CSUS FACULTY SENATE ACTIONS FOR 2001-2002

*Note:  Minutes and procedural actions not included.

Alcohol Advisory Committee
Akbar Davami

CSUS Foundation Board
Chevelle Newsome

Registration Study Group
Edward Meister

University Union Board of Directors
Anne-Louise Radimsky, At-large, 2003

Athletic Advisory Board
Scott Modell, At-large, 2002
Jeffrey Brodd, At-large, 2002

Alcohol and Drug Steering Committee
Melinda Seid, At-large, 2003

Honorary Degrees Committee
Cheryl Osborne, At-large, 2003

University Copyright and Patent Committee
Eileen Heaser, At-large, 2004

ASI Appellate Council
William Dillon, At-large, 2002

Campus Cooperative Education Advisory Committee
Anne-Louise Radimsky, At-large, 2002

Instructional Related Activities Committee
Anne-Louise Radimsky, At-large, 2002
Deborah Metzger, At-large, 2002

Alumni Board
Roger Leezer, Faculty Alumnus, 2002

AIDS Advisory Committee
Mary Braham, At-large, 2003

Committee for Diversity Awards
Karen Horobin, At-large, 2003

Grade Appeal Procedural Appeals Board
Elaine Alexander, At-large, 2002
William Dillon, At-large, 2002
Miles Roberts, At-large, 2002

Student Complaint Hearing Panel
Robin Reese, At-large, 2003
Robert Platzner, At-large, 2003

Student Academic Development Committee
Mary Ann Reihman, At-large, 2003
Tom Pyne, At-large, 2003

Institutional Scholarship Committee I
Peter Shattuck, At-large, 2003

Institutional Scholarship Committee II
Marie Helt, At-large, 2003

Student Fee Advisory Committee
Merle Martin, At-large, 2002
Carolyn Gibbs, At-large, 2002

Multicultural Center Advisory Board
Rachael Gonzales, At-large, 2003
Chrystal Barranti, At-large, 2003

University Trust Foundation Board
Annita Watson, 2004

ASCSUS Children's Center Parent Advisory Council
Nancy Kalish, At-large, 2002

Academic Affairs Associate Vice President Search Committee
Tom Krabacher
Art Jensen
Mary Ann Reihman

Committee for Persons with Disabilities

Steven Daley, Special Education, 2002  Kathryn Blackmer Reyes, Library, 2002  Roberta Ching, Learning Skills, 2003 Preetham Kumar, Electrical & Electronic Engineering, 2003 Heather Carling-Smith, Physical Therapy, 2003

EDUC LIB A & L E & CS H & HS

Council on University Planning
Joe Zhou, Non-Instructional Faculty, 2002

The Faculty Senate receives the commendations and recommendations (September 27, 2001 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment C) of the Curriculum Policies Committee on the program review of the Department of History and recommends that the Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degree and Ph.D. in History be approved for six years or until the next program review.

The Faculty Senate receives the commendations and recommendations (September 27, 2001 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment D) of the Curriculum Policies Committee on the program review of the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies and recommends that the Bachelor of Science Degree in Recreation Administration and Park Management and Therapeutic Recreation and the Master of Science Degree in Recreation and Leisure Studies be approved for a period of six years.

BACKGROUND: The recommended policy on self-support instruction was included in the last Program Review of RCE. RCE has requested that it be adopted as University policy. During Spring 2001, the CPC, in consultation with RCE Dean Alice Tom, revised the original recommendation, and we now recommend its adoption as University policy and inclusion in the University manual.

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of Regional and Continuing Education's policy (September 27, 2001 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment E) on offering Continuing Education Units (CEUs) and Continuing Education Hours (CEHs).

(Background: In August 1975, the Office of the Chancellor established classification and qualification standards for classes of Grant-Related Instructional Faculty (GRIF) [FSA 75-55]. Hiring of Grant-Related Instructional Faculty would conform with existing policy.)

The Faculty Senate recommends implementation of the Chancellor's policy on classification and qualification standards for Grant-Related Instructional Faculty (September 27, 2001 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment F).

ASI Board
Edith Lefebvre, Faculty Representative, 2002

Alcohol Advisory Council
Ann Stoltz, 2002

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of  program changes shown in October 18, 2001 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment A.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of  program changes shown in October 18, 2001 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment A.

The Faculty Senate receives the commendations and recommendations (October 18, 2001 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment B) of the Curriculum Policies Committee on the program review of the Department of Mechanical Engineering and recommends that the Bachelor and Master of Science degree programs in Mechanical Engineering and Bachelor of Science degree program in Mechanical Engineering Technology be approved for six years.

Background:  On May 10, 2001, the Faculty Senate passed FS 01-33/FPC, Ex., transferring the responsibility for Post Tenure Review from the purview of the Faculty Policies Committee to the purview of the University ARTP Committee.  This legislation causes the language in Section 9.03 of the University ARTP document to reflect the transference of responsibility.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending Section 9.03.B of the University ARTP Document titled "Periodic Evaluation" as follows [strikeover = deletion; underscore = addition]:

"Periodic evaluation procedures shall be approved by the President after consideration of recommendations from the appropriate faculty committee(s). Such procedures shall, for tenure-track faculty unit employees who teach, include, but not be limited to, student evaluations of teaching performance, peer review(s), and administrative review. Department chairs may make recommendations as a part of the periodic evaluation process. If such a separate recommendation is to be made the chair shall not participate as a member of the department peer committee." (M.O.U. 15.19) (On this campus, 1) procedures shall be developed by primary and secondary committees and shall be reviewed by the University ARTP Committee in the all cases of the periodic evaluation of temporary, probationary and tenured faculty.; 2) procedures shall be developed by primary committees and shall be reviewed by the University ARTP Committee in the case of the period evaluation of temporary faculty; and 3) procedures shall be developed by primary committees and shall be reviewed by the Faculty Policies Committee in the case of periodic evaluation of tenured faculty.

Background:  Effective in 1993, CSU Executive Order 599 prohibited smoking in all buildings and leased spaces throughout the system.  The smoking policy at CSU, Sacramento can be found at http://www.csus.edu/admbus/umanual/UMS16050.htm.  The Associated Students, Incorporated resolution requests enforcement of current policy.

The Faculty Senate recommends support for the following Associated Students, Inc. (ASI), resolution:

WHEREAS

According to an August 2001 survey administered by the Sociology Department, approved by the Ethics Committee and Sponsored by the American Lung Association in conjunction with Students Taking Action Against Nicotine Dependence (STAND) 76% of the 621 students surveyed wanted a stricter campus tobacco policy than what currently exists;

WHEREAS

74% of the students thought that the current smoking policy was NOT adequately enforced;

WHEREAS

Approximately 60% of the respondents said walking through tobacco smoke on their way to and from classes was a concern, and approximately 26% of the respondents reported having an allergy/sensitivity (i.e. asthma) that is triggered by exposure to tobacco smoke, even outdoors;

WHEREAS

Asthma is one of the leading causes of school absenteeism and visits to the emergency room;

WHEREAS

The Associated Students, Incorporated of California State University Sacramento, feel it is imperative to represent the students' needs as the elected student body officials in honor of health and safety concerns. Therefore, let it be

RESOLVED

That the Associated Students, Incorporated of California State University, Sacramento would openly recognize that students are adversely affected by outdoor smoking and that the campus smoking policies should be more strictly enforced. We support President Gerth and the Board of Trustees in researching all issues surrounding the use of tobacco on campus.

The Faculty Senate expresses its objection to the President’s approval and implementation of the recommendations of the Scheduling Task Force without benefit of formal recommendation from the Faculty Senate and ASI on the matter. The Faculty Senate urges the President to postpone implementation of the Task Force’s recommendations and to reconsider the matter in light of recommendations to be received from the Faculty Senate and ASI.

A motion was made, seconded and approved to divide FS 01-65/Flr. into two parts.

Part 1. The Faculty Senate requests that the President provide the Senate an explanation of why the Vice president for Academic Affairs was placed on Administrative Leave in such an unusual, abrupt, and disruptive manner.

Defeated.

Part 2. In addition, the Faculty Senate request that the President provide the Senate an explanation of why the university’s administrative order of succession was changed from one in which the Vice President for Academic Affairs was first in line to a “seniority by years” system, which relegates the Chief Academic Officer to last in the line of succession.

Carried.

The Faculty Senate recommends modifications to the Blue Book, Section X, Subsection F.II, (Faculty Senate Agenda September 27, 2001 Attachment G) [underscore = addition].

The Faculty Senate recommends amending University policy (University Manual UME04050) regarding emeritus status (Faculty Senate Agenda October 18, 2001 Attachment C) [underscore = addition].

The Faculty Senate recommends the creation of an Academic User Needs Group to assess the usability of available IT resources and make recommendations for improved usability as well as the improved customer relations management of these resources (Faculty Senate Agenda October 18, 2001 Attachment D).

 

Background:  The three recommended changes to the University ARTP policy (specifically section 5.05, titled "Criteria for Retention, Tenure, and Promotion") are to explicitly include advising in the basis of evaluation.

The first change is to Section 5.05.E, titled "Competent Teaching Performance". This section has two subsections, one on evidence that must be included and one on evidence that may be included. The recommended change adds a section to what may be included, namely, "submissions … of the faculty member's student advising activities", followed by a list of some examples.

The second change is to Section 5.05 F, titled "Scholarly and Creative Achievements". An additional item is added to the list of evidence that may be included, namely, "a statement describing the faculty member's guidance of students who are contributing to the faculty member's project(s)."

The third change is to Section 5.05.H, titled "Contributions to the Institution". The change makes specific reference to "advising of student organizations" as an example of the faculty member's contribution to the Department and to the College in the area of student advising. In the case of University contribution, "advising of student clubs and activities" is added as an example in the area of student advising.

These recommendations were prepared and approved by the University ARTP Committee and the Executive Committee.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the University ARTP Document as shown in Faculty Senate Agenda October 18, 2001 Attachment E.

ASI Elections Complaint Committee
Ernest Uwazie, Faculty Representative, 2002

Advisory Committee for the Selection of Interim Vice President for Academic Affairs
Jaime Alvayay, CBA
Harold Murai, EDUC
Ernest Uwazie, HHS
Dick Kornweibel, A&L

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of program changes shown in Faculty Senate Agenda November 8, 2001 Attachment A.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of program changes shown in Faculty Senate Agenda November 8, 2001 Attachment A.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations (Faculty Senate Agenda November 8, 2001 Attachment B) of the Curriculum Policies Committee on the program review of the Music Department and recommends that the Bachelor of Arts degree, the Bachelor of Music, the Credential Program, and the Minor and the Master of Music be approved for six years or until the next program review.

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the attached scheduling policy.

Background:  At an October 31st meeting of the CSU Academic Senate, Chancellor Reed discussed the difficult times facing the system and "the importance of unity and working together."  Professor Buck's letter is a response to Chancellor Reed's call for unity.  As Buck states, for unity to be achieved "it is essential to build trust with the faculty and to convince the faculty that things are not as they always have been."  He suggests that "The first step on this path would be to reach a speedy settlement of the contract."  The following resolution, will endorse the issues raised in Buck’s letter and call on the Chancellor to provide the leadership to make "things not as they always have been."

WHEREAS,	With the drain on state revenues caused by the State of California's purchases of energy during last year's crisis and a continued weakening of the state's economy and the resulting decline in state revenues, the California State University is facing a difficult and challenging time in the coming months and possibly years; and
WHEREAS,	The State's budget crisis has come at a time when the California State University System is facing a crisis of its own in lack of space and decline in tenure-track faculty, and just as unusually large enrollment increases each year for the foreseeable future will stretch existing resources to the breaking point; and

WHEREAS,	It is imperative to maintain access and quality education for increasing numbers of students; and
WHEREAS,	This crisis for the California State University System calls for new forms of leadership and cooperation, the Faculty Senate of California State University, Sacramento agrees with Chancellor Reed's call for unity - to have faculty, staff, and administration united - speaking with one voice to the Governor, the Legislature, and the voters of the State of California about the budgetary needs of the California State University; and
WHEREAS,	Unity will not be possible until the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees take the first steps to change the faculty perception that the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees distrust and lack respect for the faculty, a perception that gets communicated to the faculty when we are bypassed in decision-making processes and gets communicated to the Governor, the Legislature, and the public in the California State University's "extreme and intransigent" position in the bargaining process; and
WHEREAS,	Without a speedy and agreeable settlement of the contract, such unity will not be possible; therefore be it
RESOLVED,	That the Faculty Senate of California State University, Sacramento embraces the message put forth by California State University, Fullerton Professor Vince Buck in his open (e-mail) letter to the California State University Chancellor Charles Reed in which Professor Buck stressed the need for leadership on the part of the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees, the need for professionalism and respect in communications from the California State University, and the need to involve the California State University faculty earlier in the decision making process; and be it further
RESOLVED,	That the Faculty Senate of California State University, Sacramento calls upon Chancellor Reed to provide the leadership necessary to bring contract negotiations to an agreeable conclusion and provide for the unity necessary for the California State University System to fulfill its role and responsibility to the citizens of California, and be it further
RESOLVED,	That the Chair of the Faculty Senate of California State University, Sacramento communicate this resolution to Chancellor Charles Reed, to the Chair of the Board of Trustees, to Professor Vince Buck, to the Chair of the System-wide Academic Senate, and to all Academic/Faculty Senate Chairs in the California State University System.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of program changes shown in Faculty Senate Agenda December 6, 2001 Attachment A and the Faculty Senate Agenda December 6, 2001 addendum.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of program changes shown in Faculty Senate Agenda December 6, 2001 Attachment A and the Faculty Senate Agenda December 6, 2001 addendum.

Background:  On May 10, 2001, FS 01-33 was approved by the Senate.  This legislation moved the responsibility of Post Tenure Review from the purview of the Faculty Policies Committee to the purview of the University ARTP Committee.  The "Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty - Guidelines" (Ref:  PM 85-06, AS 84-64, PM 88-08, last rev'd October 6, 1988) had been published as a separate document and is located in the University Manual.  This Motion (FS 01-83) moves and incorporates, in its entirety, the "Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty - Guidelines" into the University ARTP  document.  No substantive changes have been made, only the editorial changes indicated by the strikeouts and underlining.

The "Guidelines" have been inserted as Section 9.06 in the University ARTP document.  The current Section 9.06, entitled "Performance Review", has been renumbered as 9.07 and the current Section 9.07, entitled "Recommendation Process for Performance Review", has been renumbered as 9.08.

[strikethrough = deletion; underscore = addition]

9.06 Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty

The Office of Faculty and Staff Affairs has responsibility for ensuring a department's conformity to University policy on the periodic evaluation of tenured faculty. Should a question of interpretation arise, it shall be brought to the University ARTP Faculty Affairs Committee, which retains jurisdiction over matters of policy and interpretation of policy, in the form of recommendations.

Individual members of the faculty would always be wise to examine appropriate portions of the University Manual ARTP document and more general policy documents (in this case including the Memorandum of Understanding) to understand the content and the extent of rights and obligations arising under these procedures set forth in this section.

1. Purpose of Evaluation: To assist tenured faculty members to maintain or improve their teaching effectiveness.
   

2. Frequency of Evaluation of Instructional Performance: Tenured faculty shall be evaluated at intervals of no greater than five years. An evaluation for purposes of retention, tenure or promotion shall fulfill the requirement.
   

3. Each Academic Dean, as the appropriate administrator, is delegated the responsibility for monitoring the periodic review evaluation of tenured faculty process in his/her school college and for ensuring that the reviews evaluations conducted by the faculty committees and department chairs are in compliance with the procedures contained in this policy.
   

4. Procedures:

1. Each tenured faculty member subject to review periodic evaluation shall be evaluated by an elected peer review committee consisting of at least three tenured full-time department faculty of equal or greater higher rank. A department member scheduled for this evaluation may not serve on any committee to conduct a periodic review evaluation of tenured faculty committee during the year in which he/she is subject to review evaluation.
   

2. The department chair shall not serve on nor meet with the peer review committee but shall will conduct an independent review evaluation and submit a separate evaluation report.
   

3. The department shall develop a schedule of those faculty to be reviewed, in what specifying the order and in which year of evaluation of tenured faculty from year to year.
   

4. State law and University policy guarantee to faculty the right of confidentiality. Consequently, substantive deliberations having to do with periodic review evaluation of post tenured faculty unit employees shall be are open only to committee members.
   

5. The peer review committee and the department chair shall consider the following subject matter in conducting the reviews:

1)    Student evaluations taken since the last review evaluation of the faculty member's performance.

2)    Signed, written statements from students, and other signed, written statements concerning the faculty member's teaching effectiveness only if the faculty member has been provided an exact copy of each statement at least five days before the review evaluation.

3)    Material submitted by the faculty member being evaluated. This evidence may include, but not be limited to, the following:

Teaching materials 
Curriculum development 
Participation in professional meetings 
Professional lectures, seminars, workshops 
Consultant work 
Publications 
Leave activities

6. The faculty member being evaluated shall have the right to meet with the peer review committee prior to the submission of the committee's report.
   

7. The faculty member being evaluated shall have the right to meet with the department chair prior to submission of his/her evaluation.
   

8. The committee shall prepare a written, signed evaluation report containing an assessment of the evidence. It shall provide a written copy of this report to the faculty member at least five days before the custodian places it in the Personnel Action file.
   

9. The department chair shall prepare a written, signed evaluation report containing an assessment of the evidence. He/she shall provide a written copy of this report to the faculty member at least five days before the custodian places it in the Personnel Action file.
   

10. The department chair and the chair of the peer review committee shall meet with the faculty member to discuss his/her strengths and weaknesses along with suggestions, if any, for his/her improvement.
    

11. The evaluation statements shall be placed in the Personnel Action File. The faculty member shall have has the right to submit written rebuttals to them and these rebuttals shall also be placed in the Personnel Action File.
    

12. The Academic Dean shall will not normally conduct an evaluation of tenured faculty under these procedures. However, a faculty member may appeal the evaluations of the faculty committee and/or the department chair by requesting, in writing, that the Dean conduct an independent review evaluation."

The Faculty Senate recommends approval to negotiate a Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Audiology between CSUS and the University of Nevada, Reno (Faculty Senate Agenda December 6, 2001 Attachment B).

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following program change proposals:

1. BA Interior Design Revision of required lower and upper division courses. No change in total units. 
2. Minor in Film Studies Three new elective courses (one lower division, two upper division) added to program. No change in total units. 
3. BA Theatre Arts (Dance Concentration) Revision of required lower division and upper division course requirements. No change in total units. 
4. BA Graphic Design Replaces one lower division and two upper division required courses with new courses. No change in total units. 
5. BA/BS Biological Sciences Adds STAT 001 to lower division core courses for all Biological Sciences majors. Increases total units by three. 
6. MA Government Changes Advancement to Candidacy requirements by replacing GOVT 100 with STAT 001 and adding a statement about thesis prospectus. No change in total units. 
7. BA Sociology Revision of program course work. No change in total units.

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of changes in the guidelines for Academic Program Reviews (Blue Book, Section X, parts D. and E.) as shown in Attachment A.

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of changes in the guidelines for Academic Program Reviews (Blue Book, new Section X.B., second paragraph) as shown below:

[underscore = addition]

For programs with an external accreditation, the Vice President for Academic Affairs may authorize acceptance of the external accreditation review in lieu of the campus program review. This policy will be in place for a period of three years, after which Academic Affairs will report back to the Faculty Senate regarding how effective the changes are. The appropriate college dean or Academic Affairs can request a full internal program review.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations of the Curriculum Policies Committee on the program review of the Liberal Studies Program and recommends the conditional approval of the Liberal Studies Program for a period of three years (Attachment B).

Committee on Diversity and Equity
David Leon, At-large, 2002

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending FS 02-07, by adding the following:

No probationary faculty member may be required to participate in any search.

Carried.

The Faculty Senate approves referring the matter of non-mandatory probationary faculty participation in search committees to the University ARTP Committee to draft the appropriate language.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending Section 6.06.B 1 of the University ARTP document by inserting at the end of the second sentence, the following sentence:

The participation of probationary faculty authorized by this section shall not normally begin before the third year of service in the participant's probationary period; but recommending units may permit participation sooner in an extraordinary case.

Defeated (hand vote:  Yes = 14; No = 31)

[Bill Dillon]

The UARTP Committee recommended and the Executive Committee approved a "friendly" addition to section 6.06.B.2 of the amendment as presented at First Reading. The wording appears with a double underline in Attachment E. The rationale for this change is included in the March 8, 2002 memo from Professor Dillon, Presiding Member of the UARTP Committee to the Executive Committee (Attachment D [in MS Word]). Any member may request to consider this as an amendment to be moved, seconded and acted upon, otherwise the change will remain incorporated into the original motion.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the University ARTP document as shown in Attachment E [in MS Word].

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate requests that the context paragraph (shown below) be included in the "Principles of Community" statement, to provide a frame of reference for the Principles:

In the wake of a series of hate crimes against members of our campus community during the 1999-00 academic year, the University responded in a number of ways.  Initially, the campus community was called together to participate in a University convocation - entitled "Changing Times:  Ending Hate, Opening Minds".  An outgrowth of the activities during that year led to the designation of the 2000-01 academic year as the "Year of Unity".  During that year, statements were put forward and adopted by the Faculty Senate, and the community at-large was involved in a variety of programs - both aimed at reinforcing our commitment to inclusion and to the support and maintenance of an environment of tolerance, understanding and appreciation for all members of our campus community.  One of these activities was the development of the following "Principles of Community" statement.

Furthermore, the Faculty Senate requests that a listing of campus community endorsements be included with the public display of the Principles.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate endorses the following "Principles of Community" statement:

In the wake of a series of hate crimes against members of our campus community during the 1999-00 academic year, the University responded in a number of ways.  Initially, the campus community was called together to participate in a University convocation - entitled "Changing Times:  Ending Hate, Opening Minds".  An outgrowth of the activities during that year led to the designation of the 2000-01 academic year as the "Year of Unity".  During that year, statements were put forward and adopted by the Faculty Senate, and the community at-large was involved in a variety of programs - both aimed at reinforcing our commitment to inclusion and to the support and maintenance of an environment of tolerance, understanding and appreciation for all members of our campus community.  One of these activities was the development of the following "Principles of Community" statement.

PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY

We are an educational community with the responsibility to create an environment that fosters personal and professional integrity, civility, respect, freedom of expression, individuality and fairness.

We commit to treat one another with civility; most importantly, this means treating others with respect - even those with whom we disagree - and encouraging dialogue about such disagreements.

We confront and reject all manifestations of discrimination including those based on race, ethnicity, gender and gender identity, age, disability, sexual orientation, religious and political beliefs, status within or outside the university, and any of the other differences among people which have been the rationalization for prejudice, violence and hatred.

We recognize our rich diversity and take pride in our inclusive environment. We celebrate our differences and promote awareness through education.

We strive to create a climate in which all members of the University can work together and learn from one another.

We accept and respect individuals whose values, ideas, beliefs and life experiences may, be different from our own, as long as those differences do not violate the basic civil rights of others.

We behave in ways that are ethical, honest, equitable, trustworthy, civil and respectful to preserve the spirit of community.

We believe that free inquiry and free expression are basic tenets in the life of the university.

We do not tolerate verbal or written abuse, threats, harassment, intimidation or violence under any circumstances, while at the same time, recognizing that freedom of expression may create discomfort in others.

We affirm the inherent dignity in each of us and acknowledge that our society carries within it historically rooted biases and bigotry.

Finally, we each share the responsibility to provide the best learning environment for all, and we recognize and appreciate that community cannot exist without unity of purpose, cooperative action and above all mutual respect.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following program change proposal:

MS in Urban Land Development
New Program - Fast Track Process
The purpose of the program is to bring together the private (decision-making) and public (policy) aspects of real estate development and to help students develop the skills needed to develop land in metropolitan areas. The program is interdisciplinary and covers all major aspects of the development process including design, feasibility analysis, land use regulation, market and location analysis, and negotiation. Thus, graduates from the program would bridge the gap between land use professional with training in fields such as city planning, government, and public policy and those trained in business administration. Graduates from this program should be able to understand the constraints and incentives faced by both the private and public sector when making land use recommendations and decisions.  The proposed program does not have identifiable fiscal or programmatic impact on the offerings of other academic units.  All courses are currently offered at CSUS.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following program change proposal:

Master of Arts in Vocational Education
Request Projection of New Degree Programs - Fast Track for RCE
The Master of Arts in Vocational Education (MAVE) is on the CSU Master Plan.  The CSUS Departments of Special Education, Rehabilitation & School Psychology and Regional & Continuing Education (RCE) are requesting projection of this degree to the CSUS Academic Master Plan.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following program change proposal:

Master of Science in Healthcare Administration
Request Projection of New Degree Programs - Fast Track for RCE
The Office of Regional and Continuing Education (RCE), in conjunction with the College of Health and Human Services (HHS), the College of Business, and an Advisory Board with representatives from the above academic units, and representatives of healthcare organizations in both the private and public sector, propose to offer a master's degree in Healthcare Administration.

The program will help to prepare students for a wide range of healthcare administration careers including management, accounting, analytical skills, human resources, strategic planning, marketing, and operations specific to the healthcare area. The program seeks a balanced exposure to theoretical and conceptual coursework, applied course work, skill learning and field experience. The program will require two years of study taking classes two evenings a week, plus a 135-hour practicum to complete.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends revision of the "Mission Statement and the Responsibilities of the CTL Advisory Board Related to Mission and Aims of the Center" as recommended by a joint committee of the CTL Board and FPC, approved unanimously by FPC, and approved by the Executive Committee (see Attachment A for amendments and rationale).

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations (Attachment B) of the Curriculum Policies Committee on the program review of the Civil Engineering Department and recommends that the Bachelor of Science and Master of Science and the Bachelor of Science in Construction Management Degrees be approved for six years or until the next program review.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate elects college representatives to the 2002-2003 Committee on Committees, as follows:

2002-2003 COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

Committee Meeting Schedule: 
#1: Tuesday, April 9, 3:00-5:00 p.m., SAC 275 
#2: Tuesday, April 16, 3:00-5:00 p.m., SAC 275

Committee Members: 

Bob Buckley	Chair, Faculty Senate
Art Jensen	Vice Chair, Faculty Senate
Louise Timmer	Member, Executive Committee (FPC Chair)
Joan Bauerly	Member, Executive Committee
Tom Kando	Member, Executive Committee (CPC Chair)
Jean-Pierre Bayard	Member, Executive Committee
Bonnie Raingruber	Member, Executive Committee
Dick Kornweibel	Member, Executive Committee (GEP/GRC Chair)
Tom Krabacher	Member, Executive Committee (APC Chair)
Ben Amata	Senior Library Senator
Brenda Cager	Senior Student Services Senator
PLUS:	One Senator elected from each college
John Williams	College of Arts and Letters
Elaine Alexander	College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Steve Perez	College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies
Kent Meyer	College of Business Administration
Ed Lee	College of Education
Andrew Banta	College of Engineering and Computer Science
Ernest Uwazie	College of Health and Human Services

 Carried.

The Faculty Senate receives the “General Education Program Review Team 2000-01 Report”, expresses appreciation to the review team for their dedication, time and contribution, and instructs the Senate Chair to formally communicate the Senate’s expression of appreciation to each member of the team.

2000-01 GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM REVIEW TEAM

CO-CHAIRS: William Dorman, Government, and John Henry, Economics. 
TEAM MEMBERS: 

Andrew Anker, Design 
Ruth Ballard, Biological Sciences 
John Corless, Accountancy 
Ernest Olson, Recreation and Leisure Studies 
James Ottem, Associated Students, Incorporated (ASI) 
Anne-Louise Radimsky, Computer Science 
Francisco Reveles, Educational Administration and Policy Studies 
Jennifer Ware, Library
Cecilia Gray, Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Programs (Ex-officio)

Furthermore, the Faculty Senate recognizes the importance of the Review Team’s work and that its recommendations have not only been endorsed by those who most closely involved in the review process:

2000 General Education Self Study Team 
2001-02 General Education Review Team 
2001 General Education External Consultants

but also reflect the findings and recommendations of those most closely involved in the last General Education Program Review.

1989 General Education Self Study Team 
1990-91 General Education Review Team 
1990 General Education External Consultants 
1994 WASC Team 

(see Attachment F for background)

The complete report is available on the web at: http://www.csus.edu/acse/GERT_Report_Final.pdf.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty senate amends FS 02-16B by adding two additional members:  a representative from Foreign Languages and a representative from the Writing and Reading Subcommittee.

Carried.

The Faculty Senate recommends 1) the establishment of a nine member General Education Impact Study Workgroup, 2) the faculty members of the Study Workgroup receive 3 units of assigned time for the fall semester 2002, and 3) the Workgroup be charged to complete the tasks described below by the end of the 2002 fall semester.

MEMBERSHIP WOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 
One Student (appointed by ASI) 
Eight Faculty members: 

Two members of the General Education Review Team 
General Education Policies / Graduation Requirements Committee Representative
Faculty Coordinator for General Education 
Faculty Coordinator for Assessment 
Three at-large Faculty Members, to include a representative from Foreign Languages and the Writing and Reading Subcommittee

Ex officio, Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Programs

CHARGE:  Before the Senate debates and decides and to better inform the debate on the GERT recommendation to create a full-time position of Director of General Education, the GE Impact Study Workgroup will develop the job description for the proposed Director, which will include the roles and responsibilities of the Director in various capacities related to oversight of the University's General Education curriculum and related assessment and coordination activities. This work should be completed with the recommendation coming to the Senate for First and Second Reading before the end of the spring 2002 semester.

Before the Senate debate and action and to better inform the debate on GERT Recommendations 3, 4, 5 and 6, the GE Impact Study Workgroup will frame the issues and undertake an impact analysis for each recommendation and bring each recommendation and their findings to the Senate for First and Second Reading before the end of the fall 2002 semester.

• GERT Recommendation 3 proposes to divide the GE Program into two parts, a 39-unit lower division segment and a 9-unit upper division segment (GERT Report, page 14).

• GERT Recommendation 4 proposes that the 9 unit upper division segment would require students to take 3 units from each of the following three areas: 1) Social Issues of the 21st Century, 2) Arts, Humanities and Society, and 3) Science, Technology and Society (GERT Report, page 16).

• GERT Recommendation 5 proposes to replace the advanced studies requirement with a 5,000 word writing intensive requirement satisfied by a certified course in the 9 unit upper division GE segment or a certified course in the student's major (GERT Report, page 18).

• GERT Recommendation 6 proposes that 1) the current second-semester writing requirement be incorporated into Area A3, and 2) the Foreign Language Requirement be incorporated into lower division Area C or the Requirement be eliminated and incorporated as an elective into Area C (GERT Report, pages 19 and 20).

Where appropriate, the impact analysis should include consultation with the effected parties, such as University committees, departments, programs and support. In addition, the GE Impact Study Workgroup should suggest - where feasible - ways to mitigate the possible negative impact that the proposed changes might have on departments and/or programs.

Carried.

General Education Impact Study Workgroup

[All appointments through Fall 2002]

Representatives from the General Education Review Team 
Bill Dorman, Government
Ruth Ballard, Biological Sciences

Representative from the General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Committee 
Dick Kornweibel, History

Faculty Coordinator for General Education 
Greg Wheeler, Geology

Faculty Coordinator for Assessment 
Ann Haffer, Nursing

At-large Faculty Members
Jackie Donath, Humanities and Religious Studies
Lewis Robinson, or his designee, Foreign Languages
Amy Heckathorn, or her designee, Chair, Writing and Reading Subcommittee

Carried.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following:

• CSUS and community colleges make every effort to advise potential transfers that it is in their best interests to fulfill code requirements as part of their 39-unit transfer package, or else they will have to take additional coursework above and beyond the upper division GE requirements at CSUS (GERT Recommendation #12, page 29).

NOTE. Currently, the code requirements (Title 5, Section 40404) require students to take courses to produce competency in U.S. history, the Constitution, and State and Local Government. If this requirement is not fulfilled prior to transfer, an additional six units of coursework would be required, with the appropriate courses listed in Area D3 of the General Education program.

• The university work toward the goal of providing evaluations for transfer students by the end of their first semester at CSUS (GERT Recommendation #14, page 31).

Carried.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following and charges the Senate's Faculty Policies Committee (FPC) with developing appropriate policies and/or guidelines necessary to implement these recommendations.

• Relating to faculty rewards, responsibilities and resources (GERT Recommendation #8, page 25):

1. It is essential for the university to recognize and reward teaching and advising activities associated with GE. Specifically, FPC should explore and recommend new and more effective ways to attract and reward those who are willing to teach (and advise) in GE, especially in the RTP. In matters of RTP, faculty teaching General Education courses should receive the same recognition as those faculty teaching courses in the major. Efforts should be made to actively encourage full-time faculty to participate in the General Education Program.
   

2. Special attention in this regard should be paid to innovation in coursework, particularly innovation that achieves interdisciplinarity.
   

3. Each department should have a designated GE adviser, but all faculty should have knowledge of the program. For this purpose, GE Impact Study Workgroup  and/or the GE committee should develop and distribute a faculty GE Advising Handbook.

• FPC incorporates into the annual new faculty orientation a presentation on the GE Program's goals and objectives that stresses the importance of GE on this campus (GERT Recommendation #10, page 28).

Carried.

The Faculty Senate amends FS 02-18, and adds William Dillon as a nominee for the Ad hoc Parking Committee.  After a vote by secret ballot, the composition of the Committee is:

Dennis Tootelian, CBA
Joan Al-Kazily, ECS
Robyn Nelson, HHS
Rob Wassmer, SSIS

Carried.

Ad hoc Parking Committee
Dennis Tootelian, CBA
Joan Al-Kazily, ECS
Robyn Nelson, HHS
Rob Wassmer, SSIS

Carried.

The Faculty Senate divides FS 02-16E, Approval and Referral to the General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Committee, 2000 General Education Program Review, by removing the following from the main motion and adding it to the agenda as a separate motion:

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following and charges the Senate's General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Committee (GEP/GRC) with developing the appropriate policies necessary to implement these recommendations.

• Students must complete at least 33 units of their lower division GE requirements, including Area A plus Area B4 mathematics, before enrolling in upper division GE coursework (GERT Recommendation #13, page 30).

Carried.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following and charges the Senate's General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Committee (GEP/GRC) with developing the appropriate policies necessary to implement these recommendations.

• The next review of GE will be conducted six years from the implementation of this report's recommendations, and that such a review be grounded in assessment results as well as the certification process called for in this report (GERT Recommendation #9, page 28).

• The philosophy of General Education at CSUS be rearticulated in a concise statement written in easily understood language and that such a statement be incorporated into all materials distributed about GE (GERT Recommendation #11, page 28).

Carried.

 

The Faculty Senate recommends consideration by the General Education Impact Study Workgroup and report back to the Senate in Fall 2002, the following:

• Students must complete at least 33 units of their lower division GE requirements, including Area A plus Area B4 mathematics, before enrolling in upper division GE coursework (GERT Recommendation #13, page 30).

Carried.

 

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the University ARTP document as follows:
[underscore = addition]

6.04.B.1

Appointment of full-time temporary faculty unit employees normally shall follow the recruitment and selection procedures for probationary faculty unit employees contained in Section 6.06 below. However, a department or equivalent unit may elect to permit probationary faculty to participate in every part of the hiring including the final review and recommendation of individuals to receive appointments as full-time temporary faculty. Notwithstanding a department's or equivalent unit's choice to permit participation by probationary faculty, probationary faculty may decline without prejudice to participate in any way in the appointment of full-time temporary faculty.  Any variation from the requirements of Section 6.06 below shall require compliance with department procedures provided for such variation and also shall require a waiver from the Affirmative Action Officer.

6.04.C.2

"An appointment for a less than full-time temporary employee may be on a conditional basis. The conditions established at the time of appointment may relate to enrollment and budget considerations. If a class is canceled, the temporary employee shall be paid for class hours taught. Classes may be canceled any time prior to the third class meeting." (M.O.U. 12.5) Department or equivalent units may authorize an elected peer review committee for part-time appointees consisting of probationary or tenured faculty or both or the department chair or both the committee and the chair to carry out all or part of the primary level review and recommendation process for part-time faculty unit appointments. But probationary faculty may decline without prejudice to serve on a peer review committee elected to recommend the appointment of less than full-time temporary faculty employees.

6.06.B.1

"Recommendations regarding probationary appointments shall originate at the department or equivalent unit. Probationary appointment procedures shall include the following:" (M.O.U. 12.21)

"Each department or equivalent unit shall elect a peer review committee of tenured employees for the purpose of reviewing and recommending individuals for probationary appointments." (M.O.U. 12.11.a) This section shall not be read to preclude the election of probationary faculty unit employees to participate in the work of peer review committees constituted under this section. The participation of probationary faculty shall not extend to the final review and recommendation of individuals for probationary appointments. If a department or equivalent unit elects to permit the participation of probationary faculty under this section, it shall specify in its ARTP policies the extent of that participation short of final review and recommendation. Probationary faculty may decline without prejudice to participate in any search leading to the appointment of probationary faculty. 

6.06.B.2

1. . . .

2. All final reviews and recommendations shall require the participation of all elected tenured committee members. But a department or equivalent unit may permit its probationary faculty members to participate in the screening of applications, reference checks, interviews and substantive deliberations or any of these activities short of participating in the final review and recommendation of individuals for a tenure-track appointment, which activity is reserved to tenured faculty by the M.O.U. If probationary faculty are permitted to participate as provided herein, they shall share equally with tenured faculty in the rights and obligations of the participation authorized under this section by the department or equivalent unit except the right to participate in the final review and recommendation of the committee.

Note: Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to preclude a primary unit which has constituted itself as a committee of the whole for purposes of recommending applicants for probationary appointment from electing no fewer than three of its probationary or tenured faculty members or both to an application screening committee provided that such a screening committee shall include at least one tenured faculty member. The committee of the whole may require its screening committee to provide for its consideration a list of one or more applicants whose written applications accompanied by supporting documents, if any, have been evaluated with reference to objective criteria. The committee of the whole may decide whether to recommend the probationary appointment of any applicant whose written application the screening committee has referred to it for consideration. The committee of the whole may also create a ranked list of applicants the probationary appointment of whom it has decided to recommend.

To qualify to participate in the substantive deliberations of the committee of the whole about making a particular probationary appointment under this section, probationary and tenured faculty members shall:

1. Review all legally and practically available material about each applicant for a particular appointment forwarded to the committee of the whole by the screening committee. This material shall consist of all written material submitted by the applicant and others for the consideration of the screening committee. 
   
2. Attend the formally scheduled interview (including the presentations associated with it by the hiring unit in its statement of ARTP policy and procedure) of each applicant under consideration by the committee of the whole for a particular probationary appointment.
   
3. Attend each and every meeting of the committee of the whole formally scheduled to discuss the merits of any applicant for the probationary appointment to be made.

This section shall not be read to require a committee of the whole to select alternates to its members. Nor shall it be read to forbid a committee of the whole to proceed in the absence of one or more of its members, provided that no committee of the whole shall proceed under this section with fewer members than the number it has elected to its screening committee, and provided further that it shall not proceed without two-thirds of the members of its screening committee in attendance and otherwise qualified to participate in its substantive deliberations.

A primary unit which chooses to proceed by committee of the whole as provided in this section shall specify its choice in its statement of ARTP policy and procedure and shall describe with particularity how it will execute that choice including how it will verify the qualification of probationary and tenured faculty to participate in the substantive deliberations of the committee of the whole.

Members of primary units responsible for arranging the interviews and other presentations of applicants for probationary appointments and the deliberations and decisions of the committee of the whole shall make every effort to schedule such interviews, presentations, deliberations and decisions at times when every member of the unit may attend.

A screening committee operating as a delegate of a committee of the whole shall be subject to the provisions of this section.

6.08.E

The department peer review committee shall also invite every probationary and tenured faculty members, not serving on the peer review committee to attend any classroom presentation or other event scheduled in connection with the committee's interview of each applicant selected for an interview. After the peer review committee has conducted its interviews and held events scheduled in connection with them, it shall invite each probationary and tenured member of the department not serving on the committee, including those members on FERP or on leave, to submit to the file of the applicants interviewed written, signed statements of evaluation based on the portion of the file available to him or her for review and the events in which he or she and the subject of the statement have participated.

Carried.

Institutional Scholarship Committee
Carlos Nevarez, ELPS, 2003

Campus Intergroup Relations Committee (CIRC)
David Leon, Ethnic Studies, 2004
Chevelle Newsome, Communication Studies, 2004

Carried.

RECOMMENDED APPOINTMENTS FROM THE 2001-02 COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

Academic Policies Committee
Jeffrey Dym, A&L, At-large, 2003
Leslie Cooley, EDUC, At-large, 2005
Jude Antonyappan, H&HS, At-large, 2004
Mary Ann Reihman, NS&M, At-large, 2005
Lisa Taylor, NS&M, At-large, 2005

Committee on Diversity and Equity
Don Taylor, A&L, At-large, 2005
Ed Lee, EDUC, Senator, 2003
Rhonda Rios Kravitz, LIB, At-large, 2005
David Leon, SS&IS, At-large, 2005

Curriculum Policies Committee
Kent Meyer, CBA, At-large, 2005
Cirenio Rodriguez, EDUC, At-large, 2005
Andy Banta, E&CS, At-large, 2005
Dudley Burton, SS&IS, At-large, 2004

Elections Committee
Art Jensen, CBA, At-large, 2003
Rita Johnson, EDUC, At-large, 2003
Serge Lee, H&HS, At-large, 2003
Alicia Patrice, LIB, At-large, 2003
Hong Wang, LIB, At-large, 2003
Smile Dube, SS&IS, At-large, 2003

Faculty Endowment Committee
Joe Zhou, LIB, At-large, 2005
Craig Gallet, SS&IS, At-large, 2003
Charles Varano, SS&IS, At-large, 2005

Faculty Policies Committee
Stephen Crow, CBA, At-large, 2005
Walter Kawamoto, SS&IS, At-large, 2004

General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Committee
Dick Kornweibel, A&L, At-large, 2005
John Corless, CBA, At-large, 2005
Anne-Louise Radimsky, E&CS, At-large, 2005 

Livingston Lecture Committee
Tom Owens, EDUC, At-large, 2005
Scott Farrand, NS&M, At-large, 2005

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following program change proposal:

NEW PROGRAM
MA Education 
New Option - Higher Education Leadership Option
The purpose of the Master of Arts Degree Education: Higher Education Leadership Option is to serve as preparation for mid-level to senior leadership positions in postsecondary institutions, including community colleges, governmental agencies and other organizations concerned with postsecondary education. The Higher Education Leadership Program curriculum is structured to provide academic preparation and professional development to graduate students as well as specialized expertise in three general areas: Leadership in Student Affairs; Community College Leadership, and Policy Studies in Higher Education.

DELETION OF PROGRAM
BA German
Deletion of program due to declining enrollment in major.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following:

WHEREAS,	proposals have surfaced to allow substitution of learning outcome assessment for departmental program reviews; and
WHEREAS,	some other CSU campuses have authorized such substitution; and
WHEREAS,	both learning outcome assessment and departmental program reviews offer potential benefits, but not necessarily the same ones; and
WHEREAS,	program reviews cover topics not generally addressed in learning outcome assessment such as the quality of communication among faculty, the quality of communication between faculty and students, the adequacy of governance procedures, the adequacy of resources, and the fit between departmental goals and the University's strategic plan; and
WHEREAS,	the Faculty Senate recently has taken some actions to reduce the administrative burden of program reviews, such as recommending that external accreditation reviews be permitted to substitute for local program reviews; and
WHEREAS,	a clear statement of the value of program reviews may be important at this time; therefore be it:
RESOLVED,	that the Faculty Senate reemphasizes the importance of departmental program reviews and recommends against allowing learning outcome assessment to substitute for the program review process.

Carried unanimously.

 

The Faculty Senate divides FS 02-23, Parking Principles, as follows:

1. To adopt the statement of principles

2. To recommend postponement of any increase in parking fees

3. To recommend appointments to the task force of representatives from all affected bargaining units

4. To direct the Senate chair to publish the adopted statement of principles and understandings

5. To direct the Senate chair to schedule a report at a subsequent meeting by the faculty members of the Task Force and to invite the leadership of the University Staff Assembly, ASI and campus chapters of bargaining units to attend

Carried.

Original motion:

The Senate urges the committee therefore to recommend postponement for one college year (June 1 to May 31) of any increase of parking fees unless the fee charged in every case will undergo the same increase.

A substitute motion was introduced as follows:

The Faculty Senate urges the administration to create a funding mechanism whereby faculty and staff who wish to pay an additional sum to equal the student increase, can do so.  Said monies then would be used towards funding of an additional parking structure.

Carried.

The Faculty Senate directs the Senate chair to invite the leadership of the Staff Assembly, the campus chapters of the bargaining agents and the ASI to attend the Faculty Senate meetings at which the report of the faculty members of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Parking will be heard and discussed.

Carried.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations and recommends adoption of the General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Committee on General Education Assessment as shown in Faculty Senate Agenda April 11, 2002 Attachment B.

Carried.

The nominees will be forwarded to the President for personal interviews and selection of one appointee to serve a four-year term.

CSUS Foundation Board
Cecil Canton, H&HS
Rhonda Rios Kravitz, LIB
Ramzi Mahmood, E&CS
Anne Stewart, H&HS

Carried unanimously.

Background:  Recommendation #1 to the Faculty Senate requests that the Faculty Senate "Provide sufficient support to the department for its pursuit of the AuD program."  FS 01-84, Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Audiology, Request to Negotiate was approved by the Senate on December 6, 2001, supporting the pursuit of the AuD program.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations (Attachment A) of the Curriculum Policies Committee on the program review of the Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology and recommends that the Bachelor of Science Degree and the Master's Degree in Speech Pathology and Audiology be approved for six years.

Carried unanimously.

Background:  During open forum at the April 4, 2002 Senate meeting, Senator Ted Lascher (Public Policy and Administration) raised the issue of the distribution of Research and Creative Activity Awards and the seemingly disproportionate number of awards given to one college and the lack of any awards given to another.  Senator Lascher recommended the creation of an ad hoc committee to review the current procedures and recommend options for ensuring that proposals are evaluated uniformly and distributed more equitably across the seven colleges.  Charlotte Xanders, Chair of the Research and Creative Activities Subcommittee, met with the Executive Committee on April 23 and concurred with the creation of such an ad hoc committee.

The Faculty Senate recommends the establishment of an ad hoc Committee on the Distribution of Research and Creative Activity Awards (Attachment B).

Carried unanimously.

Ad Hoc Committee on Distribution of Research and Creative Activity Awards

Arts and Letters
Julie Yen, English and Faculty Policies Committee liaison to the Research and Creative Activities Subcommittee

Business Administration
Stephen Crow, Accountancy and member of Faculty Policies Committee

Education
Theresa Roberts, Teacher Education

Engineering and Computer Science
Cui Zhang, Computer Science

Health and Human Services
Alan Hreljac, Kinesiology and Health Science

Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Suzanne Lindgren, Biological Sciences

Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies
Tammy Bourg, Psychology

Chair, Research and Creative Activities Subcommittee
Charlotte Xanders, Library

Carried unanimously.

General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Committee
Raul Rodriguez, Teacher Education, Senator, 2003

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following:

WHEREAS,	CSUS is committed to the development of quality educational programs, excellence in teaching, and providing service to the community, and
WHEREAS,	at CSUS, a baccalaureate education is based on several principles, including the expectation that all students will explore the body of human knowledge and become familiar with various methods for gaining, evaluating and extending that knowledge, and such an education should facilitate students' range of knowledge, values and skills in ways that will that will enrich and shape their lives, and
WHEREAS,	an explicit University Goal (Strategic Plan, 2nd edition, 1998, p.10) establishes the "educational mission. . . through continued implementation of effective and efficient practices," and,
WHEREAS,	assessment is an integral part of the teaching and learning process, evaluation and discussion of our progress toward that goal led to the adoption and implementation of a University Assessment Policy by the Faculty Senate in 1992, and
WHEREAS,	University-wide assessment of institutional educational effectiveness requires assessment at a broad, University-level, and
WHEREAS,	through a wide-ranging collaborative process, the Faculty Senate prepared six general baccalaureate learning goals for all undergraduates, and
WHEREAS,	meaningful assessment and efforts to improve the institution depend on communicating clearly defined faculty expectations for learning, therefore be it
RESOLVED	that the Faculty Senate adopts the attached "CSUS Baccalaureate Learning Goals", prepared by the Faculty Senate Working Group on University Learning Goals which includes definitions for each of the following expectations of undergraduate learning: Competence In The Disciplines  Analysis And Problem-Solving  Communication  Information Competence  Cultural Legacies  Values And Pluralism and be it further
RESOLVED	that the Faculty Senate recommends the "CSUS Baccalaureate Learning Goals" serve as a definition of the University's expectations for undergraduate learning for all undergraduate students, and be it further
RESOLVED	that the Faculty Senate recommends that these "CSUS Baccalaureate Learning Goals" be incorporated into the University's Strategic Plan, and be it further
RESOLVED	that the Faculty Senate directs the Curriculum Policies Committee to develop an assessment plan that specifies an ongoing, cyclical process that will guide the University in meeting these expectations of undergraduate learning at California State University, Sacramento.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the following:

WHEREAS:	in recent years the University has added a significant number of new professors to the faculty as a result of the many retirements that have occurred, and
WHEREAS:	projections of both faculty retirements and student enrollment growth in the coming years indicate that the number of new faculty will continue to grow, and
WHEREAS:	the RCAA Program supports the Strategic Plan's Scholarship goal to "build and support a university community whose excellence in teaching, learning, research and public service will be strengthened by scholarship", and
WHEREAS:	the CUP's 2002 objectives are to (1) increase the number of faculty and students who participate jointly in research and creative activity and (2) provide more opportunities for faculty to engage in scholarly and creative activity, and
WHEREAS:	increased support for faculty development is necessary to provide faculty with the resources to facilitate opportunities for research and scholarly activities, and
WHEREAS:	Over the years the Research and Creative Activities Awards Program has provided excellent opportunities for research and scholarly activities, and
WHEREAS:	at its peak, the Research and Creative Activities Awards Program received fifteen positions, the Senate's Faculty Policies Committee recommends that next year's funding of the Research and Creative Activities Awards Program be increased from four positions to a minimum of five positions with the goal of restoring funding to its former levels, therefore, be it
RESOLVED:	That the Faculty Senate request annual increases be made to the Research and Creative Activities Awards Program beginning with an increase in funding from four positions to a minimum five positions for the academic year 2002-2003.

Carried unanimously.

WHEREAS:	projections of increasing enrollment indicate an increasing shortage of parking spaces and the need to begin immediate planning for construction of Parking Structure III; and
WHEREAS:	all improvements in parking areas must be self-supporting through the sale of parking stickers; and
WHEREAS:	the student body has shown commendable responsibility in approving an increase in their parking fees for Fall 2002; and
WHEREAS:	a matching increase in faculty/staff parking fees has thus far been blocked by the fact that "the collective bargaining contracts do not allow such an increase without negotiation"; and
WHEREAS:	thus far the unions and the CSU administration have apparently failed to conduct such a negotiation; and
WHEREAS:	it would be utterly unconscionable to charge students a higher fee than faculty/staff when faculty/staff actually have access to better parking spaces than do students; and
WHEREAS:	it is a source of acute embarrassment to faculty/staff that the collective bargaining representatives and CSU Administration have failed to act to correct this problem, therefore be it
RESOLVED	that the CSUS Faculty Senate condemns this failure to act and be it further
RESOLVED	that the CSUS Faculty Senate most urgently demands that the leadership of the California Faculty Association and the California State Employees Association meet immediately with the appropriate officers of the CSU system for the purpose of agreeing on an amendment to the present contract and be it further
RESOLVED	that the CSUS Faculty Senate expresses its opinion that such agreement clearly needs to establish as a principle that parking fees for faculty/staff on any given campus may be raised at any time that such a raise is necessary to prevent their rate from being less than that for students and be it further
RESOLVED	that this resolution be communicated to the leadership of the CFA and the CSEA, the CSU Chancellor's Office, the leadership of ASI (CSU, Sacramento's Associated Students, Inc.), and other CSU Academic and Faculty Senates.

Carried.

Faculty Policies Committee
Ahmed Salem, E&CS, At-large, 2005

Carried unanimously.

Background:  Currently, the University ARTP document does not specifically reference activities associated with service learning, the development of public policy and assessment of programs and the results of student efforts to learn.  As described in Professor William Dillon's (Presiding Member, University ARTP Committee) April 16, 2002 memo to the Faculty Senate, the proposed changes would legitimize and allow units to include such activities in their evaluation process.  The March 25, 2002 memo from Charlotte Cook, Coordinator, Office of Community Collaboration, to the University ARTP Committee provides further background and rationale.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending Section 5.05 of the University ARTP document as shown in Faculty Senate Agenda May 2, 2002 Attachment C.  

Carried.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending Section 6.06.D of the University ARTP document as shown in Attachment D (updated May 6).

 Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends the University 1) create the position of Director of General Education, which, in keeping with the importance of the GE program, shall be a 12-month, full-time MPP position reporting through the office of Academic Affairs and 2) adopt the position description for the Director of GE, which was developed by the GE Impact Study Workgroup (Faculty Senate Agenda May 2, 2002 Attachment E).

Carried.

The  Faculty Senate recommends referring the matter of exceptions to limiting students who are on academic probation for two consecutive terms to a maximum course load of 14 units back to the Academic Policies Committee to draft the appropriate language.

Carried.