Skip to content
  • Print

May 8, 2014

Academic Council Meeting
Library Community Room
3:00-5:00 pm

Executive Session called to order @ 3:00 pm

Business: J. Post (p), S. Walchli (p)
Conservatory: F. Hsiao (p), B. Phillips (a)
College: M. Bates (p), K. Burmeister (p), C. Dobbs (p), B. Herrin (a), K. Holland (p), C. Lehmann (p), M. Normand (a), A. Smith (a), C. Snell (p), B. Swagerty (p), L. Wrischnik (p)
Dental: F. Fendler (p), A. Nattestad (p), R. White (p)
Education: H. Arnold (p), T. Nelson (p), L. Webster (a)
Emeriti: R. di Franco (p)
Engineering: D. Cliburn (p), L. Lee (a)
Law: L. Carter (p), F. Galves (p), W. Jones (p)
Library: R. Imhof (p)
PHS: L. Boles (a), S. Carr-Lopez (p), J. Ward-Lonergan (a), C. Wilson (a)
SIS: A. Kanna (p)
ASUOP: S. Medina (a), tbd
Ex-Officio: P. Eibeck (p), M. Pallavicini (p), D. Neault (p), J. Ren (p)
Observers: B. Gundersen (a), J. Lohr (p)
Guests: L. Rademacher, C. Jenefsky, L. Matz, E. McFall, H. Stevenson

I. Executive Session
A. Consent Agenda
i. April 10, 2014 Minutes
ii. April 17, 2014 Minutes [Executive Session]
iii. Emeriti Approval
iv. Academic Affairs spring 2014 Approval Log
v. Ombudsman Committee Membership
     1. Approval for Harriett Arnold to serve for one semester as Emeriti
     2. Continuing action for Emeriti in place to serve out their terms (up to two years)
B. Other action items pending
Executive Session adjourned at 3:33 pm.

II. Reports
A. Chairperson's Report - M. Bates
i. Letter to President/Provost
There will be a reception immediately after the meeting to thank outgoing members and faculty that are retiring from the university. Newly elected members are welcome. Thanks to everyone for their participation in preparing the Letter to the President and Provost, it was truly a group effort. This is an ongoing document, the process has not ended and will continue. The faculty would like the president to specifically answer the questions raised in the letter. And also a response to the issue of a faculty member on the Board of Regents, or additional representation/interaction with the Board. Faculty would like to revisit this issue. We will be sending a copy of the letter to the Board of Regents and to all faculty. We would like specific requests from the letter directly answered. Additionally, we would like to know when we will get these specific answers and information on the Strategic Investment Fund and how it is going to be allocated/spent. This is a request on behalf of the entire Academic Council.

Next year is the implementation of the recommendations and it will be a difficult year.

ii. Regent's Meeting Report
The regents are behind the plan for progress. We need a more vibrant relationship between faculty and regents.

B. President's Report - P. Eibeck
The president thanked the group for bringing faculty together and engaging in discussion and feedback. It's a challenging time at Pacific and for higher education everywhere. Faculty engagement is highly valued. She will provide a written response to the letter and provide some feedback today, but will begin with her vision and how the proposed changes will assist with the vision for the future of Pacific. She will also discuss the Strategic Investment Fund. If there is time, she will discuss items in the letter that are worth addressing immediately.

Our goal is to truly be a three-city university. Our future is to be a single dynamic university with high quality, high demand programs in all three of our cities, by building a reputation in our three key locations in Northern California. Pacific will be the first choice for students seeking a personalized education. Excellent academic programs, with short and long term benefits. Scholarly and creative endeavors will enhance our students' learning, as well as bringing value to the region.
There will be experiential learning opportunities for all our students.

The Stockton campus will remain the heart of the university. We will offer exceptionally strong programs in the liberal arts and in professional fields. We are going to attract talented students, who will succeed to graduation and be prepared to translating their education to their livelihood. We are going to have a superior living-learning residential campus.

The Sacramento/SF campuses will service adult learners who are seeking an advanced education. Sacramento will build on the Law School (law, business and health); in San Francisco will build on the prestigious reputation of the Dugoni School of Dentistry (health and technology).

This vision is necessary because there are less students going to college and being able to pay for college and we have to compensate for location. Only the best schools will survive.

Over half of our revenues come from three professional programs - Law, Dentistry and Pharmacy. Law is going through a major disruption with a significant drop in enrollment.

This bold vision is not easy to implement, so we have created a strategic investment fund with the goal of $15 million base funds (6% from the schools and the college and 7% from the administrative units of the university). The administrative reallocations have already occurred ($8.1 million). Academic units were part of the APA - they have two years to contribute, LAW and DEN were given a bye on the contribution. There were issues with the numbers in the letter from faculty. Academic units will contribute $2.8 million. The base will be $13 million, with $500K contributed from general fund for the past four years.

General principles for allocations: most important is to invest in new academic programs. $7 million for new academic programs or existing programs that are working to increase enrollment. Funding from the SIF will be limited to three years. $6 million for strategic capacity building (administrative costs) directly related to our strategies (marketing, technology, student success).

White House Scorecard about to be released showing our six year graduation rate at 63%, with our peers at 70%. Improvement is needed.

SEED grants (up to $500,000/year) will be available for any administrative/academic unit. The Strategic Planning Committee will make decisions. Awardees will have two years to spend $50K, if it is interdisciplinary $100K will be awarded. These are one time use only. If assessment demonstrates that this is an outstanding project, then they can request base funds with the unit also contributing.

She's excited about this process. The IPC and SPC are the most important committees in this process.

She vows her readiness to work with AC and bring us together with the board and have a discussion on shared governance and how we can make it work effectively. Faculty are very important to the process.

Chair Bates stated that there are three primary issues of concern on behalf of the faculty: shared governance is a large concern. When the president mentioned that it was a hard call to give dugoni a pass on contribution to SIF after discussion with input from the cabinet and the board, it would have been more inclusive to state that all three constituencies were consulted, including faculty; large concerns regarding data issues used in the process, it is lacking, missing, and erroneous. What are we doing to fix this problem? finally, we need a benchmark to reach to retain programs or lose programs and How the data interacts with the decision making process?

C. Provost's Report - M. Pallavicini
Professor Gary Litton, Engineering received the Distinguished Faculty Award, Professor Bill Herrin, SIS Director received the Eberhardt Teacher-Scholar Award and Professor Todd Davenport, Physical Therapy received the University Scholar Teacher of the Year Award. They will be recognized at Commencement.

Contributions to SIF will be outlined in the upcoming provost newsletter.

New Hires: Director of University Writing Program - Eileen Camfield; CTL Director, Terri Johnson begins August 1st. Ongoing searches: Vice Provost for Distributed Learning - candidates have come to campus - next week an offer will be made. The Vice Provost of Strategy and Educational Effectiveness will be closing on the 15th.

III. Discussion on Reports
Although the president's efforts are appreciated, the terms used are bothersome: high quality, outstanding teaching, excellence, strong programs, superior. The terms can be insulting and disingenuous to faculty, as it presumes that these have not been our goals prior to President Eibeck's tenure and her creation of this ‘new' vision for the university.

The goals are understandable, but the presentations are general in nature and more of an ‘introduction to a grant proposal.' The micro-decisions that are being made are not fitting in with overarching themes. The elimination of small programs? How does this help us reach our goals? There is a sense that there aren't any specifics.

The president would like to have some time to sit down with academic council and discuss in more detail. The current process with 10 minute reports makes it difficult to have in-depth discussions. President asked how we can have better conversations/discussions? Should she come to council? Go to the college? Faculty need questions specifically answered. Better communication/responses to questions would help the situation. Exchanging letters doesn't seem to be working effectively, a meaningful discussion is necessary.

We (faculty) don't understand how programs can make us a three campus institution.
When AC asks a question of administration, it is not done lightly, it is after discussion and agreement and a timely response is necessary, perhaps seven business days. It is difficult to provide a robust response to a written question. We need to find a way to better discuss and communicate. Suggestions were made to have President/Provost attend Executive Board meetings, have AC meet twice a month, have one of these meetings be for discussion only and no decision making, voting on action items.

Regarding data, a conversation is needed with institutional research and the new VP Linda Buckley. The benchmarking of expectations falls under the Provost.

The President apologized for the implication that what we currently do is second rate. We have a great future, we have excellent faculty and great programs. We all have to be committed to continually improve them.

Provost: What should our metrics be? Who should we benchmark against? How should we set these benchmarks? Deans, department heads and faculty need to discuss. How do faculty define quality of a program? Is there a common standard? The federal government states it as the graduation rate, retention rate, and salary 18 months post-graduation.

B. Swagerty moves to have the Academic Council meet in full twice a month during the 2014-15 academic year, with one meeting focusing on legislation only and one focusing on discussion only. R. diFranco seconds, motion carries with 1 no vote and 1 abstention.

IV. Action Items
A. FHB Addition 6.3.12 University Assessment Committee - E. McFall
L. Wrischnik moves to approve, S. Carr-Lopez seconds. Approved.

B. Honors Program Revision - L. Matz
Significant issues identified during the 2010 self-study. Alternate proposals were studied and reviewed. A report was produced and is posted on Sakai. The current program is a four-year program with a residential component, one unit seminars, and a senior project. The revised program proposal is for a two-tier program: a first year program that would be continued and strengthened, with Balint Sztaray as the new Director, and School/department based Honors component. Details will be developed in the fall. The deadline will be in December to submit a catalog copy of the program requirements to Academic Affairs with implementation to take effect in fall 2015.

Is there automatic eligibility into the first year program, or is it a selection process? University wide requirements will be determined in the fall. Pre-pharm and Pre-dent students will be eligible for the freshman program.

C. Dobbs moves to approve, B. Phillips seconds. Approved.

C. BSE P & T Guidelines - H. Stevenson
Revised to align with university-wide guidelines. Document first submitted in February 2013, appreciative that it is on today's agenda. The Professional Relations Committee provided suggestions that were incorporated by the School of Education. The AC EDU representative supports the approval of this document.

Chair moves for a vote - Guidelines approved by Academic Council.

V. Information Items
A. Faculty Workload Policy - C. Dobbs
Draft for discussion only. WASC asked for the establishment of a written policy. Today's goal is to gather information. WASC asked for Pacific to develop a policy. This policy will be added to the Faculty Handbook.

The goal is to gather feedback, revise over the summer and then present the 2nd draft in the fall to a wider audience for input.

Question raised on the omitted list: scheduling of courses and first year faculty workload. These items will be omitted from the faculty handbook, but not necessarily be ignored. These are also issues that the Deans are responsible for.

Discussion on shift to units as opposed to courses, this is not a change, the shift is toward teaching equivalencies for faculty work outside of the classroom.

Other issues: committee work, floating first sabbatical, service work. The ‘banking' of time did not work in the school of education.

Feedback should be sent via email to: Email with ‘workload' in the subject line.

VI. What's On Your Mind?

VII. Adjournment for Harriett's Goodbye // End of Year party

Adjournment at 5:11 pm