Before the Faculty Senate Meeting came to a conclusion on Oct. 27, the open forum section was opened. Dr. Ann Strahm stood up from her chair and addressed the topic of the Program for Academic & Career Excellence (PACE), explaining that numerous students, staff and faculty had specifically attended the meeting to discuss the end of its funding.
The room was filled with eager students and supporting faculty who shared their experiences and asked what the future held for the program. Dr. Suzanne Espinoza, Vice President of Student Affairs, and Dr. James Strong, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, addressed their concerns to implement the best practices of PACE so that the whole university can benefit from them.
Elvia Ramirez (sophomore, Sociology) was the first student to share her personal experience and the impact that PACE had on her education.
“PACE provided me with enhanced mentoring with my advisor. They also provided me with endless resources such as printing, computers and a place to study when all of these resources where unavailable to me at home. PACE made them available to me,” Ramirez said. “The combination of these things has allowed me to be academically successful.”
Even though some PACE students did not physically attend the meeting, they made sure that their voice was heard. Students’ responses to the prompt, “How has PACE benefited you?” were read aloud to the attendees.
After each speaker, the Speaker of the Faculty/Chair of the Academic Senate Dr. Mark Thompson invited students and staff to voice their opinion if they wished.
Dr. Susan Marshall took a stand, stating that she was one of the original grant writers and that she was worried that the grant was not being respected.
Dr. Scott Davis also voiced his opinion, pointing out that the welfare of the students was his main concern.
“Personally for me, these students are the heart of the mission,” Davis said. “What we do here at Stanislaus, what sets us apart when we get written up in national, international reviews and local reviews. They are looking at these students and the kind of work that we do.”
Other faculty expressed their concerns as well. Dr. Koni Stone sat in her seat, listening to the discussion and looking over an article that was previously passed around by Strong which highlighted the upward mobility of the students at California State University, Stanislaus.
“I would like to thank Provost Scott for printing out this article that highlights PACE and the fact that our own PR person says that the affected practices are going to be incorporated, so I guess we need to know how the affected practices are going to be incorporated,” Stone said. “I think that it’s ironic that this [article] comes out and highlights the very successful program and at the same time we are all hearing that it is sunsetting.”
Strahm voiced her full support of PACE. Strahm added that she was the one who had invited PACE to attend the meeting.
“I support PACE’s attendance today, requesting that the faculty senate support them in holding the administration accountable for the following: inaction, leaving students, staff and faculty in the dark about plans regarding PACE and leading PACE students to believe that they had career length support system,” Strahm said.
The last question that she asked was one that was shared with many of the faculty present, as well as PACE students – what is the next step for PACE?
Thompson interjected, informing the audience that this topic was being informally discussed and that after discussing with the Provost, there would be a formal item on the agenda for the next Faculty Senate Meeting.
Ignoring Thompson, faculty continued to voice their opinion. Dr. John Sarraillé expressed his astonishment that the faculty was not consulted about the ending of PACE.
“I would like to point out that it is ironic to me that the PACE program was planned for sunsetting, apparently with no consultation with the faculty, at least not an open consultation with the faculty,” Sarraillé said. “Isn’t it baffling that a decision like this that might have such an effect was made, regardless of what people thought the effect might be. They should have taken into consideration that it might have a deleterious effect on the students.”
Espinoza pointed out that despite the uproar, no decisions about the future of the program have been made.
“The Provost and I have had lots of conversations about the possibilities and the kinds of practices that we can continue and what sort of resources would be taken,” Espinoza said.
“There are many programs that serve this purpose. Students in this program are reflected across the entire campus,” Strong said. “We like to find ways to serve more students with the best practices that we learned from PACE and effectiveness from PACE. All of our students across campus can benefit from this, and I think that was one of the intents of the grant.”
Strong also added that he, along with the Provost, are working together to create a plan.
“We will have a plan for a transition from none federal funding,” Strong said. “We need to do that in a responsible way, and that is what we will be dealing with for the next 30 days to the end of the semester.”
Espinoza affirmed that everyone who was involved with the program knew that it was a five-year program.
“I apologize for the students for this misunderstanding,” Espinoza said.
Espinoza and Strong will host a meeting with PACE students on Wednesday, Oct. 28 to ask questions and receive feedback from the PACERS. Attendance is not required.
“We are interested on what the students have to say tomorrow and we will listen carefully,” Strong said.
As Thompson adjourned the meeting he said, “We have heard many discussions, but I think we have yet to hear something more concrete on what is going to happen to PACE.”
The topic will be addressed at the next meeting on Nov. 3.