2010-2011 FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento

AGENDA
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Foothill Suite, Union
3:00 - 5:00 p.m.

 

OPEN FORUM

 

CONSENT ACTION

 

FS 11-52/ConC.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS – SENATE

 

Academic Policies Committee

Sue Escobar, At-large, 2012

Lisa Taylor-Bieg, At-large, 2014

Jean Gonsier-Gerdin, At-large, 2014

 

Curriculum Policies Committee

Roxanne Ferguson, At-large, 2012

Ben Amata, Library, 2014

Boniface Michael, At-large, 2014

Ben Fell, At-large, 201

 

Committee on Diversity and Equity

Adriana Echandia, At-large, 2014

Lynn Hanna, At-large, 2014

Fang Gu, Library, 2014

Sue McGinty, At-large, 2012

Marlyn Jones, At-large, 2013

 

Elections Committee

Janet Hecsh, At-large, 2012

Maureen Smith, At-large, 2012

Tim Marbach, At-large, 2012

Denise Wall Parilo, At-large, 2012

 

Faculty Endowment for Student Scholarships

Jerome Buerki, At-large, 2014

 

Faculty Policies Committee

Maria Kochis, Library, 2014

Hellen Lee-Keller, At-large, 2014

 

General Education/Graduation Requirements Policies Committee

Janet Hecsh, At-large, 2014

Joan Neide, At-large, 2014

Ka Va, At-large, 2014

Andrew Hertzoff, At-large, 2014

 

Graduate Studies Policies Committee

Ed Barakatt, At-large, 2014

Ann Blanton, At-large, 2014

Sheri Hembree, At-large, 2014

 

Livingston Annual Faculty Lecture Committee

Jennifer Murphy, At-large, 2014

Jean Gonsier-Gerdin, At-large, 2014

 

FS 11-56/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS – SENATE

 

ASI Elections Complaint Committee

Patrick Cannon, 2012

 

REGULAR AGENDA

 

FS 11-53/Flr.

MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2011

 

INFORMATION ITEM: LEARNING SPACE ADVISORY GROUP UPDATE

 

SECOND READING

 

FS 10-71/Ex.

POLICY ON INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM PRIORITIES: ACADEMIC PLANNING, RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT, AMENDMENT OF

 

Supercedes UMI 07100; INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM PRIORITIES; GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PLANNING, RESOURCE ALLOCATION, AND ENROLLMENT MANAGMENT .

 

The following policy proposal was initially prepared by the Task Force on Possible Revisions to University Policy on Instructional Priorities and Resource Allocation.  The Task Force was created by President Gonzalez after a recommendation from the Faculty Senate (FS 09-86/Flr), and the charge of the Task Force was endorsed by the Senate on 2/25/10 (FS 10-17/Ex). After the Task Force concluded its work, the Faculty Senate took action to receive the proposal FS 10-71/Ex.) and distributed it to its standing policy committees and to the Senate for review and comment.  The Faculty Senate Executive Committee then reviewed the feedback and amended the original Task Force proposal.

 

 

Academic Program Priorities

 

I. UNIVERSITY-WIDE PLANNING AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION

 

It is the responsibility of the University to establish University-wide priorities among its academic programs in order to guide the allocation of resources across the University.  These priorities shall be established using the criteria described in this policy.  The decisions regarding priorities shall be made in an open and transparent way utilizing data provided by the programs being prioritized as well as data provided by other sources.  These decisions shall be made under the principles of shared governance between the Faculty Senate and the Administration, after prior consultation with the Colleges, programs.  Each academic department shall be responsible for describing how its programs contribute to the Mission of the University, as well as to the desired balance and mix of programs offered by the University.  The prioritization process shall examine programs holistically, using both qualitative and quantitative data.  While any prioritization process must necessarily be driven by the qualitative and quantitative data, data are not to be a substitute for exercising sound judgment.

 

Any implementation of program prioritization shall be carried out under the following guiding principles:

1.      Transparency: All decisions shall be made in an open and transparent fashion, based upon evidence.

2.      Comprehensiveness: To the extent allowed by available information, all aspects of a program will be examined during the prioritization process. 

3.      Consistency: The same criteria will be used to evaluate each program for prioritization; data will be considered in the reports holistically, without assigning particular weights to given categories or criteria..

4.      Inclusiveness: All programs within Academic Affairs shall be evaluated and all faculty and staff shall have the opportunity to have input into the analysis of their programs.

5.      Demand: To the extent possible, the demand (by internal and external constituents) shall be determined for all programs.

6.      Utilization of Data: Prioritization of programs will be based on examination of both quantitative and qualitative data provided by the programs and other sources.

 

 

II. DESIRED BALANCE AND MIX OF PRIORITY PROGRAM CATEGORIES

 

For the purposes of this policy, a program is defined to be; a unit within Academic Affairs that uses resources from Academic Affairs and which either: offers majors, minors, or certificates; or provides resources to students.  Under this definition, departments and divisions within Academic Affairs are not programs; however majors, minors and certificates are programs.  Non-degree granting academic units such as the University Library, Learning Skills, and other special academic Centers are also considered programs.

 

General Education (GE) is mandated by Title V and cannot be prioritized as an independent program, but components of the GE program housed within departments will be recognized/evaluated.

 

Graduate programs are an essential part of the mission of the California State University (CSU System Mission Statement) and of the mission of California State University, Sacramento (California State University, Sacramento Mission Statement).  As such, a high priority is placed on maintaining a viable graduate program with a mix of graduate programs that is appropriate to a comprehensive, metropolitan university.  To assure continued viability of graduate education at California State University, Sacramento, the University shall maintain a minimum degree-seeking graduate enrollment of 10% of the FTE of the University. In addition, the University shall maintain a minimum of 5% of the FTE of the University in postbaccalaureate credential and certificate programs, if consistent with and justified by regional need and agency data (e.g., the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing).  Consistent with Section III below, second baccalaureate students shall be counted in undergraduate FTEs.  The proportion of graduate and postbaccalaureate enrollment may be increased above these levels, but enrollment shall not exceed the maximum level permitted by CSU system mandates.

 

III. PRIORITIES WITHIN UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION ACROSS THE UNIVERSITY

 

The University is committed to offering undergraduate programs leading to a baccalaureate degree in selected disciplines.  This includes first and subsequent baccalaureate degrees.  Nine criteria are specified for the purpose of comparing undergraduate programs across the University.  The criteria are broad in nature and are selected to capture as much information as possible about programs, in order to take into account the size, scope and nature of each program.  In this way, decisions made regarding priorities are to be made in a way that is both informed, and transparent to the programs being prioritized.  These criteria have been adapted from Dickeson(2010).  For each criterion some examples of information/data are given, to illustrate how programs may choose to respond to the criterion. Not all of these examples will be relevant to every program on the campus and in such cases those examples should be ignored by such programs when responding to the criterion.  When prioritizing programs within undergraduate education across the University, the following criteria shall be used to compare undergraduate programs:

 

What is the context of the program, to inform the subsequent criteria.  Is the program young and still building to meet expectations or is it a fully mature program and capable of adapting to changing demands?  Has the program considered what lies in its future?

 

In what ways does the program fulfill the University’s mission?  Is the program unique in our region?  Does the program add to the distinctiveness of our campus?  Does the program serve a unique demographic or societal function?

 

How does the program support community engagement with the campus? What is the demand for the program’s resources and expertise?  What are the local trends in enrollment?  What is the demand from employers, or from graduate schools?

 

What is the demand for the program’s courses from other programs on campus?  Does the program produce other services used by different programs in the home department or in other departments?  How do the program’s courses fulfill demand for general education on campus?

 

How does the program use its resources to carry out its mission? Are those resources used efficiently and effectively?  Is the program curriculum appropriate to breadth, depth and level of the discipline?  How does the program use technology?

o   Collaboration across program lines that improves the quality of programs.

§  Working with other Programs

§  Effective sharing of resources

§  Facilitating student access to Programs

 

 

Are student learning outcomes achieved?  How well do students do after graduation (employment, graduate school, professional licensing and/or certification)?

 

Number of majors, number of FTES.  How many degrees or certificates are awarded? Are the program’s resources and faculty expertise appropriate to support and enhance the breadth and depth of university curriculum?

 

What sorts of revenues does the program generate, to be compared with costs. What are the other, non-monetary resources generated (e.g. relationships with outside institutions)?

 

A criterion not to be examined independently from the others, but to provide context.  Consider both indirect and direct costs.  What steps has the program taken to improve efficiency? What kind of investment is needed to improve the program?

 

IV. PRIORITIES WITHIN GRADUATE EDUCATION ACROSS THE UNIVERSITY

 

The University is committed to offering graduate programs leading to the master's, doctoral or terminal degree, or postbaccalaureate credential in selected disciplines.

Nine criteria are specified for the purpose of comparing graduate programs across the University.  The criteria are broad in nature and are selected to capture as much information as possible about programs, in order to take into account the size, scope and nature of each program.  In this way, decisions made regarding priorities are to be made in a way that is both informed, and transparent to the programs being prioritized.  These criteria have been adapted from Dickeson (2010).  For each criterion some examples of information/data are given, to illustrate how programs may choose to respond to the criterion. Not all of these examples will be relevant to every program on the campus and in such cases those examples should be ignored by such programs when responding to the criterion.  When prioritizing programs within graduate education across the University, the following criteria shall be used to compare graduate programs:

 

What is the context of the program, to inform the subsequent criteria.  Is the program young and still building to meet expectations or is it a fully mature program and capable of adapting to changing demands?  Has the program considered what lies in its future?

 

In what ways does the program fulfill the University’s mission?  Is the program unique in our region?  Does the program add to the distinctiveness of our campus?  Does the program serve a unique demographic or societal function?

 

How does the program support community engagement with the campus? What is the demand for the program’s resources and expertise?  What are the local trends in enrollment?  What is the demand from employers, or from graduate schools?

 

What is the demand for the program’s courses from other programs on campus?  Does the program produce other services used by different programs in the home department or in other departments? 

 

How does the program use its resources to carry out its mission? Are those resources used efficiently and effectively?  Does the program attract students who are ready to succeed in graduate study? Is the program curriculum appropriate to breadth, depth and level of the discipline?  How does the program use technology?

o   Collaboration across program lines that improves the quality of programs.

§  Working with other Programs

§  Effective sharing of resources

§  Facilitating student access to Programs

 

Are student learning outcomes achieved?  How well do students do after graduation (employment, graduate school, professional licensing and/or certification).

 

Number of active graduate students, number of FTES.  How many degrees or certificates are awarded? Are the program’s resources and faculty expertise appropriate to support and enhance the breadth and depth of university curriculum?  Is size of program faculty appropriate to breadth and depth of curriculum?

 

What sorts of revenues does the program generate, to be compared with costs. What are the other, non-monetary resources generated (e.g. relationships with outside institutions)?

 

A criterion not to be examined independently from the others, but to provide context.  Consider both indirect and direct costs.  What steps has the program taken to improve efficiency?  What kind of investment is needed to improve the program?

 

V. PRIORITIES WITHIN OTHER ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

 

Academic programs that exist to support students and faculty in successfully accomplishing the goals of undergraduate and graduate programs shall also be evaluated.  To the degree possible for each program in question, the same criteria shall be applied as for undergraduate and graduate programs.  For example, as the Library does not offer a major program, graduation rate is not an appropriate criterion, but other measures of student outcomes will be.

 

VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY

 

The process of making recommendations for academic prioritization shall result in undergraduate and graduate programs (separately) being grouped into quartiles based upon the criteria. Such grouping will be done by a Senate Select Committee which may solicit input from the Curriculum Policies Committee and the Graduate Studies Policies Committee on the implementation of the criteria prior to initial and/or final prioritization of programs. The Senate Select Committee may, in consultation with the Office of Academic Affairs, create guidelines for presenting information for all Programs.  Programs will may produce additional reports using qualitative and quantitative data that address the criteria in whatever manner they deem appropriate., and tThe Senate Select Committee will consider the data in the reports holistically, without assigning particular weights to given categories or criteria. The Senate Select Committee shall recommend program prioritization across university units.

 

It is the charge of a Faculty Senate Select Committee (formed for these purposes) to examine the data and make recommendations, as both are described in this policy.  The first such Select Committee shall be formed following both the passage of this policy and the collection of data.  The data shall be collected, from Departments, by the Office of Academic Affairs. 

 

Membership of the Senate Select Committee shall invite Administrators with Program responsibility such as Deans to participate in the process. Chairs are not intended to serve this role. 

 

Upon approval of this policy, an initial call for data as described in this policy will go to Departments from the Office of Academic Affairs.  A separate process for the ongoing and periodic gathering of such data, including review by programs and the archiving of data, will be developed by the Office of Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Faculty Senate.

 

Subsequent to the completion of the work of the first such Select Committee, the question of whether or not to form a new Select Committee for these same purposes shall be brought to the Faculty Senate on a periodic basis.  Normally, this question shall be considered no later than five years after the last such committee completed its work and was disbanded, or five years after the question was most recently considered by the Faculty Senate, whichever comes later. 

 

Interested parties may petition the Faculty Senate, via its Executive Committee, to consider the question of forming a Select Committee for the purposes outlined in this policy prior to the described five year period elapsing. 

 

Producing the recommendations for prioritization shall be a two stage process, specifically designed to allow programs to respond to the recommendations before any final decisions are made. Final Senate Select Committee recommendations will then be forwarded to the Faculty Senate for receipt of its report and to the President for disposition.

 

  1. An initial recommendation for prioritization will be made based upon data collected from the Office of Institutional Research and other institutional sources, and information/data provided by the programs being prioritized. 
    1. All programs shall have the opportunity to provide their data in a timely fashion. 
    2. The information/data provided must be organized according to the criteria used in forming the recommendations for prioritization, and it must be made clear how the information/data inform the criteria.
    3. Each program shall be grouped into quartiles under each of the criteria.  The recommendation for the preliminary overall grouping of each program shall be based upon the program’s relative standings in each of the criteria, taken as a whole.

 

  1. After the initial recommendation for prioritization is finished and before the final recommendation is made, the initial recommendation shall be made available in an open and transparent manner to the University community. 
    1. Enough information shall be made available so that the assignments of programs to quartiles are known, and programs can understand how the initial assignments were achieved
    2. Before a final recommendation is made, every program shall be given sufficient time to prepare a response to its grouping.  The response may include supplemental information not previously provided in any of the criteria, and may address the issue of incomplete or inaccurate information being used in the initial recommendation.
    3. With the supplemental information given due consideration, each program shall again be grouped into quartiles under each of the criteria.  A final grouping of all programs into quartiles shall be done based upon the programs’ relative standings in each of the criteria, taken as a whole.

 

After the final recommendation is made, the results shall be made available in an open and transparent manner to the University community, with enough information being made available so that the assignments of programs to quartiles are known, and programs can understand how the assignments were achieved.

 

RESOURCES USED

 

Dickeson, Robert C.; Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services; 2010; Jossey-Bass

 

California State University Mission Statement: www.calstate.edu/PA/info/mission.shtml

 

California State University, Sacramento Mission Statement: www.csus.edu/webpages/mission.stm

 

California State University Policy Manual, Policy UMI07100 “Instructional Programs Priorities; Academic Planning Resource Allocation and Enrollment Management”: www.csus.edu/umanual/UMI07100.htm

 

University of Southern Mississippi, University Priorities Committee Plan: www.usm.edu/upc/upc_charge.pdf

 

Indiana State University, Program Prioritization: www.indstate.edu/academicaffairs/program_prioritization.htm

 

Humboldt State University, Program Elimination Criteria: www.humboldt.edu/~anstud/PEC2010.html

SIDE-BY-SIDE (FROM FS 10-71 VS. AS AMENDED)

FS 11-49/APC/Ex.

ACADEMIC CALENDAR: 2012-2013

 

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the “equal days” academic calendar provided in Attachment A for the 2012-2013 academic year.

 

Furthermore, the Faculty Senate extends the referral of the academic calendar for 2013-2014 to APC, to allow additional time to consider alternate calendar proposals from the administration, and to allow sufficient time for APC to make further recommendations for 2013-2014.

 

Background: Executive Committee

 

The Executive Committee received a recommendation from APC, with extensive background documentation (attached), for two versions of a calendar for academic year 2012-2013.  One of these has an equal number of teaching days in the two semesters and the other has an unequal number of teaching days in the two semesters.  The “equal days” calendar requires a start to the school year (in terms of when faculty workdays begin) that is two days earlier than the “traditional” calendar.  Other details are consistent between them.  APC had also considered a third calendar proposal submitted by the administration and forwarded a recommendation against that option for the reasons explained in their background document.  The Executive Committee found no reason to disagree with the APC recommendation regarding the third option.

With regard to the two calendars that APC recommended, without formal recommendation of one over the other, the Executive Committee voted (a majority vote) to recommend the “equal days” version of the calendar over the “traditional” version.  The major reason cited during discussion was the consistency between semesters for curriculum planning, especially in the sciences which are disadvantaged by semesters of unequal length.  It was also noted in debate that this recommendation does not preclude a motion to substitute the other option during Senate debate on this matter.

 

Academic calendar recommendations are normally made for two-year periods.  However, the Executive Committee concurred with the APC request to be allowed further time to consider the calendar for 2013-2014, to permit the administration to provide additional justification for their alternate proposal and to fully address the various options for that year.  The Executive Committee expressed appreciation for APC’s work in this matter and for the clarity of their documentation.

 

Background: APC charge and process

 

The Faculty Senate has charged the Academic Policies Committee (APC) to develop a two-year academic calendar (Items B. and H. in FS 09-11A/Ex.) The action passed by the Faculty Senate on March 12, 2009 (FS 09-09A/APC/Ex.), included an APC recommendation that a task force be established to investigate the possibility of a week-long Thanksgiving Break. A Calendar Advisory Group was formed to consider this and other issues with the academic calendar. The Calendar Advisory Group identified other concerns with the academic calendar, but found that it is not possible to incorporate a week-long Thanksgiving Break into the academic calendar. The Calendar Advisory Group proposed an alternative calendar to APC on February 18, 2011. The APC thanks the members of the group for their service and for the considerable time and effort required to investigate changes to the calendar.

 

The APC does not support Calendar Advisory Group’s alternate calendar. A brief overview of the APC’s concerns regarding the alternate calendar is given below.

 

The APC charge to develop a two-year calendar was designed to be included in the published two-year academic catalog.  The catalog is no longer published in a two-year interval, but rather is available in an online, real-time format.  In order to give the Calendar Advisory Group time to address the concerns raised by the APC in response to the alternate calendar, the APC voted to recommend a one-year calendar.

 

The APC would like to encourage the Calendar Advisory Group to propose an alternative for 2013-2014 that addresses the committee’s concerns no later than the end of the spring 2011 semester.  The APC is supportive of investigating alternatives to the existing calendar structure, and for this reason is recommending the Faculty Senate recommend a one-year academic calendar, to afford the Calendar Advisory Group more time to address the committee’s concerns and suggestions, and to consider additional feedback from the Faculty Senate and the student body. As further evidence of the APC’s support for considering alternatives, the committee has provided possible avenues to explore to address the concerns raised by the Calendar Advisory Group in its report.

 

Attachment A is the “equal days” calendar recommended by the APC and Executive Committee.

Attachment B is the “traditional” calendar recommended by the APC.

Attachment C is the “alternate” calendar proposed by the Calendar Advisory Group.

Attachment D is the Calendar Advisory Group’s rationale and APC justification and response to the alternate calendar.

 

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 11-42/Ex.

BY-LAWS, AMENDMENT OF

 

The Faculty Senate amends its By-laws as outlined in the April 7, 2011 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment E.

 

FIRST READING

 

FS 11-54/GSPC/Ex.

ASSIGNMENT OF “C” GRADES IN GRADUATE PROGRAMS

 

The Faculty Senate recommends the following: No grade below a C- may be counted towards a master's or doctoral degree program. At the master's level, no grade below "B-" may be counted toward a degree unless expressly permitted by a campus-approved graduate program's written policies. At the doctoral level, no grade below "B-" may be counted toward a degree program. (Note: It is expected that this language would be inserted into the eligibility criteria for advancement to candidacy that are listed in the graduate studies section of the catalog and in other forms distributed by the Office of Graduate Studies, including but not limited to the Advancement to Candidacy petition.)

 

Background: The current language that appears in the catalog refers to C grades, but there is inconsistency across campus, between programs, regarding the acceptance of C's and also regarding whether or not the language is intended to include C- and C+ grades in the general description of C grades. In this regard, it is worth noting that these policies stem from Title V language where +/- grades are not referenced and so no such distinctions are made. Also, the current campus language is silent with respect to any distinction between masters level coursework and doctoral coursework.  The proposed policy is intended to address any potential ambiguities, allow for exceptions at the program level (when written into departmental program policy), and sets a higher standard for doctoral level work.

 

FS 11-55/CPC/Ex.

NEW AND SUBSTANTIVELY CHANGED PROGRAMS, MORATORIUM ON, ACADEMIC YEAR 2011-2012

The Faculty Senate recommends:

         Effective for the 2011-12 Academic Year, there will be a moratorium on approval of:

o   New Degree Programs

o   New Certificate Programs that are not embedded within a current degree program

o   Program Changes that increase the number of units in the major or the degree program

o   Program Changes that require additional resources to implement

           Programs may request an exemption from the terms of this policy if they are required to make one of the aforementioned changes by their external accrediting body.

           This moratorium will be reviewed by the Curriculum Policies Committee in March 2012.

 

Background: On May 13, 2010, the Faculty Senate approved FS 10-56, which called for a moratorium on new and substantively changed programs for Academic Year 2010-11. The motion also included a provision for the Curriculum Policies Committee to review the moratorium in March 2011 and make a recommendation to the Senate on whether or not to continue the moratorium.

 

FACULTY SENATE SCHEDULE:

 

·         May 12, 2011 – Senate meets

·         May 19, 2011 - tentative