Academic Senate of the California State University
MINUTES

Meeting of May 7-8, 1998
CSU Headquarters, Long Beach, CA

 

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 7, 1998, by Chair James Highsmith.

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

INTRODUCTIONS

During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:

Patricia Henry, Executive Staff Assistant to Executive Vice Chancellor

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

Terry Jones, President, California Faculty Association

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

Donald Moore, Consultant, Association of California State University Professors

Maynard Robinson, General Manager, Technology Infrastructure Partnership, IRT

David S. Spence, Executive Vice Chancellor

Johnetta Anderson, Technical Assistant, Chancellor’s Office

Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

José Lopez, Clerical Assistant, Academic Senate CSU

Margaret Price, Staff Assistant - Documents, Academic Senate CSU

Amy Romanus, Temporary Clerical Assistant, Academic Senate CSU

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

Announcement of Times Certain

Thursday, May 7, 1998

2:00 p.m. David S. Spence, Executive Vice Chancellor

2:45 p.m. Terry Jones, President, California Faculty Association

3:30 p.m. Maynard Robinson, General Manager, Technology

Infrastructure Partnership, IRT

* * * * *

REPORT OF CHAIR JAMES HIGHSMITH

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the people who have worked so hard on behalf of the Senate. First of all, all of you——I really do appreciate your efforts over the past three years, and especially the last year, to conclude a lot of projects that we have been involved with, some much longer than my being chair. I especially want to thank and recognize the people who served as committee chairs over the past three years. As a former chair told me, the work of the Senate critically depends on the quality of the committee chairs and if we do not have high quality work coming from those committees, we will have problems. It is on the backs of the chairs that this work occurs. They have to be the one who is encouraging their groups and assuring that if someone falls short, that the work still gets done. My thanks go to all the past chairs of committees but especially the current chairs of committees——would you please stand now. My victims in crime have been over the past few years Senator Heisch, who is not with us; Senator Marshall, who is with us, as well as Senators Charnofsky, Stanley, Dinielli, Oliver, Thobaben, and Hammerstrom; and who have I missed? I think that gets them all.

Bernie is not here. Harold is now Trustee and he’s been a victim in crime, too. These folks who served on the executive committee spent more time, listened to more talking by the person who is talking now than they ever wanted to, and I have to thank them very much for putting up with me and being an incredible assist to the committee work——and not just an assist, often they did it——but also being the people who helped the committee chairs and the committees in their work. I’d like them all to stand so that we can honor them. It really does take substantial willingness to be self-abusive to want to go on the executive committee and I really do appreciate their work.

Two people I need to specially recognize——Ken Nishita we threw into the job of GE chair probably without adequate preparation since he’s coming from a new campus and we didn’t make him sit through years and years of GE work before we made him chair and, Ken, thank you very much for being willing to step up and do that. And Senator Williams, whose brass statue is being made even as we speak, volunteered last year to sit through all the CETI stuff on our behalf to try to assure that there was some sane and rational faculty voice there, and I’m not suggesting that those two sets of adjectives have to go together——sane and rational and they happen to be faculty——at the table, especially the closed deliberations, I really do appreciate his willingness to do that. When he told us how many hours he spent just in one semester, it absolutely scared me. I know he was not paid enough nor compensated enough, therefore I hope he has something in his memoirs that is worth repeating. Now I’m going to question his sanity at this point. He was sane last year but when we began yesterday thinking about the future of what might happen based on Maynard’s discussion and realized that not surprisingly we would need faculty representation on some of the groups that will continue, I approached him and said, "Now Dick, what do you think we should do?" And he said, "Well, we need people who know what’s going on." I said, would you be willing to continue, and he said yes. This is like Catch 22——if you’re sane enough...What is it, Gene? Explain the Mission theory.

"The Catch 22, as I recall, is variously stated in Catch 22, but mainly they can do anything you can’t stop them from doing. But if you’re sane enough to see the craziness of the missions, then you can go on more." (Gene Dinielli) Dick, do you want to reconsider now? "Gotta say OK." (Dick Williams) Now in all seriousness, folks, I think we owe a real debt of gratitude to Dick.

The staff——the staff did not want (Debbie and Margaret don’t leave!). The staff did not want a lot of gifts and a lot of hoopla, they’re always insistent on being modest. We have made a gift in their name to the American Red Cross, at their request. I just want you to be aware that I am always looking for little things to give them so I had to buy a few little tiny things so they have been given a few mementos just so you know that that happened. I think we ought to thank the staff for all their efforts. I know what they do is not worth what they get paid. You catch my drift. Yes, I didn’t tell José to stay because he was staying put, he wasn’t trying to walk out the door.

The nice thing about doing the report at the end is we’ve gone through a lot of items so I don’t have to belabor a lot of discussion about issues that we’ve already dealt with. You are aware of the budget augmentation issues and the concerns that we have regarding how we go forward. I think this is something the new executive committee is going to have to be very alert to, not just for this year’s budget but in the process this summer of the development of the next budget. It is clear that we cannot predict what the revenue picture will look like and where the politics will take us. We have to be nimble and ready to move in directions that seem advantageous and I hope you will have the level of confidence that you have had in past executive committees to act on your behalf even if we haven’t considered all these things in advance. That’s what you elect people to the executive committee to do to take on that responsibility. I did want to assure you that I have had discussions with David Spence and with Maynard Robinson about faculty representation on the CETI committees that will be working during the summer and into the next year and they’ve indicated that there needs to be a commitment to making sure that that happens and that that will work. I hope I’m not speaking out of turn——as David is not here——OK, so David can’t correct me.

With regard to some of our long-term projects, there had been discussion with David Spence and with Chuck Lindahl in Executive Committee about how Cornerstones implementation will occur and the involvement of faculty there. I think we’ve received assurance that no matter what preliminary discussions may have occurred with the presidents about what things individual campuses might want to identify as priorities for them or things they’re particularly interested in examining, exploring, working on, etc., that there will be faculty involvement at the statewide level and the discussions of how we go forward with implementation. Not that we are going to determine things for campuses, but that there will be discussion here about how those things might occur. I hope you all will take on a special responsibility as delegates from your campuses to do your best to assure that faculty have a voice in the determination of priorities for your campus with regard any implementation that occurs with Cornerstones. This cannot be a topdown process. I know a lot of people thought Cornerstones was a topdown process or began that way but it became very much a collaborative that we were stressed about, we worked with, we were happy with at times. It required a level of engagement among faculty and administrators and trustees that hadn’t necessarily occurred before and there was active participation by students in this discussion as well. None of us that participated and sweat blood in that process, wants to see the process turned into something that is not collaborative. If we do anything through the Cornerstones, we establish a precedence of collaboration that may mean compromises in certain instances and it may mean that conclusions are reached that we are not fully agreed to. It does require a level of engagement that we haven’t always had in the past. I would not like to see that lost.

The Baccalaureate is done. We have not distributed it to the campuses wholesale with a cover memo. It was my hope that we would have the engagement of the new academic leadership as well as the experienced academic leadership before that went out to campuses. We’ve had some discussion about things that need to occur in implementing the vision of the Baccalaureate. Primarily, things will have to happen at the campus level. But there are a lot of engagements that must occur with the Community Colleges. The figure that I heard just a moment ago from Allison Jones is that 76 percent of the students who transfer from community colleges to a four-year institution in California transfer to the CSU. We, of course, have heard the comparable figure that two-thirds of our students come to us from community colleges and not directly from high school or work. But it is amazing to think that, of those 107 campuses that provide students who want to complete their baccalaureate, we get over three quarters of them. Therefore, we must engage the Community College faculty in a discussion of what their lower-division work must be in order for us to achieve what we would like to achieve in a full baccalaureate. We clearly are not doing it all ourselves. There is a lot of work ahead for us in the issues embedded in the Baccalaureate study.

I did want to report to you on progress on our collaborative that is currently labeled the California Virtual University (CVU). That, you may know, is a collaborative of WASC accredited institutions in California who are willing to offer coursework through a unified catalog that, once the student identifies the work they’re interested in, allows them to go to the campus where the coursework is offered, get advisement, enroll, and perhaps achieve a degree or certificate objective. We have been successful over the last year and a half in not only having key faculty members on the design team, but also on the advisory committees to the design team, developing an academic plan which demonstrates that we are putting together a collaborative which is decentralized and whose quality is maintained by the faculty at the campuses that provide the coursework and through the accreditation processes that validate that quality.

We are now moving into a new phase where the CVU will move out from under the state government and be governed by a non-profit board of directors. That board are the directors of the Foundation that has been established to be a non-profit, private corporation funded from several sources——an anticipated 10 sponsors from private corporations (currently have five) who will pay $75,000 a year over a multi-year period; foundations (currently have one $250,000 grant). The board will be composed of at least three faculty members, the heads of the senates of the three public systems, three academic officers——one from each of the public segments, and two representatives from the independent colleges and universities. Currently those representatives are Jonathan Brown who is president of the AICCU and Jerry Campbell who is the chief information officer of the University of Southern California. That board will select this summer a chief executive officer whose title is now labeled president. That search is being conducted by the board; the search committee is four people——the three senate chairs and Jerry Campbell. I am chairing the search committee, who has hired a search firm, called Diversified Search, to assist it in identifying candidates for this job. It is a Philadelphia firm and is the largest woman-owned search firm in the United States and has an incredible track record of seeking positions for minorities and women. In 40 percent of its searches, women are chosen; and in 25 percent of its searches, the organizations assisted by it choose minorities. It has helped firms both in the private sector, public and in-between sectors. The ad in the Chronicle of Higher Education will place the emphasis of the credentials on an educator with educator experience, experience in higher education, and someone who has the vision to put this collaborative together and assure that the quality is there and is maintained. The salary range is $130,000 - $155,000.

Whatever we may individually believe about the value of distance education, we cannot deny that, if it is done, it must be done properly. I am very pleased that the state has seen fit through this process to give as much participation and control to the faculty leaders of the public segments of higher education as they have. That says something very important about California. As much as we may at times disagree with the executive leadership or the legislative leadership on particular issues, if we had not developed some level of trust and responsibility, we would not be in the position we are with regard to this collaborative. Encourage and support your leaders who go forward from this time in assuring that the quality of the institution that we create, this collaborative, not a stand-alone, will continue to depend on the creativity and the brilliance of the faculty at the campuses who put the programs together.

The Articulation Conference of May 29 was catalyzed by our discussions around CVU and how we articulate coursework in a distance education environment where students may want to be taking lots of things that we don’t offer at our campuses where they’re getting their degree. The conference was really about how do we make articulation work better, and was a successful conference of about 110, mostly faculty participants. Thanks go to Bernie Goldstein, Gene Dinielli and Kathy Kaiser, from our system, along with others from the other segments. There will be follow-up meetings by the planning committee to memorialize what was discussed there, to be distributed, and lead to action and involvement by the Senate. The Intersegmental Budget Task Force process for next budget year, 1999-00, has started and we have a placeholder to provide money to encourage meetings among faculty to do articulation work. With a 4 million dollar surplus, it would be nice to think that maybe we could find in the next year some real money to do this work.

* * * * *

Standing Committee Reports:

Academic Affairs Committee Chair Paul Spear reported that the committee

Faculty Affairs Committee Chair Dan Whitney reported that the committee has two items on the Agenda: extending health benefits to domestic partners and a motion about the number, use, and ratio of tenured and tenure-track faculty positions in the CSU. We commend their passage to you. As you heard when Chancellor Reed answered my question about health benefits for domestic partners in Florida, he supported passage of legislation there–unfortunately, to no avail.

FAC worked on many and varied items during the past year, and we have distributed detailed reports on two of them. First is the work of Vince Buck on collegial governance. We hope you carefully will look at it and correct any information that does not conform with the situation on your campus. It will, in all likelihood, be introduced as a First-Reading item in the fall. Second is a report on faculty development, prepared mainly by Hal Charnofsky. Next year's committee, I am sure, would like to receive your comments.

Please indulge me while I take a few minutes to mention several items the committee worked on during the past year; items we will pass on to next year's committee. You will find them to be really interesting issues, and we encourage you to join the Faculty Affairs Committee next year to work on these fascinating topics. I am not mentioning them to you in their order of importance because they all are important.

  • Faculty Affairs relations with the Chancellor's Office: the way FAC relates to the Academic Affairs office of the CO.
  • Accountability measures and the way faculty should be involved in determining what those measures should be in the context of providing a quality education to CSU students.
  • Faculty flow. Our motion on the Agenda before you is a first step into this morass. We had a report from our liaison from the Academic Affairs office about a recently-completed study showing that the savings from retirements and replacements is only 25-30% instead of "significant" as mentioned in Cornerstones. FAC will, I hope, look into that issue in the process of developing positions for CSU-AS on the question of faculty flow in general.
  • Faculty development. FAC will move forward from the report distributed to you at this meeting.
  • Teaching assistants in the CSU. A question has arisen concerning professors spending their own money to hire teaching assistants to handle their classes when they, the professors, are planning not to be in class.
  • Who owns the course syllabus? A very broad issue that reaches into the areas of copyright, intellectual property, privacy, and academic freedom. This is exacerbated by the rapidly increasing use of technology. Faculty are finding their syllabi, and even their vita (with pictures), on web pages without having granted permission for them to be there.
  • Incompatible activities. It was reported to us that some faculty are working in community colleges and in other ways, that are incompatible with their full-time responsibilities as instructors. This creates a situation that makes it more difficult to take the position that we are overworked.
  • Web site charges to students.
  • Scholarship in a teaching institution; how to define it.
  • Faculty morale and stress. We initiated discussion about developing a kind of SNAPS for faculty.
  • Faculty Trustee.

Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Cristy Jensen reported that primary attention was given to finalizing the Campus Budget Advisory Committee Report which will be distributed to campus senates, presidents, provosts, CFA presidents, and Associated Student presidents. The committee also met with John Richards to discuss the status of the current budget negotiations in Sacramento, the CSU requests for augmentation using anticipated May revise surpluses, the development of the 99-00 budget and the proposed review of the lottery fund budget process. The Budget Priorities resolution for the 99-00 budget was finalized for review and action by the full Senate.

G. E. Chair Ken Nishita reported that the Chancellor's General Education Advisory Committee met on April 2, 1998. We discussed: (1) SB 1472 (Alpert), (2) updates on the completion of the 1997-98 IGETC and GE Breadth course review by the GE Subcommittee, (3) the evolution of the development of "college success" courses for meeting the criteria and standards of GE Breadth Area E: Lifelong Understanding and Self-Development, (4) preliminary plans for the review of "new" university requests (or revisions of existing programs) for exceptions to GE Breadth requirements in "high-unit majors", and (5) preliminary plans for review of existing practices for the certification of the American Institutions requirements. We postponed our ongoing discussion to describe the five GE Breadth Areas (A-E) in terms of student learning outcomes until the fall 1998 meeting.

TEKR Committee Chair Dick Williams reported that:

1 Resolutions:

1.1 2-nd reading items:

AS-2413-98 Support for Faculty Involvement in CSU K-12 Activities

AS-2415-98 Support for AB 2442 (Mazzoni); a program for in-service Mathematics Teachers

1.2 1-st reading item:

AS-2416-98 Opposition to Proposition 227 (Bilingual education)

(TEKR consensus was that Bilingual education needs modification rather than elimination.)

2 Discussion items:

2.1 Activities of the math education group

2.2 EDREFORM-L, a listserv, is available (from last fall meeting in San Diego on preparation of teachers)

2.3 Report on legislative days activities

2.4 Status of Subject Matter Projects. Reduced in scope (only certain areas supported) and a possible name change.

 

ACTION

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Senator Marshall moved (Wort seconded) approval of the minutes of March 5-6, 1998. The minutes were approved.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved.

AS-2402-98/FA SUPPORT FOR HEALTH BENEFITS FOR

SECOND READING DOMESTIC PARTNERS OF CALIFORNIA STATE

UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University reaffirm its 1994 support for extending health benefits to domestic partners of CSU employees and urge the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees to work with the California Faculty Association to support enabling legislation which would permit the Public Employees Retirement System to contract with agencies that provide employee health benefits to domestic partners and their dependents.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU endorse the efforts of the California Faculty Association, and urge the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees to do likewise, to extend vision and dental benefits to domestic partners of CSU employees and to seek to contract with agencies that provide such benefits to current CSU employees.

RATIONALE: A large and growing number of higher education institutions (e.g., Harvard, Columbia, Yale, MIT, Stanford, University of California, University of Chicago, and University of Minnesota) have amended their employee benefits programs to provide employee benefits to domestic partners and their dependents. More than 136 major corporations in the United States (including AT&T, Apple, Microsoft, Bank of America, Levi Strauss, PG&E, MCA, HBO, Sprint, Time Magazine, and Warner Brothers) provide employee benefits to domestic partners and their dependents. Cities such as San Francisco, Berkeley, and Seattle provide employee benefits to domestic partners and their dependents. Extending such benefits will enhance the California State University’s ability to attract, recruit, and retain quality employees.

It is time for the California State University to support benefits for domestic partners.

AS-2402-98/FA motion approved unanimously.

AS-2407-98/AA MODIFICATION OF ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS

SECOND READING FOR UPPER-DIVISION TRANSFER

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the recommendation of the CSU Admission Advisory Council that would require all upper-division transfer applicants to complete, prior to transfer, 56 transferable semester units including at least 30 semester units of college coursework with a grade of C or better in each course to be selected from courses in English, arts and humanities, social and behavioral sciences, science and mathematics at a level at least equivalent to courses that meet general education requirements. The 30 units must include all of the general education requirements in communication in the English language (written communication, oral communication, and critical thinking) and mathematical concepts and quantitative reasoning, regardless of high school eligibility; and be it further,

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to adopt the modification of admission requirements for upper division transfer and to implement the policy beginning in Fall 2000; and be it further,

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to facilitate extensive consultation with the California Community Colleges prior to implementation of the modified admission requirements for upper division transfer.

RATIONALE: Under current CSU admission policy, upper division transfer to the CSU is possible through completion of one of two alternative paths. Applicants who did not meet CSU’s high school eligibility requirement for CSU admission as freshmen are required to complete 56 transferable semester units, including 30 units in general-education types of courses with a grade of C or better in each course including communication in the English language (written communication, oral communication, and critical thinking) and mathematical concepts and quantitative reasoning, prior to transfer to the CSU. Applicants who qualified for CSU admission as freshmen by completing CSU’s high school eligibility requirements but did not choose to matriculate to the CSU can transfer at the upper division level by completing 56 semester units without any requirement to complete any of CSU’s general education-breadth requirements.

The CSU Admissions Advisory Council was asked by the Chancellor to review current CSU admission policy that allows applicants to establish eligibility for admission as an upper division transfer on the basis of completion of the comprehensive pattern of high school college-preparatory subjects as an alternate to completing at least 30 semester units of general-education types of courses with a grade of C or better in each course, including three required courses in English language and one course in mathematical concepts and quantitative reasoning. Recent Trustee policy requires all students at the freshmen and upper-division transfer levels to demonstrate proficiency both in English and mathematics. The recommended modification of the admission policy to require all upper-division transfer students to complete 30 units of general-education types of courses with a grade of C or better in each course including English communication and mathematical basic skills prior to transfer is consistent with Trustee policy and better prepares students for success at the upper division level.

The recommended implementation date of Fall 2000 provides students with ample opportunity to develop an academic plan to complete with a grade of C or better in each course 30 semester units of general-education types of coursework. To facilitate transfer of upper-division students it is important to consult extensively with the California Community Colleges and to announce the modified admission policy for upper-division transfer forthwith.

AS-2407-98/AA motion approved unanimously.

AS-2408-98/AA COPYRIGHT, FAIR USE, AND PUBLIC LAW 105-147,

SECOND READING THE "NO ELECTRONIC THEFT" (NET) ACT OF 1997

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge the Chancellor, presidents, and campus senates to inform each CSU faculty member regarding Public Law 105-147, the "No Electronic Theft" (NET) Act of 1997; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge that the process of informing faculty members about this law should provide an opportunity on each campus for the education of faculty members on copyright and fair use, and urge that this law not be an occasion for the creation of arbitrary restrictions on faculty members.

RATIONALE: Public Law 105-147 (attached), which took effect on January 1, 1998, establishes both new definitions for violation of copyright and severe criminal penalties, including possible imprisonment, for violations.

The key provisions of the new law make it a violation of copyright willfully to infringe a copyright "either (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000" (emphasis added).

In 1995, the Joint Committee of the CSU, SUNY, and CUNY produced "Fair Use of Copyrighted Works: A Crucial Element in Educating America," a brief survey of copyright issues and guidelines. Most of this is as valid now as before the passage of Public Law 105-147. While the passage of this new law may provide a good opportunity for consideration of the question of copyright, the four principles used in determining fair use of copyrighted works (as contained in "Fair Use of Copyrighted Works") should provide the general context for an educational program aimed at CSU faculty members.

AS-2408-98/AA motion approved unanimously.

AS-2409-98/AA INFORMATION COMPETENCE: A UNIVERSITY-

SECOND READING WIDE RESPONSIBILITY

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the position paper on "Information Competence" (attached) and recommend it to campus senates as a guide as they develop a comprehensive information competence program; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recognize that the development of skills and knowledge in information competence is a university-wide responsibility and urge the Chancellor and campus presidents fiscally to support faculty development programs in information competence; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus senates to develop a university-wide comprehensive program in information competence to ensure that all CSU graduates are able to locate, retrieve, organize, critically evaluate, analyze, synthesize, and communicate information in a cohesive and logical manner; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus senates to consider the following recommendations as they develop a comprehensive university-wide policy on information competence:

a. Development of skills and knowledge in information competence is a responsibility shared by the instructional and library faculty;

b. Information competence should be an integral part of the curriculum;

c. The fundamentals of information competence should be introduced at the freshmen level and the skills and knowledge in information competence should be further developed and applied in general education coursework; and

d. Information competence skills should be reinforced and enhanced in the major;

and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates, the Chancellor, the General Education-Breadth Committee and campuses to work closely with colleagues in the California Community Colleges in fostering the development of information competence skills in the general education coursework offered in the community colleges.

RATIONALE: Many CSU campuses are developing integrated curricular offerings in information competence. In fact, the CSU has funded many campus and multi-campus information competence projects over the past three years. Few campuses, however, have developed a comprehensive program in information competence to ensure that all graduates have mastered the requisite skills and knowledge in locating, retrieving, organizing, critically evaluating, analyzing, synthesizing and communicating information in a cohesive and logical manner.

The Academic Senate CSU, in its position paper, "Information Competence" (May 1998), stresses the need for a comprehensive university-wide program in information competence, provides definitions and components of skills and knowledge to be developed in an information competence program, and recommends a number of issues to be considered by campuses in developing and implementing a program in information competence.

INFORMATION COMPETENCE

Academic Senate CSU
March 1998

In his chronicle of the life of Samuel Johnson, James Boswell wrote, "Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it."

In higher education, faculty have devoted themselves to both kinds of knowledge: knowing a subject and knowing how to find information about a subject. However, in an age of rapid advances in electronic technology, the amount and speed of information transfer has sometimes compromised teaching students these same skills. In a world awash in new information--much of it is spurious, erroneous, misleading, false--we cannot afford to compromise the teaching of how to find information and evaluate and use information responsibly and effectively.

"The latter half of the twentieth century has rightly been called the Information Age. Never has so much information been available in our history. We have moved into an environment in which information competence is at the center. With nearly 2.7 billion documents published world-wide each year, with the magnitude and complexity of current scientific research, with the rapid development of technology which has given us access to information never known before, every student who wishes to be considered educated and who needs to make a successful career must have a mastery of information competence." (Information Competence Work Group, 1996, p. 2).

In its report, "Baccalaureate Education in the CSU" (1998), the Academic Senate CSU emphasized the importance of information competence. It identified the knowledge and skills for lifelong intellectual endeavor that were essential for each graduate to have mastered. These included learning, locating, evaluating, analyzing, synthesizing, and creating information. Further support for the development of these skills were included in "The Cornerstones Report: Choosing Our Future" (January, 1998), a CSU framework for systemwide planning.

In 1995, the Commission on Learning Resources and Technology (CLRIT) initiated CSU systemwide efforts to discuss "information literacy" or "information competence". A systemwide CLRIT work group on information competence, including two faculty members from the CSU Academic Senate, was established and promoted this conversation through conferences, workshops, reports, and support for campus projects.

What is information competence?

The meaning of "information competence" has evolved to go beyond "library literacy" or "bibliographic instruction" or "computer literacy". Through discussions in systemwide CSU workshops on information competence and within the professional literature, there is general consensus that information competence is the ability to find, evaluate, use, and communicate information in all of its various formats, including the plethora of electronic communications. In other words, information competence is the fusion or integration of library literacy, ethics, critical thinking, and communication skills.

In its second report to CLRIT (1996), the Information Competency Work Group stated its position: "No student should graduate from California State University without the ability to formulate a research question or problem, to determine its information requirements, to locate and retrieve the relevant information, to organize, analyze, evaluate, treat critically and synthesize the information and to communicate and present that information in a cohesive and logical fashion. Moreover, no student should graduate from California State University without understanding the ethical, legal and socio-political issues surrounding information. If our graduates are to make a contribution to a wider socio-political world and create a better society, they must understand information--its power, its uses and its abuses." (p.2)

What are the specific skills of information competence?

In order to be able to find, evaluate, use, and communicate information, students must be able to demonstrate these skills in an integrated process:

1. State a research question, problem, or issue

2. Determine the information requirements for the research question, problem, or issue

3. Locate and retrieve relevant information

4. Organize information

5. Analyze and evaluate information

6. Synthesize information

7. Communicate using a variety of information technologies

8. Use the technological tools for accessing information

9. Understand the ethical, legal, and socio-political issues surrounding information and information technology

10. Use, evaluate, and treat critically information received from the mass media

11. Appreciate that the skills gained in information competence enable lifelong learning

How is information competence implemented?

Programs to develop the information competence of students have long been undertaken by academic libraries and academic disciplines utilizing library resources as their main source of research information. These programs teach students the value of how to locate, evaluate and use information effectively, and the critical thinking skills to assess the information in the context of their scholarly work. As made evident in the CSU workshops in 1995 and 1997, many faculty members do indeed foster the students’ ability to attain and use information resources and encourage students to develop the skills necessary to be independent, self-directed learners.

In general, however, it is uncertain whether the skills of information competence are slowly being compromised as new information advances rapidly, or whether there is a lag in developing university programs that firmly embedded these skills in the academic curriculum at a rate that keeps pace with new electronic information resources. The research undertaken by the Work Group suggests that isolated, hit-or-miss, ad hoc attempts cannot ensure that students are well equipped for the Information Age. It also indicates that the best programs that teach students information competence are those that are integrating these skills within the curriculum throughout the students’ education tenure. In addition, most of these same programs have strong alliances between the academic teaching faculty and the library faculty. The CSU Work Group’s report assumes that the information competence of students is a responsibility to be shared by academic teaching faculty and library faculty and should be an integral element of the curriculum.

Participants at the CSU workshops considered the strengths and weaknesses of the various models for implementing a program in information competence. It was generally agreed that there are many difficulties associated with implementing ANY program at all; however, there was also strong consensus that if a program were to be implemented, it must be integrated throughout the curriculum. In other words, almost no one is in favor of a "quick fix," in which a stand-alone course, taken once in the student’s career, is expected to meet a student’s need to be an informed, ethical consumer and producer of knowledge.

There is a great deal of interest in achieving this goal through a three-stage process, in which: (1) the fundamentals of information competence are introduced in a freshman-orientation/transitions course; (2) the skills are further developed by being embedded in general education courses; and, (3) the skills are reinforced and amplified in the major area.

REFERENCES

Academic Senate of the California State University. (1998). Baccalaureate Education in the California State University. http://www.calstate.edu/acsenate.

Information Competence Work Group. (1995). Information Competence in the CSU: A Report. http://www.calstate.edu/ITPA/Docs/info_comp_report.html

Information Competence Work Group. (1996). Information Competence: Second Report. http://www.csun.edu/susan.curzon/infocom2.html.

Information Competence Work Group. (1997). Information Competence: A Set of Core Competencies. http://www.csun.edu/susan.curzon/corecomp.html

Information Competence Work Group. (1997). Information Competence: Third Report. http://www.csun.edu/susan.curzon/infocom3.html.

The California State University. (1998). The Cornerstones Report: Choosing Our Future. http://www.calstate.edu/cornerstones.

For more information on information competence:

Books:

Breivik, Patricia S. (1998). Student Learning in the Information Age. American Council on Education, Oryx Press.

Breivik, Patrica S. & Gee, E. Gordon. (1989). Information Literacy: Revolution in the Library. New York: Macmillan.

Farmer, D. W. & Mech, T. F. (eds). (1992). Information Literacy: Developing Students as Independent Learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992. Number 78.

Web sites:

http://www.calstate.edu/itpa/Docs/info_comp_report.html

http://www.csun.edu/susan.curzon

http://www.lib.calpoly.edu/infocomp/

 

AS-2409-98/AA motion approved unanimously.

AS-2410-98/FA CONCERN ABOUT THE NUMBER AND USE OF

SECOND READING TENURED AND TENURE-TRACK FACULTY POSITIONS, AND THE RATIO OF TENURED AND TENURE-TRACK TO NON-TENURE-TRACK FACULTY POSITIONS IN THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge campus senates to compile, maintain, and publish an annual inventory of existing tenured and tenure-track faculty positions; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus senates to seek full faculty participation in changes in the number, distribution, and use of tenured and tenure-track faculty positions; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus senates to resist, except in cases they deem unusual, the conversion of tenured and tenure-track faculty positions to non-tenure-track faculty positions; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus senates to work with campus administrations to increase the number of tenure-track positions and the ratio of tenure-track to non-tenure-track faculty positions.

RATIONALE: The CSU currently lacks reliable quantitative data about the use and ratio of tenured and tenure-track to non-tenure-track faculty positions on the campuses. The decline in the relative ratio of tenured and tenure-track to non-tenured and tenure-track faculty has become a widespread concern on campuses throughout the system. This decline requires that faculty senates and faculty committees become involved. Historically, faculty have not been actively involved in the distribution of tenure and tenure-track faculty positions on most campuses; faculty on CSU campuses need to address this problem.

A 1985 Report of the Board of Trustees Ad Hoc Committee on Governance, Collegiality, and Responsibility in the California State University outlines the responsibility of the faculty and administration to work together in faculty hiring: "Collegial governance assigns primary responsibility to the faculty for the educational functions of the institution … . Collegiality rests on a network of interlinked procedures jointly devised, whose aim is to assure the opportunity for timely advice pertinent to decisions about curricular and academic personnel matters."

Traditional responsibilities of tenured and tenure-track faculty, as acknowledged in The Cornerstones Report: Choosing Our Future and Baccalaureate Education in the California State University are being carried out by a decreasing number of tenured and tenure-track faculty. For example, the Baccalaureate Education in the California State University begins by stating that (page 3), "Collegial authority and responsibility for the curriculum and the awarding of degrees "reside with" the faculty of the California State University." Later, in addressing the quality of education (page 8), the report says, "The faculty, because of their specialized knowledge, are the primary decision-makers regarding the curriculum and are the first judges of the quality of the baccalaureate. The faculty develop and offer courses and they determine the requirements for general education and majors. Their initial task in developing courses, programs, and curricula must be to define academic quality, both in terms of the standards and criteria for teaching the curriculum and in terms of the learning objectives and performance standards achieved by students."

Principle 4 (page 8) of The Cornerstones Report: Choosing Our Future states that, "The California State University will reinvest in its faculty to maintain its primary mission as a teaching-centered comprehensive university. Faculty scholarship, research and creative activity are essential components of that mission." Recommendation 4b in support of Principle 4 (page 8) identifies, "A commitment to develop system and campus policies guiding decisions on the replacement of retiring faculty." The Report discusses productivity and reinvestment options (page 16) this way: "Productivity increases seem particularly likely if retirements occur as anticipated, and an increased proportion of replacement faculty are hired into tenure or tenure-track positions at junior levels." On page 21, the Report recognizes the importance of reinvesting in tenure and tenure-track faculty in relation to the future resources needed to maintain quality, access, and productivity.

The decline in the ratio of tenure-track to non-tenure-track positions and the use of tenure-track faculty positions may vary on different campuses in our system; unfortunately, we no longer have a faculty affairs office in the CSU Chancellor’s Office that collects, maintains, and distributes relevant data. It is important that the academic senates on each campus monitor the use of tenured and tenure-track faculty positions at their campuses. It is the faculty's responsibility to resist the foreclosure of opportunity for a new generation of tenure-track teacher-scholars. It is also the faculty’s responsibility to work for an increase in the number of tenured and tenure-track faculty to enhance the California State University’s ability to attract, recruit, and retain quality faculty.

Senator Cherny requested consent to make the following changes: to clarify the title by including "the ratio" by adding the words "of tenured and tenure-track faculty positions" after "use," and "to non-tenure-track" before the second "faculty positions." These words (or combinations of) were added also in the fourth Resolved clause, in the Rationale’s first sentence and beginning of the last paragraph by request of Senators Cherny and Pasternack. There were no objections.

AS-2410-98/FA motion approved unanimously

AS-2411-98/AA/ FGA OPPOSITION TO AB 2554 (MURRAY)

SECOND READING POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION: STUDENT TRANSFER

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University oppose AB 2554 (Murray) Postsecondary Education: Student Transfer which would guarantee every community college student, who attains an associate of arts or an associate of sciences degree in liberal arts or general studies in a community college, a place somewhere in the University of California or the California State University system.

RATIONALE: Existing law provides that every community college student who successfully completes a transfer agreement program in a community college will have an appropriate place in an upper-division university and that all community college students who meet the CSU or UC requirements for admission at the advanced standing level are guaranteed a place somewhere in the California State University system or the University of California.

This bill provides guaranteed admission to the CSU system for all students completing an associate of arts degree or an associate of sciences degree in liberal arts or general studies. Since some associate of arts or associate of sciences degrees may not require 56 units of credit or completion of general education transfer requirements, students qualifying for admission under the provisions of this bill might not meet current CSU requirements for admission as upper-division students. Existing law is adequate in this regard and would be weakened by the provisions of this bill.

After revision to the language of the bill, there was no opposition by the Academic Senate CSU.

AS-2411-98/AA/FGA motion withdrawn.

Chair Highsmith removed himself in order to participate in the debate of the next resolution.

Vice Chair Thobaben continued with the next agenda item:

AS-2412-98/AA/FGA OPPOSITION TO SB 1472 (ALPERT, THOMPSON,

SECOND READING AND WATSON) EDUCATION: COMMUNITY

COLLEGE TRANSFER STUDENT

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University oppose, in its present form, SB 1472 (Alpert, Thompson, and Watson) Education: Community College: Transfer Student which would allow transfer students to complete the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) after enrollment in the CSU.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend the following amendments:

(1) the University of California, the California State University and the California Community Colleges maintain processes to evaluate the academic records of students transferring from the California Community Colleges, publicize the value of the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC), and publicize the methods by which transfer students from California Community Colleges who are one or two courses short of the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) certification may complete lower-division general education breadth requirements;

(2) the methods by which a student may complete lower-division general education breadth requirements shall be determined by the University of California or the California State University; and

(3) this section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2002.

RATIONALE: The Academic Senate of the California State University appreciates the authors’ efforts to increase the understanding of a common core curriculum in general education courses and to ensure transferability and portability of this common core curriculum between the California Community Colleges and the University of California or the California State University. The CSU has endeavored to facilitate transfer students who have completed substantial portions of the IGETC by having their credits accepted within the systemwide CSU General Education-Breadth, an alternative pattern for completing lower-division GE requirements without falling under campus-specific GE requirements. The CSU GE-Breadth pattern is broader than IGETC, and courses that satisfy IGETC can almost always be slotted into the CSU GE-Breadth pattern. Within the CSU GE-Breadth pattern, students can be certified for having completed one or more of five subject areas, and that certification will protect them from campus-specific lower-division GE requirements in that subject area.

This bill, in its present form, by allowing transfer students to complete the IGETC after they have enrolled in the CSU, defers to a smorgasbord model of general education and would thwart efforts of intersegmental faculty to build more coherent programs for students who attend more than one institution of higher education. Conventional wisdom and extant research suggest that promoting connections across courses and having students deepen their knowledge in a sequence of courses——in GE as well as the major——leads to greater cognitive development.

Senator Highsmith moved (Dinielli seconded) to add after "IGETC, and" in the second Resolved clause "publicize" and after "students" add "from California Community Colleges who are one or two courses short of General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) completion may complete lower division GE Breadth requirements" (deleting "may fulfill IGETC completion for up to two courses"). In the second part of that clause, delete "the remaining courses(s) shall be determined by the institution and that this policy" and replace with "lower division general education breadth requirements shall be determined by the University of California or the California State University; and"; add "(3) this section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2002." Motion approved.

AS-2412-98/AA/FGA motion approved unanimously.

AS-2413-98/TEKR SUPPORT FOR FACULTY INVOLVEMENT IN THE

SECOND READING CSU K-12 PARTICIPATION PROGRAMS

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge campus senates to work with local education agencies in an effort to develop K-12 participation programs which would enable faculty from across campus to participate in activities of local K-12 schools; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU suggest that such activities might include: classroom visits and/or observations, delivering guest lectures, providing and delivering enrichment programs, participating in team teaching efforts, as well as engaging in other classroom activities; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the CSU system administration to provide the campuses with financial support for these K-12 participation programs; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus senates and administrators to develop strategies for distributing the resources to the faculty participating in K-12 activities and for recognizing the value of the contributions of those faculty who engage in these activities.

RATIONALE: Both the Presidents Commission (Maxson report) and the SB 1422 Panel have recommended these types of activities as a means of enhancing the teacher preparation component of the CSU mission. Such activities can benefit both CSU faculty and K-12 teachers and students. CSU faculty would become more aware of their role in teacher preparation and to recognize the challenges faced by K-12 classroom teachers today. It also affords K-12 students an opportunity to meet academicians first-hand who can encourage them to consider careers in their disciplines. We should not ask faculty to engage in these additional activities without providing the support. The cooperative development by campus faculty through the campus senates and with the active participation of local education agencies could improve school relations and help K-12 students prepare for college-level work. Such activities would also send a clear message about the importance of teaching as a career choice to both CSU and K-12 students.

AS-2413-98/TEKR motion approved unanimously.

AS-2414-98/EX ACADEMIC SENATE CSU CALENDAR OF

SECOND READING 1998-99 MEETINGS

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University adopt the following schedule for the 1998-99 academic year:

1998 Location

September 9-11 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

October 9 Interim Headquarters

November 4-6 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

November 18-19-20 Interim Northern California

1999

January 20-22 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

February 12 Interim Headquarters

March 10-12 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

April 9 Interim Headquarters

May 5-7 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

; 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 in May 1998 of the following schedule for Trustee meetings in 1998-99:

1998 Location

July 14-15 Headquarters

September 15-16 Headquarters

November 10-11 Headquarters

1999

January 26-27 Headquarters

March 16-17 Headquarters

May 11-12 Headquarters

Vice Chair Thobaben requested a postponement of Item 9, AS-2414-98/EX, for clarification. There were no objections.

AS-2415-98/TEKR SUPPORT OF AB 2442 (MAZZONI) MATHEMATICS

FIRST READING/ INSTRUCTION: STANDARD-BASED MATHEMATICS

WAIVER STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1998

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University support AB 2442 (Mazzoni) which provides funding for staff development to increase the content knowledge of teachers who teach mathematics in grades 4 to 12.

RATIONALE: Many of the teachers responsible for mathematics instruction in grades 4—12 are underprepared in mathematics. This legislation provides essential funds to address this deficit.

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

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

AS-2415-98/TEKR motion approved unanimously.

Vice Chair Thobaben, with consent of the Senate, returned to Item 9, AS-2414-98/EX, Academic Senate CSU Calendar of 1998-99 Meetings. The December 4 Interim Meeting will be folded into the Academic Conference on November 18-20 since that was the only booking available at Asilomar.

AS-2414-98/EX motion approved.

AS-2416-98/TEKR OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 227 (ENGLISH

FIRST READING/ LANGUAGE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS)

WAIVER

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University strongly oppose Proposition 227; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the campus communities, Chancellor, and the Board of Trustees to oppose Proposition 227; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Governor to oppose Proposition 227.

RATIONALE: There are over 1.4 million students in grades K-12 in California from non-English language backgrounds who are limited in English. These English learners represent 25% of the total student population. For these students, the development of a high level of English proficiency is one of the crucial prerequisites to success in this society. The development of English proficiency for these students must also be accompanied by instruction that allows them to develop a high level of competence in academic content to meet the demands of a technologically advanced world. The lack of such academic preparation reduces their ability to benefit from further training and education that enhance their potential for success.

While it is widely recognized that reform of the education of English learners is needed, the development of appropriate models of instruction is better left to educators with expertise in the field, and complex educational policy ought not be decided through initiatives that propose simplistic solutions.

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

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

Senator Hammerstrom moved (Kersten seconded) to amend by eliminating the second Resolved clause; delete from the third and fourth clauses, "and support efforts of the Legislature to develop sound educational policy to reform the education of English learners. Motion approved.

Senator McNeil requested consent to make the following change: to amend the Hammerstrom amendment by deleting the last two sentences of the Rationale, "In contrast to the initiative process, the legislative process usually provides for informed educational policy development and subsequent development of implementation regulations by educators. Indeed, the introduction of SB 6 (Alpert) presents an opportunity to address the reform of education of English learners in a more thoughtful and deliberate manner." There were no objections.

AS-2416-98/TEKR motion approved without dissent.

AS-2417-98/AA FURTHER MODIFICATION OF CSU ADMISSION

FIRST READING/ STANDARDS TO MEET MASTER PLAN ELIGIBILITY

WAIVER GOAL FOR FIRST-TIME FRESHMEN

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University reaffirm its support for the following standard for achieving eligibility for admission to the CSU for first-time freshmen:

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

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

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

OR

b. If the missing course is not completed prior to initial CSU enrollment, it must be completed during the first year of CSU studies; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that this waiver of requirements apply only to students admitted as first-time freshmen in 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU reaffirm its support for annual reviews on the CSU eligibility pool.

RATIONALE: At its meeting of January 22-23, 1998, the Academic Senate of the CSU approved AS-2396-98/AA, Modification of CSU Admission Standards to Meet Master Plan Eligibility Goal for First-Time Freshmen, and some provisions of this resolution have already been implemented. However, the provision of AS-2396-98/AA that regular CSU courses taken to meet admission requirements not be used to meet baccalaureate degree requirements has proven to be unexpectedly difficult to implement. The original resolution also did not provide for a termination date for the waiver.

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair Spear moved (McNeil seconded) the resolution.

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

Senator Dinielli moved to change in the second bullet in the first Resolved clause "one year may be missing" to "a one-year preparatory course may be missing" and the same change in "(a) and (b)." There was no second.

AS-2417-98/AA motion approved.

AS-2418-98/FGA CSU BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR 1999-2000

FIRST READING/

WAIVER

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the following budgetary priorities for the development of the CSU Trustees Proposed Budget for the 1999-2000 academic year (in descending order of importance):

1) That the compensation component of the budget be sufficient to close the CPEC faculty salary gap.

2) That funds be provided to support, at an adequate level, instruction for all anticipated student enrollment. These funds should equal the full projected costs for high quality education in the CSU.

RATIONALE: The State of California continues to enjoy large increases in its revenue. The CSU during the fiscal difficulties of the early 1990s absorbed per student reductions in inflation adjusted levels of resources. These shortfalls are reflected in the substantial increase in class size and student faculty ratios, inability to recruit faculty to meet the rising student demand, inadequate library acquisitions and student financial aid. The CSU absorbed these reductions in a spirit of public service to our students and the people of the State. The CSU has consistently affirmed that these reductions were not sustainable permanently without degradation of the quality of education or limitation of access to qualified students. The Academic Senate CSU believes that in these favorable fiscal times, adequate support should be restored so that CSU can attract faculty of the highest quality and be accessible to all qualified students.

On behalf of the Fiscal & Governmental Affairs Committee, Chair Jensen moved (Kersten seconded) the resolution.

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

Senator Thobaben requested consent to make the following change: to add "of the budget" after "component." There were no objections.

Senator Keane moved (Dinielli seconded) to amend "(2)" in the Resolved clause to read "The student funds should equal the projected costs required for a high quality education in the CSU."

Senator McNeil moved (Shifflett seconded) a substitute motion, to read, "(2) That funds be provided to support at an adequate level instruction for all anticipated student enrollment. These funds should equal the full projected costs for high quality education in the CSU."

The Keane amendment failed.

The McNeil amendment was approved.

AS-2418-98/FGA motion approved.

AS-2419-98/FGA SUPPORT FOR EFFORTS TO AUGMENT

FIRST READING/ THE CSU BUDGET

WAIVER

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University commend Chancellor Reed for his ongoing efforts to augment the CSU Budget for 1998-99.

RATIONALE: In light of the Academic Senate’s previous resolution identifying budget priorities for 98-99 (May 1997) and the more recent request for augmentation to close the faculty compensation gap (January 1998) and the steadily improving revenue forecast for 98-99, the Chancellor is actively communicating with the Governor’s Office and appropriate legislative committees. We look forward to his success in these efforts on CSU’s behalf.

On behalf of the Fiscal & Governmental Affairs Committee, Chair Jensen moved (Wort seconded) the resolution.

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

AS-2419-98/FGA motion approved unanimously.

* * * * *

The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. on Friday, May 8, 1998.

* * * * *

Approved (or corrected)

Date:________________________ _______________________________

James M. Highsmith, Chair

 

_______________________________

Walter Oliver, Secretary

 

________________________________

Margaret Price, Recording Secretary

 


ACADEMIC SENATE

of

THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

400 Golden Shore, Suite 132
Long Beach, California 90802-4275
562-985-2613

MINUTES

ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE 1998-99 ACADEMIC SENATE

May 8, 1998

CALL TO ORDER: The organizational meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. on Friday, May 8, 1998, by Chair James Highsmith.

Senator Aaron moved (Marshall seconded) the agenda. The agenda was approved.

INTRODUCTION AND SEATING OF NEW SENATORS:

Bakersfield John Tarjan, Professor of Management Information Systems, had been elected.

Chico Samuel Edelman, Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences, had been elected.

Fresno James Highsmith, Professor of Finance and Business Law, had been reelected.

Fullerton William Meyer, Professor of Theatre and Dance, had been reelected.

Humboldt Elmo Moore, Professor of Mathematics, had been reelected.

Long Beach David Hood, Professor of History, had been elected.

Los Angeles Rosemarie Marshall, Professor of Microbiology, had been reelected.

Pomona Marvin Klein, Professor of Food Marketing and Agrobusiness Marketing, had been elected.

Sacramento Cristy Jensen, Professor of Public Policy and Administration, had been reelected.

San Bernardino Tapie Rohm, Professor of Information and Decision Sciences, had been reelected.

San Diego Raford Boddy, Professor of Economics, had been elected.

San Francisco Eunice Aaron, Professor of Ethnic Studies, had been reelected.

San Francisco Robert Cherny, Professor of History, had been reelected.

San Jose Timothy Hegstrom, Professor of Communication Studies, had been elected.

San Luis Obispo Timothy Kersten, Professor of Economics, had been reelected.

 

During the course of the meeting, the following resolutions of commendation were introduced and approved by acclamation.

AS-2420-98/San Jose Buddy Butler

AS-2421-98/San Diego Annette Easton

AS-2422-98/Pomona Edward Fonda

AS-2423-98/Long Beach Simon George

AS-2424-98/EX James Highsmith

AS-2425-98/TEKR Richard Levering

AS-2426-98/Faculty Affairs Len Mathy

AS-2427-98/Chico James Postma

AS-2428-98/Northridge Mary Lee Sparling

 

ELECTION OF OFFICERS:

CHAIR Gene Dinielli Professor of English

CSU Long Beach

VICE CHAIR J. Vincent Buck Professor of Political Science

CSU Fullerton

SECRETARY Hal Charnofsky Professor of Sociology

CSU Dominguez Hills

MEMBER-AT-LARGE Cristy Jensen Professor of Public Policy and Administration

CSU Sacramento

MEMBER-AT-LARGE Dick Williams Professor of Computer Science

CSU Dominguez Hills

PAST CHAIR James Highsmith Professor of Finance and

Business Law

CSU Fresno

Please note that the above officers together with the Immediate Past Chair, ex officio, constitute the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate of the California State University.

 

ADJOURNMENT:

The elections concluded the organizational meeting of the 1998-99 Academic Senate.

Approved (or corrected)

Date:________________________ _______________________________

James M. Highsmith, Chair

 

_______________________________

Walter Oliver, Secretary

 

________________________________

Margaret Price, Recording Secretary



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