2009-2010 FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento

AGENDA
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Foothill Suite
3:00 - 5:00 p.m.

OPEN FORUM

CONSENT ACTION

FS 10-44/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT – UNIVERSITY

Committee on Administrative Review

Beatrice Russell, 2013

REGULAR AGENDA

FS 10-45/Flr.

MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2010

INFORMATION ITEM: PROVOST JOSEPH SHELEY, VICE PRESIDENT, STUDENT AFFAIRS, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT, ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT (IMPACTION, CONTINUATION)

SECOND READING

FS 10-27/AITC/Ex.

CONSULTATION TO INFORM THE DECISIONS REGARDING ANY PROPOSED ACADEMIC IT CHANGES INCLUDING CENTRALIZATION OF IT RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE OR SUPPORT SERVICES

The Faculty Senate recommends that the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, in conjunction with the Academic Affairs IT Strategic Planning Group, establish a process whereby any proposal which would result in the transfer of any specific IT resources, infrastructure or support services from the Division of Academic Affairs (AA) to the Division of Information Resources and Technology (IRT) be carefully assessed in order to ensure that the resulting transfer of accountability and academic priority will not have a detrimental impact upon the unique educational needs of the division or any of its specific components. This would include proposals that originate within Academic Affairs or within the Division of Information Resources and Technology (IRT).

The Faculty Senate also recommends that consideration of any major proposals that could directly affect the curriculum with regards to IT resources, infrastructure or support services include consultation with the Faculty Senate.

Process: An existing successful model which might be mirrored, is the committee/subcommittee structure utilized by the Faculty Senate in areas of General Education and Curriculum policies. In this case, the Provost and the Academic Affairs IT Strategic Planning Group would create the process for review and the standards which might make transfer of responsibilities acceptable or unacceptable, and then a subcommittee of that body (not necessarily composed of members of the “parent” body) would be charged with reviewing individual proposals, with appeals or exceptional circumstances only going to the parent body. Any recommendations that come forward from this vetting process would then be brought to the Faculty Senate for approval.

The process of assessment should include written testimony from the service units of Academic Affairs as well as the Colleges that are affected by proposed changes. This might also be analogous to Form A used in course proposals and which incorporates sections which ask whether other units might be affected by changes and whether there are other resource or curricular implications associated by the changes. Recognizing the arcane nature of the context and need for IT services and support within the Division, this assessment must be informed by a full understanding of value and need associated with these services and support.

Background: Currently, the IRT Strategic Planning Committee is considering recommendations for centralizing many IT services and support currently provided by all Divisions. These recommendations will be taken to the President's cabinet for approval. The assessment of these recommendations by Committee members has been led by the Vice President of the Division of Information Technology and Resources (IRT) and has focused on the potential cost savings and efficiencies that more centralization might provide. An understanding of the full impact in each area being considered is beyond the scope of these assessments and is not fully understood by Committee members.

While more centralization of IT services and support might in some cases provide some savings, a full understanding of the impact of the transfer of both resources and responsibilities must inform these decisions. The motivation for this recommendation is to ensure a full understanding of the impact of each recommendation associated with the proposed changes in the provisioning of IT support and services within Academic Affairs.

FS 10-30/Ex.

STATEMENT ON CONSULTATION AND GOVERNANCE, ADOPTION OF

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

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

FS 10-25A/Ex.

LEARNING SPACE ADVISORY WORKGROUP, ENDORSEMENT OF

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

Learning Space Advisory Workgroup (LSAW)

Charter

Sacramento State

Purpose

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

This workgroup is being established by the Provost and VP/Chief Information Officer to facilitate collaborative and informed decision making in regards to the design and development of campus-wide classrooms, computer labs, and other learning spaces.

The objectives of the workgroup are to:

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

• Provide advocacy so that campus input impacts university level planning

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

• Review learning space needs and advise on prioritization of projects

• Develop a four-year plan for improvement of existing campus learning spaces

• Recommend needed funding for learning space improvement

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

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

Composition

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

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

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

• The Faculty Senate will appoint two additional faculty members.

• Facilities Management will appoint one committee member.

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

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

Terms of Office

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

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

Methodology

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

FS 10-25B/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT, UNIVERSITY

Learning Space Advisory Group

Carolyn Gibbs

William DeGraffenreid

FIRST READING

FS 10-43/FPC/Ex.

FACULTY AWARDS

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

Recommendations Regarding Award Selection Committees

· Each college shall establish one Faculty Awards or Professional Development Committee (which may already exist) 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 faculty in the college, using the normal election procedures established for other college-level committees, 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.

· The committee shall consist of at least five faculty members.

Recommendations Regarding Eligibility and Awards Criteria

· 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.

Application Procedures

· A nomination letter and updated CV are required of all nominees.

· 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.

· Colleges are strongly encouraged to implement a system of online submission.

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

Other Recommendations

· 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.

SENATE SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR SPRING:

· April 22, 2010

· Tuesday, April 27, 2010 (Outstanding Faculty Awards)

· April 29, 2010

· May 6, 2010

· May 13, 2010

· May 20, 2010