Provost Advisory Council Notes
Attending: John Simpson, Tom Vani, Cathy Sandeen, David Kliger, Lan Dyson, Steve Kang, Marty Chemers, Larry Merkley, Ron Suduiko, Roger Anderson, Ed Houghton, Bob Meister, John Hay, Francisco Hernandez, Susan Gillman, George Brown
Absent: Wlad Godzich, Meredith Michaels, Frank Talamantes, Lynda Goff,
Staff: Linda Kittle, Beau Willis, Galen Jarvinen, Julian Fernald, Kathleen Dettman
Summer Session
George Brown reported that the APC recommends to the Campus Provost/EVC that the campus proceed with State-supported summer instruction in 2002. This recommendation was based upon the committee’s understanding that (a) the State would “buy out” the existing base of 315 student FTE and provide funding for additional student FTE at the marginal cost consistent with other UC funding and (b) that, as now, faculty would be expected to teach and provide service for three of the four annual terms (additional instruction—e.g., four quarters per year—would be compensated on an “overload” basis). The APC also advised the campus to constitute (no later than spring 2001) an implementation group (i.e., a “working team”) to consider implementation issues that need to be resolved; and further that divisions and academic departments should include summer session in their current planning. He also noted that the recommendation was informed by the thoughtful comments of Senate committees (i.e., CPB, CEP, GC, COR, CAP, and faculty welfare).
Francisco Hernandez
reported that ASPC favors commencing a State-supported summer term in 2002,
that members had identified a number of implementation issues (e.g., financial
aid, hours of operation for services, etc.), and that responsible principal
officers were prepared to do what was required to provide the needed academic
support services. He noted, however,
that the character of support services in 2002 would be interim in nature and
that over time services would be scaled up consistent with academic program and
enrollment growth.
In the discussion that followed, a number of points were raised.
- Senate representatives on PAC noted that, although the Senate committees were able to provide comments to APC and to identify implementation and policy issues, there was inadequate time for Senate committees to consider thoroughly the summer session 2002 vs. 2003 question. The Senate is still considering summer instruction feasibility issues.
- The academic deans briefly discussed whether the campus would be advantaged by another year of planning for summer operations (e.g., implement in 2003 rather than 2002). The consensus was that campus should proceed with a 2002 implementation. A number of issues have already been identified and undoubtedly others would surface; deans felt confident that, given the shared goals and values for summer instruction, solutions to each of these issues could be developed as part of the implementation process. It was also suggested that the deans could address over summer 2001 any academic issues identified by the administration and the Senate Advisory Committee by the end of spring quarter.
- A number of policy (e.g., how resources will flow to departments, compensation for faculty teaching four quarters on an “overload” basis) and implementation (e.g., incentives for faculty and for departments) were identified that could be addressed in an implementation group.
- It was noted that, for example at UCLA, proximity to a large college-going base (i.e., who are living at home during the summer) contribute to the success of that campus’ summer term. UCSC has a similar opportunity in Silicon Valley.
Next steps.
- Follow-up: The Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Simpson will respond to UCOP’s request about UC Santa Cruz’s participation in summer 2002 vs. summer 2003.
- Follow-up: Vice Provost Brown will convene appropriate groups to deal with the academic policy and implementation issues identified as a result of PAC committee reviews.
Planning Process Update – What Happens after March 15?
In the discussion that followed
- Members indicated that it would be useful to have an evaluation template to guide the review process.
- It was also noted that the development of plans would be interactive (e.g., academic support plans will be modified in response to academic plans).
Next steps.
- Follow-up: Staff will develop review templates for use by PAC committees.
Status Report on Committee Work
- Academic Planning Committee: Silicon Valley Center academic planning, State-funded summer term, procedures for academic program review, guidelines for the establishment of programs of study, WASC accreditation, the future of the Colleges, and the review of proposed academic programs.
- Academic Support Planning Committee: Academic support issues related to the Silicon Valley Center and State-funded summer term, the Colleges (e.g., siting and facilities appropriate to Colleges Eleven and Twelve, the size of UCSC colleges, academic advising, etc.), support for the narrative evaluation system, risk management issues, accommodation of students with disabilities.
- Information Technology Committee: Strategic issues (instructional support, web presence, research support, IT infrastructure, connectivity and network development, AIS, recruitment and retention of IT staff) as well as a number of active projects.
- Advisory Committee for Facilities: 5-year major capital improvement program (MCIP) and specific buildings (e.g., Humanities, Engineering), housing, review of administrative space (e.g., the tradeoffs between renting off-campus space and constructing surge facilities on campus), north area campus planning, Inclusion Area D.
- Campus Welfare Committee: Principles of community, faculty/staff housing, graduate student issues (informed by a survey), faculty/staff work-life issues (informed through focus group discussions).
In the discussion that followed
- John Simpson noted that the campus will undertake a thorough review of its current space (e.g., including utilization analyses, site visits, etc.). He also noted that he has received assurances from Vice President Hershman that UCOP is committed to the goal of ensuring that UC Santa Cruz (and all UC campuses) has I&R space equivalent to at least 80 percent of CPEC guidelines.
Member Items
- Information: