Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

April Humboldt State University


  • pg 1
									HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY                                                   07/08:12
Academic Senate Minutes                                                     04/01/08

Chair Larson called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. on Tuesday, April 1, 2008, Nelson
Hall East, Room 102, Goodwin Forum.

Members Present: Arizzi, Bliven, Bolick-Floss, Butler, Cannon, Chapin, Dunk, Fulgham,
Gleason, Goodman, Guy, Haag, Harrington, Holschuh, Larson, MacConnie, Marshall,
Meiggs, Mola, Moore, Mortazavi, Moyer, Powell, Rentz, Richmond, Riordan,
Schwetman, Shellhase, Snyder, Ward, Zoellner.

Members Absent: Coffey, Gunsalus, Van Duzer.

Proxies: Fulgham for Thobaben, Fulgham for Yarnall, Meiggs for Sanford, Dunk for
Ward (first half of meeting).

Guests: Ayoob, Sherman, and several students.

Proxies were announced.

The new Associated Students representative, Ryan Guy, was introduced. He will be
replacing Jason Robo on the Senate.

Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of March 11, 2008

M/S/P (Meiggs/Fulgham) to approve the minutes from the meeting of March 11, 2008 as
written, with 6 Abstentions.

Reports, Announcements, and Communications of the Chair

In addition to the written report in the packet, Chair Larson announced the following:

The President approved the Resolution on Changes to Appendix J Section V.E.2
Related to the Organization of the Working Personnel Action File (WPAF) (#07-07/08-

A reception for the Academic Senate will be held on Tuesday, May 6 in the Kate
Buchanen Room. It is possible that there may be Senate meeting scheduled for that
day. New senators will be seated at the prior meeting.

April 1 is the deadline for comments on the draft “Access to Excellence” document.
Chair Larson has not received any comments to date. The University Executive
Committee has considered the document and has collected feedback to send to the
Chancellor’s Office (CO). The President noted that one of his main concerns is that the
CO reconsider the mechanism by which campuses are funded; with less emphasis on
decision-making based on numbers of students and more recognition of differences in
programs and locations. Another related issue is the need to take into account
differences in curriculum between campuses and serve the people of California better
by not duplicating expensive programs. This would allow campuses like HSU to
HSU Academic Senate Minutes                                                                    2
April 1, 2008

maintain a more unique profile. The Board of Trustees will be approving the “Access to
Excellence” document.

Chair Larson thanked everyone who was involved with the campus-wide event on
March 24th.

Senators Larson, Mortazavi, and Cheyne are continuing to work with the Bill of
Particulars and will be meeting with President Richmond.

Chair Larson will attend the campus senate chairs meeting next week and hopes to
have a conversation with the Chancellor regarding the phone call made to Senator

Reports of Standing Committees, Statewide Senators, and Ex-officio members

California Faculty Association (Chapter President Meiggs): The campus-wide budget
forum event on the 24th was well-attended. Kudos to everyone who came together to
give presentations. Alliance cards are still available from CFA; they are a commitment
to be mobilized to either write letters or make calls as we’re going into the May revise.
Everyone was encouraged to hand them out. CFA also has letters available for people
to send out and is happy to send out packets of information. Contact Robin at x4531.

Senate Finance Officer (Senator Mortazavi): The University Budget Committee (UBC)
met on Friday and President Richmond attended the meeting. The entire meeting was
spent discussing the recommendations from the President and Vice Presidents
regarding budget cuts.

Associated Students (President Rentz): This is the last week to pick up election
packets for the Associated Students election. Senators were asked to continue
encouraging students to run for A.S. office. A.S. buttons and recyclable pens were
distributed to Senators. The student response to the March 24th rally was very good.
Student appreciated the opportunity to hear the presentations. A.S. is still recruiting
students for the bus trip to Sacramento in April and Senators were asked to encourage
students to sign-up. There have been a number of requests from faculty to organize a
bus as well.

Faculty Affairs Committee (Chair MacConnie): The Committee has provided feedback
for the prioritization task force, drafted a resolution on standards for rank in Appendix J,
and drafted a resolution on periodic evaluation for temporary faculty.

President’s Office (President Richmond): The President thanked all who were involved
with the organization of and the running of the March 24th rally. The President, along
with Jim Howard, Dean, CNRS, recently met with Sam Schuchat, Director of the
Coastal Conservancy. The organization is involved with creating marine protection
areas, including one for northern California. The Conservancy is interested in HSU and
information on HSU’s many resources was provided. The annual athletic banquet was
held on Saturday evening and a record number of contributions were raised. The
County’s broadband effort is going forward. The local task force, of which the President
is a member, has completed its work. Through these efforts, it is likely that some of the
HSU Academic Senate Minutes                                                               3
April 1, 2008

local providers will be encouraged to do a better job of providing broadband access in
Humboldt County. The California Public Utilities Commission has shown willingness to
invest money in Humboldt County and other rural areas in California. The President
complimented the School of Business and the Provost on the completion of an excellent
review of the strategic plan for the School of Business. Everyone was encouraged to
read the review when it is published.

Statewide Senate (Senator Cheyne): The last plenary report was forwarded to
Senators via email. There were a total of twenty three resolutions discussed at the last
plenary session. The CSU is strongly pushing for a doctorate in Nursing Practice and it
appears, at this time, that the University of California system supports this. There are
concerns about the Statewide Senate budget, which took a big hit last year, and may
take another one this year. Senators were encouraged to look at the plenary report and
contact Senator Cheyne with any questions.

Student Affairs Committee (Chair Holschuh): The committee has wrapped up its
preliminary work on use of student evaluations and passed on the information to the
Faculty Affairs Committee. Nominations for student awards are also being reviewed.

Educational Policies Committee (Chair Moyer): The committee is working on a proposal
to allow a major course of study to substitute for one upper division GE course. The
committee also responded to the prioritization task force report.

Student Affairs (Vice President Butler): The Outstanding Student Awards ceremony is
on April 30. The recent athletic auction raised over $190,000; all funds are going to
student scholarship. $80,000 was raised from individual donors outside of the auction.
Spring Preview will be on April 11, the same weekend as the Native American event
called “Big Time.” Preview is intended to attract prospective students to HSU. “Big
Time” will be put on by HSU students.

General Faculty (President Powell): The counting of ballots from the election is in
progress. A report from the General Faculty president has been distributed as a draft
and will be forthcoming.

1. Resolution on Proposed Changes to the HSU Budget Process (#11-07/08-EX)

M/S (Mortazavi/Fulgham) to place the resolution on the floor.

               Resolution on Proposed Changes to the HSU Budget Process

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommends that the
following changes to the HSU Budget Process be implemented at the beginning of the 2008/2009
fiscal year:

University Budget Committee (UBC) Composition
Recommendation: The composition of the UBC should be structured as follows:
HSU Academic Senate Minutes                                                                   4
April 1, 2008

       2 Facilitators: (To be determined be criteria recommended by
                       ad hoc Budget Review Task Force) – non-voting

       Members:       3, Faculty representatives (1 from each College, to be
                      elected by the General Faculty for staggered, renewable,
                      three-year terms)
                      1, Faculty member, appointed by the Provost in consultation
                      with the Deans and the Senate Executive Committee
                      1, Academic Senate Finance Officer
                      1, Academic Affairs representative
                      1, Student Affairs representative
                      1, Administrative Affairs representative
                      1, University Advancement representative
                      1, Staff representative selected by Staff Council
                      1, Associated Students President or designee

       Advisors:      University Budget Director
                      One Budget Analyst from each division

UBC Process

Recommend: That a consensus decision-making process be used (agreeing with the ad hoc
Budget Review TF report), but also recommending that votes and their distribution should be
recorded and forwarded with UBC recommendations to the President)

UBC Training

Recommend: At a minimum, a binder of information and background should be prepared
annually for all members and a “training program” should be developed for new members.
(agreeing with and expanding upon the ad hoc Budget Review TF report)

UBC Role

•1 Recommend: That the UBC. develop a year-round oversight role for monitoring the campus
budget (agreeing with the ad hoc Budget Review TF report) and also recommending that this
oversight process to include:

   Division leaders should report annually what they achieved with the money allocated to them
    relative to their projected goals and objectives.

   The UBC should know, on an annual basis, how all budgeted and unbudgeted funds were
    spent (for example, per the Report, such monitoring should include review of quarterly
    reports from the University Budget Office on budgeted revenues and expenditures relative to
    actuals of agreed-upon budget categories).

•2 Recommend: The UBC should advise the President on general budget policy. (agreeing with
the ad hoc Budget Review TF report)
HSU Academic Senate Minutes                                                                          5
April 1, 2008

•3 Recommend: Campus budget priorities should be linked to the university’s strategic plan.
(agreeing with the ad hoc Budget Review TF report)

•4 Recommend: The UBC. should recommend to the President allocation of unbudgeted funds,
in accordance with the university’s Strategic Plan priorities. (agreeing with the ad hoc Budget
Review TF report)

•5 Recommend: The UBC should be included in discussions about how budget reductions are to
be distributed (in terms of the principles to be used for budget reductions as well as percentage
distributions among divisions) prior to division leaders developing plans to reduce their division
budgets. (expanding upon the ad hoc Budget Review TF report recommendation)

•6 Recommend: The UBC. should review all division plans to reduce services when budget
reductions are required, relative to the university strategic plan priorities, and report
recommendations to the President and the University Executive Committee. (agreeing with the
ad hoc Budget Review TF report)

•7 Recommend: That the campus undertake campus-wide program prioritization so the UBC will
be able to make informed recommendations when reviewing division plans to reduce services
when budget reductions are required. This would allow the U.B.C. to actually evaluate any
division’s priorities relative to all other division priorities. (expanding upon the ad hoc Budget
Review TF report recommendation)

•8 Recommend: The UBC will provide timely communication to the campus community and
improve its web site content (including quality of its minutes). (agreeing with the ad hoc Budget
Review TF report)

•2 Recommend: It is an appropriate role for the Academic Senate to review the HSU Budget
Policy, and its addendum, and recommend any needed changes or follow-up on
previous recommendations included in the Policy. The UBC. Should be one of many advising
groups or individuals on campus who provide feedback to the Senate in this process.
(disagreeing with the ad hoc Budget Review TF report)


 • 1 Recommend: That HSU should establish an Office of Institutional Research. (agreeing with
the ad hoc Budget Review TF report)

        RATIONALE: The recommendations for changes are based upon the following series of

              Senate and President approval of the HSU Budget Process (October 2003) (see
               Attachments 1 and 2)

              Revision to the composition of the University Budget Committee (November 8,
               2006) (see Attachment 3)
HSU Academic Senate Minutes                                                                   6
April 1, 2008

             Senate and President approval of formation of ad hoc task force to review the
              HSU Budget Process and the HSU Budget Policy (February 2007) (see
              Attachment 4)

             Receipt of “Budget Review Recommendations” (1/22/08) from ad hoc Budget
              Review Task Force (see Senate packet for January 29, 2008).

       Following discussions at both Senate and Senate Executive Committee meetings, these
       recommendations were prepared by an ad hoc subcommittee (Mark Larson and Saeed
       Mortazavi) and amended following the open Senate discussion of March 11, 2008.

The resolution is the Senate’s response to the ad hoc Budget Review Task Force report
and recommendations. Each item clearly shows whether the Senate agrees with the
Task Force recommendation and/or expands on it, or in one case, disagrees with the
Task Force recommendation.

Editorial corrections were offered to the bullet at the top of page 3:

•9 Recommend: It is an appropriate role for the Academic Senate to review the HSU Budget
Policy, and its addendum, and recommend any needed changes or follow-up on
previous recommendations included in the Policy. The UBC should be one of many advising
groups or individuals on campus who provide feedback to the Senate in this process.
(disagreeing with the ad hoc Budget Review TF report)

Why is the model that faculty representatives are elected by the general faculty rather
than by the colleges being proposed? It was noted that this is not a change; this is the
current process. In addition, the idea is that the individuals represent the university, not
the colleges. The Senate previously discussed this and there was indication that
members wanted faculty from each college on the UBC and want to continue the
existing model of election.

Editorial corrections were made on page 1:

2 Facilitators: (To be determined by criteria recommended by
                ad hoc Budget Review Task Force) – non-voting

Recommend: That a consensus decision-making process be used (agreeing with the ad hoc
Budget Review TF report), but also recommending that votes and their distribution should be
recorded and forwarded with UBC recommendations to the President.

How much work is anticipated for various units to get the UBC information? The idea is
that the Vice Presidents will report to the UBC on how they have spent their money on
an annual basis and how they have achieved their goals. The burden will be on the
division heads to provide the information. The UBC has observed that some of this
information is more easily available now.

Recommending both consensus and voting under the UBC process seems
HSU Academic Senate Minutes                                                                7
April 1, 2008

It probably should state that the goal is a consensus decision-making process.
It is difficult to imagine that every decision can be made by consensus. Therefore,
when a vote is taken, the UBC should report its results to the President.

A friendly amendment was made to add the words “when voting occurs” to the

Recommend: That a consensus decision-making process be used (agreeing with the ad hoc
Budget Review TF report), but also recommending that when voting occurs, votes and their
distribution should be recorded and forwarded with UBC recommendations to the President.

This can also be called a modified consensus process.

The discussion was tabled due to a time certain agenda item.

2. TIME CERTAIN: 4:30 p.m. – Request for recommendations from the Academic
   Senate on the President’s and Vice Presidents’ Proposal for 08/09 Budget
   Reductions, by April 19th

Two handouts were distributed. One is a revision of the document contained in the

Interim Provost Snyder explained the handout on “Revenue Projections for Funds
Available @ 7,150 FTES – Planning for FY 0809 Budget.” The first page shows the
projected budget for next year, based on the Governor’s budget (from January), with the
assumption of a 10% fee increase (which may or may not happen). It is also based on
a student head count of 7150. This doesn’t affect the General Fund funding, but it does
affect the State university fees. New commitments are included and the budget
assumes no compensation increases.

The CMS loan is $1.2 million dollars, to be paid in four installments. In 2008/09 HSU
will have to pay two of those installments. The full amount is being budgeted for next
year, but only $600,000 would be paid. That would leave $600,000 as one-time money
available for something else. The following year that amount would have to be found.

The $108,000 is the 2% increase for faculty which is due on June 30. The figure is low
and will go up considerably. It does not include the $165,000 for assistant professor
equity increases. There will be other increases.

A substantial commitment has been made to International Programs and international
students, which have been funded using one-time monies. It will now be part of the
base budget.

A Planned Giving person (new position) will be hired under University Advancement.
The $180,000 includes salary, benefits, travel, legal expenses, and support for the
HSU Academic Senate Minutes                                                              8
April 1, 2008

The bottom line is that looking at expected revenues and increased expenditures. HSU
is looking at around $2.5 million in increased costs. Adding compensation to that, about
$3 million is what we need to find for next year.

At least another $200,000 that will have to go into prior year compensation shortfalls. It
is not clear on whether or not maintenance of the Forbes Complex can be provided with
the budgeted $200,000. Adding these costs to the $2.5 million in increased costs
results in ca. a $3 million dollar shortfall.

The budget assumes no compensation increase for next year. If the Compact is
funded, then there will definitely be a compensation increase. This budget is based on
the Governor’s January budget, which did not supply any money for the compensation.
If the Compact is not funded, then negotiations will probably be re-opened.

The prior year compensation shortfall refers to this year (07/08). There is a 2%
increase that kicks in on June 30 ($108,000) which was not built into this year’s budget.
There is also $165,000 for equity increases for assistant professors that was not built
into the budget. According to the Chancellor’s Office (CO), HSU received the money in
its base allocation at the beginning of the year. However, it was not identified or
itemized as such, so it wasn’t pulled out by HSU. Now the money has to be found

Page two of the handout shows projected base revenues. Budgeted amounts
previously included under the category “All University” are being transferred to the units
which are responsible for paying them. For example, the “Lease of Facilities – Eureka
Municipal Wharf” will be placed under Academic Affairs. There has been confusion
because the “All University” account appears to have a lot of money; however the
money is actually spent in other divisions. Transferring the money to division budgets
where it is expended will help clear up the confusion and reduce the amount of money
in the All University account. Page 3 shows where the items are being transferred to.

The spreadsheet also shows the base budget augmentation to particular units. There
will be some increase in funds from budgeting based on 7150 FTES. Last year HSU
budgeted on 7,000 FTES. We get the same general fund money, but we have received
extra money based on fees.

The President reviewed the handout on “President’s and Vice Presidents’ Proposal for
08/09 Budget Reductions.” HSU has made progress attracting students and if the State
wasn’t in such dire financial straits, we would be looking at allocating several more
million dollars. Given the current budget situation, we want to make sure that we serve
the needs of the students we have and that we continue to be able to attract students to
HSU. Instead of asking Academic Affairs in 08/09 to take a $1.5 million dollar base
reduction, we are suggesting that one-time funds be used to restore that funding to
Academic Affairs, as well as providing $400,000 to meet freshman and General
Education course needs. As a result of the prioritization process underway, it is
expected that Academic Affairs will work with a reduced budget in 09/10. On the last
page there is a discussion of the allocations to other campus divisions. Student Affairs
is receiving a base budget allocation to fund having two police officers on campus
around the clock; which is something the CO has been asking us to do for a number of
HSU Academic Senate Minutes                                                                 9
April 1, 2008

years. HSU has the poorest retention rate in the CSU for students between the
sophomore and junior year, so retention programs need to be developed.

University Advancement includes a new position. It is clear that the planned giving
approach is a good way of bringing resources to the University. Data shows that there
is a direct correlation between the amount of money invested in Advancement and how
much money is brought to the University.

The President’s Office will cut $45,000 from its 08/09 budget. Since most of that money
is distributed on a discretionary basis to individuals in the campus community, there will
be less available to give away.

There is little flexibility left in the University Wide area, which includes risk management,
tax assessments, utilities, etc. We don’t control how much is charged for these areas.


Why is the West Gym budgeted as a special maintenance line item? When HSU
received funding for the new building under construction, it was agreed to tear down the
West Gym. Several individuals approached the President and VP Coffey and lobbied
for keeping the building. VP Coffey was successful in convincing the CO to let HSU
keep the building. However, because it is considered excess space, the CO gave HSU
the responsibility to fund the maintenance for the building.

What is going to happen to seat counts in classes due to the increased number of
freshman and possible improved retention? It sounds like the efforts at increasing our
enrollments are being curtailed and maintained at a status quo. What is being proposed
is an attempt to prepare the University to live within its means with a lower budget. If
we don’t get any additional resources from the State, HSU will need to become more
efficient than it is now. We will probably have to restrict the number of students we are

The goal for Academic Affairs is to reduce its base budget by $1.5 million dollars and to
absorb probably another $400-500,000 dollars in increased costs, given the increase in
students, while maintaining FTES. The present plan mitigates the budget reduction for
next year (08/09) which means that Academic Affairs has until mid-February, 2009, to
develop a plan for how this will be accomplished. We have been maintaining FTES and
taking sizable cuts out of the budget already.

The President expressed his frustration with the state of higher education in California.
On an encouraging note, he shared that five separate foundations (Hewlett Foundation,
Irvine Foundation, Packard Foundation, California Endowment and the Hass
Foundation) have all contributed $16 million dollars towards “California Forward,” an
organization formed to help people in Sacramento and the state to reform California
government, including looking at Proposition 13. The CO has been trying hard and the
Compact the CSU had with the Governor has helped us over the last few years. It
would be helping us a lot this year if the State were able to fund it.
HSU Academic Senate Minutes                                                               10
April 1, 2008

The University Budget Committee was given the material on Friday. There is a lot of
work to be done and everyone was encouraged to take responsibility for lobbying state

3. TIME CERTAIN: 5:00 p.m. – Request for feedback from the Academic Senate
   members on the HSU Academic Program Criteria, March 14 DRAFT and
   recommendations on numerical weightings for criteria, by April 2

The Prioritization Task Force is seeking feedback on the current draft of the program
criteria which contains earlier feedback. It may be overwhelming to look at on the first
pass as a lot of information is provided; however the Task Force wanted to provide a
sense of the thinking behind each area. Feedback is welcome on how the document
could be streamlined. The sheet on weighting is missing from the packet; copies were
provided. The Task Force will be meeting on Thursday and feedback is welcome
before then.

The document was shared with campus department chairs. It was pointed out that
there are over 70 questions to answer in ten pages. There were a lot of comments from
the chairs who are going to have to do all the work that it is overly detailed. It was also
questioned why data needs to be embedded in the report when it is readily available
from Analytical Studies via the web through.

A lot of the data being requested can’t be acquired other than through anecdotal
evidence, for example, what is the work force demand for your program. How valuable
will this information be and how much time will it take for people to put it together.

There are four categories for rating (enhance resource allocation, maintain resource
allocation, reduce resource allocation, reorganization or discontinuation). At the current
level of budget cuts, it doesn’t seem like there could be a reduction in resource
allocation to a program without essentially cutting it or significantly reorganizing it. The
third category should be eliminated and just have three categories.

One of the main things lacking in the criteria is there is no attempt to appraise the
quality of the classroom experience. Teaching quality and the quality of the classroom
experience are only indirectly gotten at. This is something we do routinely as part of the
retention, tenure and promotion process. Student evaluations make it possible to do
comparisons among departments. Departments’ regular assessment procedures need
to also be included. The “Overall Evaluation of the Instructor” from the student
evaluations should be included, with the mean from the department and the standard
deviation, and/or any other data, to indicate the quality of the program. Some
departments may want to hide that data; but many will want to showcase it. It should
be included under III. Program Quality, as a new section titled “Quality of the Classroom

The form for submitting criteria and for providing feedback on program criteria weights
was reviewed. The second page includes a scoring sample. It is just a first pass to see
how people feel about the weighting.
HSU Academic Senate Minutes                                                              11
April 1, 2008

The weighting will make all the difference in how it turns out. How is the committee
going to analyze or work with the feedback it receives on how the criteria should be
weighted? The committee has not specifically discussed this. IT will look for patterns
and consider whether the feedback is coming from a group or an individual, which may
affect how it is weighed. Once the feedback is compiled, the weightings will be drafted
and will be sent back out for feedback.

Weightings will be the most critical piece and will provide the bottom line. Decision-
makers may use their own weighting. Will the reports include the original numbers?

The weighting that is decided upon goes with the document to every review group that
looks at a program; it does not change from group to group.

There may be a difference between the way a college or department weights the criteria
and the way an external weights the criteria.

The Indiana model emphasizes that it is necessary to collect evidence or data that is
comparable across departments. If that isn’t done, it becomes too subjective. The
overall weightings have to be agreed upon in importance and everyone needs to follow
them. There needs to be a generally agreed upon rubric for ranking 1-10. Indiana
provided multiple rankings at the committee, college, and dean levels. It needs to be
done in a way that is objective.

We’re putting the cart before the horse; we’re discussing weightings for categories that
may not exist in the final document. We don’t know yet what the categories will be. We
need to decide on the categories and what they contain. Then the rankings can be
determined and the weights decided.

Department chairs haven’t yet been told what the definition of a program is and at this
point don’t know how many reports they will be writing. The reports will probably have
to be done over the summer. This is not included in chair duties and not part of any
chair’s collateral duties. This is all an unfunded mandate; how will we find the time to do
this additional work?

Discussion will continue after the following time certain agenda item.

4. TIME CERTAIN: 5:29 p.m. – Discussion of the Senate’s timeline and process
   for a response to March 26, 2008 Memo from the Provost regarding the
   German Program Discontinuation Proposal

The Senate has received a memo from the Interim Provost and now has thirty working
days to respond to the Proposal to Discontinue the German Baccalaureate. The Senate
Executive Committee proposes that the Senate meeting of April 15 be dedicated to
discussion the proposal and forming a recommendation to the President. The goal is to
get it though the Senate as quickly as possible to the President so that ideally the
President could be responding prior to everyone leaving after finals week.

There are two hard copies of all materials: one binder will be in the Library on
Permanent Reserve, and one binder will be available in the Senate office, by
HSU Academic Senate Minutes                                                              12
April 1, 2008

appointment. The material is also available in several pdf files and will be forwarded to
all senators via email.

The Provost’s Council has approved the German Program Discontinuance Proposal.
This was a proposal made by the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences in
the spring of 2007, as a way to meet mandated budget cuts.


The information in the documents is essentially comprised of arguments for or against
the proposal. Is there any possibility of getting some idea of the reasons that individuals
on the Provost’s Council voted for or against discontinuance, or chose to abstain?

The documents include the original proposal to discontinue German, the CAHSS
Curriculum Committee’s response, the interim Dean’s response, the UCC’s response,
and the Provost’s Council response.

The Provost’s Council discussed the decision and took a secret ballot, so there is no
record of the votes.

The Provost’s Council is comprised of administrative and faculty leaders in Academic
Affairs (Deans, Directors, Senate Chair, CFA Chapter President, UCC Chair, and
Senate Finance Chair).

Why was German not allowed to participate in the prioritization process? The decision
to propose the discontinuation of German was made a year ago as a solution to
addressing a structural deficit in CAHSS by making targeted cuts. CAHSS is in deficit
again this year. The proposal could have been called back, but the Provost made a
decision not to. The prioritization process is across Academic Affairs and it is not meant
to target any particular area.

The Senate will vote on this; the vote will be to agree or disagree. The Provost and the
Senate recommend to the President. A final decision will be made by the President.

Is the Senate Executive Committee going to bring a resolutions? Or is it going to be a
free-for-all. A resolution would not be appropriate; there needs to be an informed
discussion and then a vote. A motion from the floor to vote it up or down will be

Some would like the Senate Executive Committee to take a position and then bring it to
the Senate. Some would like to have a free-for-all.

The discussion returned to agenda item #3: Request for feedback from the Academic
Senate members on the HSU Academic Program Criteria, March 14 DRAFT and
recommendations on numerical weightings for criteria, by April 2.
HSU Academic Senate Minutes                                                              13
April 1, 2008

Now that student evaluations are standardized, they can be used across the board.
The questions need to be refined to a small number and to something that every
department is able to pull together. If a program is considered to be in one of the
bottom two categories, it may be because it has been starved in the past. Need to keep
in mind that there are programs that are victims of circumstances. It is essential to
know how the analysis is going to happen. It shouldn’t matter who the people are that
are looking at the data; it should be exactly the same across the board. Do we have a
set number of departments that are going to be in each category? It is important to
know all of the rules beforehand.

M/S/P to postpone the time certain adjournment, with 1 Abstention.

There will be no quotas in the prioritization process. But it has to be a process that
allows us to discriminate among programs; distinctions will need to be made.

There is no individual reader who will be making decisions on the reports and the
numerical statistics. The Task Force is charged with the business of deciding how to
prioritize programs. The Task Force is making recommendations on how the process
will work.

There is a need to think carefully about what categories are used and how many; it is
crucial for fairness. There needs to be precision ranking; an implicit subconscious idea
that numbers mean something. It would be preferable to rank programs 1-15.

Will there be an opportunity for students to comment? Could options be put to the
students via a ballot initiative?

The Task Force is meeting on Thursday to review feedback. A two hall meeting is
being planned for April 16 and the Task Force hopes to have a more polished draft for
people to review and comment on by then.

M/S/P (Zoellner/Cheyne) to adjourn at 6 p.m.

To top