CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 10:35 a.m. on Thursday, March 15, 2001, by Chair Jacquelyn Kegley.
ROLL CALL: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield) Jacquelyn Kegley, John Tarjan; (Chico) Samuel Edelman, Kathleen Kaiser; (Dominguez Hills) Hal Charnofsky, Dick Williams; (Fresno) James Highsmith, Lester Pincu; (Fullerton) Vincent Buck, Bill Meyer, Barry Pasternack; (Hayward) Calvin Caplan, Don Wort; (Humboldt) Robert Snyder, Marshelle Thobaben; (Long Beach) Gene Dinielli, David Hood, Patricia Rozée; (Los Angeles) Frederick Anderson, Marshall Cates; (Maritime Academy) James Wheeler; (Monterey Bay) J. Ken Nishita, Robert van Spyk; (Northridge) Lynne Cook, Michael Reagan, Barbara Swerkes; (Pomona) Rochelle Kellner, Marvin Klein; (Sacramento) Cristy Jensen, Louise Timmer; (San Bernardino) Buckley Barrett, Jeanne King; (San Diego) Ray Boddy; (San Francisco) Eunice Aaron, Robert Cherny, Jan Gregory; (San Jose) David McNeil, Bethany Shifflett; (San Luis Obispo) Reginald Gooden, Myron Hood, Timothy Kersten; (San Marcos) Dick Montanari, A. Sandy Parsons; (Sonoma) Susan McKillop, *Philip McGough; (Stanislaus) Fred Hilpert; (Chancellor's Office) David Spence.
During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:
Michael Bezanson, Environmental Affairs Officer, California State Student Association
Charles Crawford, Daily Aztec Reporter, San Diego State University
Harold Goldwhite, Faculty Trustee and Professor of Chemistry, CSU Los Angeles
Gary Hammerstrom, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, CO
Susan Meisenhelder, President, California Faculty Association
Donald Moore, Consultant, Association of California State University Professors; Emeritus and Retired Faculty Association (non-voting delegate)
Luis Portillo, California State Student Association Liaison to Academic Senate CSU
David Spence, Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer, CSU
Jessica Zisko, Daily Aztec Editor, San Diego State University
Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU
Margaret Price, Assistant to Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU
Shirley Sparkman, Staff Assistant-Budget, Academic Senate CSU
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS
REPORT OF CHAIR JACQUELYN ANN K. KEGLEY
Faculty Flow Task Force--January 18, 2001
The Faculty Flow Task Force met on January 18 at the CSU Chancellor's Office. Three campus senate chairs-Mary Jo Gorney-Moreno (San Jose); Bob Buckley (Sacramento) and William Fasse (Fresno) joined CSU Statewide Senators Bill Meyer, Tim Kersten, Barbara Swerkes, Fred Anderson, Sam Edelman and Task Force Chair, Barry Pasternack. CSU Senate Chair Kegley and Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer David Spence were also present and opened the meeting with remarks about the significance of this group and undertaking. Representing the Chancellor's Office were Gary Hammerstrom and Cordelia Ontiveros. Focus of the discussion was on faculty recruitment and hiring. It was agreed that we need some data on success and failure rates and on the reasons why faculty do accept positions at the CSU and on the reasons why they do not. There is also a need to collect information on best practices. The group also recommended that four additional members be added to the Task Force, two Provosts for Academic Affairs and two Vice Presidents for Human Resources.
This group met again on February 8. Two survey forms were discussed: one for those faculty members who reject job offers from CSU campuses and one for those who choose to come to CSU. These should be ready shortly for distribution.
Advisory Committee--Faculty Governance Study - January 24, 2001
The Advisory Committee for the Faculty Governance study met on January 24, 2001, to discuss the preliminary results of the faculty governance study. The committee heard reports from the two principal investigators, Professors Buck and Highsmith. The committee also reviewed the preliminary draft report as well as appendices distributed at the meeting. It was agreed that the report should focus on system shared governance. System shared governance is difficult and, in fact, exists in only a small number of cases. CSU should be proud of its efforts in this regard. It was agreed that
a final report should be recast as follows:
- An introductory section that gives the background of the study.
- A section that describes where the CSU is at present, i.e., how shared governance in the system is perceived, drawing on the survey results. This should indicate the almost universal agreement that shared governance is worthwhile and should be supported and strengthened.
- A section that describes what experts on higher education governance judge to be best practices, drawing on interviews with these persons.
- A section that describes what other systems are currently doing in the area of shared governance, drawing on interviews with leaders of these systems. The systems to focus on are City University of New York (CUNY), State University of New York (SUNY), University of North Carolina (UNC) and University of California (UC).
- A concluding section of consensus recommendations drawn from sections a-d above. These recommendations should form the "Model" of shared governance that could serve as an action plan for the CSU and should replace the existing "Model" distributed to the group.
- The organizational structure for the sections should follow the organization currently used in Appendices C and D. Appendix E should be reorganized in a parallel manner.
The revised report and appendices will form the basis for discussion by the Advisory Committee supplemented by an invited group of additional trustees, presidents, provosts, Senate leaders, and Chancellor's Office staff. Two campus senate chairs will also be included in this discussion. This discussion will take place on Thursday, March 1, from 4-6 p.m. during the Academic Conference in San Diego.
The study is envisioned as a threefold process: (1) collection of data via the survey and interviews; (2) development of recommendations and an action plan based on the data and discussion among the expanded constituencies; and (3) discussion and recommendations for improvement from Faculty Affairs and the Senate.
Master Plan Strategy
In an extensive discussion with Dr. Charles Ratliff, the director for the Master Plan Hearing operations, I was able to establish our deep concern about the issues being addressed and our desire to offer our expertise and perspective on certain issues. He apologized for the lack of response to our nominations to Task Forces. This process is still in the early stages and hopefully we will be hearing soon about any appointments. In addition, I will monitor the Master Plan Committee web page in order to be alerted to future hearings. Dr. Ratliff stated that if we wanted to speak at any of these hearings, he would be glad to try to place us on the schedule. He is interested in our perspective on excellence and said he and his staff would be glad to receive the Baccalaureate document and a version of the Academic Affairs document. They would read these materials and send them to relevant Task Forces. The Baccalaureate document has been sent.
Cristy Jensen will be an observer at the February 12 hearing on "Articulation and Remediation" and hopefully Barry Pasternack, with the assistance of Bob Cherny, will be allowed to testify at the February 27 hearing on "Faculty Supply/Demand."
Panel on Governance Study at the AAHE--Tampa, Florida, February 1-3
Jim Highsmith, Vince Buck and I made a presentation at the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) meeting in Tampa. The title of the presentation was "Will Academic Governance Survive: New Academic Citizens in a Changing Academic World." We lead a group of 25 participants through a scenario that elicited many good suggestions on how to involve newer faculty in governance. The various strategies for involving new faculty in governance that emerged from our internal CSU survey were reported to the group. There is a great deal of interest in the topic. In fact, the Chair of the Minnesota governance group hopes to visit with us in May.
Workload Task Force--January 27, 2001
The group did an extensive review of two workload surveys, one for the tenure/tenure-track faculty and another for all temporary faculty. A final review of these will take place on Friday, February 9. Shortly thereafter, the surveys will be sent to the office of the academic senate on campus. This will allow careful placement in the boxes of the faculty randomly selected for the survey. It was also determined to constitute a subgroup of librarians and student affairs persons (in unit III) who will work with Richard Serpe to construct a workload survey for these members of the faculty. The Task Force will meet again on March 9 to discuss the survey of comparable institutions. I am very encouraged by the progress of this tripartite effort.
Board of Trustees Retreat--February 6, 2001
The trustees held a retreat on Monday evening and Tuesday, February 5-6, at the LAX Marriott. I was invited to attend the Tuesday discussion session. Growth, accountability, resource development and management labor relations and communications were among the topics for discussion.
Access for students is a priority issue. California does not have enough four-year public institutions. There is a need for more serious consideration of off-campus centers. Enrollments in the Bay Area are down. Some of the causes seem to be fewer university-bound students in high school, fewer transfers and lack of student housing. Articulation and transfer is very important and partnerships with community colleges should be vigorously pursued. Benchmarks need to be established for campuses and campus master plans need to be updated and reviewed. Schools of Education are being asked to survey their graduates. The data on persistence to graduation should also be reviewed; this area needs improvement.
Goals are being established for each campus and will be reviewed in two years and then in four to five years. The partnership was discussed. It was suggested that it would be well to provide the legislature a review of seven years since the initiation of the compact highlighting the productivity achievements of the CSU and the manner in which we have honored our commitments.
Richard West reviewed the background of technology investment beginning with the Integrated Technology Initiative. CSU is serving as the agent and operator of the State Higher Education Network. This provides connectivity for CSU, UC (on contract) and the community colleges (on contract) as well as K-12. Collaborative Management Systems (CMS) evolves from a need of the CSU for adequate information in all areas. CMS is projected at $350-$450 million. It is an investment in administrative support that has been neglected for many years and will result in considerable savings including the reduction of numerous data centers. (West noted that employees would not be displaced; if there is some displacement, retraining will occur.)
Implementation of the financial and human resources software for the first-wave 11 campuses will occur from March through May. The campuses are not reporting any major problems; however, there are some criticisms. Campuses who have made investments in more up-to-date software resent losing this investment. PeopleSoft has received some negative press. Certain institutions such as Cleveland State, Michigan State and Ohio State had bad experiences with PeopleSoft implementation. However, these institutions now admit that they did not go about this implementation correctly. At Cleveland State there was no training for implementation. Ohio State failed to exercise discipline and control over the implementation. CSU is maintaining the maximum amount of discipline. In addition, we are dealing directly with Craig Conway, the new CEO of PeopleSoft. The implementation of the student affairs module is the highest risk because of its size and complexity and lack of consistency. This is the biggest challenge, but will have the biggest payoff in terms of good information and other consequences. Questions were raised about implementation for auxiliary organization. Vice Chancellor West indicated that this implementation is a campus presidential decision including when, how and how costs will be fairly distributed.
Much concern was expressed about the feasibility of a successful bond issue. A land use policy was discussed along with debt capacity. Questions about using land for cash return were discussed including the need for connection to the academic missions. Needs and priorities in a campus master plan ought to drive these issues. There was brief discussion of a capitol facilities fee.
There was considerable concern expressed about efforts to improve relations with California Faculty Association (CFA). The Chancellor sent a letter on January 26, 2001, to Susan Meisenhelder indicating a willingness and desire to establish a labor management task force. This group could, with the help of a mutually agreed upon party, begin work on a merit pay plan, using the Senate Merit Pay Task Force document and the 1997 report of the Labor Management Committee. There has been no response to this invitation.
Upon the recommendation of Vice Chancellor Emeritus Douglas Patiño a consulting firm has been hired to help establish a communications plan for the CSU that will better inform internal and external constituencies of actions, plans and goals of the CSU.
Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates--February 7, 2001
A meeting on ICAS took place on February 7, 2001, at the LAX Westin.
Reports from Segment Chairs
In her report to ICAS members, Linda Collins, Chair of the Community Colleges Senate reported on the issues before their group. I highlight two. The CCC has an item in the Governor's budget of $62 million to deal with the problems of part-time faculty including compensation and professional development. This demonstrates an interest by the governor in important faculty concerns. Related to this, the CCC, at the suggestion of a member of their Governing Board, is engaged in a pilot project to set up inter-district faculty positions that would allow part-time faculty, who teach at several colleges, to put together a full-time position. This experiment should provide some interesting information on the complexities, failures and successes of dealing with the part-time faculty who have multiple appointments. The second item has been a concern of the CSU. This is the development of the California Leadership Development Institute as a joint venture of Claremont and CCC to offer doctoral education for administrators including future CEO's of institutions of higher education. This effort was initiated by an external group and without any consultation with the CCC faculty or with CSU and UC. Those present concurred with Linda that there should be public discussion of this effort. There is a funding bill likely to be sponsored by Jack Scott for this institute. She urged that each segment senate get involved in convincing Scott that this is a premature effort that needs public discussion. The group present concurred with this recommendation.
Michael Cowan, Chair of the UC Academic Council, also reported on issues before their senate. A central issue for them, as for CSU, is growth. UC also is being directed toward year-round operation. There is a three-year plan to move campuses to extensive summer sessions. Berkeley, UCLA and Santa Barbara are scheduled for this move for the coming summer. Davis, San Diego and Santa Cruz are in the second group and Irvine and Riverside in the third group. Obviously, we share common concerns and should collaborate on them. UC has similar concern, as does CCC, about faculty growth, hiring and housing. UC is also looking at its senate structure in terms of workload of committees, efficiency of committee structure, and better overall operation and direction.
I reported on the following issues, on behalf of the CSU and Academic Senate: the Academic Affairs document; the Workload Task Force, the Faculty Flow Task Force work and the Chancellor's push for the Ed.D. The group indicated an interest in both the workload and the faculty flow effort and asked to be kept informed. There was concern that there be faculty involvement in the Ed.D. discussions and that intersegmental cooperation not be ignored.
A progress report was given on the Intersegmental Major Preparation Articulation Curriculum (IMPAC) project. Three regional meetings have been held with participation of about 390 faculty members from the three segments. A fourth meeting is scheduled in Bakersfield on February 24. A great deal of work has been accomplished and enthusiasm for the project is high among participants. In addition to specific problem solving the focus has turned to interdisciplinary concerns and dialogue among groups about cognates and prerequisites and how they relate to professionally oriented majors such as nursing. Penny Edgert, Executive Director of the Intersegmental Coordinating Council (ICC), attended a regional meeting and will be reporting to the Roundtable. A report was also given to the ICC Executive Committee. IMPAC is now moving to phase III and needs recommendations for lead faculty for business, computer information systems, and the administration of justice, economics and political science. These groups will begin regional meetings in fall 2001. ICAS reaffirmed its strong support for IMPAC and accepted the progress report. It was recommended that the IMPAC Steering Committee bring to ICAS a calendar of future tasks including recommendations for support structures that will be needed to move IMPAC forward.
There was discussion of the joint letter to the California Articulation Number System (CAN) Board from the three senate chairs commenting on the proposed Strategic Plan for CAN. ICAS strongly reaffirmed the position taken in the letter that it thought that such a plan was pre-mature until IMPAC had completed its initial work. The letter had urged that there be collaborative discussion with CAN on how IMPAC, CAN, ASSIST--Articulation System Stimulating Inter-institutional Student Transfer-- and other articulation efforts might fit into an over-all articulation strategy. The group strongly supported the recommendation that the three chairs and three members of the IMPAC Steering Committee arrange a meeting with representatives of the CAN Board to discuss collaborative efforts and issues.
Jackie Kegley and Linda Collins led a discussion of the push to develop a transfer degree as stated in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the CCC and CSU and Kegley's recommendation that select faculty from CSU, CCC and UC meet to discuss the many issues involved in such an effort. The group strongly supported this action. It also reaffirmed the role of the faculty in developing academic policy and urged that this been seen as an intersegmental and collaborative concern. The point was made again that the MOU was developed and signed without faculty consultation.
UC's Dual Admission Program
A Dual Admissions Proposal adopted by U C Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) was presented for discussion. It outlined central issues and various sets of obligations that would be undertaken by students, the CCC and the UC and some joint obligations. The group thought the proposal was thorough and well thought out. It was suggested that UC and CSU could work collaboratively on this kind of effort to encourage more students to become college bound. The judgment was that it was beneficial to all and not a threat.
Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Education
Collins and Kegley reported on their conversations with Charles Ratliff on the Master Plan discussions. Apparently there is no legislative funding for this effort, but rather external funding. The organizational structure is still being developed. Two work groups have been formed: Finance and Facilities and Professional Personnel Development. Gary Hart chairs the latter group. Ratliff has indicated that he is looking for diversity on the workgroups and that the others would be formed soon. Both Collins and Kegley urged that each senate be aggressive in pushing for membership on the groups and in insisting that representatives be scheduled for relevant hearings. Given the white paper, "The Joint Committee's Vision for California's Education System," written by Ratliff, there is a strong suspicion that staff will play a major role in producing the committee's outcome and recommendations. This argues even more strongly for aggressive action and vigilance by each senate on the Master Plan.
A major topic for the next agenda of ICAS will be growth--student and faculty. It was agreed that each group would share data and materials on the needs, on meeting the needs of the new faculty, on preparing them for the profession, on hiring, recruitment, and retention.
Meeting with Campus Senate Chairs--February 7, 2001
The meeting with the campus senate chairs on Thursday, February 7, was, again in my judgment, a productive one. A major concern for them was the perceived lack of action and/or response from the Chancellor upon the receipt of a vote of no confidence for a president from a campus senate and/or faculty. After some discussion of this item in the Executive Committee, it was decided that the Faculty Affairs Committee would bring a resolution to the March plenary that reaffirms the Senate resolution on this issue passed in January 1996. This will reaffirm our concern and allow questions to be posed to the Chancellor's Office about responses to recent actions of this nature. The senate chairs strongly urged that the Chair of the CSU Senate work with Richard West in developing a report on CMS and a process of regular reporting. Suggestions were also made about items that might be included in such a report. These can also serve as a basis for a report to the Senate. A compilation of "Best Practices in Shared Governance" was shared. This will be refined and shared with the senate in the near future. There was also much concern about year-round operation (YRO). Bob Buckley, senate chair from CSU Sacramento indicated that their campus was completing a YRO MOU. I indicated that it was my understanding that all future YRO bargaining was to be systemwide. Susan Meisenhelder, in a meeting with the Executive Committee, confirmed that this is the case. Sacramento was already far along in the process and thus this MOU will stand.
Meeting with the Provosts--February 7, 2001
I met briefly with the Provosts at LAX just before the meeting with the senate chairs. They had received copies of our "Status of the CSU Document" from Faculty Affairs. The reaction to the document was generally positive although there was some concern about audience. I reported on the status of the Workload Task Force and our Faculty Flow Task Force. A great deal of interest was expressed in both activities. I also shared some data and information on two new national reports on the new generation of faculty.
Finally I discussed the IMPAC project. Concerns were raised about YRO and especially about the uncertainty surrounding how faculty will be compensated. Vice Chancellor and Chief Executive Officer David Spence indicated that the Chancellor and Board strongly desired to move to a common calendar. The Provosts expressed some consternation on this issue and questioned whether $12 million was enough to convert six campuses. They also questioned, given the energy problem and possible budget difficulties, whether this was a good priority for this money. Chair Kegley reminded the group that common calendar impacts curriculum and is in the purview of faculty. Thus, campus senates should discuss this issue. (The Academic Affairs Committee is planning to present a resolution on this to the March Plenary).
Executive Committee Meeting--February 9, 2001
The Executive Committee heard reports from the Constitutional Review Committee and the Admissions Advisory Council. The report from the Constitutional Review Committee will be coming to senators and campus senate chairs shortly. It was decided to try to have a joint presentation with CCC and UC on February 27 at the Master Plan Hearing on the topic Faculty Supply/Demand. We will also ask Bob Cherny and Barry Pasternack to make a presentation if we can schedule this. Susan Meisenhelder joined the group for lunch and there was good discussion of the next steps in bargaining and ways in which this might be facilitated. Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer David Spence joined the group briefly in the morning. The issue of the common calendar was discussed and the importance of faculty action on this was stressed. Plans for the Ed.D. were shared. A special Task Force of two members of TEKR and Fiscal and Governmental Affairs has been formed, supplemented by Cristy Jensen and Les Pincu, our representatives to CPEC and to the Graduate Board. Lynne Cook, Bethany Shifflett, and Cristy and Les set out an agenda of issues during a conference call on Sunday, February 11. This item may be discussed at the Senate's March Plenary.
Retirement and Wedding Celebration--Rosemarie Marshall--February 9, 2001
Harold Goldwhite and I were able to make some appreciative comments at the party for Rosemarie Marshall that celebrated her retirement and marriage. She appreciated the gesture from the Senate. Also representing the Senate was Hal Charnofsky who shared in this celebratory event honoring Rosemarie.
Meeting of ATAC--Crowne Plaza, February 16, 2001
The meeting of Academic Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC) on February 16 was focused on faculty development and academic technology activities within the CSU system. A group of directors of teaching and learning, faculty development, and technology and learning programs joined the committee to provide valuable information and to share in a brainstorming session on recommendations for system policies and actions with regard to academic technology, teaching and learning and faculty development. Those individuals involved were Mary Allen, Bakersfield; Kathy Fernandez, Chico; Lynda Harding, Fresno; Ellen Junn, Fullerton; Peggy Lant and Nan Chico, Hayward; Vicki Casella, SFSU; and Tom Nolan, Sonoma State. Joe Grimes, SLO, was also present as an alternate for his Provost. Each person discussed the administrative structure of faculty development, technology and academic technology initiatives on their campus. It was obvious that there is no consistency of structure and no clear pattern of interaction and common goals or strategies among the various constituencies (academic affairs, information services, library and extended university) that deal with technology as it impacts teaching and learning.
There was also a sharing of best practices, programs and initiatives and it was the seeming consensus that the one set of actions by the system would be to facilitate this kind of sharing among campuses, individuals, and disciplines across the system. Finally the visitors shared their perceptions of issues, challenges and barriers that must be dealt with in facilitating the use of technology to improve teaching and learning. The committee and the visitors then sought to identify some possible areas for system action and policy. Among these were the need for an overall vision and plan for academic technology, issues of rewards and recognition for work with academic technology, increased access for faculty and students, and providing time for development and instruction. The next meeting of ATAC will focus on sorting through this excellent fund of information and suggestions in order to make informed decisions on future policy and actions.
* * * * *
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Academic Affairs Committee On behalf of the AAC, Chair Cherny reported--At its February and March meetings, the Academic Affairs committee considered a range of issues. With regard to the conversation of quarter-system campuses to semesters, AA in February drafted a letter for Chair Kegley to send to campus senate chairs; in March, AA drafted a resolution endorsing the resolution of campus senate chairs. AA also drafted resolutions endorsing the conversion of the definition of FTE graduate students from 15 units to 12, re-endorsing the conclusions of the earlier study of graduate programs and requesting a new study of post-baccalaureate education in the CSU, supporting a CSSA request for a study of student intellectual property rights, and endorsing further alignment of admissions requirements between CSU and UC. After a discussion with Nancy Sprotte, the committee drafted a letter for Chair Kegley to send to campus senates regarding the revision of several EOs, including one on grading symbols. The committee also discussed several issues, including the CSU Israel program, International Programs more generally including the relation between ACIP and the ASCSU, admissions issues, academic issues for off-campus centers, and library funding.
Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee On behalf of the FGA committee, Chair Shifflett first provided details on the Legislative Day event: Dinner/meeting Monday, April 2, 5:30 p.m., at the Holiday Inn; Tuesday, April 3, meetings in small groups with legislators--the room in the capitol available to us to work out of on the 3rd floor is #115. Written materials (still in draft form) were reviewed by the committee and will be finalized over the next week. Issues to focus on will include faculty and staff compensation, housing, enrollment growth, and legislation--AB 16 would put a facilities bond act on the March 2002 ballot, and a committee-sponsored bill would permanently authorize the CSU direct vendor pay program.
In addition to Legislative Day planning, the committee a) reviewed the 60+ bills they're following, several of which we know are of interest to the Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations (TEKR) and a few which the committee intends to direct to the attention of the Academic Affairs and Faculty Affairs Committees; b) discussed with our representatives to the workgroup various aspects of the paper from the Academic Affairs Committee; c) met jointly with TEKR on a resolution related to the Ed.D.; d) reviewed and provided feedback on the graduate full-time equivalent (FTE) resolution prepared by the Academic Affairs Committee; e) began discussions of budget priorities for the next fiscal year so that by the May plenary the committee would have a resolution to present.
Last, the chair provided a quick overview of resources available to senators needing to locate or follow legislation. Anyone needing assistance should contact Chair Shifflett (email@example.com).
Faculty Trustee Harold Goldwhite
Preview of the Meeting of the CSU Board of Trustees, March 20-21, 2001
Please note: The full Board of Trustees' agenda is posted on the Board's website at http://www.calstate.edu/bot/Agendas/ where you can read the full text of the Agenda book.
The Board will meet on a campus for its March 2001, meetings, but won't stray far from the Chancellor's Office, for the campus is Long Beach. Here is my view of some of the possible meeting highlights.
A closed session of the Committee on Educational Policy will consider honorary degree nominations, and of the Board will consider review of executives, possibly including Chancellor Reed. (I have not yet, as of March 12, 2001, received an agenda for this closed session.)
The Committee on Campus Planning, Buildings, and Grounds will review master plan revisions for San Diego State, and CSPU San Luis Obispo. Both are campuses which have not reworked their Master Plans for some years, and the Board is trying to expedite reviews of all campus Master Plans in the near future.
The Committee on Educational Policies has two important items. First is the annual review of Academic Programs and Program Reviews. I expect there will be questions about reducing the number of academic programs on some campuses, and about the implementation of the "120 unit minimum" as part of program review. The second will be an information item (for action in May--so senates need to move on this asap) requesting that the Board move towards an independent Ed.D. degree for the CSU. There are extended arguments in the text for this step, which will require legislative approval for the authority of the CSU to offer its own doctoral degree.
The Committee on Finance meeting looks routine, with reports on the current and future budgets, and approval of various auxiliary-supported bonds. No doubt we will hear the Chancellor's impression of how things are going for the CSU in Sacramento in this year of energy crisis. This will also spill over into the Committee on Governmental Relations, which will also include a report on the prospects for a higher education bond in 2002. The Office of Governmental Relations of the CSU has identified more than 300 bills already in the hopper that have a potential to impact the CSU and/or public higher education in California.
The Committee on University and Faculty Personnel will hear proposals for compensation for the new presidents of the Maritime Academy and Channel Islands. William B. Eisenhardt, currently provost at the Maine Maritime Academy, will receive a salary of $185,004 as of July 1, 2001, when he assumes the presidency of the Maritime Academy. Richard R. Rush, currently president of Mankato State University in Minnesota, and formerly vice president at CSU San Marcos, will receive a salary of $200,004, and a housing allowance of $28,752 when he becomes president of CSUCI on June 1, 2001.
The Committee of the Whole will hear an update on the CSU's technology plan, no doubt including Collaborative Management Systems (CMS), and the semi-annual litigation report. Urge you to scan this latter; it shows what a litigious society we are.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda, having been moved and seconded, was approved after moving Item 7, AS-2528-01/AA, up to number 1.
AS-2528-01/AA SUPPORT FOR EFFORTS BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE STUDENT ASSOCIATION TO RECOGNIZE STUDENT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University receive the attached resolution by the California State Student Association (CSSA) entitled Securing Intellectual Property Rights of Students and support efforts by CSSA both systemwide and on each campus to develop meaningful definitions of intellectual property that recognize student rights; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU request the Chancellor to join with the Academic Senate CSU and the CSSA to establish a collaborative study group to address the intellectual property rights of students.
AS-2528-01/AA motion approved unanimously.
AS-2522-01/FLOOR (Phillips) CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY MASCOT NAMING POLICY
RESOLVED: That the California State University choose university mascot names from other than a human group.
RATIONALE: Universities choose mascot names from human groups that denote various positive qualities such as strength, dedication, and hard fightingness.
Human groups often have both positive and negative stereotypes attributed to them by other groups in society. Therefore the choosing of a university mascot based on human group characteristics can be seen as honoring either the positive or negative stereotypes of that group by others in society. The use of human group names for mascots has the potential of creating negative feelings about the group by some other segment of society.
AS-2522-01/Floor (Phillips) motion failed.
AS-2523-01/FA MERIT PAY PRINCIPLES AND FUTURE CONTRACT BARGAINING
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) conclude that, in the words of the neutral fact-finder, Richard B. Danehy, the current FMI program "appears to be ill-conceived and poorly administered"; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU reaffirm its commitment to the spirit and philosophy underlying the report of the Merit Pay Task Force of the ASCSU; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor and Board of Trustees of the California State University, and the California Faculty Association, to recognize that the Retention, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) process is a merit system that has credibility with the faculty and that any further merit-based compensation program should build upon this model and adapt it to include non-tenure-track faculty.
RATIONALE: The Academic Senate of the California State University Task Force on Merit Pay, which began its work in 1997, did an independent review of existing literature on merit pay programs, and an informal survey to ascertain attitudes of CSU faculty, prior to writing its report. The ASCSU developed the following carefully crafted set of principles on which it believed any merit pay program must rest:
* PRINCIPLES *
- 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. Competitive salaries shall be maintained through across-the-board increases.
- The purpose of merit pay shall be clearly stated.
- Merit awards shall not exceed two steps on the applicable salary schedule.
- Merit pay may be awarded in the form of bonuses, additions to base pay, or both.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Persons seeking merit pay awards shall not serve on any committee involved in determining who receives awards.
- No system of merit pay shall be put into place without a fair and equitable grievance process for those denied awards.
The report of the neutral fact-finder at the end of impasse in the reopeners bargaining between CSU and CFA in 2000 corroborates much of the content of the Final Report of that task force.
AS-2523-01/FA motion approved.
AS-2524-01/EX CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) submit the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Revision of the Constitution of the ASCSU to the campus senates for their consideration.
AS-2524-01/EX will be a second reading item at the May 10-11, 2001, meeting.
AS-2525-01/AA/FA REAFFIRMATION OF AS-2481/FA (JANUARY 20-21, 2000): PRINCIPLES FOR YEAR-ROUND OPERATIONS
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University reaffirm AS-2481-00/FA (January 20-1, 2000), Principles for Year-Round Operations, in its entirety; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU reaffirm its support for the principles cited below for those campuses experimenting with YRO:
- Where academic calendars are extended to 12 months, CSU shall provide adequate resources for facilities, equipment, and instructional supplies (e.g., office space, computer support, library resources); support staff; and maintenance of facilities and equipment.
- Individual campuses through their normal curricular processes shall choose which programs and courses are appropriate for year-round scheduling; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU encourage the local campus senates to participate vigorously in formation of campus-based YRO policy with respect to integrity of
- academic programs
- major program advising
- academic calendar
- departmental administration, and
- all aspects of university shared governance that may be affected by the implementation of YRO;
and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge each campus to provide for Academic Senate governance activities--including financial support--during the proposed state-supported summer term to ensure that appropriate faculty consultation continues unabated throughout the newly defined academic year; and be it further
RESOLVED: That this resolution be distributed to the Chancellor, Board of Trustees, campus senates, all faculty, all academic administrators, appropriate non-academic administrators, and the boards and members of the California Faculty Association, the California State Students Association, and the California State Employees Association.
AS-2525-01/AA/FA motion approved unanimously.
Senator Kaiser moved (Pincu seconded) to reorder the agenda, because of the length, to place those resolutions (Items 11, 12, 13) without waivers on the floor without discussion. The resolutions would be discussed as second reading items at the May plenary. The motion was approved.
Senator Kaiser moved (Edelman seconded) resolutions AS-2532-01/FGA/TEKR; AS-2533-01/EX; and AS-2534-01/AA. These will be second reading items at the May 10-11, 2001, meeting.
AS-2532-01/FGA/TEKR CONSIDERATION OF THE ED.D. IN THE CSU
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) support the efforts of the Chancellor to alleviate the significant shortage of highly qualified and effective educational leaders and the efforts of the Chancellor to seek authorization from the California legislature for the CSU to develop and offer an independent Ed. D. degree; and be it further
RESOLVED: That Ed.D. programs offered by the CSU be developed and approved by faculty through regular governance processes on the campuses offering degrees that meet the highest standards for such applied doctoral programs; and be it further
RESOLVED: That Academic Senate CSU support for Ed.D. programs be contingent upon
- necessary supplemental funding for such programs and
- increased funding for existing graduate programs.
RATIONALE: There exists a very real and immediate need for California to make available at a reasonable cost the doctoral degree in education, particularly in the areas of edition administration and teacher preparation. Presently, the few education doctorates produced in the state come from higher-priced programs than could be provided at a public institution. California now trails the nation by 55% in the ratio of education doctorates to K-12 students compared to 36% in 1991 (CPEC, 2000). In addition, California has no public university doctoral programs focused on community college administration yet has 108 community colleges. Because education doctorates are uniquely related to the education of the state's residents, California has a significant obligation to provide more affordable and accessible education doctorate programs focused on the state's needs.
The CSU, properly funded, has the expertise and a substantive commitment to the preparation of educators to provide for the state of California an alternative to the few high cost and remotely located Ed.D. programs presently offered by private universities and the University of California. Senator Dede Alpert has introduced a bill (SB 713) that would require the state to ensure that a sufficient number of affordable, high quality opportunities to obtain the doctoral degree in education are made available to interested candidates.
The CSU is uniquely qualified to serve the state in meeting this critical need. CSU has a long standing commitment and extraordinary record of preparing well qualified education professionals for the state. The campuses and faculty in the CSU are well positioned to respond to this state need due to their geodemographic diversity, capability to deliver high quality instruction at a reasonable cost and in a manner effective for employed adults, and experience gained through participation in developing and offering joint doctoral programs.
It cannot be overstated, however, how central adequate funding will be to our success. The rationale for the 1985 Academic Senate of the California State University resolution opposing independent doctoral degrees in the CSU focused on the resource requirements and the historical lack of resources and teaching load adjustments needed for advanced programs. These concerns remain paramount. Graduate and undergraduate students are currently funded at the same level (15 WTUs = 1 FTES), perpetuating this long standing workload problem. Nationally, the norm is 12 WTUs. In California, the University of California has always received greater funding for graduate students than for undergraduate students. Because our current master's programs are underfunded, any attempt to expand graduate education is likely to result in diminished quality in current master's and undergraduate programs as well as poor quality Ed.D. programs. It is therefore necessary that the implementation of an Ed.D. program be accompanied by increased funding for existing graduate programs.
AS-2532-01/FGA/TEKR will be a second reading item at the May 10-11, 2001, meeting.
AS-2533-01/EX ACADEMIC SENATE CSU CALENDAR OF 2001-2002 MEETINGS
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University adopt the following schedule for the 2001-02 academic year:
|October 31-Nov 1-2
|and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate CSU be authorized to change the schedule of meetings approved, with adequate notice to the Academic Senate CSU, if the Trustees alter their schedule, or if budgetary constraints require a change.
RATIONALE: The California State University Board of Trustees is considering the adoption of the following schedule for 2001-2002 Trustee meetings at its May 15-16 meeting.
|*dates approved by the CSU Board of Trustees May 2000
AS-2533-01/EX will be a second reading item at the May 10-11, 2001, meeting.
AS-2534-01/AA POST-BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS IN THE CSU
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University reaffirm its support for Recommendations on Study of Graduate Education (AS-1987-91/AA, attached); and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that its Executive Committee and the Office of the Chancellor initiate a new collaborative study of post-baccalaureate education in the CSU, for the purposes of updating the Study of Graduate Education completed in 1990, determining which of the Study's recommendations have been successfully implemented, developing new recommendations as appropriate, and developing a parallel study of post-baccalaureate education that is not part of graduate degree programs.
RATIONALE: In 1991, the Academic Senate of the California State University supported a set of recommendations on graduate education in the CSU that were developed over the preceding several years. At that time, however, insufficient state funding precluded implementation of several of those recommendations. After an interval of ten years, it is appropriate to reexamine those recommendations. The original resolution and the recommendations are attached.
AS-2534-01/AA will be a second reading item at the May 10-11, 2001, meeting.
AS-2526-01/FA BARGAINING FOR STATE-SUPPORTED SUMMER TERM SALARY
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) urge the California Faculty Association and the CSU to complete immediately the Memorandum of Understanding for faculty compensation for teaching during the state-supported summer term.
RATIONALE: It is better to have a systemwide contract than to have many separate agreements which may result in different compensation for the same or similar assignments.
AS-2526-01/FA motion approved without dissent.
AS-2527-01/AA REAFFIRMATION OF SUPPORT FOR REDEFINITION OF FULL-TIME GRADUATE STUDY IN THE CSU
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University strongly reaffirm its support for redefining full-time graduate study at the post-baccalaureate and master's level from 15 credit units of instruction per term to 12 units per term for the purpose of calculating the number of state-funded full-time equivalent students (FTES) as previously supported by the Academic Senate CSU (AS-1987-91/AA); and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU strongly endorse and support current efforts by the Chancellor and Trustees to secure approval and funding to redefine full-time graduate study in the CSU as 12 credit units per term; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU provide copies of this resolution to the Chancellor, Trustees, and members of the legislature, and that the copies that go to members of the legislature be accompanied by the compelling educational arguments for this redefinition.
RATIONALE: In 1991, the Academic Senate of the California State University supported a set of recommendations on graduate education in the CSU that were developed over the preceding several years. At that time, however, insufficient state funding precluded implementation of several of those recommendations. Currently, efforts are underway to secure approval to implement one of the most important of these funding recommendations, to convert the definition of a full-time equivalent graduate student from 15 units per term to 12.
AS-2527-01/AA motion approved unanimously.
AS-2529-01/AA SUPPORT FOR RESOLUTION BY THE CHAIRS OF THE CAMPUS ACADEMIC SENATES OF THE CSU REGARDING THE ACADEMIC CALENDAR
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University strongly support the attached resolution by the chairs of the campus Academic Senates of the CSU, Regarding the Academic Calendar (March 8, 2001); and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU send copies of this resolution to the Chancellor, the Board of Trustees, and campus senates.
AS-2529-01/AA motion approved unanimously.
AS-2530-01/FA REOPENER SETTLEMENT
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University declare that settlement of contract negotiations is preferable to imposition and/or implementation; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the California State University administration and the California Faculty Association to reach agreement on 2000-2001 reopener issues without reducing faculty salary increases already implemented.
RATIONALE: A positive bargaining environment for resolution of year-round operation (YRO) issues and for improvement in the faculty collective bargaining agreement is much more likely in the wake of a reopener agreement than after two rounds of impasse and strained relations.
AS-2530-01/FA motion approved.
The Chair requested consent to move adjournment time from 2:00 to 2:15 p.m. There were no objections.
AS-2531-01/AA ENDORSEMENT OF FURTHER ALIGNMENT OF ADMISSIONS POLICIES BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University approve the recommendations of the CSU Admission Advisory Council regarding further alignment of admission policies between the University of California and The California State University as outlined in the attached memorandum from Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer David Spence to Academic Senate Chair Jacquelyn Kegley, dated November 27, 2000; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU inform the Chancellor of this approval.
AS-2531-01/AA motion was approved.
* * * * *
The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 2:09 p.m. on Friday, March 16, 2001.
* * * * *
Approved (or corrected)
Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, Chair
Les Pincu, Secretary
Margaret Price, Recording Secretary