Skip to content
  • Print

March 9, 2006

Academic Council Meeting
Minutes of March 9, 2006
University of the Pacific - Stockton Campus

Business: E. Typpo (a), N. Peery (p)
Conservatory: F. Rose (p), L. Wang (a)
COP: D. Borden (p), L. Christianson, (p), K. Day (p), L. Fox (p), L. Koehler (p), B. Klunk (p), A. Smith (a), B. Swagerty (p), C. Vierra (p), D. Maxwell (p)
Dental: H. Chi (a), C. Lyon (a), R. Cohan (a)
Education: Robert Oprandy (p), L. Webster (p)
Emeriti: R. DiFranco (p)
Engineering: C.W. Lee (p), M. Shami (p)
Law: W. Jones (a), G. Scully (a), G. Harris (a)
Library: R. Imhof (p)
Pharmacy: D. Abood (p), D. Fries (p), S. Bellamy (p), J. Livesey (p)
SIS: D. Keefe (p)
Students: N. Tran (a), TBD (p)
Ex-Officio: B. Gundersen (a), (a), F. Wiens (a), L. Itaya (a), D. Keefe (a), S. Wheeler (a), D. Brennan (a), P. Gilbertson (p), H.Trexler (a), M. Canniff (p), B. Cox (p), Christine Manolakas (a), T. Wrensch (a), Eleanore Wittrup (a),
Observer: J. Preisser, (a), J. Purnell (a)
Guests: Heather Knight, Associate Provost, Professor Gene Pearson, Rob Roderick, Becky Beal.

1. Approval of Minutes
Motion: L. Fox moved, Roland di Franco seconded to approve the minutes of February 9, 2006
Motion unanimously approved with one change made under the Chairs Report that changed the date in the last sentence from 06/07 to 06/2007 to clarify the year.

2, Chairs report
The Chair announced that there will be two meetings scheduled in April (13th and 27th). The April 13 meeting has been moved to the Pharmacy School, PHS 110. Dean Oppenheimer will host the meeting and can video conference with Law and Dental if needed. There is a special meeting scheduled for March 31, at 1 p.m. and will be held in the Community Room of the Library (the big conference room). The purpose of that meeting will be to give feedback to the Provost on the proposal he has made to abolish the Dean of Graduate School position and establish a Vice Provost for Collaborative Clusters and Research. There is a document out that you will all receive that describes his proposal. This meeting will be with the Provost but also the Academic Affairs Committee and the Committee on Graduate Studies as well as Academic Council members are all invited to attend this meeting.

The Chair reminded to faculty to encourage their colleagues to return their Committee Survey of Interest forms.

3. Report on Faculty Opinion Survey
In the spring of 2005, Stockton campus faculty participated for the first time in the Higher Education Research Institute's national survey of faculty. Responses are shown in primary categories of teaching, faculty-student interaction, views of self and others, and views of Pacific. Rod Brodnick gave an overview of a survey conducted last spring. This is the first time that the University has participated in a survey. 215 faculty (53%) completed the survey.

Top issues included:

  • The survey detected a high congruence with student goals and values.
  • The faculty tends to be more practically focused, less liberal arts focused and again these things vary by discipline.
  • There tends to be a higher involvement in the community here than institutions reported nationally.
  • Less focus on religion and spirituality, slightly more liberal leaning that more conservative and we see this more often in California schools.
  • A high degree of respect across the faculty and the student lines.
  • Less focus on professional development.

Rob Brodnick summarized the report and said he had presented the report to Council of Deans two weeks prior and they recommended that this group be next. Some of the thoughts of this group can influence what next steps the University take. This helps to inform or add validity to some of the ideas were putting forward. He identified three areas for further research, comparing the cross demographic, etc. Dr. Fries encouraged everyone to go online and analyze the report and requested that if members see things that we should be recommending or acting on to notify him so they can discuss in the executive committee and will bring those items to the Council for action or discussion.

The report can be accessed on-line at

4. Provost Report
The Provost reported that he had met with the Executive Board of Academic Council last week to review the kinds of analyses that have been done on Professional Travel within the academic units. It was decided not to bring that information forward at this time because the data that we have at this time is too raw. There is no separation of student travel or dean travel, from faculty travel and that's not helpful. There is no separation of faculty travel for university business vs. travel for research promotion. The Provost gave a presentation on the breakdown of where monies are being sent and had an overall general discussion of where and why travel funding varies by unit.

The question was raised asking if the university is at the stage where at least each faculty member is allowed to travel to give one presentation per year. His overall impression is that funding is available that is sufficient for one meeting a year. The question was asked of the Provost if he sees the travel budget growing. His response was that is should grow modestly and asked the question if it would be helpful to create a separate fund for travel, that you may want to make a proposal. The Provost stated that he would like to see in the Pacific Rising 2015 document a plank that there is a one of the goals be specific about support for travel or professional involvement. "It does help to have these things stated specifically even though it's a simple phrase." A recommendation was made that a survey should be done to see how many faculty are doing one presentation a year and those who want to do that but haven't been funded so you can get some sense about far you have to go to succeed in funding the research that's being done in presentation. The Provost thought that was doable and stated that this is a collaborative effort and it that needs to be moved forward.

5. Update on IPC
Larry Spreer gave a report from the IPC. A Preliminary IPC Funding Request Report was passed out that also included a review of the fiscal 06 year. There were adjustments both to the base and then one-time allotments. The current outlook is we have $4.8 million more than what was budgeted for 2006. The president has already targeted some of this money $1.1. million goes to fixing the leaks in the swimming pool. Admissions, came in with a $300,000, 16-item to do some things. It was acceleration of some planned expenditures such as dropping the application fee, making a video, doing some photography and doing some things to increase the admissions. The Provost gave information on several facilities projects for which some of the budget surplus would be used (Biology Building, University Center and other projects, such as Knoles Hall renovation).

Prof. Spreer went on to explain the IPC process and gave an overview of where much of the 2007 FY budget increases would occur.

6. Revision of Athletics Advisory Board Structure and Charge
The NCAA review committee has identified a need for a change in the Athletics Advisory Board. Prof. Gene Pearson, who is working with that committee, presented the change proposal - Item 6.3.1 from the handbook.

Currently the Athletic Advisory Board consists of 10 faculty, five are elected by the faculty, five are appointed by the President. In addition, there is the Faculty Athletics Representative and two students. There are 13 voting members on the Board and an assortment of ex-official members. One thing that the Board oversees is the overall rules compliance education program in Athletics. The NCAA mandates that there's a body that is external to the administrative structure of Athletics to review what they're doing. The Advisory Board is charged with overlooking what Athletics does in interactions with the Admissions Office, the Registrar's Office and the Financial Aid Office, yet there has been no representation on our Board from any of those three offices. The other area that the Board looks at are Student Athlete policies so we review the mandated drug testing policies that the NCAA requires for student athletes and things like eating disorder policies that are affecting student athletes and yet there's never been a representative from the Student Life Division on the Board to provide their input on that so as part of the NCAA review process one of the subcommittees, the subcommittee on Governments and Rules Compliance recommended that the Board be expanded to include representation from Enrollment management which covers the Registrar's Office, Admissions and Financial Aid, and also a representative from Student Life. The proposal adds two members to the Board as ex-officio non-voting members, the representative from Student Life, the Vice President or designee, and rather selecting Admissions or Financial Aid or the Registrar's Office, the Associate Provost for Enrollment Services.

Motion: N. Perry moved, L. Fox 2nd. Motion made to adopt all the changes to the document. The motion passed unanimously.

7. Revision of CAPD Structure and Charge
Proposed changes to CAPD Structure. The change in the committee's charge places the director of the Center for the Teaching Excellence as an ex-officio member of CAPD. The committee's responsibility for advising on faculty development leaves is clarified. The new structure adds members form the Law and Dental Schools. The changes now should state that "This committee consists of twelve full time members of the faculty (three from COP - one each from social science, natural science, and humanities-and one from the each professional schools of the University and strike "on the Stockton Campus" so this would include the six professional schools on the campus plus the two professional schools off campus, Dentistry and Law and the Library would have a member on the committee.

Motion: L. Christianson, L. Fox 2nd. To approve the proposed changes in the CAPD structure and charge as:

6.2.3 Committee for Academic Planning and Development (CAPD) (F, S)
Approved Academic Council (Date, if approved)

This faculty committee has primary responsibility for the encouragement of the professional development of faculty as teachers and it will serve as an advisory board for the Pacific Center for Teaching Excellence. The committee will work in consultation with the Office of the Provost in carrying out the following responsibilities:

  • a. Grant awards for development of teaching,
  • b. Develop resources for the assessment and improvement of teaching and learning,
  • c. Participate in the review of the Faculty Development Leave Program in conjunction with other appropriate committees, and
  • d. Oversee regular assessment of the operations of the Pacific Center for Teaching Excellence.

This committee consists of twelve full time members of the faculty (three from COP-one each from social science, natural science, and humanities-and one each from the eight professional schools of the University) and one from the Library, nominated and elected by the school or unit they represent. The Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence will serve as an ex-officio non-voting member of the committee. The committee elects its chair annually from the faculty members of the committee.

Motion passed unanimously.

Motion: B. Swaggerty moved, B. Oprandy, seconded to adjourn. Motion unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.