2009-2010 FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento

AGENDA
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Foothill Suite
3:00 - 5:00 p.m.

 

MOMENT OF SILENCE

 

TODD MENDON

Student

 

OPEN FORUM

 

CONSENT ACTION

 

REGULAR AGENDA

 

FS 10-46/Flr.

MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 2010

 

INFORMATION ITEM: STRATEGIC PLANNING COUNCIL – REPORT; PRESIDENT ALEXANDER GONZALEZ’S RESPONSE; SPC BRIEFING

 

INFORMATION ITEM: NICOLE ANDERSON, CSU STUDENT TRUSTEE

 

REPORT: TASK FORCE ON POSSIBLE REVISIONS TO UNIVERSITY POLICY ON INSTRUCTIONAL PRIORITIES AND RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS

 

SECOND READING

 

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.

 

FS 10-47/Ex.

CAMPUS IMPACTION – RESOLUTION ON

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

FS 10-48/APC/Ex.

GRADE APPEAL POLICY, AMENDMENT OF

 

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

 

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

 

III. Appeals of Grades Assigned for Cheating or Plagiarism

Grade appeal panels shall be limited to deciding claims that grades assigned for cheating or plagiarism are grossly disproportionate to the offense and therefore arbitrary.

A.    Grade appeal panels shall not try or retry charges of cheating or plagiarism when hearing grade appeals. Instead they shall be bound by the disposition of those charges made by instructors or the Office of Student Affairs under the California State University, Sacramento Policies and Procedures Regarding Academic Honesty.

B.       

1.     In any grade appeal that seeks to overturn a grade assigned for cheating or plagiarism because it is disproportionate to the offense and therefore arbitrary, the assigned grade shall be upheld unless the student can allege and prove that the grade assigned as a sanction for cheating is grossly disproportionate to the offense.  Gross disproportionality shall be shown by reference to Sections V.A.2 and 3 of the California State University, Sacramento Policies and Procedures Regarding Academic Honesty and a demonstration by the student that the discretion authorized there has been abused.  Strict or close proportionality shall not be required of instructors when assigning academic sanctions for cheating or plagiarism.

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

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

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

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

 

FS 10-48A/APC/Ex.

ACADEMIC HONESTY POLICY, AMENDMENT OF

 

Move to amend Section II.B.2 of the Academic Honesty Policy by adding:                  

            (Please see Section V.a.2.b below.)

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

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

V.A.2.  Faculty Discretion to Assign Academic Sanctions

a.     An instructor may assign a failing grade or a grade less than a failing grade to any assignment on which cheating has occurred or to performance in the course as a whole as an academic sanction for cheating so long as the assigned sanction is not grossly disproportionate to the offense and therefore arbitrary.  Instructors are advised to adjust the relative severity of the sanction to their estimation of the relative gravity of the offense in general or in the particular case before them.  In cases of grave offense such as those offenses specified in Sections III.A.5 & III.A.6 above, for example, or in cases of extensive or repeated plagiarism the instructor is advised to add an express recommendation to his or her routine report of cheating that the Office of Student Affairs also apply administrative sanctions.  An instructor may of course recommend administrative sanctions in any case in which the recommendation seems warranted. 

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

 

FS 10-49/GSPC

UNIT CAPS

 

To implement already established and agreed upon graduate FTES allocations within the colleges, programs will be able to petition the Graduate Dean to exceed the graduate unit cap to accommodate programmatic needs.

 

SENATE SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR SPRING:

 

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

·       April 29, 2010

·       May 6, 2010

·       May 13, 2010

·       May 20, 2010 - tentative