MINUTES

ACADEMIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

Meeting of March 13, 2001

The Academic Planning Committee met on March 13, 2001 at 8:00 am in room 481 McHenry Library.

Present: George Brown (Chair), Carol Freeman (CEP), Phokion Kolaitis (GC), Martin Chemers, Dave Kliger, Ed Houghton, Steve Kang, Burney Le Boeuf, Kathleen Dettman, Betsy Moses (staff).

Absent: David Cope (COR), Alison Galloway (CPB), Wlad Godzich, Lynda Goff, and Frank Talamantes

Guests: Robert Meister (CPB), John Hay (CPB), and Galen Jarvinen

1. Chair’s Announcements.

The WASC accreditation process requires the campus to prepare a ten-page proposal setting the context for the review. The proposal must be submitted by October 2001. APC members are asked to prepare for a discussion at the March 27 meeting by reading the two documents that were distributed: 1) WASC process and 2) WASC Proposal Draft.

2. Approval of February 27 Minutes.

The Draft minutes of February 27 were approved without amendment.

3. Year Round Operations – UCSC State-Funded Summer Instruction Recommendation to PAC

Chair Brown entertained a motion from the floor to frame APC discussion: “The Academic Planning Committee recommends to Provost Simpson that state-funded summer instruction commence in the summer of 2002.” The motion was moved by Dean Houghton and seconded by Dean Chemers.

Senate Committee responses to the February 27 call from Chair Brown from CAP, CPB (informal), COR, Graduate Council, and Faculty Welfare were distributed to the committee. CEP will provide a verbal report. Chair Brown thanked the senate committees for the input contributed on very short notice.

CEP Chair Carol Freeman reported that CEP is enthusiastic about the opportunity that state-funded summer instruction will provide to improve summer instructional quality. Many significant issues will remain unknown until they are addressed, including the level of student and faculty participation. Stresses on support infrastructure are considerable. The committee learned that the California Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) is opposing a 100% buyout of current summer student FTE. Given that the larger question is not if but when summer quarter begins, CEP recommends the best UCSC position is to move forward quickly, assuming a 100% buyout.

Committee members made the following comments:

· Campuses designated to begin summer 2001 are UCLA, UCB, and UCSB. These campuses were directed by UCOP on very short notice; UCSC has the luxury of significantly more planning time.

· Extending planning for another full year will have minimal impact on the outcome because so many issues cannot be known in advance. A positive mode is to go forward quickly to gain both permanent funding and future space request advantages while assuming transition phasing will mitigate disruptions.

· Campuses preceding us may not provide lessons that apply directly to UCSC because their existing summer programs are very extensive and embedded in campus organizational structure. Converting to programs run by the academic departments is problematic.

· The small scale of summer session structure that can be more easily absorbed into departmental curricular planning advantages UCSC.

· Internship and field study programs and systemwide foundation courses offered to UC students in Silicon Valley are especially feasible. The summer instruction student workload target is 40% of a regular quarter, that 40% includes enrollments on campus and off campus. Students taking regular courses offered at the Cupertino extension facilities, UCDC, Silicon Valley Center and all off campus internships count towards the target.

· Departmental curricular planning is the chair’s authority; faculty must coordinate course offerings over multiple years to ensure the best sequencing and leave planning.

· Summer offers increased individual flexibility and is attractive to many faculty.

· Continuing the current summer instruction status is untenable given enrollment and program activity. Disincentives to work in the summer are not good for the campus. It is a positive outcome to have academic control and remove disincentives.

· Most decisions of this scale must be made without comprehensive information. Problems will arise regardless of another year of planning, earlier funding is needed to implement summer planning and enhance quality.

· Forming a work group charged to identify and begin solving the multiple overlapping issues is recommended. This group should begin work spring 2001.

· Senate consultation has proceeded without extensive information, however the information doesn’t exist and the campus must proceed with a decision regardless.

· State-funded summer instruction is on the job learning.

· The state is asking UCOP for movement towards comprehensive summer instruction, campus decisions will clarify their institutional seriousness.

· Issues targeted by the senate committee responses must be addressed in campus implementation planning. Faculty compensation and workload, graduate student fees, TA availability and space issues are most critical.

· Systemwide Academic Council Chair Michael Cowan recommended to UCOP that summer term faculty compensation be consistent across all campuses and seeks clarification on systemwide policies. UCOP’s policies are under development and will be partially formed by what the campuses experience.

The following amendment to the main motion was moved and seconded: “That the recommendation to proceed with implementation in 2002 be contingent upon the campus receiving 100% buyout for current self-supporting summer student enrollments.” The amendment was accepted by Dean Houghton as a friendly amendment.

A subsequent amendment to the main motion was moved and seconded: “That the recommendation to proceed with implementation in 2002 be contingent upon the continuation of the university policy that the faculty teaching, service, and residency requirements continue to be three quarters per calendar year.” The motion was accepted by Dean Houghton as a friendly amendment.

The final motion was restated by the chair: “The Academic Planning Council recommends to Provost Simpson that the campus proceed with state supported summer term in 2002 contingent upon the state buyout of the existing base of 315 student FTE and provide for additional FTE at the marginal level, and contingent upon the expectation that faculty be expected to teach and provide service for three of the four annual terms.”

The motion was adopted by a vote of 7 in favor, none opposed, and 1 abstention. Chair Brown will present the resolution to today’s 9:30 am Provost Advisory Council meeting.

As a concluding matter the committee informally agreed that the campus should institute an implementation team (working group) to consider and recommend on those issues that need to be resolved. This team should be appointed by Spring 2001. Divisions and departments should include summer planning in their current long-range planning.

4. Members Items. No items were presented.

Attest: George Brown, Chair