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 |
