<top of page

One area in which Cal Poly Pomona has been actively engaged in extended, long-range planning is the campus physical master plan (Appendix D1). The plan is currently being revised and should be completed by the time of the WASC visit in 2000. (Cal Poly Pomona is scheduled to grow from the present 15,000+ FTE students to 20,000 students by 2007/08.) In order to accommodate this projected student growth, Cal Poly Pomona will need three major new buildings, a library addition, several building renovations and an increase in parking space. This construction is in addition to the construction presently in progress in engineering, science, the Collins School for Hospitality Management, and the student union. Historically, the funding source for academic buildings has been the State general obligation bonds. These bonds require a majority of voters’ support for passage. However, the amounts of the bonds and the lack of consistent support by the voters have considerably underfunded the CSU. Consequently, Cal Poly Pomona has to compete with the other CSU campuses for these funds.

Related to this problem is the insufficiency of programs related to campus enrollment management, which is also a CSU-wide problem. The campus has not determined optimum size estimates for the various colleges in the long term, nor has it established estimates or limits for programs for the same period. The Division of Academic Affairs in collaboration with Facilities Planning and Management Office has initiated a process to determine the physical needs of the colleges as they see their future - a significant step in the right direction (Capital Planning Memo 2000). The graph [Figure 27] indicates current and projected major capital investments.

<top of page

Given the expertise and experience of the faculty, staff and administration, a Master Plan for the university at build-out can readily be constructed. We are knowledgeable about the constraints of physical size, the limitations imposed by the commuter nature of the student body, the need for planned open space, the anticipated future demand for a polytechnic education, the desirable size of each college or school and that of each department or program. Priorities and goals can be set to achieve this vision. Constructing such a plan acceptable to all the constituents will be a difficult task. The necessary commitment can be generated only by a long period of sustained trust of the constituents in each other, built on a campaign of consistent open and regular communication. The self-study committee suggests the mechanism of focus groups or town meetings, to establish the terms and conditions of a planning conference, to be followed by such a conference or symposium. It is important that these exercises be conducted as a kind of research program, not a bureaucratic exercise, and that faculty, staff, and administrative expertise and experience all be drawn upon, along with external consultants and materials.

The new Vice President for University Advancement recognizes that he must meet the challenge of coordinating a decentralized development process. Any successful future university-wide development effort must first be able to coordinate the efforts and talents of the various college development officers. This way a development team with a full range of expertise will be available for all colleges regardless of the talents and limitations of the individual college officers. He also hopes to streamline other development efforts. For example, the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs reports to the Vice President of Academic Affairs. There are good arguments to keep it within Academic Affairs because it works closely with faculty supporting their research and professional development. However one of the side effects of successful performance of the ORSP (which is also the performance of faculty and staff grant writers) is to increase the money available to programs, so a close relationship with University Advancement is desirable.

Another problem with campus growth has been the problem of maintaining the current campus physical plant. When a new building comes on line, the CSU system adjusts the campus baseline budget in two areas. The first increase is in funds earmarked to do everyday maintenance. These funds are earmarked for janitorial and gardening tasks as well as the increased campus utility costs. A second appropriation is earmarked for annual physical maintenance. These funds are destined for such things as preventative maintenance of elevators and HVAC equipment, plumbing and electrical repairs, and painting. Once allocated, these funds are never adjusted for inflation. Major maintenance projects such as new roofs are funded with special repair funds. Again, as with other types of funding from the state the amount consistently is less than the need. Currently the campus has about fifty-eight million dollars in deferred maintenance projects. People using the facilities directly experience the effects of such deferrals, and recommend making maintenance a higher budgetary priority.

As can be observed from the previous discussions, much has been accomplished in the past decade with respect to the management and enhancement of resources. Major progress has been made in expanding the campus’ capacity to deliver high quality educational programs to its students. These achievements are even more impressive given the need to decentralize and enable decision-making at many different levels partially as a consequence of the WASC visit (WASC 1990:11). During the last decade much of the administrative infrastructure was overhauled and replaced by a more egalitarian and accessible system, though there continue to be remnants of the old hierarchical and bureaucratic system, typified by disparities in pay and privileges (see, for instance, the Summer 2000 CFA Report on the FMI Process available in the Team Room or published executive salary data). In an effort to distribute the responsibilities for managing the vast resources necessary to operate the campus and to increase the capacity to serve the larger community, all segments of the campus were asked to participate in a bold new endeavor. In fact, anecdotal evidence suggests, the campus responded very affirmatively to the initial efforts at democratizing and considerable progress was evidenced. The decentralizing focus continued through much of the last decade and has complicated efforts to bring about campus-wide change and achieve pan-university agendas. If the university is to position itself to obtain an even larger share of the higher education resource pie it must modify the way it currently functions and embrace a more unified approach to securing the elements of learning and teaching.

Having decentralized, there is considerable opposition to restructuring resource development and allocation processes, in spite of the fact that there is general agreement that it would reduce competition and dissension. The down side of decentralization is loss of information sharing, dis-coordination, and rivalry. The down side of shared governance is that there is no more inefficient form of "rule" than a democracy; though things get done, the process is sometimes messy, sometimes painful, and always political. The prevailing mood of disengagement or alienation on the part of some faculty and staff is another impediment of consequence. In spite of these substantial difficulties, there are clear indications that change in a productive direction is attainable. The mechanisms for succeeding in this task are the focus of the remaining parts of this chapter.