2009-2010 FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento
MINUTES
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Foothill Suite
|
Present: |
Barrena, Biological Sciences; Berg, Sociology; Blanton, Speech Pathology and Audiology; Blumberg, Music; Buchan, Family and Consumer Sciences; Buckley, APC Chair and ASCSU Senator (Computer Science); Choi, Business Administration; Cohen, History; Collins, Student Services; Croisdale, Criminal Justice; Cuevas, ASI; Deegan, Temporary Faculty (Family and Consumer Science); W. Dillon, Government; Elstob, Foreign Languages; +Evans, Geology; Fanetti, English; Gherman, Chemistry; Gibbs, Design; Gieger, English; +Gonsier-Gerdin, Special Education, Rehabilitation, School Psychology, and Deaf Studies; Hecsh, GEP/GRPC Chair (Teacher Education); Heedley, Electrical and Electronic Engineering; Henderson, Counselor Education; Ingram, Mathematics and Statistics; Kaplan, Economics; Katz, Learning Skills; Kelly, Social Work; Kirlin, Public Policy and Administration; Koegel, Communication Studies; Kornweibel, Emeritus Faculty (History); Krabacher, ASCSU Senator (Geography); Lang, CPC Chair (Economics); Li, Business Administration; McCormick, Philosophy; McCurley, Student Services; McKeough, Physical Therapy; Miller, GSPC Chair and ASCSU Senator (Communication Studies); Parker, Kinesiology and Health Science; Parsh, Nursing; Peigahi, Library; Penrod, Psychology; Pinch, Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration; Raskauskas, Child Development; Russell, Social Work; Sheppard, Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration; Siegler, FPC Chair (Economics); Smith, Communication Studies; Taylor, Physics and Astronomy; Theodorides, Kinesiology and Health Science; Wanket, Geography; |
|
Absent: |
Altmann, Nursing; Berta-Avila, Bilingual/Multicultural Education; Boulgarides, Temporary Faculty (Kinesiology and Health Science); Burke, History; Chang, Computer Science; Chavez, Educational Leadership and Policy Studies; Dixon, Temporary Faculty (Music); Dubois, Humanities; Fell, Civil Engineering; Gardner, Business Administration; Hamilton, Mathematics and Statistics; Harvey, Art; Ishiura, Temporary Faculty (Child Development); Lin, Business Administration; Liu, Business Administration; Loeza, Teacher Education; Marbach, Mechanical Engineering; Panneton, Criminal Justice; Sobredo, Ethnic Studies; Stevens, Environmental Studies; Sullivan, Anthropology; vacant, Theatre and Dance; vacant, Athletics; vacant, Women's Studies |
The agenda was amended by adding FS 10-40/GSPC/Ex. “Unit Caps”. The agenda was re-ordered so that the first reading items would be considered immediately following the information items. The agenda was approved as amended.
ACTION ITEMS
|
FS 10-46/Flr. |
MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 2010 |
After amendment, the minutes were carried unanimously.
INFORMATION ITEM:
STRATEGIC PLANNING COUNCIL – REPORT; PRESIDENT
ALEXANDER GONZALEZ’S RESPONSE; SPC
BRIEFING
INFORMATION ITEM:
NICOLE ANDERSON, CSU STUDENT TRUSTEE
|
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.
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
· Review and recommend, as appropriate, changes in the process of assigning classrooms and labs
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.
Carried.
|
FS 10-25B/Ex. |
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT, UNIVERSITY |
Learning Space Advisory Group
Carolyn Gibbs
William DeGraffenreid
Carried unanimously.
|
FS 10-47A/Flr. |
WAIVER
OF FS 10-47/EX. |
The Faculty Senate waives the first reading of FS 10-47/Ex. “Campus Impaction – Resolution on”.
Carried unanimously.
|
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 other 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.
Carried.
|
FS 10-48-1/Flr. |
WAIVER
OF FIRST READING OF FS 10-48/APC/EX. |
The Faculty Senate waives the first reading of FS 10-48/APC/Ex. “Grade Appeal Policy, Amendment of”.
Carried unanimously.
|
*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.
Carried unanimously.
|
FS 10-48A-1/Flr. |
WAIVER
OF FIRST READING OF FS 10-48A/APC/EX. |
The Faculty Senate waives the first reading of FS 10-48A/APC/Ex. “Academic Honesty Policy, Amendment of”.
Carried unanimously.
|
*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.)
Carried unanimously.
|
FS 10-49A/Flr. |
WAIVER
OF FIRST READING OF FS 10-49/GSPC/EX. |
The Faculty Senate waives the first reading of FS 10-49/GSPC/Ex. “Unit Caps”.
Carried unanimously.
|
FS 10-49/GSPC/Ex. |
UNIT CAPS |
To implement already established and agreed upon graduate FTES allocations within the colleges, the Faculty Senate recommends that programs be able to petition the Graduate Dean to exceed within the early registration period the graduate unit cap exclusively for the purposes of accommodating programmatic needs.
Carried.
The following item receive a second reading on April 29, 2010:
|
FS 10-43/FPC/Ex. |
FACULTY
AWARDS |
SENATE SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR SPRING:
· April 29, 2010
· May 6, 2010
· May 13, 2010
· May 20, 2010 –tentative (Library 11)