Ad-Hoc Committee of the Senate formed in the Fall of 2007

Resolved:   That the Charge of the Ad Hoc Goals Committee will be as follows:

1.  To draft a list of remedies/particulars that address faculty concerns articulated in the faculty referendum, for subsequent discussion and action by the Senate;

2.  To plan and manage the presentation and discussion of materials and issues relevant to the vote of no confidence in spring of 2007. The Committee will determine the best format for addressing each particular issue (report, resolution, debate, etc.). 

3.  To consult with Administrative leadership, Senate leadership, appropriate Senate Standing Committees, and other members of the campus community it deems useful, in its deliberations.

Rationale

By referendum in Spring 2007, the faculty of Sonoma State University approved by a vote of 73.4% to 26.6%, a resolution expressing no confidence in President Ruben Armiñana’s ability to “continue as president to serve students, faculty and staff and to uphold the University’s mission of teaching and learning.”  As the sponsors of the vote, it is the responsibility of the Sonoma State University Academic Senate to take action to address the concerns articulated in the referendum.  The Ad Hoc Goals Committee will be established according to the provisions of Article V of the Sonoma State University Academic Senate’s Constitution, and Article VI of its By Laws.

CIHS| DIVERSITY

MP3 file of Dean Emeritus Robert Karlsrud's comments to the Senate on 11/8/07

Always Question the Tab document - word download
CIHS and allegations concerning delegated authority - word download
Final special edition - word download
IDC final - excel download
SE References - word download

CIHS Chronicles: (all downloads)
Chronicles I
Chronicles II
Chronicles III
Chronicles IV & V
Chronicles VI
ChroncilesVII

Questions gathered by Ad-Hoc Committee on this topic:

1. Who had the authority to delegate responsibility for CIHS decisions? Why do some names have “delegated
authority” and others not, particularly Letitia Coate and Larry Schlereth? Campus Policy designates them as
the holders of post-award delegated authority.

2. Either A&F charged staff to the grants because they are responsible for grant oversight OR A&F has used
IDC to free up staff costs that would otherwise be charged to the general fund. If A&F used the grant funds to free up general fund money, where did that money go? Why didn’t it go to instruction?

3.Where is the detailed cost accounting plan required by EO753?

4. Why were the labor/cost distributions upon which the percents are based not provided?

5. If there are no supporting data, will A&F submit to outside auditors looking into this? A real audit
would require interviewing each of the people to substantiate that they spent the amount of time indicated working on grants and contracts as well as interviewing the end-users in G&C regarding the services they received from the named individuals. Job descriptions for the positions and work products in support of the claims should also be requested.

6. The funds should have been used to reimburse the General Fund. Where is the documentation that this
occurred and to what use were the funds reallocated?

7. Why does money go to these 34 positions within A&F without any funds distributed to the schools and programs that actually receive and administer the grant and contract programs?

8. A&F made a presentation recently to the Senate in which it was stated that there were no paid positions in the Academic Foundation. The work to manage Foundation is done by A&F using general fund monies. EO753 states that all auxiliaries must be treated in a similar fashion. Why does the Foundation get a free ride, while Grants and Contracts gets a bill for $3 million plus?

9. The $1,712,989 (see CFO spreadsheet) to A&F for EO753 Institutional Support is only the beginning, however. The Special Projects Summary for 06-07 shows IDC in the neighborhood of $3.5 million. This leaves around $1.8 million not accounted for by the CFO’s spreadsheet. Where is a detailed accounting of that money?

10. Where is the accounting for 05-06, the pivotal year when over $500,000 in administrative funding was withheld from CIHS, precipitating the mess in which we find ourselves now?

11. Have most CIHS programs been taken over at other schools or by other agencies or offices? If so, what
percentage?

12. How many grants or how much money was refused by CIHS in the past 15 years?

MP3 file of Vice President Furukawa-Schlereth's report to the Senate on CIHS 11/29/07

Written version of report above from Vice President Furukawa-Schlereth's report - see end of page (pdf. download)

Audit Materials provided by President Arminana

Office of Internal Audit Services

DIVERSITY

Diversity At SSU - word download
(What follows is a compilation of information requested by the Academic Planning Committee in response to the WASC essay on Diversity and the absence of any response to the subject of Diversity in the Provost’s draft “Strategic Plan.” )

Academic Affairs Diversity Efforts - word download
SAEM Diversity Efforts - excel download

Notes from Meeting on Diversity on 3/19/08 - word download

Back to Senate Home page

updated 3/19/08