California State University, San Bernardino

Fourth Year Report

submitted to the Senior Commission

of the

Western Association of Schools and Colleges

by

California State University, San Bernardino
5500 University Parkway
San Bernardino, California 92407-2397

 

 

January 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.  Title Page

2.  Table of Contents

3.  Statement of Report Preparation

4.   Campus History and Overview

5.  Institutional Summary Data Form

6. Response to Request of Commission for Information and Analysis

    6A. Governance and Communication

    6B. Planning and Assessment

         6B-1: Strategic Planning and Financial Resources

         6B-2: Academic Program Review and Assessment

         6B-3: Scholarly Activities and Support

         6B-4: Enrollment Management

   6C. Diversity

   6D. Additional Response: Staff Issues

7. Identification of Other Changes or Issues Currently Confronting CSUSB

   7A. Presidential Leadership

   7B. CSU Budget Policy

   7C. 20,000 FTES Facilities Master Plan

   7D. Faculty Work Load and PSSI Changes

   7E. Institution of Performance-Based Salary Increases for Staff Employees

   7F. Coachella Valley Campus Planning

8. Major Issues for the Future: Technology

9. Index of 1994 WASC Visitation Report Recommendations

10. Required Documentation

       C. Current Annual Report to the Commission

      D. Budget Documents Bound separately

     E. Financial Audits

     F. Organizational Charts

Appendices

Appendix 1 Faculty Senate Survey of University Issues—Spring, 1997

Appendix 2 Supplementary Questions on Staff Issues—June, 1997

Appendix 3 Strategic Planning Communication Audit

Appendix 4 Report of the Consultant, Dr. Joseph Subiondo

Appendix 5a Scope and Charge of the Strategic Planning Steering Council

Appendix 5b Scope and Charge of the Area Committees

Appendix 6 Draft Panning Elements

Appendix 7 Revised Draft Planning Elements

Appendix 8 Review of the Foundation for California State University, San Bernardino

Appendix 9 General Education at California State University San Bernardino: Review and Recommendations (Outside Consultants’ Report)

Appendix 10 Revision of CSUSB’s General Education Program: Report and Recommendations to the Faculty Senate (G.E. Committee Report)

Appendix 11 Evaluation of Academic Advising

Appendix 12 Baseline Access Training and Support Document

Appendix 13 Membership of IRT Oversight Committees

Appendix 14 Policy on Guidelines for Implementation of Mandatory Student Fees document, approved

Appendix 15 Staff and Faculty Collaborative Involvement, 1996-97

Appendix 16 Undergraduate Term Continuation Rates

Appendix 17 University Diversity Committee Annual Reports, AY 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97

Appendix 18 Women's Resource and Adult Re-entry Center Documents

Appendix 19 Restorations

Appendix 20 Memorandum to President Evans, Possible Strategic Initiatives for Campus Diversity

Reference Documents (RDs)

RD 1 Reports of the Area Committees

RD 2 Student Needs and Priorities Survey -- 1994, San Bernardino Campus Findings

RD 3 Guide to Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes and Status Report on Assessment Efforts

RD 4 Graduate Exit Survey Report

RD 5 Academic Plan, 1994-95 through 2006-07

RD 6 Teaching Resource Center Annual Report, 1997

RD 7 Factors Affecting Involvement, Satisfaction, and Educational Plans for Students Residing in Serrano Village

RD 8 Trustee and System Policy on Fee Changes

RD 9 Enrollment Factors Affecting Retention, Comparable Campuses

RD 10 1994 Affirmative Action Report (most current report)

RD 11 Report on Campus Diversity Issues Survey

RD 12 Faculty Administrative Manual 015

RD 13 20,000 FTES Facilities Master Plan

3.   STATEMENT OF REPORT PREPARATION

During the summer of 1996, President Evans and Vice President Fernandez initiated the preparation of the four-year interim visitation self-study report. Associate Vice President Jerry Pritchard (Academic Programs) was designated Accreditation Liaison Officer, and Dr. Ellen Gruenbaum (Professor of Anthropology and out-going Acting Dean of Social and Behavioral Sciences) was asked to serve as WASC Coordinator. (Note: in August, 1997, Lee Hanson, Associate Professor of Management, assumed the WASC Coordinator duties, see p. 5.)

The task of preparing the self-study was conceived as consisting of two distinct goals:

 WASC Steering Committee

During fall quarter 1996, several discussions were held with the leadership of the Faculty Senate, and after Dr. Gruenbaum’s visit to the WASC headquarters in December 1996, it was decided to use a high-level steering committee to oversee preparation of the report, working with task groups to carry out specific assignments. The make-up of the WASC Fourth Year Report Steering Committee was determined after several discussions with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and the Administrative Council and approved by the President in early February, 1997. It was decided that the Steering Committee should consist of the following: the Vice Presidents of the five divisions or their designees (Academic Affairs, Information Resources and Technology, University Relations, Administration and Finance, and Student Services); the Chair of the Faculty Senate; one of the two campus representatives to the CSU Statewide Academic Senate; the Chairs of four of the Faculty Senate standing committees most closely related to the matters to be covered in the report: Faculty Affairs, Curriculum; Educational Policy and Resources, and General Education; the President of Associated Students, Inc. (or a designee); and representatives of several of the employee bargaining units: California Faculty Association, CSEA, Academic Professionals, Public Safety, and Skilled Trades. In addition, the Accreditation Liaison Officer and the WASC Coordinator would serve as facilitators to the work of the WASC Fourth Year Report Steering Committee. President Evans asked Vice President Louis Fernandez, Academic Affairs, to Chair the Committee.

The Steering Committee held its first meeting on February 24, 1997. At that time the members were informed of the expectations and timetable for the WASC fourth year visitation. They also reviewed the list of recommendation statements that had been transcribed from the 1994 Visitation Team’s report chaired by Dr. Deane Neubauer (Appendix 1, Neubauer. et. al. Reaffirmation of Accreditation report) and the WASC Commission’s action letter from Stephen S. Weiner, the former Executive Director of WASC (Appendix 2, Weiner WASC action letter)

Steering Committee Task Groups

After reviewing the recommendations, the Steering Committee decided on a plan of action to set up four Task Groups to carry out the work of researching and responding to the WASC Commission’s requests for further information and analysis on key areas identified in 1994. The general configurations of the four groups and specific individuals who might be tapped to chair

the groups were decided on by the members in attendance, and Dr. Gruenbaum was directed to constitute the committees and keep the Steering Committee informed of their work.

The first three of the Task Groups established were to investigate and respond to the three major areas of WASC’s concern in 1994: Governance and Communication; Planning and Assessment; and Diversity. A fourth group on Staff Issues was set up to respond to secondary concerns of the visitation team that the Steering Committee considered sufficiently important to receive separate investigation.

Governance and Communication Task Group

The Steering Committee decided to ask one of the School deans who had recently joined the university—someone experienced at other universities but who might be able to look with fresh perspective on governance issues here—to chair Task Group #1. This group was charged to investigate the issues of Governance and Communication. It was decided to asked the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to name several faculty members from whom the Coordinator and the Chair of the Task Group could constitute a committee, and to choose a staff employee from nominations made by the CSEA member of the Steering Committee. The membership of Task Group #1 consisted of:

 Task Group #1 was charged to pay particular attention to two WASC recommendations:

 "The University community needs to give immediate attention to building a more effective system of shared governance, to which both administration and faculty are committed. The steps already undertaken since the evaluation team visit to promote a stronger sense of shared governance and effective communication are laudable, and should be continued." (Weiner letter, p. 4)

Task Group #1 met throughout the spring and summer of 1997, soliciting the views of many people on the campus, including out-going President Anthony Evans, and making use of data from three surveys that were conducted in the spring of 1997 to provide data for the WASC report: the Faculty Senate Survey of University Issues (Appendix 3), the Strategic Planning Communication Audit (Appendix 4), and the Supplementary Survey on Staff Issues (Appendix 5).

Planning and Assessment Task Group

Task Group #2 was co-chaired by a faculty member and an administrator, and the group was made up of people with expertise in various aspects of the issues to be investigated. Recommendations (quoted later in the text) were grouped into four areas: strategic planning and budgeting, academic program review, scholarly resources, and enrollment management. The members of Task Group #2 were:

Diversity Task Group: University Diversity Committee

The Fourth Year Report Steering Committee decided that the diversity topics could be most effectively addressed by the University Diversity Committee, a committee that is broadly representative of categories of employees and students of the university. As a result, the membership of Task Group #3 coincides with the membership of the 1996/97 University Diversity Committee. This group reviewed the WASC recommendations and recruited additional contributors to their section of the report, including some past members of the Diversity Committee and administrators with specific responsibilities. The members and additional contributors are as follows: 

Staff Issues Task Group

Task Group #4 was formed from an initial core group of five staff members appointed by the Vice Presidents to assist in the development of the questions (earlier in the year) for the Supplementary Staff Survey, and augmented by nominees from the staff collective bargaining units represented on the Steering Committee and one management person from the Human Resources Department. The group met with Dr. Gruenbaum and elected its co-chairs. Membership consisted of:

Some members of the group helped in the development, review, and pilot testing of survey questions. The full group met during the summer and discussed the WASC recommendations in relation to the results of the survey. The group agreed on the response and reviewed the resulting draft prepared by Ellen Gruenbaum.

Development of Self-Study Report

The series of recommendations ultimately addressed by the Planning and Assessment, Diversity, and Staff Issues task groups—a total of 33—were either verbatim statements from the 1994 WASC report or the Weiner transmittal letter, or compilations of related statements from the two documents (See Section 7, Index of 1994 WASC Visitation Report Recommendations). In a number of cases original statements were modified for purposes of integration, brevity or cogency. Where this was done, every effort was made to reflect faithfully the content, intent, and spirit of the original language. The source and page or pages from which specific recommendations derive are indicated in parenthesis with each recommendation.

A consistent report format, recommended by WASC and based on a recent CSULB self study, was used in Sections 4A-D. For each recommendation, the response was to describe "What has been done" followed by "What remains to be done," with some recommendations having a preceding "background" section if appropriate and helpful.

The Fourth Year Report Steering Committee met in May and July to review progress on the report preparation. At the July meeting, draft sections had been completed by their Task Groups for Planning and Assessment (4B), Diversity (4C), and Staff Issues (4D). The first draft of the Governance and Communication section (4A) was due to be completed by the end of the summer. Subgroups of the Steering Committee were created at the meeting to review the drafts for the three available sections and provide commentary for revision. This was to be done over the next two months.

Also in the July meeting, it was announced that Dr. Ellen Gruenbaum was departing CSUSB at the end of the summer to assume a Dean’s position at another university, and would have to be replaced as the WASC Coordinator. In August, Lee Hanson, Associate Professor of Management, School of Business and Public Administration, and Co-Chair of Task Group #2 on Planning and Assessment, agreed to assume the WASC Coordinator duties.

During August and September the three Task Group report sections were revised based on the review groups’ commentary, and in addition the first draft of the Governance and Communication section was completed and submitted by that Task Group. In mid-September, the WASC Council met to review the report and to plan for its further revision, its presentation for review, discussion and revision by the campus community, and its final revision for presentation to WASC. Considerable material from the Steering Committee and the ALO, either facts or data, was added to the report at this time (particularly to Sections 4A-D). This constituted the most extensive of the three main revisions of the report.

Over the next several weeks the revised report was reviewed by the Council members and the four WASC Task Groups and commentary was forwarded to the ALO’s office for incorporation in a second revision. With the completion of this revision, the Council met again on October 27, 1997, to finalize a process and schedule for campus review and final revision of the report.

Discussion of Draft Report with Campus Community

To encourage maximum campus review and input, the following actions were taken:

2. A copy of the full draft self-study report was made available to every campus office, and a copy was also placed on reserve in the library. Notice of this was sent to the campus with the announcement of the web site.

3. The Associated Students, Incorporated (ASI) Board of Directors was visited by the ALO and WASC Coordinator during two November Board meetings to discuss the report and solicit student commentary.

4. The University Leadership Group was briefed by the ALO and WASC Coordinator on the report in a meeting (November 6, 1997) attended by some 100 managers, and asked to discuss the report and its purposes in staff meetings with all employees.

5. Open meetings with the campus community were held during the week of November 17, 1997 to discuss the following key sections of the report:

Section                                     Date                      Location

Governance & Communication  11/17/97               Building 3 Rm. 116

Diversity                                    11/19/97               Building 3 Rm. 116

Staff Issues                                11/18/97               University Hall Rm. 42

 Additionally, the Faculty Senate held an open forum to discuss the entire report on November 20 (held in Temporary Classroom 006).

Campus members were encouraged to submit any comments or suggestions on the report to the ALO’s office in Academic Affairs. A deadline of November 26 was established for receiving commentary, after which the final draft of the report was to be completed for submittal to WASC.

As with the previous revisions of the report, fairly limited commentary was received from faculty and staff. With the exception of a specific suggestion to vest the University Diversity Committee or another campus body with power to adjudicate actions that violate the campus climate for diversity (see Section 4C), most of this faculty and staff input involved corrections to errors of fact or amplification of material in the existing text. In any case, no attempt to "censor" revision material was made by either the ALO or the WASC coordinator, and virtually all input that could be was added.

President Karnig presented eight specific items for the revision, involving new policy directions or program initiatives that he either has or intends to launch in the immediate future. These inclusions are indicated in the relevant parts of the narrative.

Finally, in contrast to the preceding revisions, the Associated Students, Incorporated Board of Directors provided some six pages of commentary on the self-study (Appendix 6, Talking Points and Considerations on the WASC Report). To the fullest extent possible, this material has been incorporated in the present final version of the self-study, while the ASI memo is also referenced at several points.

 4. CAMPUS HISTORY AND OVERVIEW

 San Bernardino is located in Inland Southern California, about 70 miles east of Los Angeles. The California State University, San Bernardino campus is the at north edge of the city near the entrance to Cajon Pass, which has long served as a major migration and trade route for settlers and indigenous residents of Southern California. Its two-county service area (San Bernardino and Riverside counties), with some 27,400 square miles, is the largest in the 22-campus California State University system. The Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metropolitan area has been growing rapidly as are the desert communities served by the University. The San Bernardino/Riverside counties have a population of 3 million, double the number in 1980.

Chartered in 1960 and opened in l965, CSU, San Bernardino has grown from a small liberal arts college of 300 students offering a limited number of baccalaureate degree programs to a multi-disciplinary university with variety of baccalaureate and graduate degree programs. CSU, San Bernardino currently offers 41 baccalaureate degrees, 15 public school credential programs, and 20 master's degrees. Additionally, over the past decade program diversification has further resulted in development of a large number of recognized degree programs offered under broader degree titles. For example, the BA/BS in Administration includes concentrations in twelve different sub-fields of Business and Public Administration.

Birth of a College

California State College at San Bernardino (as it was originally designated) was designed under founding President John Pfau to be a unique institution. Grounded in the tradition of the liberal arts, its educational philosophy was one of commitment to excellence and a sense of community. None saw the preparation of students as the mass production of mechanical units for industry but rather as a highly personalized process whereby individuals were enriched by the intellectual and cultural standards of academic tradition. Supporting this philosophy was the adoption of the Ruml Plan, which required that the majority of classes be limited to 20 students, with large lecture classes comprising less than 20 percent of all courses. In addition, students received five units of credit for four hours in class, with the fifth hour designated for independent study. This 5-for-4 feature was discontinued in 1989.

The first class at California State College, San Bernardino found itself in a vigorous program which required participation in an experimental college-wide reading program, a foreign language requirement, and comprehensive examinations in every major. By 1972, seven years after the birth of the college, these and other requirements had been modified, due to what many saw as excessive general education requirements in a highly competitive educational market. Societal trends in the late 1960s and early 1970s encouraged a close examination of traditional academic standards, generating alarm among many in higher education. Although there were changes, what remained of this noble experiment was a set of closely defined general education requirements that continued in the liberal arts tradition. In retrospect, it is likely that the sense of loss at abandoning of the institution’s early educational experiments set the stage for the next phase, which could be described as a college in search of innovation, change and identity.

The Changing College

Dr. Anthony H. Evans succeeded retiring President Pfau in 1982. This ushered in an era of rapid campus growth and expansion of both degree offerings and physical facilities. As a result of the rapid and ongoing growth of the service area, the university affirmed its commitment to outreach and service to the community. In addition, concerted effort was focused on institutional relations and image-building, development of a wider range of degrees, and development of a systematic and thorough recruitment and enrollment management process. The university has been highly successful in increasing enrollments and taking a much more visible role in higher education in the two-county area.

In 1984, the institution met CSU system requirements for "University" status, which marked the beginning of a new stage in the development of the institution. With this new status came a renewed emphasis on instructional quality, student outreach, and community relations. The theme of quality service to the region was widely acknowledged. To strengthen these efforts, an Office of College Relations was established in 1983 to coordinate external affairs for the campus, later becoming Office of University Relations.

A further General Education revision in 1989 returned to the foreign language requirement, expanded the critical thinking category, specifically called for oral communication course work, added a multi-cultural/gender perspectives component, established a science and technology topics area, called for more specific study in literature and philosophy, and strengthened upper-division integrative study. This effort to focus the core curriculum on basic skills and breadth of knowledge was assisted by new system-wide admission requirements which demanded for the first time a comprehensive pattern of High School study of 15 one-year courses in English, Mathematics, Science, Foreign Language, Visual Art/Performing Arts, U.S. History/Government, and other college preparatory electives.

Between 1983 and 1997, total enrollment more than doubled. The number of full-time equivalent students (FTES) grew from 3952 to 9179, for an increase of 132 percent in total number of credit hours taken. Headcount enrollment of individual students grew from 5,450 to 12,485 or 129 percent. Fortunately, until the downturn in the state economy in the early 1990s, this extraordinary growth was matched by parallel growth in faculty, staff and operating budgets. The past four years since the previous WASC visit have seen more moderate growth from 8950 FTES in Fall 1993 to over 9300 in Fall of 1997. A consistent problem for the campus has been that enrollment regularly exceeds the CSU system’s allocated enrollment target and number of students the state has agreed to pay for, causing ongoing budget and staffing difficulties.

Resulting from the steady growth in student enrollment in the 1980s, the campus constructed several new facilities and expanded existing ones:

A Faculty Office building opened in 1987.

University Hall and the Foundation Building were occupied in 1991.

Jack H. Brown Hall, partially funded by a gift from Stater Brothers president Jack H. Brown, was occupied by the School of Business and Public Administration, and the departments of Mathematics and Computer Science in summer 1993.

A Student Union Addition was completed in 1993.

The Bookstore was expanded in 1993.

A major expansion of John M. Pfau Library opened in 1995. The Pfau Library is now a state-of-the-art facility which includes a technology center.

The Yasuda Center for Extended Education, partially funded by a gift from Yasuda Women’s University in Japan, was opened in 1996.

The Health/Physical Education Complex, including the 5,000 seat Coussoulis Arena, which was partially funded by James and Aerianthi Coussoulis, was opened in 1995.

The Visual Arts Center, including the privately funded Robert V. Fullerton Art Museum, opened in fall of 1996.

Despite these projects, the campus still has a large number of temporary modular buildings housing classrooms and faculty offices. Additional buildings are projected and awaiting funding: a Physical Plant/Administrative Services building, a $30,000,000 Social and Behavioral Sciences Building, a $36,800,000 Education Building and a 500 seat auditorium and expansion of the Creative Arts Building. Several of the older buildings are scheduled for extensive renovation and retrofit. In particular, the Physical Sciences and Biology buildings need major renovation of laboratories. A number of remodeling and seismic retrofit projects are underway in the old Visual Arts building, older portions of the Pfau Library, and the Commons. Still others are at the design and planning stage and await state funding. Other major remodeling projects and changes in supporting infrastructure are underway and planned as new buildings come on-line and departments and functions are relocated.

These physical improvements combined with addition of a large number of new faculty positions have allowed the campus to accommodate growing student demand. Class size is small (median size of 21 students for lecture/seminar courses) as compared with large universities. Classes are taught primarily by full-time faculty, and only 24 percent of classes are staffed with part-timers. Graduate teaching assistants are used sparingly.

While the university enrolls traditional full-time students, it also has many students who enroll part-time because of work and family responsibilities. It is interesting to note that average student credit unit load has continued to increase in the past four years. Approximately half of the student enrollment utilizes late afternoon and evening classes. Weekend courses, internships/fieldwork, and self-paced courses offered by independent study and media-assisted instruction via the Internet are increasingly used by students.

Increasing complexity and need for coordination of university relations and finances and physical aspects of the campus, and recognition of the important role of student services, led to significant organizational changes in these areas. The Business Manager’s responsibilities were upgraded and a Division of Administration and Finance created, headed by a Vice President. Shortly afterwards, the Executive Dean for University Relations and Dean of Students became Vice Presidents of the Divisions of University Relations and Student Services. Likewise, the growing role of computers, electronic library resources and use of technology in instruction led to the establishment of a Vice President for the division of Information Technology and Resources in 1993.

Current Status

The campus’ third President, Dr. Albert Karnig, assumed office in August of 1997. The campus looks forward to revitalization under his leadership. The 1997-98 academic year will be a period of transition, with many major issues to be addressed by establishing an improving governance, planning, budgeting, assessment, and communication processes. These are the main topics for this interim report; other issues the campus is addressing are also noted later in the report. A brief overview of the current organizational structure of university is provided here.

The university has five administrative divisions, each headed by a Vice President:

Academic Affairs, Administration and Finance, Information Resources and Technology, Student Services and University Relations. The academic programs of the University are organized in five schools: Business and Public Administration, Education, Humanities, Natural Sciences, and Social and Behavioral Sciences. CSU San Bernardino operates on the quarter system; the fall, winter and spring terms each consist of ten weeks of instruction plus a final exam week. While continuing to emphasize the liberal arts, career-oriented programs are offered at the undergraduate and graduate level. Academic plans for the next few years anticipate adding master's degree programs in Nursing, Physical Education, Communication, English, Theater, and Music. Long-range plans call for a School of Engineering, but present prospects for funding of this undertaking are poor, and engineering programs have been postponed until 2006.

Over the past three decades, the growth and diversification of the university’s curricular programs have included the development of external degree programs designed to make available to the broad, general community, the services and resources of the university. Beginning with extended education courses and progressing to external degree programs, to state supported off-campus programs, and, in the future, to interactive instructional television, the University has adopted a theme of quality service to a diverse and growing region. CSU, San Bernardino opened a satellite campus, the Coachella Valley Center, in fall 1986. Located on a community college campus in Palm Desert, CVC offers upper division and graduate classes leading to degrees and credentials in a number of fields. Land has been given for a separate permanent site in Palm Desert and a fund-raising campaign is underway to raise the money needed to build a community-supported branch campus.

Enrollment Trends

The following statistics highlight characteristics of the university’s students in Fall 1997:

Total enrollment:

Student Head Count: 13,280

Full-Time Equivalent Students: 10,293

Gender:

62.8% Female

37.2% Male

Ethnicity:

1.3% American Indian

9.1% African American

18.1% Chicano

5.1% Other Hispanic

10.4% Asian-Pacific Islanders

46.3% White

9.7% Other/unknown

New Students:

25.8% First-time Freshmen

41.0% Transfer Students

33.2% Graduate Students

Class Level:

14.6% Freshmen

8.8% Sophomores

21.1% Juniors

26.8% Seniors

28.7% Graduates

Special Characteristics:

The following charts and graphs depict enrollment data for the institution over the past 10 years (data from CSUSB Office of Institutional Research, compiled 12/8/97). This information supports the narrative in the preceding Institutional History.

TABLE 1. Enrollment Trends 1985/87 - 1997/98

TABLE 2. Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES) Trends 1985/86 - 1997/98

TABLE 3. Enrollment Trends 1965/66 - 1997/98

TABLE 4. Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES) Trends 1965/66 - 1997/98

TABLE 5. Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES) by School and Discipline, Fall Term, 1997

TABLE 5. Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES) by School and Discipline, Fall Term, 1997 (Continued)

TABLE 6. Average Annual FTES by School of Discipline, 1984/85 - 1996/97

TABLE 7. Percentage of Annual Average FTES by School of Discipline, 1984/85 - 1996/97

TABLE 7. Percentage of Annual Average FTES by School of Discipline, 1984/85 - 1996/97 (Continued)

TABLE 7. Percentage of Annual Average FTES by School of Discipline, 1984/85 - 1996/97 (Continued)

TABLE 8. Non-White Enrollment (Fall Term) and Non-White Enrollment as a Percent of Identified Total, 1985 - 1997

TABLE 9. Undergraduate Degrees Awarded by Program by Academic Year, 1984/85 - 1996/97

TABLE 10. Graduate Degrees Awarded by Program by Academic Year, and Total Degrees Awarded by School by Academic Year, 1984/85 - 1996/97

TABLE 11. Fall Term Enrollment, All Undergraduate Degree Programs, 1985/86 - 1997/98

TABLE 11. Fall Term Enrollment, All Undergraduate Degree Programs, 1985/86 - 1997/98 (Continued)



Organization Changes Since the 1994 WASC Visitation

Since 1994, the following organizational changes of significance have occurred in the university’s divisions:

Two new degree programs have been implemented since 1994:

Our ability to serve more students and to provide more appropriate and specialized instructional facilities has been assisted by the opening of two new buildings:

Likewise, the expansion of the Pfau Library to add additional office and library stack space and to provide new facilities and equipment for Administrative Computer facilities, and Academic Computing and Media has strengthened our academic support areas. The older sections of the Pfau library are currently undergoing extensive remodeling and retrofitting for seismic upgrade. The further remodeling of the basement area, 2nd floor, and 5th floor is awaiting additional funding.

One of the most exciting and notable achievements in Academic Affairs has been the establishment of a Teaching Resource Center (TRC) in fall of 1996. The TRC is intended to assist improvement and innovation in instruction, enhance faculty expertise, promote dialogue on teaching and learning, recognize faculty efforts in improving instruction, and disseminate information on effective teaching and active learning. The Director of the Center has:

Chaired the Instructional Quality Committee

Consolidated and expanded the number of teaching improvement workshops

Developed a mentoring program for newly hired faculty

Provided funding for Instructional Development Grants, Innovative Instruction, Department-based Advancement of Teaching, and Learning Productivity Grants

Provided training in use of instructional television, use of new computer software, development of Web-based courses

Held fall and spring colloquium on college teaching, and assessment of learning outcomes

Launched the Teacher of the Year Award

 Maintained a collection of print and video materials on teaching strategies and improvement

 Provided individual counseling and advice to faculty on teaching issues, projects and grant proposals.

 The TRC will eventually be housed in permanent facilities in the remodeled basement of the Pfau Library where additional space, equipment and resources will be available for development of instructional material, testing and developing new curricular formats, and working with staff and colleagues.

Administration and Finance. The Administration and Finance Division has simultaneously faced a number of challenges and opportunities since the 1994 WASC accreditation visit. During this period, the CSU system continued to endure budget shortages while demands for services continued to increase. The division was particularly affected by a series of programs that were delegated to the campus with no commensurate operating funds being made available to manage the programs.

Examples of delegated programs included parking, workers’ compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, budget line item development, direct vendor pay, financial computing, among others. The division managed these programs by rapidly re-engineering other programs in order to free resources to handle the newly delegated programs. The overall efforts were successful, but presented a number of issues that are not fully resolved due to rapid changes in processes and work assignments.

The division had the opportunity to complete the Visual Arts Complex, Yasuda Extended Education Complex, 1000-space parking lots, and several other major and minor capital projects. These, and many services provided by the division, contribute importantly to the academic mission of the campus.

 

Information Resources and Technology. Since the last WASC visitation there have been some nominal organizational changes within IRT, as well as several personnel changes, primarily as a result of normal attrition.

With the departure of the Director of Administrative Computing & Telecommunications and as a result of fiscal constraints, the position of Director of ACT was eliminated. The managers that historically reported to this position were reassigned and now report directly to the Vice-President of IRT. Those positions include the Assistant Director of Telecommunications and Network Services, the Manager for Operations, and the Associate Director of Administrative Computing. At present, IRT managerial staff is examining managerial titles to bring uniformity and consistency to the organization. Relatedly, it is reviewing and considering the realignment of responsibilities from one area to another. For example, the relocation of video cabling from Media Services to Network Services has been agreed upon and the specifics are being finalized. The establishment of an IRT Services Desk is also being examined. The decision to create such an office is widely supported within the division and is sorely needed on the campus. What has yet to crystallize is the location and the staffing of the office. In all probability it will require pooling of staff.

With the retirement of the associate director of Academic Computing and Media, a long term staff person was selected to fill that vacancy.

 

Student Services. The Student Services organizational arrangement has had one significant change since the last WASC visit. The new 5,000 seat Coussoulis Arena was completed in 1995. In 1995/96, President Anthony Evans assigned the responsibility for overseeing arena operations to the division of Student Services. The Office of the Director, Coussoulis Arena was created. This position reports to the Assistant Vice President for Student Development, who reports to the Vice President for Student Services. The mission of the new department is to market and utilize this new facility for special events, performers and entertainers, speakers, and similar events.

 

University Relations. There have been three organizational changes in the division since 1994:

1. In March of 1995, the position of development director for annual giving and select campaign activities was reconfigured as the Director of Alumni Affairs and Annual Giving. This allowed the division to devote more time to alumni programming and to create an additional position of Director of Advancement Operations with no additional resources. The merger of alumni affairs and annual giving is fairly common in university advancement programs. The change here has brought a much stronger alumni program to the university, in part because of the reorganization and in part because of internal personnel reassignments. The concept of advancement operations has become a necessity in order to oversee increasing numbers of gift acknowledgments, evolving computer databases, sophisticated gift reporting procedures and changing standards imposed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). The creation of this office has improved significantly the internal operations of the development program in such areas as quicker response times in acknowledging gifts, better internal controls, and an improved pledge reminder system.

2. In January, 1995, with funding provided by students through an instructionally related activities fee referendum, a development director for athletics was hired. In July, 1995, a development director for the School of Business and Public Administration was hired. That position was funded during the first year with system-wide money offered through the Chancellor’s University Advancement Fund; the funding was contingent on the campus’ commitment to continue funding the position after the first year. Both of those positions reported to the Director of Major Gifts. The major gifts position, given its increased responsibilities, was reconfigured as the Executive Director of University Development, responsible for all development activities except the Alumni and Parents Annual giving programs. The school/unit development directors and the Director of Advancement Operations report to the Executive Director who reports to the Vice President. This change signaled the university’s decision to have an expanded development program that combines the centralized and decentralized models. The development budget covers the costs and benefits for the directors while the Schools and units provide clerical support and operating funds as well as space.

In September, 1996, a development director for the Coachella Valley and the School of Humanities was added. It has become apparent during the past year that raising funds for the Coachella Valley Center is a major commitment and this position does not provide adequate support to the School of Humanities. That issue, along with development needs in other areas, will be addressed when the vacant position of Executive Director of University Development is filled. Efforts are also underway to transfer more of the annual giving responsibilities to the school/unit based development officers.

3. Commencement, which had been the responsibility of the University Relations Division since 1985, was transferred to Academic Affairs in 1996 when the decision was made to have individual School commencement ceremonies.

 

Coachella Valley Center. CSUSB is in the process of planning the construction of a 78,642 square feet off-campus center to be located on 40 acres of land in Palm Desert. The new location will replace the current center located on the College of the Desert Community College Campus.

The City of Palm Desert has made a generous offer of 200 acres of prime land conveniently located at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive in Palm Desert, California. The CSU and the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on November 10, 1994, which stipulates the use and development of this land. The Understanding calls for the initial development of a 40-acre site and reserves an additional 160 acres for up to 20 years for a CSU campus, if the CSU Board of Trustees ever decides to build an independent CSU campus at the site.

Funds for constructing the CVC buildings will be acquired through a capital fund raising campaign to be conducted by CSUSB. Operating funds will be provided from the CSU systemwide budget.

Early during the planning process, the CVC Master Plan Advisory Committee unanimously agreed that the planning effort should not be limited to the initial 40-acre site to serve the CVC. It was agreed that the entire 200-acre site should be master planned in hopes that any interim development of the entire site over a 20-year period would be compatible with the potential future development of a CSU campus, should that occur. With this premise in mind, the Advisory Committee set out to plan the potential sites for future development, as well as the vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems that would be necessary to support future development.

During the planning process, the City of Palm Desert has expressed interest in the potential development of a city park that would be located adjacent to the CVC on the northwest corner of the parcel. This park would enhance the development of the CVC as well as provide an aesthetically appealing development of Cook Avenue near the recently-completed interchange at the Interstate 10 Freeway.

Two aspects of the plan deserve special mention: the reliance on electronic support including distance learning, and the focus on taking the educational program to students rather than expecting them to come to the campus. The emphasis on electronic support and distance learning can be seen in the decision to plan for a Learning Resource Center rather than a traditional library, and the assumption that fully 50 percent of final university FTE will be generated via various distance learning methodologies. By the year 2000 it is anticipated that virtually all instructional and research learning tools will be accessible and deliverable electronically. In addition, resources for learning, scholarship, and instruction will be available at CVC utilizing distance learning processes from other locations. Such is now the case with Pomona’s Hotel and Restaurant Management Program, and CVC will be serving students in the valley and distant sites from Banning to Blythe and from Joshua Tree/29 Palms to Menifee and the Imperial Valley through the same technologies. This emphasis will drive up initial capital costs due to the need to integrate the latest instructional technology into "smart" classrooms, but it will mean enhanced access to and ultimately quality in the academic programs.

This project provides a high potential for the CSU system to provide higher education services to the City of Palm Desert and the entire Coachella Valley for many decades. The project is made possible through the public partnership of the City of Palm Desert and The California State University. This is a bold project that will break ground in both the campus capitalization and instructional arenas. It is a tribute to the citizens of the Coachella Valley that they are willing to take it on with every intention of ultimately achieving success.

 

 5. INSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY DATA FORM 

INSTITUTION:             California State University, San Bernardino

PRESIDENT:                 Dr. Albert Karnig

1. YEAR FOUNDED:    Chartered 1960, Opened 1965

2. SPONSORSHIP AND CONTROL:    State of California via CSU Board of Trustees

3. DEGREE LEVELS OFFERED:    Bachelors, Masters

4. CALENDAR PLAN:    3 stated-supported quarters plus summer sessions

5. CURRENT ENROLLMENT:    Headcount               FTE

TOTAL:                                              13,280                 10,293.1

6. CURRENT FACULTY:

7. FINANCES:

8. GOVERNING BOARD: The California State University Board of Trustees

9. OFF-CAMPUS LOCATIONS:

10. LIBRARY