Skip to content
  • Print

December 11, 2003

University of the Pacific – Stockton Campus
Academic Council Meeting
Minutes of December 11, 2003

R. Hoverstad (p), N. Peery (p)
Conservatory: R. Brittin (a), J. Haffner (a), N. Waldvogel (a)
COP: B. Beal (p), D. Borden (a), L. Christianson, (p) C. Dobbs (a), B. Klunk (a), P. Meyer (p), C. Ostberg (p), L. Spreer (p), D. Tedards (p), K. Whittington (a)
Dental: H. Chi (p), J. Levy (a), B. Peltier (p)
Education: M. Draheim (p), V. Snyder (a)
Emeriti: G. Blum (p)
Engineering: A. Fernandez (p), D. Turpin (p)
Law: F. Galves (a), W. Jones (p), G. Scully (p)
Library: R. Imhof (p)
Pharmacy: D. Fries (p), S. Smith-Stubblefield (p), D. Umphred (a)
SIS: C. Smith (a)
Students: L. Nowinski(p), TBD (a)
Ex-Officio: B. Cox (a), D. Brennan (a), T. Kulisch (a), R. Silvestre (a), C. Hawbaker (a), T. Nelson (a), C. Eaking (a), C. Saviz (a), L. Fox (a), T. Kuhlman (a), Joel Herche (a), R. Koper (a), P. Gilbertson (p), A. Freedman (p).
Guests: Bob Cox, AAC Chair, Marisa Kelly, COP, Pat Cavanaugh, VP Business and Finance

Chair Larry Spreer called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m.

1. Executive Session

Chair Larry Spreer asked all non-voting members of Council to leave the room

2. Approval of Minutes

Corrections: Dr. Bruce Peltier was present at the November meeting.

On item 5 under Alcohol Policy for Staff and Faculty, a request was made to include in the policy an exception to be able to use alcohol for Religious purposes.

Motion: Simalee Smith-Stubblefield moved, Ron Hoverstad seconded to approve the minutes of November 13, 2003. Motion unanimously approved

2. Chairs Report

Chair Spreer presented the resolution in favor of reestablishing the Center for Teaching Excellence to the Council of Deans meeting on 12/9/03. Deans are in favor of the center. The academic calendar for 2004/05 was presented to council for approval, again for Fall semester it will start on a Monday at 3:00pm, calendar was accepted by Academic Council.

3. Provost Report

Provost Gilbertson updated the council on some admission statistics, due to new technologies many students are schools of via the web and not notifying Pacific of their interest. In the past, interested prospective students would fill out a card, and communication would be established with the student. This year 29% of applicants notified Pacific of their interest by submitting an application. The concern Provost Gilbertson and Associate Provost Rajala have is that many of the students that are investigating Pacific and don’t apply do not leave a trail to contact them. The effort is to try to build a more dynamic website that would make it very easy for the student to leave an email address. A product is being researched that if implemented could be running within 4 to 6 months. This is a first step in a major initiative in the Customer Relationship Management for the University that uses technology to provide the kind of personalized service that we provide as soon as the student contacts Pacific. This will only be a temporary program until a more robust program that will enable to have the interaction that it is required and needed at Pacific.

4. Bob Cox – Chair Academic Affairs – Proposed changes in the University grade replacement policy.

The Little Deans group believes that changes need to be made to the existing grade replacement policy. The concern is that current policy encourages students to continue in programs for which they are ill-suited, and in many cases leads to academic dishonesty as students purposefully do poorly in courses so they will be eligible for grade replacement (rather than grade averaging) in the particular course in question. To encourage our students in this manner is unethical. Also, the frequency with which students exercise their grade replacement options in the sciences is problematic from an enrollment management standpoint.

As such the following was proposed, applying to all undergraduates (current policy bars grade replacement for first professional and graduate students; and no changes are proposed to that policy):

  1. Students can repeat a course for grade replacement if they receive a C- or lower the first time they take the class
  2. Any given course can be repeated one time only, whether for grade replacement or grade averaging. Basic skills courses are exempt from the one repeat rule.
  3. The last grade received is the grade that will be calculated into the GPA
  4. Students may exercise their grade replacement rights up to a maximum of three times while enrolled in undergraduate degree programs at Pacific. Basic Skills courses are exempt from the three times rule.
  5. The current grade averaging policy would remain unchanged for curses in which a student has received a grade of a C or above. Grade averaging would also be available to students who have “used” their three grade replacements and wish to retake another course or courses for which they have received a C- or below.
  6. In any course or program where enrollment demand exceeds the resources to offer sufficient openings or sections to meet that demand, the academic unit may give registration priority to students taking the course for the first time.

Proposal was unanimously approved with changes to first sentence of item 4 (change in bold)

5. PRC – Proposal for changes to the University Promotion and Tenure Committee (Membership and Procedures)

Lydia Fox, Chair PRC and Dave Fletcher presented proposal for changes to the Promotion and Tenure Committee Membership and Procedures. Changes to the evaluation report and how it is handled at various levels, the idea is that all pertaining parties making recommendations should use the data contained in this evaluation report as their principle source of information. What PRC is trying to avoid is a problem that has arisen quiet frequently where the evaluation report is submitted at a certain time additional information comes in, questions arise and the people evaluating (Deans, Chairs) are making evaluations on information that has not been put into context and reviewed by the original evaluation committee. With this in mind PRC is trying to fix the problem, which they think it creates some difficulties in turn of keeping all of the information into context having the evaluation committee as the primary source of the original recommendation. No changes are being suggested on how the document is handled, calendar and who the decisions makers are. Some clean up is being made on language some parts were repeated in the charge of the committee and in the discussion of the process, the part in the charge of the committee is being deleted and left in the process, langue is slightly different. The one thing that it is important to understand is that what they are recommending is that if the information does come in, that it does get sent back to the evaluation committee and the candidate, to evaluate and then the committee would send a revised report. Discussion followed on the proposed changes.

Motion: D. Tedards moved, D. Fries seconded to approve proposed changes to the Faculty sections 7.4 and 7.5 with the following amendments:

7.4 Second paragraph, first sentence to read:In order to be considered, additional evidence that becomes available after the evaluation report is submitted, must be reviewed the evaluation committee to determine if the evaluation report should be amended”.

7.4.5 First paragraph, first sentence to read: “The Promotions and Tenure Committee (the Committee) is responsible for rendering recommendations based on approved Department, School, College and University guidelines to the Provost and to the President concerning cases of promotion and tenure”.

Fourth paragraph, last sentence after bullet points should read “it shall return the report to the forwarding unit for further consideration and/or documentation”.

Motion approved with 17 in favor, 1 abstention, none opposed.

Proposed changes to section 6.3.5 promotion and tenure committee

Chair Spreer commented on approval from President of changing the roll of the Provost from chairing the committee to an ex-officio non-voting but participating member of the university PTC, President and Provost are also in favor of expanding the committee, president favors participation of Deans in the committee.

Current proposal from PRC for make up of the committee is as follows:

  1. Seven tenured faculty members chosen as follows:

    • Three from the college of the pacific, one from each division.
    • Four from the other schools and colleges and the library, however no two of these shall be from same school
  2. One student appointed annually by the ASUOP President
  3. The Provost, or the Associate Provost, or the Assistant Provost, is an ex-officio, non-voting member

The committee shall elect its own chair from among the faculty members

PRC recommendation has no Deans on the university Promotion and Tenure committee.

The administration and the faculty both have to agree on these changes, so that there is veto rights for any changes. PRC has a list of 71 other school’s P&T committee make up, only 1 has a student on the committee and 12 % have Deans on the committee. Participation of student on committee is largely due to the sentiment that Pacific is a student centered institution and to reflect that sentiment student participation on the committee is not changing from original make-up of committee. PRC has listened carefully to the arguments that have been made and the committee feels that at this point they are not convinced that there some expertise available from the Deans that serve what the 3 purposes are, PRC feels that the 3 purposes of P and T committee are

  1. to review evaluation documents to see if they conform University guidelines and that evidence within them support the conclusions and recommendations that they provide
  2. to make a specific recommendation as to whether or not recommendations needs to be forwarded.
  3. to let the units know when they think that the process the unit is using or guidelines are out of step with university guidelines.

Some of the concerns raised by PRC regarding Dean’s participation is, that there may be conflict of interest when a faculty member from their school is being reviewed, the other issue is service, work that P&T committee is extremely time consuming, past history tells that some Deans find it difficult to attend all the meetings due to their demanding schedules. PRC feels that the Dean’s help is grater at unit level, making sure that the quality of the evaluation reports meets the standards that P & T committee requires.

Provost Gilbertson explain some of the procedures taken by P & T committee members when a faculty member from any of the 2 deans serving in the committee was a candidate, and the practice is that the Dean may stay for the discussion but cannot comment or vote on the decision.

Discussion followed.

Motion: D. Teddards moved, N. Perry seconded to approve proposal and present to faculty at large for vote the changes to Faculty Handbook sections 6.3.5 membership of Promotion and Tenure Committee with the amendment of adding two Deans as non-voting ex-officio members, Motion not approved 2 in favor 17 opposed.

Motion to approve proposal and present to faculty for vote without amendments, motion approved 18 in favor 1 opposed.

Motion: P. Meyer moved, D. Fries seconded to adjourn. Motion unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 5:34 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Ana T. Orellana,

Academic Council Secretary