2009-2010 FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento

AGENDA
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Foothill Suite
3:30 - 5:00 p.m.

Note: 2010-2011 Faculty Senate meets from 3:00-3:20

MOMENT OF SILENCE

TERRY CHASE

Wife of Larry Chase, Communication Studies Faculty

OPEN FORUM

CONSENT ACTION

FS 10-36/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS-UNIVERSITY

ASI Elections Complaint Committee

Jordan Peters, 2011

ASI Appellate Council

John LaRocco, 2011

FS 10-37/CPC/Ex.

PROGRAM PROPOSALS

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following course proposal:

Entry Level Master’s Program, Division of Nursing

Background information can be found at Attachment E.

REGULAR AGENDA

FS 10-33/Flr.

MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2010

FIRST READING

FS 10-34/CPC/Ex.

PROGRAM PROPOSALS

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following course proposals:

A. Personal Trainer/Strength and Conditioning Certificate

B. Scientific Computing and Simulation Certificate

C. Certificate Program in Mixed-Signal Integrated Circuit Design (graduate level)

Background information can be found at Attachment D.

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 10-31/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 as found at the March 18, 2010 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment C.

FS 10-35/GSPC/Ex.

GOOD STANDING FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS, DEFINITION OF

The Faculty Senate recommends that graduate students whose Sacramento State and cumulative grade point average (GPA) is 3.0 or above are considered in good academic standing.

Background can be found at Attachment E.

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 10-25A/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.

INFORMATION ITEM: Textbook Survey Report

SENATE SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR SPRING:

· 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