Academic Senate of the California State University
MINUTES

Meeting of January 21, 1999
CSU Headquarters, Long Beach, CA

 

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:45 p.m. on Thursday, January 21, 1999, by Chair Gene Dinielli.

ROLL CALL: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield) John Tarjan; (Chico) Samuel Edelman, Paul Spear; (Dominguez Hills) Hal Charnofsky, Dick Williams; (Fresno) James Highsmith, Lester Pincu; (Fullerton) Vincent Buck, Bill Meyer, Barry Pasternack; (Hayward) Judith Stanley, Don Wort; (Humboldt) Elmo Moore; (Long Beach) Gene Dinielli, David Hood, Patricia Rozée; (Los Angeles) Rosemarie Marshall; (Maritime Academy) Ralph Davis; (Monterey Bay) J. Ken Nishita; (Northridge) Lynne Cook, Michael Reagan, Gerald Resendez; (Pomona) Rochelle Kellner, Marvin Klein; (Sacramento) Cristy Jensen, Michael Fitzgerald; (San Bernardino) Walter Oliver, C. E. Tapie Rohm; (San Diego) Ray Boddy, Dan Whitney; (San Francisco) Eunice Aaron, Robert Cherny; (San Jose) Timothy Hegstrom, David McNeil, Bethany Shifflett; (San Luis Obispo) Reginald Gooden, Tom Hale, Timothy Kersten; (San Marcos) Alison King, A. Sandy Parsons; (Sonoma) Susan McKillop, Peter Phillips; (Stanislaus) Pamela Russ; (Chancellor's Office) David Spence.

INTRODUCTIONS

During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:

Erika Freihage, Coordinator, Community Service Learning, Chancellor’s Office

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

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

Dorothy Keane, Assistant Director, K-18 Mathematics Preparation, CO

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

John Richards, Budget Director, Chancellor’s Office

Johnetta Anderson, Technical Assistant, Chancellor’s Office

Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

José Lopez, Clerical Assistant, Academic Senate CSU

Reta Martin, Staff Assistant–Budget, Academic Senate CSU

Margaret Price, Assistant to Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

REPORT OF CHAIR GENE DINIELLI

Those of you who know Henry James know that nothing happens in Henry James except everything. So since our 11 December meeting, nothing really has happened except everything and my two major points would be dealing with Cornerstones and bargaining. You should know that, and I’ve said this before, that both sides have been scrupulous about informing me of the state of bargaining throughout. They ought to be complimented in the timely fashion they have given me news about bargaining, but I’d be a fool to believe that both sides are telling me everything. The fact-finding review board position statement came out just a few days ago beginning a 10-day private, dark period in which both sides do not converse with any other entity or persons outside the bargaining. Starting yesterday and through today serious conversations have taken place between both parties. The end-date deadline is January 26, in which both sides must decide to accept or reject the fact finding review’s recommendations. My understanding is that technically and legally, if there is no agreement, the Chancellor can impose the last best offer. He has, however, other options: He can impose agreements made since the last best offer. I have a sense that the Union has made some gains quite recently. The hope is that we don’t get to that point where the Chancellor has that opportunity to impose the last, best offer.

I believe that the version of Cornerstones that will be going to the Presidents early this morning will simultaneously be given to the Senate. That version is the presumed insert that will replace in the Board of Trustees’ agenda. At the present time there is only a one-page statement in the published Trustees’ agenda. There are four parts to it as I understand it––an overview, a preamble, a statement of the plan, and, attached as consonant with and integral to any other statement on Cornerstones, our own unanimously passed resolution of December 11. Since it was written by committee, there will be some infelicities and some inconsistencies. The document is pretty well infused with the theme of the centrality of the faculty.

This shortened plenary is something we agreed on for the purposes of getting as many people to the AAHE conference beginning tomorrow. As luck would have it, our shortened agenda has filled up with some very important items which need full discussion. You should know that our item on Community Service Learning will also be presented to the Board of Trustees next week reminding the Board about its endorsement of policy which suggests to the campuses to fold in Community Service Learning component in its program requirements.

* * * * *

Standing Committee Reports:

Academic Affairs Committee Chair Robert Cherny reported that the committee reviewed and approved the final wording for AS-2434-98/AA (the Globalization Task Force resolution). AS-2437-98/AA was drafted, endorsing the ICAS report of December 10, 1998, dealing with IGETC and SB 1472. Mary Robinson, Office of Financial Aid, joined the committee for a discussion of a request from the Financial Aid Advisory Council to endorse a UW grade. It was agreed that a letter from Chair Cherny that summarizes the Academic Affairs Committee concerns should be sent to Mary Robinson and the Financial Aid Advisory Council. Hale reported on a study of the Entry Level Mathematics placement test (ELM), SAT I, and SAT II exemption scores (560 or higher on the SAT I or SAT II mathematics test). Pat Carroll of the University General Counsel's office reported on progress toward a letter to the faculty regarding copyright issues. Finally, the committee discussed the Meier Resolution on contract and Cornerstones implementation.

Faculty Affairs Committee Chair Dan Whitney reported that the committee reviewed a recent draft of the Cornerstones Implementation Plan prepared by Vice Chancellor Spence. Following its review, the Committee concluded that the document it saw is generally responsive to the concerns expressed by the Academic Senate CSU and by the local campuses. The Committee was pleased that Vice Chancellor Spence integrated faculty suggestions and concerns into the Plan. Members were encouraged by the evidence of cooperation exhibited in the process.

The Committee reviewed and discussed at length the report, Facing Change: Building the Faculty of the Future, issued by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. We were especially interested in the report because Chancellor Reed chaired the AASCU Faculty Policy Review Project and Vice Chancellor Spence served on Policy Work Group #3. The Committee commends the report to Senators; it is a provocative document, worthy of faculty engagement. Copies of the report were distributed to Senators at the Plenary We will analyze the report and probably develop resolutions related to it during the remainder of the academic year, especially in the areas of faculty development and the role of non-tenure-track faculty.

A member of the Committee suggested the Senate conduct a referendum of the faculty on the issue of merit pay, specifically the question of whether 40% of compensation should be awarded on the basis of merit. The Committee decided not to conduct such a referendum for two reasons: (1) the timing is off; and (2) we felt it would be difficult to get a valid response in view of the difficulty of separating merit pay from the PSSI, and we all know what faculty think of the PSSI.

The Committee continued discussing faculty development. We made a valiant attempt to define the meaning of faculty development, a concept that I liken to those shifting sandcastles of speculation we have been hearing about recently. We plan to continue digging into this topic.

The Committee learned that CLRIT has formed a committee to explore and develop a CSU position on intellectual property rights and the fair use of copyrighted materials. Although a joint committee of Faculty Affairs and Academic Affairs has been formed, it yet has not gotten off the ground. Depending on the direction the CLRIT committee takes, the joint committee expects either to soar or to taxi back into the hangar and stay there.

Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Bethany Shifflett reported:

1. Report on budget Info from System Budget Advisory Committee meeting (1/19)

A Group will be convened to examine proposed lottery fund budget principles. Anyone interested should let Bethany know and she'll pass names on to John Richards.

Materials related to 99/2000 budget distributed & discussed. Of note:

With respect to general fund increases, Governor's budget provides considerably fewer dollars than the BOT proposed particularly in the areas of

• Compensation (2.45% compared to 4%)

• Compensation supplement (0 compared to 2%)

• Technology (2 mill. Compared to 25 mill.)

• Utilization of productivity savings (0 compared to 10 mill)

• State recognized deficiencies (0 compared to 45 mill)

Senators directed to information (distributed at meeting) from Governor's Budget Summary and the 1/15 legislative report.

2. FGA report

Committee had productive meetings with Karen Yelverton & Bob Gurian

Committee discussed plans for their February 10 visit to Sacramento

Committee discussed legislative days––Dates April 12 & 13

Proposal for trustee sponsored legislation includes these academic issues:

• Subject matter projects

• Joint doctoral degrees

• Financial aid

• Grad student FTE calculation

Committee presently tracking 8 assembly bills and 9 senate bills.

Information will continue to be shared with other committees as needed.

G. E. Chair Ken Nishita reported that the next meeting of the Chancellor's GE Advisory Committee will be on February 11, 1-5 p. m. The three main agenda items are:

(1) Cornerstones Implementation Plan

(2) CSU and CCC review of the United States History, Constitution and American Ideals requirements

(3) revisiting the process for the GE Course Review.

The Subcommittee for Course Review will begin their review in February-March.

TEKR Committee Chair Elmo Moore reported that TEKR’s time was devoted primarily to two items: a growing body of legislation dealing with K-12 issues, and the British Open University project.

The committee discussed ten current bills. For now, we’re taking a "wait and see" position, waiting to see how the usual collection of amendments affect them, particularly their implementation and funding. Most of the bills actually seem constructive, but we’ll see how they evolve. They may be items we will want to address during legislative days.

The committee also discussed the OU project and TEKR’s role in it. This included a brief meeting with the executive committee to discuss the relationship between TEKR and the Senate’s ad hoc evaluation committee. We also received a lengthy and informative status report from Carol Barnes who is one of the faculty leaders in the project. She said that drafts of the course materials and the associated text books will be distributed to TEKR and the campuses on February 12. TEKR hopes to help facilitate the solicitation of input regarding these materials.

ACTION

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Senator Aaron moved (Whitney seconded) approval of the minutes of November 5-6, 1998. The minutes were approved.

AS-2434-98/AA RESPONSE TO THE "REPORT OF THE TASK

SECOND READING FORCE ON CSU GLOBALIZATION" AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University receive the "Report of the Task Force on CSU Globalization" and its cover letter and thank the members of the Task Force for their work; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU endorse the Task Force's recommendations 1 through 7 in the "Report of the Task Force on CSU Globalization":

1. That the global education dimension, including the pursuit of a global ethos, be recognized as an integral part of the Mission of the CSU;

2. That each campus within the CSU consider systematically all the types of activities and programs it wishes to be involved in to promote global education;

3. That current and potential developments in telecommunications and Internet-based technologies be recognized and used as significant means of pursuing the globalization of the CSU, especially in offering courses and programs across international boundaries;

4. That the internationalization of the curriculum be recognized as being at the heart of the globalization of the CSU and that systematic efforts be conducted through individual campus processes, as well as cooperatively across campuses, to promote such internationalization; [and t]hat faculty members be encouraged to internationalize their courses and to contribute as possible to international interdisciplinary studies;

5. That faculty…development programs [to increase faculty members’ involvement in international/global education] be encouraged and facilitated;

6. That efforts to attract and serve international students in various CSU programs be pursued and intensified, with increasing attention as feasible and possible, to contributing to the overall globalization process on each campus;

7. That Study Abroad be recognized as an integral part of the globalization strategy of the CSU and that efforts be made to increase the diversity of programs in duration, content, and opportunities, and to maximize access as well as cost-effectiveness[; t]hat for purposes of balance and diversity, the gradual development of additional opportunities for study abroad be explored in the Pacific Basin countries as well as in the developing countries[; and t]hat systemwide study abroad programs be funded at the level equivalent to the campus average general fund support per FTES; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU endorse President Gerth's elaboration on the obligations of the CSU toward international students, an extension of Recommendation 6: "When a campus brings international students, clearly their educational needs must be met––ESL programs, strong advising programs, and the like"; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU also endorse President Gerth's recommendation that "a mechanism for assessment and accountability will need to be created" as the CSU expands its international/global role; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU not at this time endorse the Task Force's recommendation 8, for the creation of an Office of Global Education in the Chancellor's office, and that the Academic Senate CSU does not endorse President Gerth's recommendation for the decentralization of the CSU International Programs; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU reconstitute its ad hoc Task Force on International Programs, to add to that group representatives from ACIP and, in consultation with the Executive Vice Chancellor, the Academic Affairs staff of the CSU; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that the "Report of the Task Force on CSU Globalization" not become system policy until further consideration and integration of principles developed by the Academic Senate’s ad hoc Task Force on International Programs and until more specific recommendations for implementation are developed; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend to the Chancellor and Board of Trustees that the CSU Office of International Programs be given a five-year commitment of support, that a formal search be initiated for a permanent director, and that the position of assistant director be restored; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge each CSU campus to support and encourage international/global exchanges, experiences, cultural immersions, and cross-cultural understandings by forming partnerships and joint activities with worldwide, socially responsible institutions including governments, indigenous groups, non-governmental organizations, cultural projects, and business.

RATIONALE: On September 30, 1998, CSU Executive Vice Chancellor David Spence forwarded the "Report of the Task Force on CSU Globalization" and a cover letter from the Task Force Chair, Donald Gerth, to the Academic Senate and to campuses "for review and consultation." His letter to the Academic Senate requested the "thoughtful evaluation of the issues raised and recommendations presented in the Task Force Report," and looked toward action by the Board of Trustees in March 1999.

The Academic Senate CSU is aware of current use of the term globalization to refer to the changes in international commerce, but this is not the primary concern of global education. Instead, global education is based on the premise that there now exists the potential for the emergence of a truly global human society. It is logical and appropriate for the CSU to evaluate the import of these changes for the nature of education in the CSU. Toward this end, in its Baccalaureate Education in the California State University (November 1997), the Academic Senate CSU proposed that the baccalaureate degrees awarded in the CSU should include

Knowledge and skills to participate in democratic decision-making and global civil society. CSU baccalaureate education prepares graduates to participate fully and responsibly in decision-making processes and in global civil society more generally. Graduates possess an understanding of democratic institutions and values, and understand their responsibility to their community. They possess a sense of self-awareness within a broader awareness of kinship with the human community in all its diversity. CSU graduates understand the nature of prejudice and discrimination and reject stereotypic thinking.

And that, in completing their baccalaureate,

Students develop an appreciation of global interdependence and multicultural experiences to break down prejudices and provincial visions and to open their eyes and minds to the diversity of cultures and experiences which define American society and the contemporary world.

In 1996-97, the Academic Senate CSU formed an ad hoc Task Force on International Programs. That group formulated a set of principles on international education and CSU study abroad programs, but then held further action in abeyance pending the work of the Task Force on CSU Globalization created by CSU Chancellor Barry Munitz in Spring 1997. In part as a result of inquiries by that taskforce, on July 8, 1998, Executive Vice Chancellor David Spence presented the "1998 Survey of International Courses, Programs, and Services" in the CSU, noting in his cover letter that, in 1997-98, some 21,500 students were served in some fashion by CSU international programs. This survey provides the most detailed information yet available on the impressively wide array of international education now available throughout the CSU, both programs for CSU students to study abroad and for students from outside the United States to study in the CSU.

On September 23, 1998, Donald Gerth, chair of the Task Force on CSU Globalization, forwarded that group's report with a long cover letter reinforcing some of the report's recommendations, elaborating on some, and introducing some new concerns in addition to those developed in the taskforce's report. The report of the taskforce carried eight specific recommendations:

1. That the global education dimension, including the pursuit of a global ethos, be recognized as an integral part of the Mission of the CSU;

2. That each campus within the CSU consider systematically all the types of activities and programs it wishes to be involved in to promote global education;

3. That current and potential developments in telecommunications and Internet-based technologies be recognized and used as significant means of pursuing the globalization of the CSU, especially in offering courses and programs across international boundaries;

4. That the internationalization of the curriculum be recognized as being at the heart of the globalization of the CSU and that systematic efforts be conducted through individual campus processes, as well as cooperatively across campuses, to promote such internationalization; [and t]hat faculty members be encouraged to internationalize their courses and to contribute as possible to international interdisciplinary studies;

5. That faculty international development programs be encouraged and facilitated;

6. That efforts to attract and serve international students in various CSU programs be pursued and intensified, with increasing attention as feasible and possible, to contributing to the overall globalization process on each campus;

7. That Study Abroad be recognized as an integral part of the globalization strategy of the CSU and that efforts be made to increase the diversity of programs in duration, content, and opportunities, and to maximize access as well as cost-effectiveness[; t]hat for purposes of balance and diversity, the gradual development of additional opportunities for study abroad be explored in the Pacific Basin countries as well as in the developing countries[; and t]hat systemwide study abroad programs be funded at the level equivalent to the campus average general fund support per FTES;

8. That an Office of Global Education (OGE) be created at the Chancellor's Office reporting to the senior CSU officers in charge of academic affairs and that this office be dedicated to serving the CSU campuses in their globalization efforts and plans and in providing a set of valuable systemwide services.

President Gerth's cover letter elaborated at length on the need for greater involvement by the CSU in the world, voiced important cautions about recommendation 6 (having to do with the needs of students who come to the CSU from other parts of the world), expanded on recommendation 8 by providing additional information on the possible roles of such a new CSU administrator, and presented a new proposal, not addressed in the Task Force report, for decentralization of the existing systemwide international programs.

President Gerth's concerns about meeting the needs of international students is appropriate. At times, some in the CSU seem to have seen international students largely as a source of out-of-state fees and have not provided an appropriate range of services to meet their needs for language instruction, tutoring, advising, assistance with housing, and much more. The CSU is by no means alone in this attitude, but when the financial advantage to be gained by attracting international students is put before the obligation of the host campus, no one is well served.

With regard to recommendation 8, neither the report nor the cover letter seems to provide an adequate rationale for creation of such a position nor a clear description of the relation between such a position and other existing programs. Some such new position may well be appropriate, but recommendation for creation of such a position requires a more careful definition of the responsibilities of the position and the relation of the new position to existing programs, both those now located in the Chancellor's Office and those located on campuses.

Similarly, neither the report nor the cover letter provides a compelling reason to justify decentralization, and the Academic Affairs Committee of the Academic Senate CSU found no compelling rationale for decentralization in its brief examination of the matter. On the contrary, the committee found reasons to continue the current approach based in the Chancellor's office––the programs available through the CSU Office of International Programs (OIP) provide an extraordinarily high-quality, cultural-immersion, study-abroad experience at a fraction of the cost of such programs at most institutions. To decentralize those programs might well be to lose important advantages of scale, of access to all CSU students, and of faculty participation from throughout the CSU. None of these issues are addressed in the report or the cover letter.

In recent years, the OIP has gone through a change in leadership, a long period with an interim director, and constant rumors that it was likely to be either significantly restructured or closed. Nonetheless, the staff has carried on and produced high-quality, study-abroad opportunities for CSU students. To continue in this state of uncertainty cannot produce positive benefits. If there is to be any major change in the status of OIP, it must come as the result of careful analysis of the specific programs and of alternatives, and it must be based on the best possible way of meeting the needs of CSU students for study abroad. Because there has been no such careful study, it seems wholly appropriate that OIP and ACIP be given assurance that no changes are contemplated in the near future, that a permanent director be appointed following an appropriate search, that the position of assistant director be restored, and that there be created a regular five-year evaluation cycle comparable to that of campus academic units.

The principles for international programs developed by the Academic Senate’s ad hoc Task Force on International Programs and the recommendations of the Task Force on CSU Globalization need to be integrated and to become the basis for specific recommendations for implementation. It is necessary for the faculty, through the Academic Senate, to be centrally involved in that process of integration and in the development of specific recommendations for implementation.

Senator Jensen moved (Williams seconded) to amend by deleting the ninth Resolved clause. Motion failed.

AS-2434-98/AA motion approved unanimously.

AS-2436-98/FLOOR (MEYER) CORNERSTONES AND THE CONTRACT

SECOND READING

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University take no additional action on Cornerstones or its implementation until a new contract between the California State University and the California Faculty Association is approved.

Senator Pincu moved (Parsons seconded) to postpone until the March plenary meeting.

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

AS-2436-98/Floor (Meyer) motion postponed definitely.

AS-2437-99/AA ENDORSEMENT OF "COMPLETION OF IGETC AFTER

FIRST READING/ TRANSFER: A RESPONSE TO SB 1472 (ALPERT) BY THE

WAIVER INTERSEGMENTAL COMMITTEE OF ACADEMIC SENATES" (DECEMBER 10, 1998)

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse "Completion of IGETC After Transfer: A Response to SB 1472 (Alpert) by the Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates" (December 10, 1998).

RATIONALE: "Completion of IGETC After Transfer: A Response to SB 1472 (Alpert) by the Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates" (December 10, 1998) represents a reasonable approach to the problem faced by a student who, for good cause, transfers to CSU or UC before completing the full IGETC program in a community college.

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

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

AS-2437-99/AA motion approved unanimously.

* * * * *

The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m. on Thursday, January 21, 1999.

* * * * *

Approved (or corrected)

Date:________________________ _______________________________

Gene L. Dinielli, Chair

 

_______________________________

Hal Charnofsky, Secretary

 

________________________________

Margaret Price, Recording Secretary



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