Academic Senate of the California State University
MINUTES

Meeting of December 11, 1998
CSU Headquarters, Long Beach, CA

 

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, December 11, 1998, by Chair Gene Dinielli.

ROLL CALL: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield) Jacquelyn Kegley, John Tarjan; (Chico) Samuel Edelman; (Dominguez Hills) Hal Charnofsky, Dick Williams; (Fresno) Jacinta Amaral, James Highsmith, Lester Pincu; (Fullerton) Vincent Buck; (Hayward); (Humboldt) Elmo Moore, Marshelle Thobaben; (Long Beach) Gene Dinielli, David Hood; (Los Angeles) Dorothy Keane; (Maritime Academy); (Monterey Bay) J. Ken Nishita; (Northridge) Michael Reagan, Gerald Resendez; (Pomona) Rochelle Kellner, Marvin Klein; (Sacramento) Cristy Jensen; (San Bernardino) Walter Oliver, C. E. Tapie Rohm; (San Diego) Ray Boddy, Dan Whitney; (San Francisco) Robert Cherny, Jan Gregory; (San Jose) David McNeil; (San Luis Obispo) Reginald Gooden, Timothy Kersten; (San Marcos) Alison King, A. Sandy Parsons; (Sonoma) Susan McKillop, Peter Phillips; (Stanislaus) Pamela Russ; (Chancellor's Office) David Spence.

INTRODUCTIONS

During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:

Gary Hammerstrom, Acting Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, CO

Harold Goldwhite, Faculty Trustee and Professor of Chemistry, CSU Los Angeles

Terry Jones, President, California Faculty Association

Donald Moore, Consultant, Association of California State University Professors; Emeritus and Retired Faculty Association (non-voting delegate)

Doreen Stabinsky, CFA Bargaining Team, Assistant Professor, CSU Sacramento

Chris Tinson, California State Student Association Liaison to Senate, CSU Dominguez Hills

Johnetta Anderson, Technical Assistant, Chancellor’s Office

Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

José Lopez, Clerical Assistant, Academic Senate CSU

Reta Martin, Staff Assistant—Budget, Academic Senate CSU

Margaret Price, Assistant to Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

REPORT OF CHAIR GENE DINIELLI

There have been rumors about the MOU——Memorandum of Understanding——between two systems, CSU and the Community Colleges, similar to that which was struck between Community Colleges and UC. There have even been announcements as late as yesterday’s ICAS meeting (the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates) that that discussion was going quite well. Five of us, your executive committee, looked with incredulity at that announcement. David Spence last night verified to me that meetings had not taken place and the first meeting is December 21 and I’ll be attending. So I cannot speak to the nature and extent of that MOU nor to its purpose because no discussion has taken place.

ICAS also dealt with the matter which Jim Highsmith handled for the Senate and for the other two public faculties last year when Senator Dede Alpert presented, at the request of students, Senate Bill 1472. It had to do with changing the curriculum of IGETC, the curriculum agreed upon by the faculties of the Community Colleges, UC, and CSU. He was able to convince Senator Alpert that if she had any concerns of the curriculum, the faculty in the first instance ought to deal with those concerns. The Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates has been dealing with a response since then and has come closer to a response that will be shared with the three senates, the purpose of which is to allow an exception for good cause to full certification of the IGETC. An exception would allow students no more than two courses short of full certification in the IGETC to transfer without penalty to either of the two senior institutions. We’re getting closer to achieving intersegmental agreement about the response and that will be shared as soon as possible with Academic Affairs.

I do want to mention that Marshelle Thobaben has been named vice chair of the program planning committee of CLRIT. What that means——thanks again to Jim Highsmith and others——is that by rotation, she will become chair next year.

Rosemarie Marshall has agreed to sit on a CLRIT committee for dealing with intellectual property rights.

With approval of the body and without objection I would like to immediately change the agenda to get the report from:

CFA President Terry Jones — I would just like to start by thanking you, the Academic Senate, and the people you work with on the campuses. This thing started out way back in February and Charlie Reed told us that the faculty was divided and CFA did not speak for the faculty. He told me that we’re out too far and the faculty would dessert us. Well thanks to your help and the help of our colleagues on the campus, I can sit here and report that I think progress is being made. I’d like to characterize it as them blinking. I don’t know if that is the way they would characterize it. I don’t think it matters. For the first time under this fact finder, I’d like to tell you all that some serious discussions are being held. Can’t get it off into all the details. We met one day last week, in the executive session, the fact finder and representative from their side and our side will meet on the 22nd and if necessary again on the 28th and the 29th.

Should let you know that the primary sticking points that remain are something around retroactivity and how we might be able to deal with that and make it go away and that’s going to take awhile. But I think with genuine effort on both sides, we can get something done there.

The other problem is around the issue of presidential discretion around the merit pay money. That’s still problematic. It’s kind of a situation where supposedly now the campus presidents are saying, "no, no, never, never——we’ll walk through muddy water, drink slop, or do whatever" before they’ll accept giving the presidential discretion. What I see as I attend these sessions, is both sides trying very hard to get a deal done. I see a very skillful fact finder working with us. Maybe I’m being a little too optimistic at this point, but I sense that there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. I sense that we’re going to be able to present a deal very soon that the faculty will be very, very proud of. Doreen Stabinsky is a member of this bargaining team, she’s from Sacramento State, she’s in environmental studies and she’s one of our junior faculty but she has been diligently working on this process and has had her nose to the grindstone during the whole time. I sense that the faculty on this notion of collective bargaining are more united than we have been in a long time but I also sense that we could use more help on the campuses. Now if it is true, that the presidents are the ones that are standing between us and some movement on presidential discretion, and I believe that possibly could be true, it would appear to me that some response by faculty on the campuses directed toward those presidents about your attitudes, your feelings about the issue about presidential discretion on the merit pay could be helpful at this point.

Now I’m being much more vague than I would normally be and anyone who knows me knows that I just like to talk and run my mouth wherever. But given the nature of this process, I can’t divulge a whole bunch more. I’d like you to leave here, if with nothing more, with the feeling that I’m very optimistic that we’re going to be able to get this deal done some time in the spring semester, hopefully early, but it’s going to get done.

 

* * * * *

Standing Committee Reports:

Academic Affairs Committee Chair Robert Cherny reported that the committee met jointly with Faculty Affairs to revise resolutions on Cornerstones implementation. It was agreed that the proposed resolution urging creation of campus and statewide taskforces should be held indefinitely until circumstances might require it. AS-2435-98/FA/AA, Response to the Draft "Cornerstones Implementation Plan" was discussed and

revised. AAC, meeting separately, agreed that AS-2434-98/AA (Globalization Task Force report) should be postponed until January.

Faculty Affairs Committee Chair Dan Whitney reported that FAC met with the AAC to discuss the Cornerstones Implementation Plan. The meeting was productive and enjoyable.

Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee Vice Chair Timothy Kersten reported:

A) There were three suggestions discussed for possible consideration as issues for discussion in Leg Days in Sacramento:

1) the CPEC salary gap should be included in the new funding compact for CSU

2) support the concept of enrollment growth money being included in the new funding compact for CSU

3) check on the status of articulation and transfer concerns in Sacramento and consider whether to include the issue in leg days topics.

B) Discussion of what to do/say to motivate senators to participate in leg days. Vice Chair Kersten assured the group that he would make the event sound like fun when he announced it during the plenary.

C) Discussion of any other ideas regarding 2/10 visit, 3/1 visit tied to alumni event, and leg days. It was suggested that the Senate consider holding a plenary session in Sacramento to facilitate our efforts to increase participation in leg days and increase our perceived presence in the governmental arena.

G. E. Chair Ken Nishita reported that the next meeting of the Chancellor's GE Advisory Committee will be in Spring 1999. Jo Service, Dean, Academic Planning, has drafted an announcement for the CSU and CCC review of the United States History, Constitution and American Ideals requirements that will be sent to campuses. The Subcommittee for Course Review will begin their review in early March.

TEKR Committee Chair Elmo Moore reported: TEKR's time was pretty evenly split between two issues: TeacherNet and Cornerstones.

1. The structure of the TeacherNet program (the adaptation of the OU materials) seems to be coming together. The first drafts of the course materials are nearly completed and will be distributed to the campuses soon. Within the next few weeks, the materials will be available for faculty review through their local senate offices.

2. We have concerns about the draft of the implementation plan for Cornerstones in terms of both language and intent. Committee members will raise these issues as part of the discussion during this plenary session.

 

ACTION

APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Senator Keane moved (Pincu seconded) approval of the agenda. Senator Cherny requested consent on behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee to postpone Item 1, Response to the "Report of the Task Force on CSU Globalization" and Recommendations for Future International Education, until the January plenary. Senator Phillips requested consent on behalf of the absent Senator Meyer to postpone Item 3, Cornerstones and the Contract, until the January plenary. There were no objections. The amended agenda was approved.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Senator Rohm moved (Kegley seconded) approval of the minutes of October 9, 1998. The minutes were approved.

 

 

AS-2435-98/FA/AA RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT "CORNERSTONES

SECOND READING/ IMPLEMENTATION PLAN"

WAIVER

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University adopt the following response to Executive Vice Chancellor David Spence's draft "Cornerstones Implementation Plan" (October 16, 1998). The Board of Trustees adopted the Cornerstones Report on January 28, 1998. The Academic Senate CSU adopted the Cornerstones Report's ten principles on January 23, 1998. Implementing Cornerstones requires an active partnership among the Board of Trustees, the CSU administration, and the CSU faculty, students, staff, and administration on each campus. In general, the various partners have the following responsibility in providing the high-quality education envisioned in Cornerstones:

• The CSU Board of Trustees has primary responsibility to secure adequate funding from the State of California, to advocate for the broad meaning of higher education in a pluralistic society, and to adopt the regulations and policies that will provide an atmosphere of adaptability and improvement;

• The CSU administration has primary responsibility to propose–in consultation with faculty, students, and staff–the structure and administrative flexibility to carry out Board of Trustees regulations and policies;

• The faculty, administration, students, and staff on each campus have the primary responsibility to translate the principles of Cornerstones into action in a way that maintains and improves upon past levels of quality and meets the challenge envisioned for the future; and

• Faculty on each CSU campus have primary responsibility to study the efficacy of the changes proposed by Cornerstones as a means of maintaining the high level of excellence in baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate education. It remains the faculty's responsibility on each campus to determine the appropriate number of units required for awarding degrees for our diverse baccalaureate programs, for example, applying, a priori, 120 units as a benchmark for our diverse programs is ill advised.

The ASCSU recommends that Executive Vice Chancellor Spence, in preparing an implementation report for the Board of Trustees, address the need to remove barriers to experimentation and creative problem solving, and specify as priorities the following Cornerstones objectives:

1. Recognize campus autonomy and uniqueness as important factors in meeting clearly defined system policy goals (Principle 10).

2. Support and encourage faculty scholarship, research, and creative activity as essential components to the CSU’s teaching mission (Principle 4).

3. Provide faculty with a fair and reasonable reward system that allows the CSU to attract and retain the highest quality faculty (Principle 4, recommendation 4a).

4. Facilitate and provide funding to achieve the conditions that will allow faculty to carry out their professorial responsibilities, by funding efforts to "[r]einvest significantly in faculty, through a faculty development and reinvestment program that protects the core resources and ensures additional resources for faculty development and learning" (Cornerstones, p. 21) through such things as:

• increased support for faculty to work at the cutting edge of their disciplines;

• adjusted course load levels to be consonant with those in current CPEC comparison institutions;

• increased sabbatical leave opportunities;

• increased funds for travel and participation in professional conferences;

• increased assigned time, technical and clerical staff support, and other resources to assist faculty in their professional growth;

• increased assigned time to develop student learning outcomes and assessment methods;

• increased assigned time and technical staff support, as well as acquisition of appropriate technology, to study the possible conversion of courses to new modes of instruction and, where appropriate, carry out the conversion;

• expanded assigned time for training programs in the use of technology-mediated instruction;

• expanded summer and off-term stipends to support faculty development of educational initiatives;

• increased investment in library resources;

• increased investment in physical facilities and instructional equipment;

• expanded instructional development and support operations and expanded support for campus faculty development centers;

• greater support to new faculty during their earlier years as they acclimate to the academic profession, including regular and predictable salary step increases;

• increased funding for faculty to study the efficacy and advisability of gradually shifting attention in the CSU from a course and unit-based curriculum to one that places greater emphasis on student learning outcomes;

• increased assigned time to review and strengthen articulation for General Education among CSU universities and community colleges; and

• increased assigned time and other funding to enable faculty from CSU campuses, community colleges, and the University of California to convene in disciplinary groups to improve articulation of courses and competencies within degree programs. Until faculty within disciplines have reached consensus on specific transferability of major requirements, the CSU should not encourage any perception that there is a seamless system in this regard.

5. Acknowledge that faculty retain primary responsibility to develop learning outcomes and assessment (Principle 1). Where Step A in the draft Implementation Plan refers to the university, it should specifically assign those responsibilities to the faculty.

6. Recognize that not all desirable outcomes of a baccalaureate education can be easily measured. Such outcomes include a desire for life-long learning; development of social skills through interaction with peers and colleagues; ethical, moral, and social responsibility including effective participation in a democratic society; and appreciation and tolerance for diversity in all of its manifestations (Principle 1 and the CSU Academic Senate Report Baccalaureate Education in the California State University).

7. Increase outreach efforts between CSU and K-12 in an effort to ensure a greater preparation of high school students who are prepared for college level study upon entry to CSU (Principle 5, recommendation 5a).

8. Support innovative ways to involve students as active partners with faculty in the learning process, including student involvement in scholarship, research, and creative activity under faculty guidance (Principle 3).

9. Ensure stable state funding for higher education to meet the goals of the California Master Plan (Principle 7).

10. Develop specific means to measure overall effectiveness and efficiency of administrative units at all levels. Such accountability addresses institutional achievements of educational outcomes, campus climate, institutional governance style, resource allocations, personnel transactions, fiscal accounting, and compliance with the law. (Principle 7 and the "Conclusion: Shared Responsibility").

11. Foster a collegial and collaborative partnership between faculty and administration (Principle 4, recommendation 4a).

Many of the proposed Cornerstones initiatives will require significant financial support. These new proposals must not be implemented at the expense of our existing tradition of educational excellence. For instance, it shall be noted that throughout their history CSU campuses have sought excellence and have produced the current high level of quality evident in the CSU. Thus, many of the prescriptions for excellence found in Cornerstones are already found on CSU campuses. For example, faculty have:

• awarded degrees on the basis of demonstrated learning;

• stated clearly through catalogs, advising, and syllabi what students are expected to know;

• assured breadth and depth of knowledge through General Education and disciplinary majors;

• articulated course requirements effectively with the community colleges, the University of California, and among universities in the CSU system;

• focused on students and worked diligently to meet the needs of a diverse and changing student population;

• encouraged students to actively participate in their learning through involvement in scholarship, research, and creative activities;

• supported–within the limited resources available–faculty development, both professional and pedagogical;

• provided a quality educational experience in a reasonable time;

• striven to carry out the goals of the California Master Plan while maintaining access for all qualified students who desire an education;

• served effectively the communities and citizens of their region;

• made significant and meaningful contributions to the California economy and society;

• assessed on a continuing basis student learning–at the course, program, and graduation levels;

• worked within the context of clearly stated mission statements that identify specific educational goals; and

• created, through a two-year study by the Academic Senate CSU, a statement on the baccalaureate that recognizes that undergraduate education in the CSU is an ongoing cumulative process and not primarily a series of measurable, discrete learning outcomes.

All of these existing activities deserve our continued support. We must remember that our tradition of excellence forms the educational foundation upon which we will place the Cornerstones of the next century.

Senator Gregory requested consent to make the following change: in 10. of the Objectives after "that" substitute "throughout their history" in place of "from the beginning"; and in the first bullet of the Resolved clause after "California," insert "to advocate for the broad meaning of higher education in a pluralistic society,". There were no objections.

Senator Tarjan moved to strike the last sentence up to "for example" in the last bullet of the Resolved clause. There was no second.

Senator Jensen moved (Highsmith seconded) to change the language in the paragraph before No. 1. in the Resolved clause, by deleting "be sensitive to…and creative problem solving" and replacing it with "identify barriers to innovation and experimentation and propose strategies for removal of those barriers,". Senator Williams requested consent to amend the amendment by making the following change: delete "be"; substitute "address" for "sensitive" and to revert to original language. Senator Cherny suggested the deletion of "to" before "specify." There were no objections.

Senator Kersten moved (Tarjan seconded) to close debate. Motion carried.

The amendment was approved.

Senator Keane moved (Whitney seconded) to increase the Objectives by adding a new No. 7 (the original No. 7 would become No. 8, etc.) which would read "Increase outreach efforts between CSU and K-12 in an effort to ensure a greater preparation of high school students who are prepared for college level study upon entry to CSU." The amendment was approved.

Senator Pincu moved (Phillips seconded) to amend the paragraph before No. 1. in the Resolved clause by striking after "Board of Trustees" through to "as priorities" and insert "specify" instead. Motion failed.

Senator Boddy moved (Buck seconded) to amend [the same paragraph as above] after "remove barriers" by adding "at the system level for creative problem solving at the level of the individual campuses." Motion failed.

Senator Pincu moved (Hood seconded) to close debate. Motion carried.

AS-2435-98/FA/AA motion approved unanimously.

* * * * *

The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. on Friday, December 11, 1998.

* * * * *

 

Approved (or corrected)

Date:________________________ _______________________________

Gene L. Dinielli, Chair

 

_______________________________

Hal Charnofsky, Secretary

 

________________________________

Margaret Price, Recording Secretary



 
Academic Senate Home | Calendar | Search Resolutions | Contact Us | Helpful Links