CSUS FACULTY SENATE ACTIONS FOR 2003-2004

Note:  Minutes and procedural actions not included.

*Requires Presidential approval.

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

• Teaching Education Reading Certificate
• Teacher Education Single Subject Credential Program
• Bilingual/Multicultural Education Department Multiple Subject English Language Authorization-Enhanced Credential Program
• Bilingual/Multicultural Education Single Subject Pathways
• Educational Specialists (Mild/Moderate and Moderate/Severe) Credential Programs
• Reading/Language Arts Specialist Credential
• MA in Education: Language and Literacy
• Combined Educational Specialist/Multiple Subject Credential Program
• Child Development Major B
• Masters in Public Policy and Administration
• Minor in Computer Science
• Liberal Studies Program
• Bachelor of Music – Jazz Studies Concentration

Carried unanimously.

Administrative Performance Review Geetha Ramachandran, At-large, 2005 Stan Dundon, At-large, 2006 Alcohol Advisory Council Karen Hanks, At-large, 2004 Maureen Smith, At-large, 2004 Athletic Advisory Board Steve Perez, At-large, 2004 Scott Modell, At-large, 2004 Campus Cooperative Education Advisory Committee Dan Okada, At-large, 2004 Campus Safety Advisory Committee Tim Capron, At-large, 2005 Committee for Diversity Awards Mike Menchaca, At-large, 2005 Energy Management Committee Dudley Burton, At-large, 2005 Grade Appeals Procedural Appeals Board Susan Crawford, At-large, 2006 Committee on Honorary Degrees David Lang, At-large, 2005 Institutional Scholarship Committee, I Mark Siegler, At-large, 2005 Institutional Scholarship Committee, II Rodney Imamura, At-large, 2005

Instructionally Related Activities Committee Anne-Louise Radimsky, At-large, 2004 Deborah Metzger, At-large, 2004 Multicultural Center Advisory Committee Stanley Han, At-large, 2005 Mridula Udayagiri, At-large, 2005 Committee for Persons with Disabilities Preetham Kumar, E&CS, 2005 Ruth Ballard, NS&M, 2005 Student Academic Development Committee Mary Ann Reihman, At-large, 2005 Rossitza Wooster, At-large, 2005 Student Complaint Hearing Panel Bruce Bikle, At-large, 2006 Susan Wycoff, At-large, 2006 University Copyright and Patent Committee Mark Ludwig, At-large, 2006 Council for University Planning Joe Zhou, Non-instructional faculty, 2004 Bob Buckley, Executive Committee, 2004 Steve Perez, At-large, 2005 University Union Board of Directors* Fred Baldini, At-large faculty, 2005 Geetha Ramachandran, At-large faculty, 2005 *  names forwarded to President Gonzalez for selection

Carried unanimously.

Pedagogy Enhancement Awards Subcommittee
Jana Noel, At-large, 2006
Bruce Bikle, H&HS, 2005
Ellen Berg, SS&IS, 2006

Carried unanimously.

Curriculum Policies Committee David Lang, At-large, 2006 Manuel Barajas, At-large, 2005

Research and Creative Activities Subcommittee Mridula Udayagiri, At-large, 2005

Carried unanimously.

Anthony J. Leones Scholarship Committee Juanita Barrena, At-large, 2006 Chevelle Newsome, At-large, 2006 ASI Board Sue Holl, Faculty Representative, 2004 ASI Appellate Council William Dillon, 2004

ASI Elections Complaint Committee Ernest Uwazie, 2004 Search Committee for Vice President, Academic Affairs Rita Cameron-Wedding, Women's Studies Cristy Jensen, Public Policy and Administration Tom Krabacher, Geography Val Smith, Communication Studies

Carried unanimously.

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

Master's of Physical Therapy

In light of a national effort to standardize the entrance requirements for students applying to physical therapy programs across the country launched by the American Physical Therapy Association, Section on Education, Academic Administrators, the Department of Physical Therapy is requesting approval of the changes in the prerequisite requirements for entry into the Master's curriculum to coincide with the next catalog year.

Delete the following pre-requisites:	Bio 122 - Advanced Human Anatomy (4 units) Bio 123 - Neuroanatomy (3 units) Bio 132 - Neurophysiology (3 units) Kins 176 - Perceptual Motor Development (3 units) Kins 176A - Lifespan Motor Development (3 units) Chdv 30 - Human Development (3 units)
Add:	Kins 151A - Biomechanics (3 units) as an alternative to Kins 151 - Kinesiology (3 units)

Carried unanimously.

WHEREAS:	Proposition 54 would inhibit the ability of agencies such as the California Post-Secondary Education Commission (CPEC) to carry out their work, thereby reducing the ability of the CSU to make informed decisions or reach reasoned judgments about matters of policy. Lacking data collected by the state, CPEC would have no factual basis on which to determine success of publicly-funded colleges and universities in providing access to all ethnic/racial groups, or to ascertain whether some lack equal opportunity in the high schools to complete the admissions requirements; and
WHEREAS:	By prohibiting the State from collecting data on ethnicity, Proposition 54 would restrict the ability of faculty and students to analyze such data to the benefit of the State and its citizens. It would deprive faculty and students of data compiled by the State that is used for scholarly research, for analysis of trends in California society, economy, and politics, and for policy planning. The CSUS Faculty Senate shares the concerns of the Academic Senate of the University of California about the potentially deleterious effects of Proposition 54 on this primary function of the academy (its statement is online at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/crecnoresp.pdf); and
WHEREAS:	Proposition 54 would significantly inhibit the ability of the CSU to realize its goals of making higher education available to historically under-represented students, many of them from ethnically or culturally diverse backgrounds, and the goal of expanding the cultural and gender diversity of its faculty. By prohibiting all agencies of the State of California from collecting or maintaining data on race or ethnicity of employees and other individuals (e.g., students and staff), Proposition 54 would prevent the CSU from measuring the extent to which it is succeeding in providing access to all ethnic and racial groups and in diversifying its faculty and staff positions. If the state of California were unable to collect data on the race and ethnicity of high-school graduates, there would be no basis on which to identify which racial or ethnic groups are underrepresented; and
WHEREAS:	Proposition 54 would similarly obstruct the CSU's efforts to gauge the success of efforts to recruit and retain a diverse faculty. The ways that the University addresses its goals of opportunity and diversity will change as the racial and ethnic composition of California changes--a group that is underrepresented today may not be in ten or twenty years. But it is, and will be, possible to know who is underrepresented only if data are available. Proposition 54, if passed, would deprive CSU of these data. Proposition 54 would therefore weaken efforts to expand educational opportunity for prospective students from under-represented groups and to increase diversity of the faculty and staff; and
WHEREAS:	These effects make Proposition 54 antithetical to the policy document entitled “The Mission of the California State University,” adopted by the Board of Trustees in November 1985; and
WHEREAS:	The CSUS Faculty Senate shares the concerns of California Post-Secondary Education Commission (CPEC), which strongly opposes this initiative, and those of the many non-partisan organizations that oppose it, including the League of Women Voters.
RESOLVED:	That the Faculty Senate considers Proposition 54 to be ill-considered, poorly constructed, and lacking a clear practical problem that its passage would solve; and further be it
RESOLVED:	That the Faculty Senate declare its strong opposition to Proposition 54, the Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color, or National Origin, Initiative Constitutional Amendment; and further be it
RESOLVED:	That the Faculty Senate communicate immediately to the California State University Academic Senate, Chancellor Charles B. Reed, the Board of Trustees of the California State University, and the press that it opposes this initiative.

REFERENCES:

SFSU Resolution in “Resolution In Opposition To Proposition 54”. “Prop. 54 prompts debate on racial data”, Stephen Magagnini, Sacramento Bee, August 31, 2003.

Carried unanimously.

Athletics Task Force
Phil Hitchcock, Art Department
Steve Perez, Economics Department
Dave Raske, Special Education, Rehabilitation, and School Psychology
Gloria Solomon, Kinesiology and Health Science Department

Student Fee Advisory Committee
Robert Metcalf, NS&M
Jessica Howell, SS&IS

Carried unanimously.

Academic Policies Committee
Sylnovie Merchant, At-large, 2006

General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Committee
David Zeanah, At-large, 2004

Faculty Policies Committee
Stan Oden, At-large, 2006

Pedagogy Enhancement Awards Subcommittee
Maria Kochis, Library, 2006

Carried unanimously.

Alumni Board
Art Jensen, Faculty Alumnus, 2004

Search Committee, Director of Alumni Relations
Art Jensen, Faculty Representative

Committee for Persons with Disabilities
Patti Nogales, A&L, 2005

Search Committee, Dean, College of Education
Jackie Donath, At-large

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program change proposals outlined in Attachment A.

Carried unanimously.

Background:    In Spring 2003, the Faculty Senate adopted the establishment of the Community Service Awards (FS 03-13).  The Awards program established two tiers for awards - the Outstanding Community Service Award, and the Lifetime Achievement Award for Community Service.  The Lifetime Achievement Award winner is selected by a committee comprised of faculty (elected from each college and one person elected to represent librarians, student affairs professionals and coaches), students, community members, a designee from the President's Office, a liaison from the Faculty Policies Committee, and the Director of the Office of Community Collaboration.  FS 03-13 did not specify who was eligible to be elected to the Lifetime Achievement Award Selection Committee.  This motion:  specifies who is eligible to be elected to the Lifetime Achievement Award Selection Committee; changes the term; includes staff in the composition; and includes staff in the nomination process.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the Community Service Awards as follows:

[strikethrough = deletion; underscore = addition]

. . .

OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD (OCSA)

ELIGIBILITY

All faculty (temporary, probationary and tenured instructional faculty, non-instructional faculty - librarians, student service professionals-academically related, and coaches) are eligible for nominations. Included also are faculty on the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP).  This includes faculty in each of the seven Colleges as well as those classified as non-instructional faculty: the librarians, student services professionals (academically related), and coaches. 

NOMINATIONS

Nominations may be made by faculty, self, staff, administrators, students, or external community members. The process for soliciting nominations on-campus shall be the responsibility of colleges and other nominating units. The Faculty Senate shall assume responsibility for publicizing the awards to off-campus constituencies, and may request assistance from normal campus channels.

. . .

LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE

NOMINATIONS (same as OCSA)

Nominations may be made by faculty, self, staff, administrators, students, or external community members. The process for soliciting nominations on-campus shall be the responsibility of colleges and other nominating units. The Faculty Senate shall assume responsibility for publicizing the awards to off-campus constituencies. The Faculty Senate shall request assistance from the Office of Community Collaboration for publicizing the awards to the Sacramento community.

ELIGIBILITY

All faculty who have engaged in 10 years or more of professional service to the community are eligible for nominations. This includes All faculty (temporary, probationary and tenured instructional faculty, non-instructional faculty librarians, student service professionals-academically related, and coaches) are eligible.  Included also are faculty on the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP). in each of the seven Colleges as well as those classified as non-instructional faculty: the librarians, student services professionals (academically related), and coaches.

 

. . .

COMPOSITION OF SELECTION COMMITTEE

Faculty – 1 full-time faculty each year from each college, plus one representative from the Library, student affairs professionals and coaches, also elected annually to serve a three-year staggered term

Students – 2, appointed by ASI

Staff – 1 appointed by USA

External community members – 2 selected by President’s office

President’s Office designee

Faculty Policies Committee liaison

Director of the Office of Community Collaboration, ex officio. Votes only if there is a tie.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate requests approval to negotiate a Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies between CSUS, Sonoma State University and the University of California, Davis (Attachment B).

Carried unanimously.

Background:  The United States, unlike other advanced industrial nations, does not provide the opportunity for many of its college-bound children to begin learning a second language in elementary school (when learning is most natural and effective.) For reasons that include the cultural diversity of California and its desire to continue to participate in a global economy (not to mention the personal benefits enumerated in the goal statement that follows), all Californians should have the opportunity to at least experiment with a second language.

From the General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Committee's perspective, the most significant "argument" for developing learning goals and a rationale for the foreign language proficiency graduation requirement is that all components of the "core" of the University's requirements (GE and supplementary graduation requirements) should involve all segments of the university community in their implementation, evaluation and assessment. Like General Education, the courses making up the graduation requirements are parts of a university curriculum and not the responsibility of any single department.

The Committee found no substantive or philosophical difference between the development, adoption and implementation of the University Baccalaureate Learning Goals and the General Education Area Learning Goals and this effort to develop a rationale and learning goals for the foreign language graduation requirement.

The Faculty Senate recommends the adoption of the following goals of the courses fulfilling the CSUS Foreign Language Graduation Requirement. To provide students with:

The ability to enter into a language community other than their own.

Rationale: The study of a foreign language enables students to enter into the world of a distinct linguistic and cultural community, and thereby to transcend the limits of their own culture. Language is the bond that holds together a people and its culture, and is the key that provides entrance, interpersonal contact and communication to newcomers.

Awareness of another culture.

Rationale: One of the CSUS Baccalaureate Learning Goals is, "understanding the development of world civilizations and the values of different cultural traditions." The study of culture in conjunction with the study of a language enables the student to develop sensitivity to the values, attitudes and behaviors expected of members of a distinct language community, in order to interact with members of that community with mutual dignity, respect and acceptance.

The development of skills to increase communication with foreign language speakers in one's anticipated career field.

Rationale: Another Learning Goal is the "ability to work collaboratively with those who come from diverse cultural backgrounds." Many students will, in the course of their professional activities, encounter speakers of other languages, some of whom may not be fluent in English. This ability to work with members of other language communities may provide a strong motivation for students by providing a tangible benefit they can understand.

The ability to communicate with people from other cultures using appropriate social skills and mannerisms.

Rationale: Another Learning Goal is "understanding of, and respect for, those who are different from oneself." In addition to the words of a foreign language, students will learn the attitudes, gestures and underlying beliefs of the culture behind the language, thus enabling them to interact with dignity and respect.

A preparation for lifelong learning about other cultures and the acquisition of increased fluency if desired.

Rationale: A principle stated in the CSU Baccalaureate Learning Goals is "Baccalaureate students should possess a range of knowledge, values, and skills that will enrich and shape their lives long after their formal education has ended." Many students who, at the present time, do not see the need for developing knowledge and understanding of another culture or language may later discover the need for deeper study.

An opportunity to interact in a foreign language within the classroom setting.

Rationale: Fluency in a foreign language is best obtained in the country where it is spoken. Ideally, we might want to send each student to spend some time in a foreign country. Since this is not a realistic goal, providing a "mini-immersion" in the context of the classroom is a possible substitute.

These goals and rationales are intended to function as:

1. The basis for evaluating the intentions and implementation of the foreign language proficiency graduation requirement and
    
2. The principles underlying the development of an assessment plan for the foreign language proficiency requirement and
    
3. The criteria for the development of new course proposals and cyclical review of the courses offered to meet the foreign language proficiency requirement and
    
4. The public, informational statement for students, faculty and staff

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends referring the matter of Policies and Procedures Regarding Academic Honesty back to the Academic Policies Committee to draft appropriate language providing for an informal process, involving discussion with the department chair the nature of the allegations and the efficacy of proceeding with charges.

Carried.  (Hand count:  ayes - 23; nays - 18)

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the calendar for Summer 2004 as outlined in Attachment A.

Carried unanimously.

Enrollment Management Committee
Tom Krabacher, Faculty Representative, 2005

Carried unanimously.

Committee on Diversity and Equity
Jana Noel, At-large, 2004

Carried unanimously.

Associated Students Children's Center Parent Advisory Council
Kimberly Gordon Rouse, Faculty Representative, 2004

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program change proposals outlined in Attachment B.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the policies and procedures regarding academic honesty as follows:

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING

ACADEMIC HONESTY

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

The principles of truth and honesty are recognized as fundamental to a community of scholars and teachers. California State University, Sacramento (CSUS) expects that both faculty and students will honor these principles, and in so doing, will protect the integrity of academic work and student grades. CSUS is a publicly-assisted institution legislatively empowered to certify competence and accomplishment in general and discrete categories of knowledge. The President and faculty of CSUS are therefore obligated not only to the world at large but also to California to guarantee that substantive knowledge is actually acquired and the ability to acquire it is actually demonstrated by those to whom they assign grades and whom they recommend for degrees. Academic dishonesty defrauds all those who depend upon the integrity of the University, its courses and its degrees. This fraud is accomplished to the extent that faculty, students or campus employees knowingly or unwittingly allow academic dishonesty to work its deception.

II. RESPONSIBILITIES OF STUDENTS AND FACULTY

In order to prevent the integrity of learning from being compromised by acts of academic dishonesty, CSUS has assigned the following responsibilities to students and faculty.

A.    Student Responsibilities

Students are responsible for:

1. Understanding the rules that preserve academic honesty and abiding by them at all times. This includes learning and following the particular rules associated with specific classes, exams, and course assignments. Ignorance of these rules is not a defense to a charge of academic dishonesty.
    
2. Understanding what cheating and plagiarism are and taking steps to avoid them. Students are expected to do this whether working individually or as part of a group.
    
3. Not taking credit for academic work that is not their own.
    
4. Not knowingly encouraging or making possible cheating or plagiarism by others.

B.    Faculty Responsibilities

Faculty are responsible for:

1. Informing students of course expectations and grading requirements in the syllabus.
    
2. Grading and evaluating academic work in a fair, consistent, and unprejudiced manner. This means following the grading guidelines set forth in both university policy and the course syllabus.
    
3. Ensuring that students are aware of relevant academic dishonesty policies.
    
4. To the best of their ability, designing and conducting class examinations and assignments in a way that will minimize the possibilities of academic dishonesty.
    
5. Reporting and otherwise dealing with cases of academic dishonesty in an appropriate manner.
    
6. Assuming that students are acting honestly and in good faith unless the contrary is demonstrated.

III. DEFINITIONS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

A.    CHEATING. At CSUS, cheating is the act of obtaining or attempting to obtain credit for academic work through the use of any dishonest, deceptive, or fraudulent means. Cheating at CSUS includes but is not limited to:

1. Copying, in part or in whole, from another’s test or other evaluation instrument;
    

2. Using crib notes, "cheat sheets," or any other device, including electronic devices, in aid of writing the exam not permitted by the instructor;
    

3. Submitting work previously graded in another course unless doing so has been approved by the course instructor or by department policy.
    

4. Submitting work simultaneously presented in more than one course, unless doing so has been approved by the respective course instructors or by the department policies of the respective departments.
    

5. Altering or interfering with grading or grading instructions;
    

6. Sitting for an examination by a surrogate, or as a surrogate;
    

7. Any other act committed by a student in the course of his or her academic work that defrauds or misrepresents, including aiding or abetting in any of the actions defined above.

B.    PLAGIARISM: Plagiarism is a form of cheating. At CSUS plagiarism is the use of distinctive ideas or works belonging to another person without providing adequate acknowledgement of that person’s contribution. Regardless of the means of appropriation, incorporation of another’s work into one’s own requires adequate identification and acknowledgement. Plagiarism is doubly unethical because it deprives the author of rightful credit and gives credit to someone who has not earned it. Acknowledgement is not necessary when the material used is common knowledge. Plagiarism at CSUS includes but is not limited to:

1. The act of incorporating into one’s own work the ideas, words, sentences, paragraphs, or parts thereof, or the specific substance of another’s work without giving appropriate credit thereby representing the product as entirely one's own. Examples include not only word-for-word copying, but also the "mosaic" (i.e., interspersing a few of one’s own words while, in essence, copying another’s work), the paraphrase (i.e., rewriting another’s work while still using the other’s fundamental idea or theory); fabrication (i.e, inventing or counterfeiting sources), ghost-writing (i.e., submitting another’s work as one’s own) and failure to include quotation marks on material that is otherwise acknowledged; and
    

2. Representing as one’s own another’s artistic or scholarly works such as musical compositions, computer programs, photographs, paintings, drawing, sculptures, or similar works.

IV.    INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION AND REPORTING OF CHEATING CHARGES

When a faculty member responsible for a course has reason to believe, and has evidence to substantiate that the behavior of a student or students amounts to cheating as defined above, the faculty member shall take the following steps:

1. Arrange a meeting with the student and at that time advise the student of the allegations and make him or her aware of the supporting evidence and the probable consequences. Any classroom confrontation should be as discreet as possible. If, as a result of this meeting, the instructor believes that the student's response is insufficient to offset the charge of academic dishonesty to the extent that he or she may be excused, the instructor will inform the student of the sanctions to be assigned or recommended in accordance with Section V below. All notes and discussions between the student and the faculty member will be kept confidential except as may be relevant in subsequent disciplinary proceedings or any subsequent legal actions. Faculty members should not discuss specific charges of cheating, plagiarism, or any other violations of university policy involving specific individuals in the classroom before other members of the class. Faculty may find it necessary to discuss cases of academic dishonesty among themselves, with their department chair or designee, as well as with appropriate staff or administrators or both, but they must also recognize that a student’s reputation is at stake and be discreet.
    
2. Report the infraction and the action taken to the Judicial Affairs Officer in the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs using the Academic Dishonesty Report Form.
    

3. The instructor may impose the recommended penalty and make the report called for in Section 2 above without a meeting when a student fails to attend a scheduled meeting to discuss the alleged dishonesty, or when the apparent dishonesty is detected only near the end of the semester and the instructor makes a good-faith effort to contact the student but is unable to do so. In either case, the student’s right to appeal is preserved.

V. SANCTIONS

The instructor of record in a course where academic dishonesty is alleged to have occurred and the Office of Student Affairs shall have exclusive jurisdiction of the trial of charges of academic dishonesty that may give rise to academic and administrative sanctions under this policy.

Academic and administrative sanctions may be imposed as a consequence of cheating. Academic sanctions are defined as actions related to coursework and grades taken to punish cheating and are the province of the instructor. Administrative sanctions may alter a student’s status on campus and are assigned by the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs. The imposition of one type of sanction shall not preclude the additional imposition of the other.

A.    ACADEMIC SANCTIONS.

1. Faculty Responsibilities. The instructor in a course is responsible for determining the kind of academic sanction to be applied to students involved in incidents of cheating or plagiarism. Such sanctions shall be proportional to the offense against academic honesty that has occurred. Usually a form of "grade modification" will be employed. Before sanctions may be assigned, the instructor must have support for the charge of academic dishonesty in the form of personal observation, or documentation, or the testimony of a reliable witness, or any combination of them. A student may receive:

1. An oral reprimand. A student may also be referred for counseling but cannot be required to seek counseling.
    

2. Reduction in an assigned grade.
    

3. A referral for administrative sanctions. An instructor may choose to refer a student to the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs for disciplinary action in lieu of any academic sanction or in addition to the academic sanction the faculty member has imposed.

2. Faculty Discretion to assign Academic Sanctions. An instructor may assign a failing grade or a grade less than a failing grade to any assignment on which cheating has occurred or to performance in the course as a whole as an academic sanction for cheating so long as the assigned sanction is not grossly disproportionate to the offense and therefore arbitrary. Instructors are advised to adjust the relative severity of the sanction to their estimation of the relative gravity of the offense in the particular case before them. In cases of grave offense such as those offenses specified in Sections III.A.5 & 6 above, for example, or in cases of extensive or repeated plagiarism the instructor is advised to add an express recommendation to his or her routine report of cheating that the Office of Student Affairs also apply administrative sanctions. An instructor may of course recommend administrative sanctions in any case in which the recommendation seems warranted.
    
3. Faculty Discretion in Cases That Fall Short of Cheating. Cases involving the careless or inept handling of quoted material but which fall short of the definitions of the acts of cheating as defined in Sections III.A and III.B of this policy may be dealt with at the discretion of the faculty member concerned. Section III.A (7) is also sufficiently undefined to require an instructor’s interpretation.
    
4. Grade Reporting. In cases where an academic sanction for cheating has been referred to Student Affairs for review (see below), the academic calendar may require the instructor to submit a course grade before the review is complete. In such cases, the instructor shall, by contacting the Registrar’s Office, submit an RD grade for the student until the review has been concluded and the effect of the sanction, if any, on the student’s course grade can be determined.

B.    ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS.

1. As stipulated in the California Code of Regulations, Section 41301, cheating or plagiarism in connection with an academic program at a campus may warrant expulsion, suspension, probation or a lesser sanction. Administrative action involving academic dishonesty at CSUS is the responsibility of the Judicial Affairs Officer in the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs. Any administrative action taken by the Judicial Affairs Officer must be in accordance with the procedures set forth in Executive Order No. 628, Student Disciplinary Procedures for the California State University.
    
2. The Judicial Affairs Officer shall respond to:

1. Referrals from the faculty;

2. Flagrant violations of academic standards; and

3. Repeat violations as brought to his or her attention by the faculty or through the centralized reports filed in the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs.

3. The Judicial Affairs Officer shall notify the appropriate faculty both when administrative action is contemplated and after it has been taken. The Judicial Affairs Officer shall maintain in the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs, a record of students who have been reported for academic dishonesty. The information in this record will be used to identify and discipline students who have been reported for academic dishonesty on more than one occasion.

VI. STUDENT RIGHTS

Nothing in this policy is intended to deny students who come within its scope appropriate due process, including the right to be informed of the charges, the nature of the evidence supporting the charges, and the right to have a meeting with the faculty member, the Judicial Affairs Officer, or other decision-maker, at which time statements and evidence on behalf of the student may be submitted. The student also has the right to a determination of the facts of the case based on a preponderance of the evidence presented. Nor is anything in this policy intended to deny the right to appeal, through appropriate University channels, any decision resulting from such a meeting. In the case where an appeal is made alleging that the grade-sanction was not proportional to the offense and therefore arbitrary, the appeal is governed by the grade appeal process.

A.    Due Process Review

A student charged with cheating may request that Student Affairs conduct an informal review to determine if due process was denied by the instructor when deciding that cheating occurred. This request shall be made no later than the end of the semester following the semester in which the challenged finding was made. If it is determined that due process has not been denied, the instructor’s decision shall be final.

If Student Affairs finds on review that due process was denied because:

1. the instructor’s decision that cheating occurred was not based on a preponderance of the evidence before the instructor, or
    

2. the instructor failed to provide the student with informal notice of the charges and a hearing,

Student Affairs shall return the matter to the instructor and direct that the question whether cheating occurred be reconsidered by him or her in light of the preponderance of the evidence after informal notice and a hearing have been given to the student.

B.    Right to a Hearing in the Case of Administrative Sanctions

When an administrative sanction is being considered, Executive Order 628, Student Disciplinary Procedures for the California State University, stipulates that a student shall be entitled to a hearing to determine whether violations of conduct and conduct-related regulations have occurred.

C.    Findings

Findings by the Instructor: The instructor’s determination that cheating has occurred shall be final when made after informal notice and hearing and supported by a preponderance of the evidence before him or her. This decision shall govern the question of whether cheating has occurred when that question arises in any subsequent matter before any board, tribunal or committee of the university or one of its units except as noted in the following paragraphs.

An exception to this rule shall apply when the Office of Student Affairs decides whether to apply university sanctions in a case of cheating. In such cases, Student Affairs shall be governed by Executive Order 628 and campus policy consistent with it.

Findings by the Hearing Officer: The finding by a hearing officer, after a formal hearing, that cheating or plagiarism did or did not occur in a particular case shall be final and binding on the parties to that case. It shall also be binding on any other campus tribunal, board, or committee when deciding a claim that depends, in whole or in part, on whether cheating occurred.

D.    Revision of Instructor’s Findings in Rare Cases

Conceivably in the course of one of its investigations the Office of Student Affairs may discover evidence that would exonerate a student charged with academic dishonesty or mitigate the severity of an academic sanction imposed for the offense. In that case the Office of Student Affairs shall invite the instructor assigning an academic sanction to reconsider in light of this evidence his or her conclusion that the student cheated or that the academic sanction is proportional to the offense. The instructor shall reconsider his or her conclusion or sanction in light of the additional evidence before him or her and decide whether to: (a) reach a different conclusion as to the existence of academic dishonesty; (b) impose a less severe academic sanction; or (c) maintain the conclusion reached or the sanction imposed previously.

VII. THREATS

Any threats against a member of the faculty, staff and/or students as a consequence of implementing this policy on Academic Dishonesty shall be cause for disciplinary action under Section 41301, Title 5, California Code of Regulations, in addition to liability under civil and criminal law.

VIII. DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION

This policy shall be published in the Schedule of Classes for each semester, in the University Catalog and on the university’s web site. Copies of this policy shall also be available for consultation in every department office and for distribution in the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs.

Publication of this policy and its distribution shall be the responsibility of the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs.

The Vice President for Student Affairs shall submit to the Faculty Senate annually a statistical report of the number and type of cases of academic dishonesty reported to it or discovered by it and their eventual disposition.

IX. SUPERCESSION

This policy shall supercede the following University policies: (1) Academic Dishonesty Procedures, Policy File Number: UMA 00150.htm. and (2) Plagiarism, Ref: PM 90-04, Policy File Number: UMP 14150. Department policies must be consistent with this policy.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the Grade Appeal procedures as follows:

(underscore = addition)

III. Appeal of grades assigned for cheating or plagiarism

Grade appeal panels shall be limited to deciding claims that grades assigned for cheating or plagiarism are grossly disproportionate to the offense and therefore arbitrary.

1. Grade appeal panels shall not try or retry charges of cheating or plagiarism when hearing grade appeals. Instead they shall be bound by the disposition of those charges made by instructors or the Office of Student Affairs under the CSUS Policies and Procedures Regarding Academic Honesty.
    
2. In any grade appeal that seeks to overturn a grade assigned for cheating or plagiarism because it is disproportionate to the offense and therefore arbitrary, the assigned grade shall be upheld unless it can be shown to be grossly disproportionate to the offense. Gross disproportionality shall be shown by reference to Sections V.A.2 and 3 of the CSUS Policies and Procedures Regarding Academic Honesty and a demonstration by the student that the discretion authorized there has been abused. Strict or close proportionality shall not be required of instructors when assigning academic sanctions for cheating or plagiarism.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate endorses the Academic Program Theme in the Strategic Plan as amended and recommends that it be forwarded to the Council on University Planning (October 16, 2003 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment C).

Carried unanimously.

Background:  On February 27, 2003, the Faculty Senate approved passage of FS 03-04, amending the University ARTP document.  As a result of President Donald Gerth's disapproval of FS 03-04, the Senate's Executive Committee asked the University ARTP Committee to respond to President Gerth's concerns and draft more appropriate language, which follows:

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the University ARTP document by adding a new Section 2.00 and renumbering as 2.01 the current section:

Section 2.00    Application

Unless otherwise expressly excepted, faculty unit employees and administrators shall be governed by the University ARTP Policy and the primary and secondary unit policies document consistent with it that governs the level of evaluation at which they are acting.

See October 16, 2003 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment D for background information (President Gerth's disapproval memo; the September 16, 2003 memo from William A. Dillon, Presiding Member of the University ARTP Committee, responding to President Gerth's concerns; and the November 11, 2002 memo from William A. Dillon, Presiding Member of the University ARTP Committee, explaining the original language).  (You must have version 5.0 to successfully access this file.  Go to: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/alternate.html to download the latest version.)

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends revising the guidelines for Academic Program Reviews as described in Attachment D and Appendix D-1.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the policies and procedures of the Council on the Preparation of School Personnel as outlined in Attachment A.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the proposed 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 academic calendars (Attachment B).

Carried unanimously.

Search Committee, Vice President, Administration and Business Affairs
Mike Lee, Management Department, College of Business Administration
Suzanne Ogilby, Accountancy Department, College of Business Administration

Search Committee, Vice President, University Advancement
George Craft, History, College of Arts and Letters
Ruth Ballard, Biological Sciences, College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Roberto Pomo, College of Arts and Letters

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval to negotiate a Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies between CSUS, Sonoma State University and the University of California, Davis (Attachment A).

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program change proposals outlined in Attachment B.

Carried unanimously.

Committee for Persons with Disabilities
Jessica Howell, Economics, SS&IS, 2004

Academic Council on International Programs
Catherine Turrill, A&L, 2007

Advisory Committee for the Selection of Vice President for Student Affairs
Jean Pierre Bayard, E&CS
Chevelle Newsome, A&L

Carried unanimously.

General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Committee
Dan Melzer, A&L, 2004

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations (Attachment C) of the Curriculum Policies Committee on the program review of the Department of Mathematics and Statistics and recommends that the Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees in Mathematics be approved for six years or until the next program review. 

Carried unanimously.

Background:  In May, 2001, the Faculty Senate recommended that the Bachelor of Arts degree of the Women's Studies Program be conditionally approved for a period of three years (FS 01-42).  A timeline for action on the key Program Review recommendations was specified to monitor progress.  FS 01-42 also stated that if determination of significant progress was made at the end of the three-year period, approval would be extended for the remainder of the current six-year review period.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations (Attachment D) of the Program Review Oversight Committee on the responses to the 2000 program review of the Women's Studies Program and recommends that the Bachelor of Arts degree of the Women's Studies Program receive full program approval, with its next review scheduled for 2006. 

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations (Attachment E) of the Program Review Oversight Committee for the Liberal Arts Master's Program and recommends that the Graduate Program in Liberal Arts be approved for six years or until the next program review.

Carried unanimously.

Background:  The new M.O.U. contains language requiring that certain parts of the University ARTP document be amended to reflect the new contract language.  As described in Professor William Dillon's (Presiding Member, University ARTP Committee) February 6, 2004 memo to the Faculty Senate's Executive Committee, this amendment incorporates the changes to the M.O.U. into the University ARTP document.  Additionally, Section 29 of the M.O.U. allows departments, if they so choose, to allow faculty participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP) to participate in performance reviews for RTP purposes.  Amendments to Sections 9.01 and 9.08 of the University ARTP policy reflect this allowance, with certain conditions.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the University ARTP document as shown in Attachment F.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations (Attachment A) of the Program Review Oversight Subcommittee on the program review of the Department of Physics and Astronomy and recommends that the Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science degrees in Physics, the Bachelor of Arts in Physical Science, and the Single Subject Teaching Credential in Physics be approved for six years or until the next program review. 

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate elects college representatives to the 2004-2005 Committee on Committees as follows:

2004-2005 COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

Committee Meeting Schedule:
#1: Tuesday, March 16, 3:00-4:00 p.m., SAC 275
#2: Tuesday, March 30, 3:00-4:00 p.m., SAC 275

Committee Members:

Bob Buckley	Chair, Faculty Senate
Steve Perez	Vice Chair, Faculty Senate
Amy Liu	Member, Executive Committee (FPC Chair)
Stan Dundon	Member, Executive Committee
Ben Amata	Member, Executive Committee (CPC Chair)
Ed Lee	Member, Executive Committee
Sue Cote	Member, Executive Committee
Jackie Donath	Member, Executive Committee (GEP/GRC Chair)
Tom Krabacher	Member, Executive Committee (APC Chair)
Maria Kochis	Senior Library Senator
Vivian Llamas-Green	Senior Student Services Senator
PLUS:	One senator elected from each College
Gina Kauffman	College of Arts and Letters
Nick Ewing	College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Jan Andersen	College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies
Mike Lee	College of Business Administration
Hugo Chacon	College of Education
Ted Krovetz	College of Engineering and Computer Science
Sylvester Bowie	College of Health and Human Services

The Faculty Senate endorses the Teaching and Learning Program Theme in the Strategic Plan as amended and recommends that it be forwarded to the Council on University Planning (February 19, 2004 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment G).

Carried unanimously.

Background:  The intent in proposing these guidelines is to clarify and simplify the process and the work associated with the “assessment” required of all programs. These guidelines were developed by the Curriculum Policies Committee in collaboration with Academic Affairs in response to the concerns and suggestions made by department chairs with regard to the organization and the documentation of the process and the work. A sample assessment report will be included with the guidelines and presented at our Senate meeting.

The Faculty Senate recommends adopting the Assessment Plan Guidelines for Program Assessment as described in the February 19, 2004 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment H.

Carried unanimously.

Background:  The August 1991 Policies Pertaining to the General Education Program and Course/Proficiency Requirements for Graduation with the Baccalaureate Degree states (in Section III A1):  "No more than three units credited toward a minor and no upper division course credited toward a major may be used to meet General Education requirements.  In addition, students are allowed to use no more than six lower division units from their major field (even if the units are not credited toward major requirements) to meet General Education requirements."  The proposed change would permit students to meet General Education requirements and choose courses toward fulfillment of the requirements of a minor using the same classes.

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the following:

(underscore = addition; strikethrough = deletion)
No more than three units credited toward a minor and No upper division course credited toward a major may be used to meet General Education requirements.  In addition, students are allowed to use no more than six lower division units from their major field (even if the units are not credited toward major requirements) to meet General Education requirements.  There are no limits on overlap between the minor and General Education.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program change proposals found at Attachment A.

Carried unanimously.

Note:  At its meeting of February 19, 2004, the Faculty Senate removed FS 04-10 from the consent calendar and recommitted it back to the Curriculum Subcommittee.  The Curriculum Subcommittee responded to the concerns of the Senate in Attachment B. 

[addition = underscore; deletion = strikethrough]

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

American Sign Language

The current Certificate in ASL requires only completion of EDS 150-152 (ASL 1-3: Beginning to Intermediate). These three courses also correlate with the Foreign Language requirement at CSUS. Currently, students are basically rewarded with a certificate for simply completing their Foreign Language requirement. In addition, the current level now allows students to receive the Certificate after having completed only intermediate level coursework in ASL. It is proposed that the requirement be raised to include completion of EDS 153 (ASL 4: Advanced ASL: Instructing and Informing). In addition, students will be required to have completed at least 7 units of ASL, including EDS 153, at CSUS in order to receive a Certificate. Further, a minimum grade of "C" or better G.P.A. of 2.0 must be maintained in each of the four courses for receipt of the certificate. With this change, it is felt that the Certificate will have more value to its holders and prospective employers examining candidates’ credentials.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the foreign language graduation requirement as follows:

MEETING THE REQUIREMENT BEFORE ENROLLING AT CSUS:

In order to meet the foreign language requirement before enrolling at CSUS, students must meet the requirement in one of the following ways:

1. OLD. Completion of the fourth year of a foreign language in high school (grade of “C” or better)

NEW. Completion of the third year of a foreign language in high school (grade of “C-” or better).

Rationale:
1] Three years of high school language study is still a higher standard than the CSUS admission requirement and more stringent than the graduation requirement of 20 of our 22 CSU sister campuses.

2] Rationale for change in acceptable grade: consistency with the admission requirement of C-. This is consistent with grade minimum in other basic courses; for example Math 30 requires four years of high school mathematics… with a grade of “C-” or better.

Carried (hand vote:  Yes = 29; No = 10)

The Faculty Senate recommends recommitting the matter of FS 04-18/GEP/GRC, Ex., Foreign Language Graduation Requirement back to the General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Committee and the Executive Committee to reorganize the remaining items:  1)  the areas in which students can test out, and 2)  the number of semesters of college-level coursework required to satisfy the requirement.

Carried.

Academic Policies Committee
Lisa Roberts, At-large, 2007
Kimberly Gordon-Rouse, At-large, 2007
Tom Krabacher, At-large, 2007
Leon Wiebers, At-large, 2007

Center for Teaching and Learning Advisory Board
Scott Farrand, 2007
Nancy Lapp, 2007
Joel Dubois, 2007

Committee on Diversity and Equity
Chrystal Barranti, At-large, 2007
Jana Noel, At-large, 2007

Curriculum Policies Committee
Dudley Burton, At-large, 2007
Dan Melzner, At-large, 2007
Brett Holland, At-large, 2007

Faculty Endowment Fund Committee
Sue Heredia, At-large, 2006
Tom Landerholm, At-large, 2006

Faculty Policies Committee
Sue Cote, At-large, 2007
Wendy Cunningham, At-large, 2007
Linda Goff, Library, 2007

Elections Committee
Steve Perez, At-large, 2005
Joyce Burris, At-large, 2005
Maureen Smith, At-large, 2005
Alicia Patrice, At-large, 2005
Anne Bradley, At-large, 2005

General Education /Graduation Requirements Policies Committee
David Zeanah, At-large, 2007
Jennifer Ware, Library, 2007
Sue McKee, At-large, 2007

Livingston Annual Faculty Lecture Committee
Scott Farrand, 2006
Valerie Wheeler, 2005

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends recommitting the matter of FS 04-21, Administration of WU Grades back to the Academic Policies Committee to consult with Barbara Kelly, Evaluations, about the practicalities of implementing the proposed policy.

Carried unanimously.

Selection Committee, Associate Dean, Graduate Studies
Rob Wassmer, Public Policy and Administration
Greg Wheeler, Geology
Margaret Cleek, Organizational Behavior and Environment

Carried unanimously.

General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Committee
Paul Besaw, At-large, 2007

Carried unanimously.

Background:  At the March 25, 2004 Faculty Senate meeting, FS 04-18A was approved, dividing FS 04-18/GEP/GRC, Ex. into two parts:  1) meeting the requirement before enrolling at CSUS 2) and meeting the requirement after enrolling at CSUS.  The Senate approved FS 04-18B, which changed from the completion of the fourth year of high school foreign language to the completion of the third year of high school foreign language a student needs to take to satisfy the requirement before enrolling at CSUS.  FS 04-18B also changed the minimum grade students need to earn in order to satisfy the requirement from a "C" to a "C-".

The Senate also approved FS 04-18C, which recommitted the remainder of the original motion back to the Executive Committee so that the remaining items, the areas in which a student can test out and the number of semesters of college-level coursework required to satisfy the requirement, could be reorganized.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the Foreign Language Graduation Requirement as follows:

All students are required to meet the CSUS foreign language graduation requirement for the baccalaureate degree. Students must fulfill the requirement in a manner equivalent to successful completion of two semesters of a college level foreign language or American Sign Language (with a “C‑” or better).

The current policy requires fulfilling the requirement in a manner equivalent to successful completion of three semesters of a college level foreign language or American Sign Language (with a “C‑” or better).

Carried (hand vote:  Yes = 24; no = 16).

Background:  As a result of the adoption of the foreign language graduation requirement learning goals, the testing opportunities which students may choose to meet this graduation requirement should be enlarged to reflect the variety of ways in which students may demonstrate their language skills and their achievement of the learning goals. The learning goals focus on communication and cultural awareness, and do not emphasize literacy in a foreign language. Additionally, American Sign Language was not among the choices when the graduation requirement was originally conceived and no testing option for ASL was included in the implementation of the original policy.

The Faculty Senate recommends the following amendment:

If the CSUS foreign language graduation requirement has not been met prior to CSUS enrollment, students may satisfy the requirement by passing tests in one of the following pairs of skills: reading and writing, listening and speaking, reading and speaking, or writing and listening, or the ASL equivalents; at a level consistent with the foreign language requirement policy.

Currently, the option available to students requires passing tests in two of these four skills with one of the tests in either reading or writing.

Carried.

Background:  In March 2003, the Faculty Senate approved FS 03-08, which allowed for the recognition, for RTP purposes, of faculty who develop or apply technology in ways that advance teaching, research and performance.  The proposed change was not approved by the President.  FS 04-34 represents language proposed by the University ARTP Committee that satisfies the President's concerns.  Please see Attachment A for the explanatory memo from the University ARTP Committee Presiding Member, William Dillon for further information.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending Section 5.05F of the University ARTP document as follows:

Evidence of scholarship or creative activity in the development or application of technology or both.

Carried unanimously.

Search Committee, Assistant Vice President, Research and Sponsored Projects
Linda Roberts, NS&M
Ramzi Mahmood, E&CS

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations (Attachment A) of the Program Review Oversight Committee on the program review of the Department of Theatre and Dance and recommends that the Bachelor of Arts and the Master of Arts degrees in Theatre and Dance be approved for six years or until the next program review.

Carried unanimously.

Whereas:	Faculty Senate Chairs often tend to be ephemeral beings, flowering for a season or two before quietly drifting off-stage; and
Whereas:	In recent years, however, this pattern has been proven wrong by the contributions of a white-bearded individual who has served diligently and ably as Faculty Senate Chair for a record-setting continuous five-year period; and
Whereas:	During his tenure as Chair, this same individual introduced many operational changes to this body, not least of which has been the use of overhead transparencies in the presentation of agenda items on the Senate floor (thus introducing a 20th century technology to our 21st century Senate); and
Whereas:	This same individual has led this body into the information age, as befits a faculty member in Computer Science, by eliminating paper copies of the agenda and minutes of all meetings in an attempt to boost “hits” on the Senate web site and to encourage the computer-literacy of members of the Faculty Senate; and
Whereas:	For the past five years the synonym for “this individual” has been Bob Buckley; therefore be it:
Resolved:	That the Faculty Senate of the California State University, Sacramento acknowledges the efforts and contributions of Robert Buckley as Chair of the Faculty Senate for the 1999-2000 through 2003-2004 Academic years; and be it further:
Resolved:	That the Faculty Senate expresses its hope that Robert Buckley will continue to provide exemplary service to this university, recognizing that there IS life – albeit perhaps of a less hectic nature – after serving as Senate Chair.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends adopting the following policy on the sale of course materials:

Faculty who assign instructor developed course material (excluding material published for general use ‑ that is, national or international use), which requires students to purchase print, video, or audio material are encouraged to utilize the campus bookstore to sell such course material. Pricing must be reasonably related to costs associated with producing and distributing the assigned material.

Proper permission must be secured to use copyrighted material. If faculty use the Bookstore's Custom Academic Publishing program, the Bookstore ensures compliance with copyright laws. If faculty place the course material on consignment with the Bookstore or do not use the Bookstore to sell the course material, then faculty members assume personally the full legal responsibility for compliance with copyright laws and sole liability for noncompliance.

Money collected by selling course material on campus must be deposited in an account approved by the University's Chief Fiscal Officer. Proper cash control procedures must be in place to assure accountability in the collection and deposit of funds (see Policy on Bank Accounts and the Use of Funds).

State resources may not be used in production of materials for private gain (see Government Code Section 8314 and Penal Code Section 424).

Income from instructor developed course material, which is sold by the faculty member is considered income reportable to federal and state governments.

Carried.

The Faculty Senate recommends recommitting FS 04-27/GE/GRPC, Ex. to the Academic Policies Committee for further discussion.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends that the CSUS policy on administration of the WU grades be amended to read as follows:

Students may petition to have all WU grades dropped from GPA calculation for the first semester in which they receive a WU at any point up to the time of degree conferral.

Carried.

The Faculty Senate recommends waiving the first reading of FS 04-28/GE/GRPC, Ex., General Education Assessment, Policy and Procedures, Revision of.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the General Education Assessment Policy and Procedure as described in the April 15, 2004 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment C.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following:

1) The academic information technology, strategic planning goals described below,
2) The development of a plan for assessing these goals, and
3) The establishment of a Strategic Planning process to be implemented by the Senate’s Academic Information Technology (IT) Committee and supported by the Office for Institutional Research (OIR).

ACADEMIC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
STRATEGIC PLANNING GOALS

CATEGORY: Consultation and Collaboration on campus-wide technology initiatives

1. Inform faculty, staff and students about all the technology initiatives that are either contemplated or being implemented on campus.
    
2. Provide for broad consultation and shared decision making on academic technology decisions at both the College and University level.
    
3. Ensure that proposed academic technology initiatives are analyzed and cost – benefit information provided to those engaged in the consultative and shared decision making process.
    
4. Demonstrated consultation and collaboration between college Information Technology Consultants (ITCs), Computing, Communications & Media Services (CCMS) in supporting and enhancing the excellence and flexibility of academic programs and the customer orientation of its services.
    
5. Provide for the same formal consideration of technology initiatives proposed by individuals and/or entities other than college IT personnel and/or CCMS personnel.

CATEGORY: Teaching and Learning Technology Initiatives

1. Develop and maintain collaborative efforts among faculty, staff, students, and campus administrators in shaping technology services and resources that encourage and support excellence in teaching and learning.
    
2. Ensure that pedagogic uses of technology are considered in all technology acquisition decisions that are assumed to be beneficial to teaching and learning.
    
3. Maintain a strong institutional culture of support for teaching and learning which effectively and demonstrably integrates technology and pedagogy.
    
4. Provide a forum for ideas and dialogue among faculty and administrators about good teaching and learning practices that can be an impetus for helping empower the faculty to experiment with new technologies and teaching methods and to encourage student involvement in campus and classroom issues.
    
5. Support the creation and expansion of new forms of scholarly communication and knowledge acquisition, retrieval, and publishing, including the scholarship of teaching, digital initiatives, electronic library resources, and other online resources and information technologies for the enrichment of teaching and learning.
    
6. Support the creation and enhancement of computer based student advisement systems in the major as well as University-centered advising for undeclared students and general education advising.
    
7. Provide appropriate technology to facilitate communication between members of the campus community.
    
8. Provide technology that enhances work productivity for both staff and faculty.

 CATEGORY: Access to Technology Resources

1. Provide student access to academic technology resources that facilitates and enhances learning (e.g. wireless, on-line administrative services, faster internet connections).
    
2. Ensure that policies, guidelines and standards related to academic technology provide academic/program access for students with disabilities in accordance with all Federal and State legislation and California State University policies.
    
3. Provide training and resources to meet student needs for information competency, including training in the use of the campus's baseline software, hardware and network tools, in order to ensure student readiness for instruction using technology (NEW. Stolen from Fresno's IT Strategic Plan).
    
4. Provide anytime/anywhere student access to technology that facilitates and enhances learning.
    
5. Provide students, staff and faculty with user friendly on-line, Web-based processes for administrative services.
    
6. Establish a faculty-friendly process wherein staff assistance is easily obtained without unnecessary layers of bureaucracy.

Carried unanimously.