2010-2011 FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento
MINUTES
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Foothill Suite, Union
Present: |
Altmann, Nursing; +Antonyappan, Social Work; Barrena, Biological Sciences; Berta-Avila, Bilingual/Multicultural Education; Blanton, Speech Pathology and Audiology; Bogazianos, Criminal Justice; Boulgarides, Temporary Faculty (Kinesiology and Health Science); Buckman, Humanities; Buono, Student Services; Carle, Foreign Languages; Chavez, Educational Leadership and Policy Studies; Choi, Business Administration; W. Dillon, Government; Dixon, Temporary Faculty (Music); Domokos, Mathematics and Statistics; Fanetti, English; Fell, Civil Engineering; Gibbs, Design; Gonsier-Gerdin, Special Education, Rehabilitation, School Psychology, and Deaf Studies; Hadley, Sociology; Hamilton, Mathematics and Statistics; Hecsh, Teacher Education; Heedley, Electrical and Electronic Engineering; Henderson, Counselor Education; Gardner, Business Administration; Gherman, Chemistry; Kaplan, Economics; Katz, Learning Skills; Kelly, Social Work; Koegel, Communication Studies; +Lazaridis, History; Loeza, Teacher Education; McCurley, Student Services; McKeough, Physical Therapy; Melzer, English; Metz, Music; Mikhailitchenko, Business Administration; Moylan, Family and Consumer Sciences; Nicolas, ASI; Noel, FPC Chair (Teacher Education); Parsh, Nursing; Peigahi, Library; Piloyan, Associated Students, Inc.; Pinch, Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration; Reddick, Library; Sheppard, Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration; Stevens, Environmental Studies; Strasser, Anthropology; Taylor, Physics and Astronomy; Theodorides, Kinesiology and Health Science; Van Gaasbeck, APC Chair (Economics); Wanket, Geography |
Absent: |
Baker, Ethnic Studies; Buckley, ASCSU Senator (Computer Science); Croisdale, Criminal Justice; Deegan, Temporary Faculty (Family and Consumer Science); Diaz, Kinesiology and Health Science; Echandia, Temporary Faculty (Bilingual/Multicultural Education); Flohr, Art; Hammersley, Geology; Kirlin, Public Policy and Administration; Li, Business Administration; Liu, Business Administration; Marbach, Mechanical Engineering; McCormick, Philosophy; Miller, GSPC Chair and ASCSU Senator (Communication Studies); Moni, Women's Studies; Penrod, Psychology; Raskauskas, Child Development; V. Smith, Communication Studies; vacant, Theatre and Dance; vacant, Athletics |
The agenda was amended to add FS 11-56 “Resolution to Urge the Board of Trustees to Delay Consideration of Waivers to the Existing Title 5 ‘American Institutions’ Requirement”. The agenda was then re-ordered so that FS 11-56 would be considered after the information item: Learning Space Advisory Workgroup Update. The agenda was approved as amended.
ACTION ITEMS
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
Carried unanimously.
FS 11-56/Ex. |
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS – SENATE |
ASI Elections Complaint
Committee
Patrick Cannon, 2012
Carried unanimously.
FS 11-53/Flr. |
MINUTES OF APRIL
28, 2011 |
Carried unanimously.
FS 11-56A/Flr. |
WAIVER OF FIRST READING OF FS 11-56 |
The Faculty Senate waives the first reading of FS 11-56 “Resolution to Urge the Board of Trustees to Delay Consideration of Waivers to the Existing Title 5 ‘American Institutions’ Requirement”.
Carried.
FS 11-56/Flr. |
RESOLUTION TO URGE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO DELAY CONSIDERATION OF WAIVERS TO THE EXISTING TITLE 5 ‘AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS’ REQUIREMENT |
Whereas, For decades the California State University has maintained a requirement (in Title 5 administrative law) for all CSU graduates to “acquire knowledge and skills that will help them to comprehend the workings of American democracy and of the society in which they live, to enable them to contribute to that society as responsible and constructive citizens” (Title 5 40404); and
Whereas, The CSU Board of Trustees is considering changes in the Title 5 “American Institutions” requirement that will enable (but not necessarily require) the Chancellor, Presidents, and “appropriate campus authorities” to waive the American Institutions requirement for certain majors and groups, be it
Resolved, That the CSUS Faculty Senate urges the Board of Trustees to delay any final actions on Title 5 changes to the “American Institutions” requirement until further and appropriate faculty consultation has occurred; be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be distributed to the Chancellor, to the Board, to the ASCSU, to all campus senates, and to the Chairs of all CSU History and Political Science Departments, the Assembly Committee on Higher Education, and the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges.
Carried.
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.
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.
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.
FS 11-49/APC/Ex. |
ACADEMIC CALENDAR: 2012-2013 |
The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the “traditional” academic calendar for the 2012-2013 academic year (see attachment).
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.
Carried.
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,
Student Service Professional (Academic Related)’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.
Carried
unanimously.
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.
Carried unanimously.
FS 11-55A/Flr. |
WAIVER
OF FIRST READING OF FS 11-55 |
The Faculty Senate waives the first reading of FS 11-55 “New and Substantively Changed Programs, Moratorium on, Academic Year 2011-2012”.
Carried unanimously.
FS 11-55/CPC |
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.
Defeated.
The following item will receive a second reading on May 12, 2011:
FS 11-54/GSPC/Ex. |
ASSIGNMENT OF “C” GRADES IN GRADUATE
PROGRAMS |