Cal Poly Pomona

P&R Responses for recommendation 4

Recommendation 4
Department Art
Consensus Opinion 8 out of 17 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation We have analyzed the #4 P & R proposal and determined that Landscape Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning should NOT be moved to a new College of Agriculture, Natural and Environmental Science. They should remain in the College of Environmental Design.
Landscape Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning are both design/studio based departments. Both have decidedly different approaches to education and problem solving theory. These ENV
programs utilize a design culture which builds on “creative thinking”not science-based methodologies.
Both programs are nationally recognized and risk losing their respective accreditations if they were moved to a science-based College. This would be a terrible mistake for the University as it would negatively impact the wonderful alumni base and contributing donors enjoyed by the two programs. It is clear through the various P & R forums that the ENV alumni and the various associated constituencies are not in support of this structural change either.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 4
Department AVP Student Services
Consensus Opinion 2 out of 2 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation This recommendation does not make sense. Many of companies are bringing Architecture and Landscape Architecture together. It would make sense that we educate our students in an updated, current way to match industry trends so that they have a better chance of entering the workforce informed and prepared.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 4
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 4
Department College of ENV--Staff
Consensus Opinion 13 out of 13 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation While combining Landscape Architecture, Urban and Regional Planning, and The Lyle Center (left out of the equation, but must be included) into a new College of Agriculture and Sciences may seem a logical association to those unfamiliar. The ENV programs and science programs are at best loosely related. These disciplines have decidedly different approaches to education and problem solving theory. ENV programs utilize a “design culture” which builds on creative thinking, while Agriculture and Science, approach problem solving from a science-based methodology.

The history of ENV should serve as one example of the importance of creativity. The Landscape Architecture program, which separated from the College of Agriculture in the early 70’s, recognized a need to partner with architects and planners in order to focus on “smart design” of the built environments. More than fifty years later, the program enjoys one of the best reputations of any Landscape Architecture program in the western United States. The impact of this nationally-recognized program is obvious and the influence its alumni have had on the professions cannot be denied.

The Lyle Center grew out of the Landscape Architecture program having started as a case study by Professor John T. Lyle and students more than 20 years ago. The Lyle Center is an internationally renowned center for sustainability education, and arguably the best example of cross-disciplinary learning that exists on campus today.

The Department of Urban and Regional Planning enjoys an even greater reputation for academic excellence. The URP program is one of the largest undergraduate programs in the country and the only accredited undergraduate program in all of southern California. It would be difficult to find a city planning office within a 100-mile radius of CPP that doesn’t employ a predominant number of graduates of our program or have our alumni in leadership positions.

It should be noted, that of all the colleges at Cal Poly Pomona, Environmental Design is the only one to have been initiated by faculty, staff and students and fought for its own creation to meet design challenges facing society. The early pioneers of ENV recognized that as educators we had to promote “smart growth” in order to meet the expanding physical needs of the population. That foresight has led to nationally- recognized programs, responsible for educating a significant percentage of the state’s architects, artists, landscape architects, and planners.

ENV graduates play a significant role in shaping our world.
The influence ENV graduates have had on the professions throughout the region, state and beyond is profound. Our graduates are leaders of industry, local and city government, and pioneers of environmental and social change. Our graduates are highly sought after. Employers frequently state that an ENV graduate is their only choice when making hiring decisions. They sight the “learn-by-doing approach”, the studio pedagogy and the first and second-year experience that prepares ENV graduates beyond all others. Another example of the demand for ENV graduates is evident by the annual College’s ENV Career Day, which attracts more than 130 employers each year.

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

Recommendation 4
Department Computer Science
Consensus Opinion 11 out of 12 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The Computer Science Department would like to support the response of the Geology Department to the recommendation of creation of Division of Environmental Science. The Division of Environmental Science brings together science-based and design-based programs on campus which we think will be a complete mismatch and will weaken all the programs in this division. Instead, we agree that a Center of Environmental Studies is a better way to create collaboration among related disciplines, thus maintaining the strong nature or individual programs and departments as they exist currently.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 4
Department Dean of Students
Consensus Opinion 4 out of 4 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation Explanation: When a student graduates from the University, he or she will face a world in which Architecture and Landscape Architecture are brought together. Many hiring companies in the industry would expect knowledge and experience that reflects this merge and CPP alumni would be ill prepared to face this challenge.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 4
Department ENV Dean's Office
Consensus Opinion 2 out of 2 faculty/staff : NA
Consensus Explanation ENV Dean’s Office Response to Proposal #4:
Landscape Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning (URP) [and the Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies (LCRS)] to become part of the environmental division of the proposed College of Agricultural, Natural, and Environmental Sciences (ANES)

While design relies on the findings of and interaction with scientists, it is not a science. It is in a separate category of endeavor in which designers rely heavily on the right side of their brains to shape their solutions. There is no single right solution to each design problem the way there is one correct answer to most scientific investigations. In design there can be many good solutions, and the choice of which one will be implemented depends on many factors. While designers do use the left side of the brains, it is the right side that propels us to sustainable, inspiring and humanizing solutions.

This is why Landscape Architecture, URP and LCRS programs are studio based. The format of studio courses is the one-on-one desk critique between faculty and student. Studios include frequent pin-ups, where students present to their classmates, as well as end-of-quarter juries with invited professionals and stakeholders giving their critique of the projects. The nature of design studio requires long hours of work to produce graphics and models. Design students are notorious for late night and all night sessions in their studios. This studio culture provides the perfect learning environment for design professionals, which differs from the format for scientific learning. Would a college whose primary mission is to educate agriculture and science students be tolerant of the more “inner directed” world of environmental design? Would the design faculty residing in ANES be respected for their professional design work and thus be as successful in earning tenure as they would in ENV? Over time, would the design departments maintain the autonomy and level of support that is necessary for professional accreditation? These questions cannot be answered now, but they cause deep concern.

The Department of Landscape Architecture was founded in 1957, within the College of Agriculture. Landscape Architecture and Urban & Regional Planning (URP) left the College of Agriculture in 1969 to form the new College of Environmental Design. This is also when the Department of Architecture was founded. The Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies opened in 1993, about the same time that the Art Department left CLASS to join ENV. All of these programs collaborate. There is a joint first year design studio sequence for Landscape Architecture, URP and Architecture students. The majority of LCRS faculty members come from ENV. These programs are soul-mates for enduring reasons.

There is currently a proposal in the US Congress to establish a National Academy of Environmental Design. This would mirror the National Academy of Sciences (founded in 1863), the National Research Council (1916), the National Academy of Engineering (1964), and the Institute of Medicine (1970). Each of these organizations was founded in response to a national crisis, such as the current environmental crisis. The nation recognizes the importance of environmental design and may soon establish an academy to direct research and education in these disciplines. It would be a shame for Cal Poly Pomona to reduce its success rate in applying for grants from this new Academy of Environmental Design because it has just dissolved its College of Environmental Design.

Proposal #4 should not be implemented.

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

Recommendation 4
Consensus Opinion 10 out of 12 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The Geological Sciences Faculty unanimously opposes the P&R recommendation to merge a disparate group of academic departments from three different Colleges (SCI, ENV, AGR) into a new Environmental Sciences Division. We strongly urge that the committee consider the alternative to such a merger suggested by Associate Vice President for Research Don Hoyt during the P&R forums – the creation of an Interdisciplinary Center (or Institute) of Environmental Studies. Such a Center would encourage collaboration between faculty who are interested in environmental problems and have the necessary expertise, while allowing distinct disciplines with inherently different curricula, pedagogy, and research methodology, to maintain their existing strengths and identities. Cross-disciplinary collaboration through such a Center represents a better model for creating the desired synergy on Environmental issues at Cal Poly Pomona.

A Center of Environmental Studies would support multi-disciplinary research and teaching involving science-, design- and policy- oriented disciplines, but would also allow individual departments to maintain their disciplinary identity, and continue to pursue collaboration in other fields of study. For example, the Geological Sciences Department, as one of the core Natural Science disciplines could continue to expand its research and teaching expertise in other growth areas. Engineering geology, natural hazards analysis, oil exploration and mining have all been identified as important to Earth Science employers and research funding agencies. Accelerated growth in these fields continues to foster synergetic teaching and research collaborations between Geology, Engineering, and the other Natural Sciences. This is only possible, however, if the integrity of the Geology and Integrated Earth Studies programs and their science-based curriculum are preserved.

The Center for GIS Research is a good example of interdisciplinary collaboration between the Colleges of Engineering, Science, Environmental Design, and CLASS. Geology plays a key role as its Science representative, and has contributed two new courses in GIS Applications to the curriculum of the interdisciplinary GIS minor. The Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies also provides an existing model for interdisciplinary collaboration on environmental problems.

Merging departments into a Division saves resources and reduces redundancies only if these departments share a common foundation in teaching and research approaches. However, the departments involved in the recommended Environmental Sciences merger have very different pedagogies - laboratory and field based versus studio and design based. Their research methodologies also diverge - hypothesis testing versus creative endeavors. It is therefore likely that the proposed merger of incompatible disciplines would lead to increased administrative inefficiencies, an unfocused curriculum, and an unclear RTP process. In addition, this merger would only dilute each of our discipline-specific strengths.

In summary, the Geology faculty urges the committee to consider the creation of a Center of Environmental Studies. This suggestion received an overwhelmingly positive response from representatives of the involved departments at the P&R forums. In contrast, these departments unanimously expressed opposition to the recommended merger of distinct disciplines under an Environmental Science Division. In the specific case of Geology, inclusion with the Natural Sciences is essential to produce graduates with the necessary quantitative skills for geoscience careers and to maintain the program’s strong reputation with employers, Earth Science funding agencies, and graduate schools.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 4
Department Landscape Architecture
Consensus Opinion 16 out of 16 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation
The separation of the Departments of Landscape Architecture, Urban and Regional Planning and the Lyle Center from the Architecture and Fine Arts departments would have a negative impact upon the College of ENV and the University.

• RTP criteria for faculty in design disciplines are distinct. There are differences in RTP criteria between design departments and the other departments proposed in the Environmental Division of the College of Agricultural, Natural, and Environmental Sciences. Over time, due to influences, pressures, uninformed opinions of the other departments and the college leadership of this “new” college RTP criteria would change to the detriment of the current design departments in the College of ENV. If LA and URP become labeled as environmental scientists it is contradicting the vision and directions of the departments and this will affect future directions of RTP criteria and hires.
• The recommendation implies a fundamental shift from design to science-based philosophies. Landscape Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning are design disciplines that engage science [among many other criteria] in decisions of form, strategy, policy and planning. Design cultures, which emphasize creative modes of thinking, are different than science-based cultures, which emphasize analytical thinking.
• The nature of the departments and the types of resources required for design departments accreditation requirements are different. Accreditation is crucial to our department’s credibility and visibility and the proposed changes present challenges to future accreditation. One of the many strengths of the Department of Landscape Architecture in accreditation is its home alliance within the College of ENV and direct associations with architecture, planning, the Lyle Center and the art departments.
• An alliance of the physical design disciplines is crucial to form a complete picture of the built environment. The recommendation does not compensate for the loss of the synergy between the disciplines engaged in forming the built environment.
• The recommendation diminishes the opportunity for formal and informal student and faculty interaction that results from the immersion in a complete design environment.
• Loss of direct and personal networking between students and professionals in the environmental design community lessen career development opportunities. Employment, career and learn-by-doing project opportunities are diluted by the dispersal of resources that are currently shared within the College of ENV.
• The College of Environmental Design has an established and recognized identity. The proposed College of Agricultural, Natural, and Environmental Sciences would not benefit from this long-standing image. The loss of this identity and distinction would adversely affect the support from alumni, the applied professions and related industries. The move to a College of Agricultural, Natural, and Environmental Sciences compromises the credibility of the department within the profession and negatively affects employment opportunities for our graduates. In addition the University’s commitment to the climate and environment will not benefit from the destruction of the only College of Environmental Design in the entire CSU system that includes architecture, landscape architecture, urban and regional planning, fine art and graphic design and regenerative studies programs.

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

Recommendation 4
Department Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies
Consensus Opinion 13 out of 13 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation Majority Opinion: Opposed to Recommendation #4

The original P&R recommendations moved the Lyle Center Programs (LCRS) to the College of Science along with URP and LA. However the Center has been omitted from the official list of recommendations. As such, we are responding to #4, assuming that we would be included in the migration as originally proposed.

Building Bridges not Mergers. LCRS faculty and staff are pleased that the P&R recommendation highlighted the potential of its programs, and more broadly the potential of the environmental concerns/applications as an affinity of CPP. We agree that this area of emphasis holds great potential as a campus-wide identity. However, we do not believe the proposed re-organization that dissolves ENV and distributes Architecture, LA, URP and LCRS into other colleges will be effective in infusing this campus-wide identity. As such, we are opposed to this recommendation. Building bridges from the holistic, multi-disciplinary and action-oriented approach inherent in ENV to other colleges provides the best opportunity for developing true campus-wide identity in our opinion.

LCRS has been successful in building bridges across colleges in recent years, facilitating formal teaching, research and outreach programs with faculty and students in ENV, Science, CLASS, Engineering and Agriculture, as well as informal activities with every College on campus. However, ENV has been foundational in establishing the approach of LCRS, and we believe this identity continues to be in the best interest of LCRS and the University, particularly in terms of distinguishing itself from other competing programs/institutions as a program concerned with directly impacting actions that affect communities and the environment.

LCRS as a Locus of Environmental Efforts. With enhanced funding, LCRS could serve as a locus for the establishment of a greatly expanded network of faculty, students and staff examining environmental issues across all disciplines. Recommendations #58, 59 and 107 allude to this potential, and we believe it offers far more promise in advancing the interests of the University than proposed mergers.

Benefits to All Colleges. Additional resources would allow LCRS to expand substantial connections to all colleges, offering support for students and release time for more faculty to pursue interdisciplinary teaching, research and outreach programs. Facilitating such a network would not only enhance the Center, but would also offer substantial benefits to all colleges involved. The approach empowers faculty to develop specialized knowledge, often drawing from other disciplines, to enhance their teaching and scholarship within their own department. Community outreach opportunities for all colleges would be increased. LCRS would serve as a resource for all programs, facilitating connections across campus, offering expertise, and resources in the form of space, specialized equipment, and staff support.

Build on What Works Well. The LCRS model has been effective in building truly interdisciplinary programs at the Center, thanks to the contributions of many colleges and the leadership of ENV. The alternative we are proposing would build on this approach, enhancing the flow of resources and expertise back to the Colleges involved in order to strengthen their own programs and enhance this environmental identity across campus. This approach is essential to the continued success of LCRS since the strength of our programs rests on the continued strength and enhancement of our faculty’s home departments.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 4
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 4
Department Student Affairs Administration
Consensus Opinion 3 out of 3 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation This is the same response we submitted for recommendation #3. Architects and Engineers will spend their entire careers working together. Understanding each other's programs, issues, and challenges will benefit them as they move from the academic environment into the real world. But architects tend to be artists with creative personalities whereas most engineers are scientists and more methodical. A concerted effort will have to be made to meet the needs of both types of students if they are merged into one school. If undertaken, we strongly feel that Landscape Architecture and Planning should also be a part of this integration.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 4
Department University Development
Consensus Opinion 12 out of 12 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation While combining Landscape Architecture, Urban and Regional Planning and The Lyle Center into a new College of Agriculture and Sciences may seem an appropriate paring to an unfamiliar population, they are at best loosely related. These disciplines have decidedly different approaches to education delivery and problem solving aspects. ENV programs utilize a “design culture” and creative thinking, while Agriculture and Science, approach problem solving from a science-based methodology.

The history of ENV should serve as one example of the importance of creativity. The Department of Urban and Regional Planning perhaps enjoys an event greater reputation for academic excellence with strong industry and alumni leadership whose support could be adversely affected. Each of the ENV programs enjoy national reputations and are responsible for educating a significant percentage of the state’s designers and planners, the repercussions could severely damage the ability to raise future support for these programs.

This will have a negative impact on external funding and support to these programs, The College and potentially the University from industry and alumni alike.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : With modifications
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 4
Department University Housing Services
Consensus Opinion 22 out of 22 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The concern from the department is regarding the majors of landscape architecture and urban planning. There is a feeling that these two areas should be kept in the same college as architecture and not moved to the new college, as the focus of the new college will change the structure of the majors and they do not seem to align as well as they do with architecture.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 4
Department Urban and Regional Planning
Consensus Opinion 9 out of 9 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The proposal will damage existing synergies, will create redundancies by requiring design education in three colleges rather than one, will not save resources (increased division head positions), and will on balance reduce opportunities for research and external funding opportunities.

The Department of Urban and Regional Planning is the largest planning program in California, is the highest ranked planning program in the CSU, provides the only accredited undergraduate program in Southern California, and provides access to the profession for a diverse population. The department’s leadership in sustainability, smart growth, and infrastructure responds to the highest priorities in California. It is playing a vital role in bringing sustainability to other colleges and will expand that role in the future.

The program will lose accreditation status with the Planning Accreditation Board. An administrative location in Science will not fulfill accreditation requirement 3.1 (Administrative location) and 3.2 (Program autonomy). The department does not meet required student/faculty ratios. In past, that problem was overcome by demonstrating educational quality associated with interdisciplinary interaction in ENV. If that is removed, failure to meet student/faculty ratios will lead to a loss of accreditation, which would devastate the program.

• The accreditation standard for masters programs is 10:1. The 2006 student/FTE teaching faculty ratio for the Masters program in 2006 was 16.3:1. It is higher now.
• The accreditation standard for bachelors programs is 15:1. The student/FTE teaching faculty ratio for the Bachelors program in 2006 was 27.3:1. It is higher now.

Reorganization should build on recognized centers of excellence, not diminish them. URP is a national leader in planning education. Outside ENV, URP’s reputation would decline, as did the planning program at UCLA when it was separated from Architecture.

The pedagogical core of planning is different from that of science. Planners are problem-solvers drawing from a wide range of disciplines and work with facts and values. They use iterative, exploratory processes in design and consensus building, not hypothesis testing. There is no precedent in the U.S. for such a location for URP. RTP processes will not function in a college based on science disciplines.

Alumni and professional organizations (American Planning Association, American Institute of Certified Planners) are opposed. The value of degrees granted will be diminished. Alumni will stop giving money and their time to Cal Poly Pomona. Alumni associate with their home department and college first. If that link is severed they will not support the university. See

Students are opposed. They want more, not less, collaboration with the design fields. See

The proposal is wasteful because three colleges (Science, Business and Engineering) will have to support studio-based design education.

Synergies with Architecture and Graphic Design will be harmed. The interdisciplinary design course (ENV 101) and the Planning/Architecture China Studio are supported by a common college administration.

The Academic P&R Committee offers faulty logic. The rationale was 1) URP could lead other environmental programs in applying knowledge, and 2) programs in the proposed college are located in the same part of campus. We favor collaboration, but do not need that same college structure to achieve that. Physical location on campus is irrelevant to the appropriate organizational structure.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 4
Department Vice President's Office, University Advancement
Consensus Opinion 19 out of 19 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation The staff in the departments that report directly to the VP for University Advancement strongly disagree with the recommendation to break apart the College of Environmental Design. The reputation of Cal Poly Pomona can only be hurt by disbanding ENV. News media and global conversations have focused on the need for the very resource we already have in place. The future need for what this college produces will be greater than it has ever been in the past. Looking into that future, this college has tremendous marketing potential for Cal Poly Pomona; therefore, disbanding it will diminish that potential. We believe the fundraising capabilities for ENV will significantly increase over time. And, it would only be reduced, if it were broken apart.
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.