CSUS FACULTY SENATE ACTIONS FOR 2001

CSUS FACULTY SENATE ACTIONS FOR 2005-2006

Note: Minutes and procedural actions not included.

DATE	SENATE ACTION #	TITLE	APPROVED (SENATE)-YES/NO	APPROVED (PRESIDENTIAL) - YES/NO	COMMENTS
09/08/05	FS 05-37/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES
09/08/05	FS 05-38/Ex.	PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSALS	YES	YES
09/08/05	FS 05-39/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
09/08/05	FS 05-40/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
09/08/05	FS 05-41/Ex.	NON-ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW - COLLEGE OF CONTINUING EDUCATION	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
09/08/05	FS 05-42/Flr.	PARLIAMENTARIAN	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
09/22/05	FS 05-44/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
09/22/05	FS 05-45/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
10/13/05	FS 05-48/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
10/13/05	FS 05-49/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - SENATE	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
10/13/05	FS 05-50/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
10/13/05	FS 05-51/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSALS	YES	YES
10/13/05	FS 05-47/CPC/Ex.	PAIRED COURSES POLICY	YES	YES	ONE SENTENCE ADDED AT THE END OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH: "EXCEPTIONS TO THIS POLICY MAY BE GRANTED ONLY BY THE CAMPUS GRADUATE ADMINISTRATOR."
10/27/05	FS 05-56/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
10/27/05	FS 05-57/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSALS	YES	YES
10/27/05	FS 05-54/Ex.	PROPOSITION 76 "STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS", RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
10/27/05	FS 05-59/Flr.	RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO PROP. 74: PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS, WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMANENT STATUS, DISMISSAL INITIATIVE	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
10/27/05	FS 05-61/Flr.	RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO PROP. 75: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION DUES, RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS, EMPLOYEE CONSENT REQUIREMENT INITIATIVE STATUTE	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
11/10/05	FS 05-62/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
11/10/05	FS 05-63/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSALS	YES	YES
11/10/05	FS 05-65/Flr.	NOMINATION OF FACULTY REPRESENTATIVES TO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING COUNCIL	NA
11/10/05	FS 05-55/Ex./Flr.	NEW DOCTORAL AUTHORITY FOR CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO AND ASSOCIATED IMPLEMENTATION	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
11/10/05	FS 05-53/Ex.	INFORMATION COMPETENCY IMPLEMENTATION, RESOLUTION ON	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
11/17/05	FS 05-66/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSAL	YES	YES	AVP/DEAN FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
11/17/05	FS 05-68/Flr.	ELECTION OF FACULTY REPRESENTATIVES TO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING COUNCIL	NA	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
12/8/05	FS 05-70/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES
2/2/06	FS 06-74/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES
2/2/06	FS 06-75/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES
2/2/06	FS 05-69/Ex.	UARTP DOCUMENT - AMEND SECTION 6.06.D	YES	YES	VICE PRESIDENT, HUMAN RESOURCES
2/2/06	FS 05-72A/Flr.	MOTION TO WITHDRAW FS 05-72/FLR. - RESOLUTION ON NEW DOCTORAL AUTHORITY FOR CSUS	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
2/2/06	FS 05-73/Ex.	RESOLUTION ON JUNIOR FACULTY SALARIES	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
3/2/06	FS 06-80/Flr.	MOTION TO SUBMIT FS 05-69/EX. (UARTP DOCUMENT - AMEND SECTION 6.06.D) TO A REFERENDUM OF THE FACULTY	NO
3/2/06	FS 05-77/APC/Ex.	TIMELY DECLARATION OF MAJOR	YES	YES	AVP/DEAN FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
3/2/06	FS 06-78/Flr.	CONSTITUTION OF THE FACULTY, AMENDMENT OF	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
3/23/06	FS 06-84/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
3/23/06	FS 06-85/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
3/23/06	FS 06-83A/Flr.	MOTION TO DIVIDE FS 06-83, GENERAL EDUCATION, CHANGES TO POLICY	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
3/23/06	FS 06-83/GEP/GRPC/Ex.	GENERAL EDUCATION, CHANGES TO POLICY	YES	YES	ASSOC. DEAN, UNDERGRAD. STUDIES
3/23/06	FS 06-83B/Flr.	MOTION TO REFER FS 06-83, GENERAL EDUCATION, CHANGES TO POLICY	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
3/30/06	FS 06-88/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
3/30/06	FS 06-87A/Flr.	MOTION TO POSTPONE FS 06-87/Ex.	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
4/13/06	FS 06-95/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
4/13/06	FS 06-91A/Flr.	MOTION TO WITHDRAW FS 06-91/APC/Ex.	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
4/13/06	FS 06-87/Ex.	DOCTORAL PROGRAMS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR	YES	YES
4/20/06	FS 06-99/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
4/20/06	FS 06-100/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
4/20/06	FS 06-83C/GEP/GRPC/Ex.	GENERAL EDUCATION, CHANGES TO POLICY-OVERLAPPING UNITS	YES	YES	ASSOC. DEAN, UNDERGRAD. STUDIES
4/20/06	FS 06-93/GEP/GRPC/Ex.	GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM REVIEW	YES	YES
4/27/06	FS 06-103/ConC.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
4/27/06	FS 06-104/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSALS	YES	YES	AVP/DEAN FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
4/27/06	FS 06-90A/Flr.	MOTION TO DIVIDE 96-90, COMPREHENSIVE WRITING PROPOSAL	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
4/27/06	FS 06-90/GEP/GRPC/Ex.	COMPREHENSIVE WRITING PROPOSAL	YES
4/27/06	FS 06-90B/Flr.	MOTION TO REFER FS 06-90, COMPREHENSIVE WRITING PROPOSAL, RECOMMENDATION #4 (UPPER DIVISION)	YES
5/11/06	FS 06-106/ConC.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
5/11/06	FS 06-107/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES
5/11/06	FS 06-108/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSALS	YES
5/11/06	FS 06-109/FEFC/Ex.	FACULTY ENDOWMENT FUND - NAME CHANGE	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
5/11/06	FS 06-112/Flr.	COMMENDATION OF LEADERSHIP - CRISTY ANN JENSEN	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
5/11/06	FS 06-92/Ex.	CONSULTATION, STATEMENT ON	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
5/11/06	FS 06-111A/Flr.	WAIVER OF FIRST READING OF FS 06-111	YES	NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL NEEDED
5/11/06	FS 06-111/Ex.	DOCTORATE IN EDUCATION - PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL	YES

*Requires Presidential approval.

*FS 05-37/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY

Search Committee, Associate Dean, Undergraduate Studies
Dick Kornweibel, A&L
Andrew Hertzoff, SS&IS
Kay Moore, EDUC

Placer Academic Planning Committee
Amy Liu, Sociology, SS&IS
Robert Pritchard, Teacher Education, EDUC
Rob Wassmer, Public Policy and Administration, SS&IS

Search Committee, Associate Vice President, Academic Affairs, Student Academic Success and Educational Equity
Sylvester Bowie, H&HS
Beth Kivel, H&HS
Cristy Jensen, SS&IS
Mary McCarthy Hintz, NS&M

Carried unanimously.

*FS 05-38/Ex.

PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSALS

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program proposals outlined in Attachment A (caution: 22 pages).

Carried unanimously.

* FS 05-39/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY

Committee on Administrative Review
Bruce Bikle, H&HS, 2006
George Paganelis, Library, 2007

Alcohol Advisory Council
Melinda Seid, H&HS, 2006
Louis Downs, EDUC, 2006

ASI Board
David Rolloff, H&HS, 2006

Committee for Diversity Awards
Marlyn Jones, H&HS, 2007

Energy Management Committee
Maria Kochis, Library, 2007

Financial Aid Satisfactory Progress Appeals Board
Jeffrey Calton, SS&IS, 2008

Honorary Degrees Committee
David Lang, SS&IS, 2007

Institutional Scholarship Committee I
Jonathan Kaplan, SS&IS, 2006
Karen Davis O'Hara, EDUC, 2007

Institutional Scholarship Committee II
Victoria Shinbrot, A&L, 2007

Multicultural Center Advisory Board
Joel Dubois, A&L, 2007
Serge Lee, H&HS, 2007

Committee for Persons with Disabilities
Sue McGinty, H&HS, 2007
Patti Nogales, A&L, 2007

Student Academic Development Committee
Mary Botkin, SS&IS, 2007
Mary Ann Reihman, NS&M, 2007

Student Complaint Hearing Panel
Jordan Halgas, CBA, 2008
Beth Strasser, SS&IS, 2008

Student Fee Advisory Committee
Kristin Van Gaasbeck, SS&IS, 2008

Carried unanimously.

FS 05-40/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE

Academic Policies Committee
Anne Bradley, Library, 2007

Center for Teaching and Learning Advisory Board
Jan Andersen, SS&IS, 2006

Curriculum Policies Committee
Katherine Pinch, H&HS, 2008

General Education/Graduation Requirements Policies Committee
Sue Cote, H&HS, 2006

Carried unanimously.

FS 05-41/Ex.

NON-ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW - COLLEGE OF CONTINUING EDUCATION

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations (Attachment B) of the Program Review Oversight Committee on the non-academic program review of the College of Continuing Education.

Carried unanimously.

FS 05-42/Flr.

PARLIAMENTARIAN

Thomas Krabacher, Professor of Geography, shall serve as parliamentarian for the 2005-2006 Faculty Senate.

Carried unanimously.

* FS 05-44/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY

Athletic Advisory Board
Gloria Solomon, H&HS, 2006
Michael Wright, H&HS, 2006

Campus Safety Advisory Committee
Yvette Farmer, H&HS, 2008

Grade Appeal Procedural Appeals Board
William Dillon, SS&IS, 2008

Instruction Related Activities Committee
Leilani Hall, Library, 2006
Myung Park, A&L, 2006

University Copyright and Patent Committee
Joe Zhou, Library, 2008

Search Committee, Associate Vice President, Facilities Management
Dick Kornweibel

Carried unanimously.

FS 05-45/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE

Academic Policies Committee
Serge Karalli, At-large, 2006

Curriculum Policies Committee
Kathleen Gee, At-large, 2006

Research and Creative Activities Subcommittee
Mark Brown, At-large, 2008

Carried unanimously.

*FS 05-48/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY

Search Committee, Dean, College of E&CS
Mary Ann Reihman, NS&M

Carried unanimously.

FS 05-49/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE

Pedagogy Enhancement Awards Subcommittee
Bruce Bikle, H&HS, 2008

Carried unanimously.

*FS 05-50/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY

Magazine Advisory Group
Manuel Barajas, SS&IS, 2006

Alumni Board
Sylvester Bowie, H&HS, 2006

Carried unanimously.

*FS 05-51/CPC/Ex.

PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSALS

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

Carried unanimously.

*FS 05-47/CPC/Ex.

paired courses POLICY

Background: While discussing graduate course issues in the spring 2004, Academic Affairs decided that they would approve pairing of courses for departments making such requests and that this would help some departments that were experiencing graduate level enrollment problems. Some departments were interested in pairing courses, but didn’t know they could since there was no formal policy. CPC concluded that serious problems might arise without a policy. After researching the issue and conducting an informational hearing with graduate coordinators to receive their perspective and suggestions for developing a policy, CPC concluded that the current practice varied amongst departments and was completely unregulated since there was no policy and that the University needed one in order to insure there were adequate safeguards, standardization, and University oversight. Also, some departments believe that there may be pedagogical reasons for pairing courses that could provide a positive educational experience. Graduate coordinators have had the opportunity to review the initial Paired Courses policy and this latest version that has been placed before the Senate for consideration. NOTE: In response to discussion during the first reading at the September 22nd Senate meeting, the motion has been amended as denoted by strikethroughs and underscores.

California State University is committed to providing quality undergraduate and graduate education. The University understands that graduate education requires more advanced and rigorous instruction. For pedagogical and fiscal reasons, the University permits individual departments on a voluntary basis to develop courses for undergraduate and graduate students with similar subject matter and offer such classes with a single instructor and a common meeting schedule.

This policy will be reviewed by Academic Affairs and the Curriculum Policies Committee after 2 years to assess the policy’s efficacy.

In order to ensure the integrity of the degree major and the individual courses that may be used to meet graduation requirements, approval to offer courses in a paired arrangement will be subject to the following conditions:

Only advanced undergraduate courses (i.e., upper division and excluding general education) may be paired with graduate courses. Such courses must cover similar subject matter. The words used in the titles and descriptions of the two courses must reflect this similarity of subject matter and the same number of units.

The Class Schedule should make clear, by means of footnotes that both courses of a pair of courses meet at the same time and location, and with the same instructor, but that the two courses have differential requirements reflecting the different course levels.

Paired offerings must be arranged through the use of regular courses which are published in the Catalog, and the course descriptions should indicate that the courses may be paired.

Paired graduate courses may only be taken for elective credit and may not replace core or required graduate classes. Additionally, paired arrangements may not include thesis/culminating experience work, internship credit, or directed reading credit.

Neither paired course taken as an undergraduate may be repeated in a graduate program.

Students shall neither be expected nor permitted to obtain a graduate degree with more than 10 units of paired courses.

Faculty teaching paired courses will receive weighted teaching unit (WTU) credit based on an agreement between the department and the College Dean.

Colleges will approve the pairing of courses for already approved courses through the University process.

Proposals to the college must address the following:

Justification for the pairing must be attached to each of the proposals at the College level.

Course descriptions and syllabi must be explicit about how the experience of graduate and undergraduate students is to differ. The syllabi must clearly establish additional requirements for graduate students that might include (but not be limited to) significant research papers, oral presentations of research, and/or demonstration of more sophisticated laboratory or studio skills than those required of students in the paired undergraduate course.

Please see the September 22, 2005 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment A for the letter of transmittal from Ben Amata, Chair of CPC.

Carried.

*FS 05-56/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY

Campus Educational Equity Committee
James Shoch, SS&IS, 2007

Committee on Administrative Review
Margaret Cleek, CBA, 2008

Student Academic Development Committee
Rachel August, SS&IS, 2006

Alumni Board
Sylvester Bowie, H&HS, 2006

Institutional Scholarship Committee
Jeffrey Calton, SS&IS, 2006

Carried unanimously.

*FS 05-57/CPC/Ex.

PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSALS

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program proposals outlined in Attachment A. (Note: attachment is 34 pages.)

Carried unanimously.

FS 05-54/Ex.

PROPOSITION 76 "STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS", RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO

WHEREAS,

Proposition 76, if passed, will make changes to the California Constitution related to state spending limits, school funding requirements (Proposition 98) and the budget process;

WHEREAS,

These changes potentially endanger the ability of California State University, Sacramento, to meet its commitment to our students and the people of California to continue to provide a high quality learning environment on our campus;

WHEREAS,

We support the actions of the Academic Senate of the CSU and our colleagues at other campuses in passing resolutions in opposition to the Proposition; therefore, be it

RESOLVED,

That the Faculty Senate of California State University, Sacramento, opposes passage of Proposition 76 that appears on the ballot of the November 8 special election and that we direct that copies of this resolution be sent to all members of our faculty, to the Associated Students, to the California Faculty Association and to the President of the University.

The entire text of Proposition 76 can be found at http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/entire76.pdf

http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/records/resolutions/2005-2006/09-05_resolution_packet.pdf (note: 1.25 MB size)

Carried unanimously.

FS 05-59/Flr.

RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO PROP.74: PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS, WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMANENT STATUS, DISMISSAL INITIATIVE

WHEREAS,	Proposition 74, if passed, will make changes to California law related to the process for establishing permanent status for California teachers; and
WHEREAS,	The CSU prepares over 50% of all teachers in the state; and
WHEREAS,	The advocates of this initiative refer to this permanent status as tenure, and thereby mislead the public. The initiative extends probationary period from two to five years and modifies the dismissal processes for permanent employees; and
WHEREAS,	These changes directly impact the professional standing of the students at California State University, Sacramento who are preparing for a career in teaching. This initiative could adversely affect the freedom of speech of our students by subjecting them to dismissal during this five year probationary period for expressing unpopular opinions; and
WHEREAS,	Proposition 74 is unnecessary. There is already a system in place to fire teachers who are not performing in the classroom. Under current and proposed law, teachers do not get tenure. They get a right to a hearing before being dismissed. Existing law allows teachers to be fired for unsatisfactory performance or unprofessional conduct no matter how long they have been teaching; and
WHEREAS,	Proposition 74, will not improve student learning, an urgent concern of the higher education community. There is no substantive research evidence that lengthening the probation period for teachers has a positive impact on teacher quality or student achievement. It does nothing to reduce class size, to provide improved training for teachers, nor to improve textbooks; and
WHEREAS,	We support the actions of the Academic Senate of the CSU and our colleagues at other campuses in passing resolutions in opposition to Proposition 74; therefore, be it
RESOLVED,	That the Faculty Senate of California State University, Sacramento, opposes passage of Proposition 74 that appears on the ballot of the November 8 special election and that we direct that copies of this resolution be sent to all members of our faculty, to the Associated Students, to the California Faculty Association and to the President of the University.

The entire text of Proposition 74 can be found at http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/entire74.pdf

Carried unanimously.

FS 05-61/Flr.

Resolution in Opposition to Prop 75: Public Employee Union Dues, Restrictions on Political Contributions, Employee Consent Requirement Initiative Statute

WHEREAS,	Proposition 75 is an attack on the political liberty of the collective bargaining unit of California State University, Sacramento faculty members; and
WHEREAS,	Public employees’ rights are already protected to not contribute dues to political and educational campaigns; and
WHEREAS,	Faculty need to be able to participate effectively in state and local politics to influence the debate on these issues; and
WHEREAS,	For every dollar that unions spend in political campaigns, $24 is raised and spend by the private sector; and
WHEREAS,	Proposition 75 will not improve faculty teaching or the educational experience offered at California State University, Sacramento, but is expected to make it worse; therefore be it
RESOLVED,	That the Faculty Senate of California State University, Sacramento opposes passage of Proposition 75 that appears on the ballot of the November 8 special election and that we direct that copies of this resolution be sent to all members of the faculty, to the Associated Students, to the California Faculty Association and to the President of the University.

The entire text of Proposition 75 can be found at http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/entire75.pdf

Carried – 1 abstention

*FS 05-62/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY

Bookstore Advisory Group
Joyce Bishop, SS&IS, 2007
Tony Sheppard, H&HS, 2008

Committee for Persons with Disabilities
Brian Baker, SS&IS, 2006

Search Committee, Dean, College of Education
Robin Carter, H&HS

Carried unanimously.

*FS 05-63/CPC/Ex.

PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSALS

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

Carried unanimously.

FS 05-65/Flr.

NOMINATION OF FACULTY REPRESENTATIVES TO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING COUNCIL

Background: At the October 27 Faculty Senate meeting, Chair Jensen advised the Senate that the Council for University Planning will be replaced by the Strategic Planning Council. The composition calls for: the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs; one representative each from the offices of the Vice Presidents for Administration, Human Resources, Student Affairs and University Advancement; the Chair of the Faculty Senate; two other faculty representatives, chosen from the Faculty Senate; one chair of an academic department, chosen by the Provost; one staff member, recommended through a campus-wide nomination process; ASI president or designee; one community member appointed by the President from a list prepared by the Vice President for University. Election of the two faculty representatives will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2005.

The following Faculty Senators were nominated to serve on the Strategic Planning Council:

Mike Fitzgerald, Communication Studies
Bob Buckley, Chair, Academic Policies Committee, Computer Science
Chrystal Barranti, Social Work

Additional nominations can be made at the November 17th Senate meeting.

*FS 05-55/Ex./Flr.	NEW DOCTORAL AUTHORITY FOR CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO AND ASSOCIATED IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES, RESOLUTION ON
additions = underscore; deletions = ~~strikethrough~~

WHEREAS,

SB 724 authorizes the CSU to offer a ~~doctoral degree~~ Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) ~~in Education, broadly defined as leadership for community colleges and K-12 administrators~~ focused on preparing administrative leaders for California public elementary and secondary schools and community colleges and on the knowledge and skills needed by administrators to be effective leaders in California public schools and community colleges;

WHEREAS,

This new and exciting opportunity has received faculty support;

WHEREAS,

This may be the first of multiple, related program development opportunities at the doctoral level, and is unlike any program prior;

WHEREAS,

California State University, Sacramento has, subject to campus, system-wide and legislative guidelines, well established policies and precedent for faculty-driven curriculum and program development;

WHEREAS,

The Senate recognizes the ~~urgency necessary to and involved in~~ implications of the legislative timelines in SB 724 related to the development of the Ed.D; therefore, be it

RESOLVED,

That the Faculty Senate will support the development of such a curriculum in keeping with the existing policies regarding new programs;

RESOLVED,

That the Faculty Senate will support the ~~expediency~~ timeliness needed in moving these policies forward and, with faculty input, amending them as may be necessary for programs of this nature; and be it further

RESOLVED,

That the Faculty Senate, in the spirit of interdisciplinary, collaborative, and innovative curriculum development will support the involvement of all interested faculties on campus in the development of this exciting and entirely new program; and be it further

RESOLVED,

That the Faculty Senate authorizes the Executive Committee ~~Chair~~ to form an ad hoc committee comprised of faculty with appropriate and demonstrated curriculum policy experience to:

review existing curricular review processes and develop recommendations for any changes needed, ~~for Senate curricular review purposes~~,

develop the necessary areas to be addressed in a doctoral proposal ~~quality parameters~~ identified, but not limited to those, below:

·   quality parameters

·   faculty doctoral program workload

·   qualifications for doctoral faculty

·   nature of culminating project, qualifying examinations

·   ~~appropriate use of part-time faculty~~

·   resource parameters per FTES

·   ~~fee structure~~

·   cost recovery

·   guidelines for use of technology

and be it further

RESOLVED,

That these recommendations shall be forwarded to the Senate’s Executive Committee and the Senate for action.

Carried unanimously.

FS 05-53/Ex.

INFORMATION COMPETENCY IMPLEMENTATION, RESOLUTION ON

WHEREAS,

The Faculty Senate adopted a policy (FS-04-67, December 9, 2004) revising the University’s Computer Literacy/Information Competence State and Requirements and reframing it as the Information Competence Graduation Requirement with learning goals that include the development of the following skills:

Determine the extent of the information needed.

Access needed information effectively and efficiently.

Evaluate information and its sources critically and use appropriately and effectively.

Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose.

Understand the issues associated with legal and ethical access to and use of information.

WHEREAS,

The policy change was enacted without precise implementation language; therefore be it

RESOLVED,

That the Faculty Senate adopts the implementation policy recommended by the General Education/Graduation Requirements Committee which includes the following elements:

While programs may certainly use the statement of these competencies to examine and reorganize aspects of their curricula they are not required to do so if in the faculty's judgment all competencies are covered in their present curricula.

Programs are expected to develop during the AY 2005-2006 a statement that addresses each of the five specified components. For each there should be:

a brief statement of how the program or discipline uses this competency

identification of course(s) in which each competency is principally introduced along with an example of an assignment for each competency

a brief statement on how student demonstration of competencies is measured.

A department/program with multiple degree programs may develop a single statement for more than one program if the competencies apply similarly to two or more degrees.

These initial statements are due for review no later than April 1, 2006.

An ad hoc committee established by the GE committee will review the statements and report back suggestions to programs.

Formal submission as well as formal evaluation will be part of normal program review beginning in 2006-2007.

Carried unanimously.

*FS 05-66/CPC/Ex.

PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSAL

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

Carried unanimously.

FS 05-68/Flr.

ELECTION OF FACULTY REPRESENTATIVES TO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING COUNCIL

Background: At the October 27 Faculty Senate meeting, Chair Jensen advised the Senate that the Council for University Planning will be replaced by the Strategic Planning Council. The composition calls for: the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs; one representative each from the offices of the Vice Presidents for Administration, Human Resources, Student Affairs and University Advancement; the Chair of the Faculty Senate; two other faculty representatives, chosen from the Faculty Senate; one chair of an academic department, chosen by the Provost; one staff member, recommended through a campus-wide nomination process; ASI president or designee; one community member appointed by the President from a list prepared by the Vice President for University. Additional nominations can be made at this meeting.

Steve Perez (Economics) was nominated. Chrystal Barranti (Social Work) withdrew her nomination.

The Faculty Senate elected the following candidates to serve on the Strategic Planning Council.

Mike Fitzgerald, Communication Studies
Steve Perez, Economics

*FS 05-70/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY

Campus Educational Equity Committee
Rhonda Rios Kravitz, Library, 2007

Carried unanimously.

*FS 06-74/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY

Search Committee, Chief Information Officer
Bob Buckley, E&CS
Ronald Coleman, NS&M

Carried unanimously.

*FS 06-75/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY

Campus Educational Equity Committee
Rachael Gonzalez, EDUC, 2006

Student Academic Development Committee
Rossitza Wooster, 2006

Carried unanimously.

*FS 05-69/Ex.

UARTP DOCUMENT - AMEND SECTION 6.06.D

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the University ARTP document, Section 6.06.D as outlined in Attachment A.

Carried.

FS 05-72A/Flr.

MOTION TO WITHDRAW - RESOLUTION ON NEW DOCTORAL AUTHORITY FOR CSUS

The Faculty Senate recommends withdrawing FS 05-72/Flr., Resolution on New Doctoral Authority for CSUS.

Carried.

FS 05-73/Ex.

Resolution on Junior Faculty Salaries

WHEREAS,

The situation known as salary inversion, where faculty with less experience are hired at a greater starting salary than current salary of experienced junior faculty, is clearly unfair and is extremely damaging to morale; and

WHEREAS,

Salary inversion is currently a major issue on the CSUS campus, as exhibited by examples in the College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies in which new hires are being offered approximately $7,000 (or 14.6%) more per year than the salaries currently earned by faculty in their fourth year at CSUS. Furthermore, those outrageous salary differentials will grow exponentially over the years, since CSU salary increases are percentage based; and

WHEREAS,

This salary inversion is further compounded by the facts that CSU faculty are paid an average of 19% less than comparable institutions and have received only a 3.5% General Salary Increase compared to a nationwide faculty salary increase of 11.9%; median housing prices in Sacramento have gone up well over 100% over the past five years; and junior faculty who entered in 2003 and 2004 never received a “Salary Step Increase” (SSI), therefore, be it

RESOLVED,

That the Faculty Senate urges that President Gonzalez give top priority to addressing this problem by whatever means are available to him on the campus level during the current academic year; and be it further

RESOLVED,

That the Faculty Senate urges President Alexander Gonzalez to inform the Chancellor’s Office of the difficulties caused by the junior faculty salary inversion problem on the Sacramento State campus and urges the Chancellor’s Office to take steps to address this issue system-wide during the current academic year so that this is not a recurrent problem; and be it further

RESOLVED,

That the Faculty Senate requests President Gonzalez to report to the Senate on the steps taken to resolve the junior faculty salary inversion problem—especially on the campus level but also system wide—by April 1, 2006.

Carried unanimously.

FS 06-80/Flr.

MOTION to SUBMIT FS 05-69/Ex. (UARTP DOCUMENT - AMEND SECTION 6.06.D) to a Referendum of the Faculty

*Note: This procedural motion requires affirmative votes of 30% of the Faculty Senate (22 senators) to be referred to the faculty electorate. It will not receive a first and second reading.

The following background is provided by Senator Art Jensen, from the College of Business Administration:

Background: The Faculty Senate of California State University, Sacramento approved FS 05-69/Ex. (UARTP DOCUMENT – AMEND SECTION 6.06D) at the meeting of February 2, 2006. This amendment to the University Appointment, Retention, Tenure and Promotion Policy makes substantial changes to the section of the policy dealing with Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Representatives. The faculty of California State University, Sacramento have a direct and vital stake in the University Appointment, Retention, Tenure and Promotion Policy as it guides the professional conduct of most phases of faculty employment. The Faculty Senate encourages the faculty of California State University, Sacramento to review and express their approval of the changes to the UARTP Policy. The senate’s approval on February 2, 2006, was for a document that had a number of editorial changes to be made based on input during the floor discussion (second reading) of the agenda item; this referendum gives the senators as well as their constituents a chance to review and approve the final, corrected document.

The Faculty Senate submits FS 05-69/Ex. (UARTP DOCUMENT- AMEND SECTION 6.06.D) to a referendum of the faculty of California State University Sacramento.

Defeated.

*FS 05-77/APC/Ex.

TIMELY DECLARATION OF MAJOR

The Faculty Senate recommends implementation of the following requirements regarding student declaration of a major:

Undeclared freshmen and lower division transfer students are required to submit a declaration of major form by the time they have completed 60 units; failure to do so will result in a hold on subsequent registration.

Undeclared junior-level transfer students are required to submit a declaration of major form prior to registration for their second semester; failure to do so will result in a registration hold.

In the implementation of this policy:

The 60 units of coursework identified above shall include only those courses that carry unit credit toward the degree. (This excludes, therefore, remedial courses and courses taken at non-accredited institutions.)

The Academic Advising Center shall have responsibility for placing and removing the registration holds specified above.

It is recognized that this requirement is for an initial declaration of major only; students still have the option of changing their major after completion of 60 units.

For students declaring a major that classifies its entering students as pre-majors, submitting the declaration of major form will result in their being appropriately classified as pre-majors and satisfy this requirement.

It is generally beneficial to seek academic advising early in your career, especially with respect to disciplines that have pre-majors or other pre-requisites.

Earlier declaration of a major or a pre-major is encouraged. Declaring a pre-major does not guarantee acceptance into the major program.

The letter of transmittal from the Academic Policies Committee providing background information can be found at the February 2, 2006 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment B.

Carried unanimously.

FS 06-78A/Flr.

WAIVER OF FIRST READING OF FS 06-78

The Faculty Senate waives the first reading of FS 06-78, Constitution of the Faculty, Amendment of.

Carried unanimously.

FS 06-78/Flr.

CONSTITUTION OF THE FACULTY, AMENDMENT OF

Background: amendments to the Constitution of the Faculty are made according to Article IV, Section 2:

Section 2. AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION.

Amendments to this Constitution may be proposed by two-thirds (2/3) of the voting members of the Faculty Senate present and voting to do so, or by an initiative petition signed by twenty (20) percent of the faculty eligible to vote in the elections of this organization and presented to the Chair of the Faculty Senate. Amendments shall go into effect when they have been approved by a majority of the members of this organization voting upon the amendment, and by the President of the University.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the Constitution of the Faculty as follows:

ARTICLE II

FACULTY SENATE

. . .

Section 5. MEMBERSHIP

The membership of the Faculty Senate shall be composed of (1) the representatives of the electing units; (2) four representatives to be elected at-large by the temporary faculty from those temporary faculty who are teaching six or more units during the semester in which the election is conducted; (3) chairs of certain standing committees of the Faculty Senate (as specified in the committee's charge), as at-large voting members, unless such chairs are already serving on the Senate as representatives of the electing units; the statewide academic senators, as ex officio, non-voting members; (5) the President or designee of the Emeritus Association of CSU, Sacramento, as an ex officio, non-voting member; (6) three student representatives, as non-voting members, chosen by, and in a manner determined by, the Associated Students of CSUS.

Representatives of electing units shall be elected by and from those units. There shall be two (2) types of electing units, single and combined.

Single electing units shall normally be academic departments or divisions having ten (10) or more probationary, tenured, and full-time temporary faculty appointments (including faculty participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program, and faculty on paid leave or reduced load, but excluding faculty holding administrative appointments). If a college ceases to be organized by academic departments or divisions, its electing unit or units shall become the unit or units that elect its primary retention, tenure and promotion committee or committees. The Library shall be a single electing unit. A single electing unit, named the Student Services electing unit, composed of all Student Service Professionals and Academically Related Counseling Faculty included in the membership of the faculty (Article 1, Section 2) shall be established for the purpose of electing their representatives(s). Academic departments or divisions having fewer than ten (10) probationary, tenured, and full-time temporary faculty appointments (including faculty participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program, and faculty on leave or reduced load, but excluding faculty holding administrative appointments), may choose to become single electing units or may choose to form combined electing units as described below.

Carried.

FS 06-84/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE

Elections Committee
Kyle Lemoi, At-large, 2006
Alicia Patrice, At-large, 2006
Xin Ren, At-large, 2006

Carried unanimously.

*FS 06-85/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY

Instructionally Related Activities Committee
Mary Botkin, At-large, 2006

Carried unanimously.

FS 06-86/Flr.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 2, 2006

Carried unanimously.

FS 06-83A/Flr.

MOTION TO DIVIDE fs 06-83, GENERAL EDUCATION, CHANGES TO POLICY

The Faculty Senate recommends dividing FS 06-83/Flr., General Education, Changes to Policy so that item 3 will be considered as a separate motion.

Carried.

*FS 06-83/GEP/GRPC/Ex.

GENERAL EDUCATION, CHANGES TO POLICY

BACKGROUND: In response to the CSU-wide Facilitating Graduation Initiative, the General Education Policies / Graduation Requirements Policies Committee recently discussed changes in General Education policies related to Area C and D restrictions and overlap between G.E. and major. The complexity of policies addressing specific limitations in the General Education Program makes it difficult for students and many faculty advisors to interpret and apply them. Clearly written explanations of policy restrictions do not suffice; follow-up explanation and clarification from experienced advisors is often necessary. Due to a misunderstanding or a lack of awareness of these policies, students often take courses they believe will apply to G.E. and learn after the fact that courses do not apply as intended.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending General Education policy as follows:

Broaden the Definition of GE Area C4

Change the Area C4 requirement to: One course from this area or a second course from Area C1, C2, or C3.

Current policy requires students to take one course from each of the four sub-areas in Area C, The Arts and Humanities:

C1, World Civilizations
C2 Introduction to the Arts
C3, Introduction to the Humanities
C4, Further Studies in the Arts and Humanities

Students may fulfill Area C4 either with a course listed in Area C4 or an extra course from either Area C2 or Area C3 – but not from Area C1.

ARGUMENTS: The current General Education policy provides no explanation for the exclusion of Area C1 as an option for fulfilling Area C4. Excluding Area C1 from the “Further Studies” area does not address the objectives of Area C, nor does it add to the overall integrity of the GE program. Furthermore, enabling students to apply an additional World Civilization course to General Education is consistent with the university’s goals related to diversity and global education. Finally, the exclusion of Area C1 as an option for the “Further Studies” area is inconsistent with a parallel policy in Area B5, Further Studies in Physical Science, Life Forms, and Quantitative Reasoning, in which a course can be taken from either Area B5 or an extra course in any other sub-area in Area B.

Remove course restrictions in Areas C and D1a

Remove the restriction "No more than 2 courses may be taken from the same subject designation" from Area C and Area D1a. [Since the only practical application of this restriction was in D1a, remove the general language for all of area D.]

Currently students are limited to not more than two courses from the same subject designation, e.g., History, in Area C, Arts and Humanities (four courses required) and in Area D1a, Foundations in Social and Behavioral Sciences (one or two courses required).

ARGUMENTS: Removing these limitations would provide greater flexibility for all students and would reduce the number of GE courses taken erroneously. This change would address the problem encountered by many students who are disadvantaged when they change majors and are left with surplus, unusable GE courses. The recommendation would also resolve the inequity between native students who are limited by this policy and transfer students who, not being informed of the restrictions, do not have it applied to courses taken prior to their enrollment here.

Carried.

FS 06-83B/Flr.

MOTION TO REFER fs 06-83, GENERAL EDUCATION, CHANGES TO POLICY

The Faculty Senate recommends referring back to the General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Policies Committee the following:

Consolidate and simplify GE – Major Overlap Policies

Consolidate policies addressing overlap between major and General Education to a single basic rule: “Not more than nine units from courses bearing the same designation as students major, e.g. Photography. may be applied to General Education requirements."

Current policies regarding overlap of courses between major and General Education include many, interacting variables—

Is the course in question upper or lower division?
Is the course from the student’s major requirements or major department?
Is the course required for the major, but from a department other than the major?
Will the course be applied to a GE Area requirement, the nine-unit upper division GE requirement, the Race and Ethnicity requirement, the Writing Intensive requirement – or to one of the many possible combinations of these?

ARGUMENTS: The complexity of GE – major overlap policies make it impossible to clearly articulate these requirements in writing. (See example below.) Faculty advisors who have worked in the Academic Advising Center need at least a full semester to learn them. The complexity of overlap requirements make the desirable prospect of integrating GE and major advising daunting for most faculty. Students often make mistakes and take longer than expected to fulfill GE requirements because of the complexity of overlap requirements.

To illustrate the complexity of G.E.-Major overlap policies, the university’s current effort at trying to explain it in the printed and online Advising FAQ is included below:

Can I use a course from my major for GE requirements?

Parts of this can get complicated, so we’ll answer in sections:

Lower Division Courses. Up to 6 units of lower division courses from your major department, including courses in your major, can also count toward GE. Some majors require lower division courses from other departments, e.g., Business, Engineering, Biology, Kinesiology; there is no limit on overlap of these courses with GE.
Upper Division Courses in Your Major. No upper division courses used in your major can count for GE. This applies to specific GE area requirements (e.g. C1, D2, etc.) and to the 9-unit upper division requirement in GE. (See exceptions for some majors in the chart below.)
Upper Division Courses in Your Major Department. Upper division courses from your major department which are not used in your major can be used for GE area requirements and the Race and Ethnicity requirement. However they cannot be counted toward 9-unit upper division GE or GE residence requirements. (See exceptions for some majors in the chart below.)
Race and Ethnicity Courses in Your Major. A course used in your major can be used to satisfy the Race and Ethnicity requirement. (If it’s a lower division course it can also be applied to a GE area.

Carried.

*FS 06-88/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY

Search Committee, Faculty Assessment Coordinator
Ben Amata, LIB
Bob Buckley, E&CS
Jackie Donath, A&L

Search Committee, Director, Academic Advising Center
Chloe Burke, A&L
Marlyn Jones, H&HS

ASI Appellate Council
John LaRocco, CBA, 2007

ASI Elections Complaint Committee
Jordan Halgas, CBA, 2007

Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Group
Bob Buckley, ECS, 2010
Tony Sheppard, H&HS, 2009

Carried unanimously.

FS 06-87A/Flr.

MOTION TO POSTPONE FS 06-87/EX.

The Faculty Senate recommends postponing further discussion and action on FS 06-87, Ex., Doctoral Programs, Policies and Procedures for, until the Faculty Senate meeting of April 6, 2006.

Carried.

*FS 06-95/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY

Transportation Advisory Committee
Jim Kenney, A&L, 2009

Carried unanimously.

FS 06-91A/Flr.

MOTION TO WITHDRAW FS 06-91/APC/Ex.

The Faculty Senate recommends withdrawing FS 06-91/APC/Ex., Academic Advising Form for Students on Academic Probation from the agenda and expresses its support for use of advising guidelines for students on academic probation.

Carried unanimously.

*FS 06-87/Ex.

DOCTORAL PROGRAMS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the policy changes governing doctoral programs as outlined in the March 23, 2006 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment A (as amended).

The current policy language can be found at the following link: http://www.csus.edu/acaf/univmanual/newdegapr.htm.

Carried.

*FS 06-99/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY

Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Group
Steve Perez, SS&IS, 2008

Carried unanimously.

FS 06-100/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE

Academic Policies Committee
Rafiqul Bhuyan, At-large, 2009
Todd Migliaccio, At-large, 2009
Maureen Smith, At-large, 2009

Curriculum Policies Committee
David Lang, At-large, 2009
Cirenio Rodriguez, At-large, 2009
Ed Dammel, At-large, 2009
Kimberly Elce, At-large, 2009

Faculty Endowment Fund Committee
Mark Siegler, At-large, 2009

Faculty Policies Committee
Chris Bellon, At-large, 2009

General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Policies Committee
Jonathan Kaplan, At-large, 2007

Committee on Diversity and Equity
Marlyn Jones, At-large, 2009
Diane Hyson, At-large, 2009

Carried unanimously.

*FS 06-83C/GEP/GRPC/Ex.

GENERAL EDUCATION, CHANGES TO POLICY-OVERLAPPING UNITS

Consolidate and simplify GE – Major Overlap Policies

Consolidate policies addressing overlap between major and General Education to a single basic rule: “Not more than nine units from courses bearing the same designation as students major, e.g. Photography. may be applied to General Education requirements."

Current policies regarding overlap of courses between major and General Education include many, interacting variables—

Is the course in question upper or lower division?
Is the course from the student’s major requirements or major department?
Is the course required for the major, but from a department other than the major?
Will the course be applied to a GE Area requirement, the nine-unit upper division GE requirement, the Race and Ethnicity requirement, the Writing Intensive requirement – or to one of the many possible combinations of these?

To illustrate the complexity of G.E.-Major overlap policies, the university’s current effort at trying to explain it in the printed and online Advising FAQ is included below:

Can I use a course from my major for GE requirements?

Parts of this can get complicated, so we’ll answer in sections:

Lower Division Courses. Up to 6 units of lower division courses from your major department, including courses in your major, can also count toward GE. Some majors require lower division courses from other departments, e.g., Business, Engineering, Biology, Kinesiology; there is no limit on overlap of these courses with GE.
Upper Division Courses in Your Major. No upper division courses used in your major can count for GE. This applies to specific GE area requirements (e.g. C1, D2, etc.) and to the 9-unit upper division requirement in GE. (See exceptions for some majors in the chart below.)
Upper Division Courses in Your Major Department. Upper division courses from your major department which are not used in your major can be used for GE area requirements and the Race and Ethnicity requirement. However they cannot be counted toward 9-unit upper division GE or GE residence requirements. (See exceptions for some majors in the chart below.)
Race and Ethnicity Courses in Your Major. A course used in your major can be used to satisfy the Race and Ethnicity requirement. (If it’s a lower division course it can also be applied to a GE area.

Carried.

*FS 06-93/GEP/GRPC/Ex.

GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM REVIEW

The Faculty Senate recommends adopting the policy on General Education Program Review as detailed in the April 6, 2006 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment A.

Background can be found at the April 6, 2006 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment A-1.

Carried.

FS 06-103/ConC.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE

Committee on Diversity and Equity
Yuki Nishinaka, At-large, 2009

Elections Committee
Anne Bradley, At-large, 2007
Jonathan Kaplan, At-large, 2007
Hong Wang, At-large, 2007

Faculty Endowment Fund Committee
Maureen Smith, At-large, 2009

General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Policies Committee
Sue Cote, At-large, 2009
Tony Sheppard, At-large, 2009
Brett Holland, At-large, 2009
Richard Marens, At-large, 2008
Reza Peigahi, LIB, 2007

Livingston Annual Faculty Lecture Committee
Scott Farrand, At-large, 2008
Gerry Smith, At-large, 2009

Carried unanimously.

*FS 06-104/CPC/Ex.

PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSALS

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

Certificate in Teaching Reading to Adults

Subject Matter Program-English/Theatre

Chinese Minor

Certificate of Academic Achievement in Information Assurance and Security

M.S. in Computer Science

Master of Science in Nursing

Government Undergraduate Major

Master of Science in Business Administration, Management Information Systems

Master of Business Administration, Management Information Systems

Master of Science in Accountancy

Master of Business Administration

Master of Business Administration, Taxation

Details on the changes can be found at Attachment A.

Carried unanimously.

*FS 06-90A/Flr.

MOTION TO DIVIDE FS 06-90, COMPREHENSIVE WRITING PROPOSAL

The Faculty Senate recommends dividing FS 06-90, Comprehensive Writing Proposal, to consider the following separately:

Recommendation #4 (Upper Division): To help initiate students to the specialized discourse of their chosen discipline, the Subcommittee recommends adoption of the 2002 “Transmission of GWAR” proposal, which was endorsed by the Subcommittee and the General Education/Graduation Requirements Policies Committee. This proposal recommended that the WI requirement be revised to a Writing-in-the-Discipline requirement, so that students take a WI course in their discipline in their junior year.

Carried.

*FS 06-90/GEP/GRPC

COMPREHENSIVE WRITING PROPOSAL

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the comprehensive writing proposal as outlined in Attachment A (updated since March 30, 2006).

The full report can be found at Attachment A-1 (updated since March 30, 2006).

Carried.

*FS 06-90B/Flr.

MOTION TO REFER FS 06-90, COMPREHENSIVE WRITING PROPOSAL, RECOMMENDATION #4 (UPPER DIVISION)

The Faculty Senate recommends referring back to the Senate's Executive Committee the following:

Recommendation #4 (Upper Division): To help initiate students to the specialized discourse of their chosen discipline, the Subcommittee recommends adoption of the 2002 “Transmission of GWAR” proposal, which was endorsed by the Subcommittee and the General Education/Graduation Requirements Policies Committee. This proposal recommended that the WI requirement be revised to a Writing-in-the-Discipline requirement, so that students take a WI course in their discipline in their junior year.

for the purpose of:

developing a strategy for additional consultation via open faculty forums;

developing an analysis of budgetary implications of enactment of the above recommendation, and

identifying alternative policy options to mitigate such budgetary implications.

Carried.

FS 06-106/ConC.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE

Center for Teaching and Learning Advisory Board
Maureen Lojo, At-large, 2009
Ali Porbaha, At-large, 2009
Lindy Valdez, At-large, 2009

Faculty Policies Committee
Amy Liu, At-large, 2009
Chrystal Barranti, At-large, 2009

Carried unanimously.

*FS 06-107/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY

Grade Appeal Procedural Appeals Board
Susan Crawford, At-large, 2009

Carried unanimously.

*FS 06-108/CPC/Ex.

PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSALS

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

BA Art - Studio Art and Art Education

Digital Media Minor

Master of Arts in Education: Workforce Development Advocacy

Education Specialist (Ed.S) degree in School Psychology

Liberal Studies - Non-Teaching Pathway

Details on the changes can be found at Attachment A.

Carried unanimously.

FS 06-109/FEFC/Ex.

FACULTY ENDOWMENT FUND - NAME CHANGE

The Faculty Senate recommends changing the Faculty Endowment Fund to the "Faculty Endowment for Student Scholarships" and that the Faculty Endowment Fund Committee be changed to the "Faculty Endowment for Student Scholarships Committee". In addition, the Faculty Senate recommends that the fund be used exclusively for student scholarships in accordance with its de facto historical use and only feasible current use.

Background prepared by George Paganelis, Chair of the Faculty Endowment Fund Committee can be found at Attachment B.

Carried unanimously.

FS 06-112/Flr.

Commendation of Leadership - Cristy Ann Jensen

Whereas:

The successful Faculty Senate Chair must be an individual that can marshal limitless reserves of energy while at the same time drawing upon extensive practical experience, wisdom, solid political instincts, and firm faculty values; and

Whereas:

For the past two years the individual serving as Faculty Senate Chair has been ideally prepared for the job as a result of past experience that included:

serving as a volunteer in the George McGovern presidential campaign;

helping establish and chair the University’s graduate program in Public Policy & Administration;

working to establish public policy programs at universities in the former Soviet Union to promote local government formation;

serving for more than a decade on the statewide Academic Senate of the California State University, much of that time in leadership positions;

and many other examples of university service on the Sacramento State Campus;
and

Whereas:

This individual, while senate chair, has skillfully steered the Faculty Senate as it has addressed a wide range of complex academic issues, including: the Graduation Initiatives, academic advising, and development of an Educational Doctorate program, to mention just a few among many; and

Whereas:

This individual has always held that faculty consultation and the shared governance process are central to addressing these complex issues; and

Whereas:

This individual has never let anything—with the exception of Sacramento Kings games or the occasional tennis match featuring Andre Agassi—distract her from the her duties as Senate Chair; and

Whereas:

This individual knows much more about parliamentary procedure than she realizes; and

Whereas:

For the past two years the name of this individual has been Cristy Ann Jensen; therefore be it;

Resolved:

That the Faculty Senate of the California State University, Sacramento gratefully acknowledge the hard work and contributions of Cristy Jensen as Chair of the Faculty Senate for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 academic years; and be it further;

Resolved:

That the Faculty Senate wish Cristy Jensen well in all her future endeavors and reassure her that there is a less stressful life to be had after serving as senate chair.

Carried unanimously.

FS 06-92/Ex.

CONSULTATION, STATEMENT ON

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the Statement on Consultation as described in Attachment C of the March 30, 2006 Faculty Senate agenda.

Note: an amendment has been added since the first reading - it is denoted in bold.

Carried unanimously.

FS 06-111A/Flr.

WAIVER OF FIRST READING OF FS 06-111

The Faculty Senate waives the first reading of FS 06-111, Doctorate in Education - Preliminary Proposal.

Carried.

*FS 06-111/Ex.

doctorate in education - preliminary proposal

The Senate receives the preliminary proposal and recommends the development of an expanded full proposal. The Senate further expects that this full proposal will adhere to the policies (FS 06-87, Doctoral Programs, Policies and Procedures For) adopted by the Senate and respond to the suggestions of this body and other segments of the campus community. The preliminary proposal can be found at Attachment C.

Background information:

· Members of the community advisory board can be found at Attachment C-1.

· The policy on doctoral programs adopted by the Senate on April 13, 2006 (FS 06-87/Ex.) can be found at Attachment C-2.

· The resolution entitled "New Doctoral Authority For California State University, Sacramento and Associated Implementation Issues, Resolution On" (FS 05-55/Ex.Flr.) adopted by the Senate on November 10, 2005 can be found at Attachment C-3.

· SB 724 can be found at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_724_bill_20050922_chaptered.pdf

Carried unanimously.

WHEREAS,	Proposition 76, if passed, will make changes to the California Constitution related to state spending limits, school funding requirements (Proposition 98) and the budget process;
WHEREAS,	These changes potentially endanger the ability of California State University, Sacramento, to meet its commitment to our students and the people of California to continue to provide a high quality learning environment on our campus;
WHEREAS,	We support the actions of the Academic Senate of the CSU and our colleagues at other campuses in passing resolutions in opposition to the Proposition; therefore, be it
RESOLVED,	That the Faculty Senate of California State University, Sacramento, opposes passage of Proposition 76 that appears on the ballot of the November 8 special election and that we direct that copies of this resolution be sent to all members of our faculty, to the Associated Students, to the California Faculty Association and to the President of the University.

WHEREAS,	SB 724 authorizes the CSU to offer a ~~doctoral degree~~ Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) ~~in Education, broadly defined as leadership for community colleges and K-12 administrators~~ focused on preparing administrative leaders for California public elementary and secondary schools and community colleges and on the knowledge and skills needed by administrators to be effective leaders in California public schools and community colleges;
WHEREAS,	This new and exciting opportunity has received faculty support;
WHEREAS,	This may be the first of multiple, related program development opportunities at the doctoral level, and is unlike any program prior;
WHEREAS,	California State University, Sacramento has, subject to campus, system-wide and legislative guidelines, well established policies and precedent for faculty-driven curriculum and program development;
WHEREAS,	The Senate recognizes the ~~urgency necessary to and involved in~~ implications of the legislative timelines in SB 724 related to the development of the Ed.D; therefore, be it
RESOLVED,	That the Faculty Senate will support the development of such a curriculum in keeping with the existing policies regarding new programs;
RESOLVED,	That the Faculty Senate will support the ~~expediency~~ timeliness needed in moving these policies forward and, with faculty input, amending them as may be necessary for programs of this nature; and be it further
RESOLVED,	That the Faculty Senate, in the spirit of interdisciplinary, collaborative, and innovative curriculum development will support the involvement of all interested faculties on campus in the development of this exciting and entirely new program; and be it further
RESOLVED,	That the Faculty Senate authorizes the Executive Committee ~~Chair~~ to form an ad hoc committee comprised of faculty with appropriate and demonstrated curriculum policy experience to: review existing curricular review processes and develop recommendations for any changes needed, ~~for Senate curricular review purposes~~, develop the necessary areas to be addressed in a doctoral proposal ~~quality parameters~~ identified, but not limited to those, below: · quality parameters · faculty doctoral program workload · qualifications for doctoral faculty · nature of culminating project, qualifying examinations · ~~appropriate use of part-time faculty~~ · resource parameters per FTES · ~~fee structure~~ · cost recovery · guidelines for use of technology and be it further
RESOLVED,	That these recommendations shall be forwarded to the Senate’s Executive Committee and the Senate for action.

WHEREAS,	The situation known as salary inversion, where faculty with less experience are hired at a greater starting salary than current salary of experienced junior faculty, is clearly unfair and is extremely damaging to morale; and
WHEREAS,	Salary inversion is currently a major issue on the CSUS campus, as exhibited by examples in the College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies in which new hires are being offered approximately $7,000 (or 14.6%) more per year than the salaries currently earned by faculty in their fourth year at CSUS. Furthermore, those outrageous salary differentials will grow exponentially over the years, since CSU salary increases are percentage based; and
WHEREAS,	This salary inversion is further compounded by the facts that CSU faculty are paid an average of 19% less than comparable institutions and have received only a 3.5% General Salary Increase compared to a nationwide faculty salary increase of 11.9%; median housing prices in Sacramento have gone up well over 100% over the past five years; and junior faculty who entered in 2003 and 2004 never received a “Salary Step Increase” (SSI), therefore, be it
RESOLVED,	That the Faculty Senate urges that President Gonzalez give top priority to addressing this problem by whatever means are available to him on the campus level during the current academic year; and be it further
RESOLVED,	That the Faculty Senate urges President Alexander Gonzalez to inform the Chancellor’s Office of the difficulties caused by the junior faculty salary inversion problem on the Sacramento State campus and urges the Chancellor’s Office to take steps to address this issue system-wide during the current academic year so that this is not a recurrent problem; and be it further
RESOLVED,	That the Faculty Senate requests President Gonzalez to report to the Senate on the steps taken to resolve the junior faculty salary inversion problem—especially on the campus level but also system wide—by April 1, 2006.

Whereas:	The successful Faculty Senate Chair must be an individual that can marshal limitless reserves of energy while at the same time drawing upon extensive practical experience, wisdom, solid political instincts, and firm faculty values; and
Whereas:	For the past two years the individual serving as Faculty Senate Chair has been ideally prepared for the job as a result of past experience that included: serving as a volunteer in the George McGovern presidential campaign; helping establish and chair the University’s graduate program in Public Policy & Administration; working to establish public policy programs at universities in the former Soviet Union to promote local government formation; serving for more than a decade on the statewide Academic Senate of the California State University, much of that time in leadership positions; and many other examples of university service on the Sacramento State Campus; and
Whereas:	This individual, while senate chair, has skillfully steered the Faculty Senate as it has addressed a wide range of complex academic issues, including: the Graduation Initiatives, academic advising, and development of an Educational Doctorate program, to mention just a few among many; and
Whereas:	This individual has always held that faculty consultation and the shared governance process are central to addressing these complex issues; and
Whereas:	This individual has never let anything—with the exception of Sacramento Kings games or the occasional tennis match featuring Andre Agassi—distract her from the her duties as Senate Chair; and
Whereas:	This individual knows much more about parliamentary procedure than she realizes; and
Whereas:	For the past two years the name of this individual has been Cristy Ann Jensen; therefore be it;
Resolved:	That the Faculty Senate of the California State University, Sacramento gratefully acknowledge the hard work and contributions of Cristy Jensen as Chair of the Faculty Senate for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 academic years; and be it further;
Resolved:	That the Faculty Senate wish Cristy Jensen well in all her future endeavors and reassure her that there is a less stressful life to be had after serving as senate chair.