Internships and Fellowships Transcript - Part 1


GERTH: Good morning.  This is the beginning of an important discussion about a major theme  in the history of Sac State.  The State University in the State Capital.  When Bev and I were approached by a few faculty, and especially by some trustees, very especially two trustees, with whom I had worked closely on a number of issues over the years, about moving to Sac State, two themes emerged with frequency.  The first was the State University in the State Capital.  Sac State had not developed this as a strength, despite the fact that California was a major player in U.S. national government, in the U.S. economy, and indeed even in 1984 in world affairs.  Trustees were particularly determined about this.  The fact is that Sac State, and we're going to hear about this this morning, had begun to engage state government in a more systematic way.  But this needed more attention.  The second issue that the trustees wanted a new president to address was governance, especially important again because Sac State is the State University in the State Capital.  We're not going to talk about governance as a major topic this morning, although Nancy will get into certain aspects of it that are relevant to the State University in the State Capital.  

When a legislator or a staff member or an agency head wants information, wants thoughtful discussion of campus or California State University matters, where can they come?  The State University in the State Capital.  The State University is five miles down J Street.  When a business or a set of economic interests or people in state agencies want more thoughtful discussion, where do they go?  Indeed, from a student standpoint, when a student wants to explore a career in government, where does she look?  So, the State University in the State Capital must be a major theme-- an important goal educationally and in academic terms.  The time had come in 1984.  The trustees knew it.  Students and faculty in some numbers knew it here at Sac State, especially faculty and students, and other campuses knew it.  I can remember as political science professor, going to meetings, because we came in 1958, going to meetings of political scientists, where one of the discussions frequently would be,  "Where is the faculty from Sac State?  They're not here."  And so, sometimes they were but I think faculty all over the system were sort of looking to this campus, looking to Sac State for some particular leadership with respect to state government.  California needed a major university in the State Capital.  And that was to be California State University Sacramento.  I remember, this was after I was appointed here, visiting the State University of New York at Buffalo to find out what they did in New York's Capital, and inquiring of friends at Rutgers University.  The main campus of Rutgers is not in the State Capital, but they have a major branch in the State Capital and major programs, and so on.  So, in a sense, we were looking for California State University Sacramento to emerge in this kind of way.  

This morning, the-- this panel of knowledgeable faculty and staff, most of you retired, but not all of you, some of you faculty on a part time basis, over previous years.  But all of you are knowledgeable and you're going to be discussing events about the emergence of Sac State  as the University in California's Capital.  In two subsequent sessions, Center and Institutes having to do with state government and public policy will be addressed-- that is, other than the Center for California Studies, which will be a major part of discussion this morning, because in a way, the Center for California Studies is almost like a vehicle that was used over time to develop our relationship with state government.  The third session will be about the establishment of a graduate program in Public Policy and Administration.  That will be the topic of the third and final session of these three.  

I want to thank all of you, each one of you, for being here to discuss these years, 1984 to 2003.  Much has happened since 2003, but we're here to discuss that -- the '84 to 2003 period.  Today we can talk about the practical beginning and the role of the Center for California Studies providing a vehicle for much of what has happened over time.  I want to thank Steve Boilard whom we have come to know well over the past half dozen years, where he has served  as director -- Executor Director of the Center for California Studies.  I want to thank him particularly for agreeing to chair this session this morning.  I will not be a major discussant, but there will be a few times when I can help around a point or two.  And when we finish around noon, immediately after, we can enjoy together a simple and excellent lunch, and then we can all go home or wherever it is we go.  Steve?  

BOILARD: Thanks, Don.  And why don't we -- we'll have each person introduce themselves  and then we'll kind of start with an overview from Nancy.  But Nancy, why don't you introduce yourself  and let's go around that table?  

SHULOCK: I'm Nancy Shulock and I was brought in, hired by Don the very first year of the administration in 1984, and served for about 15 years in the administration.  And then went over to direct one of those institutes that he was talking about.  And I retired about three years ago.  

MOULDS: I'm Elizabeth Moulds, Betty.  I've had a lot of different roles with respect to what we're going to be discussing here today.  It began with my involvement in internship programs, and then I became Chair of the Government Department.  I was co-founder of the Center for California Studies, and then, after a number of years, was in central administration serving as Vice President  and Chief of Staff with Don.  

SABELHAUS: I'm Nettie Sabelhaus.  I was the federal -- I was the Government Affairs Director at the Center for California Studies as of 1992.  I had run the Senate Fellows Program since 1985 out of the State Capital, but it was in '92 when I came to the campus.  My charge was to continue to run the fellows program, but to develop other ways in which the University could interact with state government  and other levels of government.  And I continue to do that.  I currently work for Governor Jerry Brown as his Appointments Advisor.  

TORCOM:  I'm Jean Torcom from the Government Department, retired.  Like Betty, I have a couple of roles.  I was involved in the beginning of the Sacramento Semester Program in 1975-'76, and then came back to it in the early 80s, and became Chair when Betty moved up the ladder in 1985.  

HOENIG-COUCH: I’m Donna Hoenig-Couch. I have a long relationship with the University and with the Center for California Studies, starting as a Senate Fellow, with Nettie as my Director.  And from there, I was recruited by the then Director of --  first Director of the Center, Jeff Lustig, to work part time for the Center for California Studies.  And from there, wore a number of hats at the Center.  And, finally retired after Steve Boilard was hired and retired in 2013.  And I currently work in private practice as a psychotherapist.  

NAVARI: I'm Sylvia Navari and Professor Emerita of Social Work.  My involvement with California State University Sacramento  and the State of California probably started in 1978  because we had-- the then Dean of the School of Social Work had an Institute for Human Service Management, and we had federal and state grants to do research and was very involved in some of the policy issues with California.  I then became the Director of Field Education in Social Work, and we had placements with students in Committee on Aging, in various places in the Legislature.  And, then in 1996 I think it was, I became Director of the Executive Fellows Program.  And I just did that for a year, but had to be involved with the fellow's programs tangentially with referring students to those programs and I retired  in 2010, and there we go.  

BERNARD: My name is Sandra Bernard and I am the Office Manager at the Center for California Studies since 2002.  

BUNCH:  And I'm Claire Bunch.  I started working at the Center in 1998 and worked with Donna and Nettie and Nancy and several people on the panel.  I still work at the Center.  Have had various roles and I'm coming up on 20 years at the Center now.  

BOILARD:  And I'm Steve Boilard.  I first came to the University in 1984, same as Don Gerth,  but I was a graduate student in the Government Department.  And, went off and worked at the Legislative Analyst’s office for a number of years and to get my PhD and then returned here in 2012 as the Executive Director of the Center for California Studies.  Just retiring in a month or so.  So, we have a broad range of perspectives here from a variety of positions here on the campus, and I thought it would be helpful if we'd start with Nancy Shulock, who had been serving in administrative capacity in those early years of Don's administration, to give us kind an overview of more of a context setting of how the University was positioning itself.  So, Nancy?  

SHULOCK:  Good, thank you.  Yes, I didn't mention what my specific role was when we went  around and did introductions because I wanted to save it for this purpose.  I think that in -- I know we're going to be talking about a lot of individual initiatives and some of them did precede, as you mentioned, Don's arrival.  And Don, you mentioned in your opening remarks  that the trustees were ready, some students were ready, faculty were ready for this change, but, I --  from my perspective, there was a lot of culture in place that was going to make it really hard for this change to happen.  And, I think that there are two overriding developments that I think really explain Don's contribution and Don and his administration's contribution.  And I was involved in them and --  fundamentally, and my role -- he brought me in.  I was called at the time, he didn't remember, but Associate Vice President  for Resource Planning and Allocation.  And the idea was that it was time for the University to recognize itself as one institution that needed to get all of the units together and come up with priorities and plans so that the plan -- this was the theme that was going on at the time too, nationally--  and Don was in both areas that I'm going to talk about-- really, I think was key tapping into these national developments.  So, one of them was Strategic -- Strategic -- they need to be strategic to have a plan that drove your budget.  And then the other development, I'm going to take these one at a time quickly, was defining the role of a regional comprehensive university because it really --  there was another movement there that we tapped into that really helped us understand that these universities that are a university of their place, have different responsibilities and with different implications for the academics, service, and faculty research and scholarship.  

So, the mentality-- and I'm not making these words up,  it was told to me a lot when I was brought in—that-- was this sort of egalitarian culture of the campus where, just as an example, if you had 100 programs and $100, you gave everybody a dollar, and nobody rocked the boat.  You were kind of an-- you know, an unsettling influence if you rocked the boat.  So, we didn't talk about Centers of Ex or Excellence, or priorities, or anything like that.  And there was this Orange Book literally, that the CSU system had that had every formula for every department would get so much of a clerical and so much of an audio-visual aid and so much of a this and a that.  And really the units were just kind of separate entities and they – their budget would come in and they'd get what they --  the formula gave them.  And Don had this motto when he came in, which was, "Generation does not equal allocation."  See, some of you weren't there back then.  Some of you were and know this but, generation does not equal allocation, by which he meant, "Just because the Orange Book says that your department is going to get 7/10s of a clerical position, or whatever, a faculty, or a department chair, doesn't mean that that's what you get.  We need to come together.  We need to figure out who we are, what we want to be, what our priorities are, and have a plan and strategic thinking that guides the budget."  And that was really a challenge to the culture that was there at the time.  So, Don created this -- had a kind of inelegant name at the beginning, “urpcee” [URPC], which was the University Resources and Planning Council that, just like the name of my Institute changed, it morphed into CUP, the Council for University Planning.  And began under his guidance, a long process of developing the first University Strategic Plan.  So, and I was doing my -- looked this up.  So, the first plan was not until 1994.  So, you can see that it was kind of a -- a long cultural evolution that had to take place.  But the plan took the approach of having themes to state what was important to mission, and a vision, and themes.  And I have a little -- a few props with me.  But the first version-- I have the second version of the plan in 1998-- but the first version had themes and there was a Capital University theme.  And then in the second version, it was merged into the -- we had a Public Life of the University theme and a Capital University theme and there was a lot of overlap.  And so, we, you know, we merged it into the Public Life of a Capital University.  And just to read the goals statement.  Every theme had a goal.  And, it's, "to stablish partnerships and programs of mutual benefit to the University and the Sacramento region, in the areas of human social services, cultural life, economic development, and public policy issues of regional and statewide significance.  And then there's a lot more that I'm not going to read you.  But when we got to the second evolution, because the other related thing that we tapped into at the time, was assessment.  So, the first version we had, that we had a plan that was supposed to drive the budget, but then we added --  we need to assess how we're doing and on the basis of that assessment, then we can revise the plan, which then will influence the next round of budgets.  And so, we developed planning priorities that were supposed to be used, then, by every unit.  And the unit, when they submitted their budget request, instead of just looking at the formula or saying, "You know,  we're down three faculty, we need to get three more faculty here;  we lost a clerical, so we need a clerical,"  they had to address these priorities of the University.  And the planning priority, one of them, for the Public Life of a Capital University, was to "Clarify the University's regional mission and public life responsibilities for purposes of setting direction in the colleges and other units."  So, this whole establishment of a priority, a strategic plan theme and a priority around the public life of the university and the capital region was,  I think, really necessary-- necessary context-- to understand that that got --  was able to then be an umbrella around which these various initiatives that you're going  to be talking about, I think can best be understood.  

The second overriding development was this defining  of what it means to be a regional  comprehensive university.  Also, tapping into a national movement I got to participate in.  It was called the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities.  And, their critical founding idea was that universities, these kinds of universities were being understood and measured in terms of their performance and quality, by an inappropriate yardstick.  Everybody had -- was thinking of R1, Research 1 Universities, and so then these universities were -- "Well, they're not, you know, they're not getting all this federal research funding," or "They're not hiring,  they're not publishing the same kinds of things."  And this was a movement that came out, I think some public universities in the Midwest saying,  "We have a completely different role.  We're of our place.  We're of our regions.  We have an obligation to serve and have faculty scholarship serve the region, student academic programs be engaging the region; and so, we need to be -- we need to put forth a different model of excellence that isn't like, "Oh, well,  we're second-best according to some inappropriate yardstick."  And so, I just wanted to read -- this was this --  "Models for the 21st Century Metropolitan Universities."  And it says, "By accepting this mission, the University affirms that it not only accepts the academic and scholarly obligations and responsibilities incumbent upon all excellent universities, but that it intends to extend the expertise and energies of the University to the metropolitan region."  And of course, our metropolitan region encompassed the State Capital in a major, big way.  And the last thing I want to read, just to kind of underscore the point that this was not an easy task  to get people to -- to get the campus community and the faculty to think this way.  This inaugural article says, 

Acceptance of a new model in higher education will not be easily or quickly achieved.  Too many people recognize as worthy only the traditional higher education models that were part of their own educational development.  This attitude characterizes both faculty, mostly educated at comprehensive research institutions, and citizens in the community itself, few of whom attended metropolitan universities and many of whom view regional and commuter emphasis as trivial.  As a result, a primary task in establishing a new model is educating the university community."  

So, I just wanted to set that up because it was, you know,  Don came in and his administration came in and kind of inherited a culture of egalitarianism, as in a culture  of "let's not rock the boat" and a culture of, "Well,  we want to be, you know, the best we can be,"  like the universities that I came from.  And so, it was -- I think there was a big challenge ahead  and I think the fact that you're going to be hearing about all of these wonderful activities that were brought in, you know, under that umbrella, speaks volumes for those accomplishments in that period of '84 to 2003-- and I'm sure are still going on.  

BOILARD: Thanks, Nancy.  That's actually really helpful.  It strikes me that higher education institutions and the things we all know, in some ways, are one of the least understood actors in a polity and in a society.  Everyone just kind of thinks they know what higher education does--  It's there to teach people.  And then you get into the institution itself and you recognize that you've got many hundreds of people with entirely different ideas of, you know, what this is about.  And there's so much autonomy, certainly on the teaching part with faculty, that there's a lot of you know, again, individuals who are going to have their own expectations of what the university should be.  So, to come in, have a President come in and say, "You know, I want to refocus what we're doing here,"  that's got to be just a tremendous undertaking.  And I know Nancy, you were very involved with that during Don's early years.  

What we want to do this morning is look at some very specific efforts that the University undertook-- very specific programs and institutions that the university created.  And one of them, the first ones we wanted to talk about, is the Sacramento Semester Program, which actually predates Don a little bit, but Jean Torcom,  if you could kind of explain to us what that --  how that program came about, and what its main objectives were?  

TORCOM: I'm happy to.  Actually, it was a dark and stormy day, much like today, about 1974 or 5, that actually Gary Wilhelm of our department, had this vision.  Don referred in his opening email to us about a vision of -- about the role of the State University in the State Capital.  And I just want to make the record very clear that it was Gary Wilhelm who had that vision, basically to take advantage of our location in the State Capital and do what students at other campuses in the system could not do-- that is, get a direct experience in state government.  So, Gary recruited Rich Krolak, who taught Public Policy and Executive Branch Politics, and he recruited me, and the three of us put forward a proposal to the Chancellor's Office-- I think the program is called An Innovative Programs Grant-- proposing this Sacramento Semester Program.  And it was a simple and straightforward idea that exactly focused on what Don would come to be interested in when he came six years later.  And that was, we at Sacramento State should develop a program whereby students from all the other campuses would come here,  undertake an intensive internship in state government, at least 25 hours a week although many  of the students end up working full time in the internship-- they get very wrapped up in it.  They would also participate in an intensive seminar in California Government and Politics.  And it had an additional aspect to it, where we met with folks who are involved in California government, legislators and lobbyists and key staff people and executive branch officials, for a kind of no-holds barred discussion and question period, also once a week.  This was a 12-unit package; and, of course, we had to work with all the other campuses to get them to accept these academic credits, and so forth.  So, we began in 1976.  

That's a very brief encapsulation of what happened.  It was very well-funded, by the way-- very well-resourced in that first spring of 1976.  We never saw such resources again.  When I listen to Nancy talk about this plan and allocating resources according to, you know, especially emphasizing programs that had this kind  of capital focus to them, I don't think -- I fell down on a job because I was Chair at the time and also coordinating the Sacramento Semester Program; and I don't remember writing some powerful missive that would bring us lots of extra bucks.  Shame on me.  But it was well-funded that first time.  We actually had three faculty members, Gary Wilhelm  and Rich Krolak and I, and Tom Hober, who was the creator and publisher of The California Journal.  So, it was a very rich experience.  Then I went away the next year.  I went to the University of Sussex for a year, and in fact, on an exchange program that Gary had arranged for himself and decided he didn't want to do.  So, Betty Moulds can much better speak to how a program fared in the first several years.  It had a bit of a rocky start.  But anyway, she was elected Chair in 1982, and I returned from my one and only sabbatical that year, and she informed me that I would be coordinating the Sacramento Semester Program.  And we had the great good fortune that year of having a visiting faculty member who actually traded jobs with one of our faculty members, John Syer, and he began to teach the class for the program.  And I did the internship coordination part.  And he was just a fantastic success, a really gifted teacher.  And amazingly, he was followed in that position by Ken DeBow, who was an equally gifted teacher with a somewhat different style.  And, after both of them, Michael Wadlè, who had been a former student of ours, got his master's degree with us, he took over.  So, it's still going.  I'm amazed.  Count the years from 1976 to now-- we're in, whatever that is, the thirty-something year of the program.  And I have to say that when he got here, Don and Bev, who was involved in all of this as well, when Betty turned the program over to me, she also turned  over a fantastic recipe for a Hispanic layered chip dip, which I was able to make into a really large thing.  And that – and, we hosted a reception.  I hosted a reception every year for those students at the beginning of the program.  I think Betty had done this as well.  In fact, this year was the first year since 1983 that I did not host such a reception.  And I can't count the number of times that Bev and Don came to that.  We invited the President and his wife, and they came, frequently, to meet the students and -- so I --  in fact, I remember one really dark and stormy night,  that the doorbell rang, and Bev showed up all by herself in the pouring rain, not to miss this event.  And there is no stronger way to show your support for something than that kind of behavior.  Thank you, Bev.  Thank you, Don.  

BOILARD:  Jean, why was the program-- as conceived-- why was it open to students throughout the state as opposed to just Sacramento State students?  

TORCOM: Well, our students could already do an internship in state government, and did, because we were right there.  But if you live in Chico or Humboldt or San Diego or Los Angeles, you can't.  You can work in the district office of a legislator and you can certainly work in a municipal government, and you could work at campaigns and such, but you can't get right into it.  You can't get into the Capitol that way.  So, that was the important vision that Gary had, that we were here, and we need to make this available to students throughout the system.  I still say we were never resourced after that first year as if we were a system-wide program.  But nevertheless, we carried on.  And you know, later when -- promoting the program can be a burden.  I mean, I have to be in communication with all of the campuses and printing up programs, you know, program materials and so forth.  And I'm not sure exactly when the transfer happened from our department to the Center, but Sandy Bernard was our savior and, in fact, she took over those tasks.  And, Diane Kobely is very grateful to you that she didn't have to do it anymore.  

BERNARD: Yes, I don't remember what year it was, but I will say, you were talking about not funding as well.  Last year or two years ago, we received additional funding to help for housing-- housing stipend in the budget.  

TORCOM: Really?  Wow.  

BERNARD:  Yes. So, it's definitely something that is, you know, very important.  

TORCOM:  Is doing better.  Well, there was a dramatic event and I'm sorry.  I also don't remember what year this was, when one of the students from Cal State Long Beach, who actually hailed from Sacramento, Kevin McCarty, came to do the program.  And, he saw right away that we should have more resources for students coming.  And he worked with Tim Hodson to actually get money in your budget for our students.  And so, that was a major undertaking.  

BOILARD: Yes, and it was Kevin who later got additional funding –

TORCOM: Right.  

BOILARD: -into the budget.  

TORCOM:  So, he is now a member of the legislature.  He's our one and only actual --  we're waiting for our first governor.  But we also -- John Syre and I created, in '83 or 4, an endowment for the program.  And it -- the idea was that it should throw off enough money to give scholarships to our students.  And it hasn't done that well.  But Phil Eisenberg did a great -- a nice gift for us.  When he retired, he allowed the Government Department at CSUS, to mount a retirement party for him.  And those proceeds, which were significant, they were about $100,000 in total, and they were divided half between a fund that we had in the Government Department to support faculty, and the Sacramento Semester.  So, it got a $50,000 increment then, but it yields a modest amount.  But it is something the Director can award to students in modest scholarships.  

BOILARD:  Betty, how do you-- I mean any feedback on any of the points that Jean raised? And also, I'd be really particularly interested to know your thoughts about how the Sacramento Semester Program connected  Sacramento State more to the Capital?  Part of the question is, "Who do we serve?"  And Jean talked about how we're serving students statewide.  But, you know, surely the program involved others, other than just the students.  I mean, it connects us with offices and legislators and policy makers.  

MOULDS: Well, we had had internship programs since the department existed.  Jim Bell who died many years ago, had an office that supported individual students to go to the capital and supervised them very carefully.  So, he was really the model.  But we wanted to involve more campuses than just our own.  I, for one, had taught at a College in the Bay Area that didn't have the Capital.  And I taught California Government there, and it was very frustrating because there was a very limited amount of connection on the part of the students.  I had served as an intern, as an undergraduate, in Governor Pat Brown's office.  And I knew the importance of that project.  But I wanted to go back and follow up on something that Don and Nancy both talked about, which was these two people (GERTH and SHULOCK)  were the ones with the-- the broad picture, the strategic picture, of how the Capital could be a major focus for the whole campus.  Others of us who came out of faculty, had a much more narrow perspective, and, frankly, we were bulldogs about it.  Jean and I in particular. We wanted the Department of Government  to offer these programs to our students.  And it was, frankly, a bit of a battle, even within our own Department, because our Department was fairly deeply divided  between the few of us who had a practical approach to the teaching of politics, and those who focused on political theory.  And to say that we were looked down on is to understate it.  So, we kind of had to build from within to begin to get a reputation.  And the money that Jean and Gary brought in got their attention, but it didn't change their minds about who we were.  So, we struggled.  And I had the idea of putting together a program that would focus on California Studies.  And it would be a minor that would be cross-disciplinary, and it could bring in the English Department, the Anthropology Department, the Art Department and--  

TORCOM: Geography.  

MOULDS: -- Geography was a critical part of it.  And we designed a curriculum and actually got it  through the Faculty Senate to create a minor with that name [California Studies].  So, we had more people than just in the Government Department.  You know, the English Department loves to teach California literature.  And you know, our first -- Jeff Lustig was-- was totally enamored of California arts and literature.  But we got the California Studies Program based upon programs and courses that already existed within the curriculum.  And then, Syer and I sat down for coffee one morning and said,  "How can we create even more of a presence?  Could we possibly collect together everything that's got the name California on it, into some kind  of Center or Institute?"  And we decided that the name would be Center, because it was different from Institutes that were mostly grant-focused.  And the question was, "Well, how do you do this institutionally?"  There was no process.  If you can believe that, there was no process.  So, we decided that I should go and see the Provost and ask her permission to start a Center, with no funding.  That was the magic.  We didn't ask for money at the get-go.  Had we asked for money, it would have been, "There, there, now dear."  But what we wanted to do was to hang a sign and print some stationary.  And then go from there.  And we got enough money from operating budget of the Government Department to make the sign and to print the stationary.  And that's what put in business.  We used my faculty office, which I used to share with, then Mayor Joe Serna and a political theorist before him, Jack Livingston, who was not narrow-minded about practical politics.  And we operated all kinds of things out of a faculty office.  And, finally, Don came along and one of the things -- well, the primary thing that interested him in the Sacramento campus, was its location and its utilization of the Capital.  But without the support of the office of the President, we couldn't have done it.  And it all had to do with money and support  from the Chancellor's Office; and you know, we had started to gather critical mass, in terms of programs that we could pull together into you know, a visible thing.  
And then Don came along, and we began adding Fellows' programs and a national program of State Universities in State Capitals.  And we've just -- we did lots of things that attracted national attention.  And so, I had had a very narrow focus from the beginning of, "Let's do more with the Capital," and he wanted  to make this something that was spotlighted nationally.  And it was lovely.  

BOILARD:  Sylvia?  

NAVARI:  Can I just -- I -- Nancy brought this up and Betty's really emphasizing it in many ways.  When I was Senate Chair, it's about faculty who came here from R1 institutions wanting to promulgate their own message (and I was Senate Chair from '93 to '96).  And one of the things that struck me is we were trying to maintain, to get the senior faculty, the Jack Livingstons, to pass on the values that you're really talking about, Betty.  And it was very difficult.  Maybe the faculty were tired, but we had a lot of new faculty from R1 institutions and they just didn't -- they wanted to have the model that they came from.  And so, there was this clash.  


NAVARI:  And that was throughout my tenure as Senate Chair, '93 to '96.  That was like [Navari clashes her fists together].  Just a comment about changing.  

MOULDS:  And only recently, the Government Department has changed its name to Political Science.  

NAVARI:  Is that right?  I didn't know that.  

MOULDS: We couldn't have done that in our years because “Government” was what Harvard called it.  And they wanted the Research 1 model for our Department.  And--  

SABELHAUS: Oh, it's now Political Science.  I didn't know that.  

 [background conversation—indicating surprise-- about the department name change ]  

GERTH: I remember when I came -- when we came in '84, I raised the question.  And I had begun my career in California in 1958 at San Francisco State.  And we had a Government Department there.  And I kept hearing, "Well, we've got to have a Government Department-- that's what Harvard calls it."  So, when I got here, when we got here, I raised the question and I sort of got swatted down, because Harvard does it that way.  But the department has come around.  Now, we're Political Science.  

MOULDS:  We got swatted down in those days.  

[unknown speaker]: Yes, yes.  

TORCOM:  And I also understood that one of the reasons they shied away from Political Science is that the Criminal Justice Department then was called Police Science.  And, you know, abbreviations could have been right on top of each other.  So it could have been that.  There's also the Harvard thing, yes.  

MOULDS: Well it's the word "science"--  

TORCOM: Yes.  

MOULDS: -- they objected to.  

BOILARD: But this illustrates what Nancy is talking about and the difficulty of combating cultural forces.  And so, Don's coming in with a very different agenda than what a lot of these faculty, as Sylvia mentions, expected-- what a university does, and what a university values.  And certainly, I think this point about the funding-- you know, what you value is what you fund.  And so, if you're not asking for money, you're able to kind of maybe get your foot in the door with at least a sign up for California Studies.  

SHULOCK: Well, and it was kind of a double challenge because some of the oldest guard faculty didn't do much research and scholarship at all.  So, you think you'd get a good shot in the arm when you hired new people coming in who had research agendas.  But it was the R1 research and one of the challenges that this Coalition of Metropolitan Urban Universities really tried  to get at, and not too successfully, I don't think, but the faculty reward structure and getting people to understand what applied scholarship was in the interest of serving your region—and, in our case, you know, the Capital.  And you know, I think those battles are still going on about what is -- Well that's not scholarship because you're -- you know, you're talking to politicians.  

BOILARD: Well, we started to get close to talking about the Center for California Studies, but before we go there, particularly the Fellows'  programs, is there any other points people want to make about the Sacramento Semester Program, and the role it played at the University?  Because clearly, it was one of the early forces.  Again, initially predating Don, but it sounds like Don's the one that saw the full potential of this program to really connect the University to the [Capital].  

GERTH: Well, I think the faculty involved saw the full potential.  The problem was moving into it.  I remember, probably about 1987, Jean, you shipped me on the road and sent me around to visit--  

TORCOM: We went together.  

GERTH:  Yeah. Part of it, we went together.  We went around the state visiting other California State University campuses to get more support because there were some of the campuses that really hadn't expressed any interest in it, others had.  And we needed students in the program.  So, we toured all the campuses that were around then.  You know what this reminds me of, too?  But maybe we'll get to it later-- a role that the Center for California Studies played,  beginning many years later-- and that is where we were kind of -- the Center was kind of a broker-- for all the campuses in our system taking part in research projects that related to various activities going on in the legislature: drafts of legislation, the reports of one kind or another, where we would in a sense be the agent-- The Center would be the agent of the legislature.  I don't remember all the details of that.  But that was a very important role.  And it helped, it helped, the campus.  I can't recall exactly.  

BOILARD: Are you talking about the Faculty Research Fellows Program?  This is a program which is still in place today where the state budget provides a certain amount of money to the Center, and the Center makes that money available in the form of grants to CSU faculty.  Not just Sacramento State, but CSU faculty throughout the system--  

GERTH: Yeah.  

BOILARD: -- to do short-term research projects of interest to the legislature or the executive branch.  

GERTH:  Yeah. That's the kind of thing that we got involved in-- where we were essentially a broker for the other campuses in the system.  That -- where we could tap the strengths of the various campuses and with respect to particular public policy issues.  And that was an important role for our faculty to play.  

MOULDS: To go back to the Sacramento Semester Program though, it was, after the first year, kind of a logistic struggle about how to make it work, because you're trying to pull one or two students from each Political Science Department around the state, or from many of them.  There is no funding, they have to live in Sacramento, and then there's an argument over who gets the FTE.  And I don't remember how we settled that, except I think we split it down the middle.  But, some of the FTE went to the home campus and we got the rest of it.  

GERTH: I think so.  

TORCOM: I think eventually we got it all, but you struggled with it, I'm sure.  At first, we ran it every semester.  

MOULDS: Yes, and that just didn't work. 

TORCOM:  And in the fall, I mean, I know it would be more robust in terms of student demand if we were all on semesters, and I recall there was a time when one of the new chancellors thought we should all --  and I was cheering for that-- that it should take place.  If we were all on a semester plan, we'd have more students coming

GERTH: But it still hasn't happened.  

TORCOM: I wish for a lot of things that never happen.  So, in the fall, there were more students that came from the quarter system schools.  But, I just didn't think -- it was an awful lot of work to try to rustle up a class twice a year.  So, focusing on the spring seemed to make some sense.  And students at quarter system schools who had some imagination and vision, would realize that they could get an awful lot out of this.  I'm sure that there were campuses that didn't like us because some of those students would then transfer here to finish their degree.  So, we apologize to the rest of them,  but it was good for the students.  

SHULOCK: You know, I just remembered something from--that is kind of relevant to illustrate how challenging it was at that time to try to differentiate our campus or any campus and get money from the system to do something different.  I used to -- before I came, before you hired me, Don,  I worked at the Legislative Analysts' Office where Steve subsequently worked; and I remember at that time,  there were 19 CSU campuses.  So, that was a long time ago.  And I remember my boss, Hal Geiogue, when the CSU would send their budget requests in-- it's like, they want something, so then they want 19 of them.  So, it was again, the culture in the system, was just --  you know, it's just all cookie-cutters.  And so, he would say, "You know, they're not all the same.  But they want something so then we've got to get a budget for 19 of them."  So, that was you know, it was a system-wide, statewide, you know, culture, that we don’t-- you know, they're all the same.  And so again, trying to figure out and we're in the Capital and this Sacramento Semester and other things should be different.  

TORCOM: Right.  

SABLEHAUS: I would like to say that the impact of this program, in the Capital, was something  that the University would not regularly be aware of; but people who participated in this program, found their way into legislative staff positions, to lobby positions, to a range of civic public affairs positions, where the program was then well-regarded.  It was helped in later years by well-placed people who were participants themselves, and it was really wonderful.  Everyone had a great experience and it was a real tribute to the program.  

BOILARD: Yes, I'm not sure if that's part of you know, the long game that Nancy and Don were thinking about in those early years; but, there is this benefit that the University ends up training  and advancing individuals who feel a sense of loyalty and appreciation for what the University's done.  And then they are finding themselves in positions of authority and power.  Certainly, that's the way it is with the Fellows' programs, as well.  

TORCOM:  And we benefitted enormously from our relationship with the Fellow directors and as time went on, it was remarkable.  I mean that it would help--  

SABLEHAUS: We helped you several years. 

TORCOM:  Absolutely.  And in recent years, when Michael Wadlè was running the program and doing everything by himself, by the way, he had such good relationships with both the Center and the Fellow programs, that they often came on -- he had legislative staffers coming to our orientation and making pitches for the students.  But, yes, you know, Nettie and her counterpart in the Assembly would tell us what offices did not get a fellow and we'd be able to, you know, make that known to our students.  And so, she's absolutely right.  It has a good reputation.  

BOILARD:  It strikes me that a number of the people around this table have had positions,  both within the University as well as within the government.  And I think that's another advantage that this University has, is being able to draw upon individuals that kind of can play on both sides of that divide.  And as Nettie points out, and I think Nettie's a testament to this, that there's a benefit to being able to help the University connect to the government and the government connect to the University, through individuals that have relationships on both sides.  Betty?  

MOULDS: A couple of things that we had to really work hard on.  The first was recruitment  and the other was making our interns appreciated.  But the recruitment, Jean and Don did these road trips around to the other campuses.  I took a little different approach, and made use of the regional Political Science Association, the WPSA.  And I sought out all of the people who taught state and local politics, because there's a section of those.  And I’d have coffee with them.  I'd set up a meeting at the WPSA, to try to explain to them what the Sacramento Semesters Program was all about.  And we got a lot of students that way and the way that Don and Jean did it.  But it was talking one on one with Political Science professors, who wanted to have their students in the state capital.  So, that's how we grew it.  And then down the line,  
both with the Sacramento Semester Program,  and we'll talk soon about the Fellows, was their capacity for work was enormous.  I mean, the Legislature was not well-staffed when we started some of these programs.  And they -- the Legislature relied on help, more from the graduate students than from the undergraduates.  And then, eventually, our argument was that we could produce quick turnaround time applied research.  That one was the hard sell, because faculty don't work on legislative time.  Nor do they specialize in producing three to five-page policy papers.  And so, we had an up-road battle in those areas.  But to say that the Fellows and the interns were appreciated, is an understatement.  They were of major value.  

BOILARD:  When you talk about recruitment, Betty, and wasn't-- Claire, at what point did the Center for California Studies get involved with kind of piggy-backing some of the outreach efforts with the Fellows' outreach efforts?  

BUNCH: With Sac Semester?  

BOILARD: Yes, I'm sorry.  Yes.  

TORCOM: I think it was the late 90's.  

BUNCH:  Yes.  

BOILARD:  Okay, so this comes a little--  

BERNARD:  Michael and I worked together a little bit [then].  

BOILARD: Okay. Because there did come up a point where I think there was some recognition that we can--  

BERNARD: Work on it together.  

BOILARD: -work together a little bit more between the fellows' programs and the interns in the Sac Semester Program.  

GERTH: Well Tim, Tim played a major role in that, too, because he had come to us...  

BOILARD:  Tim Hodson, the Executive Director of the Center for California Studies.  

MOULDS:  And Tim was key with the Western Political Science Association because he'd been active with the state and local politics section.  And so, he had a couple of us working it, and Jean came in and -- it was ground-up.  

TORCOM: Yes.  

BOILARD: Well, it sounds like we're getting close to kind of talking some about the fellows' programs then.  So, I wonder if this would be a good time to take a quick break, and we'll come back and talk about the formation of the Fellows' programs.