Contents
Cal Poly Pomona

P&R Responses for recommendation 2

Recommendation 2
Department Accounting
Consensus Opinion 10 out of 10 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation Moving departments to the CBA has serious implications for our discipline-based accreditation (AACSB). For example, at least 90% of the faculty must be academically or professionally qualified (AQ / PQ), with at least 50% of the faculty being AQ. Most faculty members become AQ in Cal Poly Pomona’s CBA by publishing two refereed journal articles within a five-year period—a standard we are nowhere near meeting, even with the present CBA faculty. With our AACSB visit coming up within two years, adding new faculty to the college may further dilute those ratios. Additionally, by coming under the umbrella of the CBA, new students will be subject to the CBA core courses, requiring drastic changes in their current curriculum. Further, the rationale for adding these departments to the CBA is unclear—perhaps even flawed. Ultimately, every discipline in the university touches business in some way—the same can be said of many other disciplines as well. Finally, adding new faculty to the CBA will strain our yet-to-be-constructed new building, which Dean Klock has already said will not accommodate the current CBA faculty.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 2
Department Accounting
Consensus Opinion 10 out of 10 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation Moving departments to the CBA has serious implications for our discipline-based accreditation (AACSB). For example, at least 90% of the faculty must be academically or professionally qualified (AQ / PQ), with at least 50% of the faculty being AQ. Most faculty members become AQ in Cal Poly Pomona’s CBA by publishing two refereed journal articles within a five-year period—a standard we are nowhere near meeting, even with the present CBA faculty. With our AACSB visit coming up within two years, adding new faculty to the college may further dilute those ratios. Additionally, by coming under the umbrella of the CBA, new students will be subject to the CBA core courses, requiring drastic changes in their current curriculum. Further, the rationale for adding these departments to the CBA is unclear—perhaps even flawed. Ultimately, every discipline in the university touches business in some way—the same can be said of many other disciplines as well. Finally, adding new faculty to the CBA will strain our yet-to-be-constructed new building, which Dean Klock has already said will not accommodate the current CBA faculty.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 2
Department Agricultural Science Program
Consensus Opinion 1 out of 1 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation The program is in strong opposition to the proposed moving Apparel Merchandising and Management to College of Business. Currently, mutually beneficial courses and relationships exists to their full extent. No evidence that cost savings would occur or that proposed “synergies” could be realized from this move. On the contrary, its strength is in the fact that, since its inception, its focus and academic emphasis contrasts that of the school of business. It is an industry specific, supply chain oriented, applied academic and technical program. The program has the distinct appeal of being applied in its approach, technical in nature, industry specific, and product oriented. From dirt to shirt!

As with other recommendations, apparently no weight or consideration was given to potential negative consequences of such a move. The program is recommended for enhanced funding, yet still feels the recommendations by the committee are too potentially damaging to consider the proposed move. A program is recommended for both enhanced funding and moving and states strongly that the move is damaging and all the recommendations are flawed- this should raise some questions.

AMM belongs in a distinct comprehensive College of Agriculture.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 2
Department Apparel merchandising & Management
Consensus Opinion 12 out of 14 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation Creates new synergies
• Synergies that exist are fully utilized in our multi-disciplinary program. There is no evidence of a need for merger to realize synergies.
• There is no understanding of how the vocational focus of the AMM program makes it different in orientation and scope from College of Business Administration (CBA). departments.
• AMM has a very different orientation to CBA departments. Whereas they specialize by function (eg marketing, finance), AMM specializes in a product-market domain – apparel and apparel business. Marketing (and other CBA) faculty have no background in, nor any interest in apparel!
• The Collins School, another vocational program, has external funding support only on condition that it is independent of CBA. There is a reason for this.
• AMM is not a ‘marketing department’. It embraces consumer behavior, product design and development, manufacturing and process engineering, sourcing and buying, operations management, merchandising and marketing, and financial management. All focused on apparel.
• Apparel product design and apparel and textile technology are critical areas for future development of the AMM department. (They are not marketing)
• Any programmatic changes due to reorganization will jeopardize AMM’s national accreditation as one of 13 schools (the only one in California) with AAFA accreditation.
• AMM faculty publish in research journals that do not count towards AASCB accreditation. Why would a College invest in a program that will not contribute towards a critical objective? Should CBA lose its accreditation, it will be in turmoil.

Eliminating redundancies/ saving resources
• AMM students take CBA courses as part of their business foundation before taking specialist apparel management classes. There are no redundancies.
• After reorganization, savings will have to be found by cutting back on program offerings and instructors. In this process, College politics will be paramount. As a smaller program within Marketing, AMM’s autonomy will be undermined, the program diluted, and recruitment and retention of both students and faculty adversely impacted. A CBA department chair has already indicated that, should we merge, their professors could teach some AMM classes. The writing is on the wall.
• Under the organizational arrangements proposed, AMM could lose its departmental status. Departmental status is critical as a guarantee of programmatic independence, of active program leadership, and it is a key point of distinction in attracting students and faculty compared with other apparel programs in California.
• Using CBA staff to advise AMM students will be an intolerable loss of quality control.

Increased research/ funding opportunities
• Rather than enhance such opportunities, placing AMM in CBA will change the nature of our relationships with departments there from an emphasis on external collaboration to competition for internal resources. It is incredibly naive to believe that simply placing diverse groups together will make them more effective. History suggests civil war is a more common outcome.
• AMM’s vision is to build the department into a leading international apparel school. Downgrading AMM to a program within a marketing unit in CBA will undermine this vision and lead to atrophy. This will be an opposite outcome to the P&R committee’s recommendation for enhancement.

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

Recommendation 2
Department College of Agriculture - Staff
Consensus Opinion 16 out of 18 faculty/staff : NA
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 2
Department Finance, Real Estate, and Law
Consensus Opinion 14 out of 14 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation The Finance, Real Estate, and Law (FRL) faculty reject this recommendation and propose the following list of modifications:
1. More information to be provided to clarify the synergy between the Apparel Merchandising and Management (AMM) program and those in the College of Business Administration (CBA). As it stands, there seems to be no synergy or compatibility between the two programs.
2. More information is needed in regard to the status of the AMM in the College of Business Administration following the proposed merger. For instance, whether AMM will be a stand alone department or will it merge with one of the existing departments in the College of Business Administration.
3. Additional information should be available on the subject of the allocation of resources. If AMM remains as an independent department within the College of Business Administration, then there will be no recovery of funds, and resources will be taken away from the existing departments in the College of Business Administration. Will CBA be given additional fund to support AMM faculty in becoming Academically Qualified (AQ) or Professionally Qualified (PQ) as required by the AACSB Accreditation Criterions.
Minority Opinion 0 out of 14 faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 2
Department Food Marketing and Agribusiness Management
Consensus Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation It was suggested that The FMAM Dept be merger or discontinued. It should remain as a dept because it provides access to employers, especially in the Food area. It also attracts students from the Imperial Valley because of the Agribusiness Component and we are the only College offering such a major south to the Mexican Border. While our student enrollment was 42, we were slated for closing in 2005. Since then, we have been given a commitment by Animal Science to send their Animal Industries Majors to us because Animal Industries is closing. That was one of our direct competitors. Since that has happen, we have increased our enrollment by 30% and anticipate an additional 30% by the end of this academic year (2007 - 2008 about 70 students). Moreover, our FTE's have increased by 28% year over year, going from 20.17 to 25.75 on average. Our FTE's for the University (classes taken by students outside the College of Ag) has risen by 42.31%. While our major classes have increased by 16%. Our College of Ag FTE's have increase by 25.73%. As you can see, we will bring our enrollment up to 100 major students within the next 5 quarters. This is because of the work of all the Faculty in the Dept and the support of the College of Ag.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 2
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) is unanimously opposed to the P&R recommendation to move Apparel Merchandizing and Management (AMM) to the College of Business for the following reason. AMM originated from HNFS as the natural evolution of the fittest from a decaying Home Economics major. The growth of AMM post-Home Economics is remarkable. This success is recognized by P&R to recommend enhanced funding to increase faculty. The main problem with merging AMM into business is the likelihood of AMM being absorbed into a large amorphous program that is focused on business principles and less on the specialized applications unique to the apparel industry. The movement of AMM to business will diminish the important technological aspect of the program. The applied technology area makes the program unique and highly attractive to students and the apparel industry.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 2
Department IBM
Consensus Opinion 14 out of 14 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation We do not think this is a good move. While the AMM program has elements of a business program in it, they also have design elements that are not a good a fit in a College of Business. Aligning it with the mission of the college of business could have a detrimental effect on this design element.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 2
Department Management and Human Resources
Consensus Opinion 9 out of 13 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The faculty of the Management and Human Resources (MHR) department are concerned that moving Apparel Merchandising and Management into the College of Business Administration (CBA) will result in difficulties maintaining Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accreditation. This is due to the addition of faculty who do not meet the AACSB standards of academically qualified (AQ) or professionally qualified (PQ).

In order to maintain AACSB accreditation, CBA faculty must be either AQ or PQ. Faculty who are AQ must have published in at least two peer-reviewed journals within the accreditation period. Faculty who are PQ must have relevant academic preparation and professional experience. Our accreditation is subject to review in 2008-09, and it is critical that our faculty meet AACSB standards.

The benefits of moving Apparel Merchandising and Management into the CBA are not clearly evident.


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

Recommendation 2
Department University Development
Consensus Opinion 12 out of 12 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation
- Critical Differences in Organizational Orientation and Culture. Departments in the CBA are organized according to functional specialization (i.e. marketing, operations management, finance etc), whereas AMM represents an organizational grouping based on a market-focused specialization. AMM faculty, whose expertise incorporates a variety of disciplines and functions, are grouped according to a common focus on the apparel sector.
- Different Professional Domains. The professional domains of AMM faculty vary from those of CBA faculty. Whereas many CBA marketing faculty are in the American Marketing Association, AMM faculty memberships reside in organizations such as the International Textile and Apparel Association, The Textile Institute, the Fiber Society, and the American Association of Textile Chemicals and Colorists.
- Loss of Control and Status. With 260 majors, AMM is the second largest program in the College of Agriculture. The department’s growth has been an important element of the College’s turnaround in student numbers over the last 10 years. This importance has been reflected in the College’s support for the program, notably in terms of investment and transferred faculty lines. Within a CBA of 5,000+ students, however, AMM will be a minnow, subsumed within a marketing division functioning as a large ‘super-department’ and headed by a de facto chair of marketing. Such a development would reduce the department’s status its visibility in the field, and its control over its own destiny. Faculty and student morale would be adversely impacted, and relationships with industry downgraded, affecting the department’s ability to generate the financial support

While this might create new synergies in place of existing, 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

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.