Of the Academic Senate Meeting

Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting October 21, 2009

PRESENT: Alex, Almaraz, Avina, Baker(Proxy-Garver), Ballinger, Caffrey, Chase(Proxy-Kopplin), de Freitas, Delgado(Proxy-de Freitas), El Naga, Eskandari, Garver, Ghazanfari(Proxy- Halati), Gibson(Proxy-Sandelin), Goldman, Green, Haghi, Halati, Ibrahim, Kopplin, Lee, Leon, Lord, Marshall(Proxy-Kopplin), Monemi, Morehouse, Neto, Ortenberg, Radnitz, Sancho-Madriz, Sandelin, Self, Soroka, Speak(Proxy-Garver), Swartz(Proxy-Halati), Wachs, Wang(Proxy-Halati), Gutierrez, Le

GUESTS: M. Ortiz, M. denBoer, L. Rotunni, S. Doda, D. Freer, D. Cuneo, A. Feinstein, R. Fremont, E. Hohmann, U. J. Fan, D. Straney, B. Hacker

1. Minutes –September 30, 2009

M/s/p to approve the Minutes as written.

2. Information Items

a. Chair's Report

Chair Sancho-Madriz reminded the senators to sign the attendance sheet.

b. President’s Report

President Ortiz reported that the Chancellor’s Office released an additional $1.3 million of stimulus money to go directly to Academic Affairs. The funds are specified for additional class sections. Also, the campus will use the income from the cell tower rental, approximately $1 million, for the same purpose.

In November the Board of Trustees will submit their budget for 2010-11.

Agricultural Research Initiative (ARI) – Four CSU campuses will receive $693,000 in federal appropriations for 2010. Cal Poly Pomona will be receiving one fourth of the funds. The ARI focuses on new and promising technologies that have the potential for improving food safety, environmental stewardship, economic performance, and long-term sustainability of California's agriculture industry. The initiative also helps to foster and build upon university-industry partnerships while increasing the reach of publicly funded research. The campus contact persons are David Still in Agriculture and Don Hoyt, Research Office. ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES – OCTOBER 21, 2009

BUDGET DISCUSSION - Provost denBoer

Provost denBoer discussed the process for dealing with budget cuts in the Academic Affairs Division. He will be talking to various groups, including the Senate. Dr. denBoer encouraged the senators to communicate with the faculty in their colleges. The goal is to preserve as much of the university as possible and make cuts wisely. At the same time, the numbers are such that they do matter. The following topics were mentioned:

 Merger of small departments – some savings – administrative costs, faculty time on committees reduced  Program merger and program closure – not department closures  The number of courses only useful for a specific department or major – cost savings over time  Planning and accountability – academic program indicators  Rubric to guide the decision making process – preserve the identity of the campus  Rubric and qualitative judgments  Timetable – Dr. denBoer plans to meet with departments that may be targeted for potential program cuts. Referrals will be sent to the Senate by the end of the Fall Quarter.

DISCUSSION

A question was raised regarding the process. The departments were told a few weeks ago that they had three days to respond. Departments submitted the information and now find out it was a draft. The departments are unclear what they should respond to. Dr. denBoer responded that a few weeks ago was the discussion with the deans. We needed to have examples and Dr. denBoer asked all the deans to provide at least one narrative. This is an ongoing process.

The perception that the only safe department is a big department was questioned. Faculty members are upset wondering how the “magic threshold” was arrived at; why it is better to be big to be safe; and, small is not good. How was that determined? Dr. denBoer responded and pointed out there cannot be a university without liberal arts; but, the numbers do matter. If you offer a program that needs lots of courses specific to the major to make it a viable degree, that major is more costly. The senator questioned does it cost a large department less to educate a student than it does a small department. Dr. denBoer stated “Yes, at the end of the day it does matter, FTES pays the bills”. ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES – OCTOBER 21, 2009

Graduate programs were mentioned. The threshold is 100 students. The opinion was expressed that graduate programs are fairly new at the university and that the threshold is a bit drastic. Dr. denBoer stated that 100 was chosen simply so that the university can look at those and the future of the program. A smaller program that has a strong future is something to consider. Dr. denBoer stated that small differences may make the difference, but it is eventually a judgment call.

A senator stated that the most disconcerting thing is that faculty members do not know what is going on. Today there is more information, prior to today there has been terrible communication. It was not clear when the departments worked on the rubrics what the indicators meant (the example of a unique course was used). Also, the college was told to put it in tweets. It is difficult to define your life in a tweet. Dr. denBoer stated that it was a guideline.

The point was made that there are so many questions. What is happening is that it is unclear what comes next. Clear information is not sent out to the constituencies and it is very difficult. The lack of information is breeding paranoia and frustration. A suggestion was made that we need to have a method to address this issue. Dr. denBoer responded that if he knew what the budget would be, he could be more definite. Part of the uncertainty is about the budget, even this year’s budget. The state revenues are coming in at a lower rate than projected. Uncertainty in the budget creates uncertainty in the process. Dr. denBoer stated that he has tried to do a good job communicating. He has communicated very often with the deans, AADBAC, the Academic Senate and the Executive Committee. He does not have definite information.

The question was raised, are we closing programs or departments? The point was made that if there is some sharing with other campuses, some of these programs might be saved. If two campuses can offer one program it might not be necessary to close it. We might offer the alternative of temporarily closing a program and not have it disappear completely. Down the road it might be a program that the campus would want. Dr. denBoer stated that he tried to indicate that this is a long term process, in terms of five years.

A budget presentation in a previous meeting outlined the cuts to all the divisions. The assumption is that the all divisions are taking the same cut as a percentage of their budget. The opinion was expressed that there might be bigger cuts to the things that are not central to academics. The senator argued that clubs for example are not vital. Other things not directly related to instruction become frills. Most would agree that if a student were given a choice they would rather have the courses to graduate than a club. Dr. denBoer responded that he did not agree, clubs are important. We do not want the campus to become a DeVry. Also, he responded that when you look at the budget Academic Affairs is 2/3 of the ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES – OCTOBER 21, 2009

university budget. The cut will be on our portion of the university budget. He made the point that even massive cuts in other divisions arenot going to solve the problems in Academic Affairs. He stressed that we do need many of the services that the other divisions provide.

Merger of programs was discussed. What is the real cost analysis, how do you save? Dr. denBoer clarified a merger and closing a program. He stated that when you merge two programs/departments there is a savings of administrative support and department chair. It is not a lot of money, but you save in indirect ways. If there is one department, it is easier to staff faculty committees for example. The question was raised if Dr. denBoer had the statistics to support it? These are not large savings. The senator commented that maybe we are being too optimistic about the savings.

The concern about filling out the rubric and who will read them and make decisions was voiced. Dr. denBoer clarified that it will first be discussed with the dean, AADBAC, and Provost denBoer. Ultimately the decision will be made by the Provost.

The issue of Academic Affairs being central to the mission of the university was brought up. Faculty members have this idea that other divisions are not being asked to cut what faculty might call frills. The opinion was expressed that it may not be necessary to have several different multicultural centers. There could be an umbrella of centers with maybe one or two directors rather than one for each, achieving savings without completely eliminating the centers

The increase in the number of MPPs was also questioned. The data distributed through the CFA listserv seems to show an upward trend of MPP over the years and a huge difference for Cal Poly Pomona. Provost denBoer stated that the data is flawed. He will post the correct data. The senator stated that there needs to be more communication with faculty.

Employee cell phones were discussed. Dr. denBoer stated that the cost of a cell phone is less than the cost of tracking down an employee in the field to pass on information.

Dr. denBoer touched on the issue of the cultural centers. He stated that the university prides itself in the diversity of the campus. If you make a rainbow of diversity programming it would put a number of diversity programs in one place. It might be offensive to some. The point was made that there is a cost to run the individual programs. The salary of the person running it was mentioned as the largest cost.

A senator stated that each department/college is given a target and is responsible to maintain the target. Sometimes departments run some classes with lower enrollment and balance the FTE by having a larger ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES – OCTOBER 21, 2009

enrollment in other courses. This approach can provide the opportunity to maintain a lower enrollment in courses specifically for majors. Also questioned was the costing savings of merging departments. The savings are approximately $50-100 thousand provided there is a staff layoff or reassignment as well as the cost of the department chair stipend. Are there statistics that support this or is this hypothetically what might be saved? Dr. denBoer stated that in terms of staff savings –it is a clear saving. There will be fewer staff here in the next year. The department chair savings depends on the department. The senator asked if it would be reasonable to put the savings on paper and not hypothetically -- not what might be saved but what actually would be saved by merging departments.

A question on the rubric -- where do the faculty send comments? Dr. denBoer responded that he is doing that in a sense today. One of the questions raised was regarding assessment. Assessment has been given high priority. In some colleges because of accreditation, colleges might be assessed and the department level may not be assessed. Dr. denBoer responded that assessment is not new. Accreditations have been done for decades. He stated that there is a difference between them, but they both want the university to be able to demonstrate that students are learning. Dr. denBoer stated he will be looking at the overall picture for each program.

The point was made that the university is doing everything to preserve employment, yet we have not started showing actual cuts besides programs and employment. A suggestion was made to show the data for the cuts then proceed to other things.

Dr. denBoer stated that he cannot talk about personnel. There are certainly savings going on. He cited the union that voted not to participate in the furloughs. Six employees have been laid off. Further cuts will be come as time goes on. The senator expressed the opinion that faculty have to be convinced that these decisions about programs need to be made. It is not apparent what the other divisions are doing to cut their budgets.

A question was raised regarding the rubrics and the years that will be used to review the qualitative information. Dr. denBoer responded that he will look at a five-year directive.

The issue of MPP salaries was mentioned a second time. The opinion was expressed that the salaries have been going up. The general undercurrent on campus is that the number of MPP and MPP salaries has gone up faster than faculty. Whether the CFA information is correct or not, faculty are upset. This is the sense of the faculty. A senator stated that the perception does exist. Where are the numbers? Dr. denBoer stated that he would be happy to distribute the information. ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES – OCTOBER 21, 2009

A visitor stated that it seems that the size of the program is being defined by the number of majors as well as the cost of the program. Both are tied to offering courses specific to the major. In many cases the number of majors and cost effectiveness for the major courses are not the only indicators. Some departments have a high FTE count in support classes; therefore, they are valuable to the college or university.

Chair Sancho-Madriz stated the he understood that Provost denBoer was going to discuss the rubric at this meeting. Confusion was expressed because when departments filled out the preliminary report there was not a rubric. Do the departments have to go through it again? He expressed the opinion that faculty input is needed on the rubric. Dr. denBoer responded that these rubrics have been developed over time. They were changed in large part after the first of narratives were received. There is more opportunity for comment and change. We have to be careful because, at some point, it has to close.

The point was made that the faculty should have a clear outline of the process. We get the sense that the deans know about this more than the faculty. Information is trickling down to faculty as necessary and faculty members are asked to do it quickly. Dr. Sancho-Madriz stated that there needs to be more discussion on this. Chair Sancho-Madriz was under the impression that the rubric would be discussed today. Dr. denBoer responded that it was his original thought to do so; but, he realized it would take a lot of time.

A special meeting of the Academic Senate was suggested to review the rubric.

The point was made that faculty have concerns. The uncertainty is more stressful and damaging that what may or may not happen. This results in paranoia and hypothesizing. There should be more information and involvement.

M/s/p that the Academic Senate hold a special meeting of the Academic Senate to discuss the rubrics on October 28, 2009 from 3 – 5 p.m. A petition was presented. The Executive Committee will meet after the meeting to discuss the petition.

President Ortiz stated that what is being discussed today is a realization of what he tried to warn the Senate about in the past few months. He stated that the State of California has turned it back on higher education. The financial challenge the university is facing is close to to three times that of the employee furloughs. - Faculty members are concerned and staff are uneasy because of the potential layoffs next year. He asked the senators to stop pointing fingers about who is cutting what and look at the fact that Academic Affairs needs to reduce its budget. He said “ask how are going ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES – OCTOBER 21, 2009

to do it, not what are others doing.” He stated that the Provost, since the day he arrived on campus, has tried to be as transparent as possible. The issue is how you reduce the budget in Academic Affairs, not what other divisions are doing and if their services are necessary. This is ugly and nasty and it will get uglier. We have to all deal with it.

c. Vice Chair's Report

NEW REFERRALS: (6)

AP-001-910 Renaming of the History “Track I” to “History Major” and “Track II” to “History –Pre-credential Option” AP-002-910 Collins Minor Name Change

BC-001-910 Effects of Budget Cuts

FA-001-910 Adjusting the URTPC Size and Structure GE-001-910 ART 212, ART 213, ART 214, ART 216, World Art Series – GE Course Title Changes GE-002-910 ART 211, World Arts: Arts of Africa, Oceania and Native America

SENATE REPORTS FORWARDED TO PRESIDENT: (2)

AS-2321-910/EP Review of Policy on Absences for Meetings of the Academic Senate AS-2232-910/AP Master of Interior Architecture

PRESIDENT REPONSES TO SENATE REPORTS: (0)

d. Budget Report

Barry Soroka reported.

 Academic Affairs accounts for 2/3 (66.87%) of the total budget distributed to the divisions  All divisions are being hit with at 24% cut from their base budgets of 2008-09  Centrally managed costs are up. This is mostly due to a mandatory increase in financial aid which is tied to the student fee increase.

The Academic Senate website had detailed information at: http://www.csupomona.edu/~senate/102109packet.htm

e. CSU Senate Report ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES – OCTOBER 21, 2009

Resolutions Summary

One purpose of this summary is to provide Academic Senate CSU senators, campus senate chairs, and CSU colleagues with a comprehensive list of Academic Senate CSU resolutions acted upon at the last Academic Senate CSU plenary meeting. These resolutions will be listed by: Resolution Number; Sponsoring Committee(s); Resolution Title; Action Status followed by brief summaries written by the sponsoring committee chair(s). Full copies of each resolution may be accessed by clicking on the Resolution Title.

In addition, it is important to note that a comprehensive list of Academic Senate CSU resolutions introduced in First Reading at the last Academic Senate CSU plenary meeting is provided for your perusal; please communicate your comments and suggestions on these First Reading items to the sponsoring committee chair(s) for their consideration as follows:

Academic Affairs Committee (AA): James Postma; [email protected] Academic Preparation and Educational Programs (APEP): Bob Buckley; [email protected] Faculty Affairs Committee (FA): Kevin Baaske; [email protected] Fiscal and Governmental Affairs (FGA): Buckley B. Barrett; [email protected]

Resolutions

AS-2906-09/FGA: CSU Budget Request for 2010 Approved Unanimously September 2009 (First Reading Waived)

The CSU suffered more than a half billion dollar cut in state funding in 2009-10. This is on top of cumulative cuts of more than another half billion dollars during the past five years. It is critical that the State desist from making further cuts in the CSU budget if California is to maintain its competitive position in a global economy which will rely significantly on a well educated workforce. The resolution urges that the Chancellor and Board of Trustees pursue restoration of Compact and federal-stimulus dollars as well as funding for the lost salary funds agreed upon in latest collective bargaining agreements. It further strongly requests that the Board eschew salary cuts and furloughs within their official planning documents. We advise enrollment limited to those numbers of students for which the CSU is fully funded. Finally, the ASCSU recognizes that any reductions to the CSU budget clearly and negatively impacts educational mission of the CSU. ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES – OCTOBER 21, 2009

AS-2908-09/APEP: Mitigation of the Impact of Systemwide Enrollment Management Policies on Graduate and Post- Baccalaureate Credential Programs Approved Unanimously September 2009 (First Reading Waived)

This resolution reflected a concern raised regarding what appeared to be a systemwide mandate indicating that November 30 would be the date for the closure of priority application filing for fall 2010. Since significant numbers of the students applying for fall admission to graduate programs do so well into the spring semester; shutting down applications in the fall semester could negatively impact many graduate programs. Notices posted to CSU Mentor had led to the concern that is expressed in this resolution. Discussion with a CSU Enrollment Management Services Official failed to allay the concern. As of September 22, 2009 the message on CSU Mentor home page is still incorrect. It is important to note that we now know that there is no CSU mandate to close priority application filing for fall 2010 on November 30th. Each campus has discretion in setting the length of the filing period.

AS-2910-09/APEP: Support for the Continuation of a Planning Process to Re-envision the Lower Division Transfer Patterns (LDTP) Project Approved Unanimously September 2009 (First Reading Waived)

While efforts to facilitate the process for students transferring from California Community Colleges to CSU campuses remain a high priority, the cost of current efforts has become difficult for the CSU to sustain. Consequently, faculty and CSU administration are in the process of rethinking how best to continue these efforts but in a more cost effective way. This resolution endorses this approach and especially the efforts to more effectively collaborate with colleagues representing the California Community College (CCC) system. We expect that additional resolutions and communications with campuses will be forthcoming as this “re- envisioning” process proceeds.

AS-2911-09/FGA: Concern over Delay in Governor’s Appointment of CSU Faculty Trustee Approved Unanimously September 2009 (First Reading Waived)

In the academic year 2008-09, the ASCSU conducted a thorough, careful, and participative process to recommend to the governor two candidates for the CSU Faculty Trustee position. After completing a six month search while duly following the Education Code requirements, the ASCSU voted in March 2009 to send two names forward to the Governor’s office for consideration. Because of the subsequent, multi-month postponement of the naming of the CSU Faculty Trustee, the 45,000+ California State University faculty have not had governance representation on the CSU Board of Trustees since May of 2009. This constitutes a serious delay and ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES – OCTOBER 21, 2009

disenfranchisement of the faculty during momentous times of budget upheaval. Therefore, the resolution admonishes the Governor to act quickly and appoint one of our candidates to this critical position.

Resolutions in First Reading

Please note that the following items were introduced at the September 10-11, 2009 meeting and will be acted upon during the November 5-6, 2009 meeting. Campus comments and suggestions are very much encouraged. Please send any questions/comments directly to the chair of the committee that has proposed these resolutions at the e-mail address listed above. You may access full text of the First Reading Item Packet at: http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/documents/09- 09_firstreadingitem_packet.pdf

AS-2907-09/FA: A Call to Postpone the Cycle of Program Review

The Resolution acknowledges the significant reduction to the CSU budget for 2009-2010 that has disrupted standard academic programming and that in such an unprecedented time of crisis, it is reasonable to expect that measures of program quality or satisfaction will most likely not be representative of actual program quality. The resolution notes that cuts to the CSU have resulted in furloughs to faculty that reduce working hours, and that the side letter of agreement between the CSU and CFA makes the point that such cuts have consequences for the quality of education we can provide, and that there should, indeed, be a concomitant reduction in the teaching, scholarly and professional achievements, and service activities performed by faculty. The resolution ultimately urges campuses to consider suspending the program review cycle in years when furloughs are in effect, except in cases where an external review is underway or required by accrediting bodies.

AS-2912-09/FA: Furlough Implementation and Faculty Rights

This resolution urges campus administrators to abide by the side letter agreement between the CSU and CFA regarding the implementation of the faculty furlough programs. Campus administrations are urged to refrain from imposing restrictions or guidelines that further complicate, restrict or constrain faculty rights to reduce their workload in accordance with the side letter. The resolution also reminds campus administrations that curricular operations are within the purview of the faculty and that implementation of faculty furloughs should not infringe on this prerogative.

AS-2913-09/AA: Teaching and Service Responsibilities in Times of Budget Constraints

The Resolution acknowledges the unprecedented circumstances created by the State’s budget allocation to the CSU and the impact that furloughs ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES – OCTOBER 21, 2009

will have on the ability of faculty, staff, and administrators to accomplish the tasks necessary for quality programs and educational processes. It goes on to resolve that campus senates help to ensure that demands are lowered concomitant with the time and dollar resources and that tasks with lower priority or impact, such as program reviews or post-tenure reviews, be held in abeyance.

e. CFA Report

Gwen Urey distributed a handout that summarized the CFA Chapter Meeting October 14, 2009. The upcoming events were listed on the handout.

3. New Business

a. Emeritus Status – Robert E. Bray

Robert E. Bray, Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, has retired after the regular Emeritus cycle and would like to receive the rights and privileges of Professor Emeritus. The Department has recommended he be given emeritus privileges and the Department will submit a formal resolution in Spring 2010.

M/s that the Academic Senate recommend to President Ortiz that Robert E. Bray be given the rights and privileges of Professor Emeritus upon retirement.

The motion passed unanimously.

4. Academic Senate Committee Reports

a. AS-2216-067/AA, Clarification of the Formation, Dissolution, Merger, or Movement of an Academic Department – Resubmission - SECOND READING

M/s to adopt the report.

Senator Green presented the report.

RECOMMENDATIONS – SEE ATTACHMENT A

DISCUSSION – Dr. Green explained that there was quite a bit of discussion on the report. The larger font represents the latest change. All changes are incorporated into Attachment A.

This item is a reconsideration of a Presidential response and therefore requires a 2/3 vote. ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES – OCTOBER 21, 2009

The motion to adopt passed unanimously.

b. AP-014-089, New Master of Science in Hospitality Management (MSHM) – SECOND READING

Senator Ibrahim presented the report.

RECOMMENDATION

Taking the issues raised above into consideration the Academic Programs Committee recommends approval of the referral AP-014-089, New Masters of Science in Hospitality Management (MSHM) as a special session program inside the Extended University.

DISCUSSION

Senator Ibrahim explained that the program is essentially cost free for the University. This will have no impact on the budget. No comments have been received since the First Reading.

This will be first program of this kind in California. This program has industry support.

The question was raised since it is self-supporting will that apply to only the start up. Dean Feinstein responded that this will be self supporting for as long as the Masters degree is offered through Continuing Education. The only way it would be transferred to the State side would be if the proposal was sent back through the Senate referral process. The resources will be drawn from an endowment.

The question was raised whether or not all our masters are going to be privatized. Master programs are separate and distinct programs the State side programs will not transfer to Continuing Education.

A senator asked the question on how the teaching will be financed? Dr. Feinstein responded that the program will be run like a business model. The faculty in the Collins College would be teaching course outside their normal teaching requirements if they teach in this program. At this time, the plan is to schedule classes for Fridays and weekends so it does not conflict with the undergraduate program.

c. AP-015-089, Elevate Art History Option to Major – SECOND READING

M/s to adopt the report. ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES – OCTOBER 21, 2009

Senator Ibrahim presented the report.

RECOMMENDATION

The Academic Programs Committee recommends approval of the referral AP-015-089 to Elevate Art History Option to Major.

There is no budget impact for this program.

d. GE-015-089, Change in GE Credit for IGE 223 and IGE 224 Program – SECOND READING

The IGE Department has requested that this referral be postponed indefinitely.

M/s/p to postpone GE-015-089, Change in GE Credit for IGE 223 and IGE 224 Program, indefinitely.

e. GE-001-089, EWS 330, Ethnicity and Family Life, SECOND READING

Senator Kopplin presented the report.

RECOMMENDATION

The General Education Committee voted unanimously to support GE-001- 089, EWS 330, Ethnicity and Family Life (GE Area C4/D4), 7-0-0

This is not a new course and requires no new faculty.

f. GE-002-089, EWS 280, Community Service Learning, SECOND READING

RECOMMENDATION

The General Education Committee voted unanimously to support GE-002-089, EWS 280, Community Service Learning (GE Area E), ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES – OCTOBER 21, 2009

8-0-0.

g. GE-006-089, EWS 301, Ethnic Identity, SECOND READING

RECOMMENDATION

The General Education Committee believed that the class meets the criteria for a GE Synthesis class and that it contains a significant and meaningful writing component and voted unanimously to recommend GE- 006-089, EWS 301, Ethnic Identity (GE Areas C4/D4) class.

h. GE-011-089, FL 271, Intermediate Chinese I, SECOND READING GE-012-089, FL 272, Intermediate Chinese II, SECOND READING GE-013-089, FL 273, Intermediate Chinese III, SECOND READING

M/s to adopt the reports.

Senator Kopplin presented the reports.

RECOMMENDATION – GE-011-089

The General Education Committee voted unanimously to support GE-011- 089, FL 271, Intermediate Chinese I (GE Area C3), 8-0-0.

RECOMMENDATION GE-012-089

The General Education Committee voted unanimously to support GE-012- 089, FL 272, Intermediate Chinese II (GE Area C3), 8-0-0.

RECOMMENDATION- GE-013-089

The General Education Committee voted unanimously to support GE-013- 089, FL 273, Intermediate Chinese III (GE Area C3), 8-0-0.

I. GE-017-089, EC 100, Contemporary Economic Issues, SECOND READING ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES – OCTOBER 21, 2009

RECOMMENDATION The General Education Committee voted 5-0-0 to support GE-017-089, EC 100, Contemporary Economic Issues, Area D2.

j. GE-021-089, Central Library of General Education Extended Course Outlines, SECOND READING

RECOMMENDATION

The General Education Committee recommends GE-021-089, Central Library of General Education Extended Course Outlines, 8-0-0.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:54 p.m.