Academic Senate of the California State University
MINUTES

Meeting of Thursday, May 9, 1996
CSU Headquarters, Long Beach, CA

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:15 p.m. on Thursday, May 9, 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) Marshall Cates*, Dorothy Keane, Rosemarie Marshall; (Northridge) Elliot McIntire, Roberta Madison, 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) David DuFault, Annette Easton, Francis Stites, Dan Whitney; (San Francisco) Hollis Matson*, Gary Hammerstrom, Kenneth Monteiro; (San Jose) Allison Heisch, David McNeil; (San Luis Obispo) Reginald Gooden, Tom Hale, Timothy Kersten; (San Marcos) Edward Thompson; (Sonoma) Perry Marker, Robert Girling; (Stanislaus) Richard Levering, Thomas Young; (Chancellor's Office) Charles Lindahl*, Peter Hoff.

INTRODUCTIONS

During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:

Harold Goldwhite, CSU Los Angeles

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

Terry Jones, President, California Faculty Association

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

Jack Munsee, Liaison to California Faculty Association

J. Ken Nishita, Observer, CSU Monterey Bay

Barry Pasternack, CSU Fullerton

Louise Timmer, CSU Sacramento

Brad Wells, Business and Finance

Johnetta Anderson, Technical Assistant, Chancellor's Office

Andrea Cullins, Staff Assistant - Budget, Academic Senate CSU

Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

José Lopez, Clerical Assistant, Academic Senate CSU

Margaret Price, Staff Assistant - Documents, Academic Senate CSU

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

Announcement of Times Certain

Thursday, May 9, 1996

4:00 p.m. Patricia Hart, Faculty Director, Institute for Teaching and Learning

Friday, May 10, 1996

9:00 a.m. Committee of the Whole: Productivity

10:00 a.m. Barry Munitz, Chancellor

1:30 p.m. 1996-97 Organizational Meeting

REPORT OF CHAIR JAMES HIGHSMITH

I want to thank the senators for all their work the past couple of days. I know you've been working very hard on a lot of things that happen at the end of the year and it's very gratifying that we're able to complete a great deal of work on time. I know there's still a little bit more that needs to be done before we're finished, but I do appreciate all your efforts throughout the year, especially at this meeting as we try to conclude our formal business that needs action before we adjourn tomorrow.

I want to thank you all for the opportunity to serve as your chair this year. It's been, I think, a wonderful experience for me. I hope I've contributed something to the faculty and I've enjoyed working with the many people I've gotten to work with. It really has been an educational experience for me. The learning curve was steep, but I hope I've provided some measure of benefit to the faculty in the process.

I want to go through very quickly a series of things which I think are important for us to be alerted to. You will get the report in writing shortly after the meeting. With regard to the Chancellor's visit tomorrow, you will remember that he asked us to read some things. In addition to spending some time talking about shared governance, building on some of the materials that he's given us, he is going to talk about another project that relates to shared governance. It's now being called Cornerstones. I have brought it to your attention in the past under the label "The Pew Roundtable." The system is going to engage faculty-trustees-administration-students about key issues that relate to the future of this institution. That process will be announced next week at the Board of Trustees' meeting, although you've gotten some previews of it. I have served with Bernie Goldstein, the faculty trustee, on a steering committee that's been trying to frame how that discussion will go forward and how to best involve a large number of faculty in that discussion. The Chancellor is making a preview presentation today to the Executive Council about Cornerstones and will be giving a similar one tomorrow to us in the two hours he's going to spend with us. So we will be informed directly and have an opportunity to ask him any questions about how he perceives the process going forward and what the product of that process might be. The Cornerstones process will involve four task forces, one of which will examine learning for the 21st century; another to examine post baccalaureate education and continuing education; another to examine enrollment and resources; and a fourth that will look at institutional integrity and accountability. That last one will be chaired by Bernie Goldstein, the first will be chaired by me, the second one dealing with postbaccalaureate and continuing education will be chaired by Steve Weber, the incoming president of San Diego State; and Molly Broad will chair the task force that deals with enrollment and resources. I'm hoping that a number of you will indicate in the forms that you are filling out for service for next year your interest in being involved in one or more of those groups so that the Executive Committee has a good sense of who in the Senate wants to be participating in that process. The task force meetings will occur in the fall, three meetings for each task force. Then there will be a process of regional campus convocations in the spring leading probably to some draft document that will be shared with the Trustees and with the larger public the following fall. The process has been described by the Chancellor, in settings where I have seen him and in writing, as a process to bring faculty and trustees together, so we need to know which of you are interested in being engaged in that process. There will also be faculty at the campus levels, I'm sure, who will want to be involved in the process as it cascades out.

We're also engaged in a study of the future of the baccalaureate. As we design a structure for studying that for next year, we have to be mindful that much of what the Senate will do, probably leading to some conclusory document by the end of next year, will have to inform the work not only of the task force on learning for the 21st century but also the other task forces. Because of that, I have discussed with the Executive Committee the possibility of doing business a little bit differently in the fall. And in that context, it probably makes sense for us as a Senate to concentrate our work in September, October and November. Most of the time that we would normally spend in regular meetings, we would used to do what needs to be done for the study of the baccalaureate, bringing in whoever we feel needs to be brought in to carry through that study. The exact work plan would, of course, have to be designed very carefully. The idea here, I think, is to hold the usual business that we have in September and November to a minimum and to spend most of the time engaged in an intensive process that will yield us good information and good views about where the baccalaureate needs to be going. I think that would be the best use of our time in the fall and I hope that you will provide the new Executive Committee a sense of how you would like to see that done. It is not a foregone conclusion. Obviously, it is open to discussion how we do it, but I think we do need to spend some concentrated time. We have to be responsible for this and we need to be guiding, as faculty and as the voice of the faculty, the issues that are educational and academic that become the heart of what Cornerstones process will be.

You will be getting, if you haven't gotten already, colored sheets that ask for your preferences for next year. Be cognizant that there are some special questions on that sheet that you need to fill out. You've gotten that information in email, but if you haven't filled it out yet, those sheets will be available to you.

I'd like to go through a series of updates with you just so you know where a number of topics are as we end this academic year.

I want to thank Tom Young for testifying at the Richter hearing regarding workload. He has been following the requests of Richter and his committee very closely for us and I do appreciate his work on that. He has been right on top of it. A bill that we were very concerned about, Senate Bill 1399 (Ayala), was a bill that limited the ability of the professor to assign material that he or authored. That bill has been withdrawn after the work of the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates (ICAS) and the work of Scott Plotkin's office. Scott tells me today it is officially dead because all the deadlines have been passed. The bill was withdrawn on the basis of a commitment on the part of the faculty and ICAS that those legitimate issues that were being raised in the bill were going to be addressed and were addressed at the campus level. We'll be providing a report in January to Senator Ayala about the specifics of that and I will be talking to campus chairs because some have expressed concern to me about conflict of interest aspects of the issues that were raised in the bill. We, as an Executive Committee, will have to be talking with the chairs about how they're examining those issues at the campus level. But I thought you would appreciate the work, not only of ICAS, but also of Scott's office in laying the groundwork for battling the bill if it were not withdrawn. I very much appreciate Scott and his colleagues on this and other issues.

I've sent out to chairs of the senate a short memorandum dealing with program decentralization of both the assistive devices program and the faculty affirmative action program. This was done, in essence, without any immediate warning, although we had known for some time that Executive Vice Chancellor Broad was interested in decentralizing as many systemwide provisions as possible to the campus level. It was done upon a basis of full-time equivalent employees. So I alerted the campus chairs that the money was coming to the campus and that if it were to be used for the purpose that it was originally intended (with regard to assistive devices) or to be used for a purpose related to the original use of the money (as far as faculty affirmative action research and development) that they would probably have to be attentive to the budget processes on their own campus. I do have a slightly larger concern than just the budget concern, though, especially with regard to the assistive device money, and that is the requirements of law to accommodate for disabilities. The money probably never was enough to do that. It was systemwide money and it was doled out on the basis of application and some expert judgment about where it could best be used. It's now going out to the campuses on a pro rata basis. There will be campuses that will have need for more money than they're getting. There may be campuses that currently have need for less money than they have, although in the long term, probably we would not expect that to be the case. The requirements of law are not lifted because this money has been decentralized. I hope you all will assist your campus chairs in assuring that there is a process that probably should be undergone right now seeking applications or requests for assistance in accommodating disabilities. If the system program were running, they would be asking for requests now and there would be a judgment made in the summer about those requests. The needs have not gone away. The money has been sent to the campuses. So I'm hoping that each campus has some process for dealing with these needs, either formal or informal, that includes appropriate expertise in making judgments about accommodating faculty who need it. This is also staff money, so it is not just a concern of faculty.

I've sent email to you all seeking nominations for the assessment task forces of the California Education Roundtable. The task forces in English language arts and math dealing with standards are well under way and they're meeting regularly. The assessment task forces will have to be put together and will begin meeting some time in the fall. My inclination would be to try to identify the faculty who would be appointed to those groups from the CSU within a month so that we can let the faculty know if they are requiring of assigned time and need to adjust their schedules so that they might do that rather than be told at the last minute and have to scramble. If you have not suggested names through your campus chair to be nominated, I would suggest that you do that. A number of people have sent me names directly. I'm taking all names, I'm taking all data. But I think it is sensible for the chairs to know that the campus is forwarding the suggestion and for the chairs to know that the vitae have gone forward. Our office is going to have a difficult time following up and saying that we don't have a vita, so please get it to us. If you have sent in a vita that indicates your work in the area, you'll probably have a better chance of receiving an appointment than if just the name comes forward. I wish we had the ability to go out and get the information, but we don't always. I hope you will take that responsibility on your shoulders to see, if you have people interested, that they get their names and information sent forward, if possible through the chairs.

I attended a Commission on Telecommunications Infrastructure (CTI) meeting on Monday where a report dealing with library facilities was handed out. That report was a product of a subgroup of the CTI to which we had appointed Allison Heisch who worked mightily to make sure the report was a sensible one when it was issued. That report should be coming to us formally through the Chancellor at some time in the near future. It very much deals with important issues related to the "library" which has always been of concern to us--if no one else. I hope that we will take special cognizance of that report and its implications. It will be something that we probably will get during the summer and Academic Affairs, I hope, will get the opportunity to look at that over the summer and be prepared to run with what ever needs to be done in early fall.

Also, I have shared with a few people a proposal for information and resource sharing that Tom West has drafted which imbeds in it a long-term solution for inter-library loan resources being shared at the system level. I'll be looking for responses from those people. It is not something that I felt could be responded to productively by a committee at this time given the committee's workload. But if any of the people who have the draft see a concern-- Paul Spear, Allison Heisch and other members of the Executive Committee, and Gary Hammerstrom--with the proposal, we will pull together a group that can make recommendations on that.

We have sent out the Graduate Education Survey to the Graduate Deans. Hal took the leadership on that and we have gotten back five or six responses now. The responses have been very positive in the sense that they say "this is a good process to be going through, thank you for asking, it`s been a way of having us examine things that we need to examine." Even though we only have a third of the campuses responding now, I think it was valuable for us to do and Hal, I'm sure, this summer will be busy working on how we analyze those responses and seek to frame some work next year related to graduate education.

I failed to mention, when speaking of CTI, another issue which I want to alert you to. This is an issue that underpins all the discussion about technology and technology initiatives. So I can't let it pass by. We all know that if we are to have readily available to us for teaching and learning modern tools of communication that there needs to be a baseline infrastructure at the campus that allows for those things to work and for us to communicate with one another and internally on the campus. Some campuses have made greater progress than others in building such an infrastructure to allow that kind of communication to occur. The bond money that passed under 203 will in part be used to build out more of that baseline. CTI has attempted to come up with some standards through a subcommittee of what the baseline should be. Through a process that will involve IRT, Tom West's office, Jon Regnier's office, PP&D and probably others, people from the campuses will be making their case for what they need to come up to an appropriate level, a baseline infrastructure. If there are disagreements about what a campus might need vis á vis other campuses, the CTI chair, Jim Rosser, has suggested that there be an adjudication committee which would include a Senate member to examine people who say "I'm not getting enough" or "we need more for baseline," and to make some judgment about whether that is a reasonable request or not. After having discussed this with the Executive Committee, I sent a letter to Jim suggesting that in addition to a Senate member that there be a couple of faculty from campuses who had chaired a committee at the campus level dealing with computing and communications who had both the technical expertise and the faculty perspective sufficient to provide good advice on such a committee and that those two additional faculty be considered advisory to the committee, if not members. Jim Rosser has since told me that he would welcome one additional faculty as an advisor to the group and I've asked the Executive Committee to identify for me any potential candidates from the campuses who they think would fit the profile, that is someone who has probably chaired a campus-level committee dealing with these issues so that they're not walking into this fresh, they have the expertise and they have some sense of what the baseline needs to be and what the deficiencies are. There are only going to be about six or seven people on this adjudication committee. I would be shocked if there was more than one person from a campus on that adjudication committee so I'd like to have several names because I don't know what the rest of the structure of the committee will look like. I don't want to put a second person from a single campus on such a committee. I don't think that's wise for anybody. So if you have nominees (don't need a vita, just need the name and what they've done to see if they qualify), then get those to the Executive Committee or to me.

I understand that Juanita Barrena and Ken Monteiro have received letters appointing them to the Educational Equity Advisory Committee and that the meeting has been scheduled for May 23. Gerald Resendez didn't get a letter because he was already on the committee. I want you all to know that the Senate did its work--we sent the names last summer. But since the committee was not meeting, no appointments were made. Now they've been appointed and they are meeting. I'll look forward for a report from Ken or Juanita or Gerald or a combination after that meeting occurs on the 23rd.

What's on the horizon? You may know that Harold Goldwhite volunteered to update our Blue Book. He's been working on that about one day every couple of weeks, coming and diligently doing that even though he's on leave. He thinks it will be done by the summer some time so I wanted you to be aware that we will have an update that will not be just an addendum. It will be old and new, so that we will have one compiled edition.

I think there are several issues that will be important for us in the next year, not the least of which is this Cornerstones process that I hope you will ask questions of Chancellor Munitz about. The Cornerstones process, if it is to be effective, will have to involve the faculty both at this system level through the Senate and also at the campus level in some significant way. I think it is our attempt as a system to bring people together to come to some consensus about direction on any number of issues. Not on a new mission: we know what our mission is. But rather on how we accomplish it. Not on our purpose: we know what our purpose is. But how we accomplish that purpose. That is a system project that we have to be deeply involved in and that will connect with the study of the baccalaureate.

Also, I think teacher education issues are going to be given much greater attention in the coming year because of all the things we're seeing about the public's concern about K-12 education as well as the governor's proposals. The Teachers Who Teach the Teachers report is viewed, I think, as a significant--I want to say discussion piece, but it's more than that--a significant item that would encourage the campuses to reexamine very basic assumptions about teacher education. That is another item that the Senate will have to be very attentive to next year and be involved in to the extent that it makes sense at the system level. Also I think there is an evolving view of what extended education should be that will certainly be discussed in the Cornerstones process and that issues related to how extended education and regular education provided to matriculated students melds in the future should be of significant concern to us as well. And to that, I think, we need to pay very close attention.

Also as we will hear this meeting, campus fee issues, I think, will be ones we will be hearing more about and I don't think we can ignore those concerns.

I'd like to thank some people, I'll do this in the organizational meeting as well, but I want to thank our new staff member, José Lopez. I don't know if you've had a chance to meet him but if you haven't, say hello. He just came to us a few weeks ago and he is a very effective addition to the staff and we're very pleased to have him. Also Andrea Cullins and Margaret Price and Debbie Hennessy--I don't know what I would do without these people. I know if any one of them were gone, we would not be able to do for you and for the faculty what we need to do and I really do appreciate their work. Debbie brought to my attention last night that she has been working on your accommodations for next year. I'll bring that up for just a second. Under the hotel contracts for next year, you can stay at the Hyatt next year for $77, or you can stay at the Hilton for $79. That rate is not changing. In any case, you have your choice. If there is anyone who wants another choice, talk to me or Deb and we'll see if we can work out a deal with another place. So far, I haven't heard any complaints, as long as we have those options available to us.

Finally, I want to thank the people I've worked most with this last year, Marshelle, Hal, Rosemarie, Allison, Harold. They have been a great group to work with. I don't know what I would have done without Marshelle because I can just say, "Marshelle, please do this" and it is done. Hal has been to more meetings for me than anyone deserves to go to, but he's at Dominguez Hills so I can call him without calling long distance. Rosemarie has been out and about talking about tenure for us and making sure that no one forgets it's important. Allison has protected the libraries, is dealing with remediation. She has done so many things, and she's going to be busier this summer than she wants to be. And Harold has been just a joy to work with. He's had so much experience being on the Executive Committee and having this job before and it has been great having someone there that I can say "what would you do?" I just can't tell you how much I've appreciated his wisdom in trying to steer the stormy waters. And I have another group of people who I think deserve as much praise and who know my job would be impossible to do without. If it were not for Gary Hammerstrom and Tom Young and Dorothy Keane and Vince Buck and Kathy Kaiser, taking the things that need to be done in the committees, we would not get all of the things done that we need to do. I was given some advice by a former chair who is not in this room and one of the pieces of advice, not volunteered, but solicited, was make sure you get good committee chairs, because they make all the difference. That is the truth. They make all the difference. So I want to express my deepest appreciation to all of them for everything they've done for the faculty. Thank you.

* * * * *

Standing Committee Reports:

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

(1) May Second Reading Items.

The committee reviewed the new proposed revision to SUAM Section 1502.06 proposed by the Commission on the Extended University and resulting from the AAC's comments on the original proposed revision. Finding the new language completely satisfactory, the committee redrafted AS-2310-96 to endorse the new proposed revision. The revised resolution was then recommended for the consent calendar.

The committee also reviewed the language of AS-2321-96 and AS-2322-96 dealing with the Principles and Recommendations Regarding Technology Mediated Instruction in the CSU, to incorporate changes proposed during the first reading discussion at the March plenary. The revised items were also recommended for the consent calendar

(2) Student Fee Policy.

The committee reviewed yet another draft of the proposed Student Fee Policy. This latest version addressed several concerns that the committee had expressed and transmitted to Senate Chair Highsmith following its review of the previous draft at the April interim meeting. However, the committee concluded that the latest draft failed to address two concerns relating to the possible differential range of campus mandatory fees and the precedence of fees, system or campus, in the event fee limits are someday reached. The committee drafted a resolution generally endorsing the policy but with these two qualifications and taking care to honor the Senate's prior unwillingness to take a position on Trustee policy to raise student fees to a fixed percentage of the annual cost of education.

(3) CSU International Programs Fee Policy.

The committee heard a report from its chair who had attended the April meeting of the Academic Council on International Programs and gathered considerable data on the revenues and expenses of CSU International Programs. Based on the report and subsequent discussion, the committee agreed to draft a resolution supporting the role of ACIP in recommending fees at the lowest level possible, endorsing the proposed changes to the Trustees' Policy Statement on CSU International Programs, urging the interpretation of state support for IP students to mean support equivalent to the system average general fund support per FTES, and urging examination of how miscellaneous fees for IP students are determined and charged. It was recommended that this resolution be discussed by the 95-96 Senate, but be placed on the agenda of the 96-97 Senate organizational meeting so that it could be acted upon in September if the item is rescheduled for the Trustees' September agenda.

(4) Support for CSU's Diversity Mission.

(5) Response to the California Civil Rights Initiative

These items were considered jointly. Having heard from Senior Vice Chancellor Hoff in April regarding the CSU's recent revisions to outreach programs, the committee discussed the Chancellor's letter (April 22) to Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill responding to the LAO's survey of CSU programs identified as potentially affected by the CCRI. Noting that the Senate is already on record as supporting the principles that guide programs to achieve educational equity and faculty diversity in the CSU (AS-2274-95), the committee agreed that no further formal comment on systemwide policy in the area was necessary at this time.

However, the committee did conclude that the time was appropriate for the Senate to make a statement supporting educational equity programs and opposing the CCRI. With the sensitive and articulate leadership of Senator Juanita Barrena, such a resolution was crafted.

(6) Extension of the VPA Admissions Experiment

The committee heard a report from its representatives on the Admission Advisory Council regarding the recommendation from that body that the CSU seek to join with the UC to adopt a common high school preparatory course pattern of 15 units to include the current CSU visual and performing arts requirement. The committee endorsed the recommendation and drafted a resolution extending the VPA admissions experiment for an additional years

(7) The Transitions Project as an Admissions Experiment.

The committee heard a report from Senator Franklin on the Transition Project, a high school restructuring project in the Bay Area that would require the CSU to examine alternative methods for determining admission eligibility. The committee agreed to support the recommendation of the Admissions Advisory Council to approve the Transition Project as an admissions experiment and drafted a resolution to that effect.

(8) Support for the Proposal of the CIMIT Subcommittee on Student-Friendly Services Through Technology.

The committee reviewed this proposal and drafted a resolution of endorsement.

(9) Draft Executive Order on Determination of Competence in English and Mathematics.

The committee reviewed the drafts of a new Executive Order and cover letter proposed by the systemwide remediation implementation advisory committee. The committee (AAC) generally supported the draft order but wished to communicate to the remediation advisory committee its recommendations for language changes and the consideration of implementation issues. An appropriate resolution was drafted with the recommendation that it be a first reading item on the 96-97 Agenda to allow prompt action in September.

(10) The Hart Report on Teacher Education.

The committee reviewed the resolution that had been drafted by the Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations on this report and relayed its suggestions for change to that committee.

(11) Committee Agenda for AY 1996-97.

The committee discussed several topics for consideration by the 1996-97 Academic Affairs committee including:

1. Follow-up on the status of the common 15 unit high school common preparatory pattern and what CSU should do about the VPA requirement if agreement with UC cannot be secured.

2. A policy statement on faculty ownership of their intellectual property.

3. The apparent trend toward vocational education in the state.

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 spent some time discussing the productivity issue and how we should present the committee's paper, written by David McNeil, and the resolution on the SUNY paper. Chair Highsmith met with us to help resolve the issue. It was finally decided to present both reposts to the Senate and discuss these items in the Committee of the Whole.

We had a helpful visit with Sam Strafaci to discuss workload and PSSIs. Among the interesting things that Strafaci said was that he felt that campuses should be open in reporting who got PSSIs and how much they got.

The committee discussed faculty employment patterns and reviewed a very useful table prepared by the Chancellor's Office on this matter.

Presidential selection processes were also discussed.

The committee concluded with a discussion of items that next year's committee might undertake or follow through on.

Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations Chair Dorothy Keane distributed to the Senate a year-end report which is available upon request.

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

The body was recessed, by Chair Highsmith, at 4:35 p.m. on Thursday, May 9, 1996.

* * * * *

The body was reconvened at 8:40 a.m. on Friday, May 10, 1996, by Chair Highsmith.

ACTION

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Senator Marshall moved (Spear seconded) approval of the minutes of March 7-8, 1996. The minutes were approved.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The Chair requested placing Items 1 and 5 on the Consent Calendar. Senator George moved (Hammerstrom seconded) approval of the agenda. Senator Keane requested placing Item 17 on the calendar immediately following the consent items; Senator Barrena requested a placeholder (Item 20) for a resolution regarding ELM and EPT; Senator Buck requested the addition of Item 4 to the Consent Calendar. There were no objections. The agenda was approved.

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:

First, the Academic Senate of the California State University urge each campus of the CSU system to look carefully at its programs for new faculty orientation and 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, the Academic Senate CSU 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, the Academic Senate CSU urge each campus to consider development of orientation and mentoring programs for lecturers.

Fourth, the Academic Senate CSU urge campus senates and experienced faculty to become closely involved with these programs.

Fifth, the Academic Senate CSU urge 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.

AS-2320-96/FA motion carried by consent.

AS-2334-96/TEKR RESPONSE TO AB 3075 (BALDWIN): TEACHER

FIRST READING/ CREDENTIALING

WAIVER

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University oppose the proposed amendment to Section 44259 of the Education Code which requires the "satisfactory completion of a course in the instruction of intensive, systematic phonics." in each program of professional preparation for multiple and single subject credentials.

RATIONALE: Whereas it may be reasonable that approved multiple and single subject teacher preparation programs include the study of phonics as one of the strategies for teaching reading, it is not educationally sound to separate phonics from other reading strategies, and it is unnecessarily intrusive to specify that phonics must be taught as a separate course.

On behalf of the Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations, Chair Keane moved (Spear seconded) the resolution. Senator Kersten moved (Dinielli seconded) to waive the rules to take action on the resolution at the present meeting. Motion carried.

Senator Boyum moved (Navari seconded) to delete in the Rationale "It is not educationally sound to separate phonics from other reading strategies, and..." Amendment failed.

Senator Dinielli requested consent to make the following change: insert "to," delete "of" before "Section 44259" in the Resolved clause. There were no objections.

Senator Thobaben requested consent to make the following change: insert "into the curricular process" after "intrusive" in the Rationale. There were objections.

Senator Heisch moved (McNeil seconded) to amend the Rationale by adding at the beginning "Whereas it may be"; combine the first and second sentences with a comma after "reading" and before "It"; and change "in" to "as" before "a separate course." Motion carried.

Senator Barrena moved (Navari seconded) an amendment to the Rationale to add as a second sentence, "Further, the specification that the requirement be satisfied only by a course dedicated to phonics precludes use of alternate strategies for satisfying the requirement that may be appropriate, and is unduly limiting." Amendment failed.

Senator Navari moved to amend by deleting the Rationale and substituting, "It is reasonable to set standards and criteria by which education is assessed but it is educationally unsound to legislate how and what children should be taught." Amendment failed for lack of a second.

AS-2334-96/TEKR motion carried.

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

SECOND READING

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.

* Close CPEC compensation gap within a targeted time frame (two-to-three years), as a priority investment in the quality of our human capital and as a necessary factor in enhancing recruitment efforts.

* Increase resources available for student financial aid.

* Invest in professional development in order to enhance the quality and efficiency of the educational experience.

* 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.

* 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.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to also consider the following:

* developing multi-year strategies for management of anticipated enrollment growth.

* identifying means of increasing operating efficiencies by three-to-five percent over a three-year period for the purposes of freeing revenues for academic enhancement.

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 consensus on needs of the system and campuses as a whole rather than on individual needs of particular campuses. As a framework for the construction of the CSU budget, the committee strongly believes the five rank ordered budget priorities will best meet the needs of the faculty, staff and students of the university.

Senator Barrena moved (Moore seconded) to delete "in rank order" in the Resolved clause and in Rationale. Amendment failed.

Senator Moore moved to add another priority to list, "limit use of non-tenure track faculty." Amendment failed for lack of a second.

Senator DuFault moved (Barrena seconded) to move the last bullet (student financial aid) to second place in order. Motion carried.

Senator Moore moved (Thobaben seconded) to delete in the new bullet #6 everything after "strategies." Senator McNeil requested consent to make the following change: to put back the words "for management of anticipated enrollment growth" after "strategies." There were no objections. Motion carried.

Senator Barrena moved (Thobaben seconded) to add a Resolved clause to include new bullets #3, 6, and 7 and would read, "That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to also consider the following:"

Senator Jensen moved (Whitney seconded) to amend the Barrena amendment by rewording new bullet #3 as follows: "Reinvest faculty productivity gains achieved during the budget year toward professional development in order to enhance the quality and efficiency of the educational experience." And to place it in the first Resolved clause. Senator Barrena requested consent to make the following change: The first line of the bullet would read "Invest in professional development in order " and leave "to enhance the quality and efficiency of the educational experience" as is. There were no objections. Motion carried.

Senator Barrena's amendment, amended to move bullet #3 (with new wording) from the second Resolved clause to the first resolved clause, carried.

AS-2317-96/F&GA motion carried.

AS-2310-96/AA PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE STATE UNIVERSITY

SECOND READING ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL (SUAM) SECTIONS 1502.06,

EXTENSION PROGRAM SERVICE AREA

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the proposed changes to the State University Administrative Manual (SUAM) Section 1502.06 - Extension Program Service Area to accomplish the following:

1. revise the section title and update organizational designations, and

2. remove television, mass media, and/or computer-assisted programs from service area jurisdiction;

and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU extend its appreciation to the CSU Commission on the Extended University for its cooperation in developing these changes.

RATIONALE: Modern technology has rendered the concept of a "service area" virtually meaningless. CSU campuses have no control over technology-based academic programs originated by universities outside the CSU beyond the ability to approve transfer credit. However, as sister institutions in a state system of higher education, CSU campuses should behave in a respectful and collegial fashion when proposing television, mass media, and/or computer-assisted programs that extend beyond traditional service area boundaries.

The changes to SUAM proposed by the CSU Commission on the Extended University reflect both technological realities and traditional norms of intrasystem collegiality.

AS-2310-96/AA motion carried by consent.

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

SECOND 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 4-6 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

AS-2319-96/EX motion carried.

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

SECOND READING TEACHERS TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS AT

THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY REPORT OF

THE INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATION REFORM

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University agree with the broad goals identified in The Teachers Who Teach Our Teachers Report, and we particularly support the following recommendations:

* That effective partnerships with K-12 schools be established, with systematic review and recognition;

* That links between Schools of Education and Liberal Studies majors should be strengthened;

* That the Chancellor, presidents and leadership on campuses publicly promote the active involvement of faculty in the improvement of K-12 schools;

* That the relevant academic evaluation committees should review criteria and procedures for retention, tenure and promotion so appropriate value is given to the active involvement of faculty in K-12 schools;

* That the Teacher Diversity Program be evaluated with the goal of making it more consistent in bringing more minority [sic] teachers into the teaching profession;

* That the Commission on Teacher Credentialing evaluate the application of current law and regulations to ensure the flexibility campuses need to provide early education-related experiences in the undergraduate program;

* That the Commission on Teacher Credentialing repeal add-on courses, such as technology, special education and health, as a condition for receiving a teaching credential in favor of broader outcome standards for teacher preparation;

* That the Commission on Teacher Credentialing should work toward reducing the use of emergency credentials, limiting their duration and requiring recipients to enroll immediately in a credential program; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU oppose those recommendations in the Report that suggest that teacher education graduates be surveyed by a uniform instrument developed at the Chancellor's Office. It is the responsibility of the faculty who develop each CTC-approved teacher education program to evaluate its effectiveness; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU reaffirm its commitment to the principle that responsibility for teacher education should not be limited to faculty in Schools of Education and urge the Chancellor to ensure that partnerships with K-12 include faculty from all disciplines; 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 retention, tenure and promotion decisions. However, the development of standards and criteria for retention, tenure, and promotion are a faculty responsibility exercised through the campus Academic Senates and approved by the Presidents; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to include the Academic Senate CSU in any discussions of proposals to CTC pertaining to reintroduction of an undergraduate major in education or other proposals pertaining to teacher credential programs that emerge from the Institute for Education Reform.

RATIONALE: That the California State University has recognized the importance of the connection between itself and K-12 was evident in the establishment of the Institute for Education Reform. As its first effort, the Institute has reviewed teacher preparation programs in the CSU and issued the report, The Teachers Who Teach Our Teachers. One of the great values of the report is that it can be used to stimulate more discussion of the university-wide responsibility for the preparation of teachers, and promote faculty involvement with K-12.

Senator Barrena moved (Navari seconded) to add a last Resolved clause to read, "That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to include the Academic Senate CSU in any discussions of proposals to the CTC pertaining to reintroduction of an undergraduate major in education or other proposals pertaining to teacher credential programs that emerge from the Institute for Education Reform." Motion carried

Senator Marker moved (Heisch seconded) to change the wording in the second Resolved clause from "have reservations about" to "oppose." Motion carried.

Senator Kaiser moved (Keane seconded) to replace "CSU faculty" by inserting "disciplines" after "that involve all" in the third Resolved clause. There were no objections.

Senator Navari moved to move to the time certain. Motion failed.

Senator Navari moved (Barrena seconded) to postpone until after time certain. Motion failed.

Senator Navari requested that "minority teachers" in fifth bullet of first Resolved clause be changed to "teachers from underrepresented groups." Since this language was taken from the report, the Chair agreed to insert "sic" after "minority." There were no objections.

Senator Barrena moved (Navari seconded) to replace the third Resolved clause as follows: "That the Academic Senate CSU reaffirm its commitment to the principle that responsibility for teacher education should not be limited to faculty in Schools of Education and urge the Chancellor to ensure that partnerships with K-12 include faculty from all disciplines." Motion carried.

AS-2324-96/TEKR motion carried.

9:00 Time Certain: Senator Hammerstrom moved (Kaiser seconded) to move into the Committee of the Whole for a discussion of Productivity. Motion carried.

Senator Charnofsky moved (Marshall seconded) to move out of the Committee of the Whole. Motion carried.

(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 ENDORSEMENT OF PRINCIPLES REGARDING

SECOND READING TECHNOLOGY MEDIATED 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 contributed substantially 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.

Senator Keane moved to remove this item from the consent agenda.

Senator Keane moved (Hammerstrom seconded) to amend the attachment, number 5, by inserting "instructional design support and" between "appropriate" and "technical," and deleting "advice and adequate" before "support." There were no objections.

AS-2321-96/AA/FA motion carried unanimously.

AS-2322-96/AA RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING TECHNOLOGY

SECOND 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 methodology, 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 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 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 academic programs.

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

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

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

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

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

(e) the nature of the interaction appropriate to the accomplishment of learning objectives.

5. The Chancellor should ensure 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 continue his support for faculty professional development, through the Institute for Teaching and Learning, in the implementation and use of technology mediated instruction, and for securing the necessary equipment and facilities for faculty access to technology. Such faculty professional development should include training in pedagogies and student learning styles appropriate to technology, as well as the use of 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 those developed for technology mediated instruction;

and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU forward this resolution to the campus academic senates for consideration and endorsement.

AS-2322-96/AA motion carried unanimously.

AS-2325-96/FA SUNY-CSU FACULTY PRODUCTIVITY DISCUSSION PAPER

ACTION

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University receive the discussion paper, Public Higher Education and the Imperative of Productivity: The Voice of the Faculty; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU thank the members of the Senate who have worked diligently to help frame the debate on this issue; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU receive the attached paper Faculty Productivity and Accountability as a basis for continued discussion of faculty roles and reward systems; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge participants at meetings of the California State University and State University of New York faculty leadership in the summer of 1996 to use the attached paper Faculty Productivity and Accountability as a basis for continued discussion of productivity and related issues.

RATIONALE: The discussion on productivity is a critical one. Members of the Academic Senate CSU have worked with members of the Senate of the State University of New York and the unions for both university systems to help frame this debate in a manner that accurately reflects the reality of the university. In receiving the discussion paper, "Public Higher Education and the Imperative of Productivity: The Voice of the Faculty," we recognize and express our appreciation for this effort.

"Productivity" is increasingly raised as an issue in public higher education. It is important that faculty define productivity in relation to what faculty actually do, rather than merely in terms of such things as decreased costs with constant or increased outputs of student credit hours, or similar quantitative measures. The attached working paper, "Faculty Productivity and Accountability," proposes to frame the issues in such a way that faculty may be evaluated and rewarded more appropriately on the basis of what they accomplish both qualitatively and quantitatively in the course of their work as teachers, scholars, and contributors to both the university and the community and world beyond the academy.

Senator Buck moved (McNeil seconded) the resolution.

Senator Barrena moved (Madison seconded) to combine item 8 (AS-2325) with item 10 (AS-2327), four Resolved clauses, one Rationale. Motion carried.

Senator Barrena moved (Navari seconded) to substitute "adopt" for "receive" in the new third Resolved clause. Motion failed.

The title of item 10 will be the title for the combined item 8 and item 10. There were no objections.

AS-2325-96/FA motion carried without dissent.

AS-2326-96/FA THE USE OF TEMPORARY FACULTY IN FACULTY POSITIONS

ACTION IN THE CSU

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse as guidelines for the use of temporary faculty in faculty positions in the CSU the following recommendations from the 1993 AAUP Report, The Status of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty:

1. That institutions...limit reliance on non-tenure-track faculty; and

2. That institutions limit the use of special appointments and part-time non-tenure-track faculty to no more than 15 percent of the total instruction within the institution, and no more than 25 percent of the total instruction within any given department; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU reaffirm its 1987 and 1991 positions on temporary faculty in the CSU (see AS-1703-86/FA and AS-1977-90/FA attached) and urge local campuses and individual departments to study their current use of temporary faculty in light of these positions and the AAUP guidelines.

RATIONALE: The continuing health of the Academy depends upon its tenured and tenure-track faculty. Tenured and tenure-track faculty are committed to the University beyond current classroom instruction. The University relies on tenured and tenure-track faculty for leadership in program development, the maintenance of academic values, and the mentoring and nurturing of students. The sum of this is the defense over time of high quality in the teaching-learning process.

In 1984, in response to academic concerns about the considerable increase in the number of temporary faculty in faculty positions in the CSU, the Academic Senate of the California State University established a CSU Academic Senate Committee to Study the Educational Implications of the Use of Lecturers in the CSU. The Committee produced a report in 1986, which led the Senate in 1987 to propose policy recommendations on the use of temporary faculty for campus senate adoption. The Senate reaffirmed the recommendations in 1991. (See attachments.)

The conditions which prompted Senate action in 1987 and 1991 obtain in 1996. There are large numbers of temporary faculty in the CSU--6,969 PT and 10,503 FT in Fall 1995, and 6,403 PT and 10,459 FT in Fall 1994--and they are found in more than the replacement, specialty, basic skills/remedial, and applied positions temporary faculty have traditionally held. As the Academic Senate of the California State University observed in 1987, the employment of large numbers of temporary faculty poses serious problems for the quality of education and academic freedom and responsibility. Temporary faculty, for example, are not, nor should they normally be, expected to contribute to advising, curriculum development, and academic governance; an increase in their number, further, dilutes the size and influence of the tenured faculty and undermines the stability of academic freedom and the tenure system. The proposed resolutions offer a means of responding to these problems.

Senator Buck moved (Stanley seconded) the resolution.

Senator Hammerstrom moved (Kaiser seconded) to table the resolution. Motion carried.

AS-2326-96/FA motion tabled.

AS-2328-96/AA THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT FEE POLICY

RESOLVED: That while the Academic Senate of the California State University continue to take no position on the policy of the Board of Trustees to raise student fees to a fixed percentage of the annual cost of education, the Academic Senate CSU, with the exceptions stated below as modifications, endorse the proposed California State University Student Fee Policy which does the following:

1. clearly defines fee categories,

2. delegates limited authority to campus presidents to alter existing campus fees,

3. improves the campus consultative process for adjusting or establishing fees,

4. augments student financial aid for new or increased campus mandatory fees,

5. limits total mandatory fees, and

6. mandates annual Trustees' review of fee levels and ranges;

and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Board of Trustees to approve the proposed California State University Student Fee Policy with the following modifications:

1. That the range of campus differential fees be kept as low as possible and that provision be made in the policy statement Section IV for the consideration of the range of campus mandatory fees as intended in Basic Assumption 3 of the May 14-15, Committee on Finance, agenda item; "Some differential among campus mandatory fee levels is appropriate. However, the range of differential fees should be considered now [emphasis added] and reviewed annually by the board as a significant policy issue."

2. Indicate in Section IV-A, whether systemwide or campus mandatory fees must be reduced in the event that total mandatory fees, at some future date, are projected to exceed one-third of the systemwide cost of education due to an increase in either statewide or campus mandatory fees under this policy;

3. Revise Section III.A.6. as follows: The campus president shall appoint members to the committee excluding the student representatives who shall be appointed by the campus associated students organization. Faculty members shall be appointed consistent with normal campus senate processes for selecting faculty members to serve on similar committees.

4. Revise Section IV. to include an item "C" as follows: A systemwide study at the end of the third year of operation (and every subsequent year) shall be conducted to determine the impact of this policy on student access, equity, affordability and quality;

and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU express its appreciation to the Chancellor and his staff for the effective process of consultation that this policy document reflects.

RATIONALE: The proposed California State University Student Fee Policy includes several key features that should improve the process of setting fees including the following:

1. Fee categories are more clearly defined.

2. The authority to increase, decrease or abolish certain fees is decentralized to campus presidents, allowing campuses, if they choose, to consolidate existing fees. The authority to establish new campus fees is delegated to the Chancellor and the authority to establish or change systemwide mandatory fees is retained by the Board of Trustees.

3. The campus consultation process for adjusting or establishing fees, is improved through the creation of a fee advisory committee with broad representation and the expectation of an advisory student referendum.

4. Consultation on adjusting or establishing fees, and the allocation of fee revenue is further broadened by specific reference to campus academic senates and campus associated students organizations.

5. To mitigate the effects of increases in campus mandatory fees upon access, campuses must provide an amount equivalent to one-third of the revenue from new or increased fees for financial aid programs.

6. Total mandatory fees, systemwide and campus, are limited.

7. The Board of Trustees will annually review the level and range of fees across campuses as a significant policy issue.

The Academic Senate supports these elements of the policy. However, the Academic Senate believes that the policy fails to address significant policy issues.

1. At present, full-time student fees range from $1,700 (San Marcos) to $2,110 (Sonoma) a spread of $410. Thus, students at Sonoma pay over 24 percent more for their education than do the students at San Marcos. The Academic Senate believe that the Board of Trustees should provide firm policy guidance on this significant issue at the inception of this fee policy. The Academic Senate urge that this range of differential fees be kept as low as possible so as to provide equal financial access for all students within a system of predominantly regional universities.

2. The current average full-time student fee ($1,891) is $1,009 less than one-third the current annual cost of education (~$2,900). Given the current mood of the general public, key segments of the state legislature, and constituencies within the CSU, it will likely be many years before total mandatory fees approach one-third the annual cost of education. However, when that occurs, a significant policy issue will arise caused by the division of authority to approve increases in mandatory fees. Should the projected sum of systemwide and campus mandatory fees exceed the one-third annual cost of education limit, which class of fees predominates?

When the one-third cap is reached, even in the distant future, the question will be raised as to the original intent of the Board of Trustees. The Academic Senate believes that the Board should provide guidance on this issue at this time or otherwise state how the issue should be resolved in the future.

3. These amendments seek to ensure an effective faculty voice in setting campus fee policy by securing independent faculty selection by the appropriate senate body.

4. Students, faculty and external constituencies have expressed concern over the potential impact of rising fees on student access. This resolution proposes a mechanism to monitor the actual impact for the purpose of making any necessary corrections to the policy.

Senator Hammerstrom moved (Kaiser seconded) the resolution.

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

Senator Hammerstrom requested consent to make the following change: to delete "level equivalent to one-third" and replace it with "fixed percentage of" in the first Resolved clause. There were no objections.

Senator Hammerstrom moved (Barrena seconded) to transfer from item 18 (AS-2335), sections III.A.6 and IV.C, to become #3 and #4, of the second Resolved clause and part of the Rationale. Motion carried.

Senator Jensen moved (Wort seconded) to transfer from item 18 also section III.A.5., to become #5, of the second Resolved clause. Motion failed.

AS-2328-96/AA motion passed.

Senator Wort moved to withdraw item 18, AS-2335-96/F&GA, since most of it had been transferred to AS-2328-96/AA. There were no objections.

AS-2329-96/AA INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS POLICY STATEMENT

FIRST READING

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University support the role of the Academic Council on International Programs in recommending international program fees and urge ACIP to continue to act in conformance with Section 10-a of the Board of Trustees Policy Statement on CSU International Programs, "The cost to the student shall be the lowest compatible with the requirements of a successful academic program abroad."; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU endorse the proposed amendments to the Trustees' Policy Statement on CSU International Programs and urge the Board of Trustees to approve these proposed amendments with the modification that the proposed new third sentence of Section 10 of the Board of Trustees Policy Statement on CSU International Programs, "The Chancellor shall, with appropriate consultation, 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," include specific consultation with the Academic Council on International Programs; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to interpret the first sentence of Section 10 of the Board of Trustees Policy Statement on CSU International Programs, "The International Programs shall be supported by State funds to the extent that such funds would have been required for comparable students had they continued to study in California." as meaning support equivalent to the system average general fund support per FTES ($5,503 in FY 94-95) and to provide such level of general fund support for International Programs without an associated reduction in current FTES allocation; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to examine the requirement that International Programs rebate to campuses the campus-based mandatory or other miscellaneous fees for the period of time that a student is enrolled in a CSU international program; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor in consultation with the Academic Council on International Programs to establish a schedule of miscellaneous fees as a component of the International Program Fee to cover necessary services, such as the health and student activity requirements of IP students, and to collect, in addition to the academic program fee component, only an amount necessary to cover those services.

RATIONALE: The role of the Academic Council on International Programs is clearly identified in Section 2 of the CSU Board of Trustees' Policy Statement on International Programs as the primary faculty recommending body in matters dealing with CSU international programs. Thus the elaboration of the new third sentence of Section 10 to specifically include consultation with ACIP is consistent with past and present policy.

The Academic Senate believes that the cost and funding principles contained in the CSU Board of Trustees Policy Statement on International Programs, originally passed in 1969 and amended in 1976, remain sound. These principles are:

1. "The cost to the student shall be the lowest compatible with the requirements of a successful academic program abroad" (Section 10-a' first sentence), and

2. "The International Programs shall be supported by State funds to the extent that such funds would have been required for comparable students had they continued to study in California" (Section 10; first sentence).

However, in recent years, International Programs has not received state general funds at a "comparable" level. In FY 1995-96, IP received a general fund allocation of $1,911,577 to support 414.7 FTES, or $4,610 per FTES. Current budget planning for FY 1996-97 allocates $2,059,208 in general funds to support 429 FTES, or $4,800 per FTES. These figures are considerably below the system average general fund support per FTES of $5,503 in FY 94-95. (The FY 95-96 average is likely to be higher.) Indeed, IP is being underfunded in state general fund support for the coming academic year by at least $700 per FTES.

As a result, International Programs has been forced to impose an international program fee which is higher than the average campus fee (State University Fee plus miscellaneous campus fees) of $1,891. The IP fee charged in 1995-96 was $2,750 and the fee planned by 1996-97 is $2,640. The difference between the IP fee and the system average fee ($749) is roughly equal to the deficit in state general fund support ($700).

We believe that this shifting of cost from the general fund to students is not in the spirit of the Trustees' Policy.

Some may argue that CSU International Programs serves a particular cohort of CSU students who can afford the extra cost of studying abroad. It is true that students must provide the costs of their transportation and living expenses in a foreign country. However, these costs vary considerably; Japan is very expensive, Mexico is relatively cheap. It is also true that the majority of students participating in International Programs qualify for and receive some form of financial aid from their home campuses.

The Academic Senate believes that access to CSU International Programs should be as broad as possible. The benefits of an international experience in an educational program can enrich all students regardless of background and prior experience. To withhold comparable state support and impose higher fees upon prospective IP students prejudges access to these valuable programs.

The Academic Senate also believes that students enrolled in International Programs and resident in a foreign country, should not have to pay campus fees for services from which they cannot derive benefit. For example, health services fees cannot benefit students who are physically removed from their home campuses. The Academic Senate believe that these fees should be used instead to provide for the health needs of students at the international centers. Likewise, instructionally related activities fees, and student body center or association fees do not appear to benefit IP students. Where IP provides no analog services for these miscellaneous fees, they should not be collected. Students should pay miscellaneous fees only for the services that they actually receive.

Senator Hammerstrom moved (Spear seconded) the resolution.

Senator Navari moved the agenda.

AS-2330-96/AA SUPPORT FOR EDUCATIONAL EQUITY PROGRAMS IN THE CSU

-OPPOSITION TO THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVE

WHEREAS, The Academic Senate of the California State University is committed to equity of opportunity for access to and success in higher education; and

WHEREAS, Historical, socioeconomic, cultural, and institutional factors contribute to lower matriculation and persistence rates of students from particular racial/ethnic groups and gender representation in selected disciplines; and

WHEREAS, Educational Equity Programs in the California State University attempt to redress inequities in access to and opportunity for success in higher education; and

WHEREAS, Outreach programs that attempt to increase the pool of CSU eligible students from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, that identify and encourage students from these groups to attend college, and that facilitate access are central to the mission of the CSU; and

WHEREAS, Support programs that address income disparities among various racial/ethnic groups and attempt to create an environment that is sensitive to and meets the academic and personal needs of students from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups are necessary to increase the persistence and success of students from these groups; and

WHEREAS, A proposed statewide constitutional amendment by initiative titled, California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) contains a provision that has been interpreted by the Legislative Analyst as applying to educational equity programs in the CSU and if approved, may be enforced in a way that prohibits the CSU from continuing to dedicate efforts to the recruitment and support of students from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups; therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University reaffirm its support for the principles that guide programs to achieve educational equity in the CSU as articulated in Academic Senate CSU resolution AS-2274-95, adopted on March 9-10, 1995 (attached); and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU support the continuation of Educational Equity Programs in the CSU that attempt to address the specific needs of students from underrepresented groups; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU oppose the proposed state constitutional amendment by initiative titled, California Civil Rights Initiative because of the potential for its interpretation and application to perpetuate limited access to higher education of persons from specific racial/ethnic groups; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the campus senates to consider and endorse this resolution.

Senator 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.

AS-2330-96/AA motion carried unanimously.

AS-2331-96/AA SUPPORT FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF EXPERIMENT ON

COLLEGE PREPARATORY COURSE REQUIREMENTS

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University support the recommendation of the Admissions Advisory Council that the Chancellor authorize a one-year extension of the current three-year trial period during which students who lack the CSU visual and performing arts requirement, but are fully qualified for entry as freshmen to the University of California, would be admitted to the California State University. (The one-year extension would carry through students admitted for the 1998-99 academic year.)

RATIONALE: On January 19-20, 1995, the Academic Senate CSU approved AS-2244-95/AA Support for Continuation of Experiment on College Preparatory Course Requirements, which supported "the recommendation of the Admissions Advisory Council that the Chancellor `Authorize all CSU campuses to admit the 1995-96 academic year through the 1997-98 academic year applicants completing either the CSU or the UC College preparatory course requirements while discussion within the CSU and between CSU and UC are conducted.' "

Discussions with the UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) proved unsuccessful in securing its agreement to include the CSU's visual and performing arts requirement within the UC preparatory course requirements.

At its March meeting, the Admissions Advisory Council agreed to pursue an effort to secure the cooperation of the UC to join with the CSU in adopting a common preparatory course requirement pattern of 15 units to include visual and performing arts. Such an effort would require time to develop and implement, and could adversely affect freshmen entering in the 1998-99 academic year when the current admissions experiment is scheduled to end. Thus a one-year extension is reasonable and appropriate.

Senator Hammerstrom moved (Franklin seconded) the resolution.

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

AS-2331-96/AA motion carried without dissent.

AS-2332-96/AA/TEKR SUPPORT FOR THE "TRANSITIONS PROJECT" AS AN

ADMISSIONS EXPERIMENT

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University support the recommendation of the Admissions Advisory Council that the Chancellor approve the "Transitions Project" as an admissions experiment so that students applying to the CSU may be considered for admission even though their high school records will not include the usual evaluations of their work; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to collect data during the course of the experiment that will allow evaluation of the impact of this experiment on the progress and success of the students admitted to the university under this project.

RATIONALE: The Transitions Project is funded by the California Department of Education through the California Center for School Restructuring (CCSR). The project has, since 1993, engaged secondary schools and public higher education (UC and CSU) in understanding ways in which school reform and restructuring might influence university admissions policies and practices. The project currently involves six restructuring pilot high schools that are engaged in a joint development and research effort with the CCSR, UC, CSU, California Department of Education - High School Education Office, Educational Testing Service, College Board, and Bay Area Region Coalition of Essential Schools.

The pilot high schools will be expected to define and apply a set of high school learning outcomes compatible with the CSU (and UC) definitions of readiness for university-level work and to develop examples of reporting systems and transcripts.

Senator Hammerstrom moved (Franklin seconded) the resolution.

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

AS-2332-96/AA/TEKR motion carried unanimously.

AS-2333-96/AA SUPPORT FOR THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT-

FRIENDLY SERVICES THROUGH TECHNOLOGY, PROPOSED

ELECTRONIC OUTREACH, ADMISSION APPLICATION, AND

FINANCIAL AID SERVICES

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the report of the Committee on Student-Friendly Services Through Technology, Proposed Electronic Outreach, Admission Application, and Financial Aid Services.

RATIONALE: The rapid growth of electronic computer-communication networks such as the Internet and the World Wide Web has created new ways in which postsecondary higher education can provide information to students and prospective students, and ways in which students and prospective students can complete routine transactions with their university.

Under the overall direction of the Commission on Institutional Management and Information Technology (CIMIT) and the Admissions Advisory Council, the Committee on Student-Friendly Services Through Technology (CSSTT) is working to develop a computer-supported outreach, admissions application, and financial aid system that would have the following characteristics designed to focus on the prospective student as a client and to continue a strong campus-based emphasis. It would be composed of two major characteristics:

1. development of a statewide system encompassing information dissemination and marketing which would include (a) initial exploration/information collection, (b) preadmission information, and (c) admission application; and

2. development of a standard to be met by CSU campus-specific processes for performing the admission decision/notification and registration/enrollment functions.

The proposed electronic outreach, admission application, and financial aid services system will provide an alternative means of access to postsecondary education. The proposal is an option to balance high tech and high touch. It will not, for example, replace face-to-face, on-site admission workshops. CSU's goal is to provide as many points of entry into the process as possible, from paper options to electronic and high touch approaches.

Senator Hammerstrom moved (Kaiser seconded) the resolution.

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

AS-2333-96/AA motion carried unanimously.

AS-2336-96/FA REVIEW OF CAMPUS PERFORMANCE SALARY STEP

INCREASE POLICIES

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University receive and distribute through normal channels to local campus senates the attached draft paper, "Discovering Faculty Merit: A Review of Criteria, Standards and Processes for the Award of Performance Salary Step Increases in the California State University."

RATIONALE: The Unit 3 (faculty) Memorandum of Understanding asks California State University campuses to establish local policies for Performance Salary Step [pay] Increases (PSSIs). This review may assist campus senates as they seek to propose amendments or reformulations for their local policies following the first-ever local campus processes for awarding PSSIs which took place in Spring 1996.

Senator Buck moved (Whitney seconded) the resolution.

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

AS-2336-96/FA motion carried unanimously.

AS-2337-96/AA SUPPORT FOR DRAFT EXECUTIVE ORDER ON DETERMINATION

OF COMPETENCE IN ENGLISH AND MATHEMATICS

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the draft executive order on Determination of Competence in English and Mathematics that:

1. requires campuses to assess entering freshmen who are not exempt from testing, prior to first-time enrollment,

2. requires that students who do not place into a baccalaureate level course in English and/or mathematics enroll in appropriate remedial or developmental activities during their first term of enrollment, and

and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic CSU urge the systemwide remediation implementation advisory committee, to consider the following modifications to the draft executive order on Determination of Competence in English and Mathematics, which would ensure that students who have taken ELM and have successfully completed the campus approved mathematics program activities that demonstrate competence in intermediate algebra, should not be required to retake ELM prior to enrollment in courses that satisfied GE Breadth requirements in quantitative reasoning unless the lapsed time exceeds campus specified time limits.

1. Revise Section I,B,3,c. as follows: "Taking the ELM examination and, in the event of not passing it, demonstrating competence in intermediate algebra by passing campus-approved mathematics programs/activities and/ or by retaking and passing the ELM examination."

2. Revise Section I,B,5. as follows: "Campuses may establish time limits for the applicability of ELM scores and mathematics course grades to eligibility for enrollment in specified coursework as determined locally. In cases where the time limit has been exceeded, each campus may require at local option that a student pass the ELM examination through earning the competency score set by the ELM Development Committee prior to entry into a course which satisfies the General Education-Breadth requirement in quantitative reasoning. Campuses may also establish time limits for the applicability of ELM scores and mathematics course grades to eligibility for enrollment in specified coursework as determined locally."

and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the CSU endorse existing Trustee policy that permits only admission of those junior and senior transfer students who have completed GE requirements in English and mathematics, and recommend that this policy be included in the new executive order on Determination of Competence in English and Mathematics; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge the systemwide remediation implementation advisory committee to consider the following:

1. Postponement of implementation of the new executive order on Determination of Competence in English and Mathematics to Fall 1997, including provisions applicable to junior and senior transfer students to allow sufficient time for communication with high schools and community colleges.

2. Development of implementation plans to address the cost implication of administration of ELM and EPT on a more frequent basis.

3. Development of implementation plans for addressing the enrollment impact of the proposed changes in the new executive order, including Fall/Spring enrollment differentials, increased demand for remedial courses, and declines in upper division transfer enrollments.

Senator Hammerstrom moved (Spear seconded) the resolution.

* * * * *

The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. on Friday, May 10, 1996.

* * * * *

Approved (or corrected)

Date:________________________ _______________________________

James M. Highsmith, Chair

_______________________________

Hal Charnofsky, Secretary

________________________________

Margaret Price, Recording Secretary

ACADEMIC SENATE

of

THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

400 Golden Shore, Suite 132 Long Beach, California 90802-4275

310-985-2613

MINUTES

ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE 1996-97 ACADEMIC SENATE

CSU HEADQUARTERS

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

May 10, 1996

CALL TO ORDER: The organizational meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, May 10, 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) Vincent Buck, Albert Flores, Barry Pasternack; (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; (Monterey Bay) J. Ken Nishita; (Northridge) Roberta Madison*, Elliot McIntire, Gerald Resendez; (Pomona) Peter Clark, Edward Fonda, Rochelle Kellner; (Sacramento) Cristy Jensen, Sylvia Navari, Louise Timmer; (San Bernardino) Walter Oliver, J. Paul Vicknair; (San Diego) David DuFault, Annette Easton, Dan Whitney; (San Francisco) Hollis Matson*, Gary Hammerstrom, Kenneth Monteiro; (San Jose) Allison Heisch, David McNeil; (San Luis Obispo) Reginald Gooden, Tom Hale, Timothy Kersten; (San Marcos) Edward Thompson III; (Sonoma) Robert Girling; (Stanislaus) Richard Levering, Thomas Young.

Senator Hammerstrom moved (Matson seconded) the agenda. Senator Hammerstrom requested the addition of an item #6 "Committee Recommendations" to include two first reading items: "AS-2329-96/AA International Programs Policy Statement; and

AS-2337-96/AA Support for Draft Executive Order on Determination of Competence in English and Mathematics. "

Senator Hammerstrom requested that debate on these items be withheld until they are covered on the 1995-96 meeting agenda. There were no objections.

The agenda was approved.

INTRODUCTION AND SEATING OF NEW SENATORS:

CSU Bakersfield Jacquelyn Kegley, Professor of Philosophy, had been reelected.

CSU Chico Paul Spear, Professor of Psychology, had been reelected.

Dominguez Hills Dick Williams, Professor of Computer Science, had been reelected.

Fresno Jacinta Amaral, Professor of Foreign Languages and Literatures, had been reelected.

Fullerton Barry Pasternack, Professor of Management Science/Information Systems, had been elected.

Hayward Judy Stanley, Professor of History, had been reelected.

Humboldt State University Marshelle Thobaben, Professor of Nursing, had been reelected.

CSU Long Beach Gene Dinielli, Professor of English, had been reelected.

CSU Los Angeles Dorothy Keane, Professor of Education, had been reelected.

California Maritime Ralph Davis, Professor of Engineering, had been elected.

Monterey Bay J. Ken Nishita, Professor of Psychology, had been elected.

CSU Northridge Mary Lee Sparling, Professor of Biology, had been elected.

Cal Poly Pomona Rochelle Kellner, Professor of Accounting, had been reelected.

CSU Sacramento Louise Timmer, Professor of Nursing, had been elected.

San Bernardino Paul Vicknair, Professor of Mathematics, had been reelected.

Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Reginald Gooden, Professor of Political Science, had been reelected.

San Marcos Edward Thompson, Professor of Political Science, had been reelected.

George Diehr, Professor of Business, had been elected.

During the course of the meeting, the following resolutions of commendation were introduced and approved by acclamation.

AS-2338-96/TEKR Celia Adams

AS-2339-96/San Marcos Delegation Terry Allison

AS-2340-96/Sacramento Delegation Juanita Barrena

AS-2341-96/Fullerton Delegation Keith Boyum

AS-2342-96/TEKR Linda Larson

AS-2343-96/Northridge Delegation Roberta Madison

AS-2344-96/San Jose Delegation Robert Milnes

AS-2345-96/San Diego Delegation Francis Stites

ELECTION OF OFFICERS:

CHAIR James Highsmith Professor of Finance and

Business Law

CSU Fresno

VICE CHAIR Marshelle Thobaben Professor of Nursing

Humboldt State University

SECRETARY Hal Charnofsky Professor of Sociology

CSU Dominguez Hills

MEMBER-AT-LARGE Gene Dinielli Professor of English

CSU Long Beach

MEMBER-AT-LARGE Gary Hammerstrom Professor of Computer Information Systems

San Francisco State University

PAST CHAIR Harold Goldwhite Professor of Chemistry

CSU Los Angeles

Please note that the above officers together with the Immediate Past Chair, ex officio, constitute the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate of the California State University.

ADJOURNMENT:

The elections concluded the organizational meeting of the 1996-97 Academic Senate.

Approved (or corrected)

Date:________________________ _______________________________

James M. Highsmith, Chair

_______________________________

Hal Charnofsky, Secretary

________________________________

Margaret Price, Recording Secretary