Academic Senate of the California State University
MINUTES

Meeting of January 22-23, 1998
CSU Headquarters, Long Beach, CA

 

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:45 p.m. on Thursday, January 22, 1998, by Chair James Highsmith.

ROLL CALL: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield) Jacquelyn Kegley, Ernie Page; (Chico) James Postma, Paul Spear; (Dominguez Hills) Hal Charnofsky, Dick Williams; (Fresno) Jacinta Amaral, James Highsmith, Lester Pincu; (Fullerton) Vincent Buck, William Meyer, Barry Pasternack; (Hayward) Judith Stanley, Don Wort; (Humboldt) Elmo Moore, Marshelle Thobaben; (Long Beach) Gene Dinielli, Simon George, Patricia Rozee; (Los Angeles) Dorothy Keane, Rosemarie Marshall; (Maritime Academy) Ralph Davis; (Monterey Bay) J. Ken Nishita; (Northridge) Michael Reagan, Gerald Resendez, Mary Lee Sparling; (Pomona) Edward Fonda, Rochelle Kellner; (Sacramento) Michael Fitzgerald, Cristy Jensen, Louise Timmer; (San Bernardino) Walter Oliver, C. E. Tapie Rohm; (San Diego) David DuFault, Annette Easton, Dan Whitney; (San Francisco) Eunice Aaron, Robert Cherny, Gary Hammerstrom; (San José) Charles "Buddy" Butler, David McNeil, Bethany Shifflett; (San Luis Obispo) Reginald Gooden, Thomas Hale, Timothy Kersten; (San Marcos) A. Sandy Parsons; (Sonoma) Robert Girling, Susan McKillop; (Stanislaus) Richard Levering, Pamela Russ; (Chancellor's Office) Charles Lindahl.

INTRODUCTIONS

During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:

New senators: William "Bill" Meyer, Fullerton

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

Harold Goldwhite, Director, Institute for Teaching and Learning

Allison Jones, Director, Access and Retention, Academic Affairs, Chancellor’s Office

Kathy Kaiser, Professor of Sociology and Social Work, CSU Chico

Leonard Mathy, Professor Emeritus, Emeritus and Retired Faculty Association representative to the Academic Senate

Donald Moore, Consultant, Association of California State University Professors

Michelle Rehan, Associated Students, Sonoma State University, CSSA liaison

Maynard Robinson, General Manager, Technology Infrastructure Partnership, IRT

Richard West, Senior Vice Chancellor, Business and Finance, Chancellor’s Office

Virginia Whitby, Collective Bargaining Director, California State Student Association

Johnetta Anderson, Technical Assistant, Chancellor’s Office

Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

José Lopez, Clerical Assistant, Academic Senate CSU

Margaret Price, Staff Assistant - Documents, Academic Senate CSU

Sally Yu, Staff Assistant - Budget, Academic Senate CSU

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

Announcement of Times Certain

Thursday, January 22, 1998

2:00 p.m. Richard West, Senior Vice Chancellor, Business and Finance

Report on Governor’s Budget

Friday, January 23, 1998

8:30 a.m. Maynard Robinson, General Manager, Technology Infrastructure

Partnership, IRT

Report on SIP/CETI

1:30 p.m. Harold Goldwhite, Director, Institute of Teaching and Learning

Presentation to ITL Board Members

* * * * *

REPORT OF CHAIR JAMES HIGHSMITH

We had the opportunity to meet in a breakfast session in November with incoming Chancellor Reed and then in December at a retreat session which you’ve received an email report on. We engaged in a discussion of priorities for the CSU. I would characterize that as a very open and candid discussion that we had with our new Chancellor. He is very forthright, certainly willing to engage, very clear in his response, interested, asks good questions, wants to learn about our system. One of the most interesting things that came out of it, I think, was his inquiry about our level of faculty commitment to campus versus discipline, and he was somewhat surprised that our faculty were not the norm around the country——they didn’t care much about their campus as long as they were mobile. That’s not the characteristics of our faculty. When I say mobile, I mean we’re really interested in our disciplines, we are producing things that relate to our disciplines and we view ourselves and our part of our professional self-worth is how well we’re doing in our disciplines. He was a bit surprised, I think, at the level of commitment that our faculty have to our campuses and our students. I don’t know what it’s like in Florida——I’ve never been there, on a campus, to be able to compare what our culture is like with his, but I was fascinated to watch the exchange among the chairs and the Executive Committee with the new Chancellor and I think he will be certainly a person that will engage you when he comes in here to talk with us. We are trying to arrange that he come in March on Thursday afternoon and stay for the reception and then perhaps for a dinner and see if it’s possible for his wife to be here as well.

He is going to meet with the campus chairs on February 11. That will be about an hour, hour and a half meeting because he has commitments on the day. We told him we thought it was very important for him to go to campuses once he arrives and that it would be extremely useful for him to have some engagement with the senate campus chairs in advance of those trips to campuses.

On Cornerstones, I have sent out email to you regarding not only giving you the final draft but also regarding the final draft. I believe we achieved through our discussions all the key points that the Senate and the campus senates and faculty were concerned about. I have had a couple of calls from people. In each instance, they had not looked at the December draft——they were working on the basis of the August draft and the two are very different. Even though some of the verbiage is the same they are very different in their thrusts, in my view. This is an issue often of nuance and not what a document looks like when you’re looking at the pages as opposed to reading the words. The words are much different in many instances and the emphasis is very different. I think we can be proud that the faculty have achieved things in the Cornerstones document that we have never achieved on our own in discussions with the administration either through the collegial and Senate shared governance process or through the collective bargaining process. There are commitments to faculty development that have never been made in the system in the kind of direct way that’s occurring in the Cornerstones document. There are things there which we don’t wholly agree with in some of the recommendations but there are things there that no other group wholly agrees with as well——things that we wanted, not everyone wanted to be there. We managed to achieve, I think, a high level of inclusion of the things we wanted.

There are things which I think we will continue to have some concern about, not the least of which is differential fees. I believe we structured the final document in such a way that, if the issue of differential fees comes up, it comes up under certain conditions being present: one, that access isn’t denied; two, that financial aid is available; and three, that quality is improved. Under those circumstances, I think if the issue comes up, we can deal with it. We have a resolution for discussion later in the meeting. I am scheduled to make a presentation at AAHE next week after the Board meeting with Martha Fallgatter, Chuck Lindahl and Bob Caret about the Cornerstones process at their Faculty Role and Rewards conference in Florida.

The Baccalaureate——we have got the document at the presses downstairs and I hope that we get the rough black and white before we’re finished today. By next week, we will have on heavy paper, a pretty white-with-blue-ink document that will look very much like the document you see today in black and white. I think it will look a little classier. We have incorporated in our statement things that are very important for us and your Executive Committee has planned an interesting and exciting presentation of the Baccalaureate for the Trustee meeting. There is a presentation in advance of ours and that could go a half an hour, so maybe 1:30 when we will do that. Cornerstones will be presented the next day, on Wednesday, on Tuesday Baccalaureate is presented to Ed Policy, on Wednesday Cornerstones is presented to the Committee of the Whole. The people presenting Cornerstones will be Martha Fallgatter, Barry Munitz, with a little piece each from Tom Ehrlich, Bernie Goldstein, Jim Highsmith, and Chuck Lindahl.

CETI——you heard the timelines. I think we can all take a sigh of relief about the timelines here. What Maynard didn’t say is, after you get to a mid-February conclusion of the negotiations, and after you go through 30 days of campus review, and after you go through 15 days of SIP review looking at what the campuses say and incorporating all that stuff, you still have two to 20 days——who knows how long——to deal with the Executive Council, the Technology Steering Committee, the senior management of the institution, the lawyers——yes, they will be there——and so on. We have a timeline, which looks to me, takes us into April, if not May. We have at least the March meeting to examine this before any conclusion occurs. The negotiations——I had raised with the Executive Committee and the committee chairs when we met yesterday that I had been asked by Maynard to consider being involved in the actual negotiations in the next round and I had told him if I had the time and it was thought that it would be useful, that I would do that. Some of the Executive Committee had concern that I not make a commitment to do that because I represent the Senate and the faculty and the Senate might not want me there, or the faculty might not want me there in the actual negotiations. So I posed that as a question and got a report from a couple of committees that they would have some interest in my being involved. The notion here is that whatever the deal is struck through our representatives’ participation in trying to get the best thing to put on the table, whatever that proposal is that goes to the campuses, we have the option to say we like it or we don’t once we see the whole thing put together, that there is no commitment because we are participating to agree to it unless it is good by the time it becomes sunshined. I’m open to your advice when we go into the question session, but frankly, no one has formally invited me to do that. I’m sure that they will have to talk with Charles Reed and others, the Technology Steering Committee, the presidents about whether they would want me there or whether I would add value to the discussions but I thought you should be aware of that and have a chance to comment on it.

With regard to the budget, most of you were here yesterday, you had a chance to talk with Richard. I think it is pretty clear that our concern is that we are not doing enough to fill the faculty salary gap and, in fact, that is our highest priority for many reasons. There will be an item that we will take up later about that so I don’t need to belabor the budget issues.

California Virtual University——we have been working on it through our individual senates and through the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates and through committees of the California Virtual University. It is my understanding that the Academic Plan latest version will be ready by the middle of next week. Joe Rodota, without prompting, asked to have draft stamped on that so that we can have one last look at it even though we have gone through several iterations of comment. One last look at it before we say it’s fine.

Admissions Advisory——you heard some about this yesterday when we dealt with our admissions issue. I do want to add a little bit to the discussion about the UC and CSU coming together on this pattern. This is something we’ve been trying to work on for probably 10 years. It is something that I took as a personal responsibility when I became chair to try to bring the UC faculty groups to the table to discuss this. They’re there, they’re interested, in fact, they’re supportive at this point. The chair of their senate is extremely supportive. I believe that key members of the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) are supportive. Sandra Weiss, who is their chair, said I cannot guarantee you at the end of the process this spring that we will approve a common-course pattern with you but I am extremely supportive and I hope we achieve that. She is doing exactly what I would do in her circumstances were we being asked to do something, say: I can’t speak for my Senate, but I think it will happen and I’m going to encourage that it happen. This, I believe, as I told you before, would be a major accomplishment in providing clarity to students and parents about what they need to do in order to be prepared for college anywhere, not just at UC or CSU. I don’t like to have to write letters and executive orders of the kind we did yesterday because we’re phasing-in something. I would prefer that it be clear, as I’m sure you would. But in some instances, we just have to do that. We have tried very aggressively to assure that visual and performing arts becomes a significant part of the high school preparation and we have not backed off of that. The things we did yesterday, I think, were aligned with our commitment to the visual and performing arts. We have worked very aggressively with the legislature to try to support bills that would assure that every graduate of high school would have to do that. We worked aggressively through this admissions process with UC to try to get them to understand it is important for every student to be asked to do that before they go to college. I believe our commitment to the visual and performing arts at all levels is strong. I appreciate the support that the Senate has provided them for that.

The Commission on Learning Resources and Instructional Technology (CLRIT) has had a couple of meetings of various kinds since we met, program committee and CLRIT and it also had a kind of demonstration day for some projects that have been supported by system funds in the past. CLRIT was asked to examine the AOF process that ERIC has shepherded the past few years providing money for technology projects. It’s my understanding that Blenda, based on the comments of CLRIT last time, has said that the process can go forward this year. Also, there is a subgroup working on a recommendation regarding the specialty centers in social science and business and Barry Pasternack has served on that group along with Harold Goldwhite, and I believe their recommendation, if I heard Barry right the other day, is going to be that they continue to be supportive at an even higher level. The Request for Ideas (RFI) process has winnowed ideas down to four primary groups, and if I heard Cher correctly the other day, four secondary groups. The primary groups were asked to submit proposals--they should be in shortly. Pulling those people together for those projects should occur in fairly short order, I would imagine, to see what funding we can provide for them. The four are: foreign language, art digital images media, nursing, teacher training in use of technology.

Chancellor——Next week Ex-chancellor Munitz will be at the Board meeting. He was and did plan to come to this meeting but he is the co-chair of the Higher Education Cost Commission that was set up through Congress and the President and they had to have a meeting because they didn’t finish their business last year as they were supposed to and it was scheduled during our meeting. So that’s why, I am told, he is not going to be able to be with us at this meeting. He will be at the Board meeting. We are presenting gifts to Munitz primarily at the reception next Tuesday night at the Virginia Country Club and the Executive Committee has been invited to go to that reception for Barry and Anne. However, I have asked for time to make a formal presentation of one of our gifts at the Board meeting on Wednesday. We are presenting two gifts——we asked each campus to provide a mug, with their campus information on it——so Barry and Anne will receive a complete set of CSU mugs. The other gift is a framed set of pictures of all the campuses with a little note at the bottom and the CSU seal that says this is presented by the Academic Senate on behalf of the faculty with our best wishes. Each campus has a color photo, they’re all matted together——it’s really going to be quite stunning. We’re having two of these made. One will be ready for the presentation on Tuesday and will be given to Barry and he can take it with him. A second one will be made for use in the new building so that we can all see what was presented and have it available to our viewing so that we do not lose it. I hope you will not tell anyone what the gifts are other than the mugs because the framed thing is supposed to be a surprise. Now whether it will really be a surprise remains to be seen. We have not tried to publicize what that’s going to be. Barry did mention from time to time an event that the Senate might participate in at the Getty. I’ve had some explorations with Jill Murphy who is one of the two staff people who went with Barry to the Getty. Jill has suggested that perhaps we might arrange a May outing to the Getty for the Senate. It would not be a reception-type outing, it would be a "we get to go to the Getty and see it together instead of going to baseball!" Sorry, Reg. I don’t know whether that will come about, we’re just in discussions. But there will probably also be a Getty reception at some point either in the spring or more likely in the fall for the CSU where we will be invited. More details to follow.

* * * * *

Standing Committee Reports:

Academic Affairs Committee Chair Paul Spear reported that the committee is requesting to withdraw from the Senate agenda the resolution, AS-2393-97/AA, "Admissions Practices at Boalt Hall (University of California, Berkeley, Law School)." Since introduction of this item, Boalt Hall has dropped its admission policy of adding to or subtracting from the GPA of applications for admission based on the average relationship between the GPA of all applicants from that institution and the LSAT scores of all applicants from that institution. This modification leaves in place using the actual GPA an applicant earned regardless of the institution.

In response to the findings of the recent CPEC eligibility study which indicated that the eligibility pool of Fall 1996 high school graduates for CSU admission was 29.6% (and not 33.3% as mandated by the Master Plan), the committee is recommending a slight modification in the admission standards to increase the eligibility pool to be more in line with the Master Plan. Other items discussed and on the agenda for future discussion and action include information competence, assessment of learning outcomes in GE, recommendations on ESL, and copyright and fair use.

Faculty Affairs Committee Chair Dan Whitney reported that the committee spent most of its time discussing and revising the Merit Pay Task Force Report for presentation to the Senate as a Second Reading item. We were fortunate to have several visitors to enrich the discussion; they were: Bill Meyer, CSU-Fullerton; Sandy Parsons, CSU-San Marcos; Michael Reagan, CSU-Northridge, Elizabeth Hoffman, CSU-Long Beach representing CFA; Sam Strafaci and Cordelia Ontiveros, Chancellor's Office, and for part of the time, Don Moore, Retired Faculty Association. We had hoped our discussion would be informed by opinions from local campus senates, however, only San Diego State responded to our request for consultation——and that Senate voted against endorsing the report. The committee, after some minor changes, recommended Senate endorsement of the report, moved the models to an appendix, and added a statement of appreciation and thanks to members of the task force for their work. The most significant changes made by FAC included: adding a new principle, to wit, "The purpose of merit pay shall be clearly stated;" deleting a principle that stated, "The University shall allocate sufficient funds to award all those found meritorious;" changing the word "appeal" to "grievance" in the due process principle; and altering substantially the principle (old #8) calling for the linking of merit pay with RTP.

Although FAC agreed that the CPEC faculty salary gap should be closed, it could not agree about the advisability of introducing a motion to the full Senate to that effect.

FAC, after some discussion, decided that it could live with the principles set forth in the Cornerstones document and would support a motion to endorse the principles——but not the entire document.

The committee recognized the importance of CETI, but chose to take no action on it for the time being. We intend to continue monitoring the process.

Upon hearing from the Executive Committee that the Faculty Trustee appointment issue may be moving toward a resolution very soon, the committee took a wait-and-see posture.

The committee continues to look into several topics of concern to CSU faculty: faculty flow and the work of CO Liaison Medeiros in this area; faculty development (we hope to produce a white paper on this important topic); the Virtual University; collegiality and campus governance; strategic planning; domestic partner benefits; and the misuse and abuse of the World Wide Web as it relates to classroom activities, for example, charging fees to students so they can access required materials (Secretary Oliver reported that he has a data base of faculty who charge fees to students for internet access).

Finally, the committee observed that the resolution commending departing Munitz seemed not to be written with the usual flavor of commendation resolutions for departing Senators.

Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Cristy Jensen reported that our committee had significant discussions on the 98-99 CSU Budget which was augmented by Governor Wilson. We expressed our strong concerns about the lack of attention to the compensation gap (which resulted in a resolution to the full Senate——(AS 2401-98/FGA-FA) and the need for more careful review and consideration of the Lottery Funds Budget.

We began planning for the Legislative Days activities, March 23 and 24 which will begin with a dinner Sunday evening for all Senators, include meetings sponsored by the Office of Governmental Affairs on Monday, the legislative reception and scheduled dinners with Campus Presidents and local delegations, and meetings on Tuesday, March 24.

Tim Kersten discussed a draft paper on issues surrounding financial aid restructuring and the committee decided to pursue a more extensive examination designed to inform the Legislature on possible restructuring and financing options.

Finally, the committee spent a considerable period working on the draft report of the Campus Budget Advisory Committee's Identification of Best Practice. We plan to complete a first draft by February 13. Don Wort will circulate a copy for committee members review by February 9.

G. E. Chair Ken Nishita reported that the Chancellor's Advisory Committee for General Education continues to discuss: What student learning outcomes are, or are not, expressed within the CSU GE Breadth requirements (EO 595) and Title 5? Once identified, are these student learning outcomes adequate for our students or should these be revisited and revised? We have also discussed recommendations concerning student learning outcomes that were described either in the draft papers for the Cornerstones or the Baccalaureate Study. Since our discussions are coincident with those proposed by the Institute of Teaching and Learning Conference on student learning outcomes for mathematics and for English, we have postponed further analysis of the student learning outcomes until after the ITL conference. Additionally, our committee has explored how "articulation" of student learning outcomes——particularly, in the context of the California Virtual University——might impact on our current student transfer of GE certification. Recently, the Academic Affairs committee has referred discussion of "information competence/literacy" to our committee: How might "information competence" be infused within GE Breadth?

The Subcommittee for General Education review of community college submissions for IGETC and CSU GE Breadth course certification begins the first week in February, and may continue through early April. Each year there has been a steady submission rate of about 600 courses. The review process includes faculty from both the CSU and the CCC Academic Senates.

TEKR Committee Chair Dick Williams reported that:

1. TEKR has four second-reading items on the agenda;

2. TEKR has two new (first reading) items:

i AS-2398-98 On the State Board of Education Mathematics Standards for K-12 (the process seems flawed);

ii AS-2399-98 A commendation for the Commission on Teacher Credentialing 1422 Panel (requires extensive discussion);

3. TEKR discussed the Cornerstones principles and report;

4. TEKR also discussed potential math teacher preparation initiatives. Math seems a good predictor of college success; K-12 math teachers in California are seriously underprepared;

5. There was a cursory discussion of SIP/CETI.



ACTION

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of November 6-7, 1997, were approved.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Senator Kersten moved (Williams seconded) approval of the agenda. Agenda approved.

AS-2386-97/TEKR SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO

FIRST READING TITLE 5 PROVISIONS CONCERNING ADMISSION

TO TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University express its support for the proposed amendment to Title 5 provisions concerning admission to teacher preparation programs which would simplify the admissions process, put CSU policy more in line with admissions standards as specified by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and provide much needed flexibility to the individual campuses; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the CSU Board of Trustees to adopt those proposed amendments to Title 5 provisions concerning admission to teacher preparation programs.

RATIONALE: The proposed changes to Title 5 reflect recommendations made by the CSU Presidents Group on Teacher Preparation and K-18 Education. This comprehensive review of Teacher Preparation in the CSU has generated many significant and valuable ideas regarding how the CSU can better prepare teachers. Among those ideas are the recommendations contained in the attached proposal. Senior Vice Chancellor Charles Lindahl has asked the Senate’s advice regarding these proposed changes. A draft of this proposal has been reviewed by the Teacher Education and K-12 Relations Committee and has been found to be most worthy of our support.

AS-2386-97/TEKR motion was approved unanimously.

AS-2390-97/TEKR OPPOSITION TO LEGISLATIVE INTRUSION

SECOND READING INTO TEACHING METHODOLOGIES FOR

READING

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University express alarm that recent legislation threatens academic freedom by prescribing a particular reading methodology; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU also express alarm that staff development providers will be required to sign a certification agreement that they teach reading by using a prescribed methodology as required in AB 3482 (Chapter 196, Statutes of 1996) and AB 1086 (Chapter 286, Statutes of 1997); and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU express concern that AB 1178 (Chapter 919, Statutes of 1996), the Reading Instruction Competency Assessment bill, further threatens academic freedom of faculty in the CSU by requiring that credential candidates pass a test that, when implemented, may emphasize a single methodology which ignores the wide spectrum of current research in reading; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) to ensure that the required Reading Instruction Competency Assessment emphasizes a thorough and truly balanced approach to reading; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU caution the CSU Institute for Education Reform to refrain from joining any movement that prescribes curriculum content; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor and the Interim Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs to join the Academic Senate in a commitment to remind the Governor, the State Board of Education and legislators that:

• it is the CSU faculty who are qualified to determine those approaches that best address learning needs of students,

• "quick-fixes" to teaching reading have not worked, and

• they should not be in the business of micromanaging practice by mandating one curriculum and one methodology.

RATIONALE: AB 3482 (1996) legislated that teachers would be provided professional development in specific reading methodologies. AB 1086 (1997) requires that staff development providers be certified by signing a "McCarthy-like" agreement that requires the training provider will comply with all applicable provisions of law, including Section 24.03 of the 1997-98 Budget Act (Chapter 282, Statutes of 1998) which prohibits the use of the Goals 2000 funds appropriated for the training for any program that promotes or uses reading instruction methodologies that emphasize contextual clues in lieu of fluent decoding, or systematically uses or encourages inventive spelling techniques in the teaching of writing.

There are long established procedures for establishing broad guidelines for preparing teachers of reading and legislative intrusion is not an appropriate part of that process. Teachers need to have balanced, comprehensive programs which incorporate multiple approaches. It is teacher judgment (a teacher choosing just the right intervention for a particular child) as well as sheer quantity of reading and writing that are most closely associated with increasing literacy levels.

(Morrow, 1990; Pappas & Brown, 1987, Adams, 1990; Anderson, et al, 1985)


References:

Adams, M.S. 1990. Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.

Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J.A., & Wilkinson, I.A.G. 1985. Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Washington, D.C.: The national Institute of Education.

Morrow, L. 1990. The impact of classroom environmental changes on the promotion of literacy during play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 537-554.

Pappas, C. & Browne, E. 1987. Learning to read by reading. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 160-184.

Senator Thobaben requested consent to make the following change: in third Resolved clause [eventually fourth Resolved clause] to substitute "thorough and" for "truly" before "balanced." It was then suggested to retain "truly" and add "thorough and." There were no objections.

Senator McKillop requested consent to make the following change: delete the commas before and after AB 1086; the Chair suggested also to include chapter numbers for bills. There were no objections.

Senator Spear requested consent to make the following change: In the fourth Resolved clause [which became fifth Resolved clause] change the word "a" to "any" before "movement." There were no objections.

Senator Marshall requested consent to make the following change: after "(CTC)" in third/fourth Resolved clause, change "to make sure" to "to ensure that." There were no objections.

Senator McKillop requested consent to make the following change: in the first/second Resolved clause after "teach reading" insert "by" before "using." There were no objections.

Senator Amaral moved (McNeil seconded) to divide first Resolved clause by ending the first clause at "methodology"; and the second clause to read: "That the Academic Senate CSU also express alarm that staff development providers will be required to sign a certification agreement that they teach reading by using a prescribed methodology as required in AB 3482 (Chapter 196, Statutes of 1996) and AB 1086 (Chapter 286, Statutes of 1997); and be it further."

Senator Kersten moved (Moore seconded) to close debate on the amendment. Motion approved.

Senator Amaral’s amendment was approved.

Senator Jensen moved (McNeil seconded) to add after "Academic Affairs" in the last Resolved clause "to join the Academic Senate in a commitment"; delete the words "to do all in their power."

Senator Kersten moved (Cherny seconded) to close debate. Motion approved.

Senator Jensen’s amendment was approved.

Senator McNeil requested consent to make the following change: to add the words "for preparing teachers of reading" after "guidelines" in the second paragraph of the Rationale. There were no objections.

Senator Spear requested consent to make the following change: remove "that" from the beginning of the second and third bullets in the last Resolved clause; move the "and" from the beginning of the third bullet to the end of the second bullet. There were no objections.

Senator Keane moved (Kersten seconded) to insert ",when implemented," in the third Resolved clause before "may emphasize." Motion approved.

Senator Cherny moved (Keane seconded) to change the title to: "Opposition to Legislative Intrusion into Teaching Methodologies for Reading"; from "Concern About Legislating Reading Instruction."

Senator Cherny moved (Aaron seconded) to add "to teaching reading" to the last bullet in the last Resolved clause after "quick-fixes"; delete "literacy."

Senator Marshall moved to amend the amendment by adding "to increasing the effectiveness of teaching reading" after "quick-fixes." There was no second.

Senator Kersten moved (Spear seconded) to close debate. Motion approved.

Cherny amendment was approved.

Senator Butler requested consent to make the following change: delete "over time" at the end of the Cherny amendment. There were no objections.

Senator Kersten moved (Reagan seconded) to close debate on the item. Motion approved.

AS-2390-97/TEKR motion was approved without dissent.

AS-2396-98/AA MODIFICATION OF CSU ADMISSION

FIRST READING/ STANDARDS TO MEET MASTER PLAN

WAIVER ELIGIBILITY GOAL FOR FIRST-TIME FRESHMEN

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University support the CSU Admission Advisory Council's recommendation of the following standard for achieving eligibility for admission to the CSU for first-time freshmen:

• Earning the necessary eligibility index which remains unchanged at 2900 AND

• Completion of the required 15-unit college preparatory course pattern with a minimum C grade in each course, OR Completion of 15 units within the college preparatory course pattern with a minimum C grade in each course except that one year may be missing in visual and performing arts or foreign language. This flexibility is subject to ONE of the following conditions:

a. The missing course is made up prior to initial CSU enrollment

OR

b. If the missing course is not completed prior to initial CSU enrollment, it must be completed during the first year of CSU studies with the understanding that the course used to fulfill admission requirements cannot be used to satisfy baccalaureate degree requirements.;

and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge Chancellor Reed to adopt the modified admission standards for first-time CSU freshmen as recommended by the CSU Admission Advisory Council effective with the 1998-99 academic year with the understanding that reviews on the CSU eligibility pool will be conducted on an annual basis.

RATIONALE: Findings of the 1996 CPEC eligibility study conducted to determine the extent to which the current CSU admission requirement meets the Master Plan Goal indicated that 29.6 percent of the 1996 public high school graduates were eligible for freshmen admission to CSU in fall 1996, 3.7 percentage points below the 33.3 percent Master Plan goal. Of the 29.6 percent of high school graduates who were eligible for CSU admission, 19.3 percent were eligible by completing CSU's 15-unit college preparatory course pattern and 10.3 percent were eligible by completing UC's "a-f" college preparatory course pattern.

The Master Plan for Higher Education mandates that the upper one-third of California high school graduates is eligible for CSU admission as freshmen. At its December 16, 1997, meeting, the CSU Admission Advisory Council reviewed several options to modify CSU admissions standards to come into closer alignment with the Master Plan: "adjusting the eligibility index, adjusting the course-pattern requirement, and resuming phasing in the 15-unit high school college preparatory course pattern with special attention to English, mathematics, and visual and performing arts (VPA)." Evidence from the CPEC Eligibility study also indicated that more students are enrolling in courses that meet CSU's 15-unit course preparatory pattern but fewer students are completing these courses with a C or above. In fact, the proportion of students failing to satisfactorily complete one or more of the required courses increased from 8.1 percent in 1990 to 17.3 percent in 1996.

The Council also recognized that the extent to which graduating high school seniors are eligible for CSU admission is an estimate based on a random sample of high school transcripts and test scores (n=15,352 students). By the same token, the impact of the modification of CSU admission standards to increase the eligibility index can only be estimated. In fact, since estimates are dependent on the particular sample selected, it would be an egregious error to overcorrect. Therefore, the Council proposed a relatively modest adjustment, based on recommendations from the Academic Affairs Committee of the Academic Senate CSU, which should be sufficient to achieve the adjustment needed given the increases in the grade-point averages of high school graduates, test scores, and enrollment of students in college preparatory coursework.

The modification leaves unchanged the required eligibility index of 2900 and the completion of the required 15-unit college preparatory course pattern with a minimum grade of C in each course. The modification requires the successful completion of 15 units within the college preparatory course pattern except one unit may be missing in either VPA or foreign language at the time of application/

acceptance with the requirement that the one unit be completed either prior to matriculation in the CSU or during the first year at CSU. When the course is completed, the units cannot be used to satisfy baccalaureate degree requirements. This modification would continue to emphasize to students, teachers, and counselors the importance of completing the entire CSU 15-unit course pattern in high school.

Annual reviews of the eligibility index are necessary to monitor and evaluate the extent to which admitted freshmen meet the full 15-unit college preparatory course pattern requirement. The Admission Advisory Council believes the number of students who complete all of the 15-unit college preparatory course pattern will continue to increase with expanded outreach efforts that communicate CSU's admission standards and requirements to middle and high school students, teachers, and counselors.

Senator Spear moved (Kersten seconded) the resolution.

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

Senator Aaron requested consent to make the following change: delete "that" in the first Resolved clause and replace it with "of" before "the following." There were no objections.

Senator Stanley requested consent to make the following changes: to delete "to the" before "CSU" in the first Resolved clause and replace it with "as a first-time CSU freshmen" (by moving "CSU"); delete "Earning" in the first bullet and replace it with "Achievement of." There were objections.

Senator Nishita requested consent to make the following change: in the fourth paragraph of the Rationale, after "If the course is completed" delete "at the CSU" and replace it with "during the first year." There were objections.

Senator McNeil requested consent to make the following change: in the fourth paragraph of the Rationale, substitute "When" for "If" ("the course is completed...") . There were no objections.

Senator Cherny requested consent to make the following changes: in "b." of the first Resolved clause, change "a" to "the" before "course"; insert "used" after "course" and delete "completed at CSU." There were no objections.

Senator Aaron moved (Amaral seconded) to delete "may be missing" in the second bullet in the first Resolved clause; after "foreign language," insert "may be completed:"; delete the last line. In "a." delete "The missing course is made up"; in "b." delete "missing."

Senator Aaron requested consent to withdraw her motion. There were no objections.

Senator Cherny moved (DuFault seconded) to close debate. Motion approved.

AS-2396-98/AA motion approved.

Senator Jensen requested consent to make the following change: to schedule a time certain of 1:40, following Harold Goldwhite’s ITL presentation, for item 12 on the agenda, Support for an Augmentation to the Proposed 1998-99 CSU Support Budget. There were no objections.

AS-2391-97/TEKR/AA RESPONSE TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF

SECOND READING THE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS OF THE CSU

PRESIDENTS GROUP ON TEACHER

PREPARATION AND K-18 EDUCATION

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University commend Chancellor Munitz, President Maxson, and Interim Senior Vice Chancellor Lindahl for appointing three systemwide subcommittees (Committees on Curriculum, Assessment and Standards; Rewards and Resources; and Market Share and CSU Collaboration) each with broad representation of faculty and administrators who worked collaboratively to "address specific charges derived from the Presidents’ statement and to make recommendations for implementation of the guiding principles" contained in the Mission Statement of the CSU Presidents Group on Teacher Preparation and K-18 Education; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU support the subcommittee’s "clarion call" for strong campus leadership, particularly by campus Presidents and Academic Vice Presidents, to "articulate and sustain a strong commitment to teacher preparation by all members of the campus community"; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU accept the recommendations in the Executive Summary and urge campus senates to engage in the necessary dialogue and develop policies that will assist in implementing those recommendations; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that presidents, academic vice presidents, and campus senates should consider the social and cultural diversity of the people within the State in planning the implementation of the recommendations; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that the CSU Office of Academic Affairs and the Teacher Education and K-12 Relations Committee establish a Task Force on Teacher Preparation, working jointly with the Teacher Education and K-12 Relations Committee, to identify a collection of teacher preparation courses which are transferable across CSU campuses.

RATIONALE: The three subcommittees of the CSU Presidents Group on Teacher Preparation and K-18 Education addressed the concerns shared by faculty who teach the undergraduate teacher preparation subject matter courses and the faculty from schools/colleges of education. Recommendations that address those concerns are given in the Presidents report. It is time for campuses to enter into conversations that involve a broad representation of faculty and administrators to put into place the necessary policies and structures to ensure that the teachers we are preparing have the necessary subject matter background, pedagogical skills and reflect a diverse population in order to be effective in public school classrooms.

Students enrolled in teacher preparation courses who transfer within the CSU find that they must repeat courses or take many additional courses. It is necessary to bring together a broad representation of faculty to consider if it is possible to have a core group of courses that are consistent in all teacher preparation programs in the CSU.

Senator Easton requested consent to make the following editorial changes: to delete the apostrophe after "Presidents" every time it appears in the resolution including the title (since that is not the correct spelling of the group’s title); in the fourth Resolved clause to substitute "consider" for "reflect" after "should," and move "should consider the social and cultural diversity of the people within the State" from the end to after "campus senates"; delete "consider that." There were no objections.

AS-2391-97/TEKR/AA motion approved unanimously.

AS-2392-97/TEKR REAFFIRMING THE ROLE OF TEACHER

SECOND READING PREPARATION IN THE MISSION OF THE

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University reaffirm that teacher preparation is a central feature of the mission of the University and is an all-University responsibility.

RATIONALE: The Academic Senate of the California State University has a record supportive of teacher preparation as an essential part of the California State University mission (cf. AS-1768-87/AA/GA and AS-1801-88/TE). A statement of Senate support of teacher preparation would be timely, useful and appropriate.

Senator Spear requested consent to make the following change: to add "and is an all-University responsibility" after "University." There were no objections.

Senator Thobaben moved (Spear seconded) to add "education and" before "preparation." Motion failed.

AS-2392-97/TEKR motion approved.

AS-2393-97/AA resolution was withdrawn.

AS-2394-97/FA MERIT PAY TASK FORCE REPORT

SECOND READING

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the overview and principles in the Report of the Merit Pay Task Force, thank the campuses for their invaluable advice, and give appreciation and thanks to our colleagues on the task force who spent many hours collecting information and preparing the analysis; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU commend the overview and principles in the report to the California Faculty Association (CFA) and the Chancellor and his collective bargaining team, urging them to use the overview and principles to guide them as needed, if or when they develop a new merit pay plan for CSU faculty.

RATIONALE: The Merit Pay Task Force was created by the Academic Senate CSU in March of 1997 in response to a challenge given to the senators by Chancellor Munitz to provide him with alternative incentive pay models. Task Force members read over 60 articles, studied two dozen college and university contracts, interviewed several acknowledged experts, and visited 20 CSU campuses over a period of four months where they spoke with over 400 faculty members. In addition, the Task Force established a listserve on the internet which produced commentary from close to 200 more CSU faculty members. The result is the attached Report which is being presented both to the Chancellor and to the California Faculty Association for their consideration during collective bargaining.


FINAL REPORT

Merit Pay Task Force.

CSU Academic Senate

Hal Charnofsky, Chair

Robert Cherny, David DuFault,

Jacquelyn Kegley, Dan Whitney


OVERVIEW

The Merit Pay Task Force of the CSU Academic Senate found that nearly all CSU faculty intensely disliked the PSSIs. In our face-to-face contacts with about 400 faculty from Humboldt to San Diego and our internet contact with almost 200 more, we discovered that the PSSIs caused some degree of disharmony and rancor on all 20 campuses we visited. To continue them in their current form is almost certain to cause an even greater decline in faculty morale.

We also learned that most, but by no means all, faculty are deeply suspicious of any form of merit pay other than that provided presently through retention, tenure, and promotion (RTP). Colleagues in all parts of the state–in large schools and small, in urban and rural areas, at commuter and residential campuses–accept and welcome appropriate evaluation; they are part of an enterprise that rigorously evaluates its members before hiring them, before reappointing them, before awarding them tenure, and before promoting them to higher ranks. Faculty also believe that forms of merit pay other than RTP will prove divisive. This is especially true when faculty compensation lags so far behind comparison institutions.

Our colleagues, almost to a person, told us that the CSU should not have merit pay until the CPEC faculty salary gap is closed or, at the very least, until a definite and binding agreement is in place to do so. Faculty often contrasted the Trustees’ readiness to close the gap for CSU presidents with the Trustees’ failure to make the same commitment to faculty. As with presidents, salaries below standard make it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain quality faculty. Faculty views on this issue closely paralleled the literature we reviewed on merit pay and the views of experts we interviewed. Both agreed that the farther a company’s or an institution’s pay lags behind the industry standard, the harder it is to make merit pay effective.

Based on our review of the literature and interviews with experts, the Task Force concludes that merit pay cannot work unless the rationale for having it is clearly articulated. No one we contacted, including presidents and a former Trustee, could clearly state the rationale for the PSSI, and it was not made clear in the MOU accepted by the Board of Trustees and the California Faculty Association (CFA). The assumption that merit pay has proven effective in the private sector is not borne out by the literature we reviewed nor by the experts we interviewed. Not all universities nor systems have merit pay. A recent report by the CSU Institute for Education Reform found that merit pay does not motivate K-12 teachers.

Although we conclude no merit pay plan is likely to be a good fit with CSU professorial culture, we began and ended our task on the assumption that merit pay nonetheless is likely to continue in the CSU. We have done our best to reflect the views of the hundreds of colleagues we contacted in person and electronically. Their views were varied, thoughtful, professional, and forcefully stated. We drafted the principles in our report to be necessary elements of any merit pay package that might be bargained between the CFA and CSU.

Based on contact with colleagues, analysis of the literature, study of merit pay systems in other universities across the country, and discussions with experts, we developed 12 principles. We present these principles as essential elements of any merit pay package that might be bargained. We also developed models to demonstrate the possible application of these principles that appear in the Appendix.

PRINCIPLES

1. No merit pay plan shall be implemented until the CPEC faculty salary gap between the CSU and comparison institutions, currently estimated at 11.2%, is eliminated through across-the-board salary increases. Competitive salaries shall be maintained through across-the-board increases.

2. The purpose of merit pay shall be clearly stated.

3. Merit awards shall not exceed two steps on the applicable salary schedule.

4. Merit pay may be awarded in the form of bonuses, additions to base pay, or both.

5. Criteria used to decide merit awards must be clear to all parties. All members of the University community must understand how merit is defined. Faculty members eligible for awards must be informed of the criteria that will be used in making decisions, and the committees or individuals who evaluate and recommend regarding merit awards must be informed about the criteria they are to use in making decisions.

6. Decisions about who receives merit pay awards shall be by faculty at the department, school, or college level. Final decisions shall be made by the faculty, and individuals’ due process shall be protected by the university president.

7. A merit pay system must be characterized by openness. The names of those recommended, those who receive awards, and the size of the awards must be public knowledge. Reasons for denial of awards shall be communicated to those denied.

8. Merit salary increases shall be awarded to individuals who demonstrate meritorious performance in one or more of the 3 recognized areas of professorial responsibility: teaching, scholarship or creative activity, and service. Awardees shall demonstrate satisfactory performance in all 3 areas. Individuals whose assignments do not include these areas shall be eligible for merit pay based on their performance in their own assignments. Determination of what constitutes meritorious and satisfactory performance shall be made by faculty on each campus. Merit pay is usually awarded to individuals, but group awards, i.e., to a program or department or team, also might be considered.

9. The CSU recognizes and financially rewards merit by its system of ranks, i.e., Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Full Professor. Individuals are thoroughly and carefully reviewed for tenure and promotion several times during their career.

10. Involvement in a merit pay system, both by those seeking awards and those determining awards, shall not require faculty to expend extraordinary amounts of time. The merit pay system should be simple and flexible, with maximum autonomy at the campus level to determine criteria and procedures.

11. Persons seeking merit pay awards shall not serve on any committee involved in determining who receives awards.

12. No system of merit pay shall be put into place without a fair and equitable grievance process for those denied awards.

ORIGIN AND ACTIVITIES OF THE TASK FORCE

In response to a challenge issued by CSU Chancellor Barry Munitz to the Academic Senate CSU in the Fall of 1996 to develop a merit pay plan to replace the PSSI model, the Senate, on March 13-14, 1997, created a "Merit Pay Task Force." Its members included the following Senators: Hal Charnofsky (CSUDH), Chair; Bob Cherny (SFSU); David DuFault (SDSU), Jackie Kegley (CSUB), and Dan Whitney (SDSU).

The charge to the Task Force was simple: to develop recommendations for alternative merit pay systems for faculty in the CSU. The Task Force was expected to present a progress report to the Academic Senate at its May 1997 plenary meeting, and a draft of a final report by the November 1997 plenary meeting.

The Task Force made its progress report to the Academic Senate on May 7, 1997.

In that report we stated that the Task Force had met for approximately 13 hours up to that point. We had gathered a voluminous amount of information about merit pay systems, including close to 60 articles and 2 dozen college and university faculty contracts that dealt in some form with merit or incentive pay. We had interviewed several experts on merit pay, some of whose ideas will be cited later. We set up a listserve on the Web so that interested parties could share ideas and information with us about merit pay models. We also scheduled visits by two-member teams to all 22 campuses to hold discussions on merit pay. Two campuses were unable to host teams. Although attendance at these campus sessions varied from a high of around 60 faculty to a low of around half-a-dozen, the discussions were lively and informative.

Interviews</P>

One of the most interesting interview sessions we held was with Professor Ed Lawler from the University of Southern California. Dr. Lawler, a prolific writer on organizational behavior with special emphases on pay models, visited our Task Force at the Chancellor’s Offices on May 22, 1997. He told us the following:

• There have been 3,000 studies of merit pay over the past 2 decades and only 100 claim positive results;

• Most merit pay systems fail to have any impact on motivating workers to perform better;

• The farther an organization (be it a company or government body) lags behind the market in awarding compensation, the harder it is to make a merit pay model work;

• Even though merit pay plans do not work, management continues to think they should;

• Japan thinks merit pay is ridiculous; it embarrasses people.

We had the privilege of interviewing Ted Saenger, a recent member of the Board of Trustees and for many years an executive with Pac Tel. He made these comments:

• The only reason for merit pay is to try to enhance human performance; there cannot be any other——certainly not politics;

• Bonus plans are preferable to locked-in base pay plans;

• Competition over merit pay can be healthy; it can also lead to bad feelings and end runs.

• We must keep up with the compensation market or we will be in trouble.

• The CSU Trustees never had a detailed discussion of the value of or rationale for merit pay; they were all over the map in their opinions; they were told that merit pay leads to more positive than negative consequences and that it did motivate enhanced performance.

We also had a fruitful discussion with our Senate colleague, Professor Barry

Pasternack (CSU Fullerton), whose field of expertise includes personnel relations and

compensation systems. He stressed that any merit pay plan had to be specific about its

goals and purposes. Otherwise, there will be anger, mistrust, and discontent.

Articles

Although the many articles we read contained a wide array of opinions, recommendations, and conclusions about the value of merit pay, most pointed out that merit pay, for various reasons, does not motivate people. This seems especially true in education where motivations for being in the profession were not primarily monetary.

What follows are excerpts from 3 articles, which were chosen because they seem to be especially relevant to the situation in the CSU.

The first article, "Merit Pay Performance Reviews: They Just Don’t Work," by James L. Wilkerson, Management Accounting, 76. (June 1995): 422-43, cites Professor Ed Lawler. He says: "(From the employee’s point of view) … the difference in merit pay between the outstanding and poor performer is so small that there’s no incentive value at all... It’s so unclear how a person got a higher or lower raise that it takes an enormous leap of faith, or stupidity, for an employee to decide that pay and performance are really related."

The second article, "The Case for the Invisible Merit Raise: How People See Their Pay Raises," by Atul Mitra, Nina Gupta, and G. Douglas Jenkins, Jr., Compensation and Benefits Review, 27 (May-June 1995): 71-6, makes several compelling points. 1) "Unless a merit raise is at least 6% to 7% of base pay, it will not produce the desired effects on employee attitude and behaviors...Small merit raises are simply unlikely to make employees work any harder or better." 2) "Beyond a certain point, increases in merit pay size are unlikely to improve motivation and performance." 3) "When merit raises are too small, employee motivation and morale suffer." 4) "Very small and very large merit raises may actually obstruct an organization’s motivational efforts."

The third article, by Allan Odden, "Paying for What You Need: Knowledge- and Skill-Based Approaches to Teacher Compensation," was published by the CSU Institute for Education Reform in Sacramento, California (1997). Odden, a co-director of the Finance Center of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, wrote, "What policy-makers need to realize is that merit pay has failed both in the private sector and in education because it rewards the top 15 to 20 percent of the organization’s performers without making any effort to improve the overall system or result. You’re rewarding individuals, whereas in education, student achievement gains are produced by people working together. Merit pay cuts against the culture of teaching–and merit pay meets the same pattern of failure in the private sector, because more and more private sector organizations are being set up in teams. … The most common reason why merit pay hasn’t worked for teachers is because funding isn’t maintained. … Versions of merit pay were tried in the 1920s, 1960s and 1980s, but individual merit pay has never worked because: it creates competition among teachers when collegiality is essential; it ignores the majority of teachers; teachers are rarely evaluated well–until recently there were no written standards of excellent teaching practice; it is often funded inadequately; and it is usually disbanded in the short term–the 1980s program in Florida lasted two years. So-called merit programs that have remained: are primarily in wealthy districts; reward tasks rarely related to instruction; often include large percentages of, if not all teachers; and are more-pay-for-more-work programs, rather than programs for the ‘best’ teachers."

Copies of the articles consulted by the Task Force may be read at the CSU Academic Senate office. A bibliography of articles and books consulted is available via e-mail from Dan.Whitney@sdsu.edu.

Other University Merit Pay Systems

Among the many campus bargaining contracts we examined, several stand out because they are instructive for us. Two universities, Western Michigan and Pennsylvania State, had merit pay and got rid of it. Western Michigan’s faculty were on the brink of a strike when their Board of Trustees agreed to drop the faculty-run part of their merit pay scheme. It had caused enormous morale problems for the faculty. However, they keep the administration-run part of the plan which involved modest amounts of money. By contrast the CUNY system has never adopted any merit pay system.

One model that strikes us as worthy of consideration is that used at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Faculty are given either a "Satisfactory Performance Award" for doing their job in a satisfactory manner or better, or an "Exceptional Performance Award" for going beyond the normal performance levels of their job. A third category is an "Unsatisfactory Rating of Performance," although this is rarely applied. If applied, this means no raise for the person(s) so evaluated. Monetary rewards linked to both rank and to years on campus are also part of the model.

The UC merit pay system was also reviewed and many aspects of it seemed adaptable for use in the CSU.

Copies of the contracts consulted may be read at the CSU Academic Senate office.

Listserve

A listserve was created in April 1997, to gather thoughts and ideas about merit pay from colleagues throughout the system. Notification of the list, with instructions about subscribing, was sent to all CSU Academic Senators and CSU campus Senates. The number of subscribers grew rapidly to a high of 196 by the middle of May. The list was very active throughout May and slowed down during the summer months. Messages began flowing across the internet in September; the list proved too busy for many colleagues, and the number of new subscribers was outnumbered by those unsubscribing. By early October, only 155 persons remained on the list–but they were an active bunch. By October 4, 1997, about 175 messages had been posted by 55 different individuals. Another 120 messages had been posted by the end of October, and a dozen new voices joined the discussion (156 subscribers).

The list has proved a gold mine of information and ideas. As might be expected, point and counterpoint was a normal part of the discussion. Of course, some subscribers were more active than others; one person posted 20 messages, several others were in the high teens, and most lurked in the background. Nonetheless, the list provided a useful dialogue about merit pay, both as it now exists and as it should exist. Postings ranged from full-blown plans to cryptic comments. Decorum was maintained throughout the discussion, and several subscribers noted that this was a model way to involve faculty in important issues facing the CSU. Campus visits confirmed the benefit of conducting an on-line discussion as a way to gather new and useful information and opinions.

A collection of the messages is available for review at the CSU Academic Senate office or via e-mail. Contact Dan.Whitney@sdsu.edu

Campus Visits

As noted above, the Task Force visited 20 of the CSU’s 22 campuses, usually in teams of two. Discussions were held with faculty and in some cases with administrators or with groups of union members. Campus faculty were eager to discuss merit pay. Although those who attended these campus meetings were not unanimous in their opposition to merit pay in general, nearly all of our colleagues would like to see the PSSI-type merit pay disappear from the CSU. Very few defended merit pay. Virtually no one defended our current system. (PSSI) We heard many good ideas for ways a merit pay system might be improved, if indeed, a merit pay system was to continue. We have incorporated a number of these in our principles and proposed alternative models.

Notes taken by Task Force members during campus visits may be read at the CSU Academic Senate office.

APPENDIX

MERIT PAY MODEL A

Assumptions:

• The use of "merit" in this document does not imply that those not recognized for additional compensation are unmeritorious.

• Since funds available for additional compensation based on merit are limited, faculty members who seek additional compensation are thrust into competition with one another. Such competition has an unhealthy impact on faculty collegiality and cooperation, two things valued in an academic environment. Competition for scarce resources in the form of merit pay can have a detrimental effect on faculty morale.

• The mission of the CSU and the individual campuses is significantly important in determining compensation, including merit pay, for those employed in the CSU. Although three general areas of responsibility are common to all campuses within the CSU–teaching, research and creative activity, and service to the university or community–campuses within the system vary according to the relative weight assigned to each in determining merit. Within a single campus, the relative importance of teaching, research and creative activity, and service to the university or community in determining merit can vary widely.

• Faculty should have primary responsibility in determining the meaning of merit.

• The CSU recognizes and financially rewards merit by its system of ranks, i.e., Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Full Professor; individuals are thoroughly and carefully reviewed for tenure and promotion several times during their career. Rank is an important indicator that one has achieved the increased standards expected within one’s profession and university, and achievement should be reflected in one’s compensation.

• Nearly all professors are very good at carrying out one or more of the professional activities expected of professors in the CSU, teaching, research and creative activity, and service to the university or community.

• Compensation increases based on merit should be made to individuals who demonstrate outstanding performance in carrying out their professional responsibilities in one or more of the three recognized areas, and who are judged as better than average in the remaining areas. Exact definitions of what constitutes outstanding and better than average performance in each of the three areas–teaching, research and creative activity, and service to the university or community–should be made by faculty at the local campus.

• Salary step increases for Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors should be granted–independently from this merit pay plan–to all faculty unless they are found to be performing below average in one of the three general areas of professional responsibility, teaching, research or creative activity, and service to the university or community. Such determinations should be made by a committee of peers and through a process that allows appeal and full consideration for Due Process.

• The highest base pay for a rank should not exceed the lowest base pay for the next higher rank. For example, top-step Assistant Professor’s base pay should not exceed that of a step-one Associate Professor’s base pay, nor should a top step Associate Professor’s base pay exceed the base pay of a step-one Full Professor.

Basic Elements:

1. All (100%) of compensation dollars should be used to close the CPEC faculty salary gap. No merit pay system shall be initiated until that gap has been closed.

2. New compensation dollars to the CSU should be divided as follows: (a) All faculty shall receive a cost-of-living increase equal to some index, such as the previous year’s cost of living; (b) The balance of funds from the state shall be used to fund merit pay.

3. Merit pay increases shall be of four types:

• Promotions from one rank to the next higher rank;

• Step Increases (SI) within a rank;

• Bonuses paid in one lump sum; and

• Base Pay Increases (BSI).

4. The current salary schedule shall be replaced with one that has 5 steps in each of the 3 ranks: Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor. The difference between each step within a rank shall be 5%, and the difference between ranks shall be 7%. An individual shall be eligible to move from one step to the next step within a rank every 2 years and eligible for promotion to the next higher rank after serving at least 5 years in the lower rank.

5. Individuals shall be required to submit minimal paperwork to be considered for advancement from one step to the next within a rank (SI). Faculty on each campus shall be responsible for developing criteria, format, and procedures for such submissions. The president of a campus may review the criteria, format, and procedures and recommend changes. However, the campus Senate shall make the final determination. Campuses are encouraged to develop a system of annual reports by faculty that become the basis for merit awards.

6. Deans and other university administrators may offer advice and counsel concerning which eligible faculty should or should not receive step increases (SI), but final decisions shall be made by duly formed faculty committees.

7. Only faculty at the highest step within their rank shall be eligible to receive a Bonus or a Base Salary Increase (BSI). No other faculty shall be eligible.

8. Faculty at the highest step within their rank shall be eligible for a Bonus or Base Salary Increase (BSI) every 3 years. Individuals who apply for, but do not receive, a merit pay increase are eligible to apply the following year.

9. Assistant and Associate Professors at the top step in their rank shall be eligible for a Bonus equal to the difference between their base pay and the base pay of the next higher rank, i.e., a Bonus of 7% as set forth in number 3 above.

10. Only Full Professors at the top step in their rank shall be eligible for a Base Salary Increase (BSI) equal to one step increase, i.e., 5%.

11. Criteria for merit pay increases shall vary according to rank. Assistant and Associate Professors must demonstrate merit in all 3 areas normally associated with a faculty member’s professional responsibility: teaching, research or creative activity, and service to the university or community.

12. Full Professors applying for increases must demonstrate merit in teaching and one additional area, either research and creative activity or service to the university or community. Applicants also must demonstrate above-average performance in the remaining area.

13. An applicant’s entire record of professional accomplishment shall be reviewed in determining meritorious performance, however, those professional activities since one’s last merit increase shall be accorded greater weight.

14. Non-tenured or tenure-track faculty shall be of 2 types: Lecturers and Senior Lecturers. A separate salary schedule shall be developed for Lecturers and Senior Lecturers that has Merit Salary Adjustments of 2.5% for each year-equivalent of service for Lecturers and 4.0% for each year-equivalent of service for Senior Lecturers. One year-equivalent of service is equal to the annual full-time teaching load of professors at the university. Upon demonstrating above-average performance in teaching, a Lecturer receives a Merit Salary Adjustment for each year-equivalent served. Lecturers may be promoted to Senior Lecturers after 10 year-equivalents of above-average teaching.

15. A merit system patterned on that described for professors shall be developed for Librarians, coaches, and counselors.

MERIT PAY MODEL B

1. No merit pay plan shall be implemented until the CPEC faculty salary gap between the CSU and comparison institutions is eliminated through across-the-board salary increases.

2. Money for compensation shall be divided between across-the-board raises and longevity steps.

3. Money for Group/Individual merit awards shall be in the Faculty Development portion of the CSU budget.

4. The CFA and CSU shall create a joint task force to plan and make recommendations for the creation of group/individual merit awards. The joint task force shall report prior to the beginning of bargaining of the 1999-2000 contract/reopener between CFA and CSU. During the 1998-1999 academic year no merit awards shall be given.

5. Guidelines for the development of group/individual development awards shall include:

a. Setting goals by groups, including departments, programs, and teams;

b. Establishing criteria and means of measurement of the achievement of goals;

c. Establishing types of awards, for example, money to further group projects, additional computers, and travel;

d. Setting goals by individuals and establishing criteria and means of measurement;

e. Establishing types of awards for individuals, for example, additional travel money, leaves with pay, and additional assigned time;

f. Establishing an amount of money for group/individual faculty development;

g. Establishing division of money between group and individual awards.

6. Decision making for awards shall be decentralized.

7. No system of merit awards for groups/individuals shall be put into place without a fair and equitable appeal process for those denied awards. Final decisions shall be made by the faculty. Due process shall be protected by the university president.

8. Groups/individuals seeking awards shall not serve on any committee involved in determining who receives awards.

MERIT PAY MODEL C

This model is based on the RTP process and on a salary scale consisting of 3 ranges each with 6 steps, with each step representing a 3-5% addition to base pay. It also assumes across-the-board increases as appropriate to adjust for changes in the cost of living. Finally, it presents 3 possible evaluations for pay increases: unsatisfactory, satisfactory, and exceptional.

Probationary Assistant Professors (i.e., tenure-track but not yet tenured): Probationary assistant professors must currently be reviewed every year, and their departments must recommend whether they will be retained or terminated. For those retained, this evaluation will automatically produce a one-step advancement on the salary scale. The Assistant Professor range will consist of steps 1-6, so that a person hired at step 1 will reach step 6 during the year in which the department must recommend for or against tenure and promotion to Associate Professor.

Probationary faculty are given an exhaustive evaluation in their sixth year for consideration for tenure and promotion (typically different procedures). For those granted tenure and promoted, there will be an automatic step increase for each, and, thus, for those both tenured and promoted, an advance of 2 steps, an exceptional salary increase, to step 8.

Full funding for steps 1-8 will be the first priority for merit pay funds.

Tenured Associate Professors: Tenured associate professors currently undergo an exhaustive evaluation when they seek promotion to Professor, typically after 5 years. That will be changed. Instead, the department personnel committee will conduct an annual review of Associate Professors. Those showing satisfactory performance will automatically receive a one-step advance up to a maximum of 5. Thus, promotion to Associate Professor will involve placement at Step 8, and, after a maximum of 4 step increases, an Associate Professor will advance to Step 12. The Associate Professor range will cover steps 7-12. Associate Professors may not advance beyond Step 12 without seeking promotion to Professor. Associate Professors declining annual reviews will not receive merit increases but nonetheless must be evaluated every 5 years for continued teaching effectiveness.

Faculty seeking promotion to Professor undergo an exhaustive review. For those promoted, there will be an automatic exceptional salary increase of 2 steps, to step 14.

Full funding for steps 7-14 will be the second priority for merit pay funds.

Tenured Professors: Tenured professors currently undergo an evaluation every 5 years. That will be changed. Instead, Professors will be reviewed in alternate years during the first 8 years after being promoted. Those showing satisfactory performance will automatically receive a one-step advance. Thus, promotion to Professor will involve placement at Step 14 and a maximum of 4 step increases will move the individual to Step 18.

Funding for steps 15-18 will be the third priority for merit pay funds.

Associate Professors or Professors could decline to be reviewed for a maximum of 5 years, but, at the end of a period of 5 years of declined reviews, a review will be mandatory to verify teaching effectiveness and currency in the field, similar to the current review of tenured faculty.

Upon reaching Step 18, Professors will be reviewed on a regular cycle (every 3-5 years), although an individual could request more frequent reviews. Those showing satisfactory performance will receive a bonus equivalent to one step, but it will not be added to base pay. Those evaluated as showing exceptional performance will receive a one-step advance in base pay. It is assumed that exceptional awards will be relatively rare.

Funding for bonuses and for steps above Step 18 will be the lowest priority for merit pay funds.

This model assumes that retention, tenure, and promotions evaluations will be exhaustive, as they are now. Reviews of Associate Professors and Professors are assumed to be much less exhaustive, involving a simple review of a current vita and evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Each campus will establish the procedures and standards for these reviews. These reviews will replace the current evaluations of tenured faculty. Reviews of Professors suggesting the appropriateness of an exceptional award will involve a more thorough evaluation in the 3 categories of teaching, scholarship and creative activity, and service, according to processes and criteria to be established on each campus.

Lecturers: Once a lecturer has completed the equivalent of one year's service (i.e., for a lecturer appointed on the basis of 0.1 of an annual salary for one course, this will mean after teaching 10 courses), he/she will be reviewed by the department on the basis of teaching effectiveness and, if satisfactory, will receive a one-step advance on the salary scale. Upon reaching Step 18 , Lecturers will be eligible for merit increases after the equivalent of 3-5 years of teaching (the same cycle as Professors). Those showing satisfactory performance will receive a bonus equivalent to one step, but it will not be added to base pay. Those evaluated as showing exceptional performance will receive a one-step advance in base pay. It is assumed that such exceptional awards will be relatively rare.

Funding for step increases for lecturers will have the same priority as the corresponding steps for tenured and tenure-track faculty.

Other Faculty: For faculty not appointed to instructional categories, comparable procedures and standards will be developed. Such faculty will be evaluated on the basis for their primary assignment area(s) rather than on teaching. For non-instructional faculty whose ranks are not equivalent to Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professors, comparable ranges and steps will be developed.


Senator Spear moved (Postma seconded) to delete Principle 3 in the Merit Pay Task Force Report. Motion failed.

Senator Keane requested consent to make the following change: to change "current" to "applicable" before "salary" in Principle 3. There were no objections.

Senator Dinielli requested consent to make the following change: to add the words "thank the campuses for their invaluable advice" after "Merit Pay Task Force" in the first Resolved clause of the resolution. There were no objections.

Senator Wort moved to delete "from 7-10%," and replace it with "and that salary increase." There was no second.

Senator Wort moved (Moore seconded) to delete the Models from the Report. Motion failed.

Senator Buck moved (Pasternack seconded) to add a Resolved clause, "That this resolution and report should not be taken as an endorsement of the concept of merit pay."

Senator Amaral moved (Pincu seconded) to add to the end of the Buck amendment, "other than in the RTP process."

Senator Fitzgerald moved to close debate on the Amaral amendment. Motion failed.

Buck amendment failed.

Senator Cherny requested consent to make the following change: to add "overview and" before "principles" in the second Resolved clause; and then to substitute "overview and principles" for "Report" before "to guide them". There were no objections.

Senator Moore moved (Keane seconded) to delete Principle 9.

Senator Cherny moved (Hammerstrom seconded) to amend the amendment by retaining the first two sentences of Principle 9.

Senator Pincu moved to recess for lunch. Motion approved.

1:40 p.m. TIME CERTAIN:

AS-2401-98/FGA/FA SUPPORT FOR AN AUGMENTATION TO

FIRST READING/ THE PROPOSED 1998-99 CSU SUPPORT BUDGET

WAIVER

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge the Chancellor to develop and the Board of Trustees to approve a proposal to augment the CSU 1998-99 Support Budget by an amount appropriate to reducing the CSU faculty salary gap by at least one-third in FY 1998-99; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to develop and the Board of Trustees to approve and publish a plan for eliminating the entire CSU faculty salary gap by Fiscal Year 2000-2001.

RATIONALE: Over the past 10 months, Chancellor Barry Munitz and Board of Trustees Chair Martha Fallgatter have expressed the need for and intention to develop a plan for reducing the CSU faculty salary gap. At this time, no such plan exists and the gap has increased to 11.2 percent.

The original CSU 1998-99 Support Budget Proposal was submitted to the Department of Finance in October 1997 in accordance with the terms of the existing budget compact and estimates of state revenues. Since that time, state revenues have risen dramatically. It is appropriate for the CSU to formulate a proposal to augment the original budget to address this and other needs that both the faculty and the administration have agreed are vital to the future of the CSU.

The CSU is entering a period in which large numbers of faculty hired during the vast expansion of the system during the 1960s will be retiring. Without a competitive salary structure CSU campuses will be severely disadvantaged in hiring replacements for retiring faculty to the detriment of educational quality. In addition, existing CSU faculty, most of whom have endured the lean years of the 1990s budget reductions, deserve compensation at least equivalent to the average of their national peers.

As well, the CSU has other pressing needs, such as physical plant maintenance, instructional equipment replacement, and library acquisitions and support, that should be addressed in a budget augmentation proposal. The faculty would support an augmentation proposal that includes a comprehensive package of items critical to the future of the CSU so long as closing the faculty salary gap is the top priority.

Senator Jensen moved (Whitney seconded) the resolution.

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

AS-2401-98/FGA/FA motion approved unanimously.

Returning to AS-2394-97/FA, the Cherny amendment was approved. The Moore amendment to delete Principle 9 after the first two sentences was approved.

Senator Keane moved (Marshall seconded) to retain the Overview and Principle 1 from the Final Report and to eliminate everything else; add to Principle 1 "other than the RTP process" after "No merit pay plan." Motion failed.

Senator Pasternack moved (Keane seconded) to add "accept" and delete "endorse" before "the Report" in the first Resolved clause of the Resolution.

Senator Wort moved (Pasternack seconded) to substitute "receive" for "accept" in the first Resolved clause. Motion failed

The Pasternack amendment failed.

Senator Spear moved (Oliver seconded) that Principle 3 should read "Variation between the largest and smallest merit awards should be kept at a minimum." Motion failed.

Senator Wort moved (Spear seconded) to add "the overview and principles in" after "endorse" in the first Resolved clause in the resolution. Motion approved.

AS-2394-97/FA motion approved.

Senator Amaral moved to reorder the agenda to take action on item 11, AS-2400-98/EX, "Endorsement of Cornerstones Report Principles."

AS-2400-98/EX ENDORSEMENT OF CORNERSTONES REPORT

FIRST READING/ PRINCIPLES

WAIVER

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the Ten Principles included in the Cornerstones Report.

RATIONALE: Faculty leaders were participants with the trustees, presidents, students, and administrators in the Cornerstones process which engaged all CSU campuses in a collegial exchange of ideas concerning CSU’s future. The Cornerstones Report and its Ten Principles address improving education in and support for the CSU and incorporate suggestions from faculty and campus groups throughout the CSU.

Senator Highsmith moved (Thobaben seconded) the resolution.

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

AS-2400-98/EX motion approved.

AS-2397-98/EX Floor CHANCELLOR BARRY MUNITZ

ACTION

WHEREAS, Chancellor Barry Munitz has

• Been the ambassador par excellence for the CSU and higher education in the nation;

• Reinvigorated the CSU executive leadership, building a team whose members brought focus and energy to the system office;

• Established trust with the legislative and executive branches of California government and brought CSU into the educational policy-making process at the federal level;

• Labored to protect the quality of education in the CSU during a period of economic recession and state funding reductions amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars;

• Demonstrated courage and eloquence in defending the University’s values and mission in the face of legislative challenges;

• Honored students through his work to defend quality and access to the CSU, his engagement with student leadership, and his generous contributions to student scholarships, especially the Claudia Hampton Scholarship Fund;

• Forged new alliances with the alumni/ae and the public to work on behalf of CSU’s mission;

• Supported the work of the faculty through the Academic Senate to establish focus areas of education planning, to engage in an examination of baccalaureate education in the CSU, and to give wide faculty consultation to issues central to CSU’s future;

• Created a new form of partnership between the Chancellor and the Presidents in providing administrative direction for the CSU;

• Brought a new professionalism to relations with the Board of Trustees;

• Worked diligently and successfully with private-sector, business, and non-profit leaders explaining the mission and message of the CSU;

• Established and supported work groups and commissions with broad representation to tackle issues related to student fees and charges, technology, and teacher-education and preparation, among others;

• Encouraged creation of a retirement incentive that protected junior faculty from layoff;

• Engaged the Cornerstones process as an exemplar for the nation of student, faculty, administration, and trustee collaboration and debate on issues fundamental to a university’s future;

• Focused the work of the California Education Round Table on improving the preparation of all students in public K-12 education and on the preparation of teachers;

• Accomplished the undisputed, unofficial record for fastest returned phone calls when something important occurs;

• Enhanced the reputation of the CSU through his work with the American Council on Education and through his leadership on commissions and initiatives of the federal government; therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU express its warmest regards for Barry Munitz and invite him to continue to work with CSU faculty in furthering the goals of higher education in the State of California through the California State University; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU wish Anne and Barry Munitz much happiness and success.

Senator Dinielli moved (Wort seconded) the resolution.

AS-2397-98/EX/Floor motion approved unanimously.

AS-2398-98/TEKR RESPONSE TO THE STATE BOARD OF

SECOND READING EDUCATION’S REVISION OF THE MATHEMATICS

CONTENT STANDARDS FOR GRADES K-12

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University express its alarm with the process by which the State Board of Education revised the California Mathematics Standards for Grades K-12 which were carefully developed by the duly-appointed California Academic Standards Commission and which provided many opportunities for public input; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU advise the State Board of Education that there is a wide body of research on how children learn mathematics which is not reflected in the revised mathematics standards, and that such Standards may result in preparing students with a limited view of mathematics and its applications; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU encourage the Academic Vice President in concert with the Academic Senate to facilitate a healthy discussion between mathematicians and mathematics educators, both of whom bring a wealth of knowledge that can contribute to the improvement of mathematics education.

RATIONALE: The California Academic Standards Commission, an appointed group of professionals and citizens, completed their charge which was to develop standards for mathematics for grades K-12, after wide consultation, including eight public hearings, nine sets of directed community input meetings and wide circulation of drafts for comments from educators and scholars both within California and throughout the nation.

The State Board of Education revised the Mathematics Content Standards and approved their version without any consultation. This process is contrary to the democratic process and should be strongly discouraged.

Senator Keane moved (Keane seconded) the resolution.

AS-2399-98/TEKR RESPONSE TO THE FINAL REPORT OF THE SECOND READING ADVISORY PANEL ON TEACHER EDUCATION, INDUCTION, AND CERTIFICATION FOR TWENTY- FIRST CENTURY SCHOOLS (SB 1422)

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University commend the Advisory Panel on Teacher Education, Induction and Certification for Twenty-first Century Schools (SB 1422 Advisory Panel) for its final report, "California’s Future: Highly Qualified Teachers for All Students"; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU support the goals of the final report, "California’s Future: Highly Qualified Teachers for All Students"; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge Campus Academic Senates to facilitate wide discussion and careful review of , "California’s Future: Highly Qualified Teachers for All Students."

RATIONALE: The SB 1422 Advisory Panel conducted the most comprehensive review of teaching credential requirements in California’s history. The SB 1422 Advisory Panel issued its report, which is consistent with the Presidents’ Group on Teacher Preparation and K-18 Education, and includes the following four main goals for teacher preparation:

• Expand access to teacher preparation and recruit more teachers into the teaching profession

• Improve teaching so as to promote all children’s learning by establishing clear standards that provide strong direction for teaching candidates and preparation programs

• Increase accountability in teaching by establishing rigorous candidate-based assessments and more comprehensive program evaluation and accreditation systems

• Change the teacher certification system through collaborative responsibilities and system evaluation.

Senator Williams moved (Keane seconded) the resolution.

* * * * *

The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m. on Friday, January 23, 1998.

* * * * *

Approved (or corrected)

Date:________________________ _______________________________

James M. Highsmith, Chair

 

_______________________________

Walter Oliver, Secretary

 

________________________________

Margaret Price, Recording Secretary



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