Carol Barnes, Associate Director of Curriculum & Instruction, CalStateTEACH, CO

Robert Corrigan, President, San Francisco State University

Lori Erdman, Executive Project Manager, CO

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

Laura Guillory, Director Desktop Services, CO

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

Carol Holder, Faculty Director, Institute of Teaching and Learning, CO

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

Charles Lindahl, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, CO

Susan Meisenhelder, President-Elect, California Faculty Association

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

Paul Vicknair, Associate Provost for Academic Personnel, CSU San Bernardino

Tony Vitti, Trustee, California State University

Beverly Young, Associate Director, CSU TeacherNet

Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

José Lopez, Clerical Assistant, Academic Senate CSU

Reta Martin, Staff Assistant–Budget, Academic Senate CSU

Margaret Price, Assistant to Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University adopt the following schedule for the 1999-00 academic year:

1999 Location

September 8-10 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

October 8 Interim Headquarters

November 3-5 Committees/Plenary Northern California

December 3 Interim Headquarters

2000

January 19-21 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

February 11 Interim Headquarters

March 8-10 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

April 7 Interim Headquarters

May 3-5 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 1999 of the following schedule for Trustee meetings in 1999-00:

1999 Location

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University strongly urge the Chancellor and Board of Trustees to delay implementation or planning of implementation of Cornerstones until the Academic Senate has had the opportunity for adequate consultation with campus senates.

RATIONALE: Thorough and timely consultation with the Academic Senate CSU and campus senates regarding the development of policies and recommendations necessary to implement specific Principles of the Cornerstones document has not occurred.

It is impossible to develop effective implementation policies without the counsel and recommendations by the statewide and local senates on academic issues contained in the Implementation Plan. The imposition of working terms and conditions on Unit 3 faculty has broken the collegial working relationship between the faculty and CSU administration necessary for meaningful consultation. The Academic Senate CSU has resolved not to work on Cornerstones' Implementation until approval of a new collective bargaining contract, and has been supported in this by a number of campus senates.

Restoration of a collegial working relationship between the Academic Senate CSU and the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees is essential for adequate and necessary consultation in all matters relating to the implementation of Cornerstones.

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 2000-2001 academic year (in descending order of importance):

RATIONALE: The State of California continues to enjoy large increases in its revenues. 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 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 and limitation of access to qualified students. Also, given the salary gap for CSU faculty, it is very difficult both to recruit and retain quality faculty who are responsible for providing quality education to an increasing number and variety of students. Further, in addition to the enrollment demands, there are new initiatives such as Year-Round and additional Teacher Education activities, which are over and above the other obligations of the CSU. These too must receive sufficient support so that overall quality of education at CSU will not suffer. Finally, the Academic Senate CSU believes that in these favorable fiscal times, adequate support should be restored and funding increased so that CSU can attract faculty of the highest quality and be accessible to all qualified students.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University direct the 1999-2000 Executive Committee to create a Faculty Compensation Task Force to address structural issues affecting the quality of education, including:

The Task Force should provide a preliminary report to the Senate during the spring of 2000.

RESOLVED: That this task force will be appointed by the Executive Committee in consultation with the California Faculty Association leadership and the CSU system offices and will include at least one member of the Faculty Affairs Committee, as well as some individuals with expertise in organizational incentive systems within a university context.

RATIONALE: Because compensation is of great concern to the faculty, it is important that the Academic Senate of the California State University establish a Task Force to study and develop recommendations about faculty compensation. The purpose of the Faculty Compensation Task Force is to gather data, analyze those data, and report the results to the Academic Senate CSU, the California Faculty Association, and the California State University.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University extend its thanks to all California State University faculty who labored under extreme time pressure to author material and to those who volunteer generously their time and expertise to review and refine the curriculum and design for CalStateTEACH; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU receive and acknowledge the report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Review CalStateTEACH and endorse specific recommendations, numbers 1 through 8, as contained on pages 7 and 8 of the report; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Chancellor’s Office is not the appropriate place to develop curriculum, but given the urgent nature of California’s acute shortage of credentialed K-12 teachers, the Academic Senate CSU supports moving ahead with CalStateTEACH on a trial basis; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU approve the implementation of the CalStateTEACH program on an experimental basis for two cycles of the program with the proviso that the individuals responsible for the program report to the Senate on a frequent basis, through the Teacher Education and K-12 Relations Committee on the ongoing implementation and refinement of the program; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the learning support faculty be assigned no more than 15 students as a full-time load; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the individuals responsible for the program, in consultation with the Academic Senate Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations (TEKR), conduct a thorough evaluation of the program by June 2002; and be it further

RESOLVED: That participation of individual campuses in CalStateTEACH is dependent upon approval by the faculty on those campuses using the established shared governance procedures; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU request that participating campuses, using their established shared governance procedures, review CalStateTEACH prior to March 1, 2000, to determine whether or not the campus will participate in the program; and be it further

RESOLVED: That lead campuses which do not approve participation in CalStateTEACH by established campus governance procedures accept no additional cohorts of students; and be it further

RESOLVED: That should no campuses approve CalStateTEACH, no further cohorts of students shall be accepted into the program; and be it further

RESOLVED: That approval of the implementation of the CalStateTEACH program on a trial basis by the Academic Senate CSU is not an endorsement of any future systemwide programs that involve curricula, degrees, or credentials.

RATIONALE: The state of California has experienced a significant shortage of credentialed teachers in the last five years with a resulting increase in the number of emergency permit teachers teaching the students in our schools. The CSU was awarded the funds to develop an open learning approach to earning a credential through an alternative credential program. The CalStateTEACH development staff has worked diligently under extreme time pressure to develop this program and has been responsive to Senate concerns during this process. This is a specific program to meet an emergency in K-12 education in California, and should not be seen as a precedent for future systemwide programs. This alternative credential program, and the funding that supports it, will supplement and not supplant existing campus-based credential programs. The CalStateTEACH curriculum has been approved by TEKR. The extreme time pressure has made it difficult for participating campuses to approve the program and curriculum in a timely fashion. Curriculum and program approval is, however, the responsibility of individual campus faculty and the program should not continue to be supported by any campus beyond its initial cycle if this approval is not forthcoming.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University is not the appropriate body to approve the curriculum and structure of the CalStateTEACH program, however, the Academic Senate CSU is the appropriate body to review the systemwide aspects of this academic plan; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus senates to treat the CalStateTEACH program like any other curricular proposal prior to participation in it; and be it further

RESOLVED: By the Academic Senate CSU that the decision to participate in the CalStateTEACH program is the prerogative of the faculty on the individual campuses and that such a decision constitutes final approval of the curriculum and program.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU receive the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on CalStateTEACH dated May 1999 and endorse specific recommendations 1 through 8 contained in that report on pages 7 and 8.

RATIONALE: Curriculum approval is the responsibility of the faculty on individual CSU campuses. At its September 1998 meeting, the Academic Senate CSU approved its cooperation in the development of the CalStateTEACH program with the specific statement that local campus senates must approve the curriculum.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University recognize that year-round operation (YRO) has potential for improving future student access, and that such a massive undertaking requires a thorough and careful planning process, but that the Academic Senate CSU oppose the passage of AB 126 (Runner, Ducheny, and Lempert), Public postsecondary education: University of California: California State University: year-round program, in its present form (as amended March 23, 1999); and be it further

RESOLVED: By the Academic Senate CSU that a more thorough planning process should include polls of students to project how many can and would attend summer sessions; studies to project the need for additional tenured and tenure-track faculty to staff the YRO programs; determination of the need for construction of additional faculty offices, laboratories, and studios to house those new faculty members; the need to increase clerical and technical staff and especially the need for substitutes for clerical and technical staff during their vacations; the impact on internal governance structures and processes; and the need to increase funding for operating expenses to compensate departments for the loss of extended learning revenues that, in some cases, nearly equal the department’s general fund operating expense moneys; and be it further

RESOLVED: By the Academic Senate CSU that funding YRO be fully funded on the same basis as academic-year funding; and be it further

RESOLVED: By the Academic Senate CSU that Section 66057.5(a) of AB 126 ["That construction of new instructional space on campuses in a segment of higher education be funded only when that segment has approved and implemented year-round operation and has achieved the segment-wide enrollment levels set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 66057.3"] is not wise policy, in that some facilities on higher education campuses need to be replaced for reasons wholly separate from increased enrollment, e.g., some campuses have currently outgrown their libraries, some current campus buildings do not meet current requirements (e.g., for safety, for compliance with such federal or state programs as those dealing with access for people with disabilities, air quality, or occupational safety and health), some current campus buildings pose significant seismic dangers, and some campus facilities are technologically obsolete; and to hold all construction in an entire segment hostage to the implementation of arbitrarily determined enrollment levels ignores the realities of campus construction needs; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor, Board of Trustees, the California State Student Association, and CSU alumni/ae to join in recommending that YRO not be implemented without thorough and careful planning to the end that the quality of education in the CSU not be further eroded.

RATIONALE: AB 126 (Runner, Ducheny, and Lempert), Public postsecondary education: University of California: California State University: year-round program, provides for the implementation of year-round operation (YRO) in the CSU over the coming decade. The bill takes note that implementation of YRO "would not mean that university faculty would be required to teach year round."

After its March 1999 meeting, the Academic Senate CSU, through its chair, wrote to the legislature to frame its concerns on YRO and indicate those items that would be necessary to maintain quality education and research in the CSU in a YRO environment (AS-2444-99/FGA and Gene L. Dinielli to Honorable George Runner, March 17, 1999). As of the most recent changes in AB 126 (up to and including those of March 23, 1999), that bill does not address our recommendations. It is not true, as has been asserted in the public press, that CSU campuses sit empty all summer long. CSU campuses that are not currently on YRO, instead, include a variety of summer programs, most offered on a self-supporting basis through Colleges of Extended Learning. There is a wide range of activities associated with full YRO that will require the presence of the usual complement of permanent faculty. Even to maintain the current unsatisfactory ratio of tenured and tenure-track (permanent) faculty to students, it will be necessary to hire up to a third more permanent faculty.

Most faculty members in the CSU, in fact, use part or all of their summers to pursue research, scholarly, and creative activities for which there is not adequate time during the academic year. Permanent faculty members currently use their campus offices, laboratories, and studios to pursue research, scholarship, and creative activities during the summer when they are not teaching. It would be counterproductive to require faculty members to vacate their offices, laboratories, and studios during the summer months. Any expansion of the permanent faculty, therefore, must include provision for the construction of additional office, laboratory, and studio space. With academic-year operation, many administrative, clerical, and technical staff members schedule their vacations during the summer. With the transition to YRO, it will become necessary to have full clerical and technical staffing all year round; hence there will be a need for additional clerical and technical staff as well as a need for funds for replacements during vacations.

At the current time, many departments use summer sessions to generate operating funds—funds that, in some cases, are greater than the operating funds provided from the general fund. Some departments would be hard pressed to acquire adequate supplies and services without the additional income they generate through summer sessions. The general fund support for operating expenses—supplies and services—must be expanded commensurate with the expansion of enrollment. YRO is an experiment for many campuses without any experience in summer course offerings paid through the general fund. If this experiment is to be successful, it must be funded at a higher level or entered into very cautiously.

Marginal cost funding of student expansion has the inevitable effect of driving ever downward the amount of money available to a campus on a per student basis. Expansion based on marginal cost rather than full cost will discourage campuses from expanding.

Section 66057.5(a) of AB 126 is especially unwise as state policy. It specifies:

"That construction of new instructional space on campuses in a segment of higher education be funded only when that segment has approved and implemented year-round operation and has achieved the segment-wide enrollment levels set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 66057.3."

Some facilities on higher education campuses need to be replaced for reasons wholly separate from increased enrollment, e.g., some campuses have currently outgrown their libraries, some current campus buildings pose significant seismic dangers, and some campus facilities are technologically obsolete. Furthermore, to hold hostage the construction of new instructional space in, e.g., Chico because a campus in San Diego has failed to achieve a specified enrollment level assumes a portability of student demand that has never been proven in the real world.

There has been no clear demonstration, based on polling of current CSU students, that a significant proportion of CSU students would take courses in the summer. Indeed, widespread anecdotal evidence suggests that many—even most—CSU students use their summers to earn the funds they need to attend the following academic year. If that were to prove to be the case, implementation of the enrollment targets in AB 126 would be impossible. It is important to know if students would attend full YRO in sufficient numbers to make the implementation targets reasonable.

Finally, AB 126 is based on assumptions about future enrollment patterns that have not been proven and that may, in the end, prove to be untenable.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University believe that there are better ways to facilitate students’ transfers between segments than those proposed in SB1211 (Monteith), Public postsecondary education: articulation agreements; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU, through its chair, extend on-going intersegmental efforts to address articulation agreements between segments within major degree programs and that the chair request that the Senate Education Committee hold SB 1211 pending the outcome of intersegmental deliberations; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU affirm that any proposed articulation policies should respect individual campus responsibility for determining degree program requirements.

RATIONALE: SB 1211 (Monteith), Public postsecondary education: articulation agreements, would require each "department, school, and major" in the UC and CSU to develop, in conjunction with community colleges, discipline-specific articulation agreements and transfer program agreements for major degree programs that have lower-division prerequisites and, presumably, requirements. Each community college is expected to negotiate such agreements with a minimum of five CSU campuses. Furthermore, the "agreements made between any of the California State University campuses and a community college shall be uniform and consistent with any similar agreement between that campus and any other community college." This last provision might conceivably be interpreted as requiring that CSU colleges and community colleges must offer exactly the same courses for the lower-division components of all major degree programs in the CSU and, if so, would represent a massive legislative involvement in the process of setting graduation requirements in the CSU.

During the 1998-1999 academic year, faculty members within the CSU have begun to discuss the need to meet and discuss the transferability of lower-division components of their majors within the CSU. In March 1999, the Board of Trustees adopted an implementation plan for Cornerstones that provides for such disciplinary meetings across the CSU. Thus, activities intended to accomplish some of the purpose of SB 1211 are already underway within the CSU. In addition, the California Articulation Numbering (CAN) system provides a long-standing and well-developed means of articulating a large number of courses, many of them meeting lower-division requirements in or prerequisites for major degree programs in the CSU.

In 1998, SB 1472 (Alpert) raised a similar issue regarding articulation across segments, and deliberations by academic senate leaders of the various segments successfully resolved those concerns. A similar process could address the current concerns without legislative action.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University acknowledge receipt of the status report, "Sonoma State University Admissions Update," on the Sonoma State University Admissions Experiment; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU conclude that existing data do not demonstrate any improvement in the enrollment of ethnic minority students at Sonoma State University during the duration of the admissions experiment; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to terminate the Sonoma State University Admissions Experiment effective Fall 2000.

RATIONALE: Sonoma State University’s admission experiment is the first differential campus admission policy that is not justified by a campus having more qualified applicants than can be accommodated (a state of impaction). Initiated in 1993 for a three-year period and approved by the Chancellor for a second three-year period in 1996, the admission experiment seeks to enhance improved ethnic, local and reentry representation in its applicant pool and its enrolled student body by extending the one-month application cycle to three months and applying supplementary admission criteria.

Even at the time (October 1996) the CSU Admission Advisory Council recommended that the admission experiment be renewed for three additional years (1997-2000), Sonoma State University had not responded to provide full information to the Council on the success of the experiment during its first three years. As a result and during Spring 1997, the Academic Affairs Committee of the Academic Senate CSU discussed the issue and formally requested the academic affairs office at Sonoma State University to provide the Committee with a detailed report on the process and outcomes of the admissions experiment over the three years since its inception. The primary concerns of the Academic Affairs Committee were (1) that substantial data on the success of the first three years of the experiment, in terms of achievement of goals, were not available and (2) that the supplementary admission criteria were not published in either the undergraduate admission booklet or in the special November CSU Review and hence were not available to prospective students and their advisors. The Committee also requested data analyses of the three-year admissions experiment regarding changes in student composition, especially diversity and ethnic issues, in the admitted student grade point averages and standardized test scores, in the retention rates for students admitted, the impact on the Sonoma area regarding its native student applications, the demographics of the applicant pool, the admitted and enrolled groups, and the redirection assistance provided to CSU-qualified freshmen and transfer students who were rejected for admission.

During Fall 1997, the Academic Senate CSU received and reviewed Sonoma State University’s "Report to the Statewide Academic Senate: Sonoma State University Admission Experiment 1994-1997." After a presentation of the report by an academic officer from Sonoma State University and a thorough discussion of and recommendation on the report by the Academic Affairs Committee, the Academic Senate CSU supported continuation of the experiment through its approved duration to the 1999-2000 academic year if, and only if, Sonoma State University was required to meet the same public disclosure statements on selective admission criteria as impacted campuses and majors are required to meet. Further, in order for the Sonoma State University campus, the CSU Admissions Advisory Council, and the Academic Senate CSU to evaluate the outcomes of and the supplemental admission criteria used in the admission experiment, the Academic Senate requested yearly updates and requested biannual updates on the pool of applicants on the variables of ethnicity, age, reentry, veteran status, and other variables.

Since Sonoma State University had not submitted any periodic updated reports to the Academic Senate CSU or the Chancellor’s Office regarding the periodic updates and since the experiment was nearing the end of its second three-year renewal, the Academic Affairs Committee of the Academic Senate CSU requested in Spring 1999 that Sonoma State University provide a report on the success of the admissions experiment. In May 1999, the academic administration at Sonoma State University forwarded the "Sonoma State University Admissions Update: Status Report of the SSU Admissions ‘Experiment’." Essentially the report provides data on the 1998 and 1999 applicant pool for local students and educational equity students (freshmen/transfer application rates). The results indicate the expected. That is, extending the application period from one month to three months resulted in a substantial increase in the number of applicants from both local and educational equity students. No data, however, are provided on the number of admitted and number enrolled in the two groups of students. Further, CSU website data on campus ethnicity indicates no improvement over the time period covered by the Admissions Experiment at Sonoma State University.

The Report also provided information on some of the supplemental admissions criteria.

Because Sonoma State University did not provide any data to evaluate the success of its admission experiment in terms of its effect on increasing the admitted and enrolled student population among the local and educational equity student groups, because supplemental admissions criteria are only used for applicants not residing in the local regional area of Sonoma State University, which is a questionable practice, and because its supplemental admissions criteria are not published in the November CSU Review, the Academic Senate CSU calls upon the Chancellor to terminate Sonoma State University’s Admission Experiment. Existing CSU policy does not prohibit Sonoma State University from extending its enrollment period. However, if Sonoma State University wishes to continue its policy regarding supplemental admissions criteria, it should follow existing CSU policy regarding impaction.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge the Governor and the Legislature to work with the CSU Chancellor, Board of Trustees, California Faculty Association, campus presidents, campus senates, and community service and service-learning practitioners to determine the appropriate resources and mechanisms to provide the opportunities and incentives necessary to engage CSU students in meaningful service activities rather than mandate service experiences; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU applaud the many community service and service learning programs that exist in the CSU and commend them to the attention of the Governor; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU look forward to receiving a formal proposal from the Governor for consideration by CSU faculty.

RATIONALE: The Academic Senate CSU recognizes that student participation in community service and service learning enhances student academic learning, provides a context for theory through practical application in the community, fosters civic engagement and career exploration, and at the same time meets the needs of California communities.

Furthermore, the Academic Senate CSU recognizes that each CSU campus provides opportunities for students to participate in community service and service learning. As a result, 49% of CSU students provide over 28 million hours of service to California communities each year [Student Needs and Priorities Survey (SNAPS) 1994].

The CSU campuses have already developed opportunities and incentives to involve students in community service through the establishment of student-run community service programs and student service recognition awards, the development of coordination of service-learning courses; and the creation of programs such as America Reads, America Counts, Pre-Collegiate Academic Development, Human Corps, EPIC, Upward Bound, VISTA and Americorps programs, and university-wide days of service. Some CSU students receive stipends or work-study funds for their service work to support their educational endeavors.

The Academic Senate CSU acknowledges that service, and the learning that is associated with service, are valuable aspects of a higher education, yet research demonstrates that mandatory service requirements on college students undermine the future behaviors of intentions to volunteer for those students who do not currently feel free to volunteer (Stukas, Snyder, Clary, 1999). Fostering an ethic of service is more appropriately met with incentives and opportunities. Mandated community service for all CSU students would require commitment of substantial additional resources in order to implement. In addition, not all students are suited to participate in community service and may create both liability and public relations issues for the CSU.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University oppose SB 338 (Wright) Intercollegiate Athletics: discontinuation of intercollegiate athletic teams; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU support the timely notification of potential and current student athletes prior to the discontinuation of any intercollegiate athletic team.

RATIONALE: SB 338 provides for notification one year prior to the discontinuation of an intercollegiate sports team to 1) the public via newspapers of general circulation, 2) potential athletes via written communication, and 3) the student body or organization via written communication. Each group would be provided with a "written account of the basis of, or purpose to be served by, the proposed discontinuation."

Existing policies and procedures on CSU campuses already require timely notification of potential and current student athletes prior to the discontinuation of any intercollegiate athletic team. Changes to all programs on CSU campuses are subject to detailed review and consultation. Questions of academic quality, access, funding, community impact and diversity are given careful consideration. The intercollegiate athletics advisory boards on CSU campuses have been effective, accessible avenues for public and community input. This legislation would place undue burdens upon CSU campuses and would elevate the status of intercollegiate athletic programs above the core academic programs of the universities.

Furthermore, the proposed legislation may give the appearance of attempting to subvert Title IX and the CSU Consent Decree which attempt to address systemic and long-standing gender inequities in intercollegiate athletics by changing the ratio of male and female intercollegiate athletes on a given campus.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the following specifications of the lottery fund allocation process.

RATIONALE: Lottery funds are important to the enrichment of the education of CSU students. Given the diversity of missions and cultures among CSU campuses, the Academic Senate holds that this purpose is best served by granting wide discretion to each campus in the system in the use of these funds. In order to prevent the abuse of this discretion, shared governance must be the process utilized for allocation. We believe that Senate committees are in the best position to review and evaluate the use of lottery funds.

It is critical for administration, faculty and students to be involved in the allocation of these funds as this permits a broad perspective on budgetary needs. Because faculty are the closest to the educational and curricular needs of the campuses, and because academic senates are structured to provide ongoing and continual review and evaluation of programs, the statewide Academic Senate and the campus senates should be responsible for the review and assessment of lottery fund usage.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge all campuses to require that credential candidates K-12 demonstrate writing proficiency beyond that required to satisfy the Graduation Writing Assessment Requirement (GWAR) requirement of the CSU, or to pass the California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST); and

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge all campuses to develop or to strengthen programs whereby students aspiring to earn teaching credentials in the state of California attain the writing proficiency necessary to communicate with print-literate adults and children so that as a group they model the competencies they will seek to elicit from their students; and

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus programs in disciplines preparing students for credentials to add a writing component to their subject area competency assessment programs while the campuses are revising their pre-service programs, so that candidates will be more appropriately prepared to teach and to assess written work of their students;

RATIONALE: The reading and writing skills of children, adolescents, and adults in the U.S. fall far below those of other "first world" countries -- far below the level of competence essential for functioning in an increasingly specialized and technologically demanding workplace or in a sophisticated democracy. And at least 25% of the candidates for teaching credentials in the State of California fail CBEST, by professional standards an exam asking for fairly modest skill-levels, at least once.

At the same time, many question the utility of a writing test alone as the measure of an individual's true competence, or the cultural neutrality of exams like CBEST; there is little consensus about the "best way" to teach required entry-level writing courses, and substantial variation in what is viewed as acceptable in these classes; many post-secondary instructors have little training to address the needs of a multilingual, multicultural student population. CSU, responsible for the professional preparation of most credentialed teachers in California, is now attempting to redesign and increase quality control in the training of some credential candidates. The context and need for seeking stronger writing performance in credential candidates are thus clear, and the time appropriate.

The Academic Senate CSU endorses a wide range of mechanisms such as advanced composition courses, Writing-Across-the Curriculum (or Writing in the Disciplines) programs, the National Writing Project, and the regional writing projects affiliated with BAWP as means whereby these goals can be realized.

RESOLVED: In light of the very favorable May revised state revenue budget, that the Academic Senate of the California State University, through its chair, write to our legislators explaining the importance of closing the California Post-Secondary Education Commission (CPEC) faculty salary gap in the 1999-2000 budget.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor and the Trustees that all new fund augmentations to the CSU Trustees' proposed 1999-2000 support budget be earmarked as an additional increment across-the-board faculty compensation to narrow the CPEC gap.

RATIONALE: CSU has stated its support for closing the CPEC gap and has asked for legislative support in restoring to the CSU budget items omitted by the governor. There are insufficient funds in the governor's proposed budget to close the CPEC gap within the coming year. The consistent lack of adequate funding for faculty compensation has been detrimental to the CSU in its quest to attract new generations of quality faculty. One way to correct this unfortunate situation would be to use the additional revenue which will be available to the state in the May revised budget to alleviate the pressing need to close the CPEC gap.

RESOLVED: The Academic Senate of the California State University direct the 1999-2000 Executive Committee to appoint a Media Relations Committee to investigate the advisability of creating a position of Media Relations Officer within the Academic Senate CSU office, and, if such a position is deemed advisable, to set forth the duties and responsibilities such a person would have as well as to investigate ways to fund the position.

RATIONALE: The California State University faculty is a hard working and effective group of individuals whose efforts on behalf of the students and citizens of California deserve to be more widely known. Individually and collectively through their elected senates, locally and statewide, they have proved to be a valuable asset to the state. However, the Academic Senate CSU and the faculty in general, have been ineffective in educating the public about important issues affecting CSU faculty. Although the Chancellor's Office and Trustees have public relations officers and consultants, information from those sources focuses on the CSU as an institution, the Chancellor, or the Board of Trustees, all too often with a slant detrimental to the faculty. The recent crisis over the terms and conditions under which we work and the Chancellor's comments at California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo is a case in point. We learned that the media is interested in what CSU is doing, but all too often it was presented with the Chancellor's office and the Board of Trustees’ slant, not ours. In the best of worlds, a Media Relations Officer would not be needed because the Chancellor and Board of Trustees would be our spokespersons.

The Executive Committee of the Academic Senate CSU already has a myriad of tasks and responsibilities, and it would be asking too much for them to undertake the important task of investigating the need for a Media Relations Officer or to undertake the important, but time-consuming task of conducting media relations for the CSU faculty.

Bakersfield Jacquelyn Kegley, Professor of Philosophy, had been reelected.

Chico Kathleen Kaiser, Professor of Sociology, had been elected.

Dominguez Hills Dick Williams, Professor of Computer Science, had been reelected.

Fullerton Barry Pasternack, Professor of Management Science/Information Systems, had been reelected.

Hayward Professor Calvin Caplan, Professor of Kinesiology and Physical Education, had been elected.

Humboldt Marshelle Thobaben, Professor of Nursing, had been reelected.

Long Beach Gene Dinielli, Professor of English, had been reelected.

Los Angeles Marshall Cates, Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science, had been reelected.

Maritime James Wheeler, Professor of Chemistry, had been elected.

Monterey Bay J. Ken Nishita, Professor of Psychology, had been reelected.

Northridge Lynne Cook, Professor of Special Education, had been reelected.

Pomona Rochelle Kellner, Professor of Accounting, had been reelected.

Sacramento Louise Timmer, Professor of Nursing, had been reelected.

San Bernardino Jeanne King, Professor of Management, had been elected.

San Diego David Strom, Professor of Teacher Education, had been elected.

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

San Francisco Darlene Yee, Professor of Gerontology, had been elected.

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

San Luis Obispo Reginald Good, Professor of Political Science, had been reelected.

Myron Hood, Professor of Mathematics, had been elected.

San Marcos John (Dick) Montanari, Professor of Management, had been elected.

Sonoma Susan McKillop, Professor of Art History, had been reelected.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS: