2001-2002 FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento

AGENDA
April 11, 2002
Foothill Suite, Union
3:00 - 5:00 p.m.

GENERAL MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE
Thursday, April 18 from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.

Shared Governance and the State of the CSU, Current Issues and Concerns
Panel Discussion and Dialog

OPEN FORUM

REGULAR AGENDA

FS 02-19/Flr. MINUTES 

Approval of the Minutes of April 4 (#23), 2002.

SECOND READING
[Action may be taken.]

FS 02-16E/Ex. APPROVAL AND REFERRAL TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION POLICIES/GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS COMMITTEE, 2000 GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM REVIEW

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

FIRST READING

[10 minute time limited discussion-unless extended by majority vote; no action]

FS 02-20/CPC, Ex. PROGRAM REVIEWS, RESOLUTION ON


The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following:

WHEREAS,  proposals have surfaced to allow substitution of learning outcome assessment for departmental program reviews; and

 
WHEREAS,  some other CSU campuses have authorized such substitution; and

 
WHEREAS, both learning outcome assessment and departmental program reviews offer potential benefits, but not necessarily the same ones; and

 
WHEREAS, program reviews cover topics not generally addressed in learning outcome assessment such as the quality of communication among faculty, the quality of communication between faculty and students, the adequacy of governance procedures, the adequacy of resources, and the fit between departmental goals and the University's strategic plan; and

 
WHEREAS,  the Faculty Senate recently has taken some actions to reduce the administrative burden of program reviews, such as recommending that external accreditation reviews be permitted to substitute for local program reviews; and

 
WHEREAS,  a clear statement of the value of program reviews may be important at this time; therefore be it:

 
RESOLVED,  that the Faculty Senate reemphasizes the importance of departmental program reviews and recommends against allowing learning outcome assessment to substitute for the program review process.

 
FS 02-21/Ex. UNIVERSITY ARTP DOCUMENT -AMEND SECTIONS 6.04 AND 6.06

[Bill Dillon]

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the University ARTP document as shown in Attachment A (in Adobe (.pdf) format.  You must have version 5.0 to successfully access these files.  Go to: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/alternate.html to download the latest version.)

FS 02-22/GEP/GRC, Ex. GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT - POLICIES AND PROCEDURES


The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations of the General Education Policies/Graduation Requirements Committee on General Education Assessment as shown in Attachment B.

FS 02-23/Ex. PARKING PRINCIPLES

[Bill Dillon]

The Faculty Senate adopts the following statement to guide the participation of the faculty members of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Parking and to inform the whole task force, the president, the staff assembly, the ASI, the campus chapters of the bargaining units and the entire university of the Senate's thinking about the allocation and funding of parking on campus.

Statement: In the opinion of the Faculty Senate, the following principles should govern the substance of any plan recommended by the Ad Hoc Task Force On Parking to fund and allocate parking on campus:

  1. Except in the case of parking for the disabled, continued reservation of parking under current parking regulations for the use of each of the following classes of drivers: 1) students, 2) faculty and staff and 3) administrators. This means no abandoning the distinction between parking reserved to students, parking reserved to faculty and staff and parking reserved to administrators.

  2. Preservation of a fair share of parking to each class of driver in each lot and structure currently in service, under construction or to be built in future. This necessarily means no exclusion of faculty, staff or students from any lot or structure where they currently have spaces assigned to them or from any structure or lot under construction or to be constructed in future.

  3. Equal access to each of the parking spaces reserved to a class of driver wherever located on campus. This necessarily means no auctioning of the chance to park in spaces "close-in" (to what?) on the basis of willingness and ability to pay higher fees than those that a contract authorizes the campus to collect from faculty or staff for the opportunity to park on campus at all. It also necessarily means no limiting of faculty or staff to parking in those spaces nearest the building in which they have their offices.

  4. The same fee for each member of each class of driver. This means that every student will pay the same fee as every other student. It means as well that every faculty or staff member will pay the same fee as every other member of his or her respective class.

  5. The same fee for each of the several classes of driver, namely students, staff, faculty and administrators, to park in any of the spaces reserved to a class wherever located on campus.

  6. No plan to increase parking fees that would create an economic incentive in anyone to qualify for disabled parking. Those who qualify for disabled status have statutory rights to reasonable accommodations including exclusive parking close to their destination. The relevant statutes will probably not be read to authorize the university to charge more than the lowest fee to the disabled to exercise their right to preferential parking. Charging more to others to park "close-in" will therefore tend to encourage those who can possibly qualify to seek out a doctor willing to support their application for disabled parking. If successful, they will increase the pressure on the already limited disabled parking at CSUS. Something of the sort already seems to happen when an unusual number of temporary disabled permits appear at the beginning of the semester.

  7. Proportionality between fees and parking fines to be established and maintained to eliminate as far as reasonably may be expected the economic incentive to act in disregard of the regulations governing more expensive parking. In particular, the fine for failing to display a permit should be as high as the fine for parking out of place to discourage the one who parks out of place from evading the higher fine by not displaying any permit. (at the moment, the fine is lower by several dollars.)

Given these principles and the need for more money to service the debt on a third parking structure, the Senate recognizes that faculty, staff and administrators will have to work together to urge their respective bargaining agents and the CSU to authorize an increase in the faculty and staff fees on this campus that will enable the members of those classes here to pay the same fee as the students must pay in order to raise the money needed for debt service on the third structure. The Senate urges the committee therefore to recommend postponement for one college year (June 1 to May 31) of any increase of parking fees unless the fee charged in every case will undergo the same increase.

As to the composition of the Ad Hoc Task Force On Parking, the Senate recommends that the president appoint the presidents of the campus chapters of CFA and CSEA or their designees to the committee. Because faculty and staff parking fees are a negotiable item, any alteration of them to preserve an allocation of parking consistent with the principles stated above will require the cooperation of the statewide and campus leaders of CFA and CSEA. That cooperation can be most effectively sought if the CFA and CSEA leaders are included in the discussion of parking fees and allocation from the beginning.

The Faculty Senate directs its chair to publish by hard copy, e-mail and appropriate web site the Senate's statement of principles and understandings about the allocation and funding of parking to the members of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Parking, the Staff Assembly, the ASI Board of Directors, the faculty, the Hornet newspaper, UTAPS, the campus chapters of the bargaining agents, the appropriate administrators and the university president.

The Faculty Senate adopts the following Special Order:

The Faculty Senate directs its Executive Committee to give first priority on the agenda of each Senate meeting between now and the publication of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Parking to an item that will enable the Senate to hear from the faculty members of the task force an account of the task force's discussions and the proposals before the task force and to discuss that account in order to inform those faculty members of the Senate's thinking about what it has heard. Proposals for action in the form of motions or resolutions arising out of the Senate's discussion of the task force's deliberations shall be treated as second-reading items when made. Discussion of these proposals shall not be limited except by motion to order the previous question (i.e., to close debate and vote immediately).

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

INFORMATION:

  1. Senate Home Page:  http:/www.csus.edu/acse or, from the CSUS home page, click on Administration and Policy, then Administration, then Faculty Senate.

  2. Faculty Governance Forum at CSUS, Thursday, April 18, 2002 with David Spence, Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer, Chancellor's Office; Jacqueline Kegley, Chair, Statewide Academic Senate; and Debra Farar, incoming Chair, Board of Trustees

  3. Meeting Schedule: