COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS – UNIVERSITY

Multicultural Center Advisory Board
Kathy Zhong, 2013
Kisun Nam, 2013

Alumni Center Board
Janet Hecsh, 2011

Enrollment Management Group
Kristin Van Gaasbeck*
Ann Blanton*

* On July 8, 2010, the Executive Committee, on behalf of the Senate, extended the appointments of Kristin Van Gaasbeck and Ann Blanton to the EMG until a new charge is presented and acted upon by the Senate.

Background: On December 17, 2009, the Faculty Senate approved FS 09-85/Ex. “Enrollment Management Group”, which stated:

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.

Carried unanimously.

*FS 10-67/Ex.

PROGRAM PROPOSALS

Ethnic Studies-Education Concentration

Kinesiology and Health Science-Blended Physical Education Option

B.A. Geology

B.S. Geology

B.A. in Philosophy (Undergraduate degree program)

Counseling Minor

Master of Science in Counseling Program (All Specializations)

M.A. English

Master of Science in Nursing

Traditional Undergraduate Nursing Program

Speech Pathology and Audiology Graduate Program

Speech Pathology and Audiology Undergraduate Program

Master of Arts in Biological Sciences: Stem Cell Concentration

Background information can be found at Attachment A.

Carried unanimously.

FS 10-69/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY

ASI Children’s Center Parent Advisory Board

Yan Zhou, 2011

ASI Board

David Rolloff, 2011

Bookstore Advisory Group

Kisun Nam, 2013

Committee for Diversity Awards

Su Jin Jez, 2013

Energy Management Committee

Kelly Cotter, 2012

Kristin Kiesel, 2012

Honorary Degrees Committee

Sharyn Gardner, 2013

Institutional Scholarship Committee

Candace Gregory Abbott, 2012

Transportation Advisory Committee

Michael Schmandt, 2013

Instructionally Related Activities Committee
Deborah Metzger, 2011
Ravin Pan, 2011

Intercollegiate Athletic Advisory Committee
Reza Peigahi, 2013

Recreation and Wellness Center Advisory Board
Robin Fisher, 2011

Student Academic Development Committee
Liam Murphy, 2012
Michelle Dang, 2012
Candace Gregory Abbott

Committee for Persons with Disabilities
Jessica Howell, 2011

University Union Board of Directors
David Lang, 2011

FS 10-72/Ex.

EARLY START PROVOST’S ADVISORY GROUP – ESTABLISHMENT OF

The Faculty Senate creates an advisory group to the Provost to prepare a proposal for implementation of Executive Order 1048 “Early Start”.

Carried unanimously.

FS 10-72A/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - EARLY START PROVOST’S ADVISORY GROUP

Marcy Merrill, Teacher Education

Carried unanimously.

FS 10-76/EX.

CLASS SIZE, QUALITY AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION TASK FORCE -THANKS AND COMMENDATION

The Faculty Senate thanks and commends the Class Size, Quality and Resource Utilization Task Force:

Kimo Ah Yun, Center for Teaching and Learning

Jean-Pierre Bayard and Ray Koegel, Academic Technologies and Creative Services

Bob Buckley, Academic Policies Committee

Jesse Cuevas, student representative

Lakshmi Malroutu, Academic Affairs

Dan Melzer, Curriculum Policies Committee (Chair)

Mark Siegler, Faculty Policies Committee

Background: Article II, Section F of the By-laws of the Faculty Senate state, in part, “ . . . 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. . . If the office of Chair of a Standing Committee becomes vacant, the office shall be executed by the Vice Chair of the Standing Committee until the Faculty Senate shall elect a successor as provided in Article II, Sections D.3 and E.3 of these By-laws (http://www.csus.edu/acse/bylaws.htm). The Vice Chair executing the office of Chair under this provision shall not serve as a voting member of the Executive Committee.” David Lang has resigned as Chair of the Curriculum Policies Committee.

Nominations of candidates for Chair of each Standing Committees may be made by a senator from the floor; by the current membership of the Standing Committee; or by a petition signed by ten (10) or more full-time faculty members and filed with the Faculty Senate office before the first meeting of the new Faculty Senate.

The candidates for Chair of each Standing Committees shall submit a one page description of qualifications and intentions to the Faculty Senate office for inclusion with the agenda for the election meeting.

There were no further nominations. Election of the Curriculum Policies Committee Chair will be October 7, 2010.

The Faculty Senate receives the resolution from Associate Students, Inc. entitled “Resolution in Support of General Education Pilot”.

Authors: Sarkis Piloyan (Vice President of Academic Affairs); Rylan Gervase (Executive Vice President)

Whereas, Associated Students, Inc., of California State University, Sacramento is the official governing body of the students at California State University, Sacramento whose purpose is to advance the welfare of Sacramento State students; and

Whereas, Associated Students, Inc., is the official voice of over 27,000 students; and

Whereas, Associated Students, Inc., is committed to supporting academic achievement and progress; and

Whereas, Associated Students, Inc., is committed to increasing accessibility, affordability, and quality education; and

Whereas, Associated Students, Inc., passed a resolution in 2009-2010 to support the idea of a GE Pilot program; and

Whereas, the Faculty Senate has reached the second stage of implementation of the program, and has proposed new elements to incorporate within it; therefore let it be

Resolved, Associated Students, Inc., supports the General Education Pilot program and its efforts to preserve an exceptional and meaningful General Education to students, and let it be further

Resolved, Associated Students, Inc., supports the establishment of a collaborative pilot within the GE Pilot, so that students are able to fulfill several sections of the General Education requirements with one class, and let it be further

Resolved, that this resolution be distributed widely, including, but not limited to the Sacramento State President Alexander Gonzalez, Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs Joseph Sheley, Vice President of Student Affairs Lori Varlotta, General Education/Graduation Requirements Policies Committee, Faculty Senate and California State Student Association.

The Faculty Senate refers to the General Education / Graduation Requirements Policies Committee the review of Area A1 of General Education

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the General Education Pilot as outlined below:

The Faculty Senate endorses the development and implementation of a pilot GE option, called Sacramento State Studies, beginning in Fall 2011, for up to 20% of first time Freshman students for no longer than 6 years, pending extension by the Senate.

The Sacramento State Studies pilot GE option will have the following characteristics:

1. Three “academic learning collaboratives” (ALCs) consisting of three approved lower division GE courses redesigned to be interdisciplinary, team-taught, and multi-modal (lecture, discussion, e-learning, fieldwork, lab).

2. Each ALC meets current GE requirements in the Areas and Sub-Areas as currently constructed

3. Composition (A2) and Quantitative Reasoning (B4) requirements will be met outside of the pilot

4. Students will be recruited via advising during summer orientation beginning summer 2011

5. Students will be able to drop in/drop out without academic penalty semester by semester

6. Classrooms will be set aside for Sacramento State Studies ALCs. The use of SCALE-UP classrooms will be considered on a case-by-case basis for each ALC, when pedagogically appropriate.

7. Transcripts will reflect individual course grades for each 3-unit GE course area within the ALC

9. Instructors will receive 6 units toward Workload for each section of Learning Collaborative (subject to annual review – see below)

10. All materials distributed to students and advisors with regards to the GE Pilot Proposal will include the following statement:

All students under the 1992-94 and subsequent University Catalogs must complete General Education requirements, including the Graduation Writing Assessment Requirement (GWAR) and University graduation requirements (Writing Intensive, race and ethnicity, foreign language, second semester English composition). Demonstrated competency in U.S. History, U.S. Constitution, and California state and local government is also required for graduation and these requirements may be satisfied through appropriate courses or through examinations given each semester by the History and Government departments. When considering a combination of individual courses and Academic Learning Collaboratives, students and their advisors should be careful to ensure that all requirements are met.

Regular evaluation of the program will occur throughout the six-year period and will include annual reports to the Faculty Senate and the Office of Undergraduate Studies, with evaluative criteria that address:

· Assessment of student outcomes in the context of both GE area objectives and Baccalaureate learning goals

Evaluation and Research Design: All assessment, both direct measures of learning via classroom assignments, and indirect measures such as surveys of student satisfaction, confidence, and motivation, etc., will be carefully connected to the Baccalaureate Learning Goals. The measures will vary across instructors intentionally; the design allows for maximum flexibility to capture individual teachers’ funds of knowledge and experience.

1. What evidence can be produced to show that the pilot course(s) have resulted in student learning across time and instructors?

2. What has been changed about the design of the course(s) based on analysis of evidence of student learning?

3. What can be said about the effectiveness of changes made to the course(s) based upon subsequent assessment (i.e., closing the loop)?

4. What are faculty experiences and perspectives with respect to design, pedagogy, and workload?

5. What have been the effects of Sacramento State Studies in terms of resource allocation and the local economies of GE?

· Provide professional development support for developing collaboratives via already existing avenues and external funding (system, national)

· There is a trade-off potential of preserving major programs by delivering GE more efficiently given the scarcity of resources

[1]SSS Proposed Common Interdisciplinary Themes---to which faculty may adjust or repurpose or invent interdisciplinary courses. The themes below will guide faculty as they develop curriculum.

[2]Interdisciplinary Core Experiences (Sacramento State Studies Pilot courses will infuse the following features developmentally and evidence of achievement in these areas will be demonstrated via e-portfolio and evaluated via the use of the VALUE rubrics as revised to reflect Sacramento State Studies and the BLG/GE Outcomes):

Faculty Roles: Faculty (as individuals looking for a “team” or as “teams”) interested in designing (or redesigning) interdisciplinary pilot courses would do so in the typical fashion with support and facilitation for faculty development from the Compass Project, the Center for Teaching and Learning, and Academic Affairs. Pilot FTES and WTUs (6 for each of 3 units taught of the 9 unit ALC) would flow back to the College proportionally. There should be no net loss since the students will still be enrolled in courses in colleges typically providing lower division GE. Any logistical issues such as course codes etc. would be addressed accordingly.

Faculty Consultation: The following faculty volunteered/were invited to participate in the discussions and other activities related to drafting this proposal and are to be commended for their time, energy and persistence.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program change proposal for the Masters in Computer Engineering, as outlined in Attachment A.

Candidate for office of Chair, Curriculum Policies Committee: Kath Pinch (Curriculum Policies Committee recommendation)

I have served two terms on the Curriculum Policies Committee and have "learned the ropes" so to speak by working with two past Chairs, Ben Amata and David Lang, both of whom were excellent role models. I take my committee work at Sacramento State very seriously and try to the best of my ability to keep up with what's happening on campus and to be a creative problem solver. I am not afraid to speak my mind and have strong opinions, but I enjoy working with other faculty, staff and administration who have divergent views. I understand that we all are trying to do our best for the university. The current (and past) members of the CPC who I have served with are equally passionate and committed to Sac State. We all understand that the curriculum is the heart of the university. I hope to prove myself worthy of their support in nominating me for CPC Chair.

The Faculty Senate divides FS 10-79 “Recommendations Regarding the Implementation of Mandatory Early Start Programs” so that opposition be directed to the Chancellor’s Office and Board of Trustees and the recommendations for campus implementation would be considered separately.

WHEREAS: The Faculty Senate of the California State University, Sacramento fully supports the commitments expressed by the Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) in AS-2895-09/APEP/AA (“Opposition to Impending Implementation of Mandatory Early Start Programs”) and in AS-2926-09/AA/APEP (“Recommendations Regarding the Implementation of Mandatory Early Start Programs”) and the position statement of the CSU English Council against Mandatory Early Start; and

WHEREAS: The Faculty Senate of the Sacramento State acknowledges and values the regional character of individual campuses and the diversity of their student populations, and affirms the importance of a local approach that is appropriate for needs of students at Sacramento State who require additional support in English and mathematics; and

WHEREAS: Many Sacramento State students will be adversely affected by mandatory “early start” programs which may prevent their working during the summer to earn funds for attending school during the academic year; and

WHEREAS: Early Start is discriminatory, forcing an identified group of students to participate in summer as a pre-condition of enrollment to the university, even though this same population of students is fully qualified, and that multilingual students, students of color, and students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are disproportionately represented in the student population that Early Start discriminates against; and

WHEREAS: Local research reveals that online-only remediation offered during the summer before the initiation of the Freshman year is less effective than current remediation courses and stretch courses; and

WHEREAS: Becoming integrated and familiar with a college campus community and its resources is a significant factor in the success and retention of students; and

WHEREAS: Sacramento State already has remediation programs and a successful stretch program directed and taught by experts in the field, and there is no evidence that a mandatory summer program will be effective in bringing students to proficiency compared to current academic year programs such as stretch courses, which have an 85% student success rate, be it

RESOLVED: That the Faculty Senate of Sacramento State opposes system-wide implementation of Early Start programs, and wishes to communicate that opposition to the Chancellor, the Board of Trustees, the CSU Academic Senate, and individual campus Senates.

http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Records/Resolutions/2008-2009/documents/2895.pdf

Chancellor’s Executive Order Mandating Early Start: http://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1048.html

WHEREAS: The Faculty Senate of Sacramento State acknowledges and values the regional character of individual campuses and the diversity of their student populations, and affirms the importance of a local approach that is appropriate for needs of students at Sacramento State who require additional support in English and mathematics; and

WHEREAS: Becoming integrated and familiar with a college campus community and its resources is a significant factor in the success and retention of students; and

WHEREAS: The Faculty Senate of Sacramento State has notified the Chancellor’s Office and the Board of Trustees of the CSU of its opposition to system-wide implementation of the Early Start Program; and

WHEREAS: The Board of Trustees has mandated EO 1048 in spite of numerous concerns of the faculty

RESOLVED: The Faculty Senate of Sacramento State urges that, prior to any implementation, the Sacramento State provost’s advisory committee ensure that serious attention is paid to the financial consequences--both to the campus and to individual students--resulting from the various "early start" approaches; and be it further

RESOLVED: That accommodations should be made broadly available to students who have work or family responsibilities, or health or transportation difficulties during the summer, or cannot afford summer fees. The provost’s advisory committee should seriously explore ways in which Early Start programs can be provided at low or no cost to students; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Faculty Senate Sacramento State, steadfast in its belief that the faculty are responsible for developing, delivering and assessing curriculum, urge that CSUS faculty, particularly those with experience teaching and directing writing, mathematics, and remedial programs, be fully engaged in the planning, teaching, and assessing of any “early start” programs and pilot programs, and that assessment include use of previously used effective assessment criteria so as to allow comparison with existing courses; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the provost’s advisory committee shall review all data available on the effectiveness of writing, mathematics, remedial, and pilot programs previously implemented at Sacramento State and at other CSU campuses, such as directed-self placement; and be it further

RESOLVED: That such “early start” pilot programs supplement but not supplant already existing, successful models of proficiency attainment at Sacramento State such as Summer Bridge and stretch composition courses, and that the success of the pilot programs themselves be assessed over time to determine their effects upon such factors as retention rates and progress toward degree before the Sacramento State considers mandating adoption of any “early-start” models; and be it further

RESOLVED: That currently successful “stretch” classes, which take the place of remedial classes, shall continue to be offered as an alternative to “remedial” classes; and be it further

RESOLVED: Any online component must be supplemental to significant instruction and support by faculty and staff, as supported by research; and be it further

RESOLVED: Early Start Programs should take place on the Sacramento State campus with staff and faculty from Sacramento State, particularly those with experience teaching and directing writing, mathematics, and remedial programs.

http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Records/Resolutions/2008-2009/documents/2895.pdf

FS 10-97/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT – UNIVERSITY

Student Health Advisory Committee

Robin Kennedy, 2011

Carried unanimously.

FS 10-98/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT – SENATE

Faculty Policies Committee

Neelam Chanda, at-large, 2013

Carried unanimously.

FS 10-82/Ex.

FACULTY SENATE BY-LAWS CHANGES, STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE VICE CHAIRS

The California State University, Sacramento Faculty Senate approves changes to its By-Laws to provide for:

1. The election, for each of its Standing Policy Committees, of a Vice Chair by the members of the Committee from among its membership;

2. The Vice Chair of a Standing Policy Committee to preside over the routine business of a Standing Policy Committee in the absence of the Committee Chair or, should the office of Standing Policy Committee Chair become vacant, until the election of a new Committee Chair; under this provision the Standing Committee Vice Chair shall not serve as an ex-officio member of the Senate or its Executive Committee.

Carried unanimously.

FS 10-83A/Flr.

MOTION TO DIVIDE FS 10-83

The Faculty Senate divides FS 10-83 “Faculty Senate By-Laws Changes, Status of Standing Committee Policy Chairs” so as to divide the question to consider separately (a) whether to continue the Chairs of the Standing Committees as ex-officio voting members of the Executive Committee under the Senate’s By-Laws; and (b) whether to revise the By-Laws to specify that the Chairs of the Standing Committees shall henceforth be ex-officio non-voting members of the Senate unless serving simultaneously as a member for an electing unit.

Carried unanimously.

FS 10-83B/Flr.

MOTION TO REFER: STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRS AS EX OFFICIO VOTING MEMBERS OF THE SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

The Faculty Senate refers to a select committee of the Senate to be constituted by a subsequent motion the question of continuing the standing committee Chairs as ex-officio voting members of the Senate Executive Committee.

Carried.

FS 10-83C/Flr.

MOTION TO REFER: STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRS AS EX OFFICIO VOTING MEMBERS OF THE SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

The Faculty Senate refers to the select committee of the Senate to which has been referred the question of continuing the standing committee Chairs as ex-officio voting members of the Executive Committee, the question of whether the By-Laws should be amended to specify that the Chairs of the Standing Committees shall henceforth be ex-officio non-voting members of the Senate unless serving simultaneously as a member for an electing unit Committee under the Senate’s By-Laws. The select Committee shall review this proposal for consistency with Article II, Section 5A of the Faculty Constitution[1] and make recommendations to the Faculty Senate regarding whether the Senate should recommend amendments to this section of the Constitution in accordance with the process set forth in Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, prior to any further consideration of revision to the By-laws.

Carried.

FS 10-83D/Flr.

MOTION TO CREATE A SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE

The Faculty Senate creates a Senate Select Committee to consider the following: 1) the question of continuing the standing committee Chairs as ex-officio voting members of the Executive Committee, 2) the question of whether the By-Laws should be amended to specify that the Chairs of the Standing Committees shall henceforth be ex-officio non-voting members of the Senate unless serving simultaneously as a member for an electing unit Committee under the Senate’s By-Laws, and 3) the questions of the relation of the Senate standing committees to one another and to the Senate and of how best to establish and maintain those relationships and to propose for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the Faculty Constitution and the Senate By-Laws that embody the results of its consideration of the several questions referred to it.

Membership of the Select Committee shall be drawn without exception from Senators representing electing units of the Faculty as defined by Article II.5B of the Faculty Constitution who respond to a call for volunteers made in a duly-called Senate meeting and whose offer to serve is formally accepted by vote of the Senate in that meeting or the next regularly scheduled meeting. Additional input can be broadly sought from other members on the campus.

The Committee shall report its progress toward completion of its task by 1 March 2011 and as soon thereafter as may be convenient shall present to the Senate those amendments, if any, to the Faculty Constitution and Senate By-Laws that it deems wise together with written arguments supporting its proposals or a decision to propose none.

The Committee’s report and proposed amendments, if any, shall be considered promptly by the Senate following the delivery of them to the Senate Chair. The report and proposed amendments, if any, shall not be subject to any further amendment, alteration or deletion whatever by the Senate Executive Committee.

The Select Committee shall organize itself, select its Chair from among its members, and see to the dispatch of the business assigned to it by the Senate without undue delay.

Administrative support of the Select Committee’s operations shall be provided by the Senate staff in a manner not to interfere with or unduly burden the staff’s current responsibilities.

Carried.

FS 10-83E/Flr.

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE – CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS

The following faculty senators volunteered to serve on the Senate Select Committee, as described in the above motions:

Juanita Barrena

Chris Bellon

Bob Buckley

Nicole Buffard

William Dillon

Carolyn Gibbs

Janet Hecsh

Mary Kirlin

Noelle McCurley

Bridget Parsh

Mary Reddick

Elizabeth Strasser

Jim Wanket

The Senate, by acclamation, ratified the volunteers to serve on the Senate Select Committee.

FS 10-84/Ex.

FACULTY SENATE BY-LAWS CHANGES, LENGTH OF TERM FOR ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVES

The California State University, Sacramento Faculty Senate approves changes to its By-Laws that shall:

1. permit an electing unit to elect an alternate representative (senator) for its officially elected representative (senator). In the case of electing units with more than one representative (senator) the unit may choose to elect (1) a separate alternate for each of seats or (2) one or more individuals (up to the number of seats allotted to the electing unit) to serve as alternates for all of its seats.

2. define the term of office of alternate representative (senator) as two academic years. The term of the alternate need not coincide with an elected unit’s senator.

3. allow an electing unit to hold an election to fill the remainder of an alternate’s term, should an alternate fail to complete his or her term.

4. not preclude an individual who has served as an alternate, regardless of the number of years served, from being elected as a unit representative (senator) upon end of his/her service as an alternate.

Carried.

FS 10-95/Ex.

PROCESS TO BE USED TO PROMOTE CONSULTATION REGARDING ACADEMIC IT-RELATED DECISIONS AFFECTING MATTERS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SHARED GOVERNANCE

The Faculty Senate receives the Process to be Used to Promote Consultation Regarding Academic II-Related Decisions Affecting Matters Within the Scope of Shared Governance, which can be found at Attachment A.

The process was developed in response to FS 10-27 “Consultation to Inform the Decisions Regarding Any Proposed Academic IT Changes Including Centralization of IT Resources, Infrastructure or Support Services”, which was approved by the Faculty Senate on April 15, 2010.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program change proposal for the Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration as outlined in Attachment A.

The Faculty Senate thanks and commends the Electronic Course Evaluation Task Force:

The Faculty Senate receives the report of the Electronic Course Evaluation Task Force, which can be found at Attachment B.

The Faculty Senate recommends changing the membership to the Committee on Diversity and Equity as follows:

The symbol “I” (Incomplete Authorized) indicates that a portion of required coursework has not been completed and evaluated during the course due to unforeseen but fully justified reasons and that there is still a possibility of earning credit.* It is the responsibility of the student to bring pertinent information to the attention of the instructor and to determine from the instructor the remaining course requirements that must be satisfied to remove the Incomplete. ~~Agreement as to t~~The conditions for removal of the Incomplete grade must be specified at the time the “I” grade is assigned. These conditions must be communicated to the student and saved in an accessible format.~~will be in writing, signed by the instructor, student, and the department chair (or designee)~~ ~~and placed on file with the appropriate academic department until the Incomplete is removed or the time limit passed.~~ A final grade is assigned when the work agreed upon has been completed and evaluated. An “I” (Incomplete Authorized) should not be assigned when it is necessary for the student to attend additional class meetings to complete the course requirements. An Incomplete must be made up within the time limit specified by the instructor when the incomplete “I” grade is assigned. ~~within~~ ~~12 months of the end of the term in which it was assigned.~~ The time limit may not extend beyond 12 months. If the instructor does not specify a time limit, then the student must ~~complete the incomplete grade with~~meet the conditions specified by the instructor within 12 months of from the day grades are due on the Academic Calendar (the last day of the term) ~~the end of the term~~ in ~~which~~ the same term in which the “I” grade was assigned. This limitation prevails whether or not the student maintains continuous enrollment.

Failure to complete the assigned work will result in an Incomplete being converted to an “F” or “NC” on the academic transcript.

If a graduating senior has an incomplete “I” grade in a course in which (1) the student has not completed the course requirements, and (2) the time limit has not yet expired on the student’s graduation date, then the “I” grade remains on the official transcript as “I/Not Completed.” At the time of degree evaluation, the degree will not be awarded if a student has any outstanding “I” grades which, if calculated as “F”, would cause the student’s grade point average to fall below the minimum level for graduation in any grade point requirement (Sacramento State, overall, major, minor, or General Education). Incomplete grades are not considered for deletion by the Academic Standards Committee.

The Faculty Senate endorses the establishment of the Graduation Initiative Steering Committee. The charge and composition of the Committee can be found at Attachment A.

Cindi Sturtz Sreetharan, Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies, 2011-2014

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the Sacramento State Statement on Faculty Responsibilities and Professional Ethics, as outlined at Attachment C.

Background: Article I, Section B.5. of the Faculty Senate By-laws “Vacancy in the office of representative” specifies the following: “If a vacancy occurs in the office of representative of the temporary faculty, the Faculty Senate shall appoint one of the alternates to serve for the remainder of the term. In the absence of an alternate, the Faculty Senate may appoint from among the temporary faculty a successor who shall serve for the remainder of the term. The Senate shall confine its choice of a successor to a member of the temporary faculty who holds an appointment from the University to no fewer than six (6) WTU’s during the semester of appointment.” There is a vacancy.

The Faculty Senate appoints Adriana Echandia as a Faculty Senator representing temporary faculty to complete a term ending in Spring 2011.

The Faculty Senate recommends a change in the Undergraduate Advising Policy to reflect mandatory orientations for transfer students.

Note: Transfer students would be able to satisfy the orientation requirement in one of several ways: By attending a transfer orientation on campus prior to their transfer semester, by completing an online orientation combined with a follow-up conversation with an academic advisor, or by attending an orientation at the start of their transfer semester (further details of the various options follow the policy language).

A. The responsibility for academic success rests with the student and includes but is not limited to the following:

B. All students on academic probation are required to meet with an academic advisor in their major program or, in the case of undeclared students, with an advisor in the Academic Advising Center to develop a plan to return to academic good standing.

C. Entering freshmen are required to meet with an advisor during orientation to plan and enroll in appropriate courses for their first semester.

D. Freshmen must meet with an advisor during their first and second semester to plan and enroll in appropriate courses for following semester.

E. After their freshmen year, all students must meet with an advisor at least once a year.

F. All newly-admitted transfer students are required to complete transfer orientation prior to the first day of classes for their first semester.

FG. All students must comply with the advising policies of their major program or, in the case of undeclared students, of the Academic Advising Center.

A. The responsibilities of the Academic Advising Center include, but are not limited to the following:

B. The Academic Advising Center shall periodically assess the effectiveness of its academic advising plan, as it relates to its advising goals, and make improvements as needed.

Highlights: Campus tour, GE advising, major advising, workshops on campus services (ex: EOP session), lunch, preliminary GE evaluation, information tables and course registration options.

Highlights: Information on General Education, graduation requirements, campus services. (Does not include major advising.)

Highlights: Information on GE and graduation requirements, preliminary GE evaluation. (Does not include major advising.)

The Faculty Senate refers to the Graduate Studies Policies Committee the issue of appropriate nomenclature and definitions for the different doctorates offered.

Background: On April 13, 2006, the Faculty Senate approved FS 06-87 “Doctoral Programs, Policies and Procedures for” in response to the CSU’s authorization to offer a Doctorate in Education. The State of California recently authorized the CSU to offer Doctor of Nursing Practice and Doctor of Physical Therapy degrees.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the Policies and Procedures for Doctoral Programs as outlined in Attachment B.

As Senate Chair Sheppard explained in his Chair’s Notes, “When we developed the policy for doctoral program proposals a few years ago, we were working with both a limited timeframe and with the then-anticipated Ed.D. in mind. Since then, central approval has been received for potential doctoral programs in more clinical disciplines such as Physical Therapy. Given that our policy wasn't written with programs of that nature in mind, the GSPC has re-visited the policy and are suggesting changes to accommodate a broader range of future proposals.”

Examining the University policy adopted in 2006, a working group of GSPC took on the task of making recommendations for policy revision. GSPC then discussed those revisions and the entire policy over the course of several meetings, consulting with representatives from Physical Therapy, Nursing and Audiology, since legislative reforms make these programs stakeholders in revisions to the policy. Faculty working with the Ed.D. program, as well as the Graduate Dean, were also instrumental in discussions regarding the proposed amendments. As is often the case with new campus policies, issues can surface during implementation, and revisions are prudent; GSPC’s recommendations address those issues, and attempt to facilitate the work of faculty who seek to propose new joint or independent doctoral programs.

1) Policy Coherence. There are two sections of the policy: the first addresses the requirements for a program on our campus to collaborate with a doctoral degree-granting institution and offer a joint doctorate; the second articulates the requirements for a program on our campus to offer a doctoral degree independent of another institution, as authorized under state law. Although most of the requirements for each type of program are similar, there are some provisions in the policy that only apply to one or the other type. When GSPC reviewed the 2006 policy, the committee discovered that there were several parts of the rather lengthy policy that were included in Section One and not Section Two, and vice versa. Therefore, most of the proposed changes, indicated using underscoring and ~~strikethrough~~, are simply attempts to achieve parallelism between the two Sections.

2) Doctoral Program Categories. One substantive change is the creation of two categories of doctoral programs, delineated as professional doctorates (PD), such as may be proposed by Physical Therapy , and professional/applied research doctorates (PARD), such as the Ed.D. This change is first referenced on page 1.

3) Doctoral Faculty Roles and Responsibilities. Other notable changes have been made in the sections on faculty, wherein proposals are asked to articulate differences in expectations of doctoral program faculty. These changes can be found on pages 4 and 10-11.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations (Attachment A) of the Program Review Oversight Committee and recommends approval of all of the Department’s degree programs for six years of until the next schedule program review.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the change proposal for the Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Sciences in Biological Science, which can be found at Attachment B.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the change proposal for the Master of Science in Biological Sciences, contingent upon the insertion of the word “seminar (i.e. non-supervisory)” in the sentence “…The 30 units must include a minimum of 18 units of 200-level seminar (i.e. non-supervisory) courses.” The proposal can be found at Attachment C.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the Single Subject Teacher Preparation-Bilingual Authorization program proposal, which can be found at Attachment A.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the Multiple Subject Teacher Preparation-Bilingual Authorization program proposal contingent upon the word "OR" being removed from the end of EDBM 175 and being placed at the end of EDBM 172.

Background: This is a "structural" change in the program proposal - however it is apparently the result of a "cut and paste" error in the form's preparation and has been confirmed by the Executive Committee in consultation with representatives from the program in question. While this is an unusual way to fix a structural error, it is a very simple change and it is far more expedient than sending it back through six levels of review and increasing multiple committee workloads, and all parties are in agreement with the substance of the change.

The Faculty Senate endorses the Campus Policy on Centers, Institutes and Similar Entities, as outlined in Attachment D of the February 3, 2011 Faculty Senate agenda.

The Faculty Senate refers the following matter pertaining to the Campus Policy on the Protection of Human Subjects to the Institutional Review Board to determine whether or not it conforms to applicable regulations pertaining to research involving human subjects and to report back to the Faculty Senate its findings:

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is the University’s authorized body ~~for~~ charged with the implementation of federal, state, and campus regulations and policies to safeguard the rights and welfare of human subjects participating in research activities by the University or its affiliates.

Any and all research conducted by Sacramento State faculty, staff, or students involving human subjects ~~or any research related activity involving human subjects that utilizes Sacramento State time, personnel, facilities, resources, and/or students~~ must be reviewed by the IRB to ensure compliance with applicable federal, state, and campus human-subject policies and procedures. The IRB shall limit its inquiries and rulings regarding methodological quality to questions germane to safeguarding human subjects.

The IRB reports to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs through …

The Faculty Senate endorses the Campus Policy on the Protection of Human Subjects, as outlined in Attachment E of the February 3, 2011 Faculty Senate agenda.

Background: It is the responsibility of faculty members serving in Senate appointments to attend committee meetings as they are regularly scheduled. All efforts should be made by the appointee to determine their availability to attend meetings. If they feel that appointment conflicts with other obligations in such a way that they will be consistently absent, they should consider alternative service opportunities and relinquish their seat on the Standing Policy Committee or subcommittee.

The Senate recommends an amendment to the bylaws to include the following statement on absences.

If a member of a Standing Policy Committee or subcommittee is absent from three or more meetings in a semester without prior notification to the chair, the chair may request that the Executive Committee declare the seat vacant. After notifying the absent committee member of the Executive Committee’s contemplated action and giving the member a chance to respond, the Executive Committee may declare the seat vacant. If a seat is declared vacant, the Senate Executive Committee shall replace that person using the previous years’ Committee Preference Poll as a guide.

The Faculty Senate recognizes and commends the recipients of the Faculty Endowment for Student Scholarships:

Sylvanna Krawczyk: Chemistry and Applied Mathematics Major (Faculty Sponsors: Cynthia Kellen-Yuen; Edward Bradley; Ben Gherman)
Nicole Lancaster: Psychology Major (Faculty Sponsors: Emily Wickelgren; Kelly Cotter; Shelagh Nugent)
Jasmine Greer: Biological Sciences Major (Faculty Sponsors G.O. Graening)

(POST-BACCALAUREATE)
Lucas Anderson: School Psychology Major (Faculty Sponsors: Leslie Cooley; Stephen Brock)

The Faculty Senate recognizes and thanks the members of the Scholarship Selection Committee:

The Faculty Senate recognizes and thanks the Board of the University Foundation at Sacramento State for its generous Bridge Funding in support of the Faculty Senate Student Scholarships.

Proposed Policy: Courses that are delivered in a hybrid or online format (i.e., any course in which the instructor delivers at least 20% of the instruction while separated from the students and in which regular and substantive interaction between students and the instructor involves technology, such as the internet, one- or two-way video, audio conferencing, audio cassettes, CD-ROMS, and DVDs) at California State University, Sacramento must be identified in the course schedule during the registration period for semesters in which they are to be offered.

Rationale: Disclosure offers both fairness (in the sense of supplying prior notice) and ease of course selection to students. It signifies to a greater degree our efforts to comply with the federal Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) which requires that students be made aware of course requirements (textbooks and other course materials) at the time of registration. Disclosure also enhances our ability to track the number of online courses within programs in order to comply with WASC regulations that require substantive change approval, prior to offering programs in which 50 percent of more of the courses are delivered “at a distance.”

Background: Academic Affairs is increasingly receiving complaints from students that the hybrid nature of courses is not being disclosed prior to the start of a course in a given semester and, in some instances, is not even disclosed on the syllabus. As “distance delivery” technologies have been evolving rapidly, WASC has increasingly asserted the need for compliance with its policies regarding the need for prior approval of programs in which 50 percent or more of the instruction is delivered at a distance.

Students who hold a bachelor’s degree from regionally accredited institutions of higher education may be admitted to a second bachelor's degree program. Students admitted are considered post-baccalaureate students.

I. Have a minimum 2.5 grade point average on the last 60 semester units of baccalaureate and/or graduate level courses.

II. Submit a graduation application with approval from the department chair of the major in which they seek the degree. Advising for the major takes place within the department.

Note: The content of the resolution has been referred, by the Executive Committee, to the Academic Policies Committee for further consideration and potential recommendation(s).

The Faculty Senate receives the resolution from Associate Students, Incorporated, which follows:

Whereas, Associated Students, Inc., of California State University, Sacramento is the official governing body of the students at California State University, Sacramento whose purpose is to advance the welfare of Sacramento State students; and

Whereas, Associated Students, Inc., is the official voice of over 26,000 students; and

Whereas, Associated Students, Inc., passed the Academic Plan for 2010-2011, which put a priority on addressing the issues of academic advising; and

Whereas, Associated Students, Inc., is committed to supporting academic achievement and progress in order to increase the accessibility, affordability and quality of education at Sacramento State; and

Whereas, California State University, Sacramento created the Graduation Initiative in which its purpose is to increase graduation and retention rates; and

Whereas, California State University, Sacramento requires first year freshmen to attend mandatory academic advising; and

Resolved, Associated Students, Inc., requests the Faculty Senate and Academic Affairs to extend the mandatory advising policy to all probationary and transfer students; and let it be

Resolved, Associated Students, Inc., requests the faculty body to standardize the quality of advising within the colleges and departments to make our processes more efficient; and, let it be

Resolved, Associated Students, Inc., requests that Academic Affairs and the Faculty Senate work to improve and extend the current advising through peer mentorship; and finally, let it be

Resolved, that this resolution be distributed widely, including, but not limited to the Sacramento State President Alexander Gonzalez, Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs Joseph Sheley, Vice President of Student Affairs Lori Varlotta, Director of Academic Advising Beth Merritt Miller, Faculty Senate: General Education/ Graduation Requirements Policies Committee, Faculty Senate: Academic Policies Committee, Faculty Senate: Executive Committee, and Faculty Senate.

General Education/Graduation Requirements Policies Committee
Anne-Louise Radimsky, 2011 (one semester replacement)

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the following undergraduate supplemental admissions criteria starting Fall 2011:

Evaluation of Qualified Undergraduate Applicants from Outside the Local Admissions Area

After careful consideration, the Enrollment Management Committee recommends the strategies stated below because they offer several advantages for Sacramento State. These include: 1) Providing the greatest fairness to prospective students by using objective, academic requirements; 2) Allowing the most flexibility for the campus, especially during periods when CSU budget allocations and enrollment targets continue to change; and 3) Providing admission staff the ability to make timely admissions decisions.

· Freshmen applicants from outside our local admissions area will be rank ordered based on CSU eligibility criteria as calculated using the standard CSU eligibility index formula.

· Transfer applicants from outside of the local admissions area will be rank ordered based on transfer GPA.

Admission offers will then be made in descending order for both groups until the new freshmen and transfer targets are achieved. During times of uncertain enrollment targets, a waitlist may also be employed to provide additional enrollment controls.

The campus is authorized to make exceptions to the supplemental admissions criteria. To shape the exceptions made by Sacramento State, the following statement was passed as a Faculty Senate resolution regarding campus impaction on April 22, 2010:

For a small percentage of prospective freshmen and transfer applicants, eligibility may be weighed alongside other criteria such as: first-generation college status, socioeconomic factors, evidence of overcoming educational hardship, and evidence of skills or talents that align with or contribute to university programs or enrich the educational experience of the campus community. Applicants will present this information in writing to the Admissions Committee.

All students who do not meet minimum standards for that semester (regardless of being in or out of the local admissions area) will be sent a letter outlining the process for appealing their admissions decision and information on what additional documentation to submit. All students who are ineligible for admission to Sacramento State shall receive a letter which includes the following language, notifying the student of the appeals process:

If, after reviewing the above statement(s), you have reason to believe that you are eligible for admissions and have documents showing proof of admissions eligibility, please follow the instructions found at [web address].

If there are special circumstances that you believe have bearing on your admission decision, please follow the instructions at [web address].

Background: In June 2010, the Chancellor’s Office approved Sacramento State’s proposal for campus-wide impaction starting fall 2011. As an impacted campus, Sacramento State must choose an undergraduate supplemental admissions strategy for qualified students coming from outside the local admissions area. The criteria used to admit students within the local admissions area are unchanged.

Considering the goals outlined in Sacramento State’s Strategic Plan, the enrollment management principles and policies outlined in California State University (CSU) documents, fairness to prospective undergraduate students, and the current variability of state budgets and enrollment targets, the committee proposes the following strategy for undergraduate supplemental admissions criteria.

To complete the process for determining undergraduate admissions supplemental criteria, the Enrollment Management Committee requests endorsement of this proposal. This proposal was approved unanimously by the Academic Policies Committee on February 4, 2011 and was endorsed by the Executive Committee by majority vote on February 8, 2011.

Further background information can be found at the February 17, 2011 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment C.

College of Continuing Education Dean Search Committee
Stephanie Biagetti
David Evans
Carolynn Goetze

The Faculty Senate endorses the establishment of the Provost’s Advisory Committee on Curricular Global Engagement, which is outlined below:

Charge: The Committee serves in an advisory, though not policy-making, capacity to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. Its charge is to submit recommendations to the Provost that assist in encouraging development of campus initiatives that:

· Promote more general, comprehensive integration of international and global issues into the curriculum

· Promote cross-disciplinary collaborations regarding international and global issues within the curriculum and scholarly activity

· Promote development of student learning goals that promote international/intercultural competence and equip our students with the knowledge and skill sets to be competitive in a global economy

More generally, the committee will encourage development of more intentional strategies that capitalize on the substantive interests, energy, and resources of faculty members committed to broader internationalization of the curriculum.

Membership: Members of the committee and the committee chair are appointed by the Provost to renewable terms of two (2) years. Membership will consist of the following:

6 Faculty (recommended by the Provost)
1 faculty member from the Faculty Senate General Education/Graduation Requirements Policies Committee
1 CCE representative to enhance connections with study abroad and ELI offerings
1Student member appointed by Provost in consultation with ASI

Roberto Pomo (HONS)
Ernest Uwazie (CRJ)
Raghuraman Trichur (ANTH)
Lisa Hammersley (GEOL)
Buzz Fozouni (GOVT)
Kazue Matsuyama (FORL)

The Faculty Senate thanks the members of the planning committee, administration and participants for the Convocation on Fostering a Community at Sacramento State. The event was well organized and valuable to all who attended as students, staff, faculty and administration had the opportunity to talk about personal experiences and to frame hopeful ideas of what they envision our campus will become. In keeping with the spirit of the convocation, we resolve that all persons who are involved with California State University Sacramento regardless of position, rank, gender, race, sexual orientation or disability will be treated with dignity and respect by all members of our college community.

The Faculty Senate thanks and acknowledges from the activities office, advancement staff volunteers on event day: Scott Adams, Melisa Addison, Karen Booth, Pat Burke-Kumpf, Ryan Chin, Shari Gonzales, Kevin Gonzalez, Laurie Hall, Georgina Hansen-Stevenson, Shante Johnson, John Koch, Hannah Kook, Kevin Mackey, Jackie Morris-Henderson, Maurya Perazzo, Craig Perez, Mimi Phothichack, John Power, Stella Premo, Vince Sales, Linda Kay Soriano, and Terry Veiga.

The Faculty Senate also thanks and acknowledges the following planning committee members, breakout assistants, and volunteers: Kimo Ah Yun, J.P. Bayard, Margarita Berta-Avila, Rose Borunda, Jessica Castellon, Sarah Couch, Julie Figueroa, Tim Fong, Janet Hecsh, Patricia Holmes, Marlyn Jones, Mary Maguire, Steve Perez, Sarkis Piloyan, Debbie Santiago, Alysson Satterlund, Vanessa Sheared, Mark Stoner, Don Taylor, Adrienne Thompson, and Ernest Uwazie.

Furthermore, the Faculty Senate also thanks and acknowledges Carole Hayashino, Vice President for University Advancement and Alexander Gonzalez, President of California State University Sacramento.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations (Attachment A) of the Program Review Oversight Committee and recommends approval of all of the Department’s degree programs for six years.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations (Attachment B) of the Program Review Oversight Committee and recommends (1) provisional approval of all of the Department’s degree programs for three years pending development and implementation of a workable student learning outcomes assessment plan that satisfies both University and WASC requirements, and (2) upon successfully development and approval of such a plan by Academic Affairs, the Program shall be approved for the remainder of the six years or until the next program review.

B. Education Specialist Credential Program: Mild/Moderate Multiple Subject (Attachment C-2)

C. Preliminary Education Specialist Teaching Credential Program: Early Childhood Special Education (Attachment C-3)

E. Multiple Subject Teaching Credential in the EDS Dual Program (Moderate/Severe Education Specialist and Multiple Subject Credentials) (Attachment C-5)

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the Doctorate in Physical Therapy, as described below:

The Department of Physical Therapy in the College of Health and Human Services at Sacramento State proposes offering the Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) on the Sacramento campus beginning in fall 2012.

The program is developed in response to changes in entry-level professional education requirements by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE). It is the intent of this proposal that the new DPT curriculum will replace the MPT curriculum. MPT degrees will soon (2015) no longer meet accreditation standards, and therefore licensing requirements. This new DPT program will establish a pathway for CSUS students to become graduates of an accredited program of professional physical therapist education, and to continue to be eligible for licensure. This will advance Sacramento State as a destination campus, and enable California State University, Sacramento to continue to meet the workforce and patient care needs of the region. There is tremendous demand for graduates in physical therapy with our regional needs expected to increase by 32.7% over the next 10 years.

The program is a professional doctoral program, similar to MD and DDS programs, designed to prepare generalist practitioners grounded in evidence-based practice in physical therapy. It consists of a combination of lecture, laboratory, and clinical experiences over 3 years that fully integrates evidence-based practice into these experiences through the use of case-method teaching. A complete description of the program as well as the design of courses by semester and summer term are included in the full proposal in section 2 with year by year charts of the course structure beginning on page 12. A copy of all syllabi with assignments and sample exams accompany the Form As.

The overall governing group of the program is the Department Council composed of members of the core and associated physical therapy faculty where all curricular and policy decisions are decided by a vote of all members. The Department is an equal and representative member of the College of Health and Human Services Committees, is represented in the Faculty Senate, and faculty serve on a variety of committees across the campus. Department faculty are fully engaged in and contributing to the activities of the campus.

Faculty teaching in the doctoral program and serving on doctoral committees meet all of the expectations consistent with university and CAPTE expectations. Policies and procedures are outlined in the Department’s updated Appointment, Retention, Tenure, and Promotion policies, and meet the expectations of the Chancellor’s Office governing documents.

Admissions requirements for students entering the program will continue to require evidence of the ability to do graduate work through careful review of applications according to high standards. All department requirements are iterated in the full proposal for review in section 5 beginning on page 24. In keeping with the Sac State mission, the faculty is committed to meeting the needs of the diverse populations represented within California and specifically the region CSUS serves.

The proposed program expectation is that core doctoral faculty will have 3 units of release time each semester to devote to their scholarship. In addition they will have the responsibility of mentoring student doctoral projects/culminating experiences. Students are expected to become critical consumers of research literature and to be proficient with deriving evidence for clinical decision-making. This expectation is reinforced throughout the curriculum and with doctoral projects/culminating experiences. The department currently has space that is adequate to accommodate the research needs of faculty and students.

Internal funding resources arise from the usual sources: marginal cost funding from the state and student fees. The chart below identifies the 5 year projected budget with resultant gains expected. More complete information about this is addressed in the full proposal beginning on page 37.

Faculty research and student internships have been supported in a variety of ways in the current graduate program. These are addressed at length in the full document.

The proposal has been submitted and reviewed by an external consultant, Lisa L. Dorsey, PT, PhD, MBA, Associate Dean of the Doisy College of Health Sciences from St. Louis University. Her report is part of the formal proposal and appendices.

The proposal’s Table of Contents can be found at Attachment A; the full proposal can be found at Attachment A-1; catalog copy can be found at Attachment A-2.

Proposed changes to UARTP policy in order to accommodate possible conversion to electronic course evaluation.

A. The Personnel Action File shall contain the following material submitted by the custodian of the file:

1. Record of location of other files
2. Access log
3. Appointment letter and other relevant appointment information
4. Results of student evaluations standardized in terms of subject and format of questions (e.g., numbers and types of rating items, scales, and response categories.

3) The department is responsible for the development of evaluation questionnaires, and for ensuring that administration of the questionnaires occurs in line with established regulations and that the distribution and collection of questionnaires maintain student anonymity. The results of the student evaluations shall be given to the instructor and department chair after grades have been assigned. Departments shall decide whether and under what circumstances electronic forms may be used.

The Faculty Senate recommends an alternative approach to the monitoring and reporting needs associated with IRT’s KBox implementation plan be recommended to the President for consideration:

· IRT in consultation with College and Library Deans and the Academic IT Committee identify and document the specific security and appropriate usage needs that will be met through the remote monitoring and access capabilities provided by IRT’s intended use of KBox as a System Management Appliance.

· Colleges and the Library Deans be given the option of meeting these needs locally or ceding that responsibility to IRT. Those that choose the local option will assume the responsibility of providing IRT with the appropriate information that ensures that the security and appropriate use of IT resources are being maintained.

· The decision on which System Management Appliance to be purchased by those that select the self-monitoring option be based on the specific security and appropriate usage needs and that different alternatives be considered (Altiris Endpoint Management, Kaseya IT Department Edition, KBox, LANDesk Management Suite, Microsoft Systems Management Server, etc.).

The Faculty Senate endorses the establishment of a Learning Management System workgroup, as described below:

Charge: The workgroup advises both the Provost and the Chief Information Officer (CIO) on matters related to changes in the campus Learning Management System (LMS) as Sacramento State transitions its LMS (SacCT) from WebCT to Blackboard Learn. The workgroup has no policy-making capacity. Policy issues of a shared- governance nature that may arise from LMS Workgroup discussions will be referred to the Faculty Senate.

· Evaluating potential features of Blackboard Learn that should or should not be adopted at Sacramento State.

· Evaluating the potential campus impact of Blackboard Learn 9 upgrades (hardware & software), new feature releases, service packs, and updates.

· Facilitating consultation among and integration of various perspectives on LMS transition: users, system administration, and support.

· Providing clarification and advice on such LMS transition issues as migration timeline and course migration (with shared governance issues going to Faculty Senate).

· Facilitating test groups of faculty members regarding development and evaluation of training materials to support and facilitate teaching and learning elements of LMS transition.

Duration: Workgroup will function from present until the end of the fall 2012 semester, at which time the LMS transition is expected to be complete.

Meetings: It is anticipated that the LMS Workgroup will meet every other week initially. Much Workgroup activity will occur via electronic means.

Membership: 11 members, co-chaired by representatives from the divisions of Academic Affairs and IRT

The Faculty Senate recommends the following for the period through the spring 2012 semester:

· AIRC 1016 be designated as a computer lab available for one-time use to meet the instructional need for administering exams for large on-line and hybrid classes.

· AIRC 1016 be available for student use at times when the classroom is not scheduled to be “closed for testing”.

· Notices be appropriately displayed to inform student when AIRC 1016 will be “closed for testing”.

· Data be collected during the fall and spring semesters to assess the usability of ARC 1016 and the need for dedicating additional facilities for one-time uses in meeting the instructional needs for administering exams for large on-line and hybrid classes.

· IRT provide regular maintenance to ensure that sufficient numbers of workstations in AIRC 1016 are available for use on days when the classroom is scheduled to be “closed for testing”.

During the early registration period, new and continuing undergraduate students in good academic standing may register for up to 15 units. Seniors who have applied to graduate may register for up to 21 units. Students who are not in good academic standing are limited to the number of units allowed by their individual academic contract or a maximum of 14 units if they are on academic probation (or continued probation). Graduate students in good academic standing are allowed to enroll in a maximum of 12 units unless they fall into an exception category as outlined below.

Special program requirements would be coordinated between the academic department and the Registrar’s Office. Graduate programs must seek approval through graduate studies before sending information to the Registrar’s Office.

Individual students with special circumstances who wish to increase their early registration unit load should file an “Excess Units Petition” with the Registrar’s Office. Students who can demonstrate that they can graduate within the next two semesters are encouraged to file an “Excess Units Petition,” if they would like to balance their remaining units over the next two semesters.

Consistent with existing policy, during “Open/Late Registration” undergraduate students may register for up to 21 units unless they are subject to an academic contract limiting them to fewer units. Graduate students would continue to be limited to 12 units unless they fall into an exception category as outlined below.

Special program requirements are coordinated between the academic department and the Registrar’s Office. Graduate programs must seek approval through graduate studies before sending information to the Registrar’s Office.

Individual students with special circumstances who wish to increase their early registration unit load should file an “Excess Units Petition” with the Registrar’s Office.

At this very time last year, campus officials were examining the continuing student registration process with great scrutiny. They knew then that the campus’ newly reduced targets would make it difficult for mid-cycle and late-cycle registrants to have any chance at building a viable course schedule. While this year’s target (currently set at 21,625), gives the campus a little more “play,” there are no assurances that the target will hold given the perceived vulnerability of the target itself and the ongoing concerns. Faced with these uncertainties, campus officials are again suggesting that early registration unit load limits be put in place.

Student Affairs and Academic Affairs recommend the ongoing use of restricted unit loads during the early registration period (May 2 through July 29 for the 2011-12 academic year). It is expected that unit load restrictions will be lifted during the late registration and the drop/add period (August 8 through September 9).

During the early (priority) registration period, all students in good standing are typically allowed to enroll in a maximum of 17 units. Graduating seniors are allowed to register for up to 21 units (Registration and Advising Guide). Students who are not in good academic standing are currently limited to the number of units allowed by their individual academic contract. Students on continued academic probation are limited to 14 units.

Whereas: California State University, Sacramento students convened on April 13, 2011 in Sacramento Hall in a non-violent civil action asking President Gonzalez to publicly support policies and legislation that would support California State University, Sacramento in times of budget crisis,

Resolved: The Faculty Senate supports students’ rights to free speech and assembly, and requests that the University refrain from pursuing disciplinary actions against students who used nonviolent strategies in the course of their participation in the student protests that took place on campus from April 13 to April 16, 2011,

Resolved: The Faculty Senate recommends that the President establish a task force, to include representatives of the Faculty Senate, Associated Students Incorporated, University Staff Assembly, the administration and the campus police, to develop a policy recommendation on demonstrations and protests, which addresses: time, place, and manner standards for demonstrations and protests, standards and procedures for determining whether conduct during a demonstration or protest is sufficiently disruptive or threatening to warrant intervention, and standards for the levels and types of interventions that may be taken by the University that are commensurate with the level and type of disruption or threat to the University community.

Whereas, For decades the California State University has maintained a requirement (in Title 5 administrative law) for all CSU graduates to “acquire knowledge and skills that will help them to comprehend the workings of American democracy and of the society in which they live, to enable them to contribute to that society as responsible and constructive citizens” (Title 5 40404); and

Whereas, The CSU Board of Trustees is considering changes in the Title 5 “American Institutions” requirement that will enable (but not necessarily require) the Chancellor, Presidents, and “appropriate campus authorities” to waive the American Institutions requirement for certain majors and groups, be it

Resolved, That the CSUS Faculty Senate urges the Board of Trustees to delay any final actions on Title 5 changes to the “American Institutions” requirement until further and appropriate faculty consultation has occurred; be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be distributed to the Chancellor, to the Board, to the ASCSU, to all campus senates, and to the Chairs of all CSU History and Political Science Departments, the Assembly Committee on Higher Education, and the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges.

Supercedes UMI 07100; INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM PRIORITIES; GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PLANNING, RESOURCE ALLOCATION, AND ENROLLMENT MANAGMENT .

The following policy proposal was initially prepared by the Task Force on Possible Revisions to University Policy on Instructional Priorities and Resource Allocation. The Task Force was created by President Gonzalez after a recommendation from the Faculty Senate (FS 09-86/Flr), and the charge of the Task Force was endorsed by the Senate on 2/25/10 (FS 10-17/Ex). After the Task Force concluded its work, the Faculty Senate took action to receive the proposal FS 10-71/Ex.) and distributed it to its standing policy committees and to the Senate for review and comment. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee then reviewed the feedback and amended the original Task Force proposal.

It is the responsibility of the University to establish University-wide priorities among its academic programs in order to guide the allocation of resources across the University. These priorities shall be established using the criteria described in this policy. The decisions regarding priorities shall be made in an open and transparent way utilizing data provided by the programs being prioritized as well as data provided by other sources. These decisions shall be made under the principles of shared governance between the Faculty Senate and the Administration, after prior consultation with the Colleges, programs. Each academic department shall be responsible for describing how its programs contribute to the Mission of the University, as well as to the desired balance and mix of programs offered by the University. The prioritization process shall examine programs holistically, using both qualitative and quantitative data. While any prioritization process must necessarily be driven by the qualitative and quantitative data, data are not to be a substitute for exercising sound judgment.

Any implementation of program prioritization shall be carried out under the following guiding principles:

1. Transparency: All decisions shall be made in an open and transparent fashion, based upon evidence.

2. Comprehensiveness: To the extent allowed by available information, all aspects of a program will be examined during the prioritization process.

3. Consistency: The same criteria will be used to evaluate each program for prioritization; data will be considered in the reports holistically, without assigning particular weights to given categories or criteria..

4. Inclusiveness: All programs within Academic Affairs shall be evaluated and all faculty and staff shall have the opportunity to have input into the analysis of their programs.

5. Utilization of Data: Prioritization of programs will be based on examination of both quantitative and qualitative data provided by the programs and other sources.

For the purposes of this policy, a program is defined to be; a unit within Academic Affairs that uses resources from Academic Affairs and which either: offers majors, minors, or certificates; or provides resources to students. Under this definition, departments and divisions within Academic Affairs are not programs; however majors, minors and certificates are programs. Non-degree granting academic units such as the University Library, Learning Skills, and other special academic Centers are also considered programs.

General Education (GE) is mandated by Title V and cannot be prioritized as an independent program, but components of the GE program housed within departments will be recognized/evaluated.

Graduate programs are an essential part of the mission of the California State University (CSU System Mission Statement) and of the mission of California State University, Sacramento (California State University, Sacramento Mission Statement). As such, a high priority is placed on maintaining a viable graduate program with a mix of graduate programs that is appropriate to a comprehensive, metropolitan university. To assure continued viability of graduate education at California State University, Sacramento, the University shall maintain a minimum degree-seeking graduate enrollment of 10% of the FTE of the University. In addition, the University shall maintain a minimum of 5% of the FTE of the University in postbaccalaureate credential and certificate programs, if consistent with and justified by regional need and agency data (e.g., the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing). Consistent with Section III below, second baccalaureate students shall be counted in undergraduate FTEs. The proportion of graduate and postbaccalaureate enrollment may be increased above these levels, but enrollment shall not exceed the maximum level permitted by CSU system mandates.

The University is committed to offering undergraduate programs leading to a baccalaureate degree in selected disciplines. This includes first and subsequent baccalaureate degrees. Nine criteria are specified for the purpose of comparing undergraduate programs across the University. The criteria are broad in nature and are selected to capture as much information as possible about programs, in order to take into account the size, scope and nature of each program. In this way, decisions made regarding priorities are to be made in a way that is both informed, and transparent to the programs being prioritized. These criteria have been adapted from Dickeson(2010). For each criterion some examples of information/data are given, to illustrate how programs may choose to respond to the criterion. Not all of these examples will be relevant to every program on the campus and in such cases those examples should be ignored by such programs when responding to the criterion. When prioritizing programs within undergraduate education across the University, the following criteria shall be used to compare undergraduate programs:

What is the context of the program, to inform the subsequent criteria. Is the program young and still building to meet expectations or is it a fully mature program and capable of adapting to changing demands? Has the program considered what lies in its future?

In what ways does the program fulfill the University’s mission? Is the program unique in our region? Does the program add to the distinctiveness of our campus? Does the program serve a unique demographic or societal function?

How does the program support community engagement with the campus? What is the demand for the program’s resources and expertise? What are the local trends in enrollment? What is the demand from employers, or from graduate schools?

What is the demand for the program’s courses from other programs on campus? Does the program produce other services used by different programs in the home department or in other departments? How do the program’s courses fulfill demand for general education on campus?

How does the program use its resources to carry out its mission? Are those resources used efficiently and effectively? Is the program curriculum appropriate to breadth, depth and level of the discipline? How does the program use technology?

Are student learning outcomes achieved? How well do students do after graduation (employment, graduate school, professional licensing and/or certification)?

Number of majors, number of FTES. How many degrees or certificates are awarded? Are the program’s resources and faculty expertise appropriate to support and enhance the breadth and depth of university curriculum?

What sorts of revenues does the program generate, to be compared with costs. What are the other, non-monetary resources generated (e.g. relationships with outside institutions)?

A criterion not to be examined independently from the others, but to provide context. Consider both indirect and direct costs. What steps has the program taken to improve efficiency? What kind of investment is needed to improve the program?

The University is committed to offering graduate programs leading to the master's, doctoral or terminal degree, or postbaccalaureate credential in selected disciplines.

Nine criteria are specified for the purpose of comparing graduate programs across the University. The criteria are broad in nature and are selected to capture as much information as possible about programs, in order to take into account the size, scope and nature of each program. In this way, decisions made regarding priorities are to be made in a way that is both informed, and transparent to the programs being prioritized. These criteria have been adapted from Dickeson (2010). For each criterion some examples of information/data are given, to illustrate how programs may choose to respond to the criterion. Not all of these examples will be relevant to every program on the campus and in such cases those examples should be ignored by such programs when responding to the criterion. When prioritizing programs within graduate education across the University, the following criteria shall be used to compare graduate programs:

What is the demand for the program’s courses from other programs on campus? Does the program produce other services used by different programs in the home department or in other departments?

How does the program use its resources to carry out its mission? Are those resources used efficiently and effectively? Does the program attract students who are ready to succeed in graduate study? Is the program curriculum appropriate to breadth, depth and level of the discipline? How does the program use technology?

Are student learning outcomes achieved? How well do students do after graduation (employment, graduate school, professional licensing and/or certification).

Number of active graduate students, number of FTES. How many degrees or certificates are awarded? Are the program’s resources and faculty expertise appropriate to support and enhance the breadth and depth of university curriculum? Is size of program faculty appropriate to breadth and depth of curriculum?

What sorts of revenues does the program generate, to be compared with costs. What are the other, non-monetary resources generated (e.g. relationships with outside institutions)?

Academic programs that exist to support students and faculty in successfully accomplishing the goals of undergraduate and graduate programs shall also be evaluated. To the degree possible for each program in question, the same criteria shall be applied as for undergraduate and graduate programs. For example, as the Library does not offer a major program, graduation rate is not an appropriate criterion, but other measures of student outcomes will be.

The process of making recommendations for academic prioritization shall result in undergraduate and graduate programs (separately) being grouped into quartiles based upon the criteria. Such grouping will be done by a Senate Select Committee which may solicit input from the Curriculum Policies Committee and the Graduate Studies Policies Committee on the implementation of the criteria prior to initial and/or final prioritization of programs. The Senate Select Committee may, in consultation with the Office of Academic Affairs, create guidelines for presenting information for all Programs. Programs may produce additional reports using qualitative and quantitative data that address the criteria in whatever manner they deem appropriate. The Senate Select Committee will consider the data in the reports holistically, without assigning particular weights to given categories or criteria. The Senate Select Committee shall recommend program prioritization across university units.

It is the charge of a Faculty Senate Select Committee (formed for these purposes) to examine the data and make recommendations, as both are described in this policy. The first such Select Committee shall be formed following both the passage of this policy and the collection of data. The data shall be collected, from Departments, by the Office of Academic Affairs.

Membership of the Senate Select Committee shall invite Administrators with Program responsibility such as Deans to participate in the process. Chairs are not intended to serve this role.

Upon approval of this policy, an initial call for data as described in this policy will go to Departments from the Office of Academic Affairs. A separate process for the ongoing and periodic gathering of such data, including review by programs and the archiving of data, will be developed by the Office of Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Faculty Senate.

Subsequent to the completion of the work of the first such Select Committee, the question of whether or not to form a new Select Committee for these same purposes shall be brought to the Faculty Senate on a periodic basis. Normally, this question shall be considered no later than five years after the last such committee completed its work and was disbanded, or five years after the question was most recently considered by the Faculty Senate, whichever comes later.

Interested parties may petition the Faculty Senate, via its Executive Committee, to consider the question of forming a Select Committee for the purposes outlined in this policy prior to the described five year period elapsing.

Producing the recommendations for prioritization shall be a two stage process, specifically designed to allow programs to respond to the recommendations before any final decisions are made. Final Senate Select Committee recommendations will then be forwarded to the Faculty Senate for receipt of its report and to the President for disposition.

After the final recommendation is made, the results shall be made available in an open and transparent manner to the University community, with enough information being made available so that the assignments of programs to quartiles are known, and programs can understand how the assignments were achieved.

Dickeson, Robert C.; Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services; 2010; Jossey-Bass

California State University Policy Manual, Policy UMI07100 “Instructional Programs Priorities; Academic Planning Resource Allocation and Enrollment Management”: www.csus.edu/umanual/UMI07100.htm

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the “traditional” academic calendar for the 2012-2013 academic year (see attachment).

Furthermore, the Faculty Senate extends the referral of the academic calendar for 2013-2014 to APC, to allow additional time to consider alternate calendar proposals from the administration, and to allow sufficient time for APC to make further recommendations for 2013-2014.

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.

2) Library faculty, Student Service Professional (Academic Related)’s, coaching faculty

· For purposes of consideration for awards for Outstanding Teaching, Scholarly and Creative Activity, University Service, and Community Service, members of the library faculty, SSPAR’s, and coaching faculty shall establish a joint review committee.

· The committee shall consist of three members, preferably representing at least two of the units, to be elected from within the faculty membership of each unit.

a. sending the call for nominations for Outstanding Faculty Awards to each administrator and each eligible faculty member in the amalgam group of library faculty, SSPAR’s, and coaching faculty;

b. initiating the election of three faculty to serve on a selection committee, preferably representing at least two of the units;

· All faculty employed at Sacramento State for at least the past three years are eligible for the Outstanding Teaching, Scholarly and Creative Activity, University Service, and Community Service awards.

· 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.

The Faculty Senate amends its By-laws as outlined in the April 7, 2011 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment E.

The Faculty Senate recommends amendment of Sections 3.02.B.1 and 3.02.B.6 of University ARTP Policy as follows:

3.02.B.1. Each primary level (department or equivalent unit) ARTP committee shall ~~be required to~~ submit to the University ARTP Committee for review and recommendation to the President its criteria, policies, and procedures ~~for~~ to govern the appointment, retention, tenure, and promotion of permanent faculty and the appointment and evaluation of temporary faculty.

3.02.B.6. Proposed changes in the primary and/or secondary level criteria, policies, and procedures for appointment, retention , tenure, and promotion of permanent faculty and the appointment and evaluation of temporary faculty shall be approved by the President upon recommendation of the University ARTP Committee prior to implementation in the next annual faculty evaluation cycle.

The Faculty Senate recommends the following: No grade below a C (2.0 grade points per unit) may be counted towards a graduate degree. At the master's level, no grade below "B (3.0 grade points per unit)" may be counted toward a degree unless expressly permitted by a campus-approved graduate programs’ written policies. At the doctoral level, no grade below "B (3.0 grade points per unit)" may be counted toward a degree program. (Note: It is expected that this language would be inserted into the eligibility criteria for advancement to candidacy that are listed in the graduate studies section of the catalog and in other forms distributed by the Office of Graduate Studies, including but not limited to the Advancement to Candidacy petition.)

Background: The current language that appears in the catalog refers to C grades, but there is inconsistency across campus, between programs, regarding the acceptance of C's and also regarding whether or not the language is intended to include C- and C+ grades in the general description of C grades. In this regard, it is worth noting that these policies stem from Title V language where +/- grades are not referenced and so no such distinctions are made. Also, the current campus language is silent with respect to any distinction between master’s level coursework and doctoral coursework. The proposed policy is intended to address any potential ambiguities, allow for exceptions at the program level (when written into departmental program policy), and sets a higher standard for doctoral level work.

Background: on December 16, 2010, the Faculty Senate approved amendments to the university’s policies and procedures governing doctoral programs. As part of the discussion, the Senate approved FS 10-110A, which referred to the Graduate Studies Policies Committee the issue of appropriate nomenclature and definitions for the different doctorates offered on campus.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the Policies and Procedures for Doctoral Programs as outlined in Attachment A.

The Faculty Senate recommends amendment of Section 9.04 of University ARTP Policy by adding a new subsection “G” as follows:

9.04.G. Departments may authorize electronic submission of student evaluations of teaching performance in classes taught by part-time temporary faculty. Such authorizations shall be included among the provisions of the Department’s ARTP document governing the periodic evaluation of part-time temporary faculty. When a Department is considering whether to adopt or amend such an authorization, the Department may invite the part-time temporary faculty currently employed in the Department to participate in the Department’s decision. The Department’s permanent faculty may prescribe the mode of their participation.

DATE	SENATE ACTION #	TITLE	APPROVED (SENATE)-YES/NO	APPROVED (PRESIDENTIAL) - YES/NO	COMMENTS
8/25/10	*FS 10-66/EX.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
8/25/10	*FS 10-67/Ex.	PROGRAM PROPOSALS	YES	YES
8/25/10	*FS 10-69/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
9/16/10	FS 10-72/Ex.	EARLY START PROVOST’S ADVISORY GROUP – ESTABLISHMENT OF	YES
9/16/10	FS 10-72A/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - EARLY START PROVOST’S ADVISORY GROUP	YES
9/16/10	FS 10-76/EX.	CLASS SIZE, QUALITY AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION TASK FORCE -THANKS AND COMMENDATION	YES	NA
9/16/10	FS 10-77/EX.	CLASS SIZE, QUALITY AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION TASK FORCE – REPORT: RECEIPT OF	YES	NA
9/16/10	FS 10-78/Flr.	E.O. 1037 CLARIFICATION (REPEATS)	YES	ACKNOWLEDGED
9/30/10	FS 10-80/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT – SENATE	YES	NA
9/30/10	FS 10-85/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT – UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
9/30/10	FS 10-75/Flr.	NOMINATION OF CHAIR, CURRICULUM POLICIES COMMITTEE	NA	NA
9/30/10	FS 10-86/Flr.	RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL EDUCATION PILOT, RECEIPT OF	YES	NA
9/30/10	FS 10-87/Flr.	MOTION TO REFER	YES	NA
9/30/10	FS 10-70/GEP/GRPC/CPC/Ex.	G.E. PILOT	YES	YES
10/7/10	FS 10-88/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE	YES	NA
10/7/10	FS 10-89/EX	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
10/7/10	FS 10-93/EX	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
10/7/10	FS 10-90/CPC/EX	PROGRAM PROPOSAL	YES	YES
10/7/10	FS 10-92/FLR	ELECTION OF CHAIR, CURRICULUM POLICIES COMMITTEE	NA	NA
10/7/10	FS 10-79A/FLR	MOTION TO DIVIDE	YES	NA
10/7/10	FS 10-79/FLR	RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MANDATORY EARLY START PROGRAMS-RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION	YES	NA
10/7/10	FS 10-79B/FLR	RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MANDATORY EARLY START PROGRAMS	YES	NA
10/21/10	FS 10-97/EX	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
10/21/10	FS 10-98/EX	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - SENATE	YES	NA
10/21/10	FS 10-82/EX	FACULTY SENATE BY-LAWS CHANGES, STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE VICE CHAIRS	YES	NA
10/21/10	FS 10-83A/FLR	MOTION TO DIVIDE FS 10-83	YES	NA
10/21/10	FS 10-83B/FLR	MOTION TO REFER: STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRS AS EX OFFICIO VOTING MEMBERS OF THE SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE	YES	NA
10/21/10	FS 10-83C/FLR	MOTION TO REFER: STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRS AS EX OFFICIO VOTING MEMBERS OF THE SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE	YES	NA
10/21/10	FS 10-83D/FLR	MOTION TO CREATE A SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE	YES	NA
10/21/10	FS 10-83F/FLR	SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE - CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS	NA	NA
10/21/10	FS 10-84/EX	FACULTY SENATE BY-LAWS CHANGES, LENGTH OF TERM FOR ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVES	YES	NA
10/21/10	FS 10-95/EX	PROCESS TO BE USED TO PROMOTE CONSULTATION REGARDING ACADEMIC IT-RELATED DECISIONS AFFECTING MATTERS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SHARED GOVERNANCE	YES
11/18/10	FS 10-99/EX	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - SENATE	YES	NA
11/18/10	FS 10-100/EX	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
11/18/10	FS 10-102/FLR	PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSAL	YES	YES
11/18/10	FS 10-103/EX	ELECTRONIC COURSE EVALUATION TASK FORCE, THANKS AND COMMENDATION	YES	NA
11/18/10	FS 10-96/EX	FACULTY SENATE BY-LAWS CHANGES, ELECTION PROCEDURES	YES	NA
11/18/10	FS 10-105/EX	ELECTRONIC COURSE EVALUATION TASK FORCE REPORT, RECEIPT OF	YES
11/18/10	FS 10-101/EX	COMMITTEE ON DIVERSITY AND EQUITY - CHANGE TO MEMBERSHIP	YES	NA
12/2/10	FS 10-107/CPC/EX	PROGRAM PROPOSALS	YES	YES
12/2/10	FS 10-106A/APC/EX	INCOMPLETE GRADES - GRADUATING SENIORS	YES
12/16/10	FS 10-111/Flr.	GRADUATION INITIATIVE STEERING COMMITTEE, ESTABLISHMENT OF	YES	ACKNOWLEDGED
12/16/10	FS 10-118/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT – GRADUATION INITIATIVE STEERING COMMITTEE	YES	YES
12/16/10	FS 10-112/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT – UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
12/16/10	FS 10-113/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS – SENATE	YES	NA
12/16/10	FS 10-114/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM PROPOSALS	YES	YES
12/16/10	FS 10-115/FPC/Ex.	FACULTY RESPONSIBILITIES AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, ADDENDUM TO	YES	YES
12/16/10	FS 10-117/Ex.	FACULTY SENATOR REPRESENTING TEMPORARY FACULTY, APPOINTMENT OF	YES	NA
12/16/10	FS 10-109/APC/Ex.	MANDATORY TRANSFER ORIENTATION	YES	YES
12/16/10	FS 10-110A/Flr.	MOTION TO REFER TO GSPC	YES	NA
12/16/10	FS 10-110/APC/Ex.	DOCTORAL PROGRAMS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR, AMENDMENT OF	YES	YES
2/3/11	FS 11-01/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM REVIEW – DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS	YES	YES
2/3/11	FS 11-04/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM PROPOSAL	YES	YES
2/3/11	FS 11-02/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM PROPOSAL	YES	YES
2/17/11	FS 11-08/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT – SENATE	YES	NA
2/17/11	FS 11-09/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT – UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
2/17/11	FS 11-10/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM PROPOSAL	YES	YES
2/17/11	FS 11-13/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM PROPOSALS	YES	YES
2/17/11	FS 11-05/Ex.	CAMPUS POLICY ON CENTERS, INSTITUTES AND SIMILAR ENTITIES	YES	YES
2/17/11	FS 11-06A/Flr.	MOTION TO REFER - CAMPUS POLICY ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS	YES	NA
2/17/11	FS 11-06/Ex.	CAMPUS POLICY ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS	YES	YES
2/17/11	FS 11-07/Ex.	BY-LAWS CHANGE – ABSENCES	YES	NA
2/17/11	FS 11-12/Ex.	RECOGNITION OF 2010-2011 FACULTY ENDOWMENT FOR STUDENT SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS	YES	NA
2/17/11	FS 11-12A/Ex.	FACULTY ENDOWMENT FOR STUDENT SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS SELECTION COMMITTEE, THANKS AND COMMENDATION	YES	NA
2/17/11	FS 11-12B/Ex.	UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION AT SACRAMENTO STATE BOARD, THANKS AND COMMENDATION	YES	NA
2/24/11	FS 11-17/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
2/24/11	FS 11-14/EX.	IDENTIFICATION OF ELEARNING COURSES IN CMS	YES	YES
2/24/11	FS 11-15/APC/EX.	SECOND BACHELOR'S DEGREE REQUIREMENTS	YES	YES
2/24/11	FS 11-19/EX.	RESOLUTION TO ENHANCE ACADEMIC ADVISING	YES	NA
3/3/11	FS 11-20/EX.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - SENATE	YES	NA
3/3/11	FS 11-16/APC/EX.	SUPPLEMENTAL ADMISSIONS CRITERIA	YES	YES
3/10/11	FS 11-23/EX.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
3/10/11	FS 11-25/EX.	PROVOST'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT, ESTABLISHMENT OF	YES	NA
3/10/11	FS 11-26/EX.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - PROVOST'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT	YES	YES
3/17/11	FS 11-33/Ex.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT – UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
3/17/11	FS 10-32/Ex.	CONVOCATION ON FOSTERING A COMMUNITY AT SACRAMENTO STATE, RESOLUTION ON	YES	NA
4/7/11	FS 11-35/PROC/Ex.	ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW – DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES	YES	YES
4/7/11	FS 11-36/PROC/Ex.	ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW – DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY	YES	YES
4/7/11	FS 11-37/CPC/Ex.	PROGRAM PROPOSALS	YES	YES
4/7/11	FS 11-27/GSPC/EX.	DOCTORATE IN PHYSICAL THERAPY	YES	YES
4/7/11	FS 11-22/EX.	ELECTRONIC COURSE EVALUATIONS	YES	YES
4/7/11	FS 11-28/AITC/EX.	IMPLEMENTATION OF KBOX	YES	NO
4/7/11	FS 11-40/EX.	LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WORKGROUP, ENDORSEMENT OF	YES	NA
4/7/11	FS 11-41/EX.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WORKGROUP	YES
4/7/11	FS 11-29/AITC/EX.	USES OF UNIVERSITY COMPUTER LABS FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES	YES	YES
4/21/11	FS 11-45/EX.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES	YES
4/21/11	FS 11-46/EX.	UNIVERSITY BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS	YES	ACCEPTED
4/21/11	FS 11-48/APC/EX.	EARLY REGISTRATION MAXIMUM UNIT LOAD	YES	YES
4/21/11	FS 11-49/FLR.	CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTION REGARDING STUDENT ACTIONS	YES	ACKNOWLEDGED
4/28/11	FS 11-51/CPC/EX.	PROGRAM REVIEW PILOT STUDY EXTENSION	YES
5/5/11	FS 11-52/ConC.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - SENATE	YES	NA
5/5/11	FS 11-57/EX.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES
5/5/11	FS 11-56/FLR.	RESOLUTION TO URGE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO DELAY CONSIDERATION OF WAIVERS TO THE EXISTING TITLE 5 "AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS" REQUIREMENT	YES	NA
5/5/11	FS 10-71/EX.	POLICY ON INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM PRIORITIES: ACADEMIC PLANNING, RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT, AMENDMENT OF	YES
5/5/11	FS 11-49/APC/EX.	ACADEMIC CALENDAR: 2012-2013	YES
5/5/11	FS 11-43/FPC/EX.	OUTSTANDING FACULTY AWARDS, AMENDMENT OF	YES	NA
5/5/11	FS 11-42/EX.	BY-LAWS, AMENDMENT OF	YES	NA
5/12/11	FS 11-64/CPC/EX.	PROGRAM PROPOSALS	YES
5/12/11	FS 11-61/UARTP/EX.	UARTP POLICY - AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 3.02.B.1 AND 3.02.B.6	YES
5/12/11	FS 11-63/FLR.	COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - UNIVERSITY	YES
5/12/11	FS 11-54/GSPC/EX.	ASSIGNMENT OF "C" GRADES IN GRADUATE PROGRAMS	YES
5/12/11	FS 11-58/GSPC/EX.	DOCTORAL CATEGORIES	YES
5/12/11	FS 11-59/EX.	SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE - THANKS AND COMMENDATION	YES	NA
5/12/11	FS 11-60/EX.	SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT - RECEIPT OF	YES	NA
5/12/11	FS 11-62/UARTP/EX.	UARTP POLICY - AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 9.04.G	YES

Kimo Ah Yun	Director, Center for Teaching and Learning, Co-Chair ECETF
Jean-Pierre Bayard	AVP for Academic Affairs Technology Initiatives and Director, Academic Technology and Creative Services, Co-Chair ECETF
Wendy Cunningham	Faculty Policies Committee
Doug Jackson	AVP for Information Resources and Technology
Kathryn Kay (replaced in Summer 09 by Jesse Cuevas)	ASI VP for Academic Affairs
David Lang (replaced in Spring 10 by Brett Holland)	Curriculum Policies Committee
Raymond Pina	Manager, AIT, Academic Technology and Creative Services
Ann Stoltz	Chair, Nursing
Harry Theodorides	Faculty, Kinesiology and Health Science
Jennifer Underhill	Student, Department of Sociology
Jing Wang	Director, Office of Institutional Research

2010-2011 Faculty Endowment for Student Scholarship Awards Selection Committee
Jeffrey Calton	Psychology
Christi Cervantes	Child Development
Shannon Datwyler	Biological Sciences
Rachael Gonzales	Special Education, Rehabilitation, School Psychology and Deaf Studies
Carole Hayashino	Vice President, University Advancement (ex officio)
Sue Holl	Mechanical Engineering
George Paganelis, Chair	Library
Ta-Chen Wang	Economics

	2012-2013	2013-2014	2014-2015	2015-2016	2016-2017
Cohort Enrollment #	32	64	96	96	96
Personnel Costs
Program Coordinator	$10,350	$10,350	$10,350	$10,350	$10,350
Research Associate		$10,500	$10,500	$10,500	$10,500
Adm Support @ $34000	51,000	51,000	68,000	68,000	68,000
ISAs/GA		10,000	10,000	10,000	10,000
	$61,350	$81,850	$98,850	$98,850	$98,850
Benefits
Prog Coordinator	4,140	4,140	4,140	4,140	4,140
Doctoral Project Coordinator		4,140	4,140	4,140	4,140
Adm Support	20,400	20,400	27,200	27,200	27,200
ISAs/GA	4000	4000	4000	4000	4000
	$28,540	$32,680	$39,480	$39,480	$39,480
Instructional Costs
Salaries	776,921	854,921	1,010,921	1,010,921	1,010,921
Benefits	310,768	341,968	404,368	404,368	404,368
	$1,087,689	$1,196,889	$1,415,289	$1,415,289	$1,415,289
Library	$35,000	$35,000	$35,000	$35,000	$35,000
Computers/Tech	$2,500	$2,500	$5,000	$5,000	$5,000
Supplies & Services
Supplies	10,000	10,000	15,000	15,000	15,000
Photocopying & Printing	4,000	4,000	6,000	6,000	6,000
Postage	2,000	2,000	3,000	4,000	4,000
Instructional Travel	2,000	2,000	3,000	3,000	4,000
	$18,000	$18,000	$27,000	$28,000	$29,000

Total costs	$1,233,079	$1,366,919	$1,620,619	$1,621,619	$1,622,619
Student fees	1,032,394	1,307,993	2,695,296	2,695,296	2,695,296
(33% set aside for financial aid)	(340,690)	(431,637)	(889,447)	(889,447)	(889,447)
Marginal funding	768,042	863,643	1,088,144	1,088,144	1,088,144
Total Revenue	$1,459,746	$1,739,998	$2,893,992	$2,893,992	$2,893,992

Projected gains	$226,667	$373,079	$1,273,373	$1,272,373	$1,271,373