CSUS FACULTY SENATE ACTIONS FOR 2004-2005

Note:  Minutes and procedural actions not included.

*Requires Presidential approval.

The Executive Committee at its meeting of August 31, 2004, voted to request that the President schedule a convocation on October 4th beginning at 12 noon and continuing to 3 pm to permit the campus community to attend the inaugural activities. According to Senate Policy, a convocation permits faculty to cancel classes and/or permit students to attend without being penalized if their classes are not dismissed.

The Executive Committee, acting on behalf of the Faculty Senate, approved a motion to recommend to the President that a convocation be called on October 4, 2004.

Carried unanimously.

Search Committee, Assistant Vice President, Research and Sponsored Projects Elizabeth Kean Committee on Administrative Performance Review Sean Corcoran, At-large, 2007 Alcohol Advisory Council Melinda Seid, At-large, 2005 Ann Stoltz, At-large, 2005 Search Committee, Associate Vice President, Facilities Management Dick Kornweibel

Search Committee, Associate Vice President, Finance Cristy Jensen ASI Appellate Council William Dillon, 2005 University Union Board of Directors* Fred Baldini Anne-Louise Radimsky Shannon Dickson *names to be forwarded to President Gonzalez for selection to serve a term through 2006

Carried unanimously.

Alumni Board Roger Leezer, 2005 Athletic Advisory Board Scott Modell, 2005 Steve Perez, 2005 Campus Cooperative Education Committee Dan Okada, 2005 Campus Safety Advisory Committee Tom Owens, 2007 Financial Aid Satisfactory Progress Appeals Board Roger Davis, 2007 Honorary Degrees Committee Alicia Patrice, 2005 ASI Board Sue Holl, 2005 Energy Management Committee Stephan Kroll, 2006 Committee for Diversity Awards David Monk, 2006 Committee for Persons with Disabilities Jessica Howell, SS&IS, 2006

Multicultural Center Advisory Board Eun Mi Cho, 2006 Linda Nowell, 2006 Student Academic Development Committee Mark Biernbaum, 2006 Marie Helt, 2006 Student Complaint Hearing Panel Fred Baldini, 2007 Brett Holland, 2007 Student Fee Advisory Committee Jessica Howell, 2005 University Copyright and Patent Committee Rhonda Rios Kravitz, 2007 Institutional Scholarship Committee I Mary Beal, 2006 Institutional Scholarship Committee II Sean Corcoran, 2006 Council on University Planning Jeffrey Clark, Non-instructional faculty, 2005 CUP-Facility Planning Committee Beverley Sheafer, 2006

Carried unanimously.

Academic Policies Committee Maureen Smith, 2006 Committee on Diversity and Equity Manuel Barajas, 2006 Lila Jacobs, 2005

Elections Committee Smile Dube, 2005 Alicia Patrice, 2005 Pedagogy Enhancement Awards Subcommittee Ramzi Mahmood, Engineering and Computer Science, 2007 Jan Osborn, Education, 2007

Carried unanimously.

Thomas Krabacher, Professor of Geography, shall serve as parliamentarian for the 2004-2005 Faculty Senate.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program change proposals outlined in Attachment A.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program change proposals outlined in Attachment B.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the University ARTP document as follows:

20. No CSU employee shall vote, make recommendations, or in any way participate in decisions about any personnel matter which may directly affect the selection, appointment, retention, tenure, compensation, promotion, termination, other employment status or interest of a close relative. For the purposes of this policy, the term a 'close relative' shall include: is defined as parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, first cousin, spouse, registered domestic partner, step-parent, step-child, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, and by guardianship or adoption or both or a person residing in the immediate household except live-in household employees or roomers.  Relatives of domestic partners shall be treated as relatives of spouses. husband, wife, mother, father, son, daughter, sister, brother, and domestic partner. . . .

See Attachment C for background information and the memorandum from William Dillon, Presiding Member of the University ARTP Committee to the Executive Committee.

Carried unanimously.

Search Committee, Associate Vice President and Dean, Academic Programs
Jackie Donath, Humanities and Religious Studies, A&L
Steve Perez, Economics, SS&IS

Anthony J. Leones Scholarship Committee
Maria Mejorado, 2006

Committee on Diversity Awards
David Monk, 2006

CUP-Graduation Initiative Committee
Sue Holl, 2006

Grade Appeal Procedural Appeals Board
Miles Roberts, 2007

Committee for Persons with Disabilities
Susan McGinty, H&HS, 2005

Carried unanimously.

Committee on Diversity and Equity
Deborah Pittman, 2007

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the membership of the Academic Information Technology Committee as outlined in Attachment D.

Carried unanimously.

Background: In Fall, 2003 the Executive committee requested that the Academic Policies Committee (APC) consider the matter of possible exceptions to the proposed policy FS 02-39/APC, Ex. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS FOR STUDENTS ON PROBATION. The proposed policy, at that time, read:

"Students who are on academic probation for two consecutive terms (including winter and summer terms) will be limited to a maximum course load of fourteen (14) units a semester until they achieve academic good standing."

The request came about in response to questions from the floor of the Senate at the time of first reading regarding the desirability of providing for exceptions.

After consideration, the APC recommends that the language of the proposed policy be changed to read as follows in order to allow for the exception described below. Arguments for and against can be found in the April 15, 2004 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment D (this motion received a first reading at the May 13, 2004 Faculty Senate meeting).

The Faculty Senate recommends adopting the following policy:

Students who are on academic probation for two consecutive terms (including winter and summer terms) will be limited to a maximum course load of fourteen (14) units a semester until they achieve academic good standing. However, a student who has applied to graduate and whose cumulative CSUS and overall GPA are 2.0 or higher may enroll for up to 16 units total in the term of graduation only. The Registrar’s Office will adjust, within the limits set by this policy, the maximum number of units based on the graduation application.

Carried.

General Education/Graduation Requirements Policies Committee
Janet Hecsh, fall 2004 replacement
James Shoch, fall 2004 replacement 

Academic Information Technology Committee

Name	Position	Department/College	Term Ending
Bob Buckley	Ex. Committee Rep.	Computer Science/E&CS	2007
Ronald Coleman	NS&M	Biological Science/NS&M	2006
Gregory Hurtz	SS&IS	Psychology/SS&IS	2005
Maureen Lojo	CBA	Management/CBA	2005
Michael Menchaca	EDUC	Teacher Education/EDUC	2005
Rosemary Papalewis	CTL Rep.	CTL	2005
Mary Reddick	LIB	Library/Library	2007
Val Smith	A&L	Communication Studies/A&L	2006

Carried unanimously.

Search Committee, Associate Vice President and Dean, Academic Affairs
Laureen O’Hanlon, Speech Pathology and Audiology, H&HS

Search Committee, Vice President, Student Affairs
Carlos Nevarez, Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, EDUC

Carried unanimously.

Committee for Persons with Disabilities
Reza Peigahi, Library, 2006

Carried unanimously.

Search Committee, Vice President, Student Affairs
Steve Buss, A&L

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends that the minimum GPA required for admission to the CSUS Special Major program be changed from 2.5 to 2.0.  This will bring the GPA admission requirement in line with that for other programs across the University.

See Attachment F of the Faculty Senate Agenda for September 23, 2004 for background information.

Defeated.

Whereas,	Joe Serna, Jr. and Isabel Hernandez-Serna dedicated their lives to serving their campus and their community; and
Whereas,	Isabel Hernandez-Serna graduated from CSUS with a B.A. in Spanish (1968) and an M.A. in Latin American Literature (1970) and later earned M.A, and Ph.D, degrees from Stanford University in Bicultural/Bilingual Education, and Joe Serna, Jr. graduated from CSUS in 1966 with a B.A. in Social Science and Government; and
Whereas,	Isabel Hernandez-Serna was a valued member of the Ethnic Studies and Education faculties at CSUS from 1970 to 1986, and Joe Serna, Jr. was a distinguished member of the faculties in Government and Ethnic Studies at CSUS from 1969 to 1999; and
Whereas,	Isabel Hernandez-Serna developed innovative programs at CSUS that opened the door to higher education for students of all backgrounds, and Joe Serna, Jr. mentored hundreds of students preparing for careers in public service and journalism; and
Whereas,	Joe Serna, Jr. was a member of the Academic Senate, the University ARTP Committee, the Advisory Board of Campus Radio KXPR, and the Chicano Faculty and Staff Association as well as a fund raiser for the CSUS School of Business, the CSUS Alumni House, the 2000 Olympic Trials held at CSUS, the CSUS 50th Anniversary, and the Department of Government at CSUS; and
Whereas,	Isabel Hernandez-Serna served as the Program Coordinator for the Educational Opportunity Program, Acting Program Director of Chicano Studies, Director of the Student Affirmative Action Program, Director of Educational Equity, Director of Outreach Services, and as Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs: Educational Equity & Student Retention; and
Whereas,	Joe Serna, Jr. for more than thirty years championed the United Farm Workers of America by leading caravans to Delano with food and clothing for striking workers and by organizing boycotts of supermarkets, and Isabel Hernandez-Serna actively supported the tenets of diversity of access, equal opportunity, social justice, gender equity, and public service; and
Whereas,	Arturo Rodriguez (President of the UFW) said of Isabel Hernandez-Serna, "How do you say thank you for more than three decades of championing our union cause,-plus the thousands of poor and minority kids whose lives she changed----who earned a college education thanks to Isabel?", and Rodriguez eulogized Joe Serna, Jr. by saying: "We are here because Joe Serna never forgot where he came from. And to his dying day; he never stopped caring for the people whose plight he had shared"; and
Whereas,	Joe Serna, Jr. was elected three times (1981, 1985, and 1989) as a member of the City Council of Sacramento and elected two times (1992 and 1996) to the office of Mayor of the City of Sacramento; and
Whereas,	Isabel Hernandez-Serna received the YWCA Outstanding Women Award, the Sacramento Magazine's Regional Pride Award for Education, the Raza Advocates for California Higher Education Outstanding Service Award, and the Women in History Heritage Award; and
Whereas,	Joe Serna, Jr. was a member of the Sacramento Employment and Training Agency, the Sacramento Central Labor Council, the Sacramento Metropolitan Arts Commission the Sacramento Concilio, the Chicano Organization for Political Action, the Sacramento Area Criminal Justice & Delinquency Prevention Council, the State Commission for the Revision of the Election Code, the Citizens Committee on Local Government Reorganization, and the Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Commission, among others; and
Whereas,	Isabel Hernandez-Serna was a member of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee (Eastern District), the California Council for the Humanities, the Crocker Art Museum, La Familia Counseling Center, United Way, the Child Abuse Council, the Sacramento City Unified School District Foundation, the Center for California Studies, and the Chicano/Latino Youth Leadership Conference Steering Committee; and
Whereas,	U.S. Representative Robert T. Matsui (Sacramento) called Isabel Hernandez-Serna "a role model for a generation of young men and women of color"; and
Whereas,	An editorial in The Sacramento Bee (11-8-99) said of Joe Serna, Jr.: "He stood for the things we say we believe in - jobs, strong families, good schools, an open process, and a fair shake for all. He played politics and government the way they should be played - with strong ideals, honesty, blunt talk, a willingness to compromise, and-an unquenchable delight in the game"; and
Whereas,	The legacies of Isabel Hernandez-Serna and Joe Serna, Jr. are powerful examples of the importance of higher education and civic engagement; and
Whereas,	CSUS is dedicated to educating informed citizens who are prepared to participate in the public life of the State of California; therefore, be it
resolved,	That Isabel Hernandez-Serna and Joe Serna, Jr. be honored by CSUS in the most respectful and meaningful manner; and be it further
resolved,	That the area currently known as the Library Quadrangle henceforth be called the Isabel Hernandez-Serna and Joe Serna, Jr. Plaza; and be it further
resolved,	That an advisory panel be constituted from all campus constituencies to develop said plaza as an area in which civic skills and participatory democracy are learned through face-to-face discussion; and be it finally
resolved,	That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Campus Facilities Planning Committee, the Council on University Planning, and President Alexander Gonzalez.

Carried unanimously.

Search Committee, Dean, College of Arts and Letters
Mary Ann Reihman, Biological Sciences, Natural Sciences and Mathematics, At-large

Committee for Persons with Disabilities
Paul Turner, SSPAR, 2006

Carried unanimously.

Academic Information Technology Committee
Harry Theodorides, Health and Human Services, 2007

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends elimination of the credit/no credit (CR/NC) option for courses in which the student would normally be assigned a letter grade.  [Note:  This change would not apply to those courses, such as co-curricular courses, fieldwork, field tours, theses, supervised teaching, and similar courses in which CR/NC is the normal grading option.]

See the October 14, 2004 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment A for background information.

Defeated unanimously.

The Faculty Senate approves referring the matter of the credit/no credit grading option to the Academic Policies Committee to draft appropriate language addressing the minor problems created by the current policy and proposing strategies to expand the policy so more students are aware of it and avail themselves of this opportunity.

Carried unanimously.

The Senate Chair informed the Senate that the Executive Committee will be establishing an ad hoc work group to explore the issues and make recommendations for a consultation process and policies regarding the curricular implications of academic support programs.

The Faculty Senate debated FS 04-62/Flr. Co-Operative Education Program Placement Decision, Resolution On, which was originally introduced as follows:

The Faculty Senate, acting on behalf of the University faculty, wishes to express its deep concern over the process by which the recent decision was made to place the Co-Operative Education program under the supervision of Student Affairs without utilizing a transparent process or significant, meaningful consultation with the faculty of the University. As a consequence, the Faculty Senate recommends the President take the following actions:

1. Hold in abeyance the recent decision to transfer the Co-Operative Education Program from Academic Affairs to Student Affairs;
    
2. Establish, in conjunction with the Faculty Senate Chair, a review process to bring together faculty and staff of the Co-Operative Education Program and members of the University administration for a meaningful discussion of the status and appropriate placement of the program within the University's organizational structure;
    
3. Report back to the Faculty Senate:

1. for its approval, the details of the review process once they are established;
    
2. on all findings and recommendations that result from the review process.

The Faculty Senate, acting on behalf of the University faculty, wishes to express its deep concern over the process by which the recent decision was made to place the Co-Operative Education program under the supervision of Student Affairs without utilizing a transparent process or significant, meaningful consultation with the faculty of the University. As a consequence, the Faculty Senate recommends the President take the following actions:  (as outlined in FS 04-62B, FS 04-62C and FS 04-62D)

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends dividing FS 04-62/Flr., Co-Operative Education Program Placement Decision, Resolution On so that items 1, 2 and 3 will be considered as separate motions.

Carried unanimously.

Hold in abeyance the recent decision to transfer the Co-Operative Education Program from Academic Affairs to Student Affairs.

Carried. (Hand count:  yes = 29; no = 16)

Establish, in conjunction with the Faculty Senate Chair, a review process to bring together faculty, staff of the Co-Operative Education Program, a representative from the Curriculum Policies Committee, and members of the University administration for a meaningful discussion on the maintenance and enhancement of the program which includes the status and appropriate placement of the program within the University's organizational structure.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate Chair shall report back to the Faculty Senate:

1. for its consideration, the details of the review process once they are established;
    
2. on all findings and recommendations that result from the review process.

Carried unanimously.

The final resolution the Faculty Senate approved is as follows:

The Faculty Senate, acting on behalf of the University faculty, wishes to express its deep concern over the process by which the recent decision was made to place the Co-Operative Education program under the supervision of Student Affairs without utilizing a transparent process or significant, meaningful consultation with the faculty of the University. As a consequence, the Faculty Senate recommends the President take the following actions:

1. Hold in abeyance the recent decision to transfer the Co-Operative Education Program from Academic Affairs to Student Affairs; and
    
2. Establish, in conjunction with the Faculty Senate Chair, a review process to bring together faculty, staff of the Co-Operative Education Program, a representative from the Curriculum Policies Committee, and members of the University administration for a meaningful discussion on the maintenance and enhancement of the program which includes the status and appropriate placement of the program within the University's organizational structure.

and furthermore,

The Faculty Senate Chair shall report back to the Faculty Senate:

1. for its consideration, the details of the review process once they are established; and
    
2. on all findings and recommendations that result from the review process, before transmittal to the President.

Faculty Endowment Fund Committee
Bob Buckley, 2005

Pedagogy Enhancement Awards Subcommittee
Kathy Moore, Arts and Letters, 2007

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program change proposals outlined in Attachment A.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the changes to the Academic Honesty Policies and Procedures outlined in Attachment B.

Background information on the proposed changes can be found at Attachment B-1.

Carried unanimously.

The Executive Committee has placed this resolution on the agenda at the request of the Faculty Policies Committee and does so without recommendation:

WHEREAS,	CSUS operates under a collective bargaining agreement which covers all faculty, and
WHEREAS,	Some new faculty may be unfamiliar with working in a union environment, and
WHEREAS,	CFA represents the faculty in all grievance procedures, and
WHEREAS,	CFA provides important resources and support programs for faculty, and
WHEREAS,	The previous recommendation by the Faculty Policies Committee on March 17, 2004, was rejected by the Administration; therefore, be it
RESOLVED,	That CFA be allowed to give a five-minute presentation during the Welcome section at New Faculty Orientations.

The above resolution was approved by the Faculty Policies Committee, October 6, 2004.

See the October 28, 2004 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment C for background information.

Carried (with one abstention).

Instructionally Related Activities Committee
Myung Park, At-large, 2005

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program change proposals outlined in Attachment A.

Carried unanimously.

Background: In September 2002, the Faculty Senate conditionally approved the Social Science Program for four years. The conditional approval stipulated that no later than October 15, 2004, the Social Science Program Coordinator, working with the Dean of Social Science and Interdisciplinary Studies, present to the Program Review Subcommittee of the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (currently, the Program Review Oversight Committee) a preliminary report. The report should contain the following:

1. For those recommendations that have been addressed, details of progress, and
2. For those recommendations that have not been addressed, plans for addressing these recommendations prior to the next program review.

The Subcommittee was to determine if satisfactory progress has been made and, if so, recommend approval until the next program review.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations (Attachment B) of the Program Review Oversight Committee on the program review of the Social Science Program and recommends the approval of the Social Science Program for an additional two years.

Carried unanimously.

[Replaces FS 97-19 "Computer Literacy/Information Competence]

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the following Information Competence Graduation Requirement:

INFORMATION COMPETENCE GRADUATION REQUIREMENT

1. Determine the extent of the information needed.

Students will be able to define and articulate the need for information;
identify a variety of types and formats of potential sources for information;
consider the costs and benefits of acquiring the needed information;
reevaluate the nature and extent of the information need.

2. Access needed information effectively and efficiently.

Students will be able to select the most appropriate investigative methods or information retrieval systems for accessing the needed information;
construct and implement effectively-designed search strategies;
retrieve information online or in person using a variety of methods;
refine the search strategy if necessary;
extract, record, and manage the information and its sources.

3. Evaluate information and its sources critically and use appropriately and effectively.

Students will be able to articulate and apply initial criteria for evaluating both the information and its sources;
compare new knowledge with prior knowledge to determine the value, contradictions, or other unique characteristics of the information;
determine whether the initial query should be revised.

4. Use information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose.

Students will be able to use information to solve a problem, answer a question or for other purposes; determine the breadth and depth of research on a topic;
synthesize and integrate information from a variety of sources;
draw appropriate conclusions;
clearly communicate ideas to others in written, oral and visual forms.

5. Understand the issues associated with legal and ethical access to and use of information.

Students will be able to understand many of the ethical, legal and socio-economic issues surrounding information and information technology;
acknowledge the use of information sources in communicating the product or performance.

Adapted from:

Rubrics for Assessing Information Competence in the CSU, by Dr. Ilene Rockman. 10/02
Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, ACRL. 2000
3/1/04 – Approval recommended by the GE/GRPC

The Faculty Senate further recommends that the new policy be referred back to the GE/GRPC for development of an implementation strategy within the following parameters:

• Requirement be program based for all undergraduate degree programs
• Require no new courses
• Reporting be incorporated within program review

See the October 28, 2004 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment B for background information.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the recommendations regarding information technology in the classroom as outlined in Attachment C.

Background on the recommendations can be found at Attachment C-1 (in the November 18, 2004 Faculty Senate Agenda).

Carried unanimously.

Student Fee Advisory Committee
Paula Tripp, 2007

Carried unanimously.

Student Housing Advisory Committee
Mimi Gregg

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program change proposal found at Attachment A.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate receives the recommendations of the Program Review Team (Attachment B) on the program review of the Gerontology Program and recommends the approval of the Bachelor of Science Degree and the minor in Gerontology be approved for six years or until the next review.

Carried unanimously.

Background: Article II, Section F of the By-laws of the CSUS Faculty Senate stated that "A vacancy in the voting membership of the Executive Committee shall be filled by nomination and election at the first meeting of the Faculty Senate after the vacancy occurs. The nominee elected shall have received more votes than any candidate not elected." Sue Cote, Senator representing Criminal Justice, has resigned.

The Faculty Senate nominates the following senators to fill a vacant at-large member position to the Executive Committee. (Members must be available to meet Tuesdays from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.):

Tony Sheppard, Recreation and Leisure Studies
Leo Legoretta, Management Information Science

Additional nominations may be made at the March 3, 2005 Senate meeting.

The Faculty Senate considered whether or not to place on the agenda for the March 3, 2005 Senate meeting the following motion for immediate action following debate:

Shall the name of this university be changed from California State University, Sacramento to Sacramento State University?

Carried.

Academic Policies Committee
Jean Gonsier-Gerdin, At-large, 2008

Faculty Policies Committee
Hao Nguyen, At-large 2007

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following program change proposals:

• Master's in Chemistry with Biochemistry Concentration (new program)
• Chicano Latino Studies Minor (new program)
• Pre-Credential Program in Art

The proposals are outlined in Attachment A.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate elects an at-large member to the Executive Committee. (Members must be available to meet Tuesdays from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.)

Anthony Sheppard, Recreation and Leisure Studies, was elected as an Executive Committee member to serve the remainder of the 2004-2005 year.

The Faculty Senate discussed whether the university should change its name from California State University, Sacramento to Sacramento State University.

RESOLVED:

1. The Faculty Senate requests the President to withdraw his acceptance of the recommendation of the Branding Committee to change the official name of the university from California State University, Sacramento to Sacramento State University and to cancel the forwarding of the proposal to the Board of Trustees.
    
2. That in the event the President declines to withdraw his acceptance and cancel the forwarding of the proposal, the Faculty Senate requests the Board of Trustees to reject the proposal to change the official name of the university from California State University, Sacramento to Sacramento State University.

Carried.

The Faculty Senate refers the following matter to referendum:

1. The Faculty requests the President to withdraw his acceptance of the recommendation of the Branding Committee to change the official name of the university from California State University, Sacramento to Sacramento State University and to cancel the forwarding of the proposal to the Board of Trustees.
    
2. That in the event the President declines to withdraw his acceptance and cancel the forwarding of the proposal, the Faculty requests the Board of Trustees to reject the proposal to change the official name of the university from California State University, Sacramento to Sacramento State University.

Carried.

Background: Due to differing interpretations of current CSUS policy governing graduate programs, particularly regarding 200-level courses, the Executive Committee requested that the Curriculum Policies Committee review the policy and propose language that was less ambiguous, but still provided flexibility. The current policy (AS 96-55) is as follows:

CSU, Sacramento graduate programs shall normally require that a minimum of 18 units in a 30- to 40-unit degree program and 36 units in a 60-unit program be earned in regularly scheduled 200-level courses requiring student participation (e.g., discussion) as the primary instructional method, and seminar courses requiring formal presentations by students and student responses to presentations as well as formal evaluation by the instructor.

Seminar 200-level enrollments should, whenever possible, be limited to fifteen.

All 200-level courses shall require students to demonstrate writing and/or presentation abilities appropriate for thesis/project and professional work and provide opportunities for interaction among students and between students and the instructor.

(Supercedes AS 96-55)

The Faculty Senate recommends that:

CSU, Sacramento graduate programs shall require a minimum of 18 units of 200 level courses (exclusive of field work, internships, independent study courses, and culminating experiences - 295, 299, and 500 level courses) in a 30- to 40-unit degree program (except in rare cases when a program is approved through the University curricular process for 15 units) and 36 units in a 60-unit program.

200 level courses (exclusive of field work, internships, independent study courses, and culminating experiences - 295, 299, and 500 level courses):

1. shall be regularly scheduled so that a full time graduate student can complete at least 15 units a year;
    
2. shall require formal evaluation by the instructor;
    
3. shall require students to demonstrate writing and/or presentation abilities appropriate for thesis/project and professional work;
    
4. shall provide opportunities for interaction among students and between students and the instructor;
    
5. may include lectures and student participation (e.g., discussion) or may include group presentations, discussions, or projects;
    
6. (in seminar format) should be limited to fifteen (15) students whenever possible.

Defeated.

Faculty Policies Committee
Ted Krovetz, At-large, 2008
Leo Legoretta, At-large, 2005

Carried unanimously.

Search Committee, Associate Vice President, Student Affairs, Campus Life
Bob Buckley, E&CS

Institutional Scholarship Committee
Karen Davis O'Hara, 2005

Carried unanimously.

Background: At its March 3, 2005 meeting, the Faculty Senate approved FS 05-05A, University Name Change, Resolution in Opposition and FS 05-05B, University Name Change, Request for Referendum. On March 15, 2005, the Faculty Senate received a memorandum (Attachment A) from President Alexander Gonzalez, detailing his decision not to pursue the recommendation forwarded by the Branding Committee to change the official name of the university from California State University, Sacramento to Sacramento State University. Since the President has decided to not pursue a change in the official name of the university and will not forward a proposal related to a name change to the Board of Trustees, a faculty referendum is now unnecessary.

The Faculty Senate requests reconsideration of FS 05-05B, University Name Change, Request for Referendum.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate refers the following matter to referendum:

1. The Faculty requests the President to withdraw his acceptance of the recommendation of the Branding Committee to change the official name of the university from California State University, Sacramento to Sacramento State University and to cancel the forwarding of the proposal to the Board of Trustees.
    
2. That in the event the President declines to withdraw his acceptance and cancel the forwarding of the proposal, the Faculty requests the Board of Trustees to reject the proposal to change the official name of the university from California State University, Sacramento to Sacramento State University.

Defeated unanimously.

Resolved:	The Faculty Senate commends President Alexander Gonzalez for reconsidering his acceptance of a recommendation from the “Branding Committee” to change the official name of the University in light of new information presented during the Senate’s deliberation on the matter, and therefore, be it
Resolved:	The Faculty Senate commends President Alexander Gonzalez for promptly seeking the input of the Associates Students, Inc., and representatives of the University Staff Assembly on the matter of a proposed change in the University’s official name soon after the Faculty Senate meeting on March 3, 2005, when he became aware of the fact that the recommendation he had received from the “Branding Committee might not fairly and accurately reflect the view of faculty, students, and staff on the matter; and be it further
Resolved:	The Faculty Senate commends President Alexander Gonzalez for his withdrawal of approval of the “Branding Committee’s” recommendation to change the official formal name of the University from “California State University, Sacramento” to “Sacramento State University” in response to the arguments and views expressed by the Faculty Senate, Associated Students, Inc., and representatives of the University Staff Assembly, and expresses confidence in his affirmation (in his letter dated, March 15, 2005) that he will not pursue a change of the University’s official formal name and seal; and be it further
Resolved:	The Faculty Senate urges the President to ensure that the Faculty Senate, University Staff Assembly and Associated Students, Inc. play a prominent role in future processes for deciding on common names/nicknames and symbols and revision of existing policies/guidelines pertaining to usage of formal and informal University names and symbols prior to adoption of recommendations on these matters, including recommendations from the “Branding Committee” and from the business firm (Osaki) contracted to develop an “identity package” for the University.

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate elects college representatives to the 2005-2006 Committee on Committees as follows:

2005-2006 COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

Committee Meeting Schedule:

#1: Tuesday, March 29, 3:00-4:00 p.m., SAC 275
#2: Tuesday, April 12, 3:00-4:00 p.m., SAC 275

Committee Members:

Cristy Jensen	Chair, Faculty Senate
Steve Perez	Vice Chair, Faculty Senate
Amy Liu	Member, Executive Committee (FPC Chair)
Stan Dundon	At-large Member, Executive Committee
Ben Amata	Member, Executive Committee (CPC Chair)
Mike Fitzgerald	At-large Member, Executive Committee
Tony Sheppard	At-large Member, Executive Committee
Dick Kornweibel	Member, Executive Committee (GE/GRPC Chair)
Bob Buckley	Member, Executive Committee (APC Chair)
Leilani Hall	Senior Library Senator
Vince Pantalone	Senior Student Services Senator
PLUS:	One senator elected from each College
Jason Gieger	College of Arts and Letters
Leo Legoretta	College of Business Administration
Karen Davis O'Hara	College of Education
Steven de Haas	College of Engineering and Computer Science
Dan Okada	College of Health and Human Services
Roger Leezer	College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Tim Fong	College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program change proposals found at Attachment A.

Carried unanimously.

Background: During the fall semester, the Senate Chair and the Vice President for Academic Affairs co-chaired the Task Force for Student Success to continue examination and implementation of a set of recommendations laid out in the CSU Report on Facilitating Graduation (2002). The Task Force considered recommendations in three areas: first year experiences for freshmen and transfer students; advising and roadmaps in general education, pre-major to major transitions, etc; and degree audits/transfer credit evaluations processes. This initiative was developed by the Executive Committee after it identified carryover funds available in the Senate Budget and secured a commitment of matching funds from the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Please see Attachment B for further information.

The Faculty Senate recommends adopting the policy on advising as outlined in the March 17, 2005 Attachment C.

Carried unanimously.

Search Committee, Associate Vice President, Student Affairs-Enrollment Management
Lakshmi Malroutu

ASI Elections Complaint Committee
Jordan Halgas, 2006

ASI Appellate Council
John LaRocco, 2006

Carried unanimously.

Background: At the November 18, 2004 Faculty Senate meeting, the Academic Policies Committee was asked to consider various options modifying the traditional academic calendar, i.e., shift spring break to coincide with the Cesar Chavez Holiday, extend the two-day Thanksgiving Break to the full week, including the preceding Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and insert a three-day Fall Break in the middle of the semester. The pros and cons of each option is outlined in the March 17, 2005 Faculty Senate Attachment D.

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the proposed 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 academic calendars (as amended, so that the Cesar Chavez Holiday falls within spring break).

Carried.

[additions in bold; deletions in strikeout]

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the Student Grade Appeal Process and the Grading Policy as follows:

(Amend subsection I.B:)

I. GRADES THAT MAY BE APPEALED BY THIS PROCESS

Assigned final letter of Credit/No Credit grades, otherwise known as course grades, may be appealed; but

A. Incompletes may not be appealed until a final letter or Credit/No Credit Grade has been assigned.

B. “U” grades may not be appealed.

BC. Grades assigned to particular pieces of student work or to particular student performances may not be appealed independently of their influence on the calculation of a course grade.

(Amend subsection II.A:)

II. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL AND BURDEN OF PROOF

To convince a grade appeal panel to alter a grade, a student shall allege and prove by a preponderance of the evidence one or more of the following compelling reasons for changing the grade assigned.

1. That the instructor assigned the grade arbitrarily.

Note: To make out a case of arbitrary grading, a student shall show that the instructor would not or could not give any reasons for the grade assigned rooted in failure to submit work or attend class or in the substance and form of the work submitted for grading either when that graded work was returned or subsequently in a routine conference to discuss the student's performance before the student had begun to seek any relief from the grade appeal process.

(Amend subsection V.B:)

V. DEFENSES TO AN APPEAL

1. To convince a grade appeal panel to maintain the grade assigned, an instructor defending a disputed grade shall show by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed grade was assigned reasonably.
    
2. A reasonably assigned grade is one that results from a careful evaluation of the work submitted for grading or as a consequence of a failure to submit required work or to attend class as required or some combination of these alternatives embodied in a grade report submitted to the Registrar in a timely manner. reported to the Registrar in a timely manner Work has been carefully evaluated (1) if the purpose of the evaluation has been to ascertain from the substance and form of the work itself the relative quality of the work submitted, (2) if the means of evaluation are reasonably related to achieving that purpose and (3) if the means of expressing that evaluation include some explanation of the results of it to enable the student to distinguish the better work from the worse for him- or herself. Grades so assigned are grades reasonably assigned within the meaning of this policy. Note: Means of evaluation are reasonably related to achieving the purpose of evaluation if, in the judgment of a grade appeal panel, they fall within a continuum of conceivable choices of means bounded on the one hand by means plainly or obviously adapted to the purpose and on the other by means not wholly or completely unrelated to it. A panel may not limit the extent of this discretion by substituting its own choice of reasonable means for an instructor’s choice, provided the instructor’s choice is within the continuum described in this note.

(see Attachment E-1 for an explanation of the WU grade)

[additions in bold; deletions in strikeout]

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the STUDENT GRADE APPEAL PROCESS to have the student consult with the department chair if the instructor is unwilling or unable to meet with the student, as follows:

(Adds to subsection VIII.A:)

VIII. GRADE APPEAL PROCEDURES IN DETAIL

A. Informal Process

1. Chair delivers this document to student.
    
2. Student meets with instructor. Students who believe that they have not received a reasonably assigned grade shall seek to resolve, in good faith, the matter informally with the instructor who assigned the grade. This shall be done as soon as possible, but no later than the end of the third week of classes of the semester following the semester in which the grade was assigned.

If the instructor cannot or will not attempt to resolve the matter informally by at least meeting with the student for a discussion of it before the end of the third week and the student has made a good faith effort, subject to verification, to secure an informal resolution by having a meeting with the instructor, the student shall at once notify the Chair as provided in subsection VIII.A.3, and the appeal shall go forward without further delay.

[additions in bold; deletions in strikeout]

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the STUDENT GRADE APPEAL PROCESS to 1) specify conditions necessary to demonstrate a violation of procedures, and 2) provide for a summary judgment to not move forward with an appeal in the case where the nature of the appeal is not a “violation of procedures”. (Adds new subsections 8 and 9 to IX.B and renumbers the remaining subsections accordingly:)

IX. APPEAL OF VIOLATIONS OF PROCEDURE

A. Procedural Appeals Board

B. Appeal of Violations of Procedure

1. Standard of review of the conduct of grade appeals
2. Who may appeal
3. Grounds for appeal
4. No change of grade pending resolution of an appeal
5. When to appeal
6. Letter of intent
7. Letter of appeal
    
8. Presumption. Panels and departments are presumed to have acted in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Grade Appeal Process. Therefore a party appealing shall seek first to persuade the Procedural Appeals Board by the contents of the letter of appeal and by the documents submitted with it by the party or by the Vice President for Academic Affairs to conclude the following:

1. That a panel may have committed the violation or violations of procedure alleged in the letter of appeal;
2. That the alleged violation or violations may have deprived the process as a whole of fundamental fairness; and
3. That the alleged deprivation may have been the sole cause of a decision by the panel adverse to the party appealing.

If the Board is not persuaded by the letter of appeal and documents submitted with it to reach each of the conclusions specified in items a through c, above, the Board shall take no further action on the appeal and the decision of the panel shall be upheld.

9. Summary Judgment. Whenever it appears on the face of a letter of appeal that the person appealing cannot prevail on his or her claim, the Board may dismiss the appeal at once. Normally, the Board shall exercise this discretion when the plain language of the Grade Appeal Process in and of itself precludes the claim being made, as for example when an oral hearing is claimed and the process provides for none but written hearings in the case.

108. Ordinary appeals.
119. Expedited appeals.
1210. Oral hearing.
1311. Disposition of appeals.

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the explanations and guidelines for assigning what might be characterized as "exception" grades and recommends that these explanations and guidelines be distributed to faculty (see Attachment A as amended).

Background on the guidelines can be found at Attachment A-1.

Carried.

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the Grading Policy as follows:

[underscore = addition]

(under GRADE APPEAL PROCEDURES)

While there is a presumption that grades assigned by faculty are correct, students who believe that a correct final grade has not been assigned may use the Student Grade Appeal Procedure. This procedure may only be used to appeal earned letter or "CR"/"NC" grades and the assignment of a WU grade.

Carried unanimously.

Academic Policies Committee
Mary Ann Reihman, At-large, 2008
Lisa Taylor, At-large, 2008

Committee on Diversity and Equity
Rhonda Rios Kravitz, At-large, 2008
Lila Jacobs, At-large, 2008

Faculty Policies Committee
Karen Davis O'Hara, At-large, 2008
Shawna Dardan, At-large, 2008

General Education/Graduation Requirements Policies Committee
Anne-Louise Radimsky, At-large, 2008
Janet Hecsh, At-large, 2008

Pedagogy Enhancement Awards Subcommittee
Richard Marens, CBA, 2008
Tim Horner, NSM, 2008

Livingston Lecture Annual Faculty Lecture Committee
Tim Capron, At-large, 2007
William Dorman, At-large, 2007

Carried unanimously.

University Logo Design Review Committee
Jason Gieger
Ernie Olson

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the following program change proposals (See Attachment A for further details).

Substantive Changes

• Master of Arts in Education-Behavioral Sciences Option – Women’s Studies
• Master of Business Administration for Executive (EMBA)
• Civil Engineering – Curriculum Changes

New Programs

• College of Business Administration – New Entrepreneurship Concentration
• New Minor – Criminal Justice – Forensic Investigation Minor

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends to the President establishment of a university-wide G.E. Honors Program for a total of 36 lower division and 9 upper division units. Nothing in this proposal would preclude other campus entities from submitting other Honors proposals.

(The vision statement of the ad hoc committee that worked on the development of the G.E. Honors Program can be found at the April 7, 2005 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment D-1. Senators had been directed to the following document in February at the following link: http://www.csus.edu/acse/GE_honors_proposal.htm.)

CONCEPT

The objective of the CSUS Honors Program is to attract highly motivated first time freshmen and provide challenging and stimulating liberal arts education in a small class setting. Honors students will pursue a cohesive program of study and form an academic community with fellow students organized in cohorts. The guiding principles of the Honors program will be active learning, global subject matter, and interdisciplinary approaches to study.

PROGRAM PARAMETERS

1. This program will provide enhanced lower division General Education for a total of 54 units; 45 of these units (36 lower division units and 9 upper division) will be Honors enhanced courses.
    
2. Entering freshmen meeting enhanced admissions criteria will be invited to join the program.
    
3. The program will be composed primarily of courses with an Honors designation. These will be either enhanced sections of established General Education courses or specially created courses.
    
4. A faculty Honors Committee will be responsible for curriculum, assessment, and nomination of a Program Director. The Honors Committee will be composed primarily of faculty teaching in the program, but with representation from colleges and departments not participating directly.
    
5. Acting with the advice of the Honors Committee, the Program Director will supervise student recruitment and admissions, faculty recruitment, program development, etc. The Honors Director will report to the General Education administrator.
    
6. With the exception of not more than three program seminars, courses will reside in appropriate departments. Selection of faculty and scheduling of Honors courses will be the joint responsibility of the department and the Honors Director.

CRITERIA FOR HONORS DESIGNATION OF COURSES

1. A focus on critical thinking and analysis.
    
2. Combining the breadth of the GE program with depth and exploration of basic concepts used in each discipline.
    
3. An interdisciplinary approach to study.
    
4. Active participation by students in their courses.
    
5. Small class size (enrollment limit of 30 with a minimum of 20) requiring discussion and/or research.
    
6. Humanities and social science classes in the Honors Program will have a global orientation.
    
7. Reading and written work that exceeds the expectations of standard lower division GE courses.

STUDENT ADMISSIONS

1. A program subcommittee will conduct student admissions.
    
2. All freshmen applicants to CSUS with high school 3.5 GPA or a 1200 SAT will be invited to apply to the Honors Program.
    
3. Other students of exceptional ability, enthusiasm, and commitment may apply.
    
4. All enrollees must have passed the CSU mandated EPT and ELM tests or be determined to be exempt from those requirements.

GOVERNANCE

1. As a university program, the Honors Program will report to Academic Affairs.
    
2. The University Honors Committee will be composed of six faculty teaching in the program, one faculty from each college without a course in the program and at least one member from Student Affairs. The Committee will exercise the same range of responsibilities as a departmental faculty. Members will be appointed by the General Education administrator.
    
3. The director will also be appointed by the General Education administrator upon nomination from the Honors Committee. The director will be responsible to faculty in the same way as a chair in a department and will report to the administrator of General Education as a chair reports to a dean.
    
4. An interim report shall be presented by the Honors Committee to the Faculty Senate no later than October 15, 2005 and a second report shall be presented no later than March 15, 2006.

PROPOSED STAFF AND BUDGET

• Six units of assigned time per semester for the Director: $20,000 per year (reimbursement to department for four courses).
   
• At least half-time clerical support ($12,000); two peer mentors for 10-20 hours per week. $6000 per semester at $10 per hour.
   
• At least two office rooms; and a classroom (near the program office) dedicated to Honors classes for 2-3 class periods per week.
   
• Sufficient OE to support operation of the office (mail, telephone, newsletter, etc.) and travel monies for students. $10,000
   
• At least three up-to-date computers.
   
• Funds to provide stipends to participating departments and instructors: at $500 per class.
   
• Additional funds (Learning Enhancement) to support out-of-classroom activities of Honors students.
   
• Funds for recruitment of students, etc. (Shared with University recruitment efforts)

A fair estimate for the annual cost of the program to Academic Affairs, not including scholarship funds, is $80,000 to Academic Affairs. The university, the colleges and the departments will all support the program in ways appropriate to and proportional to their participation.

(Appendix A (Proposed Program for Initial Cohort) can be found at the April 7, 2005 Faculty Senate Agenda Attachment D.)

Carried.

General Education/Graduation Requirements Policies Committee
Jordan Halgas, At-large, 2008

Faculty Endowment Fund Committee
George Paganelis, At-large, 2008

Livingston Annual Faculty Lecture Committee
Tom Owens, At-large, 2006

Pedagogy Enhancement Awards Subcommittee
Hong Wang, Library, 2008

Carried unanimously.

Search Committee for Assistant Vice President Academic Affairs, Student Academic Success and Educational Equity
Sylvester Bowie
Cristy Jensen

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate amends the charge and membership of the Writing and Reading Subcommittee of the Curriculum Policies Committee, as follows:

[underscore = addition]

A. Membership

The Writing and Reading Subcommittee of the Curriculum Policies Committee shall comprise one member from the English department and one member from each college serving three-year, overlapping terms, and the Coordinator of the Writing Program or designee, the Coordinator of the WPE, the Learning Skills Program Director or designee, and the Directors of the Center for Teaching and Learning and General Education, ex officio.

B. Charge

The Subcommittee shall:

• Advise departments and programs on means of meeting the Writing and Reading in the Majors policy;
   
• Advise departments and programs on the development of possible pilot projects;
   
• Advise Academic Affairs and the Center for Teaching and Learning on any matter related to the implementation of the policy;
   
• Advise the Curriculum Policies Committee on any proposed modification of the policy; and
   
• Evaluate self-study descriptions of current writing and reading requirements and assessment measures, and any changes planned to implement the Writing and Reading policy. and;
   
• Review and adjudicate GWAR appeals.

Carried unanimously.

WHEREAS:	Senate Bill 724 will authorize the CSUs to confer doctorates in selected professional fields such as audiology, physical therapy and education; and
WHEREAS:	The awarding of doctoral degrees in selected professional fields is consistent with the CSU mission of excellence in graduate education; and
WHEREAS:	Senate Bill 724 will allow audiology, physical therapy, and education programs that currently exist in the CSU system to meet the nationwide need and accreditation requirements for these professional educational programs; and
WHEREAS:	Senate Bill 724 will enable the audiology, physical therapy, and education programs that already exist and have faculty with the experience and expertise, to educate entry level practitioners at the doctoral level. These CSU programs have historically contributed to meeting the health care and education needs of Californians; and
WHEREAS:	CSU programs in audiology, physical therapy and education meet the curriculum requirements of specialty accreditation agencies recognized by the US Department of Education for specialty education at the doctoral level; and
WHEREAS:	The University of California system currently has very limited participation in the educational programs of audiology, physical therapy and education. The current size of the CSU/UC joint doctoral programs in education is not meeting the professional development needs of the State; therefore, be it
RESOLVED:	That the California State University, Sacramento Faculty Senate lends its full support to the passage of Senate Bill 724

Carried (with three abstentions).

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program change proposal at Attachment A.

Carried unanimously.

Center for Teaching and Learning Advisory Board
Kimo Ah Yun, 2008
Martin Biskowski, 2008
Ana Garcia-Nevarez, 2008

Curriculum Policies Committee
Leo Legoretta, At-large, 2008

Carried unanimously.

The Faculty Senate recommends adopting the following guidelines for deciding on the readmission of academically dismissed students:

1. A student applying for readmission who is a freshman or sophomore, and who has not successfully completed the Area A (Basic Subjects) and the Area B4 (quantitative reasoning) GE requirements is denied readmission and advised to complete these and other specified lower division GE and/or major requirements at a community college, and establish a pattern of success as a student, before applying for readmission.
    

2. Upper division students who have been dismissed for the first time will typically be readmitted, assuming an application packet has been submitted which includes evidence that would lead the committee to believe that the past pattern of failure will not be repeated (see the attachment readmission packet materials).
    

3. Upon readmission, the student will enter into a contract under the auspices of the Readmission Committee, which will remain in force until the student achieves good standing status. The contract will include at a minimum the following:

1. The student is limited to enrolling in no more than six (6) units [or seven (7) units if one of the courses requires four (4) units]. This six-unit limit is imposed for two semesters.*
    

2. The student must earn a C or better in all classes (no C- grades) taken during the first two semesters. If the student fails to satisfy this condition, the student will be dismissed again.
    

3. The student should meet with his/her adviser at least twice during the semester to discuss his/her academic progress and any problems that may be encountered.

NOTE. Recommendations from a student’s major department that may differ from these guidelines will be considered by the Readmission Committee.

* Once readmitted and after the first two semesters, the student may enroll in more than six (6) units. Typically, poor time management is a significant reason for student dismissals. Students should therefore be advised that repeating past patterns of taking too many courses while also having to deal with jobs, family matters, and other commitments could again affect academic performance and lead to a second dismissal.

4. A student academically dismissed for a second time will not be considered for readmission for a period of at least two years.

Rationale is provided at Attachment A and a chart that summarizes the categories of academic action and explains how a student becomes academically dismissed with the option of petitioning for readmission after a required stop-out period is provided at Attachment A-1.

Carried unanimously.