Skip to content
  • Print

November 14, 2013

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


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

Call to Order @ 3:00 pm

I. Consent Agenda
A. October 10, 2013 Minutes

II. Reports
A. Chairperson's Report - Marlin Bates
The chair has had personal interaction with the President and the Provost, and believes they have the faculty's and the university's best interest at heart. He has been receiving good information and getting answers to questions posed by AC and the faculty. We have received responses to the questions forwarded to administration from the All-Faculty meeting, as well as the letter sent from AC; and they will be reviewed during today's executive session.

A question posed by a student this week, "Why doesn't Pacific recognize Veteran's Day as a holiday?" If anyone knows the history behind this or the reason for it, please share the information.

An outcome of the All-Faculty meeting is the establishment of a sharepoint site for all Pacific Faculty to communicate the issues that Academic Council is working on and their status:

There is an open faculty election regarding the Honor Code Section of the handbook, and updated to the Promotion & Tenure Guidelines, please encourage your constituents to vote and participate in the election. The Strategic Planning Committee nominees are also on the ballot. The Ombudsman position job opportunity is currently open, and the job description is in today's packet. Last spring there was a joint SAC/AC resolution requesting the establishment of this position.

The University Awards deadline for the Order of Pacific has been extended until January 22nd due to the expected additional retirements.
B. President's Report
The President is unable to attend today, however Bett Schumacher is here to invite participation for the second annual President's Holiday ROAR - Reach Out And Read - event on December 4th from 4:00-6:30 in the DUC. A book drive with books for children ages 0-5 is currently in progress with the goal of gathering 1,000 books. This event is co-sponsored by the Staff Advisory Council and the Academic Council. Families are encouraged to attend.

C. Provost's Report - Maria Pallavicini
Enrollment update
The provost distributed a handout with a graphical representation of the last five years of Freshmen Application Trends. The numbers are substantively lower right now than in prior years. When we began using the Royall recruiting company, our application numbers increased from 8K to 22K, but our yield is going down, we are below 10% and have been declining the last few years. In order to have a healthy enrollment, our yield needs to be at 15%.

Royall purchases names of juniors and seniors that have taken the SAT from throughout the United States. But, we know that we recruit and accept students primarily from California and the western states. The Royall contract is for $750,000 and the costs are $4k per student. We are doing two things differently this year: buying names from our successful recruitment regions and charging an application fee of $35. We are expecting 14K applications, but a higher yield. Traditionally 70% of applications come through Royall, and 30% through the Common App. The Common App experienced major problems with their software rollout this year. Our original goal was 900 for the incoming freshman class, but are now reducing our target to 800-850. She is encouraging faculty to assist with recruitment. Enrollment updates will be provided and posted on our sharepoint site. Tomorrow, November 15, is the early admission deadline.

Pacific has signed a MOU with Sierra College in Roseville to develop a University Center to look at how we can work together. Roseville approached Pacific about 18-24 months ago to open a campus and this has transitioned to a University Center - looking to develop a pipeline for students. The other colleges involved are: Sierra College, CSU Sacramento, Brandman University and William Jessup University.

CTL Update
There was a failed search last spring. A new CTL Director job opportunity notice has been created and will be posted next week. She will post it for 3-4 weeks and evaluate the response. If necessary, a search firm will be hired. There will be another position for someone to coordinate distance programs, primarily administrative, but would like a teaching background. Another Provost newsletter will be published the first week in December.

III. Action Items
A. New Program: Doctor of Audiology (Au.D.)
Dean Oppenheimer is present, Bob Hanyak is on the phone to present the proposal.

This is a three year professional degree program. There are three programs on the west coast, Seattle, Portland and San Diego and we are well positioned to have success with our program. This program is unique and consistent with Pacific's programs which are accelerated three year professional programs (year-round). This was not a viable program in Stockton, but with the availability of space in the new San Francisco campus, it has become viable. This is an academic program for two years with a 52 week residency for 3rd year (paid), 124 units. The goal is to have a class size of 15-20 students. The unit is comfortable with their ability to reach this goal.

Question about the budget, where there are gifts for start-up costs of $1 million. They are in preliminary talks with potential donors, but the program must be approved by the regent's before they can obtain a commitment. This is the goal. Or they expect that they can pay back the university within five years if they don't secure the initial gifts.

How will the program be staffed? There are two components, five academic faculty who are the primary teaching faculty and four clinical faculty working the audiology clinic and dispensing hearing aids. The four clinical faculty are self-supporting through clinic revenue. The other academic faculty will be paid via tuition and all are new appointments.

What is impact to audiology program in Stockton? They anticipate growth and are looking to increase the program in Stockton so that the residents could work here in their 3rd year.

Tuition question - It is best to compare us to Pacific University in Oregon, with tuition of $28K/year. We will be at $105K/year, $105 total, which is competitive.

Chris Snell moves to approve the new program, W. Jones seconds, motion passes with one abstention.

B. FHB Revision 11.24 Honor Code
This item is also on the current election as it requires approval by the full faculty. If it is approved in the election, it also requires Academic Council approval. This is the honor code and academic honesty policies that are in Tiger Lore. This is the section that is required to be referenced in all syllabi.

Are there other codes of responsibility for students? Yes, but this one requires faculty involvement. Why is it in the faculty handbook? To make sure it is under our purview.

How are violations dealt with? This is missing from the revision, but it was in the old version. We will add the following: A violation will be reported to the Director of Judicial Affairs.

H. Arnold moves to approve, W. Jones seconds, motion passes.

IV. Information Items
A. OIT and the new iCIO - John Jones
He began working at Pacific in an interim role in September, after the network shutdown occurred. He is working on upgrading equipment (switches) to upgrade bandwidth throughout campus. The plan is to do it in small pieces versus all at once as was attempted in the summer. It will take 3-4 months to complete.

He has been here 2 months and has been reviewing our systems and working on creating a roadmap and conducting a gap analysis. He has been meeting with various units and wants to leave the channels of two-way communication open.

B. Homecoming 2013 - Kelli Page & Lynn King
The Alumni Association asked to meet with Council to evaluate this year's homecoming and provide feedback for the 2014 event. Kelli Page, Executive Director of the Pacific Alumni Association, and Lynn King, Assistant Vice President of Student Life, are presenting. Bill Coen, Executive Director of Alumni Relations was unable to attend today.

This year's homecoming had five learning outcomes:
• Demonstrate the value of a Pacific education
• Strengthen constituent relationships
• Encourage Lifelong Pacificans
• Provide socially engaging activities
• Career networking
There were over 80 events during the weekend from Friday through Sunday, with over 1400 registered guests, but 4000 people involved including faculty, students, parents and community members.

Questions for faculty:
Did faculty know about it? Yes, some faculty participated in classroom presentations. Did the faculty know they were invited and welcome to participate? Some knew through their Dean's office. An invitation was sent to all faculty. What is the best way to invite faculty? Inter office mail. These events are free to faculty, paid for by the Provost and the Alumni office. How can we get faculty to attend the weekend? It's important for parents and alumni to meet with faculty. Contact department chairs directly and make a presentation to Council prior to the event. Post guest list.

8-10 faculty members participated throughout the weekend. Would more faculty be interested in providing ‘classes without quizzes.'? Yes. Providing childcare would be helpful to alumni and faculty.

C. Faculty Compensation & Retirement Package - Bill Swagerty
The FCC has put forward a report based on their review of the Faculty Early Retirement Program proposal and meetings with the Provost and the VP for Business and Finance. The report was written by the chair of the FCC, Geoff Lin-Cereghino, with the committees' endorsement. They would like the endorsement and support of the AC as well.

On October 14th faculty received a letter announcing the early retirement incentive program. On October 28th, the 51 eligible faculty members received a private email from Jane Lewis. On October 31st, the committee met with the provost, and VP Cavanaugh.

They received clarification on a few points, which are part of the report, but they still have issues with the entire proposal - primarily timing and retiree/department planning time. The FCC had a meeting with TIAA and the University Attorney and determined that the timing is not effective, as the faculty do not have enough time to have an adequate financial analysis completed by the December 2nd deadline. TIAA stated this is something they should have been made aware of last spring in order to adequately assist and provide necessary data for decision making. The short timeframe may lead to poor decisions made by the retiree and by the departments.

There is also an issue with being offered less than the law school professors were offered. The response is that this is not negotiable. The decisions will be on an individual basis regarding the ability to return as adjuncts. This will be up to individual deans, provost, president (not faculty member and department chair).

The FCC wants AC to consider the recommendations on pages 3 & 4 of the report, and they would like to have all 51 eligible professors assemble as no collective meeting has been held yet.

TIAA will be back on campus November 20-21 for individual sessions. The timetable needs to be extended. This is a busy time for all with the holidays and the end of the semester nearing and this is an important decision that needs adequate time for review. We are letting qualified faculty down if they are not provided all necessary information to make a truly informed decision.

Timing: December 2 notification of intent to retire, December 10 sign official retirement paperwork, then they have 45 days to rescind.

TIAA is involved with state of Nevada, and can't devote time to Pacific faculty right now. There are four wealth management consultants assigned to the University, but only one was available today.

Motion: Request from Administration to extend the decision deadline date for eligible faculty to accept the FERP from December 2, 2013, to the end of the spring 2014 semester.
H. Arnold moves to approve, W. Jones seconds, motion passes with 1 opposed, and 2 abstentions.

Motion: Allow the faculty member electing to accept the FERP, to choose an immediate effective date (spring 2014) or one additional year (spring 2015).
L. Boles moves to approve, B. Phillips second, 1 opposed 4 abstentions, motion passes.

Motion: Request that Human Resources work with Academic Council to coordinate a meeting of all eligible participants (51) with TIAA representatives in attendance, to ensure that the same information is shared with all eligible FERP faculty.
B. Swagerty moves to approve, A. Richard seconds, motion passes.

This would give the eligible faculty enough time to meet with TIAA/CREF and make an informed decision as TIAA cannot complete a retirement analysis for qualified faculty by the December 2, 2013 date.
This would give the dean's and department chairs enough time to plan what they are going to do with the tenured line.
Thanks to the provost.

D. Academic Planning & Alignment - Provost Pallavacini
She has provided Marlin with a timeline of the various initiatives and also responded to questions presented by faculty to be shared with Council. The critical issues right now are the Academic Planning and Alignment Reports and the Retirement Incentive Program. The retirement deadlines are occurring prior to the due date of the reports. An explanation can be found on the FAQ page on the Provost's website. The deans requested that there be a separation of the reports, from the reallocations plans and from the retirement incentive program. This is why each has its own timeline. The dean's felt they knew how they were going to get their reallocation funds. The intention to retire is due 12.2 with the negation to be completed by 12.10 and then 45 days for faculty to change their minds. The reallocation plans are also due 12.2. However, faculty will still have the opportunity to change their mind. The dean's will need to have a Plan B in case there is a change to the number of faculty retiring.

The Academic Planning report writing is what faculty is in the middle of right now. There were nine criteria developed by the Strategic Planning Committee. Criteria 7 & 8 are focused on financial data, and the Deans are concerned about confidentiality issues and this data being made public. The university has had issues in the past even though the information is on insidePacific. Therefore, a decision has been made not to share criteria 7 & 8. This data contributes to the rating on Sustainability.

There will not be overall ratings, but there will be individual ratings on each of the criteria. These scores will then go to CART (Comprehensive Academic Review Team), where they will look holistically for consistency. CART was originally going to be the SPC, however there have been changes and now there will be individuals from existing committees that are better positioned to make academic assessments (academic affairs, institutional effectiveness, assessment working group and two academic council members). These members will be trained on what they are expected to do.

The Deans want reports by December 20th and are due to be posted in early January. Every report and the score will be published and the process will be transparent. After this the Deans will make their recommendation to the Provost. Enhance, maintain, reduce, reorganize, eliminate. There will be a discussion with the dean's and their faculty/units. There will continue to be conversations between the deans and the provost before the public recommendations are made.

The provost has prepared a draft document: Focusing on Our Future Academic Action Definitions, which defines the criteria that will be used to make the recommendations. The three major areas are: Program Quality (primarily criteria 4 & 5), Sustainability which includes budget & student demand (criteria 6-8), and Strategic Alignment (criteria 9). The table of recommended actions in this document was generated with the deans.

Any recommendations to eliminate a program will still have to go through the Faculty Handbook process, but she does not anticipate many programs will be eliminated. We want a diversified portfolio with high quality programs that are financially feasible. Strong programs with strong student demand. Not all programs are sustainable, but the focus should be on a high quality mix of programs that are sustainable, as many programs, especially in the college, are interdependent.

Is there any feedback from faculty on handout? What is the definition of quality? Is sustainability valued the same as quality? We have to have a diversified portfolio, with all programs being of high quality. Quality metrics from the regent's perspective include, graduation rate, incoming statistics (applicants), basically kpi's (key performance indicators). Others are WASC, key areas of competency, learning outcomes. Quality includes multiple things.

The Deans are having a retreat on December 13th with the provost on "What does quality mean?"

V. Executive Session - the meeting entered into executive session.