Academic Senate of the California State University
MINUTES

Meeting of March 13-14, 1997
CSU Headquarters, Long Beach, CA

 

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:45 p.m. on Thursday, March 13, 1997, by Chair James Highsmith.

ROLL CALL: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield) Jacquelyn Kegley, Ernie Page; (Chico) Kathleen Kaiser, James Postma, Paul Spear; (Dominguez Hills) Hal Charnofsky, Dick Williams; (Fresno) Jacinta Amaral, James Highsmith, Lester Pincu; (Fullerton) Vincent Buck, *Ellen Junn and Albert Flores, Barry Pasternack; (Hayward) Judith Stanley, Don Wort; (Humboldt) Elmo Moore, Marshelle Thobaben; (Long Beach) Gene Dinielli, Barbara Franklin, Simon George; (Los Angeles) Harold Goldwhite, Dorothy Keane; (Maritime Academy); (Monterey Bay) J. Ken Nishita; (Northridge) Elliot McIntire, Gerald Resendez, Mary Lee Sparling; (Pomona) Peter Clark, *Donna Tillman, Rochelle Kellner; (Sacramento) Cristy Jensen, Sylvia Navari, Louise Timmer and *Mike Fitzgerald; (San Bernardino) Walter Oliver, J. Paul Vicknair; (San Diego) David DuFault, Annette Easton, Dan Whitney; (San Francisco) Eunice Aaron, Robert Cherny, Gary Hammerstrom; (San Jose) Allison Heisch, David McNeil; (San Luis Obispo) Reginald Gooden, Tom Hale; (San Marcos) Edward Thompson; (Sonoma) Susan McKillop, Robert Tellander; (Stanislaus) Richard Levering, Jere Wade; (Chancellor's Office) Charles Lindahl.

INTRODUCTIONS

During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:

Campus senate alternates: Ellen Junn, CSU Fullerton; Donna Tillman, Cal Poly Pomona; Mike Fitzgerald, CSU Sacramento.

Colleen Bentley-Adler, Director, Public Affairs, Chancellor’s Office

Faculty Trustee Candidates: Juanita Barrena, CSU Sacramento; Robert Ediger, CSU Chico

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

Leonard Mathy, Professor Emeritus, Emeritus and Retired Faculty Association

representative to the Academic Senate

Frank Medeiros, Academic Affairs, Chancellor’s Office

Eric Mitchell and Jill Murphy, Cornerstones

Donald Moore, Consultant, Association of California State University Professors

Ginny Whitby, Collective Bargaining Director, California State Student Association

Johnetta Anderson, Technical Assistant, Chancellor’s Office

Andrea Cullins, Staff Assistant - Budget, Academic Senate CSU

Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

José Lopez, Clerical Assistant, Academic Senate CSU

Margaret Price, Staff Assistant - Documents, Academic Senate CSU

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

Announcement of Times Certain

Thursday, March 13, 1997

4:00 p.m. Presentations by Faculty Trustee Nominees

Friday, March 14, 1997

10:00 a.m. Barry Munitz, Chancellor

11:30 a.m. Election of Faculty Trustee Nominations

* * * * *

REPORT OF CHAIR JAMES HIGHSMITH

Many Thanks

Once again I find myself indebted for the great work of colleagues on the staff and faculty. Our office team, Deborah Hennessy, Margaret Price, Andrea Cullins, Eric Mitchell and Jose Lopez worked overtime to assure an incredibly successful Academic Conference in Monterey. Jill Murphy and others from academic affairs were a great help as well. Our faculty led by Marshelle Thobaben and including Gary Hammerstrom, Cristy Jensen, Kathy Kaiser, Paul Spear, Dorothy Keane, Harold Goldwhite, and Allison Heisch did a marvelous job of presenting the baccalaureate briefing. Gary and Gene Dinielli co-chaired the planning and directed traffic in Monterey. Special thanks go to Gary’s expertise with mail-merge to make all the letters and assignments come out on paper, and to Marshelle and Harold for working with Gary on doing the group assignments. Many of you, including our secretary Hal Charnofsky, served as facilitators and recorders and I thank you for your significant contribution to the success of the conference. I believe we demonstrated true system leadership in how we designed and carried out the conference; I also believe it was an truly educational and useful experience for all who engaged their minds in the work of the conference.

We also need to thank Cristy Jensen and the Fiscal and Government Affairs Committee for arranging and planning a very effective legislative days schedule of events. This was carried out with such professionalism and thoughtfulness that it made us all proud. We also owe thanks to Karen Yelverton and Ann Padilla for assisting in many ways in preparing us and the issue papers we could use with legislators and staff. I especially appreciated the faculty who stayed to provide moral support and an instant review of my testimony to the assembly higher education committee following Chancellor Munitz.

Cornerstones

As you know, the timeline for campus consultation on the Cornerstones issues has been extended into the fall as a result of the work in Monterey and the articulate and thoughtful engagement of our campus chairs. I owe them thanks as well for demonstrating leadership on behalf of the system and their campuses.

On March 10, the Cornerstones group met to review a "principles" document flowing from the task force reports and the comments from the conference. Revised task force reports are now posted on the Web and next week the redrafted "principles" paper should be completed. The week of the 24th, your campus should receive bound copies of these items in sufficient numbers to provide all senators and others who need them for consultation purposes. Unbound copies will also be provided to the President and the Senate to allow for additional copies if desired. Cornerstones still seeks as much comment as possible from the campuses by May 20 in order to prepare revisions for the June 9 Cornerstones meeting. In the fall, campuses will only have until November to provide input if they wish to influence the draft of the initial item going to the Board of Trustees in January. Public hearings will probably be held sometime in the fall. Meanwhile, this spring Cornerstones members intend to visit each campus at its invitation to discuss the issues in the reports with faculty, staff and students. The Executive Committee has asked the standing committees to each take the lead in responding to one of the four task force reports and all will look at the principles document when available. We should provide advice by May 20 as well in this first round of discussions.

Baccalaureate Study

Based on the feedback from the conference, the Executive Committee had hoped to follow a timeline that would allow our baccalaureate study to continue to influence the Cornerstones discussion. It is clearly valuable to also know if there are areas of disagreement between the Senate’s study and the Cornerstones task force reports, especially task force one dealing with learning for the 21st century. What we decide at this meeting will determine how much the campuses can be involved in shaping our draft. I am not asking us to follow an unreasonable timeline, but we do need to see how much can be accomplished to insure that the campus faculties may participate in our discussions about the baccalaureate. The Executive Committee suggestion is to take action by November on recommendations coming out of our study.

CREATING COMPACT II FOR TIDAL WAVE II

CSU campuses are beginning to see evidence that the "Tidal Wave II" of college enrollment is coming. Population growth coupled with the increasing importance of a college education in our economy means that the next decade will likely bring 500,000 additional students to higher education in California. While most students will begin at the community colleges, there will be great pressure on the California State University (and University of California) to increase enrollment. Some CSU campuses could accept more students if only the state provided funding for them. But many CSU campuses have reached their capacity, and the state appears unlikely to build more traditional campuses. With capital funding, limited physical expansion is possible at current campuses and off campus centers. However, the numbers of people who will want a college education and who will need continuing university education throughout their lives will overwhelm excess capacity. Innovations in teaching may increase learning productivity and thus capacity, but the personal, often one-on-one nature of education will limit what we can do in the near future without threatening educational quality. Since the early 1980s the Academic Senate has been providing recommendations on educational quality in the CSU. Most recently, the Senate has been engaged in a two-year study of the baccalaureate examining these issues. Our first consideration must be the quality of the degree if access is to have real meaning. If our commitment to providing access to a high-quality college education is in jeopardy, what do we do?

Leaders at the CSU (and UC) are exploring the creation of a new compact or partnership (Compact II) with the state to deal with coming enrollment demand and to provide predictability to university funding and student fees. (The current Compact between the public universities and Governor Wilson calls for a 4% increase in general funding over the next two years. Wilson has also agreed to provide sufficient funds to avoid a state university fee increase in 97-98.)

Outlines of the Compact II proposal include an annual increase in university operating budget equal to the percentage growth of California personal income (currently 4-5%) and annual student fee increases pegged to the same percentage index. Additional support for increased enrollment would also be provided, thus reconnecting funding to the number of students being served. The advantage of such an approach for students, it is posited, would be to make fee increases moderate and predictable while stabilizing the relative cost to students at a level near the lowest of similar U.S. universities. Using an index like California personal income growth is thought also to assure that the cost goes up only when students’ and their families’ ability to pay also rises. The advantage to the University is stability in funding and a renewed commitment by the state to fund enrollment. Compact II may be embodied in legislation this spring which, if enacted, would provide greater assurances of state support than the current informal Compact with Governor Wilson. Obviously, student financial aid reform is still needed if CSU is ever to move away from massive self-funding of grants and heavy reliance by students on educational loans. Also the effects of an economic recession on all parties need to be taken into account in the proposal.

While the public and policy makers are coming to realize how critical higher education is to California’s sustained economic success, they also want assurances that their funds are being well-spent. So commitments by the University to increase productivity are likely to be part of any Compact equation just as they are currently.

Virtual University Developments

Since my meeting in January with the California virtual university group headed by Joe Rodota of the Governor’s office, there has been no change in the target date of late May for making a "go/no go" decision about this initiative. Several work groups are being formed to which we have nominated faculty: academic planning, Marshelle Thobaben and Walter Oliver; infrastructure, Annette Easton and Gary Hammerstrom; finance and budget, Timothy Kersten; and marketing, William Rice (marketing, CSU Fresno). Unless unexpected difficulties are encountered, I expect the decision will be to proceed with the planning for this collaborative. Diane Vines has been assigned half-time to this endeavor as an academic officer along with another person from UC. The next meeting of the design group is tomorrow (March 14) and ICAS will be represented by Sandra Weiss (UC Council Vice Chair) and Janis Perry (CCC Senate President).

Planning for the CSU VU has picked up with Frank Medeiros of Academic Affairs leading the effort. George Metes, an author and expert on virtual organizations, has been hired part-time to assist in the project. A meeting last week led to the development of the memorandum distributed to you which includes many work groups that need the participation of faculty during March and April to help shape the issues to be resolved in moving forward with a VU which can act as a "front door" to distributed teaching and learning offered at our campuses. Once the issues are framed, EVC Broad intends to pursue the discussion with the Executive Council to reach some conclusion about our own planning efforts as they relate to the Governor’s initiative. Rather than wait for a proposal developed by others to comment on, I believe we should be involved from the beginning in shaping the VU to assure its quality and value. Please let your committee chair or me know if you wish to be involved in any VU planning subgroup and we will do our best to put you to work.

My update of virtual summer school 1997 will be short. I attended a planning meeting at SWRL led by a Pomona Vice President and attended by several campuses in the southland. It became apparent that this effort was initiated by a dean at Pomona, and would involve the voluntary participation by other campuses. The timelines they have set for themselves are quite short, and the administrative and academic details of the summer school are not yet resolved. To my knowledge, no system money is being provided to support this effort, nor is the effort to use the system’s name. VC Lindahl may have more details as he has been concerned, as has the Senate, about the quality issues extant. Whether this effort will be successfully mounted this summer remains to be seen, but collaboratives along these lines are likely to be in our future. I have informed the campus chairs at our meeting in Monterey. Once again, this calls attention to the need for campuses to assure that their program and course approval policies appropriately and fairly deals with technology mediated instruction.

Activities on the Technology Front

I have participated this month along with my alternate Larry Press of Dominguez Hills in the first meeting of JETPAC, the Joint Educational Technology Planning and Advisory Committee that is a collaborative between CCC and CSU to create a combined data network infrastructure. The parties were in agreement on issues to assure that a smooth enlargement of the CSUnet to connect each community college to receive data on what will now be called 4Cnet. As we connect our university’s network to community colleges, the public schools and UC, we can expect the opportunity for academic collaboration to lead faculty to innovate in sharing their academic endeavors.

Annette Eastin and Dick Williams are attending the System Internal Partnership (SIP) meeting San Francisco and will report to us tomorrow about the group’s efforts to reach out to the private sector for assistance in building our technology infrastructure.

The January CLRIT meeting did not resolve any of the basic issues I spoke to you about at our last meeting: those of reaching out to the faculty at large to engage their ideas for improving teaching and of the budget for academic initiatives. The CLRIT program committee met last week and proposed a process for soliciting ideas widely from the faculty at large for improving teaching and learning using technology and for providing support for the development of the best of these ideas through faculty collaboration. A budget was also recommended for this and other academic initiatives: roughly $1.275 million for library initiatives related to sharing resources, $1.25 million for other academic initiatives in distributed teaching and learning, $236,000 for academic opportunity fund proposals, $210,000 for social science and business data bases, $250,000 for consultants. With little explanation the full CLRIT meeting was canceled so the fate of these recommendations is unclear.

Faculty Compensation

One of the things I spoke about to the Assembly higher education committee was our need to replace a large percentage of our faculty who will retire in the next dozen years and the importance of having competitive compensation to do that. Chancellor Munitz had earlier spoken to the committee about the necessity to close the salary gap for our underpaid faculty. As you heard at the conference from both Chancellor Munitz and Chair Fallgatter, the need to devise a long term plan to close the CPEC salary gap is now being openly stated by our executive leadership. I want to encourage the creation of such a plan as soon as possible so that our faculty colleagues will know what a priority it is for the system. Being treated fairly in relation to one’s peers on issues of compensation is no less important in the academy than it is in industry, and it may be more important where our colleagues spend long hours in efforts directly and indirectly benefiting the University and California.

Personal Note

Simon George has been selected by the Long Beach campus as this year’s Perk Hardeman honoree for contributions to shared governance. Our congratulations to Simon for his continuing work on behalf of faculty and shared governance.

* * * * *

Standing Committee Reports:

Institute of Teaching and Learning: Harold Goldwhite announced that on May 9 and 10, 1997, the ITLwill showcase a conference on the uses of technology in teaching and learning. It will be held on the CSU Long Beach campus and faculty (approximately three each) from campuses will be invited. The annual Teacher-Scholar institutes will take place June 9-12 at CSU Chico. The ITL Board presented Paul Spear with a plaque for his contributions to the Institute.

Academic Affairs Committee Chair Paul Spear reported that the committee spent five hours going over the revisions to the Study of the Baccalaureate and made some recommendations. The committee also urges that no brief list of recommendations be sent to campuses. Such a list cannot capture the richness of the total report.

Gordon Smith, Information Technology Policy Analyst, reported on CLRIT funds for libraries. - The committee is still studying the Sonoma State admission experiment. - Positions will be taken and sent to the full Senate in April on the legislative bills being considered. -

CSU admissions patterns were discussed, including the experiment on visual and performing arts. No extension of the "exception" in VPA for admission beyond the 1998-99 academic year was recommended.

Faculty Affairs Committee Chair Allison Heisch reported that the committee has a resolution on ROTC. It reaffirms the Senate’s position in 1990 and 1991. - Constructive alternatives to the PSSI problem were considered by the committee. - The baccalaureate study has generated a lively discussion. Because of the Monterey Conference, and the large amount of input the attendees provided, the committee believes the document is now diluted. Senator Heisch reported that other committee members joined them to discuss the

baccalaureate study, and 22 agreed we ought to postpone any action on it until rewriting can be done.

Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Cristy Jensen reported that the committee did some planning for Legislative Days’ follow-up. It was pleased over the experience in Sacramento. - Several good issues emerged from the visit including ways to improve teacher education, technology and its uses in teaching, welfare reform, and our potential role in assisting the legislature, etc. - The survey on campus budget advisory committees is still being promoted and a questionnaire is being developed. - The committee will recommend that the Senate forward the Monterey document of the baccalaureate study along with the report forms to campuses while identifying, in a cover letter, areas of agreement and disagreement. We may not achieve consensus ever; so let’s declare victory and send the documents out.

Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations Vice Chair Elmo Moore reported that Senator Jensen’s report on the baccalaureate captures the essence of TEKR’s work. - The Liberal Studies report was discussed with VC Lindahl present. - An assortment of bills was discussed. Most are at early stages, so the committee is taking a wait and watch attitude.

General Education Chair Kathy Kaiser reported they had an exciting GE meeting. - The review of IGETC, using funds from a Community College grant, is completed. There is a consistent stream of courses coming from the Community College and their quality is improving.

Advanced placement exams to equate to GE credit are being studied. - CAN made a proposal (28 disciplines, 198 courses) to give its courses a joint number to meet both GE and transfer requirements. Many courses match quite well and could serve to meet both areas. - Exemptions to GE have become a huge problem. One campus, e.g., exempts all science majors from GE courses in critical thinking. The GE committee will be examining this issue closely.

Educational Technology Clearinghouse Chair Gary Hammerstrom reported that the CSU Virtual University issues were discussed along with the inter-campus summer program and the Governor’s Virtual University. Cancellation of the CLRIT meeting for next week was also discussed. No one knows why the meeting was canceled.

ACTION

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Senator Dinielli moved (Wort seconded) approval of the minutes of January 23-24, 1997. The minutes were approved.

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

AS-2356-97/FA MERIT PAY TASK FORCE

SECOND READING

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University immediately set up a Merit Pay Task Force to develop alternative incentive systems.

RATIONALE: It is clear that there will be merit pay in the CSU. It is also clear that the current program will not change unless a constructive alternative is put forth. This task force will develop constructive alternatives in cooperation with all parties. It is envisioned that this task force will be appointed by the Executive Committee and will include a member of the Faculty Affairs Committee, and some individuals with expertise in organizational incentive systems.

Senator Tillman moved (Page seconded) to add "for one more academic year" after "It is clear that there will be merit pay in the CSU," the first line in the Rationale.

Senator Cherny requested consent to postpone to a time certain (8:30 a.m., Friday) in order for the committee to rework the Rationale. There were no objections.

AS-2357-97/FA FACULTY PRODUCTIVITY DOCUMENT

SECOND READING

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University commend those who have labored to produce the January 1997 version of the document, Public Higher Education and Productivity: A Faculty Voice; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge that the attached paper, Public Higher Education and Productivity: A Faculty Voice, be used as an important basis for any further discussion of productivity and related issues; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU forward to local campus senates the attached paper, Public Higher Education and Productivity: A Faculty Voice, to inform discussions on productivity and related issues.

RATIONALE: The issue of productivity is a crucial one for faculty and for higher education. The paper, "Public Higher Education and Productivity: A Faculty Voice," is the result of joint work of members of the senates and unions of the California State University and the State University of New York, as well as open discussions between senate members and faculty of both systems. This new version of the paper also incorporates components of the paper, "Faculty Productivity and Accountability," a document produced by the Faculty Affairs Committee of the Academic Senate CSU, and received by that body in May 1996, and elements of a more recent paper, "The New Productivity Paradigm," circulated and discussed within the Faculty Affairs Committee of the CSU Senate in Fall 1996.

Senator Kaiser moved (Keane seconded) to add a third Resolved clause, "That the Academic Senate CSU forward to local campus senates the attached paper, Public Higher Education and Productivity: A Faculty Voice, to inform discussions on productivity and related issues." Motion carried.

Senator Goldwhite requested consent to make the following change: in the second Resolved clause, replace "recommend" with "urge." There were no objections.

AS-2357-97/FA motion carried.

When the revised Item 1——Merit Pay Task Force——was distributed, it was taken up again.

AS-2356-97/FA MERIT PAY TASK FORCE

SECOND READING

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University immediately set up a Merit Pay Task Force to develop recommendations for alternative incentive systems.

RATIONALE: Because performance salary step increases are of great concern to faculty, it is important for the Academic Senate of the California State University to establish a Task Force to study and recommend alternatives. The results of the Task Force deliberations will be forwarded to the Academic Senate CSU for disposition. It is envisioned that this task force will be appointed by the Executive Committee and will include a member of the Faculty Affairs Committee and some individuals with expertise in organizational incentive systems.

AS-2356-97/FA motion carried unanimously.

AS-2358-97/TEKR SUPPORT FOR THE CALIFORNIA STANDARDS FOR SECOND READING THE TEACHING PROFESSION RECOMMENDED BY THE FRAMEWORK ADVISORY TASK FORCE AND APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University commend the California Department of Education, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the Framework Advisory Task Force that developed the California Standards for the Teaching Profession; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU support the California Standards for the Teaching Profession; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus senates to distribute the California Standards for the Teaching Profession to their campus community for use as a valuable vehicle for discussions of teaching and learning.

RATIONALE: We believe this document which "provides a common language and a vision of the scope and complexity of teaching by which all teachers can define and develop their practice" contains valuable information on engaging and supporting all students in learning, on designing learning experiences for students and on assessment of learning. Although the standards were developed for teachers of K-12, they can be a valuable resource for discussion and implementation on our campuses.

AS-2358-97/TEKR motion carried unanimously.

AS-2359-97/EX ACADEMIC SENATE CSU CALENDAR OF 1997-98

SECOND READING MEETINGS

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University adopt the following schedule for the 1997-98 academic year:

1997 Location

September 10-12 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

October 3 Interim Headquarters

November 5-7 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

December 5 Interim Headquarters

1998

January 21-23 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

February 13 Interim Headquarters

March 11-13 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

April 3 Interim Headquarters

May 6-8 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate of the California State university 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 in May 1997 of the following schedule for Trustee meetings in 1997-98:

1997 Location

July 15-16 Headquarters

September 16-17 Headquarters

November 11-12 Headquarters

1998

January 27-28 Headquarters

March 17-18 Headquarters

May 12-13 Headquarters

On behalf of the Executive Committee, Senator Thobaben moved (Goldwhite seconded) the resolution.

AS-2360-97/EX BYLAWS APPROVAL

SECOND READING

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University approve the amendments to the Bylaws of the Academic Senate which are attached hereto.

RATIONALE: The Constitution of the Academic Senate of the California State University was revised in 1996 by a Constitutional Revision Committee appointed by the Senate to accomplish that task. The Board of Trustees of the California State University subsequently approved the revisions recommended by the Academic Senate. Now, the Senate Bylaws must be amended to make them consistent with the changes in the Constitution. In addition, several Bylaws are out of date or reflect policies or procedures that the Senate no longer follows. Hence, the attached amendments are proposed.


Academic Senate of the California State University

Bylaws

Revised November 1995

Bylaw 1 Definitions and Amendment Procedures

a. Definitions

The rules and regulations of the Academic Senate, beyond those already specified in the Constitution and its amendments, shall be designated by Bylaws, Rules of Order and Standing Rules.

(1) Bylaws are those rules and regulations pertaining to organization (including officers, major committees, and other agencies authorized to conduct business in and for the Senate), duties of said officers or agencies, and other such matters as may be specifically required by the Constitution and its amendments.

(2) Rules of Order are such rules and regulations concerning parliamentary procedures not covered in Robert's Rules of Order (Revised) or direct amendments thereof.

(3) Standing Rules are those rules and regulations which cover all other matters pertaining to the conduct of the business of the Senate. (Robert's Rules of Order provides for such temporary changes of procedure.)

b. Amendment Procedures

(1) Bylaws shall be amended by presentation of the text of the proposed amendment at one meeting and approval by an affirmative vote of a majority of those present at the next regularly called meeting.

(2) Rules of Order shall be amended by presentation of the text of the proposed amendment at one meeting and approval by an affirmative vote of a majority of those present at the next regularly called meeting.

(3) Bylaws and Rules of Order may also be amended by prior written notice and by a two-thirds affirmative vote of those present at a regularly called meeting.

(4) Standing Rules shall be amended by affirmative vote of a majority of those present at a regularly called meeting.

Bylaw 2 Officers, Duties and Procedures for Nomination and Election

a. Officers

The Senate annually shall elect a Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary; and two Members-at-Large. These officers of the Senate shall serve until regularly succeeded.

b. Duties of the Officers

(1) The Chair shall preside at meetings of the Senate and the Executive Committee. He or she shall be responsible for communications with the faculties of the campuses colleges. He or she shall have the authority to convene regular and special meetings of the Senate. Requests for expenditures of State Funds in

connection with the Senate activities shall be subject to the approval of the Chair or his or her designee.

(2) The Vice Chair shall assume the duties of the Chair when the Chair is unable to serve. He or she shall be responsible for carrying out such other duties as may be delegated to him or her by the Senate, the Executive Committee, or the Chair.

(3) The Secretary shall keep the minutes and the records of the Senate and shall carry out such other duties as may be delegated to him or her by the Senate, the Executive Committee, or the Chair.

(4) The Members-at-Large shall carry out such duties as may be delegated to them by the Senate, the Executive Committee, or its chair.

(5) An individual designated by the Executive Committee shall be responsible for the regular production and distribution of a newsletter for all the faculties of The California State University. (See Bylaw 7)

c. Time of Election

The election of officers shall be held annually at the first meeting of the new Senate. The duly elected officers of the Senate shall assume their duties on June 1 following their election, except that the new Executive Committee may meet earlier than June 1 in order to begin the organization of Senate assignments and responsibilities for the coming year.

d. Election Procedures

(1) Offices shall be filled, starting with the office of Chair and continuing with Vice Chair and Secretary and with the other officers, in successive order with nominations and election by secret ballot.

(2) Every senator shall have the opportunity to make nominations.

(3) All nominees shall be listed on the first and subsequent ballots alphabetically. Those having the highest number of votes, and whose votes, when added together, constitute a majority of the votes cast, shall appear on the next ballot. Voting shall continue in this manner until one candidate receives a majority of votes cast.

(4) The Members-at-Large shall be elected annually in accordance with section Bylaw 2,d,1-3; except that nominations shall be made just once, and the list of nominees shall constitute the candidates for both the first and second Member-at-Large positions elected by separate ballots.

(5) In the event that a new representative has not been elected in time to participate in the election of Senate officers at the first meeting of the new Senate, the outgoing representative shall be entitled to vote in such elections.

e. Vacancies in Elected Positions

(1) When the Chair's position is vacated due to resignation or other reasons, the Vice Chair shall assume the title and responsibilities of the Chair.

(2) When the position of Vice Chair, Secretary, or Member-at-Large on the Executive Committee is vacated, the position shall be filled by election at the next regular Senate meeting after the vacancy occurs, according to the election procedures stated in Bylaw 2,d.

(3) When the position of Immediate Past Chair is vacated on the Executive Committee, the position shall remain vacant.

Bylaw 3 The Executive Committee

a. Membership

The Executive Committee shall consist of the elected officers and the Immediate Past Chair.

b. Duties and Authority

(1) The Executive Committee shall be responsible for preparing the agenda, for advising the Chair regarding the conduct of the Senate business, and for such additional duties as the Senate may assign.

(2) The Executive Committee shall have the authority to act for the Academic Senate of The California State University between meetings on items requiring action before the next meeting of the entire body.

(3) The Executive Committee shall appoint the members of the standing and special committees of the Senate, and consultants to the Senate, including specialists.

(4) A majority of the Executive Committee may direct the Chair to call a meeting of the Senate.

(5) The standing and special committees shall appoint their own subcommittees, subject to the approval of the Chair of the Senate, who shall consult with the Executive Committee.

Bylaw 4 Committees and Specialists

a. Standing Committees

The Senate shall have, but not be limited to, the following standing committees:

(1) The Academic Affairs Committee,

(2) The Faculty Affairs Committee,

(3) The Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee, and

(4) The Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations

b. Special Committees

The Senate may establish special committees as needed.

c. Specialists

The Senate may have specialists, with designated duties, as shall be determined by the Executive Committee each year.

d. Appointment of Chairs

The Chairs of the standing and special committees, and the specialists, will be appointed annually by the Chair of the Senate, with the approval of the Executive Committee.

e. Membership

Members of the standing and special committees shall be appointed annually from the current membership of the Senate. At least two-thirds of the members of each special committee of the Academic Senate shall be appointed from the members of the Senate. Chairs of the committees shall be members of the Senate. No member of the Senate shall be appointed to more than one standing committee. Appointees who are not senators shall be appointed only after consultation with the senators of the campus from which they are appointed.

f. Responsibilities of the Committees

(1) The Academic Affairs Committee:*

The Committees shall make recommendations to the Academic Senate on matters of statewide concern, including but not limited to, the following areas:

(a) systemwide aspects of academic planning;

(b) general or liberal arts education;

(c) criteria for state approval of specific curricula, programs or degrees;

(d) accreditation;

(e) statewide requirements for admission, retention, and graduation of students;

(f) credit by evaluation;

(g) minimum standards and conditions for the award of certificates to students;

(h) academic standards;

(i) grading standards and symbols;

(j) systemwide aspects of program review;

(k) new program allocation;

(l) joint doctoral programs;

(m) systemwide aspects of the basic directions of academic support programs;

(n) library development;

(o) research related to educational programs;

(p) academically related fiscal matters;

(q) systemwide aspects of student services;

(r) policies governing the awarding of honorary degrees;

(s) matters relevant to statewide and international programs;

(t) research, planning, formation, allocation, and delivery of programs outside traditional campus service areas;

(u) extended education, campus-based study abroad, faculty participation in international programs, faculty exchange, student exchange, and activities between and among campuses;

(v) statewide and international programs and the resources to serve non-traditional as well as international students; and

(w) such other matters as may be brought before it by the Executive Committee or the Academic Senate CSU.

The committee shall maintain liaison with CSU, the Advisory Committee on International Education, the Academic Council on International Programs, the Commission on Extended University, and other committees and commissions as designated.

(2) The Faculty Affairs Committee:

The committee shall make recommendations to the Academic Senate on matters of statewide concern, including but not limited to, the following areas:

(a) criteria and standards for the appointment, retention, promotion, evaluation and tenure of academic employees as well as preservation of the principle of peer review and evaluation through the direct involvement of appropriate faculty in these decisions;

(b) professional development, including minimum criteria and standards to be used for programs designed to enhance and maintain professional competence such as the awarding of sabbaticals and other academic leaves;

(c) systemwide policies governing the appointment and review of presidents and academic administrators;

(d) policies governing the appointment and review of systemwide executive officers and academic administrators;

(e) academic freedom and responsibility;

(f) professional matters not collectively bargained;

(g) other professional matters which may overlap items being collectively bargained where such matters have substantial academic or educational effects;

(h) the role of faculty in institutional governance; and

(i) such other matters as may be brought before it by the Executive Committee or the Academic Senate.

(3) Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee:

The committee shall make recommendations to the Academic Senate on matters of statewide concern, including but not limited to, the following areas:

The functions of the committee will be:

(a) to monitor, evaluate, and make recommendations on system budgets including strategic and academic initiatives;

(b) to evaluate plans and make recommendations to achieve adequate funding for the cost of instruction;

(c) to monitor and make recommendations on the assessment of faculty productivity and its relationship to the budget planning process;

(d) to evaluate and make recommendations on current and evolving measures of accountability as they relate to the budget planning and evaluation process

(e) to work closely with the Chair of the Academic Senate to provide support for Academic Senate positions and policies before the Legislature and other governmental bodies;

(f) to propose the proposal of legislation and policies for consideration by the Legislature and other governmental bodies consistent with Academic Senate policy; and

(g) to work closely with the Chair of the Academic Senate to provide support for Academic Senate positions and policies before the Legislature and other governmental bodies.

Further, at the direction of the Chair, the committee shall:

(h) to represent the Academic Senate before governmental bodies;

(i) to assist the Chair in determining the timeliness and accuracy of Academic Senate resolutions directed to the Legislature;

(j) to work with standing committees of the Academic Senate in researching resolutions directed to the Legislature;

(k) to develop a cooperative working relationship with the Office of the Chancellor and the Trustees so that the CSU can, whenever possible, present a unified approach to the Legislature; and

(l) to inform the Executive Committee and the Academic Senate of relevant matters pending before the state government.

(4) The Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations:*

The committee shall evaluate and make recommendations on matters regarding the CSU’s relationship with K-12 and shall maintain liaison with appropriate K-12 representatives on matters of teacher education. The committee shall also make recommendations to the Academic Senate on matters of statewide concern, including, but not limited to, the following areas:

(a) CSU policies and statewide activities affecting campus teacher education and other credential programs;

(b) state legislation and regulations concerning the requirements for credentials under the jurisdiction of the Commission on Teacher Credentialing;

(c) state legislation having potential impact on the CSU responsibility to educate school personnel;

(d) intersegmental efforts to improve teaching at all levels; and

(e) such other matters as may be brought before it by the Executive Committee or the Academic Senate CSU.

g. Reporting Procedures

All standing and special committees, unless otherwise specifically directed by the Senate, shall report to the Senate. Their recommendations shall not be considered policy statements until formally approved by the Senate.

Bylaw 5 Establishment of the Official Roster of the Senate

The alternates from the several campuses shall at each meeting at which they are official delegates present to the Secretary of the Senate their names and the names of the senators whose places they are taking.

Bylaw 6 Voting on Substantive Motions

(1) Voting on substantive motions may take place at any meeting of the Academic Senate CSU when the reports giving rise to the motions have been distributed to all senators at least two weeks in advance. Such reports shall be referred to as "Action" items on the agenda.

(2) Substantive motions based on reports which have not been distributed to all senators at least two weeks in advance shall take place only after a second reading of the motion at a meeting subsequent to the meeting at which it was first introduced, except that the Academic Senate CSU, by three-fourths vote of those present, may waive this requirement. The motion to suspend the rules to waive this requirement shall be debatable.

Bylaw 7 Establishment of Faculty Newsletter

(1) There shall be established a faculty newsletter coming from the Academic Senate CSU and sent to all CSU faculty at appropriate times.

(2) Funds shall be provided for this newsletter from the Senate budget.

Bylaw 8 Session of the Academic Senate

(1) The session of the Academic Senate CSU shall be from June 1 through May 31.

*It shall not be the function of this committee to intervene in any questions as to which courses within an approved program on any campus are proper, improper, adequate, or inadequate.

On behalf of the Executive Committee, Senator Charnofsky moved (Dinielli seconded) the resolution.

AS-2361-97/TEKR RECEIPT AND REFERRAL FOR CAMPUS DISCUSSION OF FIRST READING/ THE REPORT: AN EXAMINATION OF THE LIBERAL

WAIVER STUDIES PREPARATION OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS IN THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University receive and refer to the chairs of the academic senates for appropriate campus distribution, evaluation, and discussion the report An Examination of the Liberal Studies Preparation of Elementary Teachers in the California State University; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU request campus comments and responses be forwarded to the Academic Senate CSU no later than June 1, 1997.

RATIONALE: This study of the Liberal Studies Programs in the CSU was conducted under the aegis of the Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations (TEKR) with the support of an Academic Affairs Academic Program Improvement (API) grant. The information contained in the report can inform the discussions on the baccalaureate and Cornerstones. TEKR would like to consider as part of its discussion and review of the report the feedback from faculty who teach in Liberal Studies programs and faculty in Schools of Education.

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

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

AS-2361-97/TEKR motion carried unanimously.

AS-2362-97/FA OPPOSITION TO CAMPUS ROTC ACCESS ACT

FIRST READING

WAIVER

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University reaffirm its policy condemning the discriminatory regulations of the Department of Defense that exclude homosexuals from military services (AS 1939-90/AA and AS 1980-91/AA, CSU Policy on Non-Discrimination and ROTC Programs); and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU condemn the Campus ROTC Access Act and its efforts to suppress free speech and coerce faculty to discriminate against homosexuals; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the presidents of campuses presently affected by the Campus ROTC Access Act to stand firm in defense of academic freedom and non-discrimination.

RATIONALE: Because it is a violation of CSU policy for the CSU system, or any part of it, to discriminate in employment or access on the basis of sexual orientation and because there is no scholarly evidence that the policy of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is beneficial to the national defense, the Academic Senate urged campuses in 1991 to terminate their contracts with the U.S. military regarding the offering of ROTC programs. Subsequently, several campuses did so.

In 1994, the federal government, through legislation (Campus ROTC Access Act) threatened to terminate the federal contracts and grants awarded to students and faculty on those campuses which terminated military ROTC contracts. This action is a violation of First Amendment rights, academic freedom, and a direct threat to a free and democratic society.

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

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

On behalf of the Faculty Affairs Committee, Vice Chair McIntire requested consent to make the following change: to use the proper name for the Solomon Amendment, which is "Campus ROTC Access Act," wherever it appears in the resolution as well as in the title. There were no objections.

Senator Spear moved (Cherny seconded) to amend by beginning the Rationale with "Because it is a violation of CSU policy for the CSU system, or any part of it, to discriminate in employment or access on the basis of sexual orientation and" before "because there is no scholarly..."

Senator Pincu moved to amend the amendment by including "of law and" before "CSU policy." There being some question as to whether it was, in fact, part of the law, Senator Pincu withdrew his amendment.

There were no objections to the Spear amendment.

AS-2362-97/FA motion carried unanimously.

AS-2363-97/EX RECEIPT AND REFERRAL FOR CAMPUS

FIRST READING/ DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT REVIEW OF

WAIVER THE BACCALAUREATE IN THE CALIFORNIA

STATE UNIVERSITY

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University receive and refer to the campus academic senates for examination and discussion the Draft Review of the Baccalaureate in the California State University and encourage the broadest possible dissemination and discussion; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the campus academic senates to complete their discussions of the Draft Review of the Baccalaureate in the California State University and forward their comments to the Academic Senate CSU no later than October 20, 1997.

RATIONALE: Having completed its initial work on the Draft Review of the Baccalaureate in the California State University, the Academic Senate CSU, through this resolution, refers the document to the campus academic senates. In order to provide sufficient time for proper examination and discussion, comments are not requested for seven months. The Academic Senate CSU plans to take final action on the Draft Review of the Baccalaureate at its meeting of November 1997. The Review of the Baccalaureate will thus be introduced as a first reading item at the September 1997 meeting, but will be edited to incorporate campus comments for action in November. Campus comments received prior to August 20, 1997, can be incorporated into the first reading version. The document is to be accompanied by the recorders’ notes on the Baccalaureate Study Review discussion sessions which took place at the Academic Conference in Monterey in February.

On behalf of the Executive Committee, Senator Hammerstrom moved (Dinielli seconded) the resolution.

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

Senator Kaiser requested consent to make the following change: to add to the end of the Rationale, "The document is to be accompanied by the recorders’ notes on the Baccalaureate Study Review discussion sessions which took place at the Academic Conference in Monterey in February." There were no objections.

Senator Jensen moved (Heisch seconded) to amend by changing the name of the attachment to "The CSU Baccalaureate: Challenges and Opportunities" and make some changes to the document. Motion failed.

Senator Navari moved (Whitney seconded) to refer the resolution to the Executive Committee and the standing committee chairs. Motion failed.

Senator DuFault moved to close debate.

Senator Hammerstrom requested consent to make the following change: to insert "Draft" before "Review of the Baccalaureate..." in the title and wherever it appears in the resolution; and to mark "DRAFT" on each page of the document. There were no objections.

Senator Cherny moved to close debate. Motion carried.

AS-2363-97/EX motion was approved.

* * * * *

The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m. on Friday, March 24, 1997.

* * * * *

Approved (or corrected)

Date:________________________ _______________________________

James M. Highsmith, Chair

 

_______________________________

Hal Charnofsky, Secretary

 

________________________________

Margaret Price, Recording Secretary



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