Academic Senate of the California State University
MINUTES

Meeting of September 9-10, 1999
CSU Headquarters, Long Beach, CA

 

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, September 9, 1999, by Chair Gene Dinielli.

ROLL CALL: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield) Jacquelyn Kegley, John Tarjan; (Chico) Samuel Edelman, Kathleen Kaiser; (Dominguez Hills) Hal Charnofsky, Dick Williams; (Fresno) James Highsmith, Lester Pincu; (Fullerton) Vincent Buck, Bill Meyer, Barry Pasternack; (Hayward) Calvin Caplan, Don Wort; (Humboldt) Elmo Moore, Marshelle Thobaben; (Long Beach) Gene Dinielli, David Hood, Patricia Rozée; (Los Angeles) Marshall Cates, Edward Malecki*; (Maritime Academy) James Wheeler; (Monterey Bay) J. Ken Nishita; (Northridge) Lynne Cook, Michael Reagan, Gerald Resendez; (Pomona) Rochelle Kellner, Roger Morehouse*; (Sacramento) Michael Fitzgerald, Cristy Jensen, Louise Timmer; (San Bernardino) Jeanne King; (San Diego) Ray Boddy, David Strom; (San Francisco) Eunice Aaron, Jan Gregory, Darlene Yee; (San Jose) Timothy Hegstrom, David McNeil, Bethany Shifflett; (San Luis Obispo) Reginald Gooden, Myron Hood, Timothy Kersten; (San Marcos) A. Sandy Parsons, Dick Montanari; (Sonoma) Susan McKillip, Peter Phillips; (Stanislaus) Pamela Russ, Mark Thompson; (Chancellor's Office) David Spence.

INTRODUCTIONS

During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:

Ronald Bergmann, Technical Services Manager, Strategic Language Initiative, CO

Don Chu, CSE Executive Fellow, CSU Chico

Erika Freihage, Coordinator, Community Service Learning, Chancellor’s Office

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

Gary Hammerstrom, Assistant Vice Chancellor (Interim), Academic Affairs, CO

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

Shaun R. Lumachi, California State Student Association Liaison to the Senate

Charles Lindahl, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, CO

Susan Meisenhelder, President, California Faculty Association

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

Walter Oliver, Director, CSU Strategic Language Initiative, CO

Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

José Lopez, Clerical Assistant, Academic Senate CSU

Reta Martin, Staff Assistant—Budget, Academic Senate CSU

Margaret Price, Assistant to Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

REPORT OF CHAIR GENE DINIELLI

The meeting March 12 of the Senate will be held at California State University, Dominguez Hills. Senators Williams and Charnofsky will be hosting us, just down the road. They’ll be helping us make the transition from this august room to a California State University. In April we’ll hold legislative days–April 11 and 12. On November 12 we will have a one-day meeting of the Senate——one-half day for committee meetings and one-half day for plenary. The Executive Committee chose to separate plans for a plenary for Asilomar because it felt that they served two different purposes and would be conflicting.

A few things about what has taken place: new members should know that, along with my chair’s report, I put in the back a schedule of my activities, in this case, for the last three months for your interest, if you have any interest in that. The activities dealt with such things as the International Education and Global Awareness Conference and I’m glad former senator Oliver is here today. He will speak to us later on about the Systemwide Language Initiative and we’re glad and honored that he’s here. That conference dealt with global awareness. That has been around for some time and, of course, international education. The Senate at that time was asked to create a committee for continued support of international education and the Senate has yet to do that. We will seek your advice about the make-up, and so forth.

We had an interesting meeting with the Chancellor’s cabinet early on in the summer and you may recall at the May meeting the discussion about who represents whom in the CSU. That question arose because of concern and frustration and advice the Senate gives to administration urging the Chancellor, at times, and the Board of Trustees to act on our suggestions. We didn’t get a definitive answer. Does Governmental Relations of Sacramento speak for the Chancellor? does it speak for the CSU? or does it only speak for the Trustees? So we’re working on that. That’s a matter of governance of the highest order and we’re pursuing that. Certainly those of us who have been around a long time in the governance dodge have felt that that area has always been lacking in terms of the weight that our advice to others is given of. So that will be a continuing report to see if there are any evidences of change. The great moment in terms of collaboration between UC and CSU obtained just a few days ago that has to do with the conformance achieved by the faculty of the two systems, UC and CSU, in terms of college preparatory courses. Sacramento Bee beat us to the punch. The faculties of the two systems had hoped to have some kind of public announcement to make because it is a locus of change in terms of collaboration between our two systems. David McNeil, chair of Academic Affairs, will have a lot more to say about that later.

The community service situation is interesting. You might be helped by knowing that, as far as we can determine, there have been four public statements about community service apart from the splashy announcement that the governor made in his 100 Days in Office report in which he made that public call. The four public communications are three to each of the public systems’ CEOs, a word that is gaining prevalence, I should say an initialism that is gaining prevalence, and a copy of Gary Hart’s presentation to the Board of Regents of the UC. I can try to summarize those documents; they’re very similar; they’re slightly different in terms of some comments to the UC, some comments to the CSU, and some comments to the Community Colleges, but they start justifying the governor’s belief that it’s payback time. And the other point that he makes very strongly is that it’s an opportunity to acquire an ethic on the part of the students. The Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates, ICAS, was named in all four public documents; that is a voluntary organization that has existed for some time which has it membership three executive committees of the faculty senates of the three public systems. We have had some success some years those of us who are still around who remember putting together the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC). This voluntary organization has been given some status at least by politicians and has been asked to provide assistance to promote consistency and so forth in terms of the ways in which the local senates are dealing with the governor’s request. At its meeting, not too long ago, the ICAS agreed and was not a departure from its principles that have governed its behavior that the discussion of this matter should be pushed down as far as possible and the three chairs were instructed to bring it to their appropriate senates for discussion and early deliverance to campuses where the ICAS believes the appropriate arena is for this kind of discussion. You’ll hear more about community service again from Chair McNeil.

Centers——Institutes——We have been asked this summer to give some consideration to the possibility of having a systemwide policy for centers, institutes, and other organizations on campuses. An incident at one CSU campus gave rise to legislative audit which I believe is about to end. Executive Vice President and Chief Academic Officer Spence asked the Executive Committee to give some consideration to something that the administration found they didn’t have when this incident arose especially with the legislative audit. Tim Kersten was asked by the Executive Committee to begin that discussion this summer and he has brought to his committee the question whether it wishes to take over this item, this issue and, if so, to consider whether there ought to be a systemwide policy. That committee would go on from there.

On the CSU budget and faculty compensation——you’ll hear from Susan Meisenhelder, I can’t wait to hear her views. You should know that the Chancellor doesn’t propose to speak on that. He’s giving honor to the Stanley Wang Excellence Awards. Stanley Wang won’t be here unfortunately. We received a call yesterday, he’s very, very ill. The chair and Executive Committee extended an invitation to him to come at another time. We do have a presentation to make to him, from our point of view, a very deserving one. $100,000 of his $1 million is distributed every year to five recipients, four of whom are faculty. There have been four recipients and we expect one of the recipients here today. Guess what the other three faculty are doing? They’re teaching.

CMS——Common or Collaborative Management System, or whatever——there are other explanations of that initialism——will be, I believe, fully and honestly explained to all of us this afternoon when David Ernst visits us.

The Academic Conference planning has been going on all summer. You’ll hear from the co-chairs, Ray Boddy and Vince Buck in greater detail.

ICAS dealing with other matters, too. A study that began last year called IMPAC, Intersegmental Major Preparation Articulation Curriculum, with money given to the Community Colleges for various uses. One of the uses, right, Cristy, that it was put was to see if some kind of descriptive matrix can be put together for the use of faculty and that matrix would describe, for articulation purposes, the lower-division major requirements for certain majors who set out to do a few majors last year and ICAS in a summer meeting decided that we could handle one discipline this year. The problem there was keeping the study going up from the descriptive to the prescriptive and we had to ward that tendency off all the time. That is a faculty matter and a system faculty matter.

CalStateTEACH——the new board meets September 15——some of us can’t wait to find out what has been going on in the summer. Those of you who were around last summer know how hard it was for Chair Buck to get information that was timely, but we hope for a new kind of arrangement this year.

Remediation——there is an outreach committee newly formed that is dealing with that. We have Elmo Moore on that committee and Dorothy Keane on the math side, and Wang awardee Michael Flachmann’s wife, Kim, on the English side and the other English professor is Ron Strahl from Long Beach. We’ll soon hear from that group, that is discussing, of course, the trustees’ purported policy ending off a student’s career at the end of the first year if that student had not made up deficiencies in English and math.

We have quite a few substantive issues this year.

* * * * *

Standing Committee Reports:

Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Bethany Shifflett reported that FGA will be continuing the very productive efforts undertaken last year to cultivate stronger ties with the legislature with visits to Sacramento in November and February.

Legislative days will be April 11th and 12th.

Committee heard updates from members on the bills they've been tracking. A great many are expected to expire shortly since no action has been taken since spring.

Committee discussed preliminary CSU budget and Lottery budget.

Committee had very productive meetings with Richard West and Allison Jones.

Chair reminded senators that the FGA web site provides direct links to bills they're tracking as well as a direct link to legislatures search facility. Can get there from CSU AS web site or this address: www.geolog.com/fga

Faculty Compensation Task Force Chair Ray Boddy reported: As directed by the Senate, this summer the Executive Committee appointed a seven-person Task Force——three members of the Senate (Boddy, Highsmith, King), two representatives of CSU administration to be appointed by the Chancellor or designee, two representatives of CFA to be appointed by CFA leadership.

The three Senate members of the Task Force have met. Our first three tasks will be to summarize, as it applies to the Task Force, existing Senate policies on the responsibilities of the Senate on matters within the scope of collective bargaining, to pose questions related to the Senate charge to the Task Force, and to propose a workplan for the consideration of the whole Task Force. Mindful of the referral of "changing workloads" to Faculty Affairs Committee, Senator Kersten (Chair, FAC) and I have met and will continue to communicate with each other so the work of both FAC and Task Force will proceed efficiently.

 

ACTION

APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Senator Pincu moved (Shifflett seconded) approval of the agenda. Senator Kegley requested that Item 7 be moved to Item 1; Senator McNeil requested that Item 5 be moved to Item 4. The agenda was approved as amended.

 

AS-2474-99/EX COMMENDATION OF CHANCELLOR

FIRST READING/ CHARLES B. REED FOR HIS WORK ON THE

WAIVER 99-00 CSU SUPPORT BUDGET

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University commend Chancellor Charles B. Reed for his efforts in obtaining an improved 1999-2000 budget for the CSU and for honoring his commitment to provide a total 6 percent increase in the compensation package for faculty for 1999-2000; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to continue his commitment to closing the CPEC gap, set a specific timetable to close the gap, and build that timetable into CSU support budgets.

RATIONALE: In the 1999-2000 Support Budget of the CSU, Chancellor Reed requested an augmentation of $264.8 million. That request included a 6 percent increase for total faculty compensation. The initial augmentation in the Governor’s budget plan provided only $129.2 million and earmarked its uses in such a manner that funds remaining for compensation would have been only 2.45 percent. The governor’s budget plan also made extremely deep cuts in technology funds.

Throughout the spring the Chancellor, joined by the Senate, CFA, and other constituencies, made compensation and technology key issues in discussions with the legislature and the governor. In the final budget bill, all of the key fund requirements were restored with the exception of a 0.2 percent shortfall in the compensation package. The Chancellor has stated that the $3.6 million necessary to implement the entire compensation pool will be provided through carry-forward funds.

The Senate has called attention to the continuing gap between CSU and comparable CPEC universities. In resolution AS-2449-99/FGA, May 6-7, 1999, the Senate endorsed the following budgetary priorities for the development of the CSU Trustees’ Proposed Budget for 2000-2001:

    1. That the compensation component of the budget be sufficient to close the CPEC faculty gap, so that we may continue to attract and retain the highest caliber faculty.

2) That there be a stable funding plan to meet CSU’s needs to ensure educational quality and to maintain closure of the CPEC faculty gap.

3) That sufficient funding be provided to support instruction for all anticipated student enrollment. These funds should equal the full projected cost for high quality education in the CSU.

4) That full funding be provided to support the additional Teacher Education and Year-Round efforts being undertaken by various campuses.

5) That funding be provided to complete Phase 3 of the technology infrastructure buildout.

On behalf of the Executive Committee, Senator Boddy moved (Pincu seconded) the resolution.

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

AS-2474-99/EX motion approved without dissent.

 

AS-2470-99/TEKR GOVERNOR’S COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHER AND

FIRST READING/ DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS

WAIVER

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University pledge its full support and cooperation in working with the community colleges to implement the Governor's Community College Teacher and Reading Development Partnership program, which funds community colleges to develop field experience programs with school districts and CSU institutions to assist elementary school pupils to develop improved reading skills.

RATIONALE: The Governor’s Community College Teacher Reading Development Partnerships program is designed both to encourage promising students to pursue careers in teaching through development of an articulated program with school districts and California State University institutions and to assist elementary school pupils to develop improved reading skills. The initiative supports the development of critical partnerships between community colleges and the CSU, the two institutions that prepare more than 60 percent of California’s teachers. It further supports cooperation with public school districts, thus promoting an alliance among the three public education agencies most able to improve teacher quality and the achievement of K-12 pupils. Since the vast majority of community college students who are interested in teaching will complete their program of study in the CSU, it is essential that the CSU and community colleges cooperate in the development of these programs.

On behalf of the Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations, Chair Lynne Cook moved (Caplan seconded) the resolution.

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

Senator Kaiser requested a vote on the resolution before the body.

AS-2470-99/TEKR motion approved.

AS-2473-99/AA THE SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY

FIRST READING/ ADMISSIONS EXPERIMENT

WAIVER

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University note that the Sonoma State University admissions experiment will terminate with the admissions cycle leading to matriculation of students in the spring 2000 term; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU wish the discontinuance of admission practices used in conjunction with the Sonoma State admissions experiment but inconsistent with standard CSU policies; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU request that the Chancellor not reauthorize the Sonoma State University admissions experiment; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU request that the campus senate at Sonoma State University work with the administration of Sonoma State University to develop admissions policies that are consistent with approved admissions guidelines of the California State University.

RATIONALE: Sonoma State University’s admissions experiment is ending after two three-year experimental cycles; the final year of the experiment was for students matriculating in the 1999-2000 academic year. If a campus has a need to develop admissions management policies, such policies should be consistent with approved admissions guidelines of the California State University.

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

Senator Gooden moved (McNeil seconded) to waive the rules to take action on the resolution at the present meeting.

Senator Highsmith moved (Pincu seconded) to suspend the rules and bylaws to extend discussion on the vote of the waiver. Motion failed. The motion to waive the rules was approved.

Senator Gregory moved (Highsmith seconded) to amend the second Resolved clause by inserting "used in conjunction with the Sonoma State admission experiment but" before "inconsistent"; instead of "this experiment be discontinued." Motion approved.

Senator Cates moved (Boddy seconded) to delete the last phrase of the second Resolved clause, "and the Academic Senate CSU desire assurances that such practices will not be continued."

Senator Shifflett requested a vote on the amendment. The Cates amendment was approved.

Senator Buck moved to insert into the third Resolved clause, "Sonoma State University report on its 2000-2001 admission procedure standards." Motion failed due to lack of a second.

Senator Fitzgerald moved (Pasternack seconded) to close debate. Motion approved.

AS-2473-99 motion approved.

AS-2471-99/AA/FGA THE GOVERNOR’S PROPOSED COMMUNITY

FIRST READING/ SERVICE GRADUATION REQUIREMENT

WAIVER

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University request that the CSU campus senates consider the Governor’s request for a community service graduation requirement; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU request that the local senates assess the impact of a Community Service Graduation requirement including such issues as resource allocation, student’s time to degree, potential liability, faculty/staff workload, and other aspects of implementing such a change; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the campus senates respond to the Academic Senate CSU by February 1, 2000 with their views.

RATIONALE: The California State University has long accepted that part of our mission as a state-supported system of higher education is the providing of appropriate forms of service to the communities——local and regional and statewide——in which campuses are located. The desirability of civic engagement on the part of our students is spelled out in the recent Study of the Baccalaureate done by the Academic Senate of the California State University. At its May 1999 meeting the Academic Senate CSU passed a resolution (AS-2455-99/AA) which called for a determination of "the appropriate resources and mechanisms to provide the opportunities and incentives necessary to CSU students in meaningful service activities," noting that incentives and opportunities are more appropriate ways of fostering an ethic of service than would mandating community service for all CSU students, and that such mandatory service would raise resources, liability, and public relations issues.

In July of 1999 Governor Gray Davis requested the CSU and the other public higher education segments in California to "establish a community service requirement for undergraduate students." He asked that such a requirement be approached thoughtfully and that the Chancellor "develop a plan for adoption by the Trustees that would establish a graduation requirement for community service." The Governor requested that faculty work together "to create a proposal implementing a community service graduation requirement" and that this process begin with the Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates.

At the August 1999 meeting of the Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates representatives of the Senates agreed that response to the community service graduation proposal should be deferred to each of the system senates, and from them to the faculty on the campuses. The present resolution is in response to this plan.

As an aid for campus consideration we have included the following list of potential questions:

Is the proposal clear in its intent in terms of the breadth of the application of the proposed requirement across programs and the timeline for its implementation?

If community service is not to be a blanket graduation requirement, which programs should be excluded and/or which students should be exempt?

If a student volunteer is rejected by the proposed agency, what provisions will you be able to make to accommodate the student?

On your campus, who would monitor completion of this requirement? How efficient would this be? What additional resources would be needed for this?

To what extent should community service be (or not be) credit-bearing?

What specific costs (resources, staff, supervising, and reporting) would you anticipate in implementing such a requirement?

What effect would you anticipate on time-to-graduation?

Would you anticipate any new, burdensome issues regarding legal liability between the campus and the community?

Would this requirement be met in the lower division or upper division years? How would you address transfer and articulation issues with community colleges in your service area?

What limits, if any, should be attached to the terms "service" and "community," assuming that a "community service graduation requirement" should be multifaceted?

If community service is to be done in K-12 classrooms, can issues and costs of fingerprinting, character references, drug-testing, and the like be resolved?

Are there enough off-campus service demand and opportunities for your campus population for the performance of community service?

What would you foresee as benefits to students in the performance of students? How and why could this enhance their learning?

Would there be any unusual dangers and risks in your service area?

If your students in clinical professional programs perform community service, will they be risking any particular liability?

Do you agree with the statement in the May Academic Senate CSU resolution that a service ethic is fostered better by providing incentives and opportunities than by mandating service?

Have you done or anticipated a survey of your community’s ability to train, accept, and monitor alternating flows of student volunteers? How will they affect agency profiles?

For courses on our campuses that have a service component, who will evaluate the appropriateness of that service toward satisfaction of the community service graduation requirement under this program?

Are there potentials for damage to already-accredited professional programs because of an increase in the ratio of students to supervisors (or volunteers to agencies)?

What would be an appropriate amount of community service (e.g., number of hours) to be required for graduation?

Do you anticipate your students competing with other state interests — e.g., a need to place welfare recipients in community service jobs ?

What community needs in your community might be addressed by community service done by your students? Who would determine what these community needs are?

Should assessment of community needs be done with attention to the effect of mandatory community service on town/gown relationships?

What area of campus will take on the responsibility for resolving legal issues arising from the performance of community service?

What assessment measures are you prepared to set up to evaluate the success or failure of the community service program?

Do you anticipate any special problems concerning transfer and articulation issues between the CSU and the UC and/or Community Colleges related to a community service graduation requirement?

Because AS-2455-99/AA raised some general concerns about the implementation of a community service requirement, the Academic Senate CSU requests the local senates to consider the above questions when responding to our request for advice and information to transmit to the Chancellor for use in responding to the Governor’s call for a plan to implement a community service graduation requirement.

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

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

Senator Highsmith requested consent to make the following change: in the second Resolved clause to add "with their views" after "2000"; in the third Resolved clause to delete "focusing on" and substitute "including" before "such" and add "issues" replacing "themes"; add "student’s" before "time"; add "potential" before "liability"; delete "issues" after "liability" and after "workload." He also requested that Resolved clause two and three be reversed. There were no objections.

AS-2471-99/AA/FGA motion approved.

AS-2472-99/AA CAMPUS RESPONSES TO DRAFT ACCOUNTABILITY

FIRST READING/ PROCESS DOCUMENT

WAIVER

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University request the campus senates to respond to the call for responses by local senates and appropriate faculty committees to the draft Accountability Process document dated August 16, 1999; and be it further

RESOLVED: That responses from campus senates be directed to their campus president as well as to the Chair of the Academic Senate CSU, for transmittal to Executive Vice Chancellor David S. Spence; and be it further

RESOLVED: That in their consideration of the draft Accountability Process document and in their recommendations for elements to be included or excluded in the planning for accountability in the CSU, local campus senates should carefully consider such issues as the following:

1. Are the accountability indicators specified for administrative and management performance adequate, or commensurate with those spelled out for academic performance?

2. Are the accountability indicators specified for the system as a whole sufficiently parallel to those spelled out for the campuses?

3. Is there enough distinction made in the draft document between "accountability" and "assessment"?

4. Can the individual campuses reasonably be expected to achieve consensus on the parameters of such elaborate assessment processes given the very short timeline for response?

5. Are the specific accountability indicators proposed in the draft Accountability Process document consistent with the academic mission and programs of the individual campuses? Might other indicators be more appropriate? Provide examples.

6. Given that the proposed accountability process is meant to be both formative and summative, might a more open process with less rigidly defined indicators contribute better to the formative aspects of that goal? For example, is three years the most desirable period between accountability cycles?

7. Are adequate mechanisms in place on the campus for appropriate faculty oversight of the process of accountability, especially as regards the quality of degree programs?

8. Is the campus satisfied that the draft document protects against unfair or inappropriate comparisons among campuses and programs?

RATIONALE: The Draft Accountability Process document, in addition to a recitation of its background, and enunciation of some general principles, sets forth some very specific areas of responsibility and measures of accountability which have a very great potential to affect the academic missions of the CSU and its campuses in various ways. While certain areas and measures (e.g., items 2-9) are already routinely studied, with data generated for possible reporting, other items (especially items 1 and 10-12) are new, are not standardized, and will require considerable work in devising appropriate accountability processes.

The Academic Senate CSU recognizes that the November 1, 1999, deadline for responses set by the Executive Vice Chancellor hardly provides enough time for meaningful consideration and response by the local senates. Recognizing the importance of a Compact II agreement, the Academic Senate CSU considers that it is equally important that this sytemwide basic strategic accountability plan benefit from the fullest possible input of the faculty, in collaboration with the administration. We note that we would have preferred that the drafting of this Accountability Process document had been postponed until there could be full senate consultation and participation in its initial drafting.

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

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

Senator Highsmith requested consent to make the following change: in the third Resolved clause, No. 1, substitute "commensurate" for "commensurable." There were no objections.

Senator Highsmith moved (King seconded) to delete in the third Resolved clause, No. 8, "repercussions from invidious," and insert "unfair" before "comparisons."

Senator Gregory requested consent to make the following changes in the Highsmith amendment: to delete "there are adequate assurances" and replace with "ensures that unfair" before "comparisons" and add at the end "will not be made." There were objections.

Senator Shifflett requested a vote on the resolution before the body. Motion failed.

Senator Gregory moved (Kersten seconded) her changes above, however, to replace "ensures" with "protects against, " to add "or inappropriate" after "unfair" and to delete "will not be made."

Senators Pasternack and Hood requested a vote on the resolution before the body. Motion approved.

Senator Gregory’s amendment to the amendment was approved. Senator Highsmith’s amendment was approved.

AS-2472-99/AA motion approved unanimously.

AS-2475-99/FGA COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

SECOND READING

RESOLVED: That Academic Senate of the California State University recognize that the third year of the infrastructure build-out is necessary to support the academic mission of the CSU system and for the implementation of the Collaborative Management System; and be it further

RESOLVED: That Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to secure alternative funding sources in addition to current support budgets for the Collaborative Management System and for the third year of the infrastructure build-out in order to eliminate adverse effects on campuses’ ability to serve the CSU’s annually-increasing student enrollment; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to fund CMS in such a way that campuses spend no greater proportion of new support budgets on information technology than they currently spend; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to spend no greater portion of the new funding provided for additional enrollment for institutional support including administrative information technology than the appropriate portion that would otherwise be spent for institutional support.

RATIONAL: CMS funding can have negative impact on the academic mission of campuses. Since academic affairs makes up the bulk of every campus budget, the funding for CMS is affecting those budgets. In essence on many campuses the cost of CMS has reduced the benefit campuses might have seen from increased student enrollment funds.

In addition, the third year of the infrastructure build-out is not funded at this time. Without funding for this third phase, eight campuses are at risk of not being fully integrated into the infrastructure.

While we generally see the benefit of CMS, much of CMS cannot happen until the infrastructure build-out is completed. Coordination and oversight must be integrated for a better end result.

The administration should spend no more on CMS in the long term than the funds CSU is already spending on Administrative Information Technology. The administration should use no more of the new enrollment monies than would be regularly used for administrative activities.

We believe that these efforts will go a great distance in mitigating any negative impact of CMS on the campuses.

* * * * *

The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m. on Friday, September 10, 1999.

* * * * *

Approved (or corrected)

Date:________________________ _______________________________

Gene L. Dinielli, Chair

 

_______________________________

Les Pincu, Secretary

 

________________________________

Margaret Price, Recording Secretary



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