2010-2011
FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento
AGENDA
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Foothill Suite, Union
3:20 - 5:00 p.m.
MOMENT OF SILENCE
|
ROGER LEEZER Faculty, Mathematics JAMES BOSCO Emeritus Faculty, Kinesiology and Health Science RAGNOR SEGLUND Emeritus Faculty, Accountancy ARLENE SASSE Student |
(BILL) CHARLES LOVITT Emeritus Faculty, Philosophy HAROLD KERSTER Emeritus Faculty, Environmental Studies FRED JOYCE Emeritus Faculty, Business |
OPEN FORUM
CONSENT ACTION
|
FS 11-35/PROC/Ex. |
ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW – DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES |
The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations (Attachment A) of the Program Review Oversight Committee and recommends approval of all of the Department’s degree programs for six years.
|
FS 11-36/PROC/Ex. |
ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW – DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY |
The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations (Attachment B) of the Program Review Oversight Committee and recommends (1) provisional approval of all of the Department’s degree programs for three years pending development and implementation of a workable student learning outcomes assessment plan that satisfies both University and WASC requirements, and (2) upon successfully development and approval of such a plan by Academic Affairs, the Program shall be approved for the remainder of the six years or until the next program review.
|
FS 11-37/CPC/Ex. |
PROGRAM PROPOSALS |
The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following program proposals:
A. Education Specialist Credential Program: Mild/Moderate (Attachment C-1)
B. Education Specialist Credential Program: Mild/Moderate Multiple Subject (Attachment C-2)
C. Preliminary Education Specialist Teaching Credential Program: Early Childhood Special Education (Attachment C-3)
D. Moderate/Severe Education Specialist (Attachment C-4)
E. Multiple Subject Teaching Credential in the EDS Dual Program (Moderate/Severe Education Specialist and Multiple Subject Credentials) (Attachment C-5)
REGULAR AGENDA
|
FS 11-38/Flr. |
MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2011 |
|
FS 11-39/Flr. |
2011 COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES |
The Faculty Senate elects college representatives to the 2011 Committee on
Committees (see Attachment D for
eligibility by college. (Remove this attachment from your agenda to use as a
ballot.) Members
must be available to meet Thursday, April 14 and Tuesday, April 19 and Tuesday,
April 26 from 3:00-4:00 p.m.). *Note: the Committee on Committees will only
meet on 2 of these dates.
SECOND READING
|
FS 11-27/GSPC/Ex. |
DOCTORATE IN PHYSICAL THERAPY |
The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the Doctorate in Physical Therapy, as described below:
Executive Summary
Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) Proposal
The Department of Physical Therapy in the College of Health and Human Services at Sacramento State proposes offering the Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) on the Sacramento campus beginning in fall 2012.
Rationale:
The
program is developed in response to changes in entry-level professional
education requirements by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy
Education (CAPTE). It is the intent of
this proposal that the new DPT curriculum will replace the MPT curriculum. MPT degrees will soon (2015) no longer meet
accreditation standards, and therefore licensing requirements. This new
DPT program will establish a pathway for CSUS students to become
graduates of an accredited program of professional physical therapist
education, and to continue to be eligible for licensure. This will advance
Program
Description:
The program is a professional doctoral
program, similar to MD and DDS programs, designed to prepare generalist
practitioners grounded in evidence-based practice in physical therapy. It consists of a combination of lecture,
laboratory, and clinical experiences over 3 years that fully integrates
evidence-based practice into these experiences through the use of case-method
teaching. A complete description of the
program as well as the design of courses by semester and summer term are included
in the full proposal in section 2 with year by year charts of the course
structure beginning on page 12. A copy
of all syllabi with assignments and sample exams accompany the Form As.
Governance
Structure:
The overall governing group of the program is the Department Council composed of members of the core and associated physical therapy faculty where all curricular and policy decisions are decided by a vote of all members. The Department is an equal and representative member of the College of Health and Human Services Committees, is represented in the Faculty Senate, and faculty serve on a variety of committees across the campus. Department faculty are fully engaged in and contributing to the activities of the campus.
Faculty:
Faculty teaching in the doctoral program and serving on doctoral committees meet all of the expectations consistent with university and CAPTE expectations. Policies and procedures are outlined in the Department’s updated Appointment, Retention, Tenure, and Promotion policies, and meet the expectations of the Chancellor’s Office governing documents.
Students:
Admissions
requirements for students entering the program will continue to require
evidence of the ability to do graduate work through careful review of
applications according to high standards.
All department requirements are iterated in the full proposal for review
in section 5 beginning on page 24. In
keeping with the
Research Capacity:
The proposed program expectation is that core doctoral faculty will have 3 units of release time each semester to devote to their scholarship. In addition they will have the responsibility of mentoring student doctoral projects/culminating experiences. Students are expected to become critical consumers of research literature and to be proficient with deriving evidence for clinical decision-making. This expectation is reinforced throughout the curriculum and with doctoral projects/culminating experiences. The department currently has space that is adequate to accommodate the research needs of faculty and students.
Internal Funding and Resources:
Internal funding resources arise from the usual sources: marginal cost funding from the state and student fees. The chart below identifies the 5 year projected budget with resultant gains expected. More complete information about this is addressed in the full proposal beginning on page 37.
|
|
2012-2013 |
2013-2014 |
2014-2015 |
2015-2016 |
2016-2017 |
|
Cohort
Enrollment # |
32 |
64 |
96 |
96 |
96 |
|
Personnel
Costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Program
Coordinator |
$10,350 |
$10,350 |
$10,350 |
$10,350 |
$10,350 |
|
Research
Associate |
|
$10,500 |
$10,500 |
$10,500 |
$10,500 |
|
Adm Support @ $34000 |
51,000 |
51,000 |
68,000 |
68,000 |
68,000 |
|
ISAs/GA |
|
10,000 |
10,000 |
10,000 |
10,000 |
|
|
$61,350 |
$81,850 |
$98,850 |
$98,850 |
$98,850 |
|
Benefits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prog Coordinator |
4,140 |
4,140 |
4,140 |
4,140 |
4,140 |
|
Doctoral
Project Coordinator |
|
4,140 |
4,140 |
4,140 |
4,140 |
|
Adm Support |
20,400 |
20,400 |
27,200 |
27,200 |
27,200 |
|
ISAs/GA |
4000 |
4000 |
4000 |
4000 |
|
|
|
$28,540 |
$32,680 |
$39,480 |
$39,480 |
$39,480 |
|
Instructional
Costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salaries |
776,921 |
854,921 |
1,010,921 |
1,010,921 |
1,010,921 |
|
Benefits |
310,768 |
341,968 |
404,368 |
404,368 |
404,368 |
|
|
$1,087,689 |
$1,196,889 |
$1,415,289 |
$1,415,289 |
$1,415,289 |
|
Library |
$35,000 |
$35,000 |
$35,000 |
$35,000 |
$35,000 |
|
Computers/Tech |
$2,500 |
$2,500 |
$5,000 |
$5,000 |
$5,000 |
|
Supplies
& Services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplies
|
10,000 |
10,000 |
15,000 |
15,000 |
15,000 |
|
Photocopying
& Printing |
4,000 |
4,000 |
6,000 |
6,000 |
6,000 |
|
Postage |
2,000 |
2,000 |
3,000 |
4,000 |
4,000 |
|
Instructional
Travel |
2,000 |
2,000 |
3,000 |
3,000 |
4,000 |
|
|
$18,000 |
$18,000 |
$27,000 |
$28,000 |
$29,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
costs |
$1,233,079 |
$1,366,919 |
$1,620,619 |
$1,621,619 |
$1,622,619 |
|
Student
fees |
1,032,394 |
1,307,993 |
2,695,296 |
2,695,296 |
2,695,296 |
|
(33% set aside for financial
aid) |
(340,690) |
(431,637) |
(889,447) |
(889,447) |
(889,447) |
|
Marginal
funding |
768,042 |
863,643 |
1,088,144 |
1,088,144 |
1,088,144 |
|
Total
Revenue |
$1,459,746 |
$1,739,998 |
$2,893,992 |
$2,893,992 |
$2,893,992 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected
gains |
$226,667 |
$373,079 |
$1,273,373 |
$1,272,373 |
$1,271,373 |
External Funding:
Faculty research and student internships have been supported in a variety of ways in the current graduate program. These are addressed at length in the full document.
Internal Evaluation:
The program approval process is consistent with the usual campus requirements.
External Evaluation:
The proposal has
been submitted and reviewed by an external consultant, Lisa L. Dorsey, PT, PhD,
MBA, Associate Dean of the Doisy College of Health Sciences from
The proposal’s Table
of Contents can be found at Attachment
A; the full proposal can be found at Attachment
A-1; catalog copy can be found at Attachment A-2.
If you would like a
copy of the course syllabi, please contact Cheryl Johnson at cjohnson@csus.edu, and she will attempt to
forward these in a zip file to you.
|
FS 11-22/Ex. |
ELECTRONIC COURSE EVALUATIONS |
Proposed changes to
UARTP policy in order to accommodate possible conversion to electronic course
evaluation.
Proposed Change in UARTP 4.08A.4:
4.08 Personnel Action File
A. The Personnel Action File shall contain the following material submitted by the custodian of the file:
1. Record of location of other files
2. Access log
3. Appointment letter and other relevant appointment
information
4. Results of standardized student evaluations standardized in terms of subject
and format of questions (e.g., numbers and types of rating items, scales, and
response categories.
Proposed Change in UARTP 5.05E.3:
E. Competent Teaching Performance
…
3) The department is responsible for the development and administration
of evaluation questionnaires, and for ensuring that administration of the questionnaires occurs in
line with established regulations and that the distribution and
collection of questionnaires maintain student anonymity. The results of
the student evaluations shall be given to the instructor and department chair
after grades have been assigned.
[Insert here the Senate’s preference: a, b, or c]
Senate choice for insertion at end of UARTP 5.05E.3
a) Individual faculty members may choose to administer their department’s approved course evaluation instrument in written form or in (departmentally approved) electronic form.
b) Departments may offer individual faculty members the option of administering the department’s approved course evaluation instrument in written form or in (departmentally approved) electronic form.
c) Departments may choose to mandate administration of the department’s approved course evaluation instrument by the entire faculty in either written form or in (departmentally approved) electronic form.
d)
Departments
shall decide whether and under what circumstances electronic forms may be used.
Background/explanation
of option d): For example, departments may choose to mandate administration of
the department's approved course evaluation instrument by the entire faculty in
either hard copy form or in (departmentally approved) electronic form, may
identify circumstances (e.g., types of courses) in which hard copy or
electronic forms must be used, or may offer individual faculty the option of
administering the department's approved questionnaire in either hard copy or
electronic form.
|
FS 11-28/AITC/Ex. |
IMPLEMENTATION OF KBOX |
The Faculty Senate recommends an alternative approach to the monitoring and reporting needs associated with IRT’s KBox implementation plan be recommended to the President for consideration:
The alternative approach:
·
IRT
in consultation with College and Library Deans and the Academic IT Committee
identify and document the specific security and appropriate usage needs that
will be met through the remote monitoring and access capabilities provided by
IRT’s intended use of KBox as a System Management
Appliance.
·
Colleges
and the Library Deans be given the option of meeting
these needs locally or ceding that responsibility to IRT. Those that choose the local option will
assume the responsibility of providing IRT with the appropriate information
that ensures that the security and appropriate use of IT resources are being
maintained.
·
The
decision on which System Management Appliance to be purchased by those that
select the self-monitoring option be based on the specific security and
appropriate usage needs and that different alternatives be considered (Altiris Endpoint Management, Kaseya
IT Department Edition, KBox, LANDesk Management
Suite, Microsoft Systems Management Server, etc.).
· Kbox administration concerns
FIRST READING
|
FS 11-40/Ex. |
LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WORKGROUP, ENDORSEMENT OF |
The Faculty Senate endorses the establishment of a Learning Management System workgroup, as described below:
Charge: The workgroup advises both the
Provost and the Chief Information Officer (CIO) on matters related to changes
in the campus Learning Management System (LMS) as Sacramento State transitions
its LMS (SacCT) from WebCT
to Blackboard Learn. The workgroup has no policy-making capacity. Policy issues
of a shared- governance nature that may arise from LMS Workgroup discussions
will be referred to the Faculty Senate.
The
responsibilities of the workgroup include:
·
Evaluating potential features of Blackboard Learn that should or should
not be adopted at Sacramento State.
·
Evaluating the potential campus impact of Blackboard Learn 9 upgrades
(hardware & software), new feature releases, service packs, and updates.
·
Facilitating consultation among and integration of various perspectives
on LMS transition: users, system administration, and support.
·
Providing clarification and advice on such LMS transition issues as
migration timeline and course migration (with shared governance issues going to
Faculty Senate).
·
Facilitating test groups of faculty members regarding development and
evaluation of training materials to support and facilitate teaching and
learning elements of LMS transition.
Duration: Workgroup will function from
present until the end of the fall 2012 semester, at which time the LMS
transition is expected to be complete.
Meetings: It is anticipated that the LMS
Workgroup will meet every other week initially. Much Workgroup activity will
occur via electronic means.
Membership: 11 members, co-chaired by representatives from the divisions of Academic Affairs and IRT
· JP Bayard (AA/ATCS) and Doug Jackson (IRT), co-chairs
·
Faculty Senate Representatives (3)
· Deans Representative (1)
· Jeff Dillon, IRT
· LMS system application administrator, IRT
· Raymond Piña, AA/ATCS
· Erin O’Meara, web application administrator, AA/ATCS
· Lucinda Parker, IRT
|
FS 11-41/Ex. |
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT - LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WORKGROUP |
Vera Margoniner
Frank Lilly
Maureen Lojo
|
FS 11-42/Ex. |
BY-LAWS, AMENDMENT OF |
The Faculty Senate amends its By-laws as outlined in Attachment E.
|
FS 11-43/FPC/Ex. |
OUTSTANDING FACULTY AWARDS, AMENDMENT OF |
revises language previously adopted in FS 10-43/FPC/Ex.
The Faculty Senate amends the Outstanding Teaching, University and Community Service awards program as follows:
Recommendations Regarding Award Selection Committees
1) Academic colleges
· Each college shall establish Faculty Awards or Professional Development Committee 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 the college faculty, in a college-wide election called for that purpose, 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.
2)
Library faculty,
SSPAR’s, coaching faculty
·
For purposes of
consideration for awards for Outstanding Teaching, Scholarly and Creative
Activity, University Service, and Community Service, members of the library
faculty, SSPAR’s, and coaching faculty shall establish a joint review committee.
·
The committee
shall consist of three members, preferably representing at least two of the
units, to be elected from within the faculty membership of each unit.
·
The Faculty
Senate Chair shall facilitate this process by:
a.
sending the call
for nominations for Outstanding Faculty Awards to each administrator and each
eligible faculty member in the amalgam group of library faculty, SSPAR’s, and
coaching faculty;
b.
initiating the
election of three faculty to serve on a selection committee, preferably
representing at least two of the units;
c.
convening the
selection committee; and
d.
reporting the committee’s decisions.
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 11-29/AITC/Ex. |
USES
OF UNIVERSITY COMPUTER LABS FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES |
The
Faculty Senate recommends the following for the period through the spring 2012 semester:
·
AIRC
1016 be designated as a computer lab available for one-time use to meet the
instructional need for administering exams for large on-line and
hybrid classes.
·
AIRC
1016 be available for student use at
times when the classroom is not scheduled to be “closed for testing”.
·
Notices
be appropriately displayed to inform student when AIRC
1016 will be “closed for testing”.
·
Data
be collected during the fall and spring semesters to assess the usability of ARC 1016 and
the need for dedicating additional facilities for one-time uses in meeting the
instructional needs for administering exams for large on-line and
hybrid classes.
·
IRT
provide regular maintenance to ensure
that sufficient numbers of workstations
in AIRC 1016 are available for use on days when the classroom is scheduled to
be “closed for testing”.
FACULTY SENATE
SCHEDULE:
· April 12, 2011 – Outstanding Faculty Awards, 3:00-5:00, Ballroom I
· April 21, 2011 – Senate meets
· May 5, 2011 – Senate meets
· May 12, 2011 - tentative