Academic Senate 1000 E. Victoria Carson, CA 90747 WH-A420 (310) 243-3312 Academic Senate Meeting Minutes

April 12, 2017LSU 3:00 – 5:00 PM

Voting Members Present: Abdourazakou, Avila, Heinze Balcazar, Chavez, Deng, Dotti, Durand, Furtado, Johnson, Kaplan, Krochalk, Lacanlale, Ladd, Ledesma, Macias, Monty, Nelson, Oesterheld, Peyton, Price, Radmacher, Riddick, Robles, Sneed, Tang, Thomas, Tsuno, Vanderhoef, Vanterpool, VillanuevaVoting Members Not Present: Barab, Chun, Cid, Ernst, Ferris, Grasse, Haney, Jarrett, Kulikov, Ma, Moore, ShakibVoting Ex-Officio Members Present: Esposito, Hagan, Hill, Iheke, Norman, Pawar, Perez, TalamanteVoting Ex-Officio Members Not Present: DellacioppaNon-Voting Ex-Officio Members Present: Davis, Hay, Huizinga, Kalayjian, LaPolt, O’Donnell, Stewart, Weber, WenNon-Voting Ex-Officio Members Not Present: Avila, Brasley, Carrier, Driscoll, Franklin, Goodwin, Manriquez, McNutt, Poltorak, Sayed Guests: L.M. Carrier, DeVoogd, R. Stratham, L. Wilson,

2016-2017 Academic Senate Executive Committee:Jim Hill – Chair, Laura Talamante – Vice Chair, Annemarie Perez – Parliamentarian, Sheela Pawar – EPC Chair, Kara Dellacioppa – FPC Chair, Thomas Norman – Statewide Senator, Kate Esposito – Statewide Senator

Recorded and Edited by SEW and the Executive CommitteeMeeting Called to Order 2:30 PMAgenda M/S/PMinutes from 03/22/17 M/S/P

Parliamentarian Annemarie Perez discussed the current elections for Senate Chair and Statewide Senator. She mentioned that there had been some glitches due to the amount of emails Survey Gizmo generated back to CSUDH and that they were initially identified as spam. Perez is working the IT department to address this. She will extend the election deadline due to the stoppage to make sure everyone has enough time to submit their vote. Perez also announced two new calls for nominations that went out earlier in the day. The first was for two staff representatives (1 from within the division of Academic Affairs and 1 from outside Academic Affairs) to the Academic Senate in the 2017-2018 Academic year. There will also be an election for two lecturers or part-time faculty member as representatives to the Senate.

Chair Hill’s Report:- Hill pointed out that when the change to the definition of General Faculty was made in the

constitution to include all faculty, the Senate Executive committee is aware of a few hanging points that need to be addressed about this. Questions such as part-time faculty, do they have to have been a

Page 1 of 13

lecturer the full academic year or just the semester that the election is taking place. A bigger area that needs to be addressed refers to a page in the constitution that states how many senators represent a department or a unit. Hill notes that the numbers were written when the definition of faculty referred to full-time faculty, tenure track faculty and it really doesn’t mean what we meant when it was written. Hill offered several scenarios of how this could be addressed. He said his intention was to offer logically possible versions of what might happen with it so that the Senate could think about and have discussions with their departments and then come back and discuss it as a Senate. Hill said he would email what he was going to share to help facilitate those discussions. He said he’s aware that it can’t get fixed by the next meeting but would like to have a substantive discussion about it.

o Leave language alone and go with an expanded Senate because that would enlarge the number of Senators. Besides making the Senate significantly larger, it would also make it hard to fill all those seats.

o Strike that whole roughly proportional representation piece and make it one senator per unit representation.

o For a purely numeric adjustment, just keep same structure, but instead of saying 1 – 15, make it a larger number that reflects what you really wanted. Probably roughly the ratio of the current general faculty to the number of tenure track general faculty.

o Another way that would keep the same representation by department that we have right now would be to declare that those numbers only refer to tenure track faculty, however there may be political issues with that. It does have advantages of keeping fluctuations down, because the number of part-time faculty can go up and down.

o Another version of scaling up the numbers, if you’re going to start changing the numbers, maybe instead of counting faculty, count WTU’s taught. That may be more susceptible to fluctuations but there are some advantages of that too if we reflect different things about departments.

Hill encouraged everyone to discuss it with their departments, to figure out for your departments what those schemes would mean. The difference between enlarging the “scale factors” could actually change different departments differently based on the tenure density within a department. It’s something to think about not just territorially, but what would help the university moving forward.

- A few big things coming up, there is the report on the faculty climate survey for which we’ll have a whole report beforehand. We also want to have a report from Grad Council with a view of what they do and how to increase communication between the Grad Council and Senate. Also, we’ll be getting an update on the Strategic Plan at the next Senate meeting, the presentation of which we’ll have posted on our website.

- We had more than one Trustee visit the campus just before spring break. Hill commented that it was a good meeting. They met with several constituents on campus, the President will give an update on it in his report.

Senator Heinze-Balcazar said it would be helpful for conversations within their departments and programs to have an understanding of what departments would fit in to what slot. For example, what departments have 55 faculty and 35 faculty such as that. She said she has noticed over the years that not all departments are able to make attendance at the Senate meeting a priority so that a department that has 35 faculty, and 3 seats on the Senate might have difficulty filling those seats. Hill responded he quite agrees and if we go with any solution that involves expanding Senate significantly, we’ll have to worry a little bit about getting people to do that. Not from the point of Senate wanting it done but from the point of people having too much service to perform. Hill said perhaps at Chairs Council,

Page 2 of 13

each Chair might be able to provide a good idea of the numbers per college. Hill said he would see about getting some simplified version of data that would tell how many in each category are in each department we could try to pass that out before next time which would help our discussion. Senator Thomas pointed out that the spirit of the changes we made last year and what we ratified this year, is the notion that faculty is faculty is faculty. And the notion that we are going to create qualifications based upon only tenured faculty count towards Senate or how many WTUs you are doing. The fact that 60% of our faculty teach part-time is a reality and that the fact that those parties are not appropriately represented here, other than the two seats. Thomas said he would like to point out that Cathy Jacobs was a lecturer and was a serving member and not one of those two part-timers. We have precedence for participation by part-timers or adjunct faculty. Vice Chair Talamante encouraged those who would go back to their departments to discuss this point include lecturers in the discussion because it will be something that the General Faculty needs to address. Senator Price said there are departments that do not have department meetings and that maybe this is something that the Senate might recommend that departments have meetings and that they also invite lecturers to come. Hill said we probably don’t need a resolution for this to happen at first order. Hill said he would send out a message to all faculty reminding departments that they want to discuss these issues and probably ought to have meetings and include everyone. Senator Avila asked how we include everyone. She said her department has ten full-time faculty and the majority are lecturers. She asked how they engage part-time faculty. She said another aspect is that a lot of their part-time faculty are fully employed and are not necessarily treated unfairly, they’re happy with their full-time jobs and teaching one class. She said every time this is brought up it seems like a “yes” and “no” issue, but there are a lot of layers. Hill said we want to give opportunity not force a certain structure. Senator Ladd noted that she is a part-timer and her department has three full-time faculty members and the rest are part-time. Right now, one of the full-time is on sabbatical. She wanted to point out that with two full-time faculty and all the rest being part-time, they very much attend all of the meetings and it’s in their best interest to be there. She said she did not know there was a rule that there could only be two part-timers. Hill said that’s a misunderstanding and that there are two at-large part-time faculty Senators. Whether a department has part-time representatives is an independent question. The only possible issue the Senate has about that, while they want to give every opportunity for part-time faculty to participate, we don’t want to create pressure that you have to. Senator Villanueva said to address Senator Avila’s concerns in that the spirit behind this is to encourage lecturers to participate, not to make it an obligation because we understand service for them is voluntary. Villanueva said in her department they’ve been opening the doors for years for lecturers to participate fully. Those that work full-time and cannot attend, at least they’ll have the invitation. It only benefits the lecturers, the tenured faculty, the students, just send an invitation and whoever joins joins. Statewide Senator Norman said he would like to support some of the earlier comments that were made in that the latest statistics show that 70% of the academic faculty is of part-time lecturer status, that is the majority. One of the biggest things you can do to increase engagement is to make people feel valued and recognized. Norman said he would like to challenge the Senate to reach out to departments that aren’t having regular meetings, which is an essential part of shared governance. There’s an educational piece to set the expectation. Norman said it’s been his direct experience that when we’ve asked and invited lecturers, making it clear that there’s no obligation to attend, the attend in droves, they were happy to come more regularly and more often. Academic freedom isn’t academic freedom when it’s just for 30%. Senator Monty said we’re not going to resolve this issue at this meeting or even this year. He recommended that the Senate organize a retreat or an open forum on this issue so that we can develop a set of recommended best practices so we can achieve all the things people are talking about here.

Page 3 of 13

President Hagan’s Report- We ought to formally look at developing a program of best practices for supporting our lecturers. The

reality of it is in the state of California, we’re never going to get the resources to get the level of tenure track yet at the same time the lecturers are critical to all our student success initiatives. Just communicating what we’re doing, involving them, recognizing that for some of the things we want to involve them in they need to be compensated for. Hagan said he doesn’t believe there’s ever been put together a joint taskforce looking at what some of the best practices are. Some of them might work well here, some of them won’t. But I think it’s a discussion we need to more formally pursue.

- Trustee Visit – there were three trustees here on March 23. Silas Abrego, Douglas Faigin, and Steven Stepanek. Hagan said his goal is to have all the Trustees attend here. This visit means that now seven have visited out of the ten. The meetings went very well, they met with individual students, and CFA. They had a separate discussion with folks discussing what we’re doing for the Graduation 2025 initiative and there was a campus tour. We showed them the good, the bad and the ugly. We want them to see the all of it. We want them to have a recognition that we’re pushing for better facilities not because of enrollment growth but because of the need to have better facilities. They were shocked by some of the conditions of our facilities. So much so that they closed the door and had a private conversation about what can be done about this. We also discussed the budget and what might happen in terms of what would come from the Governor and the tuition increase. Part of that discussion included that there’s been a lot of talk about when the system receives the money, some of the money would go towards hiring 400 faculty. Hagan said part of his discussion was the CSUDH is disproportionately represented in terms of tenure density. We would like to have the allocation of those dollars not be based upon a prorated share, by looking at those institutions where the figures are way out of whack. We want to be sure people understand Dominguez Hills from the ground up.

- Last week we were in Washington D.C. and in New York City. The Chancellor’s Office hosted Hill Day where we go and talk to our congressional leaders and legislatures. And then we have alumni receptions for the CSU. In almost every case Dominguez Hills has the largest number of alumni attending these events. And when we’re not the largest, we’re the second largest. Often, we’re approached by the alumni asking us if Professor so and so is still there, and what about so and so, is he or she still there. It’s very heartening to hear this because it is a demonstration of the kind of impact our faculty is continuing to have on them even after 15-20 years. You would have been proud to hear some of the great things our alumni are doing all around the country. The bulk of our visit was around meeting with the congressional leaders and legislatures. One of the key issues is getting support for PELL Grants but also pushing for year-round PELL. There’s a real push to have students graduate more quickly, then providing PELL Grants in the summer is a way to make that happen. We had a good discussion on DACA because we wanted them to understand the impact that the rhetoric around the executive orders are having on the ground level and how it’s impacting the students on an academic level not wanting to take trips out of the country that might be important for their education for fear of what they might encounter from the immigration side coming back. There was a lot of positive support from our delegation out there and an agreement that they would push to support these issues. We talked about the need to support NEA and NIH and the importance of some of the programs. The folks in Congress do not believe that a lot of what has been put out there in what is called the skinny budget is going to survive in full form with the bigger budget. There is some sense that there’s support from both sides of the aisle in terms of NEA and NIH and some of the other program that are being cut. Hagan said even so, when you put so many things out there to be cut,

Page 4 of 13

some of it is going to be damaged. It really does help to write to your congress to raise your voices on these issues.

Q & ASenator Thomas said he wished to thank President Hagan for those meetings he is having with the Trustees. He said through his participation on the Building Development Taskforce he was a little shocked by some of the things he’s learned. 1. The last pure Academic building built on this campus – 1978. The dorms that are on this campus were not built for us but they were built for the Olympics in 1984. Again, when we start talking about why campuses are different, it’s not new, its historical. We all need to be aware of some of these facts so that we can share it with others and when someone wonders why Dominguez Hills is not getting what they should have been getting decades ago. Hagan said that they had put together a chart that showed that twenty-five years ago is when Dominguez Hills received its last academic building, yet during that time, campuses like Fullerton, Long Beach and Northridge combined received about 15 academic buildings. We’ve used those charts to basically ask the questions in Long Beach of what roles do you have in balancing things out in fairness because you can’t argue Fullerton’s new Kinesiology building was more important than our Science building because their Kinesiology building was replacing an existing building that supported those programs. Senator Thomas is correct. We presented a lot of that information and spent a lot of time talking to those people who make decisions about it and we have had an impact. Statewide Senator Norman asked what the effectiveness on meeting with a group of three Trustees at one time vs. meeting with them one on one. Hagan said he’s a one-on-one kind of guy, we had invited one and then received a call asking us if they minded if another Trustee joined us and then we received a call from the Chancellor’s office asking us if we could take a third Trustee. It went well. They committed to writing a report on what they saw here to give to the Chancellor. One of the things that Hagan said he brought up with the Trustees during the visit, the revenues as they’re currently generated in the CSU system are not appropriate. Texas has oil money, but there are 50 states out there, why aren’t we looking at what are the various strategies that other states use for funding higher education. A week after the visit, Hagan said he received a call from one of the Vice Chancellors who asked Hagan to expound upon the point he had brought up during the visit with the Trustees. While his personal style is he likes to sit down one-on-one, visiting with three worked well.

Provost Hay’s Report- We’re looking towards next year and looking at enrollment numbers. We are becoming more and

more a campus of choice, we need about 1300 freshmen admits to get to target and it looks like we’re going to hit that and probably more. It’s the same with transfers, as far as enrollment, this campus is very healthy. Some of the other campuses aren’t as much as they were before. That’s being played out by the certain number of campuses got redirects last year and a certain number of campuses this year are asking for them.

- Graduation Initiative Funding – asked the President for $500,000 to cover at least the same number of classes that we had last year, which he agreed to.

- Provosts Meeting last week – when we discussed budget, one of the problems here for us is that what we do on the campus is not aligned with what the state does. With the tuition dollars, the additional dollars that would be coming in is really for the graduation initiative 2025. It’s not just dollars coming to campuses, it’s supposed to be used for specific things. The same things that the graduation 2017 was to be used for, such as more faculty, more classes and whatever it takes to get students out, including advising, supplemental instruction, and all those kinds of things. And there will also be a reporting requirement to identify what were those things we did towards the 2025 initiative. There will not just be general funds headed our way.

Page 5 of 13

- Graduation Initiative 2025 – report due at the end of this month which will tell the Chancellor’s office how we’re going to reach our goals. One of the things that we’re doing that’s a holdover from the 2017 initiative is reaching out to those students if they had a little more help, a few more dollars, just one more class. Instead of having them languish is a grant that will provide some funding which is grant that will enable to graduate by the end of the summer. We could create this in the way we wanted to. We came up with the idea of a “Pay It Forward” grant. So, if the student needs $500.00 to pay for that last class to graduate this summer, we’ll be able to fund them through this grant. The way it’s written is we’re proud that you’re a Toro, we would really like to help you graduate, but pay this forward to the future, do something for someone else, and if that someone else happens to be your university, that would be terrific.

- Graduation Innovation Team – is our all hands-on deck approach, Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, Financial Aid – we look at students now, where are they in the process, what are the hold ups? We’re trying to break down barriers. The team gets together, graduation evaluators and advisors and discuss together everything that the student needs. It offers very individual, very specific. We identify the students who are eligible for this kind of grant.

- This is Awards and Ceremonies Season – there are a lot of guests on campus. Honor Societies are conducting their awards ceremonies. There was the Phi Kappa Phi held on Monday that was very well attended. Hay said he’s asked administrators to try to go to a couple of the awards ceremonies. The students really appreciate it and you get a lot out of it as well.

- The Council of Graduate Schools came to campus last week and spoke with a lot of folks about our graduate programs. We wanted to know what was working, what wasn’t, what we could do to enhance the graduate programs. In one of those sessions we spoke to graduate students and asked them. The graduates would like more resources, they love the university and they love their instructors. The Council walked away blown away with how much the graduate students care for the university and their instructors. They’re going to set up a SKYPE interview with the President and Provost Hay before they give a close out report.

- WSCUC Town hall – last Tuesday, April 4th. A good number attended. We broke up into smaller groups and talked about different portions of the report. Hay said he’s feeling very confident about it. Hay thanked Ken O’Donnell, Marc Carrier, Siskanna Naynaha, Jim Keville and Donna Cruz and the staff that supports it for the work they did on it.

Q & AProxy Keville asked if there was a name for the grant that Provost Hay mentioned because he might know of a student who could benefit from it as well. Hay said it currently is called the Pay It Forward Grant. Hay said the student would likely have been identified. The Graduation Innovation Team lists all the students who are going to graduate, they look at all the units the students have and are within striking distance and they have an understanding of their financial situation. Vice Chair Talamante suggested to Keville if he sent the name to Chanel Shorter, she will bring it to the Innovation Team. Hay said yes, send it forward and we’ll make sure they’re on the list. Senator Price said it was brought to her attention about the breakup of HUM 200 is going into classes that are now coming from the departments and would affect a lot of the lecturers who are now teaching HUM 200. Is there anything in place to deal with the displacement of those lecturers. It could mean loss of jobs or loss of classes for those lecturers. Have any studies been done about it? Hay said he does not know about this situation and is something we can take a look at. We looked at that before when we were doing some of the other GE classes and then putting them into departments, we want to make sure that people would have retained their rights to those classes. In this case, we’ll have to look at it. Price said this is different because they’re new courses that are being originated, departments that had no attachment to the lecturers who’ve been teaching for years in HUM

Page 6 of 13

200. Hay said he does not know, but with further analysis, we’ll look at it. Price said she recommends that we look at it because it is a serious problem. Senator Monty requested a report from the Enrollment Management team at the last meeting of the Senate after May 1st because that is the declared to enroll deadline and would like to know what our final numbers are of first time freshmen and transfer students are. Hill said we will get that on the agenda. Senator Krochalk asked if we had a projected number of new students that we’re planning to admit? Hay responded no, there’s no new enrollment this year, but we expect to exceed our state enrollment again. It is a great idea to have Enrollment Management come and speak. The way it looks right now, it looks like we’ll have more than enough to meet our current enrollment obligation. Vice Chair Talamante said that one of her department members is on a committee that numbers are changing in the ratio between freshman who are transfer students and how will that impact our planning for fall and course schedule that have already been submitted? Hay responded said we’re trying to plan for the same number of students we had this year but if we get overenrolled we’ll be in the same situation that we’re in often which is here’s a new student orientation, we need more general education classes. It’s hard to plan for in advance, but we should know more as we close out the application process. We need about 1300 freshman, it looks like we have as many as 1500. Transfers are not as high. Hay said it looks like for the first time that we have more freshman applications than we do for our transfer applications.

ASI Report - VP Grace Iheke- Elections just wrapped up, new Board is in place, Justin Blakely is the new ASI President after Jordan

Sylvestre graduates. - We’re looking at reallocating our fees within ASI. We all pay $135 fee to our student government,

but we’re looking at what ways can we reallocate our pie. We fund many different areas like MCC and TRF, but we’re trying to see throughout the years how we can sustain ourselves instead of increasing our fees.

- Spring Fling – April 27th from 6 pm – 11 pm at the Stub Hub in the Pitch & Pell area. We’re going to be having DJs, food trucks, theme parks are coming out. We’re looking to have people perform, so if you know anyone who would be interested, please let us know. It’s going to be free for students however it is $5.00 for guests, staff and faculty. It’s our first one and we definitely want to pack the house.

- Unity Fest is all day tomorrow. Please come out and support all the efforts students, faculty and staff has been putting towards it. There will be an international fashion show, dancers from different cultures, and there will be a lot of artistic students sharing their wares.

- Our students will be advocating on May 2nd with CSSA regarding fees and other legislation regarding all 23 campuses, so please come out and support us in that as well.

RESOLUTION

First Reading - EPC 17-08 Course Instructional Modality, presented by EPC Chair Sheela PawarPawar explained how it came about and explained that last summer she had been contacted by VP Manriquez to discuss the needs from the Chancellor’s office to update various campuses policies on course instructional modalities. Various technologies and the way their employed in instruction has changed dramatically since the original policy which is AA2007-01. A lot of people have seen this policy, ranging from people who have wanted to completely overhaul it to people who wanted to make no changes. The first resolve, the three definitions are pretty much the same as they were in the original. We do make note that course materials, instructor notes and student assignments may be provided online as a reference. But the key to defining the different instructional modalities is where instruction takes place.

Page 7 of 13

Pawar brought everyone’s attention to the footnote provided in the resolution to describe online and hybrid courses, As defined by the Chancellor’s Office, a synchronous course is one in which instruction and learning occur at the same time but not in the same location; and an asynchronous course is one in which instruction and learning occur neither at the same time nor in the same location. Pawar noted that one of the most important thing coming from the Chancellor’s office was the ability to define a completely online course, which is described in item 2A in the resolution, in that a student could be half way across the world, enroll in the course and be in it successfully, because there is no specific time that they need to be online nor in a specific place. Senator Shakib asked about “maximum two semesters”, Pawar said yes, that was already in there. She said they had some proposals stuck for two years in NBS and we had to teach the classes online because a lot of people were depending on them. Shakib asked if it were possible to be more flexible with them, like “as long as they were submitted”? Pawar responded that there’s already a campus policy that allows you to pilot for two semesters any course before it has to go through curriculum. However, there are always exceptions to that. Pawar stated that this was only referring to a different policy already in place regarding curriculum. Senator Radmacher asked where do internship classes fit on this? Pawar responded that face-to-face doesn’t have to mean on campus, it could mean on other locations. But since an internship, the instruction takes place face-to-face, it would fall into a face-to-face course. Senator Haney said the coding in the resolution, the codes are only in the schedule of classes and recorded in the Chancellor’s office. In the resolution, its refers to that this information is reflected in the schedule of classes, it is not. Those codes don’t show up for students to see. Usually if a course has a face-to-face meeting, that is noted in the text in the schedule of classes in addition to their being a note about the room they’ll be meeting in for the in-person meetings. Process and Policies for Tenure Track Lines Distribution, Provost HayBudget – it seems to control everything, and show the timeline which you can take a look at online. The criteria are really what people are interested in and how we go about that; the number of hires we figure is determined on new hires, retirement, FERP, and currently the practice is to keep replacements for retirements and FERPS within the colleges. There’s lots of models out there where they all revert to Academic Affairs, but because there’s such a severe need, we go ahead and let them stay in the colleges. Two FERPS and you’re starting or ending, that’s still two half time positions becoming available, that equals one hire. We encourage people to let us know if that’s going to happen earlier rather than later so we can plan for it. The number of new hires depends in part on budget, the President has made a commitment to new hires on this campus, but again the budget is going to impact that. I did ask for 20 hires this years, but we did ask for additional lines. The state budget timeline does not fit ours. We like to get this process started in January. As you know the state budget comes out and then we kind of languish until the May revise. There’s never enough new tenure track lines. All of the colleges lobby hard for your individual colleges and none of the Deans are happy. What’s important is that everyone knows why “they’re unhappy”. Hay described his next slide as being on the Faculty Affairs website. Each one is detailed on that site. Hay said that one size does not fit all, people would love to have it be a formula, such as you have some many FTEs, you have so many headcount, you have so many faculty, the tenure density is this, you run it through a formula and it tells you what you should come up with. That’s not the process. Everyone’s a little bit different. Some people like to use a student faculty ratio, if you are in the COE and you’re out doing supervision for the College of Teachers you’re out there driving around Los Angeles and you’re supervising 6 – 8 because that’s how many students you can go out an observe teaching classes, but if you’re teaching a GE class, you may have 70 students. So the student/faculty ratio doesn’t tell the whole story. We went through in our discussions, what we determined is that we would like to have 35 hires to get us on track, but we also know that only 20 were approved. Different colleges use different factors when determining their need. Some of them are: tenure track density, student/faculty ratio, number of majors, student headcount, faculty headcount, retention and graduation rates, number of

Page 8 of 13

degrees conferred, faculty distribution by rank. There are also some colleges out there that run out of senior faculty and need a chair, so that might be a place where you just have to hire. Retirements, FERPS, non-retention, we have some folks who don’t make tenure, so you’ll want to replace those. There are some trustees’ policies out there on the number of faculty you need in different programs. Then there’s qualitative criteria, the Strategic Plan, what’s our emphasis, what do we want to do? What’s your plan? The academic plan, accreditation drives us quite a bit, program review, we take those seriously. We do listen to those programs that have critical needs. Build and acquire funding – if you can acquire funding and maybe support some of these programs, maybe that gives you an in, it’s one of the reasons that we sometimes put some of these programs in Extended Education. Response to changing curricular needs – program quality, new programs. Another one is facilities and space, one that many of us are feeling right now especially with the new Science building coming online or as SAC1 is going off line to support that. If we’re going to bring in a new program where is it going to be and how are we going to support that. Hay pointed out that we included the Delaware Study “light” this year because it was new for us. We’ve been supplying data to it for the last few years and what it does is compare us to other like universities. You can search psychology and look up the average SFR for psychology across all of these universities is some number. It will say if we are above or below the average. We have been finding that in some universities they may break different departments apart while here we group them together, so that data may be skewed, but Hay says we can use it when making your case as to whether or not you need more faculty. Hay said he believes they’ll be making the Delaware Study accessible to colleges in the future. Hay pointed to the last slide and said that after deliberation, “this” is what they came up with. What we realize is that 20 hires is not a lot of hires. It gets very difficult when you get to the college level and try to distribute those. Hay said they looked at 35 hires, in the event that there was additional funding, so that we can immediately say exactly where they would go. We put some of the major factors in such as the tenure track density, the SFRs, the FDS, majors and again different people lobby different variables depending on how their college is set up. One of the things that is important is that we came to some kind of consensus. As was mentioned, different colleges use different variables and so those are listed out on the slide. Q&A: President Hagan said that Provost Hay lobbied very hard for additional lines. He mentioned the budget and the gamble, it costs us $1.5 million for every 10 faculty, when you add salary, when you add the benefits, the salary, the release time and all of those kinds of things. We had made that decision and had no idea what that budget was going to be. We wanted to get back on track, which is 20 faculty a year for five years even though we did not know what kind of money would come through, we knew we were going to get something. If the $75 million for the grad initiative was approved and if the budget gap between what the trustees recommended and what the Governor recommended, we knew we would get a bigger chunk of money and would could possibly go to the $30 million. That’s still in debate. Our feeling was that we will find that $3 million, even if we had to take it out of our hides, because we wanted to get back on track and that’s that gamble. But in terms of the $4.5 million to hire the 30 or to gamble the $5.2 million to hire 35, when you have no idea what you’re getting. Our estimates, which were really guestimate, was that we were going to get $3.2 million so we felt safe committing to 20. Now the tuition increase just passed and the tuition dollars are to go toward student success initiatives, and so hiring tenure track faculty is one of our number one items in there. The amount of revenue generated by the tuition increase doesn’t necessarily fulfill all the money that was going to allow the full faculty hires. Also, if the legislature provides the dollars, then the tuition is going to be rolled back. One of the reasons we didn’t go that much further is because there’s a lot of uncertainty. The theory is we would rather come back in May, and say the budget got better and we want to hire another 10. But to promise that we’re going hire 30 and find that we only got to $3.2 million, we would do damage to ourselves to cover those costs. Shakib asked if what was being shown was just new hires? How many replacements did we do. Hay responded that we don’t have replacement number yet. For instance, we didn’t do tenure track hiring

Page 9 of 13

this year but we have 20 searches out there. All of the rollovers if you didn’t get a chance to hire will roll over again. All of the retirements will be there, again, you’ve got to let us know. A lot of folks wait to the last minute on those, so we’re not sure exactly how many people will retire outright or FERP, or start FERP or end FERP. As soon as we know those numbers we’ll roll those in. Shakib said but you’ll always get a replacement, it’s not something we have to argue for? Hay said yes, it stays in the college. Senator Monty said the replacements stay in the college but they might be allocated to a different program by a Dean based on criteria that the Dean and the Chairs in that colleges are using. The replacements aren’t automatic to a department. That has been a persistent myth as far as he’s observed it. Shakib asked if someone in Sociology retires, it could be determined that that replacement could go to Psychology? The response was yes, some departments are growing and some departments are not. There may be a new program that we decided to initiate, so that line might be used to support that program. Shakib asked are we informed of this? Hill said that the Dean informs, yes. Dean LaPolt said for instance today at the Chairs meeting we talked about the number of replacements he anticipates based on the dollars and then he looks for feedback from the chairs to confirm where those are going. The problem is if you have an interim FERP who is retiring, that’s only half a position. Monty thanked Hay and the Deans for working this out and the Senate for supporting the resolution in the fall. He expressed that he feels much better about this than he ever has. He believed it is the earliest they’ve ever been given some concrete idea of what the hiring position will be in the next academic year. He appreciates that they started with a conservative strategy but also has given an idea in the event additional monies are available. He said he’s looking forward to seeing how the Deans and Chairs have their interactions regarding this process change as a result of the greater transparency that we’re engaging in here. Monty requested of Chair Hill that he ask AVP Weber to revise the table with the tenure density to show the formulas that are used to calculate it and have it displayed and included. Vice Chair Talamante said it seemed like from the presentation with regard to the CHHSN the seven hires there, when you went through what their criteria was, that accreditation might be what accounted for them receiving the most hires out of the 20? Hay said it’s not one thing. It’s a confluence of factors that allow us to do this. If you talk to Dean Sayed, he’ll tell you that two of his program have grown from 200 to 600 students and yet the faculty lines haven’t grown. So there’s some of those things that go on as well. Thomas thanked Hay for the presentation. He said the concern he has that faculty don’t traditionally just retire, they FERP. He said that FERPing faculty don’t necessarily retire in pairs, as such do we have place holders. He has seen in his college where there has been one FERP and therefore a half, that replacement then gets forgotten in future years. Hay said when he was a Dean, he was pretty good at remembering that and his ARM great at keeping track. It’s remembered, it should be remembered. Hay said that they really worked on budget this year because a lot of the budget was held centrally in Academic Affairs. What we’re working towards is college budget so that we can take a budget and push it out to the college and maybe they can play additional games with funding where they can maybe fund a position. It’s not where we are right now, we’re funding centrally and those aren’t dollars, they’re positions. But eventually, when we’re able to get budget in the college we’ll be able to do something that’s a little more flexible. Thomas responded that there may be some who are new and may not know or faculty will remind them. Norman said he appreciated this work and hopes the successor to go forward and hopes we can see more of the dollars as we’re moving there and increase the transparency. Norman suggested that it should not be too much to ask next year to have a running total on those replacements to help with the not forgetting and more of the communicating issue, so that we can all feel comfortable about the transparency and or someone new forgetting and losing two whole lines because we didn’t remember to carry the half. Hay said he will agree to report those replacements back to the Senate. Price asked if the expectation of new hires is that they actually move to Los Angeles? Hay said there’s different kinds of faculty and some who teach completely online. Price said the reason she’s asking is that with the all of the service that we’re having and the lack of tenure density, to know

Page 10 of 13

that there are so many faculty who actually don’t even live in the state of California, let alone in the Los Angeles area. Shakib asked how many people are in that position. Hill said you’re putting it in specifically because if reflects on how tenure density affects service and the service load among faculty. Shakib asked how many people in that position? Hill said we don’t have the numbers on that but we can ask. Senator Radmacher thanked Provost Hay and the other members who made criteria and made this decision and said the CHHSN thanks you. She added, to that point, something that would help clarify a lot of stuff for the rest of the university and the other college out there would be to include in the tenure density to also include the total FTEf and the number of tenure track faculty members that would be necessary to reach the numbers that we want, the 60% numbers. She noted that they did it within her college and it was astounding. So while one department may have a tenure density of 20%, they need just one full-time faculty member to reach 60% or to reach 40%, while other departments are at 15% and in order to reach 60% needs 8 – 9 tenure track faculty numbers [R. updated after meeting that this refers to Health Sciences] just to reach that. Health Sciences needs 5-6 tenure-track faculty just to reach the 45% tenure-density mark, the level that most of the other departments across the university are already at. Several of the departments in our college are at approximately 30% tenure-density or below. Most of the program that have low tenure density are actually the programs that do not have accreditation. Radmacher said she has been the Chair of that department for the last eight years. She started as Chair in that college as an Assistant Professor. Her department has grown 20% or more each year that she has been in that position. She has almost [850] 650 (R. corrected number after research) students now and her tenure density is a little lower at about 30%. They’ve had a few faculty members added. When we look at that and we see those numbers and we see that realization of the actual position that everyone is in, it makes those numbers make more sense. And it makes people more empathetic to the plight of the situation that we’re in. Dean Avila said with regard to the question that President Hagan asked in terms of will the 35 get us to where we want to go. Avila said in his college we have had a four year hiring plan and we project that it would take seven tenure track hires for four years to get us to 60%. Having four is a step forward but is actually not what our hiring plan would project that we ought to do. Hill closed out the discussion by thanking Provost Hay for the information and said it was a wonderful tone of sending out information.

WSCUC Update, Dr. Mark Carrier – Director of AssessmentDr. Carrier spoke about the WSCUC timeline and how they’ve kept pretty close to it thus far. He spoke about the next major point on the timeline: submitting the report on July 25th. They’ve collected most of the feedback that he believes they’re going to get. There is a draft of it on the website and if anyone still wanted to provide feedback they could. Some other things that need to be addressed are making sure that all of the websites are up to date and any of the links that are old and not working, that it gets corrected. We’re also going to be taking a look at all of the documents that we’re going to be submitting with the report. We’ll be starting a review of that soon and may be coming to you asking you for additional information or shared with Academic Affairs or Student Affairs to make sure we have the most up-to-date information. We have the accreditation visit next spring and we ask you to put that in your calendar. Not everyone will be part of that update, WSCUC will let us know the areas that they want information on, so it may include you, be prepared for it. In the fall, we’ll be able better identify what areas will need to plan to make themselves available. The Town Hall took place on April 11th to get our last feedback from people. It went really well. If you wanted a hardcopy of the report you likely could still get a copy of that from Academic Affairs. We also got to hear President Hagan give his view of the draft report and answer some of the questions. Two of his comments likely we will include in our report, and that was a bit of our history and how we moved from Palos Verdes to our current location and how that made our campus more inclusive. Hagan also talked a lot about our funding model and how that’s changed recently and to

Page 11 of 13

the benefit of our students from the Chancellor’s office. The great thing about this is because President Hagan was able to connect the funding to all of the student success efforts that we have on campus and to the nature of campus and our goals and our mission and our values. We’ll work to incorporate all of that into the report. The official deadline is July 25th. Vice Provost O’Donnell is shooting for 10 days prior. They’ll be a lot of editing in those final days. And because it is being submitted electronically, we have to make sure that all the links are working. Vice Chair Talamante asked how to access a link to the report. Carrier said it was sent out via email.

CAMPUS LABS, Dr. Mark CarrierCarrier gave an overview of the value of Campus Labs and an overview of how and when it can be used. Our campus has purchased several products from Campus Labs which is a company located in New York. Both Academic Affairs and Student Affairs are using. All campus assessments are being submitted through Campus Labs and all the evaluations are being done through Campus Labs. It’s dated, it’s an archive. It provides a lot of functions that were missing from our prior Word template based approach. The other thing that it does that we did not have before is reporting. Now that we have all the data in Campus Labs, we can run custom reports. We’re also using Campus Labs for program review. All the reports that were done in MS Word before are now in Campus Labs and it allows the Program Review Committee to keep track of all the documents, the Deans responses will be in there, any external review comments will be in there, everything will be centralized in one location and accessible electronically. We’ve used it extensively for accreditation. There were 39 different subgroups that evaluated us on 39 different criteria internally, and the team reports were all collected in Campus Lab and then the Writing Committee were able to access the information to put together the report. Campus Labs also has the ability to do surveys and use rubrics called Baseline. Student Affairs has been using it for several years. Our subscription to this gives us access to 24 hour consultants. Senator Norman asked if they wanted to create a survey would they have to contact Dr. Carrier? Carrier said yes, at this time that is the process. EPC Chair asked if it would require IRB approval. Carrier responded that it would follow the same rules as before. If it will be published internally, then it would likely not need IRB approval, whereas if the results were published off campus, likely you would.

ReportsEPC Chair, Sheela Pawar - nothing to report

Statewide Senate Report – Statewide Senator Thomas Norman reported that top of mind is the statewide proposal for intellectual property policy. There is a virtual meeting next week. If you have any feedback, please let him know. Senator Thomas asked as it relates to the CSU Intellectual Property, for those who are not familiar, the CSU has basically put together a policy and sent it to the faculty on March 14 saying you have 60 days to respond. CSU San Jose Sense of the Senate, which received some really positive attention at the Statewide level. Thomas said he would like to encourage our body to utilize this to come up with a similar Sense of the Senate well in time for the 60 day period. The second issue Thomas said he wished to bring up is SB677 which is a state bill called the Student Whistle Blower Protection Act which basically covers the secret recordings of classrooms specifically in the event that someone is doing something that is illegal. Namely it was used to record an “Anti-45” rant and a student felt it was a problem. The recording was then distributed and that student was expelled because it was a violation of policy. Our statewide Senate is already gone out against SB677 and Thomas asked that our Statewide Senators to also utilize that Sense of the Statewide Senate to come up with a similar resolution for consideration by this body. Norman said that with regard to Intellectual Property, where the Committee Norman is chairing left it last month was that majority of the members felt that they might respond within

Page 12 of 13

60 days as a system and that when it comes to Academic Freedom, legal counsel said that we can’t really address this without the union giving up its rights to bargain. Norman thanked Thomas for his continued feedback on this issue. He noted he’s aware of the union’s roles and the Collective Bargaining Agreement, as we come up with resolutions and suggestions. Because Academic Freedom are related, a lot of people are really frustrated and we don’t want to be perceived as a wedge between the union and administration. Thomas responded that Article 39 in the contract clearly discusses academic freedom so it is part of the bargaining. However, the policy that has been pushed by the Chancellor’s office clearly goes beyond the understanding of Article 39 and someone does want to at least respond, notwithstanding the fact that it is a bargaining hold, there is something more here. Hill said we can definitely put this on the agenda for Senate Exec to look at what we can do and whether we can say something which could then put it potentially put it on the agenda for the next Senate meeting.

CFA Report, CFA Co-President Co-President Kirti Celly reported that there would be a CFA semester luncheon on April 20 . An announcement/invitation was sent out. There will be an officer from statewide come and speak with us. They will also address any questions about the dues increase. Next week and the following will be elections for the CFA Board and Steering Committee. Last week we were in Sacramento for Lobby Days. We met with Senators, Assemblypersons, and Legislatures. One of the things we’re fighting for is not having students have to pay for the cost of education, pushing for our Governor and our government to fund the system consistent with what we were designed to do in 1960 and we need to keep pressing down on them. Other issues we’ve been fighting fee increases, fighting for DACA students. We wouldn’t exist if we didn’t have students. If we don’t support, encourage, protect and nurture our students. The students we see here are most vulnerable on several counts. They look up to us for setting expectations for what college education is. They look up to us support our students for protecting them from the outside world so that when they’re in these spaces they can focus on the learning. A lot of the work we do in that sphere is the right for them to be educated. We also met with the Trustees and they were very interested in our campus and the work that we do.

Open MicSenator Ma said on June 30th the Library’s major system will be changed and it will affect the main search engine. Ma asked for suggestions from the Senate on the best way to inform the students of these changes. Both Hay and Hill offered support in circulating the emails more broadly.

Meeting adjourned

Page 13 of 13