2009-2010 FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento

AGENDA
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Foothill Suite
3:00 - 5:00 p.m.

MOMENT OF SILENCE

BOB MATTOS

Former Coach

OPEN FORUM

REGULAR AGENDA

FS 10-29/Flr.

MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2010

SECOND READING

FS 10-18/APC/Ex.

STUDENT GRADE APPEAL PROCESS, AMENDMENT OF

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the Student Grade Appeal Process as outlined in the February 25, 2010 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment B.

A summary of the major/substantive changes to the Student Grade Appeal Process can be found at the February 25, 2010 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment B-1.

The Academic Honesty Policy can be found at: http://www.csus.edu/umanual/AcademicHonestyPolicyandProcedures.htm

FS 10-19/Ex.

ACADEMIC VALUES STATEMENT

Statement of short term priorities for Academic Affairs

In times of budgetary difficulty, allocations of resources must be made in such a way so as to preserve the core of the University, so that in better times new resources can be allocated in ways that best serve the mission of the University. These recommendations were synthesized from the survey of values, and are intended as short term recommendations for allocating budget within Academic Affairs. A task force will revisit the 1991 budget policy document in order to make long term recommendations.

Service to Students:

The ability of the University to provide a high quality education to current and future students must not be compromised by reallocation of resources. This includes:

1. Maintaining sufficient course offerings so that currently enrolled students can graduate in a timely fashion, regardless of their majors.

2. Ensuring that sufficient seats are available in courses that satisfy University graduation requirements so that current and future students may progress to degree in a timely fashion.

3. If courses must be cut, focus first on courses that do not directly lie on the path to graduation.

4. Managing enrollment so that the FTES is commensurate with the resources available to support students and educate them.

Faculty Responsibility:

The responsibility of providing instruction to students lies with the faculty. The ability of the faculty to provide high quality instruction must not be compromised by reallocation of resources. This includes:

1. Maintaining the current work load of faculty members, so as to not dilute the ability of faculty to interact with each of their students in a meaningful way.

2. Supporting faculty scholarly activity, as this benefits students directly (through student projects) and indirectly (maintaining faculty currency in their fields).

3. When resources to faculty are reduced, expectations on the faculty and the programs must be revised commensurately.

The University Experience:

The University is a university, not a community college, nor a vocational or technical school. Programs, services and experiences that preserve this distinction are essential. These include:

1. Ensuring diversity in students, staff, faculty and administration.

2. Prioritizing programs and courses that lead to baccalaureate or masters degrees.

3. Prioritizing applied and professional programs where entry level positions require a 4 year or higher level of education.

4. Providing a liberal arts education, and a strong, effective G.E. Program.

5. Ensuring a diversity of course offerings commensurate with our status as a regional, comprehensive university.

Administration Responsibility:

A truly functional system of shared governance will enhance the operations of the University at all levels. Such a system can be sustained in the face of difficulty budgetary times through:

1. Keeping the University budget process open and inclusive, e.g. UBAC, AABAC, periodic briefings to the Senate.

2. Communicating budget related developments quickly and effectively to the campus community, e.g. town halls, e-mail.

3. Informing the campus community as much as possible of the rationale (i.e. perceived costs and benefits) behind resource allocations, especially those that result in major changes.

The Quality Issue:

The University has a set of programs that have developed over time in response to external and internal factors. Although all are worthy parts of the curriculum and the University experience, some prioritization must occur even among worthy programs. To this end a means of evaluating academic quality must be drawn up, in order to guide the resource allocation process.

A side-by-side comparison of the original motion, as presented by the Executive Committee, with amendments proposed by Senator Carolyn Gibbs. It can be found at Attachment A.

The survey data can be found at: http://www.csus.edu/acse/Scaled_Values.pdf

FS 10-24A/Ex.

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY GROUP, ENDORSEMENT OF

The Faculty Senate endorses the establishment of an Academic Affairs Information Technology Strategic Planning Advisory Group, as outlined below:

Charge:

The Provost has requested that an advisory group be created related to the effective use of Information Technology (IT) to support teaching, learning and research at Sacramento State. This group shall be named the Academic Affairs IT Strategic Planning Advisory Group.

Its charge is to:

· Develop and recommend both short and long-term academic Information Technology (IT) strategic priorities that support:

- Continuous improvement in university academic programs

- The academic mission and goals listed in the university strategic plan

- Adaptation to changing paradigms in the curriculum, delivery modalities, advising, generational shifts in the academic workforce, and eLearning.

- The periodic evaluation and improvement of the Academic Affairs IT strategic planning process.

· Identify and recommend strategic best practices in the use of academic technology to enhance teaching, learning and research.

· Provide guidance to colleges, the Library and the academic affairs units on the process for identification and prioritization of IT needs, on the preparation of both IT related budget requests, and responses to periodic funding opportunities from Academic Affairs for specific IT projects.

· Remain informed of the colleges, Library and academic affairs units’ IT priorities, as these priorities are reviewed and updated yearly.

· Review the projects on the Academic Affairs IT annual project list to be submitted to IRT.

· Assume a consultative role in the acquisition, expansion, cancellation, planning and design of the academic IT infrastructure (i.e. Smart Classrooms / learning spaces/ studio classrooms, learning management system, major campus-wide academic software, etc.).

· Publicize to the larger university academic community a yearly report of this group’s activity.

· Coordinate with the IRT Steering Committee on relevant IT strategic planning issues.

· Recommend a process for units to develop and submit their prioritized IT needs to Academic Affairs.

Membership:

The advisory group will have broad campus representation from the campus academic community. Its membership will be as follows:

· The Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs Technology Initiatives, Chair-Jean-Pierre Bayard

· A Department Chair Representative, or recent past Chair-To be named

· A representative from the College Deans-To be named

· A representative from the University Library-Tabzeera Dosu

· A representative from the Accessible Technology Initiative (ATI) Steering Committee-Melissa Repa

· A faculty representative from the AITC committee of the Faculty Senate-To be named

· A representative from the division of Information, Resources and Technology (IRT)-Doug Jackson

· The Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), or designee-Kimo Ah Yun

· The eLearning Research Coordinator-Ray Koegel

· A representative from the college Information Technology Consultants (ITC)-To be named

· A student Representative from the Associated Students Inc. (ASI)-Jesse Cuevas, ASI VP for Academic Affairs

Meeting Schedule:

The workgroup will schedule monthly meetings during the academic year. Such schedule may be altered as needed, depending on duties and/or requests for action from Academic Affairs. Expectations are that technology will be used routinely to communicate, to review and discuss documents, and in some cases to meet virtually.

FS 10-24B/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT, UNIVERSITY

Academic Affairs Information Technology Strategic Planning Advisory Group

Maureen Lojo

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 10-25A/Ex.

LEARNING SPACE ADVISORY WORKGROUP, ENDORSEMENT OF

The Faculty Senate endorses the establishment of the Learning Space Advisory Group, as outlined below:

Purpose

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 will be to:

· Ensure that robust campus-wide input and feedback from faculty and students regarding learning space issues is obtained and applied in 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 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, especially as it relates to teaching and learning.

Composition

The Workgroup will be co-chaired by Associate Vice President for Academic Computing Doug Jackson and Assistant Vice president Jean-Pierre Bayard. Two committee members will be appointed by Academic Affairs, with at least one being a member of the teaching faculty. Two committee members will be appointed by IRT, with at least one being a member of the teaching faculty. The Faculty Senate will appoint two additional faculty members. Finally, the student member of the IT Steering Committee will serve as the Associated Student representative. Members should be selected based on their ability to represent campus-wide learning space needs.

Methodology

The Workgroup will hold monthly meetings throughout the 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

FS 10-26/AITC/Ex.

SCHEDULING OF OPEN COMPUTER LABS FOR ACADEMIC USE

The Faculty Senate recommends that Academic Affairs facilitate the meeting of appropriate representatives from Space Management, IRT and representatives from AITC to review, revise and streamline (as appropriate), the process for assigning labs for academic use.

AITC discussion at its meeting on February 26^th: The problem of access to computer labs for testing purposes is not unique to nursing. Committee members indicated that Communication Studies as well as programs in the College of Business have experienced the same problem. All agreed that the need and therefore the demand for this type of use of computer labs will continue to grow as additional courses are offered in a hybrid format or on-line.

Background information can be found at the March 11, 2010 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment A.

FS 10-28/Flr.

FACULTY SENATE BUDGET, DISCUSSION AND CONSULTATION

The Faculty Senate requests that before a Faculty Senate budget reduction plan is ratified or implemented, the plan be given to the full Faculty Senate for discussion and consultation.

FIRST READING

FS 10-30/Ex.

STATEMENT ON CONSULTATION AND GOVERNANCE, ADOPTION OF

The Faculty Senate adopts the “Statement on Consultation and Governance” as found at Attachment B.

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

FS 10-31/UARTP

UARTP POLICY, SECTION 3.01, B.1, AMENDMENT OF

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the UARTP Policy as follows:

3.01

A. …

B. 1. Nomination to serve on the University ARTP Committee shall not be limited to self-nomination. The right to nominate shall be limited to eligible voters.

2. Whenever a call for nominations to serve as an elected member of the University ARTP Committee produces no more than one nominee, the college faculty shall vote in an election called for the purpose to confirm or reject that nominee’s offer to serve.

C. …

D. …

Background can be found at Attachment C.

FS 10-32/Ex.

FACULTY SENATE CO-SPONSORSHIP OF THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EQUITY CONFERENCE

The Faculty Senate accepts the Committee on Diversity and Equity's request to co-sponsor the Affirmative Action Equity Conference on April 14, 2010, featuring keynote speaker Tim Wise.

Note: This "sponsorship" represents philosophical support, not financial support.

Background: The Committee on Diversity and Equity (CODE) has unanimously voted to co-sponsor, along with the Affirmative Action Committee, the Affirmative Action Equity conference on April 14^th featuring keynote speaker Tim Wise. Additionally, CODE respectfully seeks co-sponsorship of the Senate for this event in light of racially charged events that have taken place recently on university campuses across the state and nation. We believe it is imperative that entities within the CSUS community come together as a cohesive force in addressing and preventing similar acts on our campus.

SENATE SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR SPRING:

· March 25, 2010 (nomination meeting for officers of the 2010-11 Faculty Senate, 3:00-3:30; 2009-10 Senate meets from 3:30-5:00)

· April 8, 2010 (election meeting for officers of the 2010-11 Faculty Senate, 3:00-3:30; 2009-10 Senate meets from 3:30-5:00)

· April 22, 2010

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

· April 29, 2010

· May 6, 2010

· May 13, 2010

· May 20, 2010