Academic Senate of the California State University
MINUTES

Meeting of March 7-8, 1996
CSU Headquarters, Long Beach, CA

 

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. on Thursday, March 7, 1996, by Chair James Highsmith.

ROLL CALL: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield) Jacquelyn Kegley, Ernie Page; (Chico) Kathleen Kaiser, James Postma, Paul Spear; (Dominguez Hills) Hal Charnofsky, C. Dick Williams; (Fresno) James Highsmith, Lester Pincu; (Fullerton) Keith Boyum, Vincent Buck, Albert Flores; (Hayward) Judith Stanley, Don Wort; (Humboldt) Elmo Moore, Marshelle Thobaben; (Long Beach) Gene Dinielli, Barbara Franklin, Simon George; (Los Angeles) Harold Goldwhite, Dorothy Keane, Rosemarie Marshall; (Northridge) Elliot McIntire, Gerald Resendez; (Pomona) Peter Clark, Edward Fonda, Rochelle Kellner; (Sacramento) Juanita Barrena, Cristy Jensen, Sylvia Navari; (San Bernardino) Walter Oliver, J. Paul Vicknair; (San Diego) Annette Easton, Francis Stites, Dan Whitney; (San Francisco) Susan Sandri*, Gary Hammerstrom, Kenneth Monteiro; (San Jose) Allison Heisch, David McNeil, Robert Milnes; (San Luis Obispo) Reginald Gooden, Tom Hale; (San Marcos) Terry Allison; (Sonoma) Perry Marker; (Stanislaus) Richard Levering, Thomas Young; (Chancellor's Office) Peter Hoff.

INTRODUCTIONS

During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:

Bernard Goldstein, Faculty Trustee and Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University

Linda Larson, K-12 Representative to TEKR

Leonard Mathy, Professor Emeritus, Emeritus and Retired Faculty Association

representative to the Academic Senate

Eric Mitchell, University Affairs Director, California State Student Association

Donald Moore, Consultant, Association of California State University Professors

J. Ken Nishita, Observer, CSU Monterey Bay

Todd Wilander, ASI President/CSSA Statewide Academic Senate Representative

Johnetta Anderson, Technical Assistant, Chancellor's Office

Andrea Cullins, Staff Assistant - Budget, Academic Senate CSU

Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

Margaret Price, Staff Assistant - Documents, Academic Senate CSU

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

Announcement of Times Certain

Thursday, March 7, 1996

3:30 p.m. - TEKR--K-12 Reform: Implication for Higher Education

Friday, March 8, 1996

10:00 a.m. Barry Munitz, Chancellor

REPORT OF CHAIR JAMES HIGHSMITH

Legislative Days and the Alumni Reception: We have a number of things to report on and forgive me if this is a little more rambling than usual. Most recently, this week has been a week where we went to Sacramento for Legislative Days, had, with our alumni, an alumni reception, met with lots of legislators and staffers, and then have our regular meetings. The topics at the Legislative Days are ones that should not come as any surprise to you. We met with Brooks Firestone, who is the chair of the Assembly Ed Committee. We met with Bernie Richter, who is the chair of the subcommittee dealing with higher education of the Budget Committee of the Assembly. I met with the appropriations chair, Assemblyman Poochigian. Also, we met with Brian Setencich, who's vice chair of the education committee in the Assembly last week. And I met with them this week individually. We met with Mike Thompson, who is the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, and, I believe, is in Senator Thobaben's district, and she had an individual meeting with him earlier. I also met with Senator Jim Costa, Cruz Bustamante, who is on the Budget Committee and is the Democratic caucus chair in the Assembly. We met with Education and Budget staff from the Assembly, and Senate Budget Committee staff. In the process I also talked to the committee members who served with Bernie Richter on Sub 2 of the Assembly Budget Committee. One is Denise Ducheny who is a Democrat from the San Diego area and we had good conversation with her last week at ICAS as well as my individual conversation with her this week. And also I met the newest member of the committee, Scott Baugh, from Huntington Beach, who has replaced Phil Hawkins on that three-person subcommittee that will be looking at our issues on the Assembly Budget side (chaired by Bernie Richter).

The meeting with Assemblyman Richter was an interesting event, I think we would say. He was somewhat defensive, I believe, at the beginning, and concerned about his meeting with us which turned out to be eventually about eight people there. He presented his issues for us, the things that he's going to be looking at in his subcommittee regarding our budget and issues related. And his issues started with affirmative action preferences which should come as no surprise to us. He made a significant point that he was not among the first to deal with the affirmative action preference issue--he was the first to deal with it and that he was going to see that through. He also was concerned about workload-- accountability was the way he described it to us, as the discussion went on--as opposed to being concerned about whether or not there is released or assigned time. He was concerned about accounting for it, in his discussion with us, at least. He also said he was going to look at student services funding, at the management of police and security on our campuses, that there might be some savings to be found in having the management of that occur from city police forces. Not a terribly long list of things that he was concerned with, but we had not heard about the student services and police concerns before. He also said he was going to examine, in a serious way, year-round operation as a mode of hiring more professors and spending less on capital. So, those are all topics that I am sure we'll be hearing more about as the Spring progresses and that we'll have to deal with.

When we talked with Assemblyman Firestone, he had some significant concerns with regard to remedial education. He was pleased, I think, with the way the Trustees dealt with remedial education--but he is the author of the bill he is calling the warranty act which would say something like: if you have a student coming out of your school district that gets a B average but is a remedial student, you probably need to pay something to higher ed to do your job for you. We talked to him about how that might be counter-productive with regard to the partnerships we're trying to form. But he is terribly interested in the notion of holding the schools accountable for what happens there. I would say the tone of the meetings in the afternoon with Mike Thompson and the Senate Budget staff was somewhat different than in the morning but the staff people all have significant concerns about budget not the least of which is our workload issues that they will be raising and that we will be addressing. I think for the most part they were very supportive of our budget. We didn't hear anyone suggesting that money will be taken away from us. In fact, they were suggesting there might be modes by which money could be provided as a supplement. There are bills to roll back student fees in the legislature. And there is a pot of money which some have identified that could be used either for fee roll backs or for additions to financial aid for students in public education that is not yet in the governor's budget but that may become a part of the budget should the revenue picture of the state continue to be as bright as it is right now.

There were about eight or nine people that attended the Legislative Days with us so any of those who went you should feel free to contact about the discussions we had. Besides myself, was Marshelle, Tom Young and Cristy Jensen who organized most of the events and they're to be congratulated for getting us before staff and in with key people. They really did a very nice job. (applause) Hal Charnofsky was there, Vince Buck was there, Don Wort was there, Jackie Kegley was there and walking the halls with us. For all of those of you who came and spent the couple of days with us, I thank you. I think we did some good work in terms of making contact, letting people know that we're ready to provide them information. I think they have an interest in hearing from us and some of the members were welcoming us our providing informal support or non-support for bills in the committee process. So I think we had a useful couple of days there.

With regard to the Alumni Reception, I think everyone thought it was a grand success. There were probably 300 or 400 people there. It was a very nice event. We got to meet quite a few people. Willie Brown was honored in absentia as he was busy being mayor. Some other legislators were honored. There were lots and lots of people there that are leaders in the system that alumni got a chance to mix with and talk to. So I think it was a very successful event.

Martha Fallgatter has suggested and is encouraging a new organization that the CSU sponsors called Ambassadors for Higher Education . She is very excited about the prospect of getting public and community leaders to be supportive of CSU, especially, and to be helpful in getting CSU's message out to the public. I hope we will engage in the process through our alumni associations and our senates and working at the campus level with this Ambassadors for Higher Education notion. These are opinion leaders in the community who can help us get our message to a broader public. In that regard, I hope the Senate will participate along with the campus chairs in developing information we might put in brochure to be used with the Ambassadors to educate them about what faculty do, how student learning occurs, the value of a university education to the state, and so on. We have had several people encouraged and enthusiastic about the idea of developing materials for the Ambassadors that might be used elsewhere as well that would be framed in such a way that a lay person would feel comfortable with it--not written to ourselves, but written to a more general audience. I have invited the campus senate chairs to provide topics that might be included in such documents and if they wish to participate in writing to let me know what topics they feel comfortable writing on. Then we'll take all of this once we have it organized and pull it together to be published and used for that process. If you have ideas regarding that such a publication that could be used for the public or for people who represent us to the public, I'm sure anyone on the executive committee would like to hear what your interest is. We need a lot of people to do writing for us. This should not be written by one or two people but should represent the broad spectrum of views that are out there.

1996-1997 Governor's CSU Budget Proposal and Proposition 203: With regard to the budget, I've mentioned that what we heard from staff at the legislature was that there are no major stumbling blocks to the CSU budget being passed and the governor's compact being honored in the second year. However, Proposition 203 does present a problem if it is not passed because our capital budget depends on the passage of 203. Marlene Garcia from Governmental Relations office has been working with other organizations CSU activities. She'll be taking vacation time to do this and she has talked to me about providing information to us as senators and as campus senates so that we can connect and try to get out the vote and inform voters. I have some preliminary information of contacts on each campus and I'll be getting you more complete information probably tomorrow or Monday. She believes that the groups that are working together to seek passage of 203 would like to focus on a few campuses where there is real potential for get- out-the-vote efforts emanating from the campus or campus-related groups and she will be letting me know who those campuses are. Right now I know for sure Northridge, Fullerton and Sacramento are three areas where they believe there is a significant critical mass of organizations and people who are interested in doing this. In any way that we might as senators or campus senate connect with that effort, it might be useful in getting out the vote and getting people to vote for 203. I will be passing on information to you as I get it. We obviously have a very little time to do that since the vote is on the 26th of the month.

The Academic Conference: I want to thank you all for participating. Most of you were there and took leadership roles in seeing that it was a success. I've gotten universally positive responses not only from people in the Senate but from the people who are not in the Senate who thought we were very innovative in our approach, very willing to talk about all issues, willing to think "outside the box," as somebody said, rather than perhaps their perception about us as a Senate or us as a faculty. I think that the discussions were useful. We have tried to distill from the materials you gave us the lists of recommendations. I know from one group for sure we have the wrong set of materials that went out as recommendations and we're trying to make sure that we get the right recommendations so that those will go out to everyone. You may not have received the letter from me before you got here but I did send a letter with all of this material in it giving every participant the opportunity to give us further comment before we establish the 1-2-3-4-5 agenda and how we're going to do it.

What the Executive Committee did yesterday was take all the recommendations that we believe we had from the seven discussion groups and tried to organize them under specific topics like faculty issues, pedagogical issues and so on. And having organized that into six topical areas, we had all of the recommendations organized and assigned each topical area assigned to three committees so that the committee structure can now take the recommendations and provide us with what they think are the most worthwhile things to be focusing on--to compress these recommendations and to try to give us an approach to deal with this. Believe me we are not trying to do this as a top-down exercise. This is the Senate's responsibility and I view it as the committees that need to tell the Senate and get the Senate's agreement on what needs to happen here. We've gotten input from people beyond our group. As soon as we are sure that we have all the accurate recommendations, I'll get those lists out to the committees. You all have everything or will have everything so you should not feel that you are limited to our organization of the recommendations. The Executive Committee tried to do a first cut to assist the committees in organizing the thoughts coming out of the Conference and if you see things other places that you want to bring in to what you recommend back to the Senate, that's fine. I can't stress that too much. We're trying to be helpful; we're not trying to limit how you structure it.

Baccalaureate: Another topic that I wanted to talk to you about may become very important. I mentioned to you last time that the Pew Charitable Trusts had approached Barry to have the CSU become the first system that engaged in a Pew Round Table at the system level examining issues and that Barry had agreed to participate. That process will engage at a minimum 24 people as kind of a steering group or round table facilitated by Tom Erlich who was the past president of Indiana University and now at the San Francisco campus. As that discussion about how that will occur has evolved I have been informed that the group will examine four topics. And those topics are: Learning in the 21st Century, Post-Baccalaureate Education, Affordability and Access, and Accountability.

We have been asked to provide six people--the Executive Committee and, if the Executive Committee is only five, then one other person--to be six faculty together with six presidents, six trustees and six folks from the administration and students participating in the main group. That group will somehow break down into subgroups that will study these four topics and then the subgroups will bring in other people besides the people just participating in that Round Table discussion. In the context of the four subgroups, there will be four chairs--one faculty, one trustee, one president, one administrator. I have been asked to chair the group on Learning in the 21st Century. A president, Stephen Weber, who is coming to San Diego, has been asked to chair Post-Baccalaureate Education. A trustee, Bernie Goldstein, has been asked to chair the Accountability discussion, and Molly will chair the Affordability and Access subgroup. That discussion, it seems to me, has potential to connect with our study of the baccalaureate in the sense that what we do can influence the direction of those discussions especially at the baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate levels.

While I realize that we are in a process engaged in looking at the baccalaureate, you will remember that we have a report on graduate education that was created and adopted in 1989 that is available for use and I have asked a group of Gene Dinielli, Hal Charnofsky and Les Pincu to examine that report and get back to the Senate with recommendations regarding what things needed to be looked at again and what things we need to emphasize or discuss so the issues of post-baccalaureate graduate instruction are available for us as well. Hal Charnofsky has informed us that he has prepared a letter to go to graduate directors that the group will be looking at that will ask the graduate directors how they've used that report, what the strengths or weaknesses of the program are. Because we know there is some difficulty in getting copies of that report today we'll make more copies and send them out when we send out that survey.

Both issues are live issues, that is undergraduate and graduate issues are live issues, for us to be discussing over the next number of months, over the next academic year. The Pew process will formally begin on June 24 and 25 and will run for one year. The faculty have not been identified for the Pew process because that depends on the Senate elections in May. Even though I can provide you information about it , we will not know the people until the elections are completed--the people who will actually serve on the Round Table. I've gotten a commitment from the folks upstairs that whoever starts, finishes; that is, if it is a year, whoever starts June 24 goes the whole time, no matter what happens the following May. So that's about as much as I know now about Pew. Tom Erlich is trying to call because there will be a meeting of the people who will chair those subgroups to talk with Tom about the process Tuesday in San Francisco. I will know more then and then I will get that information out to you in email form so you know what's going on.

Constitutional Amendments: We have forwarded the amendments to our Constitution to the Trustees and staff has begun looking into the background of that. It could not be prepared for the March meeting because the book had to be ready too soon and it will probably be on the May agenda as an information item and action in July. I believe it is possible that the committee that Trustee Goldstein chairs will get the report and it will be heard probably in Organization and Rules. I don't anticipate any change being adopted until the summer. As I told you in the last meeting, the campuses should proceed under the old Constitution with elections as they would normally. The only difference is for our new campuses, I am instructing them to only send us one representative because to do otherwise, given the limitation, would be unworkable. It does not make sense for them with the small number of faculty they have to try to identify two people when they will only need one. They are aware of that as of the last chair's meeting.

Productivity Dialogue: You may remember that in the Fall, I was called by Vince Aceto, who is chair of the SUNY senate, and asked if the Senate might be interested in having some kind of preliminary discussions on faculty productivity. Since those issues were arising around the country and most exquisitely they were arising in New York where they were facing threats of significant budget cuts and doing business differently. I said, after consultation with Executive Committee, that I would be willing to engage in those preliminary discussions. Bruce Johnstone, who was the past chancellor of SUNY, has spurred this because of his interest in learning productivity and rational questions about higher education.

A dozen faculty from SUNY and CSU met in the LAX area at the end of November to see if there was any common ground for our discussion and having done that in November we believed that a second meeting might be useful. Out of that first meeting, Bruce generated a draft which you saw. Since they didn't want to travel in this direction again, we met again in New York for a two-day drafting session to work on a draft that would tackle some of the issues that we had discussed in November. We attempted to deal with the draft as a draft that would deal with some topics that span institutions beyond the CSU because SUNY has some institutions that look more like UC institutions. That document really addresses concerns or criticisms that have come at universities across a broad range and in that discussion we agreed that we would take whatever draft that we completed back to our organizations and turn it over to the senates and the unions to see what they thought of it and what would come out of this.

In the meantime between November and January, Bruce Johnstone had interested the TIAA-CREF Foundation in providing some funding for the discussion. A good deal of the approximately $23,000 funding that they were willing to provide us was earmarked for a conference that would occur this time on our side of the country among a larger group of people from the four organizations if we thought it was useful. We have tentatively scheduled a conference for June 14 and 15. It would mostly be paid for out of the Foundation grant, probably at the Long Beach Hilton, roughly on the schedule we had for the Academic Conference--Friday afternoon, evening and all day Saturday.

The organizations would identify the people who would come but we'd have about a dozen from each. It's most likely that those folks would be the Executive Committee, not all of whom have been involved directly in this discussion, and people from Faculty Affairs who really have the topic of productivity. Those folks could be determined at whatever point, before or after, the elections. It appears that we can go forward with the conference but I won't know that for sure probably before another week or two because we all on Monday got a copy of the draft I distributed to you electronically. I believe you have it now at your desks.

Faculty Affairs got it before the rest of you because it was their topic, and Fiscal and Governmental Affairs, because there's governmental implications flowing out of it, especially the criticisms coming from legislatures. The Senate now has it in toto. At this point, I think we should consider that the item is referred to the Faculty Affairs Committee, which Vince reports has been working on the topic separately. David McNeil has a draft on the productivity topic. At this point, it is in our bailiwick, what happens to it depends on what the committee or someone from the floor believes should happen to it. There is no requirement that we endorse the document or leave the document alone.

I can tell you Bruce Johnstone's hope was that the drafting committee could produce something that all the organizations would feel comfortable with. Whether we endorse it, adopt it, adopt it in principle, didn't adopt it--that's subject to what happens in our process. The purpose of the conference in June would be to discuss the issues, not necessarily to bless the document. The document is a springboard for discussing the issues imbedded and related issues. I'm not expecting that a lot of time is going to be spent in June with whoever participates from UUP, CFA, SUNY senate, and us in discussing the Ps and Qs of the document, so much as the broader questions that flow from it. At the end of my report if you have questions about this or want more detail, I'd be happy to try to provide it. The three people from the Senate who were engaged in the discussion were Marshelle, Harold and myself. Tom represented CFA along with Terry Jones and Rollie Hauser. The UUP and SUNY senate had their representatives as well. We all had some concerns, I believe, about different parts of the document because we were trying to meld concerns coming from two political spheres in two different types of organizations. I hope that you as a Senate feel now that you have ownership of the topic and you can do what you think is appropriate with the document.

A kind of subsidiary, useful thing that came out of the discussion was Marshelle and I were invited to meet with the SUNY senate because they were having a meeting immediately preceding our drafting days. Very early in the morning, 4:30 for us, we got to go meet the SUNY senate and I had an opportunity to talk to them. The night before I had been given a document by one of the senate leaders there called Rethinking SUNY and the principal author of that draft is Stephen Weber, I believe. In all my spare time that evening, I read the document and thought about it and jotted down some ideas that I might want to talk over with their senate. And what I did the next morning very early was talk to them about the parallel between what they're going through and what we've gone through. All I can tell you is they were not enthusiastically receptive of the comments. It was very early for them apparently, not as early as for me, but they were not gangbusters to discuss this document. It was an interesting opportunity to see how another Senate operates. I think we have a lot to be proud of here in California in the CSU.

ICAS and IGETC: I mentioned that the Intersegmental Committee met with some legislative people. At our meeting a week ago we met in Sacramento so that we could ask legislators in. At that time we had Assembly members Ducheny and Setencich who were both dealing with higher education issues and budget. We had the staff member Gregg de Giere, who was Senator Ayala's staff member, who wrote SB 1399, the textbook bill. We discovered from him why he wrote such a thing and then we had discussions with Brooks Firestone and his primary education consultant, Wess Larson. We had an introduction to some of the folks we met with this week. I thought it was a very productive set of discussions. The community college and CSU faculty were clearly engaged in a process of communicating directly with people who can make a difference for us.

The one agenda item that's of extreme importance for us that came out of the morning session before the legislators came, was a discussion of the intersegmental GE transfer curriculum. We had agreed a number of years ago that after five years of the curriculum being in place that we would review it and we have stumbled around the issue of how we do that the last couple of meetings. ICAS agreed to have two faculty from each segment sit down and design what it is we want to ask about and present that to ICAS at the June meeting. The Executive Committee has asked Paul Spear, who represents the history of IGETC, and Kathy Kaiser who represents the present leadership in GE to be those two people. They have asked Jolayne Service and Vivian Franco to be assistants to them because they're familiar with the issues of the time and they have agreed. Bill Scroggins from the Community Colleges will be the person tapped to set the first meeting and organize the group. I'm very hopeful that we will have a good process recommended to ICAS. Next year will be the year we will actually do the review. Just so you'll be clear about what we discussed in ICAS, we did not discuss reviewing the content of the intersegmental GE transfer curriculum. We talked about the process and how it was working. What I'm hoping we will get out of this is whether it's being effectively used.

Senate Bill 1399: We did have, as I said, discussions with Senator Ayala's staff member. There seems to be some disagreement about where that bill might go. Just so you're aware, the Executive Committee developed a set of arguing points that we gave to Tom Young as our chair of Fiscal and Governmental Affairs and to the Governmental Relations staff in Sacramento, as a first shot at 1399, so they would have something to work with. We have talked with the staffer through ICAS and he has indicated that there might be a potential that the bill would be withdrawn. Wise counsel tells us that is probably unlikely, given the sexiness of the issue to some, and that we probably will have a different kind of fight than just suggesting how we might be dealing with this internally. We will be seeking an internal counsel's opinion for our own view of the legality of such a bill were it to pass, specifically, the constitutional issues involved. We are seeking the assistance of AAUP and their view of this, since, if this starts in California, it may go other places. I have been asked by Scott Plotkin to be prepared to testify with regard to the bill if necessary. So anything the Senate does will be very useful to the chair. Trustee Goldstein has already indicated an interest in testifying if he could be useful and he thinks Vice Chancellor Hoff might make himself available as well if need be on this issue. This is something that should be of concern to us because it's another incursion into issues that are fundamental to the academy.

Technology: I've described, everytime we've met, the process that we've been going through in the system starting with the commissions--CIMIT, CTI and CLRIT-- through the ITSI group, and the SPIT group, and the group that's trying to organize a set of initiatives that might go forward to assist in getting us better access to technology for teaching and learning. There is now a Board agenda item that is only an information item--it will not become an action item--that informs the Board of the process to date. You have gotten more information on this, frankly, than the Board has because you saw a presentation last time by David Ernst. That Board item is being reproduced downstairs--I got it this morning--and you'll have a copy of it probably today.

The key parts of that for me, although I haven't read the item, just skimmed through it, are the initiatives which start at about page 17 which describe the key things that are being suggested. And also in the back there's a history, if you want to know the full details on how this all evolved in the system. As I've been sitting through the discussions in the committee--and Dan has been at a couple of these meetings, and Marshelle has, and Harold Goldwhite, and Dorothy has been to one--the focus that we tried to present is that whatever technology initiatives occur, we need to be concerned with how we do our fundamental job in a better fashion than what we're able to do today. I think that the process, if it works right, is not meant to be centralizing but to be an opportunity to rationalize the things that we're doing and give the campuses an opportunity to do things either alone or in collaboration with others to assure that we get more access to technology and the infrastructure that makes that possible. I commend the document to you, I haven't read it yet either; if you get it and can breeze through it tonight and you want to make comments on it tomorrow, that's fine. The Board will see it Wednesday, March 20, at 10:00 a.m.

And following that, the group that is leading the technology initiatives, specifically David Ernst and the IBM consultant, will be meeting with all of those of the Executive Committee and the Chairs who can be available that day to talk about where the initiatives go, and how they're to be implemented. The emphasis that I've tried to give in the last meetings (which were in a very small group that met at LAX) was that in implementation, as we put work groups together to carry forward an initiative, there must be faculty there at the system level if there are system initiatives and at the campus level, there has to be faculty senate involvement in those initiatives. They cannot go forward as an administrative thing. And they heard the message, I think, as clearly as I gave it. We'll be looking to see that they carry through with that.

The Senate Staff: You're aware that Gina has gone on to UCLA and she's no longer in the office with us. We have had a temp and she will no longer be with us. We've gone through a process of interviewing. We have narrowed it down to some very good candidates and are in the process of making an offer right now. So I am hoping that in the next week or so, we will have a new staff person that you will all enjoy meeting and working with. We had very good candidates for the position. So the next time you call in, if you hear a new voice, you could ask who that is and you may discover a new staff person. I will let you know by email as soon as we have concluded that hiring.

California Maritime Academy: I sent to you information about the appointment of an acting president for two years of CMA. The faculty had sent to me a list of concerns about their campus that I passed on to the Chancellor and Molly and Peter. The faculty did not take a position as a senate but chose through the Senate to forward some concerns that they had. I am told that the faculty is pleased with the selection of the acting president. I have not yet talked to the chair of the senate to get his point of view. This is a two-year appointment. The gentleman who has been appointed, I have not met yet, is a graduate of CMA and has worked with CMA and CMA faculty and he has raised money for CMA. So they have a relationship with him. His name is Jerry Aspland and he was most immediately the president of ARCO Marine. The Chancellor's letter to the community said that there will be a search for a permanent president beginning in early 1998. It is a limited appointment--it is a two-year appointment. Mary Lyons will be there until the end of June, I believe, when she takes over as president of St. Benedict's College in Minnesota, near St. Cloud, Minnesota.

CSU Monterey Bay: Ken, could you come down to a mic, please, so you could inform the Senate. The Executive Committee, at the request of the Monterey Bay faculty, especially Ken, went en masse to meet with all the faculty of the Monterey Bay campus. We had a very nice welcome; we were put in front of a very large group of people, maybe 30-35 people; we were put on tape; and we got a chance to talk and so they now have us for posterity until it's passed by a very strong magnet, I guess. We're hoping to get a copy of the tape so we can actually see what we said, but I'll let Ken give you the report.

Ken Nishita: Well, basically, it was a question and answer panel, it went very well. We had an extremely high turnout--only about five faculty were at other conferences, that's why we videotaped it for them. The faculty responded after the panel presentation as being much more energized and de-mystified of what the Academic Senate does. We've elected in a week later a body of seven representatives to start the beginnings of constructing the structure of the Academic Senate, and then our interim vice president has given us an office, a small budget, equipment, secretarial support all within a week after the panel discussion. I think actually the tape, I don't know where it is, but I think the interim vice president has looked at it and has responded to us. What we would like, and I'll put out a call for this, is we're looking for mission statements, other campus constitutions, and faculty handbooks from all the other campuses--if you could spread that word and I'll try to do it independently.

AAHE: There is going to be an AAHE conference in January 1997 regarding Roles and Rewards in San Diego, California. It's going to be local, so to speak. There is desire in having CSU be a very active participant in that. Vice Chancellor Hoff is going to have Lorie Roth start the process of discussing that and the Senate has asked Marshelle Thobaben, Rosemary Marshall, and Vince Buck to engage in discussions with Lorie about how we might be involved. Also, I'm sure a number of you have an interest and you should feel free to talk to those people that are going to be meeting with folks from Peter's office or to provide suggestions directly to Peter about how you would like to see us participate. Also, I think, as information develops, you should let your campuses know. We have told--and will be telling again--the campus chairs about this. If there is interest on the broader campus to be involved, they will have an opportunity to know about it long in advance of the event.

ICAS: At ICAS, we're concerned with remedial issues, and the task forces that we have appointed people to, to develop standards for high school might be completing their work after the assessment are formed. If you remember, we appointed three people to an English group and three people to a math group that deals with standards. ( English - John Cleman, CSULA; Pat Nichols, San Jose State; Judith Rodby, CSU Chico; Math - George Diehr, CSU San Marcos; Scott Farrand, CSU Sacramento; Patricia Morgan, San Diego State) We will have until this Spring to identify three people each for an assessment group dealing with math and an assessment group dealing with English. The process as it was envisaged through the Round Table was that the standards group would evolve standards that would come forward to ICC and then go to the commissions that state law requires them to go to, to funnel through the Board, and that the assessment groups would use what the standards groups developed to begin discussing issues about how we assess those standards at the high school level. ICAS, representing us and the other Senates, is very concerned that the assessment groups do not go forward with developing assessment instruments based on the standards until there is agreement at the level of the faculty representatives for each system that those standards are the ones that we should be developing assessments for. We are having the process clarified so that it is unambiguous that the ICAS will get the standards' recommendations and that they will come back to this body and UC Council and the Community College senate for us to make a decision on. It would be useful if they complete their work by the beginning of the Fall for us to complete our decision about those things by the end of the Fall, that is, November, if possible--if not, January, so that the assessment work will proceed apace. I wanted you to be aware that we are concerned that we all have--that is, UC, CSU and Community Colleges, as well as K-12--some agreement about standards so that when we begin working with them, there will not later be controversy about whether we should be using them.

* * * * *

Standing Committee Reports:

Academic Affairs Committee Chair Gary Hammerstrom reported that the Academic Affairs Committee considered ten items of business at this meeting.

(1) Principles Regarding Technology Mediated Instruction in the CSU.

The committee discussed and perfected a draft of a Resolution endorsing a set of eight Principles Regarding Technology Mediated Instruction in the CSU which were introduced as a first reading item at the plenary session on March 8.

(2) Recommendations Regarding Technology Mediated Instruction in the CSU.

The committee also discussed and perfected a draft of a Resolution endorsing and adopting a set of seven Recommendations Regarding technology Mediated Instruction in the CSU which were introduced as a first reading item at the plenary session on March 8.

(3) Technology Task Force Paper on Academic Issues.

Since the recommendations of this paper were largely incorporated into the principles and recommendations developed in agenda items (1) and (2) above, the committee agreed to seek the withdrawal of its pending resolution on this topic. It was also agreed to include a commendation of the work of the 1994-95 Technology Task Force in the resolution developed in agenda item(1).

(4) CLRIT Paper on Obstacles to the Implementation of Instructional Technology.

Again based upon the actions taken in agenda items (1) and (2), the committee agreed to seek modification of this second reading item to remove the second resolved clause which had become somewhat redundant.

(5) Student Fee Policy.

The committee engaged in a thorough and extensive discussion of a draft student fee policy document which had been prepared for the Trustees' meeting on March 19-20. For part of that discussion, we were joined by Vice Chancellor Richard West. The committee developed nearly a dozen comments about various parts of the document which were incorporated into a memo to Senate Chair Jim Highsmith and which served as the basis for a special report to the full Senate by the Chair.

(6) CSU International Programs Fee Setting Authority.

The committee was asked to review an agenda item for the Trustees' meeting on March 19-20, that would amend long-standing Trustees' policy on International Programs primarily to clarify the authority of the Chancellor to establish the international program student fee. After discussion with Dr. Richard Sutter, Director of International Programs, the committee became concerned about the cost basis and process that was used to establish the existing fee level. It was agreed to seek additional information about the funding of international programs and to prepare a resolution, including a request for the waiver, for the plenary session that would urge the Trustees to support the establishment by the Chancellor of the 1996-97 fee but defer final action on permanent amendments to policy to allow further examination of the cost basis and consultative process for setting future fee levels.

(7) Proposed Revisions to SUAM Sections 1502.06 and 1502.07.

The committee agreed to request postponement of this second reading item until May to allow further action by the Commission on Extended Education on committee suggestions for changes to the proposed revisions.

(8) ESL Intersegmental Task Force Report.

After a brief discussion, the committee agreed that no changes were required in this second reading item.

(9) 1997-98 CSU Budget Priorities.

Due to the press of time, the committee was unable to suggest additional budget priorities.

(10) Report of the Work Group on Information Competence.

The committee heard a report from Kathy Kaiser who serves on the CLRIT work group that developed this report. The work group is seeking to clarify implementation plans for its first four recommendations and does not require Senate endorsement of its efforts at this point in time. We expect the topic to return to the committee next year.

The committee also heard liaison reports from Patrick McDonough (Academic Affairs, Chancellor's Office), Paul Spear, CLRIT, and Kathy Kaiser (General Education).

Faculty Affairs Committee Chair Vince Buck reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee addressed the following matters at its March meeting:

1. Technology mediated instruction: Concern continued to be expressed that the term "technology mediated instruction" is confusing in the extreme, especially since in the document in is almost synonymous with "distance learning." The committee was also concerned that technology ought not be the value per se. Dan Whitney raised these issues with Academic Affairs.

2. Orientation and mentoring of new faculty: Elliot McIntire presented a document which, after discussion, was forwarded to the Senate with a covering resolution.

3. PSSI: Boyum reported on progress in this area and will have a final document for next time.

4. Faculty time: Buck presented a document discussing increased demands on faculty time. It was unclear in what form the committee would report this.

5. Productivity: There was a wide ranging discussion on this issue. A great deal of unease was expressed with the CSU/SUNY document, especially about its defensive tone and in its willingness to accept many of the public's presumed assumptions about higher education. Papers by Navari and McNeil were also discussed and the committee decided to encourage Senate discussion of them.

6. Other Topics: Part-time faculty and faculty development were also discussed.

7. Reports: Reports were heard on Legislative Days, Pew round table, Western Governor's Conference report on the "Virtual University", K-12 linkages Conference and Exemplary Teaching Conference.

Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Tom Young stated that the committee is busy! They just did legislative days in Sacramento. They are working on several issues: SB 1399- Required Reading Material - (opposed); 1997-98 budget priorities; many bills relating to CSU or K-12 which the committee is evaluating. There are approximately 60 bills that could have an impact on us, so we are tracking them.

Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations Chair Dorothy Keane announced a second reading item will be on the agenda related to K-16 Curriculum issues. There will also be a first reading item on the ESL Report (joint with AA), a first reading item entitled Response to `The Teachers Who Teach Teachers' Report, and the committee is looking at assessment legislation.

GE-Breadth Advisory Committee Chair Kathleen Kaiser reported that the committee has not met recently.

CSU Monterey Bay Dr. Ken Nishita, CSUMB's observer at the Senate, gave a progress report on his campus. Thirty-five new faculty are being recruited, nine search teams are at work. A search for a new AVP has begun. Student government is beginning to get organized. A large issue is the single, undifferentiated fee of $425. The students are now coordinated with CSSA. Phase 2 on building has begun, and five new dorms are being readied plus classrooms for science and arts, along with a student union. It is beginning to look like a campus. Phase 3 begins next year, and 30 more faculty will be recruited.

The body was recessed, by Chair Highsmith, at 5:10 p.m. on Thursday, March 7, 1996.

* * * * *

The body was reconvened at 8:35 a.m. on Friday, March 8, 1996, by Chair Highsmith.

ACTION

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Senator Wort moved (Marshall seconded) approval of the minutes of November 2-3, 1995. The minutes were approved.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Senator Marshall moved (Spear seconded) approval of the agenda. Following the Chair's suggestion at the request of the Academic Affairs Committee that Item 2 (SUAM) be postponed until the May meeting, and Item 3 (AS-2311-96/AA) be withdrawn, the agenda was approved.

AS-2310-96/AA PROPOSED CHANGES TO SUAM SECTIONS 1502.06,

SECOND READING EXTENSION PROGRAM SERVICE AREA, AND 1502.07,

SERVICE AREAS AND CONTINUING EDUCATION

CONDUCTED BY AUXILIARY ORGANIZATIONS (FOUNDATIONS)

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University support in principle the proposed changes to the State University Administrative Manual (SUAM) Section 1502.06 - Extension Program Service Area, and Section 1502.07 - Service Areas and Continuing Education Conducted by Auxiliary Organizations (Foundations), but reserve endorsement pending action by the Commission on Extended Education to adopt the following suggestions for change.

1. Revise proposed Sections 1503.02, 1502.03, and 1503.04 to state that whenever a CSU campus proposes to conduct a program within the service area of another CSU institution, the consultation between campuses will include the normal curricular approving entities, that is, relevant departments and faculty.

2. Revise proposed Sections 1503.02, 1502.03, and 1503.04 to state that whenever a CSU campus proposes to conduct a program within the service area of another CSU institution, the consultation between campuses will result in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) describing the program, and the nature and degree of cooperation and sharing (courses, degrees, FTEF, FTES, resources, etc.) between the institutions.

3. Revise requirement number 2 of the second paragraph of Section 1503.04 to "the lead and host institutions will jointly determine the effects (of offering a regional or statewide television, mass media, and/or computer-assisted program) on the host institution program and whether the added program will provide service to a larger audience."

AS-2310-96/AA motion postponed definitely by consent.

AS-2311-96/AA POSITION PAPER OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE

SECOND READING TECHNOLOGY TASK FORCE, STATEMENT OF

ACADEMIC ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY-MEDIATED TEACHING

AND LEARNING IN THE CSU

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University commend the Technology Task Force (1994-95) for the development of its position paper entitled Statement of Academic Issues and Recommendations for the Use of Technology-Mediated Teaching and Learning in the CSU; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU endorse recommendations one through four (attached) of the Technology Task Force position paper entitled Statement of Academic Issues and Recommendations for the Use of Technology-Mediated Teaching and Learning in the CSU.

RATIONALE: The Statement of Academic Issues and Recommendations for the Use of Technology-Mediated Teaching and Learning in the CSU contains a fifth recommendation as well.

At the present time, considerable uncertainty exists as to the jurisdictional division between the Academic Senate and the California Faculty Association on matters relating to intellectual property policies and procedures. As well, there is disagreement between CFA and the CSU as to the appropriateness for collective bargaining of certain of these issues. The Academic Senate is unwilling to endorse this recommendation until these bargaining and jurisdictional uncertainties have been resolved.

AS-2311-96/AA motion withdrawn by consent.

AS-2309-96/TEKR REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON K-16 CURRICULAR

SECOND READING ISSUES OF THE INTERSEGMENTAL COORDINATING

COMMITTEE OF THE CALIFORNIA EDUCATIONAL

ROUND TABLE-

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the report entitled K through 12 Reform: Implications and Responsibilities for Higher Education, which contains information vital to all segments of the California State University; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the CSU Admissions Advisory Council to address the implications of these curriculum reforms on admissions policies of the California State University referenced in the report entitled

K through 12 Reform: Implications and Responsibilities for Higher Education,; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus senates to inform local faculty of these reforms referenced in the report entitled, K through 12 Reform: Implications and Responsibilities for Higher Education; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus senates to facilitate an ongoing dialogue with K-12 colleagues on the benefits of the new pedagogies and the means of implementing them; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to provide support for faculty development on those pedagogies and instructional technologies referenced in the report entitled K through 12 Reform: Implications and Responsibilities for Higher Education; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the California Faculty Association to work with us to examine the implications of these reforms for workload policies as well as for appointment retention, promotion and tenure decisions.

RATIONALE: We believe that these reforms will have a major impact on education. In our two-year study of the baccalaureate degree, we must be aware of the reforms outlined in the report: School Reform: Implications and Responsibilities for Higher Education and develop strategies that respond to them. The most immediate impact of these reforms on the California State University will be on the admissions process. Questions that need to be addressed are the following:

* How are portfolios to be evaluated?

* How are multi-disciplinary courses to be reconciled with the traditional admissions requirements for course patterns?

* How are nontraditional assessments to be evaluated in place of traditional GPA admissions requirements?

This will have a significant impact in our classrooms. Students who have experience with electronic conferencing and information and a range of instructional technologies may have adopted unique and different learning styles.

On behalf of the Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations, Chair Dorothy Keane informed the body of the editorial changes that had been made as follows: in the fifth Resolved clause delete "a" before "faculty development," and insert "technologies" after "instructional." In the sixth Resolved clause insert "appointment" before "retention"; and in the Rationale first paragraph, last line, add "the following" after "addressed are."

Senator Franklin requested that the full name of the "report" be included in the fifth Resolved clause. Senator Dinielli requested that the full name of the report be included also in the second and third Resolved clauses. There were no objections.

AS-2309-96/TEKR motion carried unanimously.

AS-2313-96/AA/TEKR REPORT OF THE ESL INTERSEGMENTAL PROJECT,

SECOND READING CALIFORNIA PATHWAYS: THE SECOND LANGUAGE

STUDENT IN HIGH SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, AND

UNIVERSITIES

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the report of the ESL Intersegmental Project entitled California Pathways: The Second Language Student in High Schools, Colleges, and Universities; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates to continue the ESL Intersegmental Project to seek validation of the descriptors for second-language students and thereafter develop assessment instruments based upon the validated descriptors; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge that the report of the ESL Intersegmental Project entitled California Pathways: The Second Language Student in High Schools, Colleges, and Universities be disseminated widely on CSU campuses with the intent of improving services and instruction for ESL students.

RATIONALE: The report, California Pathways: The Second Language Student in High Schools, Colleges, and Universities, was written by the ESL Intersegmental Project commissioned by the Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates (ICAS). A broadly based group of ESL professionals from the four segments participated in the project.

The report addresses a broad range of issues regarding the education of students whose first language is not English. It provides foundational work in articulating the needs of students learning English as a second language. The report is an important step in improving the education of ESL students within the CSU and throughout California public higher education.

AS-2313-96/AA/TEKR motion carried unanimously.

AS-2314-96/AA RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS FROM THE

SECOND READING COMMISSION ON LEARNING RESOURCES AND

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY (CLRIT) WORK GROUPS

ON ACADEMIC ISSUES AND ADMINISTRATIVE AND

FISCAL ISSUES, REMOVING OBSTACLES TO THE USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse in principle the Joint Findings and Recommendations (attached) of the Commission on Learning Resources and Instructional Technology (CLRIT) Work Groups on Academic Issues and Administrative and Fiscal Issues with the following qualifications;

(1) the Academic Senate CSU assume the word "sharing" as used in the phrase "course and degree program sharing" in Joint Findings and Recommendations numbers 5 and 6 refers to formal memoranda of understanding or other agreements concerning courses or degree programs jointly agreed upon by two or more CSU campuses, and

(2) the contents of a memorandum of understanding specified in Joint Finding and Recommendation number 6 are not an exhaustive list.

AS-2314-96/AA motion carried unanimously.

AS-2317-96/F&GA 1997-1998 CSU BUDGET PRIORITIES

ACTION

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University strongly urge the Chancellor to recommend to the Board of Trustees in rank order the following Budget Priorities for 1997-1998.

1. Close CPEC compensation gap within a targeted time frame (2-3 years), as a priority investment in the quality of our human capital.

2. Identify and reinvest faculty productivity gains in professional development in order to enhance the quality and efficiency of the educational experience.

3. Close the identified academic and technological support gap within five years in order to assist the CSU in meeting infrastructure requirements necessary to provide, in an efficient manner, a quality educational experience for CSU students.

4. Continue to close the accumulated gap in our physical plant and maintenance needs within a targeted time frame, and develop alternative sources of revenue for physical plant needs.

5. Urge the CSU and campuses to develop multi-year strategies for management of anticipated enrollment growth which increases administrative and budgetary flexibility.

6. Encourage each campus to identify means of increasing operating efficiencies by 3-5% over a three-year period for the purposes of freeing revenues for academic enhancement.

7. Increase resources available for student financial aid.

RATIONALE: The Academic Senate of the California State University has been asked to provide input on budget priorities for 1997-1998. This represents the first time the Senate has been invited to participate in the budget planning process prior to discussions within the system Budget Advisory Committee. The Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee has become thoroughly familiar with CSU budgets for 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 and has consulted extensively with the Vice Chancellor of Business Affairs and his staff about current and anticipated future needs. The priorities identified reflect committee consensus on system needs and do not address individual campus concerns. However, as a framework for the construction of the CSU budget, the committee strongly believes the six rank ordered budget priorities will best meet the needs of the faculty, staff and students of the university.

On behalf of the Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee, Chair Young moved (Wort seconded) the resolution.

Senator Milnes moved (Kaiser seconded) an amendment to number 6: delete "reducing" and insert "increasing" before "operating"; delete "costs" and insert "efficiencies" before "by 3-5%"; add at the end "for the purposes of freeing revenues for academic enhancement" after "period." The amendment carried.

Senator Kaiser moved (Thobaben seconded) an amendment to change the order of the numbers: "1." would become "3."; "2." would become "1."; "3." would become "2.". The amendment failed.

Senator Moore moved an amendment to add a new number 1. to read: "Urge the CSU and each campus to increase the proportion of faculty who hold tenure-track positions. " The amendment failed for lack of a second.

Senator Barrena moved (Jensen seconded) an amendment to add a number 7. to read: "Increase resources available for student financial aid." The amendment carried.

Senator Franklin moved (Thobaben seconded) to postpone action until the May meeting. Motion carried.

AS-2317-96/F&GA motion postponed definitely.

AS-2312-96/FA FAIR USE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL

SECOND READING

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University adopt The Statement of Principle contained on pages 8-10 of the pamphlet, Fair Use of Copyrighted Works: A Crucial Element in Educating America[1] developed by the CSU-SUNY-CUNY Joint Committee; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to adopt The Statement of Principle contained on pages 8-10 of the pamphlet, Fair Use of Copyrighted Works: A Crucial Element in Educating America, to guide fair use in the CSU and encourage a liberal interpretation of fair use as set forth in [[section]]107 of the Copyright Act of 1976[2]; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to work with the Senate in promoting a liberal interpretation of fair use and in the context of protecting copyright in our mutual educational enterprise; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus Senates to adopt The Statement of Principle contained on pages 8-10 of the pamphlet, Fair Use of Copyrighted Works: A Crucial Element in Educating America, to guide fair use in the CSU and encourage a liberal interpretation of fair use as set forth in [[section]]107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.

RATIONALE: CSU faculty develop and use copyrighted material. Although fair use for educational purposes, including teaching, scholarship, or research, is specifically identified as "...not an infringement of copyright," legal precedent defining the nature and extent of such fair use is lacking. Given the size and importance of the CSU on the educational landscape and the intellectual activity in teaching, scholarship, and research generated by CSU faculty, it is essential that CSU play a major role in shaping the debate about this important and timely topic.

The vote on resolution AS-2312-96/FA was postponed until the printed revised form was available to the body.

Senator Barrena requested consent to delete "as principles" before "to guide fair use" in the second and fourth Resolved clauses. There were no objections.

AS-2312-96/FA motion carried unanimously.

AS-2318-96/F&GA OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 1399 (AYALA):

ACTION POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION: REQUIRED

READING MATERIAL

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University oppose

SB 1399(Ayala): Postsecondary Education: Required Reading Material.

RATIONALE:

1. SB 1399 is potentially in conflict with First Amendment Rights as protected under the Constitution.

2. SB 1399 makes it unnecessarily difficult for faculty to share their course-related ideas with their students.

3. SB 1399 would unnecessarily discourage teaching innovation and creativity in the production of teaching materials. Under the Master Plan for higher education, CSU faculty are encouraged to produce scholarship which enhances the curriculum. This legislation would unduly restrict the ability of professors to write textbooks, software and other educational materials in order to enhance the quality of their instruction.

4. The major incentive faculty have for using their own material is not to make money but to have the best materials which are customized for presentation to their students. The connection between faculty and students is often improved when students use their instructor's textbook.

5. SB 1399 implies that the costs of publication are unimportant and will be covered by some unidentified entity.

On behalf of the Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee, Chair Young moved (Wort seconded) the resolution.

Senator Dinielli requested consent to include the name of the author of SB 1399 in the title. There were no objections.

Senator Kaiser called the question; the Chair overruled on the basis of the number waiting to speak.

Senator Navari moved (Dinielli seconded) an amendment to add "in principle" to the Resolved clause after "oppose." The amendment failed.

Senator Heisch moved (Marshall seconded) an amendment to change number 5. to number 1.; to delete the last sentence in number 3.; to replace "also" with "often" and "heightened" with "improved" in the second sentence in number 3. The amendment carried.

Senator Spear requested consent to insert "their" before "instruction" at the end of number 2. There were no objections.

Senator Kaiser moved (Goldwhite seconded) to close debate. Motion carried.

AS-2318-96/F&GA motion carried.

AS-2319-96/EX ACADEMIC SENATE CSU CALENDAR OF 1996-97

FIRST READING MEETINGS

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University adopt the following schedule for the 1996-97 academic year:

1996 Location

September 5-6 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

October 4 Interim Headquarters

November 6-8 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

December 6 Interim Headquarters

1997

January 22-24 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

February 21 Interim Headquarters

March 12-14 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

April 4 Interim Headquarters

May 7-9 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate of the California State university be authorized to change the schedule of meetings approved, with adequate notice to the Academic Senate CSU, if the Trustees alter their schedule, or if budgetary constraints require a change.

RATIONALE: The California State University Board of Trustees is considering the adoption in May 1996 of the following schedule for Trustee meetings in 1996-97:

1996 Location

July 9-10 Headquarters

September 10-11 Headquarters

November 12-13 Headquarters

1997

January 28-29 Headquarters

March 18-19 Headquarters

May 13-14 Headquarters

On behalf of the Executive Committee, Senator Goldwhite moved (Charnofsky seconded) the resolution.

AS-2324-96/TEKR RESPONSE TO THE TEACHERS WHO TEACH OUR

FIRST READING TEACHERS TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS AT

THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY REPORT OF

THE INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL REFORM

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University commend the Chancellor for recognizing the import of the connection between K-12 and the CSU, and as a first step establishing the Institute for Educational Reform; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU commend the Institute under the leadership of Gary Hart for undertaking as its first effort, a review of the teacher preparation programs in the CSU; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU agree with the broad goals identified in the Report: strengthening K-12 and university partnerships, systematic review and revision of CSU policies related to teacher education, and revision of state laws and regulations; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU is particularly supportive of the recommendations. To wit: Partnerships with K-12 Schools: systematic review and recognition, distinguished teachers in residence and survey of graduates; University Policies: links between Schools of Education and Liberal Studies, support for faculty work with K-12 schools and the teacher diversity program; State Issues: integrated curriculum and early clinical experiences, repeal of add-on courses, limits on emergency credentials; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU has reservations about other recommendations in the Report which raise questions that need further analysis. To wit: Partnerships with K-12 Schools: focus on student teaching experience; University Policies: faculty evaluation; State Issues: teacher candidate assessment; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend to the Institute for Educational Reform as it continues its examination of teacher education that it consider the following: All CSU faculty should be included in partnerships activities with K-12 schools; encourage increased interaction between the faculties of CSU and K-12; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recognize the value of faculty work with K-12 schools and support the notion that it be considered in RTP decisions; however we must remind the Chancellor and the Institute that the processes for reviewing faculty remain a faculty prerogative; and be it further

RESOLVED That the great value of the report, The Teacher Who Teach Our Teachers, is that it will stimulate more discussion of the university-wide responsibility for the preparation of teachers and promote faculty involvement with K-12.

On behalf of the Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations, Chair Keane moved (Moore seconded) the resolution. The agenda order was changed by consent at this time since Senator Keane had to depart early.

AS-2323-96/AA CSU INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS: AMENDMENT

FIRST READING OF TRUSTEE POLICY STATEMENT

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge the Board of Trustees to insure that CSU International Programs are supported by State funds to the extent that such funds would have been required for comparable students had they continued to study in California; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Board of Trustees to establish CSU fees for enrollment in International Programs at the lowest possible cost and at a level comparable to that established for study at a CSU campus; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Board of Trustees to act separately from proposed amendments to International Programs policy, to support the Chancellor's establishment of the 1996-97 International Program student fee at a level sufficient to sustain high quality academic offerings at the lowest possible cost; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Board of Trustees to defer final action at its March meeting on amendments to the CSU Board of Trustees Policy Statement of June 9, 1969 as amended on January 28, 1976 in order to allow adequate opportunity to analyze and discuss the need for and implications of these proposed amendments, and to develop appropriate provisions which establish guidelines for determining the level of fees for enrollment in CSU International Programs and define fee level limits consistent with the CSU's student fee policies for regular enrollment.

RATIONALE: In item 10 of the proposed amendments to the CSU Board of Trustees Policy Statement of June 9, 1969 as amended on January 28, 1976, the Chancellor's staff is seeking to the clarify the Chancellor's authority to "determine and implement such fees and charges in the International Programs as may be required to sustain the high quality academic offerings of the International Programs and the provision of appropriate services for its participants." The State University fee is set annually by the Board of Trustees. It is unclear at this time why the International Program fee, also an annual fee, should not be set in a similar manner.

It is also unclear at this time, what the cost basis for the International Program fee is or ought to be. We believe that broad policy regarding program costs and the desirable level and sources of support need to be established prior to the consideration with any amendment delegating fee determination authority.

Specifically, program costs at each study center need to be determined to yield an average program cost. Furthermore, the current language of item # 10 states that "The International Programs shall be supported by State funds to the extend that such funds would have been required for comparable students had they continued to study in California." A determination of the average state funding level for comparable students needs to be made. With this information, the appropriate level of international program fees and charges can be evaluated.

By acting at the March meeting to set the 96-97 International Program fee at the amount requested by staff, the Board of Trustees will remove the imperative for immediate action on the policy amendments. With additional time, these amendments and the policy basis for setting fee levels can be more carefully examined.

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair Hammerstrom moved (Barrena seconded) the resolution.

Senator Spear moved (Hammerstrom seconded) to waive the rules to take action on the resolution at the present meeting. Motion carried.

Senator Barrena requested consent to make a change in the third Resolved clause: add "sufficient" before "to sustain." There were no objections.

Senator Barrena moved (Navari seconded) an amendment to the third Resolved clause to add after "policy, to" the words "support the Chancellor's establishment of" before "the 1996-97." Motion carried by consent.

AS-2323-96/AA motion carried unanimously.

AS-2320-96/FA RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING NEW FACULTY

FIRST READING ORIENTATION AND MENTORING IN THE CSU

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the attached New Faculty Orientation and Mentoring in the California State University; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the campus Academic Senates and Vice President for Academic Affairs on each campus to develop policies and procedures implementing the recommendations contained in New Faculty Orientation and Mentoring in the California State University; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU specifically endorse the following recommendations contained in New Faculty Orientation and Mentoring in the California State University:

The Academic Senate CSU urges each campus of the CSU system to look carefully at its programs for new faculty orientation, and give serious consideration to development of long-term orientation programs, extending over one or more terms. Such programs provide the opportunity for contact between new faculty and existing faculty from across the campus.

Second, we urge the development of systematic mentoring programs. The form of the program will be largely dependent on the goals which must be developed on each campus. It is not unlikely that a campus could simultaneously have two or three different types of mentoring programs.

Third, we urge campus senates and experienced faculty to become closely involved with these programs.

Fourth, we believe that new faculty orientation programs and faculty mentoring programs should be housed within the Academic Affairs office, since these activities are so central to the retention and growth of a strong faculty.

On behalf of the Faculty Affairs Committee, FAC Chair Buck moved (McIntire seconded) the resolution.

(Technology Mediated Instruction refers to all forms of instruction that are enhanced by or utilize electronic and/or computer-based technology. It specifically includes distance education, instructional modules delivered via mass media, and computer-assisted instruction.)

AS-2321-96/AA/FA PRINCIPLES REGARDING TECHNOLOGY MEDIATED

FIRST READING INSTRUCTION IN THE CSU

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse and adopt the attached Principles Regarding Technology Mediated Instruction in the CSU; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU commend the members of its Technology Task Force, 1994-95, for their thoughtful development of the position paper entitled Statement of Academic Issues and Recommendations for the Use of Technology Mediated Teaching and Learning in the CSU which substantially contributed to the development of the attached Principles Regarding Technology Mediated Instruction in the CSU, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to endorse the attached Principles Regarding Technology Mediated Instruction in the CSU and to work with the Academic Senate CSU in developing systemwide policies and procedures related to technology mediated instruction in the CSU consistent with these principles; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the campus Academic Senates to endorse the attached Principles Regarding Technology Mediated Instruction in the CSU and to develop campus policies and procedures regarding technology mediated instruction consistent with these principles.

On behalf of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Academic Affairs Committee, AAC Chair Hammerstrom moved (Barrena seconded) the resolution.

AS-2322-96/AA RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING TECHNOLOGY

FIRST READING MEDIATED INSTRUCTION IN THE CSU

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse and adopt the following recommendations regarding Technology Mediated Instruction in the CSU.

1. Campus senates should develop policy guidelines and procedures regarding the implementation of technology mediated instruction. The guidelines should address such areas as course selection, instructional design, access to learning resources (e.g., library holdings), instructional delivery, student-faculty interaction, and assessment and accreditation.

2. Campuses should consider the use of technology mediated instruction to facilitate the sharing of instructional modules, courses, and/or academic programs where appropriate. Given the number of unresolved issues in this area, the Chancellor should work with the Academic Senate CSU to develop policies requiring specific agreements for sharing instructional modules, courses, and/or academic programs in formal memoranda of understanding.

3. Campus senates should engage in and support local and systemwide efforts to improve student and academic support services such as outreach, admission, financial aid administration, course registration, advisement, and course articulation, to facilitate inter-campus sharing of instructional modules, courses, and/or academic programs.

4. When developing instructional modules, courses, and/or academic programs to be offered at a distance (synchronously and/or asynchronously), academic departments/programs should assess

(1) the need to provide access to student populations not served by existing programs,

(2) the curricular suitability of learning at a distance,

(3) the projected program costs including the costs of equipment, faculty workload in developing materials, academic support, and student services, and

(4) the availability of appropriate campus support for instructional design, technical assistance, technical support, and faculty professional development.

5. The Chancellor should insure that each campus develops a strategic plan for student access to computing that includes provisions for off-campus access, networked environments appropriate to disciplines, suitably equipped learning environments (classrooms, libraries, and laboratories), and appropriate technical training.

6. The Chancellor should support development of a strategic plan through the Institute for Teaching and Learning for faculty professional development relative to the implementation and use of technology mediated instruction. Such a strategic plan should include training in pedagogies and student learning styles appropriate to technology as well as the use of technology, and provisions for securing the necessary equipment and facilities for faculty access to technology.

7. The Academic Senate CSU, in cooperation with the Chancellor and the California Faculty Association and those faculty groups in other universities or systems of higher education who may wish to participate, should inform the faculty of the CSU in a systematic and continuous fashion of their rights and responsibilities regarding the ownership of intellectual property, including that developed for technology mediated instruction.

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair Hammerstrom moved (Pincu seconded) the resolution.

* * * * *

The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m. on Friday, March 8, 1996.

* * * * *

Approved (or corrected)

Date:________________________ _______________________________

James M. Highsmith, Chair

_______________________________

Hal Charnofsky, Secretary

________________________________

Margaret Price, Recording Secretary



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