2010-2011 FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento

MINUTES
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Foothill Suite, Union

Present:

Altmann, Nursing; +Anker, Design; Baker, Ethnic Studies; Barrena, Biological Sciences; Berta-Avila, Bilingual/Multicultural Education; Blanton, Speech Pathology and Audiology; Bogazianos, Criminal Justice; Boulgarides, Temporary Faculty (Kinesiology and Health Science); Buono, Student Services; Carle, Foreign Languages; +Cervantes, Child Development; Chavez, Educational Leadership and Policy Studies; Choi, Business Administration; Croisdale, Criminal Justice; Deegan, Temporary Faculty (Family and Consumer Science); Diaz, Kinesiology and Health Science; W. Dillon, Government; Dixon, Temporary Faculty (Music); Domokos, Mathematics and Statistics; Echandia, Temporary Faculty (Bilingual/Multicultural Education); Fell, Civil Engineering; Flohr, Art; Hadley, Sociology; Hamilton, Mathematics and Statistics; Heedley, Electrical and Electronic Engineering; Henderson, Counselor Education; Gherman, Chemistry; Kaplan, Economics; Katz, Learning Skills; Kelly, Social Work; Kirlin, Public Policy and Administration; Koegel, Communication Studies; Kornweibel, Emeritus Faculty; Li, Business Administration; Loeza, Teacher Education; Marbach, Mechanical Engineering; McCormick, Philosophy; McCurley, Student Services; McKeough, Physical Therapy; Melzer, English; Metz, Music; Mikhailitchenko, Business Administration; Moylan, Family and Consumer Sciences; Noel, FPC Chair (Teacher Education); Parsh, Nursing; Peigahi, Library; Penrod, Psychology; Piloyan, Associated Students, Inc.; Pinch, Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration; Reddick, Library; Russell, Social Work; Sheppard, Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration; C. Smith, ASI; V. Smith, Communication Studies; Stevens, Environmental Studies; Strasser, Anthropology; Taylor, Physics and Astronomy; Theodorides, Kinesiology and Health Science; Van Gaasbeck, APC Chair (Economics); Wanket, Geography

Absent:

Buckley, ASCSU Senator (Computer Science); Buckman, Humanities; Fanetti, English; Gardner, Business Administration; Gonsier-Gerdin, Special Education, Rehabilitation, School Psychology, and Deaf Studies; Hammersley, Geology; Hecsh, Teacher Education; Liu, Business Administration; Miller, GSPC Chair and ASCSU Senator (Communication Studies); Moni, Women's Studies; Numark, History; vacant, Theatre and Dance; vacant, Athletics

 

ACTION ITEMS

 

FS 11-33/Ex.

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT – UNIVERSITY

 

Search Committee, Associate Vice President, Facilities Services

Kevan Shafizadeh, faculty representative

 

Carried unanimously.

 

FS 11-31/Flr.

MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 2011

 

Carried unanimously.

 

FS 10-32A/Flr.

WAIVER OF FIRST READING OF FS 10-32

 

The Faculty Senate waives the first reading of FS 10-32 “Convocation on Fostering a Community at Sacramento State, Resolution on”.

 

Carried unanimously.

 

FS 10-32/Ex.

CONVOCATION ON FOSTERING A COMMUNITY AT SACRAMENTO STATE, RESOLUTION ON

 

The Faculty Senate thanks the members of the planning committee, administration and participants for the Convocation on Fostering a Community at Sacramento State. The event was well organized and valuable to all who attended as students, staff, faculty and administration had the opportunity to talk about personal experiences and to frame hopeful ideas of what they envision our campus will become. In keeping with the spirit of the convocation, we resolve that all persons who are involved with California State University Sacramento regardless of position, rank, gender, race, sexual orientation or disability will be treated with dignity and respect by all members of our college community.

 

The Faculty Senate thanks and acknowledges from the activities office, advancement staff volunteers on event day: Scott Adams, Melisa Addison, Karen Booth, Pat Burke-Kumpf, Ryan Chin, Shari Gonzales, Kevin Gonzalez, Laurie Hall, Georgina Hansen-Stevenson, Shante Johnson, John Koch, Hannah Kook, Kevin Mackey, Jackie Morris-Henderson, Maurya Perazzo, Craig Perez, Mimi Phothichack, John Power, Stella Premo, Vince Sales, Linda Kay Soriano, and Terry Veiga.

 

The Faculty Senate also thanks and acknowledges  the following planning committee members, breakout assistants, and volunteers: Kimo Ah Yun, J.P. Bayard, Margarita Berta-Avila, Rose Borunda, Jessica Castellon, Sarah Couch, Julie Figueroa, Tim Fong, Janet Hecsh, Patricia Holmes, Marlyn Jones, Mary Maguire, Steve Perez, Sarkis Piloyan, Debbie Santiago, Alysson Satterlund, Vanessa Sheared, Mark Stoner, Don Taylor, Adrienne Thompson, and Ernest Uwazie.

 

Furthermore, the Faculty Senate also thanks and acknowledges Carole Hayashino, Vice President for University Advancement and Alexander Gonzalez, President of California State University Sacramento.

 

Carried unanimously.

 

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

 

POLICY PROVISIONS

 

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, after prior consultation with the Colleges, programs, and the Faculty Senate.  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:

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

           Comprehensiveness: All aspects of a program will be examined during the prioritization process. 

           Consistency: The same criteria will be used to evaluate each program for prioritization.

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

           Demand: The demand (by students, employers and internal constituents) shall be determined for all programs.

           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?

 

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 curricululm?

 

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?

 

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. Programs will produce reports using qualitative and quantitative data that address the criteria in whatever manner they deem appropriate, and the 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. 

 

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

 

Carried.

 

The following items will receive a second reading on April 7, 2011:

FS 11-22/Ex.

ELECTRONIC COURSE EVALUATIONS

FS 11-27/GSPC/Ex.

DOCTORATE IN PHYSICAL THERAPY

FS 11-28/AITC/Ex.

IMPLEMENTATION OF KBOX

 

FACULTY SENATE SCHEDULE:

 

·         March 24, 2011 – spring break

·         March 31, 2011 – Cesar Chavez Day

·         April 7, 2011 – 2011-12 organizational meeting, 3:00-3:30; 2010-11 Senate meets at 3:30

·         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