Academic Senate of the California State University
MINUTES

Meeting of September 4-5-6, 1996
CSU Headquarters, Long Beach, CA

 

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 10:20 a.m. on Friday, September 6, 1996, by Chair James Highsmith.

ROLL CALL: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield) Ernie Page; (Chico) Kathleen Kaiser, James Postma, Paul Spear; (Dominguez Hills) Hal Charnofsky; (Fresno) James Highsmith, Lester Pincu; (Fullerton) Vincent Buck, Barry Pasternack; (Hayward) Judith Stanley; (Humboldt) Elmo Moore, Marshelle Thobaben; (Long Beach) Gene Dinielli, Barbara Franklin; (Los Angeles) Harold Goldwhite, Dorothy Keane; (Maritime Academy) Ralph Davis; (Monterey Bay) J. Ken Nishita; (Northridge) Elliot McIntire, Gerald Resendez, Mary Lee Sparling; (Pomona) Peter Clark, Edward Fonda, Donna Tillman*; (Sacramento) Cristy Jensen, Sylvia Navari, Louise Timmer; (San Bernardino) Walter Oliver, J. Paul Vicknair; (San Diego) David DuFault, Annette Easton, Dan Whitney; (San Francisco) Robert Cherny, Gary Hammerstrom, Susan Sandri*; (San Jose) Allison Heisch, David McNeil; (San Luis Obispo) Reginald Gooden, Timothy Kersten; (San Marcos); (Sonoma); (Stanislaus) Richard Levering, Thomas Young; (Chancellor's Office) Charles Lindahl.

INTRODUCTIONS

During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:

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

Allison Jones, Senior Director, Access and Retention

Leonard Mathy, Professor Emeritus, Emeritus and Retired Faculty Association

representative to the Academic Senate

Frank Medeiros, Special Academic Consultant, Academic Affairs

Eric Mitchell, Senate Cornerstones Project Coordinator

Donald Moore, Consultant, Association of California State University Professors

Joy Moore, San Marcos, California State Student Association Liaison

Richard Sutter, Director, International Programs

Also present were:

William Dermody, Special Assistant to the Chancellor

Christine Helwick, General Counsel

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, September 5, 1996

4:00 p.m. Molly Broad, Executive Vice Chancellor

Friday, September 6, 1996

11:00 a.m. Barry Munitz, Chancellor

REPORT OF CHAIR JAMES HIGHSMITH

I would like to take a moment to recognize the loss of our three colleagues at San Diego State and many other colleagues who have died during the summer by having a moment of silence. Thank you.

It was the privilege of most of the Executive Committee to be able to go to the Memorial service yesterday at San Diego State. It was good to be there to share with the students and staff and faculty and administration of San Diego their feelings about the loss of their colleagues and their determination to continue the work of education that those colleagues were so dedicated to. I'm sure that throughout the system we've lost colleagues during the summer where we feel a profound sense of loss as well. I've asked Debbie to distribute to you information about the memorial funds that have been established for the families and in the names of the professors at San Diego. Dave DuFault is here and he has been more intimately involved in those discussions than I have so if I make any errors I'll let David correct me later. But I did send out an announcement to the faculty of the system through the campus senate chairs that there was a fund that could be contributed to. I'm sure they've received donations to that fund. Since the establishment of a general fund, there have been three separate funds set up for the three families and that information will be out if you haven't gotten it already. The notion of the one fund was that part or all of it would be divided according to the wishes of the three families, perhaps to establish scholarship funds in the names of the three professors. The three individual funds are set up according to the wishes of the families as well. The Senate has sent a donation from all our hospitality funds of $350 to the general fund and if you wish to make individual donations you might want to consider sending them to the individual funds. I'm sure a number of us will be doing that but I wanted you to be aware that through the general support you provide to the hospitality fund we have sent a donation in the name of the Senate on behalf of the faculty of the system. Yes, please David.

David DuFault: I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Senate Executive Committee for their caring, and their sensitivity to what happened at San Diego State. I especially would like to thank Jim Highsmith who, from the very first when I first phoned him to tell him of some of the particulars of what had happened, was sympathetic, caring and acted very quickly, and I think, thanks in part to Jim, we have now a fee waiver program for dependents and spouses of people who are killed in the line of duty on all the campuses. That, of course, was written specifically for the three families but now to everyone. So that was a bit of real quick work on Jim's part and on the part of the CSU and I thank him.

JH: You're welcome, but it certainly wasn't my effort. It was suggested by a faculty member at your campus and you passed it on to me. I just became an intermediary. I was able to work very quickly with the Chancellor who thought it was a good idea to see that something got done quickly and you should have a copy by the time this meeting is over (if you don't have already) of that Executive Order. Technically it has to go to the Trustees at the meeting next week but I doubt that there will be any opposition to the order that has already been sent to the Presidents. It does cover education for surviving spouses at our campuses and for any dependent under the age of 23; or over 23, if they have disabilities at the time of death of an employee. It covers them for education till age 27, fee waivers in any program in our system, graduate or undergraduate. So I think that is a significant benefit for families where such a tragedy occurs. Let's hope that it doesn't have to be employed too many times but when it's needed I think it's good that we have that. And I appreciate the Chancellor's quick action in recognizing that this kind of thing is a humane and proper thing to be doing under those circumstances. Maybe it will help bring us a little closer together in the face of such tragedies.

I would like to begin the Fall Report and the events of the summer by letting you know about some personnel changes you are probably mostly aware of by now. Peter Hoff has left the position of Senior Vice Chancellor as of September 1. He will be senior advisor to the Chancellor and will devote his energies to the Cornerstones Project and related planning activities. Most importantly, he's going to be providing his substantial mental energies to the work of Task Force #1 that I chair dealing with issues related to Learning for the 21st Century. Dr. Charles Lindahl will serve as Interim Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs until a permanent appointment is named following a search. A search committee has been identified; included on the search committee are myself, Marshelle Thobaben, Vice Chair of the Senate seated to my left, and Bernie Goldstein, Faculty Trustee, also sitting on my left. Included on that committee are Barry Munitz, Chancellor; Bill Stacy, President of CSU San Marcos; Jill Murphy from Academic Affairs; three trustees including Bernie--Denny Campbell and Ralph Pesqueira, and Vice President Farrish from Sonoma State. So it will be a relatively small group but it has three faculty. The first meeting of the search committee will be at 8 next Wednesday morning following a discussion that the Trustees will have about the process. They have not had a meeting since Peter resigned, of course, so we're looking forward to giving some direction to that search process that will begin next week.

Also Patrick McDonough, who was Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs has resigned his position. Harold Goldwhite has been named Faculty Director of the Institute for Teaching and Learning for the next two years and I'm very pleased that such a distinguished faculty member is taking the leadership of ITL. I've asked Harold, since he is the faculty director in a faculty position, to continue to serve on the Senate Executive Committee during this coming year as immediate past chair. He'll also continue on the Cornerstones Project and on CLRIT as one of our faculty representatives. I think it's propitious that we have a director of ITL who is a faculty member who is also a voting member of the Commission on Learning Resources and Intellectual Technology. That can only be advantageous in interweaving the activities throughout the system that relate to teaching and learning. I hope you will welcome Chuck and Harold to their new positions when you have an opportunity to do that. I've had a chance to discuss with them their positive views regarding the integration of the work of Academic Affairs and the Academic Senate and I'm looking forward to working with them during this coming year. It is not my expectation, although things can change, that we will have a permanent appointee for Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs during the coming year. It is likely that Chuck will serve as interim for the academic year. I think we can look forward to some close relations between Academic Affairs and the Senate.

I mentioned that Patrick McDonough left his position, I want to share some other changes: David Sundstrom left the position of University Auditor to become Internal Auditor for Orange County and there is a search process for the University Auditor that is underway; Bernie Goldstein serves on that committee. The Academic Affairs staff will be supplemented by Bill Wilson, who is Dean of Education at CSU Dominguez Hills, to lead the system's K-3 efforts, and by Frank Medeiros, who has been at the San Diego State campus and is now at the Imperial Valley campus of San Diego State, who will be coming on a half-time basis to the Chancellor's Office. It is my understanding that he will be here Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday each week. He will serve as liaison to the Faculty Affairs Committee. Lorie Roth is going to serve as liaison to the Academic Affairs Committee. Allison Jones will serve as liaison from Academic Affairs to Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Cheryl Lampe and Bill Wilson will serve as liaison from Academic Affairs to the Teacher Education and K-12 Relations Committee. In addition, of course, Fiscal and Governmental Affairs will be getting Richard West, Brad Wells and whoever else they need to deal with the budget issues.

Let me take a moment to talk about the technology commissions and the technology issues that have percolated over the summer. The commissions, you may remember, are CLRIT, CTI--dealing with telecommunications, and CIMIT--dealing with management issues and technology. Joining Marshelle and Harold on CLRIT will be myself and Walt Oliver for this coming year. I have been serving on both CTI and CIMIT and I'm going to turn over the reigns of that responsibility to other senators. Annette Easton has agreed to serve as our commissioner on the Commission for Telecommunication Infrastructure. Gary Hammerstrom will replace me on Commission on Institutional Management and Information Technology. Paul Spear and Dorothy Keane have been serving with distinction on CLRIT and will continue to help us with technology issues. Paul will continue with the SUNY-CUNY-CSU efforts as they evolve and Dorothy will have a special commission because she is working with a group called Academic Information Resources Council in this coming year. Dan Whitney is also on AIRC and is our Web Master--he is the one who put up our web site and will be working with Eric Mitchell, who put up the web site with Jill Murphy for Cornerstones.

The Information Technology Strategic Initiative has yielded a whole set of activities that fall under these three commissions. Some of the activities are under CLRIT and I'm trying to provide information to you as I get it on the evolution of those initiatives. It's going to be important to us to be involved along with ITL and how those initiatives play out so that the work of the campuses in teaching students is benefited. In this process of developing initiatives, a lot of it has pulled people together from the campuses and has been a centralized process of identifying and working on the initial drafts. Now is the point at which things need to be pushed out to the campuses so that the campuses can achieve some ownership of what is going on and they can do what they need to do to make this happen for teachers and for students. CLRIT's responsibility during this next year, I think, will be to make sure that those initiatives, especially the ones dealing with teaching and learning and centers for faculty development, actually assure that that occurs. We have been called together over the summer, a number of us, to try to figure out how those initiatives bring campus people into them and get owned at the campus level. There is a process right now of planning a convocation for the end of October of people from the campuses so that their concerns might be known and we might integrate what we have thought at the system level with what actually needs to be done at the campus level. I wanted you to be aware that this is an evolving process and there will be opportunities for campus folks who have been intimately involved with these issues on their own campuses to find out what is being done at the central level and whether and how it will connect work and allow things to happen on the campus for each of us.

There's been another technology development over the summer: Executive Vice Chancellor Broad called together a group which she calls the Virtual University Design Team to begin thinking about what CSU's role would be in creating a virtual university in California or in creating one for ourselves. I was asked to serve on that group as was Walt Oliver. We had our first meeting in August. There were a number of conclusions drawn but I would say at this point the design team is at the rough sketch stage. It hasn't gotten anywhere close to a design yet. What was discussed was who this thing might serve, how it might be created, how it would be connected to the campuses. I'm using the word might purposefully, because we're at the sketch stage, people are going to be proposing possibilities. I will tell you that the group, and we'll get the full membership of the group to you, came to some initial conclusions that will probably be tested in future meetings and some of the initial conclusions are that this thing called the virtual university, whatever it is, should be a front door for people to come in to what our campuses already do and are going to be doing. It should not be an entity that provides a degree itself but provides a way for students to connect with our campuses or with joint campus efforts--programs that many or a group of campuses want to put together, that initially will serve people not seeking a baccalaureate. That is to say, we should probably target an audience that is not the student who is trying to complete a baccalaureate degree but rather people who have already completed a baccalaureate degree and are seeking further work, who are seeking a credential, a master's degree, specialized curriculum, or people who are out in the work force, whether they have a bachelor's degree or not, who are seeking specialized preparation of one kind or another. That does not mean that it has to be highly technical, but it does mean that the main thrust of initial efforts would be to provide the kind of things that perhaps Extended Education is doing now. That, I guess, builds on the first point that this should be a way for people to find out what the campuses are doing and to connect them with campus or joint campus efforts. Those conclusions are not necessarily the ones that will be immutable, but that's where the group began. It also began talking about the notion of the entity that probably should be owned by the campuses--not be something out on its own but rather something that every campus has a share of. There are a couple of people drafting a paper on how we might organize this thing. Also some people are talking about how we might serve students, what student services would be available to people who come in the door that way, what market there might be for doing such a thing and what quality assurances we might have in place. Those were the initial four draft assignments which have not been completed as yet. Walter Oliver is on the team that is doing two of those and I'm on a team working on the other two, so there is a faculty member that is connecting with each of those four activities. Our next meeting is scheduled for September.

The Board of Trustees also has an ad hoc committee or group on technology issues chaired by Ted Saenger; also serving, Bernie Goldstein, Ali Razi and Stanley Wang. They are getting very good briefings and I'll get them to you so that you are kept up to date about what the Trustees are hearing and what the latest thinking is about technology issues. Because there are so many things going on that relate to technology and because of our earlier efforts along these lines with the task force that was chaired by Dorothy Keane, with distinction, I might add, and because we have been so concerned about these issues for many years, I recommended to the Executive Committee that we create a special group--not a standing committee--that will bring together senators and non-senators who are dealing with technology issues to be an information coordinating body so that we can share information with one another about what is happening on the commissions, virtual university discussions, the ITSI process, ITL, all spheres that relate to teaching and learning or academic and educational issues with regard to technology. The membership of that group will not be exclusive. It will be anyone involved in those groups plus we will try to pull in people from the campuses who have special expertise and can help us. We'll try to meet in conjunction with the Senate meetings and anything substantive that comes out of those information sharing meetings will then go to the standing committees. The group will not be a group that replicates standing committee business but will be a way of channeling information and getting information more widely shared. We've asked Gary Hammerstrom to convene that group and chair it. We don't have a name yet; we have some suggestions. Gary suggested that it be the Education Technology Clearinghouse (ETC). Gary will be happy to collect any suggestions. More importantly, we need to have people who are involved in these various discussions meeting with one another so that we do not lose track of things that are happening and that proper input occurs to the process of incorporating technology into the university.

The budget is relatively good in the scheme of things, not only the system's budget, but the Senate's budget. We have been given $100,000 through API to carry on with discussions with regard to the baccalaureate. It allows us to have longer meetings, bring in people who are not on standing committees, have special meetings if needed by smaller groups, employ faculty if we need them to do special tasks. If we need student or graduate assistants we have funds. Also funds are available to send people to some national meetings to talk about our work later in the year as things to progress. What I want you to be aware of is, we are not floating in dough but we are not at the point where we can't do what we need to do. If there is something you need to do in this process regarding the baccalaureate, then you just need to let us know, because we will make it happen. If we do not have enough funds to achieve what we need to achieve, we'll look for more. On the state budget issues, you're all aware of the compact, and that the compact funds have come to us. We've also gotten a few additional amounts of money. Some are one-time monies, some are continuing, but overall we've achieved, I would say, significantly more than the compact 4% in the general budget. How that plays out at your campus is anybody's guess and certainly mine, but the system is doing all right.

Our Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations has been looking at the efforts of the Presidents to put together a group and subgroups to deal with various issues and I'm sure they're going to come forward with resolutions or a set of resolutions dealing with that. You may remember that the Presidents at the behest of the Chancellor put together a small group chaired by Bob Maxson to look at K-12 issues--it's now being called K-18 issues. That group has created a mission statement and has decided it needs three subcommittees: Curriculum/ Standards/Assessment; Rewards and Resources; and Marketing/Collaboration which deals with market share of people seeking a credential that the CSU is achieving at this time, significantly lower than what it has historically. Those three committees will have faculty on them. I have had a discussion with President Maxson about appointing to those subcommittees, but more importantly the work of those committees will culminate in a report that will go to the Chancellor. What those committees will decide, at what level of generality or specificity, I cannot predict. But I've made it clear to Bob that the statewide Academic Senate has a role in whatever comes out of that group in looking at the recommendations and in providing not only a view but also some comment to the campuses. Most of what you and I probably imagine needs to be done with regard to teacher education is going to occur at the campus level. We have people who are very cognizant about the processes at the campus dealing with curriculum, assessment, standards, rewards (like the RTP process). It is somewhat unclear what the group will do but if they do bring some focus to those issues which the Senate for a decade, probably, has been concerned about (the all university response for teacher education), it may be beneficial for us. We certainly will be involved in their discussions through our representatives. I imagine that we will also be asking that the Teacher Education Committee be advisor or advisory to that group and subcommittees.

Accountability issues have also been bubbling over the summer. A number of you know that there was a group of people that included a number of Chancellor Office folks, Tom Young and I developing a first-year accountability report to try to address not only some statutory requirements but, more importantly, some general questions that are being asked in public policy arenas. That first year report focused more on things we could measure, on demographic issues. The hope of the group was that the report in future years might go beyond merely measuring how quickly people move through the university, how many degrees we award, and the demographics, and move to a more essay-type discussion of the kinds of things that would go on at the campus regarding assessment and quality that might not be measurable by a single set of numbers. In addition to an expectation that in future years the accountability report of the system would include more things, the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) has now put together a group of people dealing with accountability and they are struggling with how they can help the systems address these issues. The first meeting I would characterize as a sharing meeting and an attempt for CPEC staff to get a sense of where, not only the CSU, Community College, and UC, but also the independent colleges and vocational schools were willing to go and what areas they were willing to discuss. We made some suggestions to CPEC staff that they might actually be able to do some things that would be helpful to us with regard to accountability, especially looking around the country at various activities that are going on with regard to learning outcomes and assessment, doing an environmental scan, try to assist in the kinds of things we're trying to learn about that other campuses are doing. It's not clear to me that the CPEC staff has a real direction yet and we need to be helping them to be helpful to us as opposed to being only responsive to the legislature or to their concerns.

Issues before the Board: The Senate Constitution was not heard at a second reading in July; there was no meeting of the Educational Policy Committee. Instead there was a special meeting just last month in August. So that item was carried over to September. It is now on the consent agenda for the September meeting of the Ed Policy Committee. I expect it will be passed. Upon its approval by the Board, it will take effect immediately, so we will be sending out a notice but all the campuses, I believe, have complied with the membership requirements of the new constitution so there is nothing that we will have to do immediately to comply. There will be limitations and adjustments that will have to be made in the future as the system grows. I'm not expecting other issues to be raised. That's not to say they might not, but I'm not expecting them.

A number of you may have heard over the summer that the Summer Arts Program did not go as well this summer as it has in the past. A number of faculty have sent me letters or called me concerning the administration of that program: administrative detail as well as quite a few concerns about the faculty input into the process of course selection, actual events being coordinated. There is action to try to correct the problems and save the program. In my view, we should not lose such a gem. Peter Hoff began a review of the program administration and the program in the summer, headed up by Lorie Roth. That process is under way so if you do hear from colleagues that they have concerns about summer arts, I think you should let them know that those issues are being addressed. If they wish to provide us with information, they are more than welcome to. They probably should direct it through the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, but it's always nice to get copies of those letters so that the Senate is informed as well.

AAHE is going to hold a Role and Rewards National Conference in San Diego in January. The CSU committed earlier in the year to hosting a preconference, a half-day before that January meeting. ITL, through the directorship of Harold Goldwhite and Lorie Roth from Academic Affairs are going to be working on the program for that preconference. We had thought that it might be useful to continue the discussion of some of the topics that were discussed in the CSU-SUNY meeting. A lot of those issues are things that we have a continuing interest in and that the Faculty Affairs Committee certainly has continuing interest in. It's very likely that we will have the opportunity to continue some of those discussions there with a broader group of CSU faculty. I understand that the Academic Vice Presidents had committed in some way to supporting the preconference when this was discussed with Dr. Hoff earlier at a Vice Presidents' meeting. I would anticipate that there would be teams or groups of people from campuses going to the AAHE Role and Rewards meeting and certainly involved in that preconference. I've distributed to a couple of the committee chairs a redraft of the productivity document that we saw last year that the CSU-SUNY group developed. Bruce Johnstone had agreed after the meeting to do a redraft that then the leaders of the organizations might look at and work on. He was going to do that in July but it didn't happen. I just received the draft so we have not had time to digest it. I haven't talked to the SUNY leaders yet about the draft. I have talked to Bruce and told him we would be examining the draft to see where we go from here and be getting back to him. I talked to Tom Young about his CFA role and he and I agreed that we need to get together with the SUNY folks to talk about it before we go further. It's just information. There's nothing the Senate needs to do at this point with it.

We have started a set of presentations to the Ed Policy Committee of faculty around the system who have extraordinary things to present to the Board. That started last year with Geoffrey Marcy presenting his new discovery of new planets, followed by an SLO professor, Raul Cano, who talked about his discoveries of DNA in amber that may have spawned the notion to create the novel, Jurassic Park, and the movie. There was no meeting in July of Ed Policy but in September, Eric Hickey from the Fresno campus will be talking about his profiling of serial criminals. He was involved in the Unabomber task force and has a well received book on serial crime. It is sad to say that in our state of the world that's probably something we should be talking about--that we are making efforts to deal with that even at the university level. There will be other presentations to the Board and I hope you will provide suggestions to me from your campuses of key faculty or faculty groups that the Trustees should hear from and have the opportunity to question. They have been very impressed with the presentations so far and I think it can only do us good to have the Trustees see how our faculty are engaged in things that are extremely relevant and how they connect with students. What impressed me the most about the two presentations I've seen so far is how involved the professors have made students with their work and how much the students are getting from this. It's wonderful, in the last two cases, that a lot of scientific information is being developed which stretches our minds and imaginations about the possible. It is fascinating to see that when you have faculty engaged in that way that they involve students and that's an important thing for the Trustees to have examples of. If you have suggestions for us as we develop the list of people who might go before the board, I hope you'll provide those to us.

Bernie Goldstein: This is a project that Jim came up with beginning of last year and it turns out that the presentations are a highlight of the Board meeting--which tells you something about the Board meeting--because these are excellent presentations. The faculty members get standing ovations, Trustees and Chancellor really have an opportunity to question our colleagues and so on and look at what's going on in our excellent system. We need people from the humanities, we need people from music, art, to come and present to the Board. So I urge you all with Jim, make some recommendations from your campuses and eventually we'll get those faculty members there to present, and again, this is one of the best things that we do.

JH: You'll remember that last year we appointed three people to a task force dealing with developing K-12 standards in English language arts and three people to a similar task force dealing with mathematics. Those task forces have been at work all year, even during the summer. They've come up with their recommendations. I think they're now all in draft form and will be coming--I think they went to the Round Table today. Then they'll be going to the Intersegmental Coordinating Committee (ICC) of the Round Table. And following that, they'll be going to the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates, the ICAS group that has senate leaders from Community College, UC, and our Executive Committee from our Senate. I have the honor of chairing that group this year and at our first meeting on September 26, we'll be looking at those drafts and distributing them out to the three senates to examine. While we're looking at those standards for our comments, there will be public hearings on them. Then at the end of the Fall, the comments will be taken and if any redrafting needs to be done, that will be done and then it will go back to the Round Table. I just wanted to give you a heads up, those things will be coming. They're key in a very large plan to try to get better preparation for students coming to the CSU. I hope you will give them special attention if you're on one of the committees that's dealing with those issues.

The ICAS group working on the math competency statement has completed their draft and forwarded it to Janis Perry as Chair during the summer and we will be talking about it at the September 26 meeting. It will probably come to the Senate as well unless ICAS wants two looks at it before it sends it forward. The chair of the committee to redraft the math competency statement was Scott Farrand. He has also been working on the standards group for mathematics so there has been a link between the assessment group dealing with K-12 standards for math and the group that prepared the math competency statement that is supposed to be speaking to the high schools about what we expect in terms of math competency. There has been a direct link and because that group worked for a year before the standards group got together and because Scott was on it, the work of the math standards group went much more quickly than perhaps the English group did. I have read in the task force minutes of the English group that they are going to recommend to ICAS that the English competency statement go through another revision. I've got no formal word of that, that was in a set of minutes. We'll see if that recommendation is made.

Academic Senator Marshelle asked me to put in a request to you. We are trying to develop articles for the first Senator issue. We're also interested in what your suggestions are for what you think should appear in the Academic Senator for all the system's faculty to be able to see and read. If you have suggestions for items that you would like to see us do an article on, please provide them to somebody on the Executive Committee as soon as you can, or as soon as you get the idea. Don't assume just because you give us the idea that we will ask you to write the article. On the other hand, don't be surprised, if you're the expert, if we ask you to at least help with it.

* * * * *

Standing Committee Reports:

Academic Affairs Committee Chair Paul Spear reported that the Academic Affairs Committee spent most of the session reviewing two documents carried over from last May's plenary. Editorial revisions were made to the resolution on Support for Draft Executive Order on Determination of Competence in English and Mathematics (AS-2337-96/AA). The Committee discussed logistical problems in implementing the executive order and noted the need for timely testing and campus flexibility in its testing program. Revisions were made in the resolution on International Programs Policy Statement (AS-2329-96/AA) to make explicit the Senate's intent that students enrolled in a CSU international program not pay duplicate health and student activity fees.

The penultimate draft of "Ownership of New Works at the University: Unbundling of Rights and the Pursuit of Higher Learning," produced by the CSU-SUNY-CUNY Joint Committee, was distributed and briefly discussed. The document explains the nature of new works that are protected by copyright and proposes three principles to use in determining the "copyright owner" and providing for the "unbundling of rights" that would encourage the owner both to reserve and to share rights of the copyrighted work with other related parties. The "unbundling" idea is to provide for things like fair (reasonable, legitimate academic) uses by licensing (reserving or transferring) certain rights (e.g., reproducing works for teaching or scholarship). Greater discussion is scheduled at the October interim meeting.

Term papers for sale are appearing on WWW sites (e.g., School Sucks). After discussion, the committee recommended that the Chair of the Academic Senate alert campus faculties to the existence of and the need for vigilance in monitoring these sites. While the number of papers on "School Sucks" is still minimal, as of September 22, 1996, it has recorded over 84,000 hits.

The remainder of the Committee's time was spent in a joint session with Teacher Education and K-12 Relations discussing the purpose and content of the baccalaureate.

Faculty Affairs Committee Vice Chair Elliott McIntire reported that much of the meeting was taken up with consideration of items which remained unfinished at the end of the 1995-96 year, and developing of a list of topics for consideration by FAC during 1996-97. Topics selected for study by this year's group included:

Employee safety on campus

Outstanding Professor Awards

Part-time faculty

Faculty flow

Faculty development

Faculty role in reviewing campus presidents

PSSI/PSI

Intellectual property

Additionally, there was some discussion about the liaison function between the Chancellor's Office and the committee given recent changes in the office, and how to go about the scheduled study of the baccalaureate.

Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Cristy Jensen reported that: the committee will promote Legislative Days early and often and will strive to hold a special meeting in Sacramento, after the election, with Karen Yelverton and Scott Plotkin. It was suggested that our committee might make a contribution by distributing a compendium of the several fiscal studies, e.g., Callan, CPEC and Rand, etc.

Richard West met with the committee to present and discuss the two-year planning process document which will be presented to the Board of Trustees in November. Committee discussion focused on the Priority Choices section and the degree to which it reflects the Senate Priorities (May 96 res). We noted and discussed the proposed 3.4% compensation pool and the tradeoffs regarding academic technology and capital maintenance. These issues were discussed in the context of the Governor's Compact and various strategies and categorical options for augmenting the compact in 97-98. Richard asked for our input and feedback during October regarding these priorities. The committee will discuss our recommendations to the full Senate at October interim.

There was a report on Cornerstones #2 Task Force.

Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations Chair Dorothy Keane reported that Teacher Education & K-12 Relations Committee met on September 4, 1996, from 9:00 A.M. until 1:00 P.M. Discussion was held on several important issues concerning the preparation of teachers. Cheryl Lampe briefed the committee on the CSU President's Group on Teacher Preparation and K-18 Education. It was decided that the Committee would write a resolution to respond to the Mission Statement and Workplan of the Presidents' group. Discussion of faculty representation on the Presidents' subcommittees was also held. It was reported that Bill Wilson (past Dean of Education at Dominguez Hills) has been appointed Director of K-18 Education.

The LAAMP/Learn Proposal for Teacher Preparation was also discussed. It was reported that the following campuses were selected to be part of the project: Los Angeles, Long Beach and Northridge. Two faculty will work as part of a teacher training team at an on-site "cluster."

Goals 2000 Reading Center has been established at the Institute for Education Reform. It is not clear what role this Center will have in preparing teachers. It was suggested that the Committee meet with Gary Hart and Bill Wilson to discuss this and other initiatives.

The Richter Bill on Teacher Preparation (AB 1431) was distributed. Giving school districts full authority to credential teachers is something of great concern to our Committee.

A brief discussion was held on the Strategic Initiative on K-3 Teacher Preparation: Partnership on the Use of Technology & Distributed Learning. It was felt that the Committee needs to be kept briefed on this initiative as it moves forward.

The K-3 Initiative to lower class size to 20 was also discussed. It was m/s/p that TEKR write a resolution in confirmation of the statement of the Deans of Schools of Education, which expressed the importance of the role of the CSU in meeting this current need for teachers in K-3 classrooms.

ACTION

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Senator Hammerstrom moved (Thobaben seconded) approval of the minutes of May 9-10, 1996. The minutes were approved.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Senator Spear moved (Pincu seconded) approval of the agenda. The agenda was approved.

AS-2329-96/AA INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS POLICY STATEMENT

SECOND 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 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 ($5,815 in FY 95-96) and to provide such level of general fund support for International Programs without an associated reduction in current FTES allocation ($4,864 in FY 95-96); and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to revise the practice 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 so that students do not pay duplicate health and student activity fees; 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 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 for 1995-96) 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 believe 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 believe that students enrolled in International Programs in residence 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.

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair Paul Spear moved (Pincu seconded) to postpone action to November.

AS-2329-96/AA motion postponed definitely.

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

SECOND READING 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 be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Precollegiate Education Policy 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 that a student demonstrate current competency 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."

3. Revise Section I,B,6 as follows: "Campuses shall ensure that students who do not demonstrate the requisite competence in mathematics are placed in appropriate remedial or developmental program/activities during the first term of enrollment and each subsequent term until such time as they demonstrate competency.

; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU endorse existing Trustee policy that permits only admission of those junior and senior transfer students who were either eligible for CSU admission as high school graduates or 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 CSU urge the Precollegiate Education Policy 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 no earlier than Fall 1998, 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, scoring and reporting of ELM and EPT on a more timely 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/developmental courses, and declines in upper division transfer enrollments.

Senator Moore moved (Thobaben seconded) to amend the second Resolved clause by adding a number "3. Revise section I,B,6. as follows: 'Campuses shall ensure that students who do not demonstrate the requisite competence in mathematics are placed in appropriate remedial or developmental program/activities during the first term of enrollment' and each subsequent term until such time as they demonstrate competency."

Senator Dinielli requested consent to make the following changes: in number 2 in the second Resolved clause, delete "at local option" before "that a student demonstrate current competency"; and in number 2 of the fourth Resolved clause, delete "frequent" and replace with "timely basis." There were no objections.

AS-2337-96/AA motion carried without dissent.

AS-2338-96/FA IN MEMORIAM

FIRST READING/WAIVER

Professors Chen Liang, D. Preston Lowrey, III & Constantinos Lyrintzis

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University express its shock and sorrow over the deaths of Professors Chen Liang, D. Preston Lowrey, III and Constantinos Lyrintzis who were slain while performing their duties in a classroom on the campus of San Diego State University on August 15, 1996; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU extend its condolences and deepest sympathy to the families of our fallen colleagues and to the San Diego State community.

On behalf of the Faculty Affairs Committee, Chair Allison Heisch moved (Dinielli seconded) the resolution.

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

Senator Whitney moved (Thobaben seconded) to substitute "brutally gunned down while performing their duties in a classroom" for "slain" in the first Resolved clause.

Senator Kaiser moved (Navari seconded) to amend the amendment by keeping "slain" followed by "while performing their normal classroom duties." Senator Cherny suggested combining the amendment and the amendment to the amendment to read "slain while performing their duties in a classroom" which was accepted by Senator Kaiser.

The amendment to the amendment was approved.

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

AS-2338-96/FA as amended carried unanimously.

AS-2339-96/TEKR RESPONSE TO MISSION STATEMENT AND WORK PLAN

FIRST READING/ OF THE CSU PRESIDENTS' GROUP ON TEACHER

WAIVER PREPARATION AND K-18 EDUCATION

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University commend and support the presidents for identifying teacher preparation and K-18 education as key strategic priorities of the California State University as contained in their Mission Statement and Work Plan, "CSU Strategic Initiative on Teacher Preparation and K-18 Education"; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU endorse the principles outlined in the mission statement which will guide the work in strengthening educational programs:

1. The education of teachers is a university-wide responsibility and is of such critical priority that it will influence key decisions regarding faculty recruitment, promotion, tenure, compensation, and workloads. Because prospective teachers are most influenced by the quality of teaching they encounter as students, all university faculty need to demonstrate effective instructional practices and serve as good teaching role models.

2. Students contemplating teaching careers will have opportunities in their undergraduate years to participate in academic majors and other university courses which integrate subject matter and teacher education course work and provide multiple site-based clinical learning opportunities. Such approaches will provide better opportunities to identify high-potential students, recruit exemplary candidates for the teaching profession, and maximize the all-university nature of teacher education and the creation of an integrated five-year approach.

3. CSU Schools of Education will embody the principles of good professional practice by providing extensive clinical experiences and establishing standards to define the characteristics of a well-prepared teacher educated anywhere within the CSU system. In order to complete successfully a CSU preparation program, teacher candidates will be individually assessed based on these established standards, which include competencies such as knowledge in content areas and appropriate instructional planning and presentation skills.

4. Schools of Education, as well as other schools and departments within the CSU, will develop and maintain partnerships with K-12 schools to facilitate continuous renewal of schools and universities alike. Regular faculty exchanges and other ongoing joint university/school activities will help achieve the simultaneous co-reform of teacher education and of K-12 schools.

5. Regular consultation and collaboration with leaders in the K-12 community is an important all-university responsibility throughout the CSU. In addition, presidential engagement and action will be a high priority regarding recommendations made by groups working to improve education in the state such as the California Education Round Table, the CSU Remedial Education Task Force, the University of California Outreach Task Force, and the SB 1422 Advisory Committee.

6. All CSU presidents, as campus leaders, have the responsibility to promote the principles articulated above in their personnel practices, academic planning, budgeting, and public pronouncements. Indeed, for this effort to succeed, leaders throughout the CSU, including the Chancellor, the Board of Trustees, the Presidents, the Academic Vice Presidents, the Academic Deans and the Academic Senates must also assume this responsibility"; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU strongly recommend that the faculty representatives appointed to the subcommittees as delineated in the Work Plan be selected by the Academic Senate of the California State University; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that the Teacher Education and K-12 Relations Committee of the Academic Senate of the California State University be advisory to the CSU Presidents' Group on Teacher Preparation and K-18 Education.

On behalf of the Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations, Chair Keane moved (Thobaben seconded) the resolution.

Senator Keane moved (Moore seconded) to waive the rules to take action on the resolution at the present meeting. Motion failed.

Senator Goldwhite moved the agenda.

AS-2340-96/TEKR RESPONSE TO CSU DEANS OF EDUCATION

FIRST READING/WAIVER STATEMENT ON K-3 TEACHER INITIATIVE

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the statement, "CSU Education Deans Commit to K-3 Teacher Initiative," which applauds California's move to reduce class size in grades K-3 grades; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU support the Education Deans' position that:

"All of the 20,000 new teachers must be fully qualified and well prepared to serve K-3 students," and

"The CSU will strengthen and expand university/district partnerships to meet this need"; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU support the actions identified in the CSU Deans of Education Statement to address the current need for additional teachers to meet the K-3 class size reduction, with the understanding that the CSU faculty will play the primary role in developing such programs.

On behalf of the Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations, Chair Dorothy Keane moved (Page seconded) the resolution.

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

Senator Kaiser moved (Postma seconded) an amendment to add "CSU" before "faculty" in the third Resolved clause. Motion carried.

Senator Navari moved (Whitney seconded) an amendment to add a Resolved clause such as the last Resolved clause in AS-2339-96/TEKR pertaining to Deans of Education.

Senator Navari withdrew the motion. There were no objections.

AS-2340-96/TEKR motion carried unanimously.

* * * * *

The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. on Friday, September 6, 1996.

* * * * *

Approved (or corrected)

Date:________________________ _______________________________

James M. Highsmith, Chair

_______________________________

Hal Charnofsky, Secretary

________________________________

Margaret Price, Recording Secretary



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