Contents
Cal Poly Pomona

P&R Responses for recommendation 1

Recommendation 1
Department Agricultural Science Program
Consensus Opinion 1 out of 1 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation The program is opposed to recommendation number 1 for several reasons. A comprehensive college of agriculture is arguably a better crucible for forging synergistic relationships. Whether it is plant or animal, fiber or fashion, food consumption or creation, the science, business, and art of agriculture requires a variety of highly specialized disciplines reflecting the entire agri-food system. A comprehensive college of agriculture has the dynamic environment the committee says it is looking for. It is naïve to suggest that synergy comes from forced placements of programs based on physical location or similar names. There is probably a greater potential for antagonistic relationships to develop from what the committee is suggesting. The proposed merger does not appear to be mutually advantageous for those involved. A more plausible idea would be an investment and commitment to all College of Agriculture programs and a recommendation that provides incentives for creative bridges built to the college. The sum of what the College of Agriculture does is greater than any of its individual parts. The programs have unique differences, but shared goals and interests.

The subcommittee did not make a case for how this may reduce possible redundancies. For example, it appears an assumption has been made that a sufficient number duplicated courses exist. The program does not to suggest that further improvements can’t be made in this area, but we do suggest the committee’s recommendation is not supported by the appropriate data or contain sufficient program knowledge to be able to suggest otherwise. The college of agriculture has addressed this issue, without having to reorganize or merge. This is evident in each program of study in the college.

It is suggested by the committee that a savings will be realized through restructuring. The committee fails to provide evidence of such savings sufficient enough to justify proposed recommendations. Little evidence was shown that the committee made sufficient consideration for expenses that would relate to the cost of merging, the negative impacts of merging, or the missed opportunities from merging prior to making their recommendations.

Internal and external stakeholders were not consulted prior to formulating the recommendations and subcommittee members making the recommendations did not properly reflect the University. The program hopes the steering committee addresses this point directly in public comments and in formulating their recommendation considerations.

We are an agricultural university seated in the heart of California’s population. Our University is dedicated to developing an agriculturally literate society. Additionally, the College of Agriculture stands as a cohesive unit offering programming strong in 4 of the 6 thematic areas found by the subcommittee. It is unclear how the committee’s recommendations support their goals. As a whole, recommendations that merge, move, or discontinue programs and components of College of Agriculture can arguably be viewed as a divesture. At the very least, such recommendations can be seen as moving in a different direction at a time when the University should be investing in their college of agriculture.

Addressing the security, sustainability, and stability of producing, distributing, and consuming food & fiber is the charge of an independent comprehensive College of Agriculture. The College of agriculture is better suited to connect with industry in applied settings for meeting consumer demands. From conceptualization to consumption, we have an integrated systems approach that is not found in other colleges or majors. A distinct comprehensive College of Agriculture and independent identity is better suited for developing and maintaining a polytechnic approach to teaching and learning.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Animal & Veterinary Sciences
Consensus Opinion 9 out of 9 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation Combining the College of Agriculture (COA) into a “Mega College” and reducing the COA to a “Division” will invalidate and erode the recognized success and excellence of the Animal & Veterinary Sciences (AVS) and Animal Heath Science (AHS).

AVS is one of the three largest animal science programs in the country; we are significantly larger than other western programs with a veterinary college including UC-Davis, Colorado State, Kansas State and Washington. Our AHS option is the only accredited American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) 4-year Animal Health Technologist’s program in the 10 western states and the second largest U.S. AHS program (200 students); second only to Purdue University which also has a veterinary college. UC-Davis, Cal Poly SLO, and CSU-Fresno only have an AVS program, and their student numbers must be combined to emulate the 813 students we serve.

An AVMA study estimated that 3,500 veterinarians are needed immediately in California; the study also concluded that there are 6 – 8 positions available for every graduate of an AHS program; hence, the significance of AVS and AHS to the COA and accordingly the critical importance of an independent College of Agriculture and a COA Dean that has substantial roots in the agriculture industry. Reducing the COA to a division will clearly send the message of “No-longer Important” to the California $320 billion Agriculture Industry, the veterinarian community, the companion animal industry, plant & soil industries, the food and fiber industry, and the agricultural-business industries. These industries impact every household in California.

In addition, a merger will permit larger departments of the mega-college to control resource allocations thereby directly affecting future AVS/AHS faculty hires, teaching farm unit funding, and classroom/laboratory allocations. These challenges will be particularly evident since Science funding is needed to support GE and university service courses. COA and Science have a different science orientation and cultural beliefs. Agriculture teaching methodologies are driven by the applied sciences and the extensive use of experiential learning. Science uses the physical and pure science to teach theoretical scientific techniques. Any synergies with Science can be accomplished by “building bridges,” not a merger.

A key element in restructuring is supposed to save money. However, the P&R report did not specify how $800,000 (<0.3% of the annual budget) would be saved by reducing three colleges to divisions in a mega-college. The P&R report also did not identify implementation costs; costs that will markedly exceed the proposed $800,000 savings.

AVS and AHS must compete with other UC and CSU programs for industry funding, government grants, program development initiatives, industry leaders for advisory boards, and students. AVS and AHS being reduced to programs or a department within an agricultural “division” will only elevate those programs at UC-Davis and the CSUs-Chico, SLO & Fresno. Recognition of our successful programs by the P & R Committee is appreciated and we look forward to the enhanced funding so that AVS and AHS in an independent College of Agriculture can better address our rapid growth and the inequities in current funding formulas.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Apparel Merchandising & Management
Consensus Opinion 12 out of 14 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The proposed reorganization creates a mega-college for which little justification is provided. In the process, three colleges get downgraded into schools and the role of the College Dean as a champion is lost – a huge opportunity cost.

Creates new synergies
A key benefit sought from reorganization is to release programmatic synergies. However, these are based on nothing more than the most casual of observations.

We believe any opportunities for synergies do not necessitate a merger. Instead, we believe the outcome will more likely be antagonistic, based on competition for shared resources. The disciplines in the College of Agriculture share an applied professional focus. This is a distinct strategic direction and culture which differs sharply from that of the pure sciences and of business in terms of curricular design and delivery, and in research orientation.

Far better to create mechanisms that promote collaboration through funding initiatives that reward such collaboration.

Eliminating redundancies/ saving resources
Another argument put forward for this change is that there are significant savings to be gained from the creation of large units. However, those savings identified relate to the cost of a few Deans and their offices. Most of these savings are illusory since the work done by these offices will not simply go away and there are no readily apparent scale economies of running large Colleges. There are limited opportunities for rationalization between College of Agriculture and College of Science courses – but only wholesale redundancies to be made among staff and faculty, and lab closures etc will generate significant costs savings. The result will be a dilution of expertise and program content – ‘B.S. lite’.

In the process, apart from the lost faculty time and direct expenses of the reorganization, the opportunity (hidden) costs are huge. A college dean with a broad span of control will have a limited attention span and lack discipline-specific expertise for many programmatic issues. Hence, their ability to make informed decisions and to act as champions for many of their constituent schools and departments will be constrained. Therefore there is a high potential for diseconomies of scale as an outcome of the reorganization.

Increased research/ funding opportunities
Funding opportunities are more likely to be reduced as an outcome of reorganization. Deans as champions, providing visibility and stature for the colleges of Science and Agriculture, will be lost. In addition, with colleges being downgraded to schools, there will be a loss of external status within their professional domains. While school directors can act as champions they lack the stature and credibility provided by a dean. Such downgrading will negatively impact faculty morale and relationships with external stakeholders. These are additional diseconomies of scale.

The College provides a unique integrative approach that recognizes strong disciplinary interdependencies among its programs related to professional orientation, basic societal needs, lifestyles, social and environmental responsibility. The food, agricultural and apparel sectors face unique challenges in developing specialized human resources. Effectively responding to these challenges requires a discrete academic unit with a strategic focus that provides the necessary sensitivity to the sector’s needs. The College has been a leader in meeting the six university goals described by the P&R Committee and it is well-positioned to meet the expansion of demand for its programs.

Maintaining an independent College of Agriculture signals an important commitment towards the agricultural sector and underlines the university’s obligation to its agricultural and polytechnic legacy. This is especially critical at a time that the university is seeking to embark on a major capital campaign.

Minority Opinion 0 out of 14 faculty/staff : Pro
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Apparel Merchandising & Management
Consensus Opinion 12 out of 14 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The proposed reorganization creates a mega-college for which little justification is provided. In the process, three colleges get downgraded into schools and the role of the College Dean as a champion is lost – a huge opportunity cost.

Creates new synergies
A key benefit sought from reorganization is to release programmatic synergies. However, these are based on nothing more than the most casual of observations.

We believe any opportunities for synergies do not necessitate a merger. Instead, we believe the outcome will more likely be antagonistic, based on competition for shared resources. The disciplines in the College of Agriculture share an applied professional focus. This is a distinct strategic direction and culture which differs sharply from that of the pure sciences and of business in terms of curricular design and delivery, and in research orientation.

Far better to create mechanisms that promote collaboration through funding initiatives that reward such collaboration.

Eliminating redundancies/ saving resources
Another argument put forward for this change is that there are significant savings to be gained from the creation of large units. However, those savings identified relate to the cost of a few Deans and their offices. Most of these savings are illusory since the work done by these offices will not simply go away and there are no readily apparent scale economies of running large Colleges. There are limited opportunities for rationalization between College of Agriculture and College of Science courses – but only wholesale redundancies to be made among staff and faculty, and lab closures etc will generate significant costs savings. The result will be a dilution of expertise and program content – ‘B.S. lite’.

In the process, apart from the lost faculty time and direct expenses of the reorganization, the opportunity (hidden) costs are huge. A college dean with a broad span of control will have a limited attention span and lack discipline-specific expertise for many programmatic issues. Hence, their ability to make informed decisions and to act as champions for many of their constituent schools and departments will be constrained. Therefore there is a high potential for diseconomies of scale as an outcome of the reorganization.

Increased research/ funding opportunities
Funding opportunities are more likely to be reduced as an outcome of reorganization. Deans as champions, providing visibility and stature for the colleges of Science and Agriculture, will be lost. In addition, with colleges being downgraded to schools, there will be a loss of external status within their professional domains. While school directors can act as champions they lack the stature and credibility provided by a dean. Such downgrading will negatively impact faculty morale and relationships with external stakeholders. These are additional diseconomies of scale.

The College provides a unique integrative approach that recognizes strong disciplinary interdependencies among its programs related to professional orientation, basic societal needs, lifestyles, social and environmental responsibility. The food, agricultural and apparel sectors face unique challenges in developing specialized human resources. Effectively responding to these challenges requires a discrete academic unit with a strategic focus that provides the necessary sensitivity to the sector’s needs. The College has been a leader in meeting the six university goals described by the P&R Committee and it is well-positioned to meet the expansion of demand for its programs.

Maintaining an independent College of Agriculture signals an important commitment towards the agricultural sector and underlines the university’s obligation to its agricultural and polytechnic legacy. This is especially critical at a time that the university is seeking to embark on a major capital campaign.

Minority Opinion 0 out of 14 faculty/staff : Pro
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Biological Sciences
Consensus Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Consensus Explanation PREAMBLE

Members of the Biological Sciences Department want to make it clear that the Department’s feedback to the Prioritization and Recovery Steering Committee does not constitute support for the P & R process or for the P & R Committee recommendations. We believe the P & R process is inherently flawed for the following reasons:

1. UNEXPECTED, EXTRAPOLATED RECOMMENDATIONS. The P & R Committee recommendations went far beyond the nature of the questions the Department was asked to address on the original Prioritization and Recovery Program Sheets;
2. RECOMMENDATIONS DO NOT FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLES OF A LEARNING-CENTERED UNIVERSITY. After four years of promoting learning-centered principles across the campus, it was our understanding (and hope) that the university would only enact changes that clearly promote learning and support the achievement of student learning outcomes. The P & R Committee does not provide learning-centered evidence for its recommendations;
3. FAILURE TO CREATE OPPORTUNTIES FOR CONSULTATIVE INPUT BEFORE PUBLICIZING RECOMMENDATIONS. Had there been opportunities for collaboration, we believe the P & R Committee would have better understood the uniqueness and value of several programs that were recommended by the Committee for organizational mergers;
4. RECOMMENDATIONS DO NOT PRESENT ASSOCIATED COSTS OR SAVINGS. Although the stated intent of the P & R process was to enable the university to reallocate 30% of its operating budget, recommendations are made without data to substantiate associated costs or savings. Some recommendations may create inherent complications that would cost the university more than they save. Without data on costs and savings, there is no way to judge whether the recommendations meet the original stated intent of the P & R process.





Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Biological Sciences
Consensus Opinion 38 out of 38 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation Recommendation 1. The College of Agriculture is merged into the proposed College of Agricultural, Natural and Environmental Sciences

The consensus opinion of members of the Biological Sciences Department is that the recommendation would not create new synergies, a reduction in redundancies, savings in resources, increased opportunities for research, or external funding opportunities.

Here are the arguments against the merger of the College of Agriculture into a proposed College of Agricultural, Natural and Environmental Sciences:

• Although collaborations and interactions between the existing colleges should be encouraged, the proposed restructuring is not required to accomplish this. Successful inter-college programs such as the Agricultural Research Initiative (ARI) and the Master’s program in Regenerative Studies already exist. They prove that is not necessary to merge the colleges to foster productive interactions.
• The goals, values and missions of the College of Agriculture and the College of Science are distinct and merging does not necessarily create a synergy.
• The Phase I recommendations did not provide a cost analysis and we could not identify any savings in resources or removal of redundancies in the plan.
• Merging three colleges but creating three schools (Natural Science, Agricultural Science, Environmental Science) would presumably remove the need for two deans but would add three directors, a net increase of one upper administrator. It thus appears the administrative costs would increase with recommendation number 1.
• With the discovery of unifying principles across multiple levels of biological organization, the questions being addressed within biology are becoming increasingly interrelated and interdependent. Fruitful collaboration among biologists of different subdisciplines is more common than ever before. The cross-disciplinary nature of biology has been strongly reflected in our recent faculty hires. It is also reflected in our proposal to fold our current Biology, Zoology, Botany, and Microbiology majors into a single Biology major with four options (currently in review with the College of Science Curriculum Committee). Dividing the Biological Sciences Department programs among three schools, as proposed, would be a step backwards in terms of synergy, research productivity, student learning, and the training of our students for successful careers in biology.

Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Chemical and Materials Engineering
Consensus Opinion 10 out of 10 faculty/staff : NA
Consensus Explanation The faculty and staff of the Chemical and Materials Engineering Department thank the Prioritization and Recovery Committee for their efforts and are pleased that the committee has indicated an overall recommendation of “Stable Funding” for our Chemical Engineering Program.

We are glad that the committee has recognized the significant contribution that our department makes to the College of Engineering through our Service courses, and our strong commitment to the Polytechnic mission through our learn-by-doing pedagogical approach to teaching. The committee has also recognized the importance of our accredited program as an important provider of professionals to the region.

The committee has pointed out that we have a high quality of incoming (first time) Freshmen in comparison with other programs on campus. They also have recognized that we have a high percentage of ethnic and racial diversity among entering transfer students. The committee has recognized that we have implemented an outcomes assessment program and that we are implementing changes to the program using the feedback from the assessment process. The committee has recognized the strong level of research and creative activity of our program relative to other programs on campus.

We have discussed the committee’s recommendations and would like to affirm that the CME department remains focused on a long-term commitment to continuous improvement through faculty, staff, and resource allocation consistent with COE and University-level priorities. Examples of specific actions are outlined below:

1) The department is developing strategic relationships with selected community colleges to recruit well-prepared transfer students; the department has been instrumental in assisting the CoE in designing and implementing the First Year Experience Course with the anticipated outcome of increasing retention and graduation rates.

2) Regular advisor-student sessions are held for Freshmen and new Transfer students in the Fall Quarter and for Juniors and Seniors in the Winter Quarter. These advising sessions are intended to explore the student’s academic status, aspirations, and progress towards their objectives. With the addition of two new faculty we should be able to address the needs of the students much better.

3) Initiating a mentorship (buddy) program through the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) club to facilitate senior/junior – freshman/sophomore interactions

4) We continue to reach out and collaborate with colleagues from other departments and colleges on different projects/programs, e.g., CM3D, Bioengineering, Program for Applied Biotechnology, research projects with Biology, Chemistry, Animal Sciences, Geology, ME, etc.

In summary, the CME department faculty and staff thank the P&R committee for their hard work and look forward to continued success in our path forward.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Chemistry
Consensus Opinion 25 out of 25 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The Faculty of the Chemistry Department unanimously agree that the current P&R process lacks sufficient justification, is based upon faulty or incomplete data, promotes a highly personal administrative agenda, and summarily disregards the university community's duty of shared governance

We strongly disagree with the recommendation to merge the College of Agriculture into the proposed College of Agriculture, Natural and Environmental Sciences (CANES). This proposal lacks any type of documentation as to the monetary or other savings that would be gained from this administrative structure. The College of Agriculture maintains a program of distinction that is unique to Southern California and is an integral part of Cal Poly Pomona’s history. W.K. Kellogg would most likely be appalled by this attempt to demote the importance of the College of Agriculture through this proposal. This proposal is merely an attempt to allow one Dean to amass a greater number of faculty, students ($$), and space to control. We fully understand the pressures faced by administrators with regard to each of these items, however, administrators in consultation with faculty could solve this problem with some innovative thinking. As the AP P&R Committee states, unless the University tackles its budget issues, enrollment management, and space allocation problems, nothing recommended by their committee makes any sense. What is needed is better cooperation between Deans across Colleges and the dissolution of current space boundaries held by those Deans. Leadership at the top is necessary to get this done.

The AP P&R Committee members are not experts in science or agriculture, so their judgment in this matter is questionable. Agriculture science is the application of basic science to solve real world problems that effect food production. Pure science is the investigation to discover how the natural world functions. While there are possible collaborations that can take place between these groups, they can happen without a merger. Currently, the Dean of the COS is overseeing the two colleges, the COS faculty realize he has a steep learning curve to understand how to meet the needs of the faculty in Agriculture, at the expense of minding our interests. With the budget crisis we have been facing, this is unfair, as our main advocate is not here 100% of the time.

Additionally, this recommendation has the creation of a new proposed college—CANES. This contains components of the current College of Environmental Design (ENV). Placing faculty from Urban and Regional Planning into a College that is science-based shows a lack of understanding about what faculty in each of these areas do and a complete lack of respect for academics. It does not create “synergies” as described in the report.

We realize that perhaps there could be some useful shifting of current programs that would benefit all. For example, moving kinesiology to COS makes sense academically. However, since COS is impacted for space, finding a home for this department in our current space would be impossible. This is where the breakdown of artificial space allotted to Deans would help to find them a home in some under utilized area. Until a clear and compelling argument justifying the proposed recommendation and its cost of implementation (personnel changes etc) can be made, it is futile to proceed.
In addition, given the current budget situation in the College of Science, we do not think that a merger is warranted until a budget model that realizes the true nature and cost of a lab-based science education is developed. Once each department in the existing College of Science is funded at the appropriate level and can serve ALL of its service, core and graduate level targets, then and only then can a discussion on this recommendation be initiated.

A proposal such as this should have a detailed budget attached and a proforma of new hires that will be required for administrative and staff increases. Without such documentation, this is a poorly designed P&R process without any credible business practices being applied. Thus, we request the P&R committee present their recommendations in accord with basic business practices that are commonly employed by CEOs and other senior management evaluating the prospect of restructuring and/or mergers.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department CHSM
Consensus Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation I greatly support the Athletics Department here at Cal Poly. The student athelets that are enrolled in the HRT 383 class ,The Restaurant at Kellogg Ranch, are very team orientented. I have found the students athlelets have what it takes bring energy the whole class that helps the class to be more motivated to achieve their goals.

In these days of priority funding, I would hope that The Athletics Department is considered for whatever needs they have.


Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department College of Agriculture (Staff)
Consensus Opinion 16 out of 18 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The staff in the College of Agriculture support the recommendations submitted by our College Departments. In addition, we wish to provide the following statements:

1. The impact on staff positions was not addressed in the P&R proposals or recommendations. If recommendation #1 is implemented, there would be a duplication of some staff positions between Ag and Science. What criteria would be used to make decisions on staff positions being maintained or eliminated? The P & R process has caused a significant amount of anxiety and insecurity among the staff.

2. Have the costs and benefits of the proposed changes been determined? If so, the P&R Committee has not shared this information. If not, it would seem unwise to move forward without knowing, with some degree of certainty, if the benefits will outweigh the costs.

3. We are not in favor of recommendation #1 as we believe our programs will lose their identity and visibility. The proposed changes have already had a negative impact on the recruiting process; parents have been calling to express concerns about sending their children to Cal Poly Pomona to study agriculture.

4. We feel there is more to be gained by building bridges between other Colleges’ programs and creating an environment that fosters collaborative working relationships, than a merging colleges/programs which would serve more to divide the campus community by forcing programs to fight for already limited resources.

5. During the first 2 years of the P&R process, staff members were not consulted. Now we are being asked to evaluate proposals/recommendations and provide feedback in a very short period of time. This situation raises suspicions and results in an environment where rumors are rampant. As one of our staff members stated, “Something just doesn’t seem right.”

6. Students have been very confused by and uninvolved in the process. Due to a lack of communication, they have been given even less time to provide feedback on an initiative they know nothing about. The proposed changes will have a direct impact on our students and future enrollment, therefore greater effort should have been made in communicating with them. At this point current students are disillusioned and worried about the future.

7. With regard to Recommendation #, it seems the Committee gave no thought to the impact it will have on our constituents. We serve the agriculture community in all of Southern California. Careful thought should be given to how this will play out with our Ag alumni and the upcoming Capital Campaign.

8. If the recommendations are approved, are there ways to structure implementation in phases, to ensure no harm is done to student learning and campus reputation.

9. Has the Committee determined whether or not the changes being made will make us more competitive with our peer institutions?
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation No submission

Recommendation 1
Department College of Science Curriculum Committee
Consensus Opinion 6 out of 6 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation 1 Merging the Colleges of Science and Agriculture

While there are superficial similarities between these two Colleges, the College of Science Curriculum Committee is concerned by the different intellectual approach found in these two Colleges. It is highly unlikely that you will find a botanist from Science riding around on a tractor or a zoologist in rubber boots wading through piles of manure. The rats raised with knock out genes in Biology are not likely to be a staple of the meat unit in Agriculture that currently focuses on beef.

In recent program reviews Agriculture has been urged to switch from industrial agriculture to urban agriculture. This switch does not noticeably improve the fit with Biology. Food and gardening are important industries in Southern California and the curriculum of the College of Science has few interests that support them.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Computer Science
Consensus Opinion 11 out of 12 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The Computer Science Department opposes the recommendation of proposed College of Agricultural, Natural, and Environmental Sciences.

We believe that the College of Science should remain as the College of Science and Computer Science is a member of the College of Science. We do not believe Computer Science fits in Agricultural, Natural, and Environmental Sciences at all. We will have difficulty recruiting faculty and students under the proposed new name of the college.

The College of Environmental Design and College of Agriculture should not be dismantled. They are the jewels of Cal Poly Pomona and should be strengthened.

It is more useful to build bridges for collaboration between Colleges than to merge them without regard to the technical nature of disciplines in the various colleges.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Ethnic and Women's Studies
Consensus Opinion 9 out of 9 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation We begin by registering our grave concerns with the P&R process, including the criteria/data used and the timeline set for departmental and stakeholders' responses. However, we do agree that it is probably in the best interest of our department to be located, as a department, in an administrative unit, where new synergies can be created with faculty, whose interests in multiculturalism, women and gender studies, social justice, civil and human rights, service learning, international studies, interdisciplinary teaching, and innovative pedagogy, parallel our own.
While we welcome the opportunity to work with faculty in the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, we want to make it clear that our viability and promise as a program will depend on more than the new synergies that these collaborations will create. Our agreement with the P&R proposal is based on the perceived opportunities for internal growth within our program's core, as well as the possibility for creating new synergies across program. Our argument for growth is based on the following observations made by the P&R committee: (1) the program grew at an above average rate compared to other programs on campus between 2000 and 2005 (the number of our majors (single and double)currently stands at 110, a significant increase from fall 05); (2)the program plays a major role in meeting the needs of other programs on campus through its GE and support courses; (3) the program contributes significantly to the Polytechnic mission and initiatives of the University; (4)the program supports substantial co-curricular and extra-curricular activities for students; (5) the program has many concentrations; and finally (6) the cost of the program is less that the University's norm.
We agree that the program is small, given the role it plays on this campus. Each of our specialty areas (African American, Asian American, Chicano/Latino, Native American, and Women/Gender Studies) ecompasses a wide interdisciplinary and intellectual history, yet we find each area staffed only by one or two tenure-track or tenured professors. We do not think that "small program" and "viablity" are necessarily correlated, as suggested by the P&R report. The prediction of viability should be based on variables such as need, demand, committed faculty, and the availability of resources to make growth happen. A "critical mass" of faculty needs to be built within the program itself in order to maintain the integrity of each concentration, as well as to engage in the interdisciplinary, intercultural, and comparative work, which makes our department so unique. We also need to develop our GEMS pre-credential program for students interested in becoming elementary school teachers in California's diverse classrooms. Other areas for development are new concentrations in emerging U.S. ethnic formations, as well as an interdisciplinary M.A. program in Ethnic and Gender/Women Studies. The latter is an area where the department could benefit greatly from possible new synergies created by the department's re-location.
Our program now has a fully developed assessment plan. We hosted external reviewers in May 2007, who gave very positive feedback on our plan and the important role the department plays on campus. Among their recommendations was one to "increase the number of faculty in concentration areas to strengthen concentrations and other growth areas". While the "stable funding" recommendation may be reasonable, we strongly feel that if our program and majors are to grow, we will need enhanced funding. We anticipate that our close ties with Education will continue and we intend to work closely with them in the prepartion of teachers at both elementary and high school levels. However, we do agree that the move to a new administrative unit would offer us the best opportunity for growth and creative development in ways not possible at present.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department History Graduate Program
Consensus Opinion 15 out of 15 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The History Department rejects the P&R recommendation to dissolve the MA program in History on the grounds that the recommendation, based, as it was, on low enrollment of 24, does not reflect the present reality of the program. Two significant developments occurred since the recommendation was made that strengthens arguments for retaining the program and show that its elimination would cause unusual harm:

1- The History Department, with Dr. Judith Anderson in the lead, has received a Teaching American History Grant of over one million dollars from the U. S. Department of Education. The Grant is in conjunction with the Hacienda La Puente Unified School District and will run for three years. The grant, in part, provides that 20 teachers from the school district will enroll in the History MA program at Cal Poly Pomona. This addition of 20 teachers nearly doubles the number of graduate students. Also, since this provision is part of the grant, dissolving the program would mean the cancellation of the grant altogether, a decidedly greater harm than good.
2- The History Department, with Dr. John Lloyd in the lead, has developed a similar grant for Teaching American History with the Riverside Unified School District. The grant will be funded also by the U. S. Department of Education and will run for three years. A provision of the grant is that 15 teachers from the school district enroll in the History MA program at Cal Poly Pomona. Grant recipients will be announced in Spring 08. Dissolving our MA program effectively kills any chance the grant might have, thus compounding the harm for years to come.

Our MA program is essential for all History/Social Science teachers in our service area, many of whom apply individually and on their own initiative, for professional development and for movement on their salary scale. Our graduates enjoy great benefits and the MA degree provides them with a gateway to pursue higher studies. According to the above, I hope that the Steering Committee can see why the recommendation to dissolve the MA in History should not be forwarded to the president.

Sincerely,

Mahmood Ibrahim
Graduate Coordinator
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department History Undergraduate Program
Consensus Opinion 15 out of 15 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation Although the History Department appreciates the P & R decision to recommend the department for stable funding for the undergraduate major program, we would like to request that the committee consider recommending enhanced funding for the following reasons:

• Under “concerns” in “quality” the report notes that “the percentage of students with a GPA under 2.2 is moderately high.” It should be pointed out that many of these students have transferred to History from other departments where they were not successful. Once they become History majors, they benefit from our advising and counseling, and many of them end up graduating successfully from the university. Indeed, the high graduation rate of our transfer students was noted as a “strength” of the department in the recommendation report.

• Under “efficiency” the report notes that “the program has not been effective in generating external funding.” Perhaps this is true when compared with the hard sciences, but in comparison with humanities and social science departments, our department has excelled. We have obtained collaborative grants with CEIS and with local educational agencies, including two Teaching American History grants in collaboration with the Hacienda/La Puente and San Bernardino school districts. We are also collaborating on a proposal for another large Teaching American History in collaboration with the Riverside School District. One of our faculty members is the director of the Ahimsa Center and has received funding from the NEH and the local community for summer institutes for teachers. Faculty members from the department have also been recipients of funding from the prestigious Guggenheim and Fulbright awards.

• Under “recommendations” the report states that “the current MFR is 18:1, which is very low compared to other programs.” It should be noted, however, that our faculty members teach many GE courses, notably HST 202, which is required of all undergraduates at Cal Poly Pomona, and that our role in the university is therefore considerably greater than might be assumed from the MFR. Our FTES are very high and we play a major role in providing high quality GE courses for all majors. This is assured by the fact that tenure-string faculty regularly teach these courses.

• A final observation pertains to the “strengths” of the department. The broad overview of Phase II recommendations states that it takes into consideration “research and scholarly activity” (p. 17), but this was not mentioned on our report. In fact, the faculty members in the History Department have produced a remarkable number of scholarly books over the years (ten books since 2000 and several more to appear shortly) and, as noted above, have been recipients of Guggenheim and Fulbright awards. The effort, time, and depth of scholarship needed to produce a book is obviously significantly greater than that involved in writing a short article, and perhaps should be considered when tallying the number of publications produced by a department.

We hope that you will take these factors into consideration and will recommend the department for enhanced funding.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Human Nutrition and Food Science
Consensus Opinion 13 out of 13 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The Human Nutrition and Food Science Department (HNFS) unanimously opposes the recommendation to combine the 8 programs from AG with the 17 disparate programs in ENV and Science together or separately for the following reasons.

First, the P&R committee provides no justification for the proposed merger. HNFS-AG programs (2 are nationally accredited) produce highly specialized graduates who directly enter fields in human and animal healthcare; food industry, food safety, and AG product related businesses. ENV programs are based on art and design principles not science. The College of Science has divergent responsibilities that consume considerable resources to provide: GE (B1, B2 and B3 areas and most of the B4 for every student on campus; support core courses for many programs; curriculum for its own majors; and math remediation. What qualifications would be required and who could possibly meet those qualifications to be a Dean of such a college?

Second, resource allocation among the disparate programs within the mega-college is unlikely to be equitable and will likely be based on quantity not quality as larger programs overwhelm smaller accredited programs. For example, HNFS needs lecturer support for providing dietetic students with access to hospitals, patients and patient records. Lecturer support is also needed to provide students with improved Spanish language skills to better communicate nutrition messages to an ever increasing Spanish speaking population in Southern California. How will these needs be met when there is a tsunami of students needing remedial math or introductory chemistry? The HNFS dietetic programs are accredited by agencies requiring that CPP demonstrate its support of these programs. Clearly, the incorporation of HNFS into a bigger College of AG-ENV-Science would be a move in the opposite direction of demonstrating financial and moral support for these programs, and diminish the accreditation of 2 nationally visible programs.

Third, there is no evidence that significant net resources will be saved by merging these colleges and programs. Early in the P&R process it was put forth that a goal was to shift resources to quality programs of distinction. There is little or no evidence that this will be accomplished by the proposed merger, rather bigger programs will be produced resulting in large numbers of anonymous students.

Fourth, HNFS fails to see how a mega-college will foster student identity and pride. The College of Agriculture works to successfully provid quality student centered learning and support. Each program in the college has a connection to the land whether the emphasis is food, fiber or animals. The college has a unique identity in which our students take great pride. Our students are among the most active and engaged on campus. Combining unique specialized programs with basic programs will be detrimental to the specialized programs AND interfere with meeting the education needs for a large number of students. Consider this statement from Cal Poly Pomona web site (http://www.csupomona.edu/why_cpp.php) on why students should consider attending: “Flourishing with a diverse campus community, Cal Poly Pomona is alive with academic, social and volunteer opportunities. Students may choose to work side-by-side with faculty on research, garner unique internships, volunteer in community development projects or join any of the 240 clubs and organizations.” Exactly how does P&R envision this occurring in a mega-program within a mega-college?


Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Mathematics and Statistics
Consensus Opinion 32 out of 32 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The Department of Mathematics & Statistics offers the following reasons for objecting to the recommendation to restructure both the departments and colleges on campus.

1. Splitting Kinesiology into three parts is unfair to the that Department. Those three aspects share much in common, far more than Kinesiology shares with Biology. The argument that Kinesiology and Biology share common resources is also specious. Biology and Botany share far more resources.
2. Botany and Geology share more of their coursework with the College of Science than they do with their proposed destinations. The opposite holds for Kinesiology.
3. The statements that certain programs on campus share certain themes, such as the environment or health, are superficial. Programs should not be grouped together based on loose linkages. The departments currently housed in the College of Science all share certain philosophies in their approach to teaching and research. As an administrative unit it makes sense to keep these together.
4. In all proposed restructurings the College of Agriculture has been eliminated. This would be a great loss to the university, not only as a legacy, but also as a continuing tradition on campus. One need only look at the campus itself to see this influence.
5. EVNR already has in place integrated core courses. Introducing new programs, not already a part of this integration, speaks to the forced nature of these groupings.
6. The associated departments listed in these moves have not voiced a desire to be moved. The inspiration for these changes is clearly external to the departments involved, which further suggests the artificial nature of these changes.
7. The goal to bring together disparate departments to tackle problems such as global warming is admirable, but a specialized division for doing this is unnecessary. For years the goal has been to push multidisciplinary collaboration, and being able to point to multiple colleges on campus as working together towards a solution paints the image of a unified university committed to communication and unity in purpose. Creating a separate division says much the opposite.
8. Increasing funding and attracting experienced and talented faculty will be hurt by moving Botany and Geology out of the College of Science. The message sent to the world is that at CPP we do not consider Botany or Geology a science.
9. The creation of additional divisions in large colleges does not reduce the proliferation of administrative layers. Although a fewer number of Deans may be needed, each division will need someone at the helm. This solution appears only to exacerbate the problem we are trying solve. Also, the money needed to re-label buildings, change letterheads, and other daily incidentals would create an additional financial burden on a campus already dealing with budget issues. A cost analysis should be completed.
10. P&R is being done before the environmental scan has been completed. As such, these decisions seem premature.

The Department of Mathematics & Statistics finds the proposed restructuring to be arbitrary, inconsistent with the ideals of shared governance, and premature.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Orientation Services
Consensus Opinion 3 out of 3 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation Since AG is one of our flagship colleges, as well as what CPP is notable for, there is concern with the possibililty of credibility being lost if consolidated into one large college. Student enrollment, relationships with industry, research opportunities, etc. may be lost.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Philosophy
Consensus Opinion 7 out of 7 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation While the P&R Committee notes our size is small, we have grown an additional 30% (to 88 majors in Fall '07) since the original data were collected in 2005. We attribute this to more vigilant advising and recruiting of new majors, and to prudent hiring of faculty and lecturers. Some of these new majors have come from our service to pre-law students from across the disciplines. We appreciate the suggestion to "continue our efforts...to be 'polytechnic' in nature" because we plan to continue team-teaching ethics courses with Engineering (begun in 2001) and to re-explore doing so with Business. We fully intend that our current tenure-track search enhance the diversity of our faculty and provide a colleague with a specialization in social & political philosophy and environmental ethics who will contribute to the new Science, Technology and Society major, which we have taken the lead in establishing, as well as to the Philosophy major. Such a colleague will enable us to further the University's priorities of enhancing its role in solving environmental problems. Specifically, we are developing plans to work with the Lyle Center on various issues in environmental ethics and with the Biological Sciences on philosophical issues in genetics. Also, the Department is presently leading an interdisciplinary effort to establish an externally funded Institute for Ethics, Law and Policy on campus. The mission of such an Institute would be to support a variety of campus and community programs that enable critical dialogue concerning ethical and social issues salient in contemporary life and promote ideals of informed and responsible citizenship on the regional, national, and global levels. We hope that this Institute (if established) would strengthen the Department's relationships with other academic disciplines and with the surrounding community, thereby enriching the Department's contribution to the University's liberal arts/polytechnic mission. Finally, the Department has collaborated with Computer Science to revise our Symbolic Logic I course to present logic as the foundation of computer science and to cross-list the course with CS. In an e-mail of 11/16/06, Dean Straney commented: "the revised course is a great example of cross-college collaboration, let alone a great idea for a course!"
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Physics
Consensus Opinion 9 out of 9 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation Physics Department Response to
P&R Recommendation 1: The College of Agriculture is merged into the proposed College of Agricultural, Natural, and Environmental Sciences


The Physics Department faculty represented on the appended signature sheet oppose the P&R recommendation to merge the College of Agriculture into a proposed College of Agricultural, Natural and Environmental
Sciences. We believe the disciplines in the current Colleges are distinct, and that any proposed synergies are largely superficial.

We are not convinced that the proposed merger will result in any savings due to consolidation of administrative or staff positions.


Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Plant Sciences
Consensus Opinion 19 out of 19 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation Agriculture is the driving and stabilizing force for California’s economy. As the leading industry in the state, it contributes over $500 billion annually.

The College of Agriculture at Cal Poly Pomona, second largest of six in the state, is unique. Its location in the heart of Southern California allows us to address problems of urban agriculture while educating our students and the general public about the state’s most important industry. The College of Agriculture is an essential part of our “polytechnic” identity, maintains the Kellogg legacy and contributes to the aesthetics of this campus.

The Plant Science Department vehemently opposes the merger of the College of Agriculture into the proposed super-college of Agricultural, Natural, and Environmental Science. Merging the College, reducing it to a division, school or program, would minimize its importance and visibility. Past attempts at major changes to agricultural programs at Davis and Chico were aborted because of public and industry outcry. CSU Monterey Bay and Stanislaus envy our program and would like an agricultural program as part of their university.

Making a college bigger does not make it better. It loses focus. Our College and Department will lose public and professional visibility, resources, development assistance, recruiting, and alumni support.

We feel the merger will create a dysfunctional administrative structure. The specific challenges facing the College of Agriculture require the attention, dedication and leadership of a full time Dean. The Dean must be knowledgeable about California agriculture and must be respected by its many diverse industries and financial supporters in order to maintain solid educational programs, enhance ARI funding, improve research ties, and enrich community programs and support. The Dean must be able to interact intimately with the agricultural industry, not just the scientific or environmental community.

The agricultural industry demands job-ready employees. Graduates of our programs acquire the applied professional focus our industry needs, much different than the focus of the College of Science. Considering the current critical shortage of qualified graduates in agriculture, it is the wrong time to risk disabling the College.

The departments within the College recognize that change is necessary and we have demonstrated leadership in this arena. The 1992 budget cut is an excellent example of how faculty, not the administration, changed our college. It has grown to over 1500 students with changes we implemented. We are in favor of building enhanced bridges with our colleagues in Environmental Design and Science. It is naïve to think mergers assist us in achieving our mission and goals.

The Department is aware of a proposal for the creation of a multi-disciplinary center for research between science, design and policy oriented disciplines on environmental research and education. We highly support this proposal and think agriculture can provide leadership in this arena.

The College of Agriculture is a solution, not a problem. We aspire to continue to improve with effective leadership in an independent college focused upon our disciplines. We are the only face of urban agriculture in the state.

Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Test
Consensus Opinion 1 out of 20 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation This is a test.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department University Development
Consensus Opinion 12 out of 12 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation
- Potential for major problem with the public and agricultural industry, California’s number one industry. Cal Poly Pomona is traditionally known as an Agricultural University.
- Cal Poly Pomona has a strong, unique niche in the CSU system and could lose this identity.
- College of Agriculture departments are specific programs designed to prepare students for industry in a particular area.
- A merge with the pure sciences would ultimately result in the demise of the applied science programs.

While this might create new synergies in place of existing ones, this would have a negative impact on research opportunities in some areas, negative impact on funding.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : With modifications
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department University Development
Consensus Opinion 12 out of 12 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation
- Potential for major problem with the public and agricultural industry, California’s number one industry. Cal Poly Pomona is traditionally known as an Agricultural University.
- Cal Poly Pomona has a strong, unique niche in the CSU system and could lose this identity.
- College of Agriculture departments are specific programs designed to prepare students for industry in a particular area.
- A merge with the pure sciences would ultimately result in the demise of the applied science programs.

While this might create new synergies in place of existing ones, this would have a negative impact on research opportunities in some areas, negative impact on funding.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : With modifications
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 1
Department Urban and Regional Planning
Consensus Opinion 9 out of 9 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The College of Agriculture contributes to the identity of Cal Poly Pomona as a university with strong professional programs that apply knowledge to real problems. It is a unique asset in Southern California. No evidence was offered by the Academic P&R Committee that the large college model, as represented by the proposal, leads to innovation and excellence. In fact, colleges of the size of Agriculture allow the college leadership to be close enough to the faculty that collaborations and innovation is possible. Donors are more closely aligned to clearly defined colleges. Eliminating the College of Agriculture moves Cal Poly Pomona in the direction of a generic CSU.

Agriculture’s applied sciences need their own college. From the outside, these fields would be less recognizable if buried in a mega-college associated with science. For example, the “CSU Agricultural Research Initiative” relates to colleges of agriculture in the CSU system.

Prospective students seeking agriculture programs will look for colleges of agriculture, and may overlook agricultural programs buried in a mega college associated with science.

Students are drawn from further away since there are not that many agriculture programs. A college structure where these programs reside independent of colleges housing programs common to most universities—biology, chemistry, etc., is more conducive to the creation of serendipitous learning and social community among students in kindred programs.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendations not submitted through the forms are available in this folder. They mainly consist of Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat documents. If none were submitted for this recommendation, the folder will be empty.