MINUTES
ACADEMIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting of March 27, 2001
The Academic Planning Committee met on March 27, 2001 at 9:30 am in room 481 McHenry Library.
Present: George Brown (Chair), Dave Belanger (GC), Martin Chemers, Dave Kliger, Ed Houghton, Burney Le Boeuf, Lynda Goff, Alison Galloway (CPB), Frank Talamantes, Kathleen Dettman, Betsy Moses (staff).
Absent: David Cope (COR), Wlad Godzich, Carol Freeman (CEP), Steve Kang.
Guests: Joel Ferguson (Engineering), Julian Fernald, and Galen Jarvinen.
1. Chair’s
Announcements.
· APC meeting schedule – possible switch with PAC
A proposed switch of meeting times with the Provost’s Advisory Council (PAC) was presented. Switching meeting sequence will permit detailed APC discussion to inform PAC and eliminate the problem of repetitive agendas. On the other hand, some members expressed concern that back-to-back meetings could shortcut consultative channels. Members indicated, however, that repetitive agendas are problematic with all the administrative committees. Improved agenda management is recommended with central coordination focused on reducing duplication. Members serving on multiple committees now hear the same issue discussed in multiple venues and experience an inefficient use of their time. PAC is not a working committee and its time is best focused on receiving recommendations from the subsidiary committees and campus wide integration. For the next academic year, senate representatives suggested that the universitywide senate meeting schedules be considered.
APC will continue for the remainder of the academic year to meet on the second and fourth Tuesdays at 9:30, following PAC.
· Clarification of committee membership and privileges
APC’s agenda is pushing complex topics towards resolution within a diverse group. Calling for formal votes when needed ensures that minority perspectives are accurately recorded and focuses attention. However, there is some uncertainty regarding the roles of academic senate representatives and if their votes reflect individual statements or the positions of their senate committees. It was provisionally agreed that future APC recommendations will be reported in a narrative summary, not a recorded vote. The narrative will capture the essence of the APC majority and also report key minority concerns. This format allows for full participation of all APC members regardless of the agency represented.
2. Approval of March 13 Minutes.
The Draft minutes of March 13 were approved without amendment.
3. WASC: Campus
Accreditation Planning - Review draft planning proposal
The campus has an October 15, 2001 deadline to produce a ten-page proposal for the 2004 WASC accreditation review. The proposal establishes the campus goals and anticipated outcome for the review process. Assistant Director of Institutional Research Julian Fernald presented recent changes in accreditation procedures. The steps include 1) the proposal, 2) the self-study, 3) the preparatory review visit in spring 2004, and 4) the educational outcomes visit in spring 2005. A steering committee chaired by an academic is recommended to guide campus focus and ensure broad participation.
The WASC review emphasizes institutional capacity to support broad instructional and research programs. Articulating principles of where we want to be in 2005 is the proposal’s function. Emphasis on future admission selectiveness, positive reflections on how graduate program growth enhances undergraduate programs, describing campus strategic planning processes and strengths in crossing conventional disciplinary boundaries should be incorporated. Chair Brown will draft the proposal and circulate it to senate committees and APC members. Responses are requested by the end of this academic year, permitting revisions over the summer.
4. APC Review of
Academic Long-Range Planning Summaries – Develop a procedure by which the APC
will review the documents
Binders consolidating all divisional executive planning summaries were distributed. These documents should be considered preliminary plans since academic departmental level plans are not final. APC is charged with reviewing the executive summaries and reporting to Provost Simpson by May 1. PAC discussion will follow, with written comments submitted to the principal officers by mid June.
APC review using a scorecard was considered ineffective as focus on comparisons precludes discussion of significant issues. The most important request from the deans is to provide them with questions that help evaluate and guide final plan development. Resource requirements are mostly unknown, future faculty FTE growth is adjustable, there is not sufficient information to merit detailed scoring. The Office of Planning & Budget analysis will focus on a campus crosscut of intellectual areas and potential interdivisional linkages.
APC proposes to meet three times in April: the 10th, 17th, and 24th, from 8:00 am to 11:00 am. Academic and non-academic summaries will be presented by the principle officers followed by general discussion. PAC members are invited to join the APC meetings so academic planning is clarified to non-academic units. It is recommended that PAC May agendas focus on global campus impacts and integration across academic and non-academic proposals and not repeat principal officer presentations. Follow-up correspondence will confirm meeting times and presentation sequence.
5. Silicon Valley
Center – Academic Planning – Review planning principles
Chair Brown is preparing preliminary Silicon Valley Center (SVC) planning principles that will be assessed by the academic senate and APC. Campus academic planning for the SVC will follow the final principles.
It was suggested that planning emphasis should be on self-contained curricular activities such as internships and professional programs, and should avoid unwanted division of department faculty between the SVC and main campus. Opportunities at the SVC to increase external funding and build on existing campus research strengths should be pursued.
6. Members Items. No items were presented.
Attest: George Brown, Chair