Multicultural Center Advisory Council
Margarita Berta-Avila, 2010
Kathy Zhong, 2011
Aya Kimura Ida, 2011

Curriculum Policies Committee
Stephanie Biagetti, At-large, 2012
Jing Pang, At-large, 2012

General Education/Graduation Requirements Policies Committee
Carolyn Gibbs, At-large, 2012, GE/GRPC
Edith LeFebvre, At-large, 2010, GE/GRPC

Committee on Diversity and Equity
Ricky Green, At-large, 2011
Manuel Barajas, At-large, 2012
Bridget Parsh, At-large, 2012

Nominations will remain open until the meeting of October 1, 2009, when the election will be held.

Current at-large faculty representatives:
James Sobredo, SS&IS, 2010
Scott Farrand, NS&M, 2011

Nominations will remain open until the meeting of October 1, 2009, when the election will be held.

Current at-large faculty representatives:
James Sobredo, SS&IS, 2010
Scott Farrand, NS&M, 2011

(See flowchart of GWAR for Graduate Students Process for a visual depiction of this policy)

NOTE: The WPG Equivalency Standards were adapted from standards currently used to allow waivers of the WPE (included below for informational purposes.) It should be noted, however, that the WPG Equivalency Standards serve a different purpose from the WPE Waiver Standards. Currently, a student who meets one of the WPE Waiver Standards has fulfilled the GWAR requirement for graduate students on this campus. A student who meets one of the WPG Equivalency Standards, on the other hand, will not have met the GWAR requirement, which will be met by completion of the culminating experience. Instead, meeting one of the WPG Equivalency Standards means that a student has clearly demonstrated sufficient preparation for graduate-level writing that there is no need for further assessment of their preparedness.

q Have M.A./M.S., Ph.D., or J.D. from a US-Accredited University or an equivalent degree with coursework in the English language as evaluated by the Office of the Graduate Dean (attach copy of school transcript with degree noted).

q Published a refereed academic journal article in the English language (attach a copy of the journal/publication cover and first page of the article with your name).

q Graduated with a baccalaureate degree or equivalent from a US-accredited University with a cumulative GPA of 3.7 or above (attach copy of school transcript).

q Received 4.5 or higher on the analytical writing portion of the GRE/GMAT (attach verification).

q Instructor of record of a college-level writing course taught in the English language at a US-accredited University approved by the Office of the Graduate Dean

q Have MA/MS, Ph.D., or JD from an Accredited American University (attach copy of school transcript with degree noted)

q Published an academic journal article or professional report (attach a copy of the journal/publication cover and first page of article or report with your name)

q Achieved a grade of B- or better in a Junior-level advanced English composition course that required a minimum of 5000 words of writing (attach copy of syllabus and school transcript with grade noted)

q Graduated from an Accredited American University with honors or above (attach copy of school transcript with honors noted for the degree)

q English instructor of record or tutor of college level English course (attach verification)

q Passed a writing proficiency exam at a CSU or passed an upper division writing exam at another University other than a CSU (attach verification letter from institution or copy of transcript with exam noted)

q Received 4.0 or higher on the GRE/GMAT writing assessment portion of the general exam (attach verification)

Search Committee, Dean, College of Health and Human Services
Robin Datel, At-large faculty

Background: During the Spring of 2009, and following debate on the level of recognition and nature of the award programs, the Faculty Senate passed the following:

Resolved: The Faculty Senate affirms its support of the current Faculty Awards model, which provides for University-wide recognition of faculty from each of the colleges or equivalent units in the categories of Teaching, Service to the Institution and Service to the Community.

Resolved: The Faculty Senate refers to Faculty Policies Committee the task of reviewing policies and procedures pertaining to the awards, including the composition of selection committees, with the goal of preparing a single integrated policy document that addresses all three awards, selection committees, award criteria, procedural matters, and manner(s) of recognition of award recipients. If FPC is to expend resources compiling and streamlining the policies and processes as the Senate has directed it to do, it is beneficial to determine in advance whether the Senate desires to add the fourth category, consistent with the fourth RTP review category, to avoid the later duplication of committee work. (FS 09-20/Ex.)

“I note that the reaffirmed awards structure attends to three of the four areas of faculty activity and responsibility at Sacramento State. I ask that the Executive Committee and the Provost please discuss the issue of attention to Senate Awards, administered at the college level, by which to give the same measure of University-wide recognition of faculty in the area of scholarly and creative activity as is now provided in the areas of teaching, service to the institution,. And service to the community.” (Gonzalez memo to Senate Chair, 4/21/09)

If FPC is to expend resources compiling and streamlining the policies and processes, as the Senate has directed it to do, it is beneficial to determine in advance whether the Senate desires to add the fourth category, to avoid the duplication of work.

The Faculty Senate affirms the addition of the category of Outstanding Scholarly and Creative Activity to the current complement of college-level Faculty Awards. Furthermore, the Faculty Senate refers to the Faculty Policies Committee the task of incorporating the policies and procedures pertaining to such an award into the already existing task of preparing a single policy document that addresses the awards, with respect to selection committees, award criteria, procedural matters, and manner(s) of recognition of award recipients.

Background: As part of a series of changes to the Comprehensive Writing Program approved by the Senate in 2006 and fully implemented in fall 2009, certification of GWAR was changed from a passing score on the WPE to a passing grade in a Writing Intensive (WI) course. During the process of advertising the changes to the campus, a number of faculty, deans, and department chairs expressed concerns that a passing grade in a WI course was too low of a standard for the GWAR. In response to these concerns the Reading and Writing Subcommittee feels that changing the certification to a C- would bring the requirement in line with the GE Area A Written Communication requirement and set a more rigorous standard. This change was presented to the Curriculum Policies Committee and the GE Policies Committee and both committees voted unanimously in favor of the change, with one abstention.

The Faculty Senate recommends changing the certification of completion of the undergraduate Graduation Writing Assessment Requirement (GWAR) from "a passing grade in a Writing Intensive course" to "a C- or higher in a Writing Intensive course."

Information Resources and Technology Advisory Committee
Carolyn Gibbs, Bin Zhang, and Jennifer Rayman

Information Resources and Technology Administrative Advisory Committee
Ron Coleman

Instructionally Related Activities Committee
Deborah Metzger, 2010
Mark Rodriguez, 2010

The Faculty Senate endorses the FTES reduction proposal for 2010-2011 presented by the Vice Presidents of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs during the Senate meeting of November 5^th, 2009*.

The Faculty Senate recommends the adoption of the Updated Baccalaureate Learning Goals:

* Understanding of and respect for those who are different from oneself and the ability to work collaboratively with those who come from diverse cultural and backgrounds.

** Interdisciplinary learning, learning communities, capstone or senior studies in the General Education program and/or in the major connecting learning goals with the content and practices of the educational programs including GE, departmental majors, the co-curriculum and assessments.

The Faculty Senate endorses the Executive Committee’s participation on the President’s ad hoc Advisory Group through the Spring 2010 semester to help address urgent issues/directives from the Chancellor’s Office and other sources that require timely responses. In making this endorsement, the Senate does not abdicate its powers and responsibilities on policy matters within its purview as defined in the Constitution of the Faculty and the By-laws of the Faculty Senate.

The Faculty Senate recognizes the centrality of graduate education to the mission of the California State University and as defined by California State Law.

The Faculty Senate further recognizes the need for FTES reduction in the 2010-2011 academic year, as previously endorsed by this body (FS 09-72A), and makes the following recommendations with regard to enrollment and admissions decisions for that period:

1. Depending on enrollment patterns and need, non K-12 Teacher Preparation Credentials shall be reduced prior to reducing the number of FTES in K-12 Teacher Preparation Credential programs.

2. All certificate programs not currently embedded in a graduate degree program shall have admissions suspended, unless the program is 1) accredited; 2) required for licensure; and 3) is provided a special exception by the Provost. Under these circumstances, the program will be evaluated in accordance with the “Criteria for Reduction or Suspension of Master’s Programs”.

3. Proportionate cuts across programs of varied sizes should be avoided in as much as they jeopardize small quality programs more than they do large programs.

4. The Provost should take into account projected drops in enrollment by programs. Given the unusual nature of both the economic context and current enrollment patterns, program coordinators should report their estimated enrollment figures to the Graduate Dean.

5. For further reductions after enacting recommendations 1 and 2 above, the Graduate Dean and the Provost shall ensure that the criteria for FTES reductions are applied across campus using equitable and comprehensive application of standards, and following the guidelines of the criteria template (see below). Enrollment cuts to specific programs do not imply redistribution of FTES within the same college: such decisions are to be made at the campus level by the Graduate Dean and the Provost.

6. In an effort to ensure transparency, the Graduate Dean shall provide faculty senators, department chairs and graduate coordinators a report of reductions to and suspension of graduate credential, certificate, and degree programs.

The Faculty Senate refers to the Executive Committee the task of creating an ad hoc task force to review the 1991 document and make recommendations for revision, as deemed appropriate, for guiding decisions on academic program priorities and distribution of enrollment, including processes by which decisions on program and enrollment distribution are made.

The Faculty Senate commends and thanks the Chair and the Members of the Graduate Studies Policies Committee for their dedicated and time-consuming service in crafting FS 09-83. Furthermore, the Faculty Senate thanks the Members of the Graduate Advisory Council for framing the criteria and laying the groundwork for this action in their previous communication to the Graduate Dean.

The Faculty Senate recommends faculty representation in the “Enrollment Management Group” (EMG).

Pending a full charge and composition statement to be authored by the Provost and the Associate Vice President of Student Affairs for Enrollment Management, the Faculty Senate recommends that one member of the Academic Policies Committee (APC) (to be chosen by the Committee) and one member of the Graduate Studies Policies Committee (GSPC) (to be chosen by the Committee) be appointed to serve in the EMG for the remainder of the 2009-2010 Academic Year.

The Faculty Senate recommends Kristin Van Gaasbeck (APC) and Annie Blanton (GSPC) to serve in this capacity.

This recommendation pertains to the balance of the 2009-2010 AY only, unless extended by a subsequent action of the Faculty Senate.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations of the (Attachment A) Program Review Oversight Committee on the program review of the Department of Environmental Studies and recommends approval for six years or until the next scheduled program review.

Background: Article II, Section F of the By-laws of the CSUS Faculty Senate stated that "A vacancy in the voting membership of the Executive Committee shall be filled by nomination and election at the first meeting of the Faculty Senate after the vacancy occurs. The nominee elected shall have received more votes than any candidate not elected." James Sobredo, Senator representing Ethnic Studies, has resigned.

The Faculty Senate elects an at-large member to the Executive Committee. (Members must be available to meet Tuesdays from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.)

The following senators were nominated to serve as at-large members to the Executive Committee:

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the E-Learning Policy, as outlined in the January 28, 2010 Faculty Senate Agenda, Attachment B.

Resolved: That the Faculty Senate recognizes that the formula/process based on the 1991 document “Instructional Program Priorities; Academic Planning, Resource Allocation and Enrollment Management” adopted on December 17^th, 2009 and set forth in recommendation 5 of FS 09-83/GSPC/Ex. has not produced a generally satisfactory result at this point and further decision-making should not be based on the “point system” that resulted from that recommendation.

At the same time the Senate reaffirms its previous endorsement of the need of FTES reduction in the 2010-2011 AY set forth in FS 09-72A adopted on November 19^th, 2009, as well as reaffirming recommendations 1 and 2 of FS 09-83/GSPC/Ex. adopted on December 17^th, 2009.

With respect to tests, examinations, graded assignments, deadlines or class participation that may have a significant impact on grading, instructors shall reasonably accommodate students’ planned absence(s) for religious observance(s). Students shall notify their instructor(s) by the end of the open add deadline (adds without petition) when seeking a reasonable accommodation for requirements published in the course syllabus. For requirements announced after the open add deadline, they shall notify their instructor(s) by the end of the class period following the announcement.

Background information can be found in the January 28, 2010 Faculty Senate Agenda, Attachment C.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following program proposals, as outlined in Attachment C (24 pages).

A. Multiple Subject Teaching Credential in the EDS Dual Program (Mild/Moderate Education Specialist and Multiple Subject Credentials)

For the period during which the senator from an electing unit serves as the Chair of the Faculty Senate, the electing unit’s alternate senator, if any, shall be a voting member of the Senate. When the alternate is present, the Chair shall not vote on any matter. In the absence of the alternate the chair may vote to break a tie.

Reason: The Senator holding the position of Faculty senate chair must, by nature of the position, remain neutral in debates and voting, and cannot therefore be an effective representative of his/her electing unit in these matters. To ensure representation of that unit’s interests in the Faculty Senate, the unit’s alternate senator (if it has one) may serve as the unit’s official voting senator.

If the electing unit has not designated an alternate, then, as is currently the case, the Senate Chair may vote to break a tie.

The Faculty Senate receives and enters the letters from Professors Scott Farrand (Mathematics) and Sylvia Navari (Social Work) relating to graduate program FTES reductions into the February 18, 2010 Faculty Senate minutes. Professor Navari’s letter can be found at Attachment A. Professor Farrand’s letter can be found at Attachment A-1. Furthermore, said letters shall be referred to the Task Force on Possible Revisions to University Policy on Instructional Priorities and Resource Allocations, as outlined in FS 10-17, if approved.

The Faculty Senate endorses the Task Force on Possible Revisions to University Policy on Instructional Priorities and Resource Allocations as follows:

Task Force on Possible Revisions to University Policy on Instructional Priorities
and Resource Allocation

In line with a recommendation from the Faculty Senate (FS 09-86/Flr.) to and accepted by President Gonzalez, a Task Force shall be established to consider revisions, as appropriate, to the University’s 1991 policy: “Instructional Program Priorities, Guidelines for Academic Planning, Resource Allocation and Enrollment Management.”

“Review the 1991 document and make recommendations for revision, as deemed appropriate, for guiding decisions on academic program priorities and distribution of enrollment, including processes by which decisions on program and enrollment distribution are made.”

· Chair of the Faculty Senate (co-chair) or designee chosen by and from the Executive Committee should the Chair decline to serve

The Task Force shall inform and solicit responses from departments, colleges and the Senate during the process of development of its report and recommendations.

The Task Force shall produce a written report and, to the extent appropriate, recommendations. The report shall be delivered to the Provost and made available immediately to the Senate.

Task Force should commence activity immediately and should complete its work by April 30.

The meeting of appropriate representatives from Space Management, IRT and AITC with Nursing to ensure that the process for responding to their program need for lab use is met in a timely manner.

Resolution of this problem needs to occur in time to ensure that whatever mid-term testing is required can be accommodated.

A faculty member may be elected to serve up to three (3) consecutive terms of one year each as the Chair of a Standing Committee. After an interval of a year following the end of the third consecutive term, the faculty member shall become eligible for election to the Chair of a Standing Committee.

Reason: This was the sentiment that emerged in the Senate’s earlier discussions of the subject. It eliminates that possibility that Standing Committee Chairs could end up serving longer than senators representing electing units and provides opportunity for new people to move into positions of senate leadership.

Note: If approved, then for current Standing Committee Chairs, the current year (2009-2010) would count as ‘year one’ of their three potential consecutive terms.

The Faculty Senate accepts the Committee on Diversity and Equity's request to co-sponsor the Affirmative Action Equity Conference on April 14, 2010, featuring keynote speaker Tim Wise.

Note: This "sponsorship" represents philosophical support, not financial support.

Background: The Committee on Diversity and Equity (CODE) has unanimously voted to co-sponsor, along with the Affirmative Action Committee, the Affirmative Action Equity conference on April 14^th featuring keynote speaker Tim Wise. Additionally, CODE respectfully seeks co-sponsorship of the Senate for this event in light of racially charged events that have taken place recently on university campuses across the state and nation. We believe it is imperative that entities within the CSUS community come together as a cohesive force in addressing and preventing similar acts on our campus.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the Student Grade Appeal Process as outlined in the February 25, 2010 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment B.

A summary of the major/substantive changes to the Student Grade Appeal Process can be found at the February 25, 2010 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment B-1.

To refer the newly amended Section III.B of the Grade Appeal Policy along with the question of the location of faculty review of faculty sanctions for cheating, if there is to be any review of same, and report back to the Faculty Senate the inclusion of the newly adopted amendment at the appropriate places in the Academic Honesty Policy.

The Faculty Senate endorses the establishment of an Academic Affairs Information Technology Strategic Planning Advisory Group, subject to the deletion of the first 2 bullets under “Charge”, as outlined below. In addition the Faculty Senate recommends adding 2 additional faculty representatives, appointed by the Senate, to the membership.

The Provost has requested that an advisory group be created related to the effective use of Information Technology (IT) to support teaching, learning and research at Sacramento State. This group shall be named the Academic Affairs IT ~~Strategic Planning~~ Advisory Group.

~~· Develop and recommend both short and long-term academic Information Technology (IT) strategic priorities that support:~~

~~- Adaptation to changing paradigms in the curriculum, delivery modalities, advising, generational shifts in the academic workforce, and eLearning.~~

~~- The periodic evaluation and improvement of the Academic Affairs IT strategic planning process.~~

~~· Identify and recommend strategic best practices in the use of academic technology to enhance teaching, learning and research.~~

· Provide guidance to colleges, the Library and the academic affairs units on the process for identification and prioritization of IT needs, on the preparation of both IT related budget requests, and responses to periodic funding opportunities from Academic Affairs for specific IT projects.

· Remain informed of the colleges, Library and academic affairs units’ IT priorities, as these priorities are reviewed and updated yearly.

· Review the projects on the Academic Affairs IT annual project list to be submitted to IRT.

· Assume a consultative role in the acquisition, expansion, cancellation, planning and design of the academic IT infrastructure (i.e. Smart Classrooms / learning spaces/ studio classrooms, learning management system, major campus-wide academic software, etc.).

· Publicize to the larger university academic community a yearly report of this group’s activity.

· Coordinate with the IRT Steering Committee on relevant IT strategic planning issues.

· Recommend a process for units to develop and submit their prioritized IT needs to Academic Affairs.

The advisory group will have broad campus representation from the campus academic community. Its membership will be as follows:

· The Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs Technology Initiatives, Chair-Jean-Pierre Bayard

· A representative from the Accessible Technology Initiative (ATI) Steering Committee-Melissa Repa

· A faculty representative from the AITC committee of the Faculty Senate-To be named

· A representative from the division of Information, Resources and Technology (IRT)-Doug Jackson

· The Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), or designee-Kimo Ah Yun

· A representative from the college Information Technology Consultants (ITC)-To be named

· A student Representative from the Associated Students Inc. (ASI)-Jesse Cuevas, ASI VP for Academic Affairs

The workgroup will schedule monthly meetings during the academic year. Such schedule may be altered as needed, depending on duties and/or requests for action from Academic Affairs. Expectations are that technology will be used routinely to communicate, to review and discuss documents, and in some cases to meet virtually.

C. Certificate Program in Mixed-Signal Integrated Circuit Design (graduate level)

B. 1. Nomination to serve on the University ARTP Committee shall not be limited to self-nomination. The right to nominate shall be limited to

2. Whenever a call for nominations to serve as an elected member of the University ARTP Committee produces no more than one nominee, the college faculty shall vote in an election called for the purpose to confirm or reject that nominee’s offer to serve.

Background can be found as found at the March 18, 2010 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment C.

The Faculty Senate recommends that Academic Affairs facilitate the meeting of appropriate representatives from Space Management, IRT and representatives from AITC to review, revise and streamline (as appropriate), the process for assigning labs for academic use.

AITC discussion at its meeting on February 26^th: The problem of access to computer labs for testing purposes is not unique to nursing. Committee members indicated that Communication Studies as well as programs in the College of Business have experienced the same problem. All agreed that the need and therefore the demand for this type of use of computer labs will continue to grow as additional courses are offered in a hybrid format or on-line.

Background information can be found at the March 11, 2010 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment A.

The Faculty Senate establishes an ad hoc Advisory Committee to make recommendations on the Senate’s budget. The membership of the Committee shall include the at-large elected members of the 2009-10 Executive Committee and three additional 2009-2010 at-large representatives of electing units appointed by the Senate, none of whom may be Chairs of Standing Committees with seats on the Executive Committee. The Committee shall elect is own chair from the membership. The charge of the Committee shall be to (1) develop recommendations to the Senate Chair on how budget reductions should be made under budget reduction scenarios of 6%, 12% and 18% and (2) develop a statement on the impact of the reductions under each scenario on the Senate's functions. In conducting its business, the Committee shall invite testimony from the Senate Chair, Senate Staff, Chairs of Committees, the Provost and other interested parties. Committee meetings shall be held in executive session, and the Committee shall report out the results of its findings and recommendations to the Senate Chair and to the full Senate by the end of April, 2010. Upon this reporting, the Committee shall have completed its responsibilities and be discharged.

The Faculty Senate appoints the following representatives of electing units to serve as at large members of the ad hoc Advisory Committee to make recommendations on the Senate’s budget established by FS 10-28A.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations of the (Attachment D) Program Review Oversight Committee on the program review of the Department of Chemistry and recommends approval for six years or until the next program review.

The Faculty Senate elects college representatives to the 2010 Committee on Committees:

The Faculty Senate recommends the Provost develop a process to assess and thereby inform decisions on any proposals that would impact significantly the unique educational needs of the Division of Academic Affairs or any of its specific components. The process should address, but not be limited to, proposals that could result in following:

1. The transfer of any specific IT resources, infrastructure or support services from the Division of Academic Affairs (AA) to the Division of Information Resources and Technology (IRT)

2. The transfer of the responsibility and accountability for any specific IT resources, infrastructure, support services, or security protocols from the Division of Academic Affairs (AA) to the Division of Information Resources and Technology (IRT)

3. Any major proposals that could directly affect the curriculum with regards to IT resources, infrastructure or support services.

2. A significant period to allow for feedback, positive or negative, from affected colleges or departments;

The Faculty Senate adopts the “Statement on Consultation and Governance” as found at the March 18, 2010 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment B.

The letter of transmittal from the Faculty-Administration Team on Consultation, Shared Governance and Leadership can be found as found at the March 18, 2010 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment B-1.

The Faculty Senate endorses the establishment of the Learning Space Advisory Workgroup, as described below:

The purpose of this workgroup is to review the design of current and planned learning spaces so that these spaces are optimized for instruction. While other spaces may be considered, the workgroup will concentrate on reviewing the design of classrooms and computer labs. The workgroup will focus on recommending how technology can be effectively incorporated into learning spaces as well as how learning spaces can be configured to support varied modes of instruction. This workgroup is being established by the Provost and the VP/Chief Information Officer in response to faculty concerns about the decision-making process related to the design and development of campus-wide classrooms, computer labs, and other learning spaces.

· Develop and implement a process for soliciting input from departments, faculty and students regarding the design of current learning spaces as well as the design plans for new learning spaces.

· Propose flexible and comprehensive learning space principles and standards that meet the broadest possible faculty and student needs

· Disseminate information regarding learning space needs and plans to the campus

· Review and recommend, as appropriate, changes in the process of assigning classrooms and labs

The output of the workgroup will be the basis for recommendations to Academic Affairs, Information Resources & Technology, and Facilities Services administrators regarding learning space planning and renovation, especially as it relates to teaching and learning.

The Workgroup will be co-chaired by the Associate Vice President for Academic Computing, Doug Jackson, and the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs Technology Initiatives, Jean-Pierre Bayard. The main body of committee membership will be created using the process described below.

· Academic Affairs will appoint two committee members, with at least one being a member of the teaching faculty.

· IRT will appoint two committee members, with at least one being a member of the teaching faculty.

· The IRT Steering Committee will appoint its student member to serve as the Associated Student representative.

Members will be selected based on their ability to represent campus-wide learning space needs.

Through a procedure determined at the inaugural meeting of the LSAW, terms of the initial faculty members of the workgroup shall be staggered to insure long-term continuity of the membership.

Beyond the staggered terms of the initial membership of the LSAW, terms of service shall be three years. Committee members can be re-appointed; no faculty representative shall serve more than two successive terms.

The Workgroup will hold monthly meetings, beginning spring semester, 2010. In addition, the group will use email, web pages, discussion boards, and informal conversations on an ongoing basis. Key outputs of the Workgroup will include development of a Learning Space Survey for faculty, recommendations for development of a four-year improvement plan, and recommendations for learning space principles and standards.

The Faculty Senate recommends that the Administration pursue a course that preserves the possibility of a declaration of campus impaction for the 2011-2012 academic year.

The Faculty Senate further recommends that such an application to the Chancellor’s Office include a provision for a subset (unspecified) of applicants to be admitted based on their eligibility index in addition to other supplemental criteria such as: first generation college status, socioeconomic factors, indications of overcoming educational hardship, skills or talents that align with or contribute to university programs or which might further enrich the educational experience of the campus community.

The Faculty Senate further recommends that as decisions are being made regarding the definition of service region, cut-off levels on eligibility indices, the balance between those admitted based on the eligibility indices versus those admitted based on other supplemental criteria, and the application of any such supplemental criteria, the Administration utilize the membership, including faculty representatives, of the Enrollment Management Group and provide timely reports to the Faculty Senate that allow sufficient time for feedback and further recommendations, if deemed appropriate by the Faculty Senate.

Background: On March 18, 2010, the Faculty Senate approved FS 10-18/APC/Ex. “Student Grade Appeal Process, Amendment of”. Subsequent to the passage of FS 10-18, the Senate approved FS 10-18A/Flr. “Motion to Refer the Academic Honesty Policy”: “To refer the newly amended Section III.B of the Grade Appeal Policy along with the question of the location of faculty review of faculty sanctions for cheating, if there is to be any review of same, and report back to the Faculty Senate the inclusion of the newly adopted amendment at the appropriate places in the Academic Honesty Policy.” FS 10-48 and FS 10-48A seek to address these issues.

The Faculty Senate moves to amend further Section III.B of the Student Grade Appeal Process (2010) by adding the following bolded language to it and numbering the several paragraphs 1 – 5.

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.

A. 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 California State University, Sacramento Policies and Procedures Regarding Academic Honesty.

1. 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 the student can allege and prove that the grade assigned as a sanction for cheating is grossly disproportionate to the offense. Gross disproportionality shall be shown by reference to Sections V.A.2 and 3 of the California State University, Sacramento 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.

2. An academic sanction for cheating, including plagiarism, stated in writing in a course syllabus or otherwise widely published as a matter of department policy and applied as stated by an instructor in a case of cheating, including plagiarism, shall give rise to an unrebuttable presumption that it is not grossly disproportionate to the offense and therefore arbitrary whenever that sanction as applied becomes the subject of a grade appeal.

3. All other claims that an academic sanction for cheating is grossly disproportionate and therefore arbitrary shall be decided in favor of the instructor provided the instructor is willing and able to give reasons for the instructor’s choice of sanction in relation to the instructor’s estimate of the gravity or seriousness of the offense. A panel shall not review or revise the instructor’s estimate of the gravity or seriousness of the offense.

4. A department may as a matter of policy estimate the gravity of an offense defined in Section III of the California State University, Sacramento Policies and Procedures Regarding Academic Honesty, prescribe a sanction for it in all cases and publish its estimate and prescribed sanction widely, as for instance, on web pages, in the syllabi of its courses or in classrooms, laboratories or passageways frequented by students. Whenever a department does so as a matter of policy, a panel shall give judgment for an instructor subject to a grade appeal under this section provided the instructor has applied the department’s policy as written to the case of cheating giving rise to the grade appeal.

5. An instructor may nevertheless arrive at an estimate of the gravity of the offense that assigns greater but not less seriousness to it than that assigned by a department’s policy and assign a greater sanction. Such an estimate and assignment, being the instructor’s own, shall be subject to review for arbitrariness as provided in paragraph 3 of this section.

Move to amend as well Section V.A.1 of the Academic Honesty Policy by inserting at the end of the second sentence: (Please see Section V.A.2.b below.)

Move to amend as well Section V.A.2 of the Academic Honesty Policy by adding the following subsection b, designating the previously adopted paragraph “a” and adding the bolded phrase to the newly designated subsection a.

a. 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 general or in the particular case before them. In cases of grave offense such as those offenses specified in Sections III.A.5 & III.A.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.

b. An academic sanction for cheating, including plagiarism, stated in writing in a course syllabus or otherwise widely published as a matter of department policy and applied as stated by an instructor in a case of cheating, including plagiarism, shall give rise to an unrebuttable presumption that it is not grossly disproportionate to the offense and therefore arbitrary whenever that sanction as applied becomes the subject of a grade appeal. (For the application of this policy to grade appeals please see Section III.B of the Student Grade Appeal Process 2010.)

To implement already established and agreed upon graduate FTES allocations within the colleges, the Faculty Senate recommends that programs be able to petition the Graduate Dean to exceed within the early registration period the graduate unit cap exclusively for the purposes of accommodating programmatic needs.

The Faculty Senate amends the Outstanding Teaching, University and Community Service awards program as follows:

· Each college shall establish Faculty Awards or Professional Development Committee to select college award winners in the categories of Outstanding Teaching, Scholarly and Creative Activity, University Service, and Community Service.

· All committee members shall be elected by the college faculty, in a college-wide election called for that purpose, to serve multiyear staggered terms with a maximum term length of three years per term.

· All probationary, tenured, or other full-time faculty in the college shall be eligible to serve on this committee.

· Current students, alumni, faculty including self nominations, or staff may nominate faculty for these awards.

· Before the application process begins, colleges shall establish criteria for Outstanding Teaching, University Service, Community Service, and Scholarly and Creative Activity awards beyond the basic eligibility requirements. These criteria shall be distributed to all faculty within the college.

· If a file does not reach a level of outstanding, colleges are not obligated to give out the award in each category.

· A completed application file must be submitted by the established college deadline in order for further consideration by the selection committee.

· Colleges are strongly encouraged to establish reasonable page limits for any supporting materials. Committees may call for additional information from the nominee as well.

· As part of the application process, committees are encouraged to solicit at least two references and/or letters of support for each nominee.

· The Faculty Senate shall announce one single call for all four awards which includes minimum criteria.* Colleges must report all award winners to the Faculty Senate by the established deadline.

· There shall be a campus-wide announcement and recognition of award recipients.

· Encourage colleges to find opportunities in which to further recognize the award winners.

* Until such time that the Faculty Senate establishes campus-wide criteria for Outstanding Scholarly and Creative Activity Awards, the Colleges and the Library are to utilize their own criteria.

Background: On February 18, 2010, the Faculty Senate approved FS 10-04 “Religious Observance Policy”. Following the advice of legal counsel, the Senate has been asked for alternative language. The original language was:

“With respect to tests, examinations, graded assignments, deadlines or class participation that may have a significant impact on grading, instructors shall reasonably accommodate students’ planned absence(s) for religious observance(s). Students shall notify their instructor(s) by the end of the open add deadline (adds without petition) when seeking a reasonable accommodation for requirements published in the course syllabus. For requirements announced after the open add deadline, they shall notify their instructor(s) by the end of the class period following the announcement.”

1) Suspend implementation of specific “Campus Responses” to recommendations1 documented in the “Security Report” that will directly impact the academic mission of the University until the Faculty Senate has had the opportunity to:

a) Review the "Security Report" and submit its evaluation of the impact of the recommendations on the instructional program and faculty work.

b) Suggest alternatives, as appropriate, to mitigate or avoid adverse impact on the instructional program and faculty work.

2) Broaden and extend the timeframe for consultation on the recommended IT Cost Savings Initiatives authored by the Vice President and CIO and currently being considered by the IT Steering Committee as 2010-2011 budget savings initiatives.

3) Request that Academic Affairs (the Provost), the Faculty Senate (the Chair of the Academic Senate) and Information and Resource Technology (the Vice President and CIO) establish the necessary consultative process that adheres to the Statement on Shared Governance mutually adopted by the President and Faculty Senate and used for the following purposes:

a) To analyze each of the security recommendations using the accompanied preliminary AITC Committee Report as a guide.

b) To identify and analyze alternative campus responses to the security recommendations and to recommend to the President implementation of options that are cost effective, minimize negative impact to academic programs, and satisfies the intent of the security recommendations.

c) To analyze all recommended IT Cost Savings Initiatives that affect instructional program and faculty work using the accompanied preliminary AITC Committee Report as a guide.

d) To analyze the estimated net cost savings and instructional program impact of these IT Cost Savings Initiatives and recommend a final prioritized list of options to the Provost.

4) Establish and communicate a specific timeframe not less than 6 months that would allow for the process of consultation as described in item 3, and, if necessary, formally request of the Chancellor’s Office an extension of the deadline for addressing particular findings from the Security Report.

[1] “Campus Responses” to recommendations/findings 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 12, and 14-19.

Background: The AITC Committee Report provides a detailed description and justification for the above recommendations. The report includes a summary of the AITC concerns and also introduces several preliminary alternative approaches (AITC recommended) to the aforementioned “Recommended IT Cost Savings Initiatives” and “Information Security, California State University Sacramento, Audit Report 09-36, December 7, 2009”. Faculty might also be interested in learning how other CSU campuses have responded to their security audits. For example, the CIO at Northridge was quoted as saying their decentralized units were doing a good job. In fact, the campus response to their security audit affirmed their commitment to decentralized units being supported and conveyed a functioning cooperation between local and central areas. The response even carefully separated production and business systems.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the revisions to the “W (Withdrawal)” and “WU (WITHDRAWAL UNAUTHORIZED)” Policies to clarify the existing policy and to align with EO 1037. These policies replace the current policies and should be incorporated in their entirety into the University Manual as follows:

1. the retention of current policy which allows for withdrawal from a course in weeks 5 and 6 for reasons due to the student carrying an excessive course load or inadequate preparation for the course.

2. the retention of current policy which does not allow for withdrawal from a course in weeks 7 through 12 for reasons due to the student carrying an excessive course load or inadequate preparation for the course.

3. the retention of current policy that allows for students to “Petition to Discount First WU Grades”.

4. the revisions to Withdrawal from the University and the Grade Correction and Deletion policies to be consistent with changes mandated by EO 1037.

5. inclusion of the EO 1037 specified limit placed on the number of accumulated “W” units per student during their academic career at CSUS. The limit is 18 units and applies to “W” units recorded during weeks 5 through 12.

Each student is limited to a maximum of 18 accumulated “W” units during their academic career at CSUS.

For serious and compelling reasons including carrying an excessive course load or inadequate preparation for a course

For serious and compelling reasons, but not including an excessive course load or inadequate preparation for a course

Not permitted, except in cases of accident or serious illness where the cause is due to circumstances beyond the student’s control

For purposes of GPA calculation, the “WU” grade is equivalent to an “F”.

Discounted First WU grade(s) are not included in the GPA calculation, however the "WU" grade(s) remain on the student's transcript

Dropping a course refers to official removal from a course within the first four weeks of the semester (before census date). In this instance, nothing is recorded on the student’s permanent record.

A withdrawal from a course is an official removal from a course after census date. A grade of “W” is recorded on the student’s permanent record.

Enrollment Cancellation refers to students being administratively dropped from courses due to non-payment of fees. Enrollment Cancellation is done throughout the registration cycles prior to the census date. No “W” grades are recorded on the student’s permanent record. If a student is enrollment cancelled during their first semester, they will be required to reapply for admission to the university.

An Unauthorized Withdrawal may result for failure to drop or withdraw properly from a course. In this case, a grade of “WU” is assigned by the instructor. (See “Unauthorized Withdrawal Policy” below)

Limit on Withdrawal. For all units attempted at California State University Sacramento, withdrawals made after the census date and prior to the last three weeks of instruction are limited to a combined total of no more than 18 semester-units during a student’s academic career at CSUS [A process must be developed by APC to receive petitions for exceptions to this limitation.]

The Student’s Registration and Advising Guide will contain established University procedures and timelines for dropping and withdrawing from courses, and also information regarding refund of registration fees upon withdrawal.

Each student has the responsibility of dropping any courses in which he/she is enrolled, but did not attend or stopped attending. Such drops must be in accordance with established university procedures and timelines.

Within the first four weeks of instruction, instructors have the authority to administratively drop any student who fails to attend any two class meetings (for courses that meet two or more times a week) or one class meeting (for courses that meet once a week) during the first week of instruction. This includes online courses where students have failed to respond to the instructor’s email request for acknowledgement of course attendance.

During the first four weeks of the semester, students may drop a course (or courses) without restriction or penalty to their academic record. Courses officially dropped during the first four weeks of instruction will not be recorded on the student’s permanent record.

Students will receive a final grade of “WU”, “F”, or “NC” (whichever is appropriate) in courses they have stopped attending and have failed to officially drop or officially withdraw.

All withdrawals after the fourth week of instruction are allowed only for serious and compelling reasons [EO 1037 language].

Acceptable reasons for a withdrawal in weeks 5 and 6 of instruction include illness, change in employment schedule, and also carrying an excessive load or inadequate preparation for the course. During this time period, all withdrawals must have the approval of the instructor and the chair of the department offering the course [current CSUS policy].

Withdrawals in weeks 7 through 12 of instruction are allowed only for career-related or medical reasons beyond the control of the student. Carrying an excessive load or inadequate preparation for the course are not acceptable reasons. During this time period, all withdrawals must have the approval of the instructor, the chair of the department offering the course, and the college dean [current CSUS policy].

Withdrawals from a course (or courses) during the final three weeks of the semester shall not be permitted except in cases, such as accident or serious illness, where the cause of withdrawal are clearly beyond the student’s control and the assignment of an Incomplete is not practical. Students who must leave classes during this period should first consult with their instructors to determine whether a grade of Incomplete is appropriate.

Students will receive a final grade of “WU”, “F”, or “NC” (whichever is appropriate) in courses they have stopped attending and have failed to officially withdraw.

Sacramento State students withdrawing from all courses for physical, emotional, financial, family health, or other non-academic reasons must receive approval from the Academic Advising Office before leaving the University.

Withdrawals from the University during the final three weeks of the semester shall not be permitted except in cases, such as accident or serious illness, where the cause of withdrawal are clearly beyond the student’s control and the assignment of Incompletes in each course is not practical. [EO 1037 language]. Documentation will be required.

The University requires that students process an official drop or withdrawal online or by petition within published deadlines. Failure to withdraw properly from a course may result in assignment of a “WU”, “F”, or “NC” grade in the course.

The “WU” is may be assigned in the case where the student has not completed sufficient course assignments or participated in sufficient course activity to make it possible, in the opinion of the instructor, to report satisfactory or unsatisfactory completion of the class by use of a letter grade (A – F).

For purposes of grade point average, a “WU” grade is equivalent to an “F”. However, in courses which are graded Credit/No Credit, the use of the “NC” grade should be assigned and not the “WU” grade.

Petition to Discount First WU Grade. In the first term that a student receives one or more “WU” grades, the student may petition to have the “WU” grades dropped from their GPA calculation. To do so the student must obtain a “Petition to Discount First WU Grade” from the University Registrar’s Office or the Academic Advising Center.

The student may submit a petition at any time prior to the conferral of degree. While the petition will result in the “WU” grades being excluded from the GPA calculation, the “WU” grade remains on the student’s transcript. The “Petition to Discount First WU Grade” only applies to the first term in which the student receives one or more “WU” grades. This “Discount” policy does not apply to “WU” grades earned in subsequent terms or “WU” grades received at institutions other than Sacramento State.

A student re-enrolling in a course in which the student previously received a discounted first WU grade, will not be considered to be officially repeating the course. These units will not be considered “repeat units” as specified in the University’s Repeat Policy.

A grade correction is possible only in the case of a declared administrative error. A correction in letter grade must be approved by the instructor of record and the department chairperson by the last day of the semester, either spring or fall, after the grade is posted to the student’s record. The definition of administrative error is an error made by the instructor or assistant in grade determination or posting.

A grade change may not be made as a result of work completed or presented following the close of a grade period, except for completion of work when an Incomplete grade was issued. Grades cannot be changed to “W” nor can they be changed from a letter grade to Credit/No Credit.

A grade correction after the semester following grade award will be allowed only if the course instructor and chair of the department where the course was offered submit the grade change and an explanation for the late grade correction to the Registrar. In the case where the course instructor and/or department chair is unavailable, the department faculty or a committee of department faculty must approve the grade correction. In such a case, a statement of the nature of the exception, the department’s method of approval, and the date of approval, must be forwarded with the grade correction.

A petition to delete grades may be submitted for consideration by the Academic Standards Committee for the following reasons only:

Petitions to delete grades must be submitted within one academic year from the end of the semester in which the grade was received. After a degree has been awarded, no petitions will be considered to delete grades posted prior to that award.

Background: Since the campus is required to reduce FTES in the upcoming Academic Year and due to unprecedented budgetary turmoil, the Curriculum Policies Committee would like to insure that we are doing all we can to allow students who are in residence to not take any longer to complete their degree programs than is already necessary. A student taking additional courses means that another qualified student may not be able to be admitted.

As it is often said that the “Curriculum belongs to the Faculty,” the Curriculum Policies Committee believes that it is essential to take some action. This proposal was developed by CPC with the assistance of representation from Academic Affairs and as a follow-up to a referral by the Executive Committee.

• Effective for the 2010-11 Academic Year, there will be a moratorium on approval of:

o New Certificate Programs that are not embedded within a current degree program

o Program Changes that increase the number of units in the major or the degree program

• Programs may request an exemption from the terms of this policy if they are required to make one of the aforementioned changes by their external accrediting body.

• This moratorium will be reviewed by the Curriculum Policies Committee in March 2011.

EO 1037 states that “The conditions for removal of the Incomplete shall be reduced to writing by the instructor and given to the student with a copy placed on file with the appropriate campus officer…” APC recommends the additional steps incorporated into the CMS grade submittal process and the use of the “Incomplete Contract Data” form be used to implement this requirement.

While EO 1037 states the “IC (Incomplete Charged)” grade symbol may be used, this is not a new option. To be consistent with current policy, which does not include the “IC” grade symbol, APC recommends that the current policy not be changed.

EO 1037 states that “it may be appropriate for a faculty member to submit a letter grade to be assigned in the event the Incomplete is not made up within one year.” Current policy does not provide for such an option. APC recommends that this option not be included and the current policy not be changed.

¹ Students in the military reserve who are called to active duty during or around the final examinations period are eligible to receive an “I” grade provided they meet the conditions above.

2 Students in the military reserve who are called to active duty during or around the final examinations period are eligible to receive an “I” grade provided they meet the conditions above.

The Faculty Senate further recommends that a temporary, campus-wide moratorium against new repeat coursework policies be enacted, to preclude the possibility of confusing, inconsistent and conflicting policies existing at different levels (department, college, campus) or between parallel academic units (in different departments or colleges), with the moratorium to be lifted at such a time as a new campus-wide policy is established (unless the new policy contains a continued moratorium).

Names will be forwarded to the Provost for selection of 6 faculty to serve on 3 grade appeal panels.

The Faculty Senate commends and thanks the Chair and the Members of the Senate Budget Ad Hoc Advisory Committee for their dedicated and time-consuming service in crafting the report.

The Faculty Senate receives the Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on the Senate Budget, which can be found at Attachment A.

The Faculty Senate commends and thanks the Chair and the Members of the Task Force to Draft Proposed Policy on Instructional Program Priorities: Academic Planning, Resource Allocation and Enrollment Management for their dedicated and time-consuming service in crafting the draft proposed policy.

General Education/Graduation Requirements Policies Committee designee: Edith LeFebvre (Communication Studies)

Graduate Studies Policies Committee: Kath Pinch (Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration)

Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee Representative: Will Vizzard (Criminal Justice)

FS 10-65/Ex.

TASK FORCE TO DRAFT PROPOSED POLICY ON INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM PRIORITIES: ACADEMIC PLANNING, RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT – REPORT: RECEIPT OF

The Faculty Senate receives the Draft Proposed Policy on Instructional Program Priorities: Academic Planning, Resource Allocation and Enrollment Management. The report can be found at Attachment B.

Carried unanimously.

*FS 10-57/Ex.

REPEAT COURSEWORK POLICY BASED ON EO 1037

Background: EO 1037 imposes new system-wide policy for repeating courses, both in terms of the number of courses that can be repeated and also in identifying which courses can be repeated with respect to the grade originally earned. However, the implementation of the new policy is unclear: For example, are the limits on repeatable courses counted and imposed in the order in which they occur or might a student petition for specific considerations with regard to individual courses? Similarly, EO 1037 does not define whether a student has a right to file a petition requesting which courses might have original grades “forgiven” versus those which might have original grades “averaged.”

As with most such directives, campuses are permitted to interpret system-wide policies in a manner that is stricter – i.e., where EO 1037 allows for as many as 28 semester units to be repeated, an individual campus might permit fewer. Similarly, a campus might permit a less permissive balance between forgiven grades and averaged grades, or reduce the number of times some or all courses might be repeated.

To date, our campus has not established a local policy and, even if we default to the stated policy in EO 1037, the implementation is still unclear to both faculty and students. Meanwhile, students are already enrolled for Fall courses, including repeats, and it is unclear how the resultant grades will be applied or whether or not there is any benefit to the students in repeating coursework, especially if they have repeated several courses in prior semesters. It is quite possible than this will result in unnecessary coursework being taken, for no benefit and with additional generated FTES, and/or seats being taken by repeat students which might have been taken by first-time students in a course.

The Faculty Senate recommends the following policy for the Repetition of Courses by Undergraduate Students:

1. Undergraduate students may repeat courses only if they earned grades lower than a C (C-, D+, D, D-, F, WU, NC).

2. Course Repeats with “Grade Forgiveness” (Grade forgiveness is the circumstance in which the new grade replaces the former grade in terms of the calculation of GPA, etc.):

2.a. Undergraduate students may repeat up to 16 semester-units ~~(24 quarter-units)~~ with grade forgiveness.*

2.b. Undergraduate students may repeat an individual course for grade forgiveness no more than ~~two times~~ one time. A course may be repeated no more than two times without petition. (The Faculty Senate will develop a petition process for third (and later) repeats. The Faculty Senate may also develop a process to require advising prior to the second repeat.)

2.c. Grade forgiveness shall not be applicable to courses for which the original grade was the result of a finding of academic dishonesty.

3. Course Repeats with “Grades Averaged”:

~~Campuses may permit~~ Undergraduate students to may repeat an additional 12 semester-units ~~(18 quarter-units)~~, i.e., units in addition to the 16 semester-units ~~(24 quarter- units)~~ for which grade “replacement” is permitted. In such instances the repeat grades shall not replace the original grade; instead ~~both~~ all grades (except any forgiven grades) shall be calculated into the student’s overall grade-point average.*

4. ~~Campuses may elect to be more restrictive on course repeats than the maxima listed above.~~ Departments and Colleges may not have a repeat policy that differs from the campus policy. (Note: Restrictions on repeats for enrolled and declared majors, pre-majors, minors, and certificate students, within specific programs, represent substantive program changes and not exceptions to the repeat policy.)

5. The limits apply only to units completed at the campus (i.e., While courses taken elsewhere may be repeated here or used to replace grades previously earned here (if the original grade was below a C), only the courses taken here will be counted towards the repeat caps).

*The default sequence for applying forgiven and averaged grades is to forgive grades for repeated courses that are eligible (that have not already been repeated once) until the forgiveness cap has been reached, whereupon they will be averaged until the repeat cap is reached. Grades for a course that has already been forgiven once will be averaged. Any residual units from the forgiveness cap that are not used for forgiveness may be used for averaging, within the 28 unit total repeat cap.

A petition process for exemptions to this policy will be developed.

This policy will be reviewed during the 2011-2012 Academic Year.

Background and Notes from APC (Already incorporated into above policy language):

Repeat Policy Recommendations from APC (5/14/10)

The Academic Policies Committee has voted upon and recommends the following:

1. Forgiveness Policy: Students are allowed to repeat up to 28 units, with at most 16 of those units used for forgiveness. The current policy of forgiving the first attempt should be continued. Repeated courses that are eligible for forgiveness (excluded from the gpa) will be determined sequentially - in the order that courses are repeated. Students may petition to retroactively change which individual courses are used for forgiveness.

The campus will continue to average the second and third attempts until the 28 unit limit is reached.

(Note, this means that a student may use more than 12 units of averaging.)

Examples:

A four unit course is repeated and only three units of forgiveness remain. This course would be averaged, and the three units of forgiveness could be used later.

A student passes a course on the 3^rd attempt. This uses one forgiveness and one averaging, any remaining forgiveness units may be used later.

A student repeats two 4 unit courses, each four times. This would be 8 units of forgiveness and 16 units of averaging (4-4-4-4 and also 4-4-4-4).

2. Restrictions to the Repeat Policy by Local Units (Departments and Colleges): No department or college may have a different repeat policy than the university repeat policy.

Departments or Colleges wishing to limit the number of attempts that they will accept for their students who are enrolled and declared in their programs may do so if approved via a program change proposal (From B).

3. Repeating an Individual Course: No student may repeat a course more than two times without petition.

The Faculty Senate will develop a petition process for third (and later) repeats whereby students who do not earn a passing grade in a repeated class will automatically receive an advising hold which is removed after appropriate advising is obtained.

This advising hold should be extended to students repeating any class.

4. Petition Process: A petition process will be developed for individual student exceptions to this policy.

(These individual circumstances may include the need to repeat a C or higher, the need for additional “repeat units”, repeating for the 3^rd time, etc.)

Current Policy as described in the current catalog:

Current CSUS Repeat Policy:

Any course taken at Sacramento State may be repeated one time at Sacramento State without departmental approval. Some academic departments may limit the number of additional times a student is allowed to repeat the same course. If a student exceeds the repeat limit established by a department, the department may administratively drop the student from the course and/or disallow the course if it is presented in fulfillment of graduation requirements. Students intending to repeat a course more than one time should discuss this with an academic advisor and the chair of the department offering the course to determine whether specific departmental repeat limits exist and if there are provisions for exceptions.

In the case of a first repeat, only the grade earned in the second attempt (even if it is lower) will be used in the Sacramento State calculation of grade point average. However, it should be noted that the grade earned in the first attempt remains on the student’s transcript and may be used in grade point calculations by other institutions (e.g., medical schools and law schools).

After the second attempt (first repeat), grades of the second and all subsequent attempts will be averaged in grade point calculations, even if departmental permission was granted to enroll in the course a third or subsequent time. Students should file a Repeat Grade Replacement Petition with the Admissions and Records Office in order to initiate a unit and grade point adjustment.

The Repeat Grade Replacement Petition, approved by the chair of the department offering the course, is required to authorize unit and grade replacement if:

the repeat or original course is taken at another accredited institution, or
the repeat course differs in number or title from the original course.

Under these conditions, students must obtain petition approval prior to enrollment in the repeat course since it is possible that the courses may not be considered equivalent. Approved petitions are submitted to the Admissions and Records Office, Lassen Hall.

The repeat grade replacement policy of a transfer institution, if it can be determined, will be applied to a student’s record at the time of transfer to Sacramento State. If it cannot be determined, Sacramento State policy will apply.

Note to Graduate Students: Grades earned in courses repeated as a postbaccalaureate student may not be used to replace grades earned in the course while an undergraduate student. In addition, grades earned at another institution will not be counted in the postbaccalaureate GPA, and therefore cannot be used to repeat Sacramento State courses.

Carried unanimously.

*FS 10-35/GSPC/Ex.

GOOD STANDING FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS, DEFINITION OF

Current Policy (Will remain in effect)

Proposed Policy

Undergraduate Academic Action Categories

Good Standing

Undergraduate students whose Sacramento State and cumulative grade point average (GPA) is 2.0 or above are considered in good academic standing.

Academic Probation

Students whose cumulative Sacramento State grade point average or overall grade point average falls below 2.000 will be placed on academic probation. Students on probation are eligible to enroll in the subsequent semester.

Continued Probation

Students on probation will be placed on Continued Probation if they:

• earn a 2.000 in the current semester, but have a Sacramento State GPA or overall GPA below 2.000.

Students placed on Continued Probation will be limited to a maximum course load of 14 units per semester until they return to academic good standing.

Academic Disqualification

If a student is on academic probation and the Sacramento State or cumulative grade point average is below the following levels, the student will be academically disqualified.

• Freshman (< 30 units) will be academically disqualified if their Sac State GPA is below a 1.50;

• Sophomores (30-59.9 units) will be academically disqualified if their Sac State GPA is below 1.70;

• Juniors (60-89.9 units) will be academically disqualified if their Sac State GPA is below a 1.85;

• Seniors (90 or more units) will be academically disqualified if their Sac State GPA is below a 1.95.

Disqualified students will not be allowed to register unless they are formally reinstated and/or readmitted to the University.

Academic Dismissal

Students not on probation will be disqualified if Sacramento State or cumulative GPA is 1.000 or less. A student reinstated after disqualification who earns a semester GPA below 2.000 or fails to meet other requirements specified in the reinstatement contract will be dismissed.

Academic Dismissal means that enrollment privileges have been withdrawn. Dismissed students are not eligible to use the immediate reinstatement procedure. Academically dismissed students are not eligible for readmission without at least one semester of absence from Sacramento State. Students who have been dismissed twice must sit out two years before petitioning to return.

Administrative Probation and Administrative

Disqualification

Undergraduate students are subject to Administrative Probation for the following reasons:

1. Withdrawal from all or a substantial portion of their courses in two successive terms or in any three terms.

2. Repeated failure to progress toward a degree or other program objective, when such failure is due to circumstances within the control of the student.

3. Failure to comply, after due notice, with an academic

requirement or regulation.

Students who do not meet the conditions for removal of

administrative probation may be subject to further administrative actions, including Administrative Disqualification.

Notification

Office of the University Registrar, Lassen Hall Lobby

(916) 278-7111

Students will be notified of their academic status (academic probation, continued probation, academic disqualification or academic dismissal) by letter, and/or My Sac State message and/or email at the end of each semester. Students on Probation or Continued Probation are required to meet with an advisor in their major department. Departments may block registration of students who fail to meet advising appointments. Students receiving veterans’ educational benefits may be ruled ineligible for continued benefits if, after one semester of unsatisfactory achievement (probation or disqualification), they do not return to academic Good Standing at the completion of the next semester.

Reinstatement of Disqualified Students

Students who have been academically disqualified may petition for reinstatement. The Petition for Reinstatement is obtained from the Office of Admissions and Records. If reinstated, students will be placed on an academic contract that may stipulate maximum units, specific courses and achievement levels. Failure to meet the conditions of the reinstatement contract and/or failure to achieve a subsequent semester GPA of 2.000 or higher will result in academic dismissal.

Students not recommended by their academic department for continuation in the first choice major may be considered for University reinstatement into a different major when approved by the department offering that major. Students reinstated as undeclared will not be allowed to enroll in upper division major

courses during the period of the contract without the permission of the department chair or designee for that major.

Deadlines to petition for immediate reinstatement are as follows:

Spring Semester: Third week of January

Fall Semester: End of June

NOTE: Please check the Reinstatement Petition for specific dates.

Students whose petitions are approved are subject to review each semester until the Sacramento State GPA and overall cumulative GPA reach the minimum standard of 2.00.

Readmission of Academically Dismissed Students

Students who are dismissed will not be considered for enrollment at the University for at least one semester following dismissal. Academically dismissed students should meet with an academic advisor for advice on developing a plan to remedy the conditions that led to dismissal so that returning to the University is possible.

After their mandatory interruption in enrollment, students who were dismissed must submit a “Petition for Readmission Following Dismissal” to the University Readmission Committee. The appeal must include a recommendation from the student’s major department. A student whose appeal is granted is subject to academic review each semester until the Sacramento State GPA and overall GPA reach the minimum standard of 2.00.

Readmitted students who fail to meet conditions specified for readmission will be academically dismissed. A second dismissal will result in a mandatory interruption of at least two years.

Deadlines for submission of the appeal are published in the Annual Schedule of Classes and on the Admissions and Records web site, and are strictly enforced.

Graduate and Post-baccalaureate* Academic Action Categories

*does not apply to post-baccalaureate students pursuing a second bachelor’s degree

Good Standing

Graduate, credential, certificate and unclassified students whose Sacramento State and cumulative grade point average (GPA) is 3.0 or above are considered in good academic standing.

Academic Probation

Students whose cumulative Sacramento State grade point average or overall grade point average falls below 3.00 will be placed on academic probation. Students on probation are eligible to enroll in the subsequent semester.

Continued Probation

Students on probation will be placed on Continued Probation if they:

• earn a 3.000 in the current semester, but have a Sacramento State GPA and/or overall GPA below 3.000.

Students placed on Continued Probation will be limited to a maximum course load of 9 units per semester until they return to academic good standing.

Academic Disqualification

If a graduate, credential, certificate, or unclassified student is on academic probation and the Sacramento State or cumulative grade point average is below 3.0 for the active term, the student will be academically disqualified.

Students not on probation will be disqualified if the Sacramento State or cumulative GPA is 2.000 or less.

Disqualified students will not be allowed to register unless they are formally reinstated and/or readmitted to the University.

~~Academic Dismissal~~

~~A student reinstated after disqualification~~ ~~who~~ ~~earns a semester GPA below 3.000 or fails to meet other requirements specified in the reinstatement contract will be dismissed.~~

~~Academic Dismissal means that enrollment privileges have been withdrawn. Dismissed students are not eligible to use the immediate reinstatement~~

~~procedure~~. Academically dismissed students are not eligible for readmission without at least one semester of absence from Sacramento State. Students who have been dismissed twice must sit out two years before reapplying and petitioning to return.

Administrative Probation and Administrative

Disqualification

Graduate, credential, certificate, and unclassified students are subject to Administrative Probation

for the following reasons:

1. Withdrawal from all or a substantial portion of their courses in two successive terms or in any three terms.

2. Repeated failure to progress toward a degree or other program objective, when such failure is due to circumstances within the control of the student.

3. Failure to comply, after due notice, with an academic requirement or regulation.

Students who do not meet the conditions for removal of administrative probation may be subject to further administrative actions, including Administrative Disqualification.

Notification

Office of the University Registrar, Lassen Hall Lobby

(916) 278-7111

Students will be notified of their academic status (academic probation, continued probation, or academic disqualification ~~or academic dismissal~~) by letter, and/or My Sac State message and/or email at the end of each semester. Graduate, credential, certificate and unclassified students on Probation or Continued Probation are required to meet with an advisor in their major department, the credential office or the Office of Graduate Studies. Academic departments and units may block registration

of students who fail to meet advising appointments. Students receiving veterans’ educational benefits may be ruled ineligible for continued benefits if, after one semester of unsatisfactory achievement (probation or disqualification), they do not return to academic Good Standing at the completion of the next semester.

Reinstatement of Disqualified Students

Students who have been academically disqualified may petition for reinstatement. The Petition for Reinstatement is obtained from the Office of Graduate Studies. If reinstated, students will be placed on an academic contract that may stipulate maximum units, specific courses and achievement levels. Failure to meet the conditions of the reinstatement contract and/or failure to achieve a subsequent semester GPA of 3.000 or higher will result in academic disqualification.

Students who are administratively disqualified or not recommended by their academic department for continuation in the graduate degree, credential, or certificate program must formally apply to the University as well as a graduate degree, credential, or certificate program and submit a petition for reinstatement. Reinstated unclassified students will not be allowed to enroll in graduate level courses during the period of the reinstatement contract without the permission of the department chair or designee for that major.

Deadlines to petition for immediate reinstatement are as follows:

Spring Semester: Third week of January

Fall Semester: End of June

NOTE: Please check the Office of Graduate Studies website for specific dates.

Students whose petitions are approved are subject to review each semester until the Sacramento State GPA and overall cumulative GPA reach the minimum standard of 3.00. Students may not earn the degree, credential, or certificate unless they are in good academic standing and their Sacramento State GPA and overall cumulative GPA reach the minimum standard of 3.00.

~~Readmission of Academically Dismissed Students~~

~~Graduate, credential, certificate and unclassified students who are dismissed will not be considered for enrollment~~

at the University for at least one semester following dismissal. Academically dismissed students must meet with an academic advisor for advice on developing a plan to remedy the conditions that led to dismissal so that returning to the University is possible.

After their mandatory interruption in enrollment, students who were dismissed must reapply to the University during the next open admission cycle for the degree, credential or certificate program. As part of the readmission process, the student must submit a “Petition for Readmission Following Dismissal” to the Office of Graduate Studies. The petition must include a recommendation from the student’s degree, credential, or certificate department. A student whose petition is granted is subject to academic review each semester until the Sacramento State GPA and overall GPA reach the minimum standard of 3.00. Readmitted students who fail to meet conditions specified for readmission will be academically dismissed. A second dismissal will result in a mandatory interruption of at least two years.

~~Deadlines for submission of the admission application and petition are published in the Annual Schedule of Classes and on the Office of Graduate Studies web site, and are strictly enforced.~~

Carried unanimously.

FS 10-19/Ex.

ACADEMIC VALUES STATEMENT

The Faculty Senate adopts the following Academic Values Statement to inform as appropriate future discussions the draft policy statement as received in FS 10-65.

ACADEMIC VALUES STATEMENT

Statement of short-term priorities for Academic Affairs

In times of budgetary difficulty, allocations of resources must be made in such a way as to preserve the core of the University, so that in better fiscal situations new resources can be allocated in ways that best serve the mission of the University. These recommendations were synthesized from the Faculty Senate’s survey of values conducted December 2009, and are intended as short term recommendations for budget allocations within Academic Affairs. A task force will revisit the 1991 budget policy document in order to further codify budget priorities within Academic Affairs.

Service to Students:

The ability of the University to provide a high quality education to current and future students must not be compromised by reallocation of resources.

With regard to Service to Students, we place high value on:

· Students graduating in a timely fashion.

· Promoting access, equity, and diversity in the student body

Therefore, during times of budgetary difficulty, we support decisions where:

1.     Regardless of major, priority is given to providing sufficient course offerings for currently enrolled students;

2.     Regardless of major, priority is given to providing sufficient seats in courses that satisfy University graduation requirements for currently enrolled students;

3.     Regardless of major, priority is given to courses that are required for graduation;

4.     Priority is given to managing enrollment so that the FTES is commensurate with the resources available to supporting student learning;

5. Priority is given to, and emphasis placed on, maintaining the current levels of diversity;

Resources to Faculty:

The responsibility of providing instruction to students lies with the faculty. The ability of the faculty to provide high quality instruction must not be compromised by reallocation of resources.

With regard to support for the Faculty, we place high value on:

· Faculty scholarly and creative activity and the ability of faculty to interact with each of their students in a meaningful way.

Therefore, during times of budgetary difficulty, we support decisions where:

1. Priority is given to maintaining the current workload of faculty members;

2. And priority is given to preserving support for the basic levels of faculty scholarly and creative activity, as this benefits students directly (through student projects) and indirectly (maintaining faculty currency in their fields).

The University Experience:

Programs, services and experiences that preserve the University experience are essential.

With regard to the University Experience, we place high value on:

·       Baccalaureate and masters degrees and 4-year applied and professional programs.

·       A liberal arts education and a strong, effective G.E. Program.

·       A diversity of course offerings commensurate with our status as a regional, comprehensive university.

Therefore, during times of budgetary difficulty, we support decisions where:

1.     Priority is given to programs and courses that lead to baccalaureate or masters degrees;

2.     Priority is given to applied and professional programs where entry-level positions require a 4-year or higher level of education;

3.     Priority is given to providing an overall diversity of course offerings that support a liberal arts education, and a strong, effective G.E. Program.

Priority is given to providing university services, including programs, facilities, and equipment, that support the curricular and research needs of the campus.

Administration Responsibility:

A truly functional system of shared governance will enhance the operations of the University at all levels. Such a system can be sustained in the face of difficult budgetary times.

With regard to the University Administration and its role in budget decisions, we place high value on:

A consultative, transparent, and informed decision-making process.

Bodies and efforts that contribute to consultative, transparent, and informed decision-making, e.g. UBAC, AABAC, town halls, e-mail communications from the President.

The provision of rationale (i.e. perceived costs and benefits) behind resource allocations, especially those that result in major changes to programs, departments, or services.

Close consultation, which includes collaborative decision-making, between departments and their college deans regarding decisions to temporarily change, reduce or remove course offerings;

Close consultation, which includes collaborative decision-making, between departments and their college deans regarding decisions to temporarily change, reduce or remove College support services.

The Quality Issue:

The University has a set of programs that have developed over time in response to external and internal factors. Although all are worthy parts of the curriculum and the University experience, some prioritization must occur even among worthy programs. To this end a means of evaluating academic quality must be drawn up, in order to guide the resource allocation process.

Carried.

DATE	SENATE ACTION #	TITLE	APPROVED (SENATE)-YES/NO	APPROVED (PRESIDENTIAL) - YES/NO	COMMENTS
08/26/09	FS 09-48/Ex.	FACULTY FURLOUGHS, RESOLUTION ON	YES	NA
9/17/09	FS 09-49/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
9/17/09	FS 09-50/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM COURSE PROPOSALS	YES	YES
9/17/09	FS 09-51/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE	YES	NA
9/17/09	FS 09-52/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
9/17/09	FS 09-53/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM COURSE PROPOSALS	YES	YES
9/17/09	FS 09-56/Flr.	NOMINATION OF FACULTY REPRESENTATIVES TO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING COUNCIL	NA	NA
9/17/09	FS 09-57/Flr.	NOMINATION OF FACULTY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNIVERSITY BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE	NA	NA
10/1/09	FS 09-60/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - SENATE	YES	NA
10/1/09	FS 09-64/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
10/1/09	FS 09-62/Flr.	NOMINATION OF FACULTY REPRESENTATIVES TO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING COUNCIL	NA	NA
10/1/09	FS 09-63/Flr.	NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF FACULTY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNIVERSITY BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE	NA	NA
10/1/09	FS 09-58/GSPC	GRADUATION WRITING ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENT (GWAR) FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS	YES	YES
10/1/09	FS 09-59/GSPC	WRITING PLACEMENT FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS (WPG) EQUIVALENCY STANDARDS	YES	YES
10/15/09	FS 09-66/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
10/29/09	FS 09-68/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
11/5/09	FS 09-70/FPC/Ex.	OUTSTANDING TEACHING, UNIVERSITY SERVICE AND COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARDS, INCLUSION OF SCHOLARLY AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY	YES	NA
11/5/09	FS 09-71/CPC/GRPC/Ex.	WRITING INTENSIVE COURSE - PASSING GRADE	YES	YES
11/19/09	FS 09-75/AITC/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
11/19/09	FS 09-75A/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
11/19/09	FS 09-72A/GSPC/Ex.	FTES REDUCTION PLANNING	YES	NA
11/19/09	FS 09-74/GE/GRPC/Ex.	BACCALAUREATE LEARNING GOALS	YES	YES
11/19/09	FS 09-79/Flr.	EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE'S PARTICIPATION IN PRESIDENT'S AD HOC ADVISORY GROUP, ENDORSEMENT OF	YES	NA
12/3/09	FS 09-77/Ex.	ENDORSEMENT AND DESIGNATION OF MARCH 4, 2010 AS “MARCH FOR EDUCATION ON MARCH 4, 2010”	YES	NA
12/3/09	FS 09-81A/Flr.	GRADUATE PROGRAM FTES REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS	YES	NA	SEE COMMENTS
12/17/09	FS 09-83/GSPC/Ex.	CRITERIA FOR REDUCTION OR SUSPENSION OF GRADUATE AND POST-BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS	YES	NA
12/17/09	FS 09-86/Flr.	1991 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM PRIORITIES, GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PLANNING, RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT, ESTABLISHMENT OF TASK FORCE ON THE REVISION OF	YES	ACCEPTED	SEE COMMENTS
12/17/09	FS 09-84/Ex.	COMMENDATION AND THANKS, MOTION OF	YES	NA
12/17/09	FS 09-85/Ex.	ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP	YES	NA
1/28/10	FS 10-01/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM REVIEW - DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES	YES	YES
1/28/10	FS 10-03/Flr.	NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF AT-LARGE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER	NA	NA
1/28/10	FS 10-05/Flr.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - SENATE	YES	NA
2/11/10	FS 10-06/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
2/11/10	FS 10-07/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
2/11/10	FS 09-78/CPC/Ex.	E-LEARNING POLICY, AMENDMENT OF	YES	YES
2/18/10	FS 10-13/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - SENATE	YES	NA
2/18/10	FS 10-11/GSPC/Flr.	APPLICATION OF A POINT SYSTEM TO CRITERIA FOR REDUCTION OR SUSPENSION OF GRADUATE AND POST-BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS	YES	ACCEPTED	SEE COMMENTS
2/18/10	FS 10-04/FPC/Ex.	RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE POLICY	YES	PENDING	SEE COMMENTS
2/25/10	FS 10-15/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - SENATE	YES	NA
2/25/10	FS 10-20/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM PROPOSALS	YES	YES
2/25/10	FS 10-09/Ex.	BY-LAWS: BACKFILL FOR SENATE CHAIR	YES	NA
2/25/10	FS 10-14/Flr.	LETTERS FROM PROFESSORS SCOTT FARRAND AND SYLVIA NAVARI, RECEIPT AND ENTRY INTO THE FACULTY SENATE MINUTES	YES	NA
2/25/10	FS 10-17/Ex.	TASK FORCE ON POSSIBLE REVISIONS TO UNIVERSITY POLICY ON INSTRUCTIONAL PRIORITIES AND RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS, RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF	YES	ACKNOWLEDGED
3/11/10	FS 10-21/AITC/Ex.	RESPONSE TO THE NURSING PROGRAM'S NEED FOR SCHEDULING COMPUTER LAB USE	YES	ACKNOWLEDGED
3/11/10	FS 10-22/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
3/11/10	FS 10-10/Ex.	BY-LAWS: STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIR TERM LIMITS	YES	NA
3/18/10	FS 10-32/Ex.	FACULTY SENATE CO-SPONSORSHIP OF THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EQUITY CONFERENCE	YES	NA
3/18/10	FS 10-18/APC/Ex.	STUDENT GRADE APPEAL PROCESS, AMENDMENT OF	YES	YES
3/18/10	FS 10-18A/Flr.	MOTION TO REFER THE ACADEMIC HONESTY POLICY	YES	NA
3/18/10	FS 10-24A/Ex.	ACADEMIC AFFAIRS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY GROUP, ENDORSEMENT OF	YES	ACKNOWLEDGED	SEE COMMENTS
3/18/10	FS 10-24B/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	NO	SEE COMMENTS
3/25/10	FS 10-36/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
3/25/10	FS 10-37/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM PROPOSALS	YES	YES
3/25/10	FS 10-34/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM PROPOSALS	YES	YES
3/25/10	FS 10-31/UARTP	UARTP POLICY, SECTION 3.01.,B.1, AMENDMENT OF	YES	YES
3/25/10	FS 10-26/AITC/Ex.	SCHEDULING OF OPEN LABS FOR ACADEMIC USE	YES	ACKNOWLEDGED
3/25/10	FS 10-28A/Flr.	FACULTY SENATE BUDGET, DISCUSSION AND CONSULTATION	YES	NA
3/25/10	FS 10-28B/Flr.	APPOINTMENT OF AT-LARGE MEMBERS TO THE AD HOC SENATE BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE	NA	NA
4/8/10	FS 10-39/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
4/8/10	FS 10-40/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM REVIEW - DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY	YES	YES
4/8/10	FS 10-42/Flr.	2010 COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES	NA	NA
4/15/10	FS 10-44/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
4/15/10	FS 10-27/AITC/Ex.	CONSULTATION TO INFORM THE DECISIONS REGARDING ANY PROPOSED ACADEMIC IT CHANGES INCLUDING CENTRALIZATION OF IT RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE OR SUPPORT SERVICES	YES	ACKNOWLEDGED	SEE COMMENTS
4/15/10	FS 10-30/Ex.	STATEMENT ON CONSULTATION AND GOVERNANCE, ADOPTION OF	YES	ACKNOWLEDGED	SEE COMMENTS
4/22/10	FS 10-25A/Ex.	LEARNING SPACE ADVISORY WORKGROUP, ENDORSEMENT OF	YES	NA	SEE COMMENTS
4/22/10	FS 10-25B/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT, UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
4/22/10	FS 10-47/Ex.	CAMPUS IMPACTION - RESOLUTION ON	YES	ACKNOWLEDGED AND RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPTED
4/22/10	FS 10-48/APC/Ex.	GRADE APPEAL POLICY, AMENDMENT OF	YES	YES
4/22/10	FS 10-48A/APC/Ex.	ACADEMIC HONESTY POLICY, AMENDMENT OF	YES	YES
4/22/10	FS 10-49/GSPC/Ex.	UNIT CAPS	YES	YES	SEE COMMENTS
4/29/10	FS 10-50/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM PROPOSAL	YES	YES
4/29/10	FS 10-43/FPC/Ex.	FACULTY AWARDS	YES	NA
5/6/10	FS 10-52/ConC.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE	YES	NA
5/6/10	FS 10-54/FPC/Ex.	MOTION TO RESCIND FS 10-04	YES	NA	NA
5/6/10	FS 10-54B/Flr.	RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE POLICY	YES	YES
5/13/10	FS 10-52B	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE	YES	NA
5/13/10	FS 10-58/AITC/Ex.	RESOLUTION ON IRT RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SECURITY AND IT CENTRALIZATION	YES	ACKNOWLEDGED	SEE COMMENTS
5/13/10	FS 10-60/APC/Ex.	W (WITHDRAWAL) AND WU (WITHDRAWAL UNAUTHORIZED) POLICY	YES	YES
5/13/10	FS 10-56/CPC/Ex.	NEW AND SUBSTANTIVELY CHANGED PROGRAMS, MORATORIUM ON, ACADEMIC YEAR 2010-2011	YES	YES
5/13/10	FS 10-55/APC/Ex.	INCOMPLETE POLICY, CLARIFICATION AND ALIGNMENT WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER 1037	YES	YES
5/13/10	FS 10-57C/Flr.	CAMPUS-WIDE MORATORIUM ON ENACTMENT OF COLLEGE AND DEPARTMENT LEVEL REPEAT COURSE WORK POLICIES	YES	NO ACTION TAKEN	SEE COMMENTS
5/20/10	*FS 10-61/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS – UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
5/20/10	FS 10-63A/Flr.	SENATE BUDGET AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE – THANKS AND COMMENDATION	YES	NA
5/20/10	FS 10-63/Ex.	SENATE BUDGET AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REPORT, RECEIPT OF	YES	NA
5/20/10	FS 10-64/Ex.	TASK FORCE TO DRAFT PROPOSED POLICY ON INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM PRIORITIES: ACADEMIC PLANNING, RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT – THANKS AND COMMENDATION	YES	NA
5/20/10	FS 10-65/Ex.	TASK FORCE TO DRAFT PROPOSED POLICY ON INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM PRIORITIES: ACADEMIC PLANNING, RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT – REPORT: RECEIPT OF	YES	NA
5/20/10	*FS 10-57/Ex.	REPEAT COURSEWORK POLICY BASED ON EO 1037	YES	YES
5/20/10	*FS 10-35/GSPC/Ex.	GOOD STANDING FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS, DEFINITION OF	YES	YES
5/20/10	FS 10-19/Ex.	ACADEMIC VALUES STATEMENT	YES	NA

Whereas,	Faculty are required, pursuant to the agreement reached between the CSU and CFA, to select individual furlough days, and
Whereas,	Outside the basic parameters outlined in the agreement, there are no specific guidelines or rules regarding selection of furloughs dates, and
Whereas,	Faculty workloads are extensive and diverse in nature and not simply limited to classroom-based instructional time, and
Whereas,	Opinions differ with regard to furloughs and their implementation, and
Whereas,	Individual faculty members are still responsible for completing their individual work assignments, as modified by the individual furlough proposal, be it
Resolved,	That the selection of specific dates, that are properly submitted, approved, and adhered to, shall not be the basis of adverse professional action by colleagues, review committees, or administrators, and be it further
Resolved	That the Faculty Senate leadership and the Administration of the California State University, Sacramento will continue to work together as the furlough plan is revisited and/or refined as it pertains to areas within the purview of the Faculty Senate and with regards to Spring 2010, including addressing any difficulties discovered in Fall 2009, and be it further
Resolved,	That this resolution be forwarded to the campus community, including the President, the President’s cabinet, deans, department chairs, and department and college ARTP committees.

Criteria for Reduction or Suspension of Master’s Programs
*Criteria*	*Dimensions*	*Variables*	*Examples of Measurements*
*Program Quality*	Curriculum Strength	Course offerings	Core and elective courses comply with degree program policy
		Course or program Development	Review of Forms A & B for evidence of development; program review
	Quality of faculty	Academic Qualifications	Degrees held, scholarly activity, teaching effectiveness
		Faculty involvement	Percentage of faculty teaching courses, serving on committees, advising, and/or supporting culminating experience work
	Admission selectivity	Admission Requirements	GPA, GRE/other test, writing sample, letters of recommendation, purpose statement
		Admission Decisions	Acceptance rate, special action admit rate
	Alumni success	Full time employment in discipline, advanced educ.	Number admitted to doctoral programs, other alumni data
*Program quality should be ranked as the top priority of the campus. Within the program quality criterion, curriculum strength as operationalized by examining course offerings should be the highest priority.
*Program Need*	Student demand, present/projected	Admissions & enrollment	Number of applicants, number of admits, and number enrolled
	Labor market, present and projected	Employment opportunities in region or state	Employer surveys
*Program need should be considered a secondary criterion. Within the program need criterion, student demand as operationalized by examining admissions and enrollment should be the highest priority.
*Program Cost/* *Benefit*	Formula generation/ expenditures relationship	FTES/WTU	Grad FTES/WTU; Total FTES/WTU
	Degree production rates	Time in program; Time to degree	Percentage of students completing degree, and time in program relative to the units required to complete degree
	Secondary effects	Benefit to/detract from other programs	Support of undergraduate program through TA/GA/ISA positions; interdisciplinary course offerings
	Cost efficiency	Overlap with other Programs	Review of catalog for repetition of courses or other replicative components of other programs
*Program cost/benefit should be considered a secondary criterion. Within the program cost/benefit criterion, formula generation/expenditures relationship as operationalized by examining FTES in relation to WTU should be the highest priority.
While some of the recommendations within the criteria template (see above) are consistent with the 1991 policy on “Instructional Program Priorities; Academic Planning Resource Allocation and Enrollment Management” (these items are underlined within the template), others go beyond the specific details of that policy. In so far as the current recommendations go beyond the details of existing policy, they are to form an addendum to existing policy for consideration during decision making for graduate programs for the 2010-2011 academic year, and do not extend beyond that period or with regard to other applications unless extended by subsequent Senate action.

Anthony Sheppard		Chair, Faculty Senate
Chris Taylor		Vice Chair, Faculty Senate
Mark Siegler		Member, Executive Committee (FPC Chair)
Michael McKeough		Member, Executive Committee
David Lang		Member, Executive Committee (CPC Chair)
Noelle McCurley		Member, Executive Committee
Reza Peigahi		Member, Executive Committee
Janet Hecsh		Member, Executive Committee (GE/GRPC Chair)
Jim Wanket		Member, Executive Committee
Bob Buckley		Member, Executive Committee (APC Chair)
Joshua Collins		Senior Student Services Senator
PLUS:
Ray Koegel (Communication Studies)		College of Arts and Letters
Tracy Hamilton (Math & Statistics)		College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Wendy Cunningham (Family & Consumer Sci.)		College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies
Peter Choi		College of Business Administration
Juliana Raskauskas (Child Development)		College of Education
Ben Fell (Civil Engineering)		College of Engineering and Computer Science
Dale Russell (Social Work)		College of Health and Human Services

College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies

The Faculty Senate adopts the following Academic Values Statement to inform as appropriate future discussions the draft policy statement as received in FS 10-65.

ACADEMIC VALUES STATEMENT

Service to Students:

Resources to Faculty:

The University Experience:

Administration Responsibility:

The Quality Issue: