Priorities 2010 & 2011

Diversity ↑ Top

Institutional Change Progress Report and Change Committee Response to Diversity: Provide adequate support and funding to university-wide efforts to track and advance diversity and sustainability (Cabinet Recommendation 1.4.1)

Cabinet Charge: Recommendation 1.4.1 in the "Vision" section of the Cabinet report states that funding and support should be provided to track and advance diversity on campus by revising the diversity plan and beginning implementation. Specifically, the following is recommended (1.4.1.a.):

Campus-Wide Diversity Plan and Office Devoted to Implementation. The recent "Dissecting Diversity" report produced by this office is an example of a best practice that can and ought to be replicated by other university efforts: an example of sound institutional research, it provides an unvarnished assessment of our strengths and weaknesses. As a result, it provides clear targets for strategic initiatives and benchmarks for measuring their success or failure. This is necessary to advance vision point number 6, our commitment to "increasing our diversity of people and perspectives," while also providing a necessary foundation for the advancement of other points in the vision statement (e.g., "social… responsibility and action;" exemplary partners with… tribal nations;" "learning to make a positive difference").

In the "Student Success" section (3) of the Cabinet report, the following is recommended:

Inclusive academic excellence requires that Humboldt increase access, persistence and graduation rates for traditionally under-represented students. Academic and support services departments have been working with the "Making Excellence Inclusive" group to develop strategies to improve success for underrepresented students. The Office of Diversity and Inclusion has developed a set of university-wide metrics for measuring progress towards student success as well as progress towards hiring and retaining a diverse faculty and staff.

Progress to date: In the mid-semester progress report from October 11th, 2010, Provost Snyder reports that

  1. The plan to expand the Office of Diversity and Inclusion is under discussion with the Senate Executive Committee and the Office of Diversity Inclusion, and
  2. Academic Personnel Services, the Office for Diversity and Inclusion and the Graduation Rate Improvement Group are working on attracting and retaining URM faculty, staff, students and administrations as well as closing the achievement gap for URM students.
  3. Colleges have been working with departments to finalize Making Excellence Inclusive (MEI) plans. Those departments that have finished MEI plans are in the process of completing their first annual progress reports.

A proposal outlining details of the ODI expansion is attached to the report.

Change Steering Committee Responses:

January 2011 Response:

The Change Steering Committee looks forward to a detailed report for "attracting and retaining URM faculty, staff and administrators; attracting and retaining URM students; and closing the achievement gap." The report indicates that "Academic Personnel Services (APS), ODI and the Graduation Rate Improvement Group are all working on these issues." Thus, we anticipate detailed strategies for improving diversity on campus.

Sustainability ↑ Top

Institutional Change Progress Report and Change Committee Response to Sustainability: Campus Wide Sustainability Planning and Office Devoted to Implementation (Cabinet Recommendation 1.4.1b)

Cabinet Charge: To help achieve the University’s vision, 1.4.1b of the Cabinet report recommended, in part:

Many successful programs and initiatives already exist at HSU, but a systematic effort to coordinate such efforts, track progress and setbacks, and identify opportunities requires a coordinated effort by the campus community. At present, the campus employs a sustainability coordinator, has developed a website, recently formed a president’s advisory committee, and has an early and incomplete draft of a campus plan. These efforts must be prioritized and given the resources and leadership necessary for success (including “director” status for the office head). Done right, these efforts ought to produce substantial benefits for the University: integrating curriculum; ensuring that we ‘walk the talk’; elevating our national profile.

It is vital that this effort not be narrowly focused upon the campus physical plant. Important though such efforts are, planning for sustainability must also have a central focus on curricular support and integration, research, as well as student initiatives and activities. It is because such efforts transcend individual colleges and university divisions that they require planning and activity at the university-wide level.

Progress to date: The 10/11/10 progress report submitted by Sustainability Coordinator TC Comet, as well as the accompanying list of recommendations from the President’s Advisory Committee on Sustainability (PACS), indicate that plans are taking shape to substantively address the cabinet’s recommendation. Furthermore, the president’s 10/18/10 message to campus regarding the expenditure of ARRA (Stimulus) funds appears to provide some of the support needed to ensure that a sustainability office be established that can carry out these plans. We note that by far the most time-intensive portion of the PACS recommendations is the one focused upon curriculum and working with faculty.

Change Steering Committee Responses:

January 2011 Response:

Even in the present budget climate, necessary resources remain to be identified to ensure that these efforts can continue. Moreover, we believe it vital that the sustainability director and office be situated within the university’s organizational structure in a way that accentuates their campus-wide leadership on these issues.

University Governance ↑ Top

Institutional Change Progress Report and Change Committee Response to Governance: Restructure the existing Academic Senate into a University-wide Senate (Cabinet Recommendation 2.1), Restructure the University Committee System (Cabinet Recommendation 2.2), and Eliminate the General Faculty Association (Cabinet Recommendation 2.3)

Cabinet Charge: Recommendation 2.1 of the Cabinet recommends a university senate that provides for voting representation for the four campus constituencies—students, faculty, staff and administrators—with faculty continuing as a majority group. It further recommends that this senate be action-oriented as opposed to being primarily a debating body, with details being worked out before recommendations reach the senate floor and with senators being active at this more preliminary level. Recommendation 2.1 outlines an additional 14 specific recommendations.

Progress to date: An October 18, 2010 report from Senate Chair Jay Verlinden indicates that the Senate's Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) has been meeting regularly since the beginning of the academic year. FAC Chair Claire Knox has consulted with both the Senate Executive Committee and the Senate itself regarding key elements of the Constitution and Bylaws. The Senate has reviewed and responded to specific models for reconfiguring the Senate that are in keeping with the recommendations of the Cabinet. Recommendation 2.1.13 regarding a first- and second-reading structure for resolutions has been implemented.

Cabinet Charge: Recommendation 2.2 from the Cabinet outlines a restructuring of the university's committee system in order to create a coordinated university governance structure. All committees should be reexamined to determine if they should continue, be revised, combined, or disbanded. The new committee organization should consist of Councils, Standing Administrative Committees, and Temporary Committees (Task Forces).

Progress to date: Models for reconfiguring the Senate, as noted above, have contained recommendations regarding the configuration of Senate Standing Committees. The Senate has not yet addressed the broader committee framework, but has expressed its intention to do so once the reconfiguration of the Senate itself has been more clearly defined.

Cabinet Charge: Recommendation 2.3 from the Cabinet suggests the elimination of the General Faculty Association, noting that this Association predates the creation of the Academic Senate and its function has not been clear since the Senate's formation.

Progress to date: Senate models currently under discussion eliminate the position of General Faculty President and faculty as a whole would elect the Senate Chair who then would be in a position to assume the duties currently performed by the person holding the General Faculty President office. The disposition of other activities that now fall under the aegis of the General Faculty Association has yet to be determined.

Change Steering Committee Responses:

January 2011 Response:

The Change Steering Committee applauds the efforts of both the Academic Senate and Faculty Affairs Committee.

Faculty Affairs has worked diligently with the Senate to establish formal periods to discuss their proposals and obtain feedback. The committee has adjusted their drafts of the proposed Constitution, Bylaws, and committee structures in response to this feedback. These drafts must continue to be shared, scrutinized, and accepted by a significant portion of the faculty, staff, and students.

Enrollment ↑ Top

Institutional Change Progress Report and Change Committee Response to Enrollment: A component of the campus enrollment management plan must evaluate programs' centrality to the vision (Cabinet Recommendation 1.2), Reinstatement of a university Enrollment Management Task Force (Cabinet Recommendation 3.1), and Initiative to increase graduation rates (Cabinet Recommendation 3.2)

Cabinet Charge: Cabinet Recommendation 1.2 suggests that the campus enrollment management plan include an evaluation of programs' centrality to the university vision. This new plan will help shape the size and mix of academic programs at HSU – and funding for these programs ‐‐ for years to come. Vision is key; for academic programs, the scoring on the "vision" component of the program prioritization report is one measure that ought to be utilized.

Progress to date: The Enrollment Management Task Force is currently looking at program cost as the main element in controlling size of programs. Any recommendation on the mix of programs will come out of the Integrated Curriculum Committee (ICC), which has a subgroup that concentrates on planning. Once the cost element is in place, then the ICC will look at how vision might help determine the size and mix of programs.

Cabinet Charge: As item 3.1 in its report, the Cabinet recommended and supported the reinstatement of a university Enrollment Management Task Force, and its efforts to establish university‐wide plans to improve student success and persistence to graduation. The Task Force is comprised of retention and recruitment work groups that have faculty, staff, and student representation. These work groups are developing recruitment and retention plans to increase diversity on campus and to help HSU students persist to graduation.

Progress to date: The Provost asked the Enrollment Management Task Force to recommend a charge for the Enrollment Management Committee. Such recommendation is expected by the end of the semester. This has also been discussed in the Senate Executive Committee because parts of what an enrollment management committee would do may want to be folded into those Senate Committees.

Cabinet Charge: Recommendation 3.2 focuses upon an initiative to increase graduation rates. The Cabinet also supports the recently announced system initiative to increase graduation rates to the top quartile of our national comparison institutions.

Progress to date: An extensive plan has been developed that includes a timeline for improving graduation rates at HSU. The Graduation Rate Improvement Group continues to meet and monitors progress toward the goals laid out in the plan.

Change Steering Committee Response:

January 2011 Response:

The Change Steering Committee looks forward to the report from the Enrollment Management committee and we recommend its speedy and highly visible dissemination to campus as well as its swift implementation.

Open Time ↑ Top

Institutional Change Progress Report and Change Committee Response to Community Time: Establish Open Time on Fridays (Cabinet Recommendation 4.1)

Cabinet Charge: Recommendation 4.1 of the Cabinet for Institutional Change Report states:

In order to come together as a community, there must be community time. There is currently no time set aside for enabling service to the university and holding university‐wide activities. We believe having such a time is not only practical but also vital to the development of understanding among the community. We recommend that a weekly three‐hour block of time be designated (such as Fridays 11‐2) when no classes shall meet. This time period will be used for university‐wide activities such as general interest lectures, professional development activities, plenary meetings of the Senate, and other university‐interest events to be arranged approximately once a month. When such events are not scheduled, this time will ease the coordination and inclusion of faculty and students at meetings and other university service activities. We recommend all nonessential offices to close during university‐wide activities to maximize participation.

Progress to date: A task force convened by AVP Colleen Mullery is studying the implementation of this recommendation. In late September 2010 the Institutional Research and Planning (IRP) administered a "Community Time Survey" to faculty, staff, and students. In summary, there was ‘overwhelming' support for a community time. Respondents indicated that they would be most likely to attend a monthly rather than bi-weekly or weekly events. However, there is concern as to availability and purpose of the free time.

Change Steering Committee Response:

January 2011 Response:

The Change Steering Committee accepts the Open Time sub-committee report and recommendations and believes it is a good idea to initiate the pilot event time to determine whether it will be a successful ongoing initiative. We would like a recommendation from this sub-committee concerning who should plan and implement this initial open time pilot. In addition, we recognize that not everyone can attend such an event and request that this sub-committee revisits the Cabinet's original ideas and also brainstorms other ideas that encourage more collegiality on campus and report these ideas to the Change Steering Committee.

All-Campus Calendar ↑ Top

Institutional Change Progress Report and Change Committee Response to Campus Calendar: Campus Calendar and Effective Networking (Cabinet Recommendation 4.4)

Cabinet Charge: Recommendation 4.4 of the Cabinet for Institutional Change Report states:

Campus Calendar and Effective Networking. There is confusion on campus about the roles and responsibilities of decision‐makers, no effective means of communication other than e‐mail and limited central means by which campus events are advertised. We recommend that an in‐house facebook‐style networking be implemented as a central means of communication.

Progress to date: A task force convened by Anna Kircher conducted initial research to pull together a comprehensive list of calendar solutions that are currently being used throughout Higher Ed. and outside. The initial list was made up of both open source and commercial packages and consisted of 6. The 6 were evaluated against the list of feature requirements as well as general impressions of the tools and were narrowed to 4. After conducting a technical review of the 4 products and narrowing the list to 2; 1 commercial solution and 1 open source they have recommended the institution fund the implementation of the open source UNL Event Publisher.

Resources require a .5 FTE Calendar/Event Manager. Ongoing as well as implementation funding has been requested by Frank Whitlatch as summarized below:

Change Steering Committee Response:

January 2011 Response:

The Change Steering Committee appreciates the progress outlined in the report submitted by Matt Hodgson and Josh Callahan on January 7, 2011. We hope that in the anticipated fiscal climate the funding identified for this initiative, including personnel needs, will be maintained over the long term. The milestones achieved and those forecast offer a clear and reasonable process to achieve a Fall 2011 launch.