2003 - 04 
FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento

AGENDA
Thursday, April 15, 2004
meeting starts at 3:30 (following the meeting of 2004-05 Faculty Senate)
Foothill Suite, University Union

OPEN FORUM

BUDGET UPDATE

CONSENT CALENDAR

CONSENT ACTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REGULAR AGENDA

FIRST READING

Background:  The CSU University Auditor directed CSUS to develop policies and procedures to address the sale of faculty-developed course material.  An interim policy (Attachment A) was approved by President Gonzalez to address the Auditor's concerns until the Senate adopted a permanent policy.  FS 04-26 addresses the Auditor's concerns.  The Senate's Faculty Policies Committee will continue its discussions on the broader issues involved and submit a subsequent action for Senate approval at a later date.

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

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND: When a student receives a WU grade, that grade is treated as an “F” for purposes of GPA determination. Under current WU grade policy allows students to petition to have deleted from their GPA calculation the first-semester WU grade(s) they receive at CSUS*. All WU grades received in subsequent semesters will be used in the determination of their GPA. As the policy now stands, however, students must submit their petition within six months of having received the grade.

The reason the provision to allow students petition was originally added to the WU grade policy was primarily educative. Many students are not, at least initially, familiar with university drop policies and their responsibilities under them, and thus may unknowingly end up with WU grades on their transcript. At the time, students receiving their first WU grades would receive written notification of this and of their right to petition in the mail along with their semester grades. The purpose of six-month deadline was to spur students to act quickly and in so doing educate themselves on university drop procedures before they earn subsequent WU grades.

The recommended language does two things. First, it eliminates the six-month deadline. Under the new language students may petition to have their first-semester WU grades removed at the time during their enrollment at CSUS. If the student does not file such a petition, the WU grades will be automatically deleted from GPA calculation at the time of the student’s graduation.

Arguments for and against can be found at Attachment B.

* The term ”first-semester WU grade(s)” refers to those WU grades received during the semester at CSUS in which the student first receives a WU grade.

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

Students may petition to have all WU grades dropped from GPA calculation for the first semester in which they receive a WU at any point up to the time of degree conferral. If a student does not petition for the removal of first semester WU grades the will be deleted from GPA calculations at time of graduation.

Background: At the February 4, 2003 meeting of the Executive Committee, a number of referrals were made to the GEP/GRC as a result of the findings of the 2001 General Education Program Review and subsequent actions taken (and not taken) by the Senate in response to the recommendations offered by the General Education Report Implementation/ Impact Working Group.

During the fall 2003 and spring 2004 semesters, the GEP/GRC consulted with Amy Heckathorn, Coordinator of the English Department's Writing Program. Dr. Heckathorn was instrumental in developing the department's assessment plan and the grading rubric for ENGL 20.

The General Education Policies /Graduation Requirements Committee recommends that the Faculty Senate adopt the following rationale and student learning goals as

1. The basis for evaluating the intentions and implementation of the second semester composition graduation requirement
    
2. The criteria for the development of new course proposals and cyclical review of the courses offered to meet the second semester composition graduation requirement
    
3. A public, informational statement for students, faculty and staff

Rationale and Learning Goals:

Second semester composition courses are intended to provide students with the opportunity to compose 5000 words of expository writing under the guidance of faculty trained in rhetoric, composition and the teaching of writing.

Upon completion of a class which fulfills the second semester composition graduation requirement, students will be able to write papers which:

1. Address the assignment, establishing a controlling idea and clear purpose
    
2. Establish a clearly-focused controlling idea and meet most audience needs and expectations
    
3. Cite relevant sources, adequately integrating them into the text
    
4. Show some understanding of and engagement with multiple texts of some length and complexity
    
5. Demonstrate an ability to sustain an argument of some length
    
6. Demonstrate adequate organization
    
7. Provide support for and some analysis of generalizations
    
8. Demonstrate adequate control of grammar, sentence variety, word choice, and conventions of standard written English. (ESL/Dialect Guide: Grammatical errors, inappropriate word choice, or incorrect usage may occur in the paper, but rarely interfere with communication.)

Background: In 2000-2001, the Faculty Senate approved the creation of a task force to develop expected outcomes for each GE area. A General Education Area Coordinator Task force was convened by the Faculty Coordinator of Assessment. This group of coordinators developed outcomes for each of the GE Area criteria then worked with Area faculty to gain consensus with the outcome statements.

The Faculty Senate approved General Education “Assessment Policy and Procedures” in April of 2002. During the evaluation of courses in 2002-2003, a number of concerns were expressed by faculty and by department chairs. Specifically, there was a strong desire to streamline the reporting of assessment results and to make it clear that the results should be used by departments and programs to improve student learning. This revision to General Education Assessment Policy and Procedures proposes changes to the current policy to address these specific concerns while allowing for a consistent and meaningful assessment of GE courses and Areas.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the General Education Assessment Policy and Procedure as described in Attachment C.

Background: In Fall, 2003 the Executive committee requested that the Academic Policies Committee (APC) consider the matter of possible exceptions to the proposed policy FS 02-39/APC, Ex. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS FOR STUDENTS ON PROBATION. The proposed policy, at that time, read:

"Students who are on academic probation for two consecutive terms (including winter and summer terms) will be limited to a maximum course load of fourteen (14) units a semester until they achieve academic good standing."

The request came about in response to questions from the floor of the Senate at the time of first reading regarding the desirability of providing for exceptions.

After consideration, the APC recommends that the language of the proposed policy be changed to read as follows in order to allow for the exception described below. Arguments for and against can be found at Attachment D.

The Faculty Senate recommends adopting the following policy:

Students who are on academic probation for two consecutive terms (including winter and summer terms) will be limited to a maximum course load of fourteen (14) units a semester until they achieve academic good standing. However, a student who has applied to graduate and whose cumulative CSU and overall GPA are 2.0 or higher may enroll for up to 16 units total in the term of graduation only. The Registrar’s Office will adjust, within the limits, the maximum number of units based on the graduation application.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following:

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

ACADEMIC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
STRATEGIC PLANNING GOALS

CATEGORY: Consultation and Collaboration on campus-wide technology initiatives

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

CATEGORY: Teaching and Learning Technology Initiatives

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

 CATEGORY: Access to Technology Resources

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

Approved unanimously by the Academic Information Technology Committee
Friday, March 26, 2004

INFORMATION

1. Faculty Senate's home page:  www.csus.edu/acse, or, from the CSUS home page, click on Administration and Policy, then Administration, then Faculty Senate.
2. Actions of the 2003-2004 Faculty Senate:  http://www.csus.edu/acse/03-04_actions.htm
3. Upcoming Senate meetings: 

April 22, 2004 - Senate meets April 29, 2004 - 3:00-3:30: election of 2004-2005 Senate Officers; 3:30-5:00: 2003-2004 Senate meets

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - Outstanding Community Service and Lifetime Achievement Awards Reception May 6, 2004 - no meeting--Outstanding Teaching and Service Awards Reception May 13, 2004 - tentative