve attention, are transformative, and are doable? Biggest three issues: Three-city university concept; leveraging multi-disciplinary health programs; and student success. We need to build a reputation of excellence to increase our student base (customer base). Need to improve how we service our students (technology, job preparation upon graduation). The regents charged the President to take bold action, build new/enhanced programs on all 3 campuses-have pilot programs in the very near future - want us to attract academically driven students, incorporate academic technology, leverage health programs. Lots of concern about Stockton and its future. Look at ourselves as a business, use our resources, make tough decisions, and do this quickly. Setting strong, aspirational goals. Many students apply to the university, about 13% select Pacific.
5. Provost's Report - M. Pallavicini
On track with strategic planning process, the committee has a plan for the first and second drafts to be prepared prior to the next Regent's Meeting. On September 13, there will be a University Planning Day, no classes for half a day, beginning at noon. An opportunity for more feedback, this is a suggestion from the SPC. This will be university wide, including law and dental schools.
The P&T committee has put together recommendations to the provost of best practices. Also sent to the Dean's and they have been asked to consult with their faculty. She wants comments returned to her and then P&T will review over the next few weeks. In the fall the recommendations will go out to all the faculty for input by P&T, prior to being finalized and then go to PRC and AC. Looking at implementing new guidelines within a year.
OIT is moving to the Provost's Office - Effective July 1, to have better linkage with academics, and have faculty embrace technology in teaching and in distance learning as well as the three university campus.
Personnel: Tom Krise - leaving; Elizabeth Parker, from law school is stepping down and going on sabbatical; Cynthia Wagner Weick - SIS interim dean is returning to teaching; Lewis Gale from business school is stepping in as interim dean of SIS.
Paul Paton from Law School is the new Vice Provost - starts part time in June, full-time in August. He has a wide base of administrative experience, as well as experience in teaching and in scholarship.
Freshmen enrollment: we are about 50 students below where we want to be, have maintained quality, last year at this time the average SAT was 1188 with a 3.48 GPA, this year we are at 1209 and 3.54. The Engineering and Business school deans have set firm minimum bars on their minimum acceptance requirements. Acceptances are below in all areas except the Natural Sciences. Peer institutions are also low.
6. Elections to various committees
Ballot distributed to Academic Council members and emailed to Lola Giusti and Mike Vitiello. Ballot was of committees elected by council only.
7. New Program: Endodontics
Alan Gluskin and Ove Peters participated via videoconference from Dugoni. Strategic Vision for the department, excellent reputation in the field, have a major textbook in the field in the undergraduate area. Program is in great need of graduate programs and they are ready to provide it.
B. Phillips motions to approve, W. Jones seconds, motion unanimously passes.
How many students needed to be successful? 3 residents for a 27 month program.
Patient Revenue and Grant Revenues? Already received $100K for a full time technician in the lab and $70K for undergraduate. More money coming in. They do need to hire one person. Two issues raised by AC: Budget page may need to be updated - possible issue with stipend for residents, and TOEFL score of 525 as prerequisite for enrollment and advancement.
8. Handbook Revision: 6.2.11 Library Committee - Paul Turpin and Brigid Welch
C. Snell motions to remove from table, X. Guo seconds.
This issue was tabled at prior meeting with issue from McGeorge. Paul Turpin spoke with Law School and Dental School, language has been revised and agreed upon.
Approval was unanimous.
9. Handbook Addition: 6.2.18 University Diversity Curriculum Committee -Bob Oprandy, Arturo Ocampo, et al.
R. DiFranco motions to remove from table, C. Snell seconds.
B. Oprandy opens discussion. Committee has been organized and effectively doing work for a while and now needs formal approval. The diversity issue was identified as a WASC priority from the recent visit. S. Giraldez gave background on the history of the committee and the diversity requirement. GE Committee was asked if they could do this work, response was that they did not have the expertise in the current make up of the committee. There will be two separate processes, one for the GE process and one for the diversity requirement, and are separately listed in the school catalog.
Vote: Unanimously passed.
10. Library Bylaws
Issue previously tabled - C. Lehmann moves to remove from the table, W. Jones seconds, motion to approve bylaws passes with one abstention. Per S. Sutton, implemented language suggested by subcommittee, minimum baselines were agreed to. T. Phelan convened subcommittee and provided recommendations, all were accepted and changes were made. A question was raised about linking books and articles into one category.
a. Ad Hoc Subcommittee on the Diversity Task Force report - C. Lehmann
In light of the three campus initiative, should the professional schools be included? Noticed that there are no law school, or school of engineering representatives on the task force? While we need people with expertise in diversity, may defeat the purpose of diversity if not enough diversity (broad representation) on the committee.
Statement on page 8 - "University of the Pacific has a fairly long history of valuing diversity, with a more recent history of embracing inclusive excellence and advancing diversity goals, values and learning outcomes in its planning documents." Doesn't believe that this is the case, and it may be more strategic to suggest that we've had our challenges in the past and to draw attention to the fact that things have changed exponentially over the last 10 years, and draw attention to the momentum created and the achievements of the university.
Statement on page 14 - "Consider with Academic Council the Standing or Ad-hoc status of the University Diversity Committee; then establish a subcommittee on LGBTQIA issues to serve as an advocate for the community." With the suggestion that there will be a separate dedicated subcommittee for LGBTQIA only, why not others, gender, ethnicity, etc.? And if so, how do we integrate these subcommittees so we don't end up with a separate but equal paradigm?
There is an effort to expand our revenue streams by increasing or focusing our recruitment efforts on more affluent communities, such as Marin, Monterey, Santa Clara, Alameda, etc. We might simultaneously recruit from SUSD, in the interest of improving Stockton and having these students give back to their community? Also important for our campus to reach out to the local community.
What kind of diversity are we priveleging? Do we want to seek ethnic diversity of middle and upper class students who can pay for Pacific versus those whose experience of diversity is more authentic. Although diversity in socioeconomic terms is mentioned twice in the document, there are no mechanisms in place to support the working poor on this campus. Should we make a more concerted effort to reach out to poor students regardless of their gender or ethnic background?
Other comments: The report needs a clearer articulation of curricular and co-curricular integration of programs; from Courtney herself - we need a dedicated university-wide ombudsman on the campus; SAT/ACT standardized testing - looking at other options for admissions; reviewing the value of standardized testing - subcommittee considers this forward thinking; philosophical beliefs as diversity issue mentioned once at the beginning of the report, but not mentioned again; areas, goals and subgoals have some duplication; implementation - intrusive advising, how will some of these be accomplished?
The subcommittee pointed out that this was a stellar report, and that the task force should be complimented for their effort. The goal is to take this faculty feedback to Elizabeth Griego.
b. Ad Hoc Subcommittee on IEC Program Review Guidelines - David Chase
The AC members that reviewed the guidelines were K. Holland, L. Rademacher, L. Wrishnik, and J. Lu. Their input was summarized by C. Goff and sent to IEC. Members of IEC are present to respond: Primary topics to cover include workload and executing program review, representation, advocacy, timeline, the process and outcome of program review, and the relationship of IEC to the provost and to program review in general. IEC discussed these issues at length: This is a pilot system, under the guise of a pilot process to produce evidence based program reviews that are consistent with what WASC is looking for in terms of how program review relates to accrediting standards. What we are ultimately about is revising the process to make it more evidence based.
Members of IEC are reaching out to upcoming units that are beginning reviews, this is going to be a two-way conversation. They want to be mentors in the process.
Program Review Teams (PRT) - issues in the past, new way to do it, not the same as before, intent is to do self-studies that are useful to the PRT, not that they have to do the self-study.
The team is aware of the workload issue. They are looking into "best practices" at other institutions.
Where will this (IEC) formally be placed at end of the pilot period? All stakeholders must be involved and it should be reflective of shared governance.
Will a PRT be required for every review? Depends on the unit, external accreditation, is an external review already available? Does it add value? What are the best practices? PRT's are designed to be the "peer" review in the process.
Resource Allocation and Program Review - it's the dean's role to review, evaluate, and reallocate resources based on the program review. A program review is not an automatic guarantee of additional resources.
c. Core Identity Project report -Rich Rojo
STAMATS hired to do report: full report not submitted yet, but a two page summary is attached to today's agenda. Gathering data to accurately describe the reputation of the university - its core identity. What are the perceptions/attributes associated with Pacific? From internal and external audiences. Faculty involved in the process were Sacha Joseph-Mathews and Carolyn Kohn. The bottom line - we are described in good to very good terms, kind of soft terms, not stellar ratings. No real standouts, or strong negatives. Highest ratings for quality of faculty and faculty as mentors. The Core Identity Advisory Committee will look at reports over the summer and come to conclusions in the fall. Will develop a new message platform for the university.
d. Presidential Task Force on Budget Model - Phil Oppenheimer & Giulio Ongaro
This task force is looking at various budget models for the university. Preliminary report of their activities were put on Sakai for review and is attached, "Executive Summary of Activities to Date of the Preident's Budget Task Force for Examining Alternative Allocation Models."
Looking to increase incentives for programs to be innovative, creative and accountable for their activities. Began by looking at our current budget models and wanting to use one budget model for all three campuses. We currently use:
• Hybrid incremental budget model for most of our units on the Stockton Campus
• Two hybrid models for LAW and DEN
• College, and CPCE has a different model (hybrid incremental and RCM)
Had two open forums, reviewed materials, spoke with consultants during this process. Consultants suggest the RCM type model for Pacific. Two consultants were Jay Morley and John Strauss.
RCM model - Dean Ongaro in charge of reviewing this model, looking at impact, putting in numbers for FY11. Issues with indirect costs and decision making to account for non revenue generating units. We need an incentivized system.
Current university model-Another group is evaluating this model.
Fall 2012 - put this item on our agenda. There will be open forums in the fall for faculty to attend.
12. What's On Your Mind?
Vote of appreciation for Chris Goff for a great year of work by R. diFranco.
13. Reception follows (CTL, upstairs)