CSUDH Academic Senate Minutes

Approved February 10, 1999

CSUDH Academic Senate Minutes 10 February 1999 University Theater

Voting Members Present: Afrookhteh, Butler, Caldwell, Carter, Charnofsky, Christie, Colboth, Dominguez, Dowling, Fisher, Furusawa, Ganezer, Goders, Gould, Gray-Schellberg (Judy Todd), Hackett, Henschel, Heuschkel, Johnson, Johnston, Lalas, Lauerhass, Long, Malamud, McCarthy, McDermott, Sturn, Tinson, Vanterpool, Whetmore

Voting Members Absent: Biles, Britt, De La Camp, Kaplan, Kowalski, LaCorte, McEnerney, McNulty, O’Connor, Press, Smith, Valle, Watson, Williams

Non-Voting Ex-Officio Members Present: Bowman, Coleman, Lindsay, Pardon, Schoenwald, Sinclair, Smart, Stricker, Webb, Zahary

Guests: Don Adams (Computer Services), Charmayne Bohman (Graduate Studies), Leni Cook (SOE), Barbara Chrispin (SOM), Mary Cruise (SOH), Brian Dahm (Accounting Services), Joanna Dunklee (Library), Colleen Ehrenberg (Nursing), Linda Groff (Political Science), Janice Ely (Financial Mgmt), Karen Jean Hunt (Library), Howard Holter (CAS), Pamela Krochalk (Health Science), Michael Lordanich (University Police), Christina Luu (Budget & Financial Reporting), Jean McTaggart (Foundation), Antoinette Marich (SOE), Marlin Oleson (UAC), Al Rodriguez (Student Affairs), Audrena Redmond (CFA), Tom Rounds (UPAF), Jeff Smith (SOM), Dawn Shimizu (Foundation), Judy Todd (Psychology), Ricardo Ulivi (Finance), Khanh Vanpetten (AA), Peggy Wallace (SOH), BurhanYavas (SOM)

Chair Vanterpool called the meeting to order at 2:40.

Open Forum

CFA President Frank Stricker noted that all faculty should have received a green-color contract summary. CFA members will be able to vote for, or against, ratification of the contract; faculty who are not members can still join CFA in time to vote. The election will take place from 22-25 February; the polling place will be in the Library Lobby. Stricker noted that he had some problems with parts of the contract, e.g. in the areas of retroactive pay and in the blending of step increases with merit pay. Stricker invites faculty to attend the CFA meeting on February 16th in SOE 1107 Senator Whetmore spoke about the changes in graduation date, time, and format. There is a student petition with 350 signatures that opposes the current plan; a story is appearing in the Toro Times. Whetmore would like to introduce a resolution to support the students at the next Senate meeting. He can be contacted at x3822 or email ewhetmore. President Carter wants the record to be clear that some of these statements are not entirely accurate. He wanted to meet with Mary Patten (student newspaper writer), but had problems with her availability for setting up a meeting. Carter said that it was not likely that commencement date could be changed; however, he would be amenable to having individual school ceremonies after the original commencement. He does mind having his comments misinterpreted; part of the problem is being too divisive and not a community; he would like to celebrate a “university “ graduation. It is difficult to change plans in February for a May commencement. Chair Vanterpool noted that Senate Executive Committee had been consulted early Fall semester and supported the notion of a single commencement.

1 1. Approval of the Agenda Chair Vanterpool requested a motion that the agenda be renumbered such that approval of the Agenda would be item 1 and that adjournment would be item 8. M/S/P

2. Approval of the Minutes of December 9, 1998 Senator Gould noted and forwarded clerical corrections and forwarded these to Secretary Hackett. VPAA Zahary pointed out that his statement on p. 6 should be changed from “fifty” to “many” programs off- campus for SOE. M/S/P as amended

3. Information Items Chair Vanterpool informed the Senators that two documents were available for their review and response. These included:

a) Toward Setting A Course of Direction for California State University Dominguez Hills: A Report of the Committee on Mission, Goals and Directions.

b) Campus Technology Plan (A Report from the Technology Planning Task Force)

4. Parliamentarian’s Announcements

Parliamentarian Caldwell welcomed back the Senators from the winter session break. She noted the following changes to the Academic Senate Roster:

Graduate Education Department: Farah Fisher would replace Carrie Ann Blackaller English Department: Lyle Smith would replace Lois Feuer Earth Sciences: Brendan McNulty for Rod Hay

Caldwell also noted the following pending committee elections:

CSUDH Representative to the CSU Academic Council for International Programs 2 Faculty representatives for the Search Committee for the position of Director, Physical Plant 2 Faculty representatives to the Search Committee for position of Director of Admissions and Records

The following were announced as pending Committee Appointments for the Associated Students:

1 representative to the Finance Commission 1 representative to the ASI Senate 1 representative to the Student Judiciary 1 representative to the ASI Grievance Policy Review Committee

5. Chancellor Charles B. Reed Chair Vanterpool introduced Chancellor Reed and noted that this was his first “formal” visit to the campus, although he had been here several times prior to today’s meeting. Vanterpool recognized Reed’s efforts to get Herb Carter as interim President and noted the one-time funds that had been allocated to Carter for giving the campus a facelift.

Reed’s Address

Reed noted that he found the campus visits to be of value, and had come to learn appreciation of Herb Carter as President of CSUDH; considered the campus lucky and fortunate to have Carter here. Felt that there

2 had been tremendous changes in the past seven months at CSUDH; noted Carter’s efforts in developing strategic planning. Reed’s major reason for coming to the CSU system was the mission of the University. Reed followed this introduction with an outline of the priorities of the Board of Trustees:

1) The system should be focused on teaching and scholarship to provide for the workforce of California; the emphasis should be on scholarship and teaching. He is motivated to figure out how to get resources to meet the mission, and will appear before the (State) Senate Budget and Appropriations Commission next week. The system has a history, reputation, and culture of providing access; however, this access will be difficult with growth. He estimates that the system have between 125-150 K more students in the next seven years (Tidal Wave II); thus, the system will need to grow 3-4% each of those years. How can we continue to provide access with Tidal Wave II? Frankly, this is a resource problem. We (the system) have more capacity than we are currently using. There will be some “capacity expansion” due to the passage of Proposition 1A; however, not a lot. The 2.3-2.4 billion dollars allocated for the CSU system will largely pay for operating costs. There is a need to operate in a different way, i.e. more hours of the day, more days of the week, and year-round. Distance Education will become more significant; 15% of FTES will be accommodated via media/distance education formats. 2) Biggest single problem is that of improving public schools; we must have a K-16 plan. If there is no improvement in the K-16 area, then CSU can not get much better. CSU has direct responsibility for educating the majority of teachers in California. It is estimated that between 250 and 300 thousand public school teachers will be needed to compensate for student growth and for retirement of current teachers.

As a priority, the Board of Trustees adopted a plan to improve this situation; the focuses are: a) Must educate more teachers, with a goal of 25% expansion by 2000. Will be developing joint doctorates with UC for leadership positions in education. b) Must produce/educate better teachers.

Reed cited a study that noted that the single most important factor in student success is the performance of the instructor. Reed was “intrigued” by the “Ryan Act”, and noted that, on average, it takes about seven and a half years to become a teacher; he wants to get students into teaching earlier. Reed proposes having diagnostic tests for students, and setting standards for public schools. What is wrong with teaching reading all the way through twelfth grade? Notes that currently 54-55% of students needs some form of remediation. He would like to see the development of placement examinations in public schools.

3) CSU faculty has the responsibility to produce the workforce of California. 4) There will be a commitment to greater access to technology, viz. more access to information, to libraries, to learning.

Reed has met with the Statewide Faculty Senate and feels that there must be a culture of quality: in everything we do. He feels that we must recognize meritorious performance (70% of people deserve it). He wants to “push it (review of merit pay) as far as possible into the departments.” Reed contends that he will work as hard as he can to close the CPEC salary gap between the CSU and similar institutions. He noted that all twenty CPEC institutions have some form of performance-based pay. “These are my priorities with the Board of Trustees.”

[A question/answer period followed]

University Archivist Karen Jean Hunt (University Library/Archives Dept.) noted the use of technology in Archives and that there is the potential to use these materials as primary research materials. Currently there is no funding for professional development and she has to pay out-of-pocket to attend workshops about the use of technology in Archives. Will there be more/any professional development funds for untenured faculty?

Reed replied that the non-answer is Cornerstones; he wants to take this plan and make it an implementation plan. There is $7 million for faculty development; he is willing to go to the legislature to get more faculty development money.

3 Professor Linda Groff (Political Science) noted that she had associates affiliated with the Western Governors’ University; whereas, California has the California Virtual University but no manner of offering degree programs; is there any vision of changing that?

Reed replied that the previous governor had decided not to join Western Governors University. Reed has spoken to Gray Davis about this, and considers the WGU to be a shell. Reed wants to go slow enough in this area to learn more about education in this form. He does think that WGU bought some credibility via its affiliation with British Open University.

Professor Judy Todd (Psychology) wanted to comment on merit pay. As one who has worked very hard on campus and has also paid out-of-pocket for classroom materials, she wanted to note some observations that had been made with her colleagues, i.e. most faculty oppose merit pay. There is a need for more full-time faculty. Her concern is that the more that faculty express dismay with merit pay, the more you (CR) think it’s right.

Reed felt that the best colleges and universities have merit pay and that the CSU should do likewise; he contends that the fact that faculty are generally opposed to merit pay makes him think that his general direction, and decision, is correct.

Professor Ric Ulivi (Finance) also noted a lack of funds for mediated classrooms, and that few have Internet access; he stated that this guy (Reed) doesn’t know what happens in the classroom.

Reed replied that there is money in the budget for this issue; there is $117 million allocated to wire classrooms.

Professor Leni Cook (TED) noted that with respect to Tidal Wave II (baby boom echo student population), how can faculty be attracted to the CSU when starting salaries are 30% less than what some public school instructors make?

Reed replied that we would close the salary gap starting with a 6% increase. Faculty can be recruited at different levels.

Professor Barbara Chrispin (Management) noted that she had taught at CSUDH for twenty-five years. She is concerned about the reduction of FERP. What is the rationale for reducing FERP? Chrispin has performed a cost/benefit analysis on FERP that uses a methodology that has been used in other public sectors. The results indicate that the most cost-effective approach is to retain FERP and to use part-time faculty and lecturers.

Reed believes that FERP hasn’t worked the way it was designed; he is seeking more balance and flexibility within the system and thinks that FERP contributes to neither.

Senator Gould noted that the we have always had merit evaluation in the forms of the retention, tenure, and promotion process; there comes a point where too much time is spend on evaluation, that evaluation must end and that we spend that time doing the work of instruction.

Reed believes that the merit increase process is such that faculty won’t have to spend that much time with it. He has asked about the RTP process and feels that it is meaningless when ninety-nine percent of faculty get recommended.

Reed closed the question/answer session saying that he would work hard to address the problems raised.

6. First Reading Item a. EPC 99-01: Resolution on Informal Sharing of Curriculum Proposals

Chair Vanterpool introduced EPC 99-01, the resolution on the informal sharing of curriculum proposals; he recognized EPC Chair Lauerhass to present the resolution. Lauerhass noted that this resolution might appear strange to some, as most individuals on campus have probably not seen the booklet known as the “Curriculum Guide.” This contains certain procedures to be followed curriculum proposals or modifications have been made;

4 unfortunately, some of these procedures have not been followed properly. Several members of UCC have noted problems with the informal sharing of information that usually takes place at the beginning of the process [of curriculum proposals or modifications]. Under this resolution if the Chair of UCC has a copy of the informal sharing document(s), then the Chair would know that something is starting down the line. The second paragraph notes that any objections must include notification to the UCC Chair and to the VP for Academic Planning. In paragraph 4, line two is responsible for forwarding should be read as: must forward

Paragraph 5 should be read as: if the parties reach resolution, then all parties concerned will receive written notification

Lauerhass noted that this would be an action item in the Senate two weeks from today. Malamud noted that given the fact that we’re all on email these day, should not the onus of putting these on email or a web site be on the responsible committee? Lauerhass replied that the whole campus is not connected, nor is it concerned with all these issues; in addition, a written copy is needed that can be placed in a file, or it does not constitute part of a permanent record. There are certain things that don’t lend themselves to email for the entire campus. UCC needs hard copy. Chair Vanterpool thanked EPC for taking an interest in this subject, as there are some broader curriculum issues/ curriculum approval process in dealing with this subject. There has been some lack of clarity in terms of certain guidelines that have been promulgated between UCC and PRP/program review. Related to this is the issue of resources for recommendations when new programs arise; the campus used to have PARC. Further discussion is needed in terms of budget/resources and curriculum approval. Lauerhass noted that, as she understood it, PRP reviews programs that have already been approved, not new curriculum proposals.

7. Reports

Vanterpool stated that he wished to limit his report to three main items: 1) Tomorrow he will be attending the meeting of the campus Senate Chairs and the Executive Committee on the Academic Senate of the CSU. Items on the agenda include: Reports of updates to Cornerstones Implementation Plan Draft CFA/CSU Tentative Agreement Teacher Net Student Remediation

2) Process of constituting a task force on the review of the Delphi Academic Programs Consolidations Initiatives. Chaired by Robert Dowling; the full membership will be constituted shortly. The charge will be shared with the Senate at the next meeting. Close to the end of the semester, there will be a progress report; next fall, hopefully, the committee will have recommendations for the Senate to consider.

3) The Chair asks that all Senators review the Report of the Committee on the Mission Goals and Directions of the University. Chair Vanterpool would like to see some Senate input for this document. The second phase of this Committee will be to try to create a strategic plan, based on the recommendations in the report. A portion of the next Senate meeting will be devoted to discussing that document. Vanterpool would like to get a sense of the senate as to its endorsement of the recommendations of the Committee and to follow that up with a written response to President Carter.

Vice-Presidents

VPAA Chair Vanterpool informed the Senate that VP Zahary was taking Chancellor Reed around the campus to the different scheduled meetings; ergo, there would be no report today.

VPAF 5 George Pardon informed the Senate about some of the campus physical plant projects. These included: the painting project where the Small College is just about finished; will be moving to SBS next for exterior painting; chain link fence along Avalon and Victoria streets have been changed to wrought iron fence, amounts to a mile of fencing; feels that this is a significant improvement; will be signing a contract next week for the repair of the Field House roof. As far as the telecommunications infrastructure is concerned, there are significant dollars being put into that project; CSUDH has been designated as deficient in this area; the campus is first in line to get funding for that. Campus is scheduled to receive funding for the telecom infrastructure for FY99-2000, during FY 2000-01 there will be funding for all campus buildings to be wired. Chair Vanterpool asked how much the fencing project had cost; Pardon replied that it cost $160 thousand and that it is a great long-term investment for the campus. Parliamentarian Caldwell noted that years ago there was a long-range facilities Master Plan, and wondered if there were any thought of sequencing or projecting for facilities for the next ten to fifteen years. Pardon replied that there is a physical Master Plan for up to 20 thousand FTE and where those buildings would be. Every year we submit to the CO where we are with our FTE and where we are in terms of our actual capacity. Depending on where we grow, that will drive what building in the overall master plan will get built. Caldwell suggested that there are new faculty and staff that may not know about the Master Plan and hoped that they could be informed about it. Pardon said he would be happy to bring that back to the Senate. Senator Colboth regretted that no one talked to the Chancellor about under funding during the question-answer period; has anyone raised this with him while he is on campus. Pardon replied that the students had brought up under funding during their meeting with him. Students were the carriers of that issue. Reed realizes that there is a structural problem in the overall budget allocation plan, and that he did not have any immediate solutions to that. Colboth also noted that the custodians had cleaned a blackboard with a mop and now it resists chalk. Are we training the custodians not to destroy the blackboards? Pardon has attended the training sessions for all three shifts; has done a survey of where those blackboards are and is in the process of replacing them. Senator Gould informed the Senate that both he and Senator Charnofsky have been faculty representatives on the Planning Committee; however, they rarely Report of physical facilities planning as Margaret Coda-Messerle usually reports with the professionals whose jobs are to inform and implement such matters. Malamud noted that he handed a copy of the WASC Report (pertaining to funding) to the Chancellor as he (CR) was walking out the building. While he had the floor, he wondered if there were any plan for the space between SBS and student housing, viz. are we going to do anything with it, e.g. parking? Pardon replied that it is in the master plan for growth; however, there are drainage/leveling/access problems with the site for use as a parking area; would be a costly alternative, and certainly would have used all the one-time money that we got this year. Caldwell assumed that there was representation from senior faculty for the Campus Master Plan, and felt that there are new faculty who have not had the chance to look at the overall structural projections for the campus; feels that there is an educational opportunity for these people to learn about the campus facilities. Gould noted that he had been elected to this Planning Committee for a two-year term about seven years ago.

Statewide Senators Statewide Senator Dick Williams informed the Senate that response to the Cornerstones Implementation Plan is needed; there is very little time to act. Pertaining to the proposed tentative agreement between the CFA/CSU, there is a provision for faculty merit pay increases based on criteria determined by the faculty; the Senate needs to act quickly on this. Williams asked how many Senators were aware of the UAIS (Unified Access Information System); he noted that this would allow us to access the online catalogs of all CSU campuses and would be linked to an inter library loan request system. Williams also noted that the system has signed a contract with a company that provides computer-based training to the campuses; training courses can be downloaded to an individual’s computer so that they might learn WordPerfect, Java, etc.; there are approximately five hundred tutorials that we have access to; each campus gets a core of 400 courses, plus 100 of its own choice; there are about 1500 tutorials to choose from. He also noted that we should be hearing from Don Adams about the contract that has been signed with Microsoft for software site licenses on the campus; in addition, there has been a contract signed with a local wholesaler that allow faculty to purchase MAC or Wintel machines at two percent over cost. Vice-Chair McDermott asked what the status was of the development of a statewide form for criteria for faculty merit pay. Williams noted that this would most likely be taken up in the Statewide Senate meeting within the next two days; he felt that the Senate, as it has done in the past, would leave this as a campus prerogative.

6 Statewide Senator Charnofsky noted that Chair Dinielli had set up an ad hoc committee on merit pay. This group will meet tomorrow from 3-5 to determine if this committee will draft criteria or whether to recommend that each campus do this itself. Charnofsky informed the Senate that it is written in HEERA for Senates to come up with the criteria.

Chair Vanterpool noted the contributions of Camille Clayton as secretary in the Academic Senate’s Office; she will be taking a position in the private sector. Chair Vanterpool expressed his thanks for her efforts and the Senate applauded her.

Emeritus Faculty Association Senator Colboth, speaking for Representative de la Camp, noted that the Association would have an ethnic lunch (Yugoslavian) in San Pedro on March 2; recommended that all come who enjoy a good meal with mature adults. He also noted that the process for attaining Emeritus Faculty status sometimes takes up to ten calendar months; recommended that this process be reviewed so that people could be recognized in May prior to their leaving the campus. This is nobody’s fault, but wants to review and amend the PM so that the process is quicker.

ASI Senate ASI Representative Chris Tinson noted that there was a Toro Times article submitted by a student that stated a faculty resolution would be forthcoming about commencement. Senator Whetmore replied that the article referred to him, and that he would attempt to introduce a resolution in the Senate. The ASI has added a preamble to the Student Bill of Rights, which was introduced as a first reading item last semester. He (CT) noted that Senator Colboth would be assisting the Student Grievance Committee. The Student Technology Committee has hired a controller who will start in two weeks. The Child Development Center will be having a luncheon on Friday February 19 in the Grand Hall. Senator Colboth asked how many students had used the new student grievance procedure. Tinson thought that three had used it; about seven or eight sought to use it, but found it to be tedious or convoluted. Colboth felt that the procedure should be reviewed in order to streamline it.

8. Adjournment

Chair Vanterpool made a motion to adjourn at 4:35.

Respectfully submitted, Timothy Hackett Secretary, CSUDH Academic Senate