ACADEMIC SENATE of

THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY 401 Golden Shore, Room 139 Long Beach, California 90802-4210

562-951-4010

MINUTES Meeting of March 6-7, 2003

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 10:45 a.m. on Thursday, March 6, 2003, by Chair Jacquelyn Kegley.

ROLL CALL: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield) Jacquelyn Kegley, John Tarjan; (Channel Islands) Lillian Vega Castaneda; (Chico) Samuel Edelman, Kathleen Kaiser; (Dominguez Hills) Dick Williams; (Fresno) Jacinta Amaral, Lester Pincu; (Fullerton) Vincent Buck, Bill Meyer, Barry Pasternack; (Hayward) Calvin Caplan, Hank Reichman; (Humboldt) Robert Snyder, Marshelle Thobaben; (Long Beach) David Hood, Susan Rice, Craig Smith; (Los Angeles) J. Theodore Anagnoson, Marshall Cates; (Maritime Academy) James Wheeler; (Monterey Bay) J. Ken Nishita; (Northridge) Lynne Cook, Michael Reagan, Barbara Swerkes; (Pomona) Rochelle Kellner, Marvin Klein; (Sacramento) Cristy Jensen, Thomas Krabacher, Louise Timmer; (San Bernardino) Buckley Barrett, Tapie Rohm; (San Diego) Ray Boddy, Brent Rushall, Thomas Warschauer; (San Francisco) Eunice Aaron, Robert Cherny, Jan Gregory; (San José) Kenneth Peter, Bethany Shifflett, Mark Van Selst; (San Luis Obispo) Manzar Foroohar, Myron Hood, Unny Menon; (San Marcos) Dick Montanari, A. Sandy Parsons; (Sonoma) Susan McKillop; (Stanislaus) John Sarraille, Mark Thompson; (Emeriti Faculty) Len Mathy; (Chancellor's Office) David Spence.

INTRODUCTIONS During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced: Gene Dinielli, Professor of English, CSU Long Beach, and Former Senate Chair Harold Goldwhite, Faculty Trustee and Professor of Chemistry, CSU Los Angeles Gary Hammerstrom, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, CSU Rolland Hauser, Professor of Geoscience, CSU Chico Susan Meisenhelder, President, California Faculty Association Charles Reed, Chancellor, California State University Paul Spear, Professor of Psychology, CSU Chico Erene Thomas, Student Trustee, California State Student Association Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU Margaret Price, Assistant to Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU Shirley Sparkman, Staff Assistant–Budget, Academic Senate CSU Tracy Butler, Administrative Assistant, Academic Senate CSU

2

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS:

REPORT OF CHAIR JACQUELYN ANN K. KEGLEY

Shared Governance Task Force: January 29, 2003 The first meeting of the Task Force on Shared Governance was held on January 29 immediately after the meeting of the Board of Trustees. Debra Farar, Chair of the Board of Trustees, chaired the meeting. In attendance were Bob Cherny, Ray Boddy, Vince Buck, Mark Thompson and Jackie Kegley from the CSU Academic Senate; Faculty Trustee Harold Goldwhite, Student Trustee Erene Thomas, Trustee Shailesh Mehta, President Ruben Armiñana, Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer David Spence, and Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Gary Hammerstrom. There was considerable discussion of the reasons why the task force topic was so important. Among the most pressing were the building of trust, communication and sharing of information, and discussion of processes and actions that would improve shared governance within the system and on the campuses. It was agreed that the Task Force would meet after the March Board meeting. The Shared Governance report done by Vince Buck and Jim Highsmith as well as other documents would be shared with the group.

Academic Council: February 6, 2003 A meeting of the Academic Council (Provosts and Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs) was held on February 6, 2003. Louanne Kennedy, Provost at CSU Northridge, and Barbara Kaufmann, Professor of Education, gave an overview of their successful School Dean Orientation Program. This process has been very helpful to their deans and has helped to build a sense of community and shared governance for the campus. This model would be an excellent one to emulate for other campuses as well as for an orientation program for department chairs.

Gary Hammerstrom and David Spence provided an overview of the budget. Letters had been sent to campuses that day outlining enrollment targets and budget details for each campus. Information was shared by the provosts on the issue of tenure-track hiring. Almost all indicated that they were proceeding with their searches and hires. The budget cuts to outreach programs were discussed as well as the new focus on early assessment and senior-year experiences and the institutes on critical readings for secondary teachers. There was discussion of the report on Facilitating Graduation as well as the Academic Technology Planning Process. The problems of Business School Accreditation were also discussed. Beverly Young reported on some items concerning Teacher Education including the work to postpone the Teacher Preparation Assessment process which everyone agreed would cost enormously both financially and in terms of human resources. David Spence reported that the bill advocating an undergraduate major, now known as “Educational Studies,” has resurfaced as SB 81.

3

ACR-73 Presentation at Cal Poly, SLO—February 11, 2003 On February 11, 2003, I participated in a panel presentation on the ACR-73 plan given at a meeting of the Academic Senate of Cal Poly, SLO. Other panelists were Andy Lyons, CFA, and Andrew Winnick, CSULA, who represented the administration. As in past presentations, it stressed the importance of this kind of collaborative effort. I also argued that the ACR 73 Plan implements important recommendations from our Senate document, CSU at the Beginning of the 21st Century. These include reduction of the student-faculty ratio (SFR) and re-balancing the tenure/tenured track/temporary faculty ratio. In addition, I argued that this plan must be kept before the legislature as an indicator of the need to support those factors that contribute to the ability of the CSU to offer a high quality education. Both Andy Lyons and Andrew Winnick agreed with this approach.

Systemwide Budget Advisory Committee—February 21, 2003. The Systemwide Budget Advisory Committee met at the Chancellor’s Office on Friday, February 21, 2003. The primary topic of discussion was the recommendations of the Legislative Analyst’s Office on the Governor’s 2003-04 budget. Although the LAO is supporting the Governor’s budget reduction to the CSU of $326.1 million, she presents an alternate budget approach for higher education that centers on three issues: student fees, financial aid, and enrollment growth.

Student Fees: For the UC and CSU, the LAO is recommending increasing undergraduate fees by 15% instead of the 25% proposed in the Governor’s budget. The LAO supports the 20% graduate fee proposal for CSU and recommends reducing the proposed graduate fee for UC from 25% to 20%. For the Community Colleges, the LAO is recommending increasing the fees from $11 to $25 (rather than the Governor’s proposal of $24 per unit) to allow CCC students to meet the cost threshold for federal financial aid (Pell Grants).

Financial Aid: For UC and CSU, the LAO is recommending against using the one-third of the fee revenue generated from the student fee increase for financial aid (State University Grants). Instead, this revenue would be used to offset the Governor’s reduction of 326.1 million.

Enrollment Growth: For the UC and CSU, the LAO is proposing to fund a 4% increase for enrollment rather than the 7% proposed by the Governor. She believes this is more in line with projective growth in the high school graduate rate and adult population growth. She also rejects any funding for over-enrollment. For the CCC’s the LAO is proposing to augment their budget by $100 million, in additional Proposition 98 funding, to reduce the CCC enrollment reduction from the 5.7% proposed by the Governor to 3.7%.

Another item of concern to the Senate is the LAO proposal on Remediation. The LAO is recommending a reduction of $10 million in CSU General Fund support as a result of reducing marginal cost funding for FTES enrolled in precollegiate (remedial) writing

4

and mathematics courses to the funding rate for the community colleges, namely, $3,900 per FTES.

Cal Grants: The LAO is opposed to the Governor’s budget proposal to reduce Cal Grant funding by $10.2 million, representing a 9% reduction in new Cal grant awards to individuals attending the private colleges and universities. The LAO believes that this will increase the overall capacity in higher education and provide students with more meaningful options to a college education. The LAO does not indicate where the state would get the additional $10.2 million.

In discussing these recommendations, I noted that the LAO seems to be basing some recommendations on a misunderstanding of the college-going population in California, especially of the students who attend CSU. The enrollment arguments in the LAO report are based primarily on a 16-24 aged student college-attending group as is the belief that Cal grants will provide adequate financial help to students. This ignores the fact that Cal grants go to students just out of high school and not to anyone over 24. Many of our students are thus not eligible for these grants. The recommendations on reduced marginal funding for remedial courses is an alarming recommendation and precedent and would, of course, represent serious reductions to our budget and to any hope for quality instruction.

The Chancellor’s Office will be preparing detailed responses to the recommendations of the LAO and they should be available in two weeks.

California Higher Education Student Summit (CHESS)—February 21-24, 2003 It was my privilege to participate in two panel presentations at the California Higher Education Student Summit (CHESS) in Sacramento, February 22-23. The first panel: “CSU Outreach and Enrollment” included me, Alex Lopez, Student Trustee; Alan Leibrecht, Associate Director of Outreach Services, Academic Affairs, Chancellor’s Office; and Nancy Shulock, Executive Director of the Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy and CSU Sacramento. My topic was “Quality and Access-Yin/Yang: A Creative Balance for Higher Education.” I argued that access and quality must be carefully balanced to produce the kind of healthy education CSU must provide. Further, access and quality influence each other and interact in significant and subtle ways. First, access to higher education represents quality of life for Americans in terms of economic and personal advancement and quality for the civic and economic future of our state. Access to higher education for diverse populations provides a higher quality education for all. But access without a core commitment to excellence is a potentially bankrupt access. Without quality will there be access to adequate workforce, citizenship, and life-long learning skills? Quality must moderate access. Quality demands that we address those things that will allow students to succeed in higher education and those quality factors such as adequate human and instructional resources and an SFR that allows quality interaction between students and instructors. Good enrollment management, I argued, seeks to balance access and quality.

5

The second panel, “CSU Retention, Remediation and Graduation” included me, David Spence, Marsha Hirano-Nakanishi and Erene Thomas, Student Trustee. My topic was “The Path to the Degree: Facilitating Student Success” and focused on the work of the “Facilitating Student Success in Achieving the Baccalaureate Degree” workgroup. I briefly discussed the research base for the report and then talked about key factors for student’s successful completion of the degree. These factors included curricular, instructional and pedagogical innovations, increasing the percentage tenured/tenure track faculty, and good student support services such as quality advising, clear and consistent communication, roadmaps to graduation and degree audits. I also presented the major recommendations of the report.

Community Service-Learning Colloquium—February 24-25, 2003 On February 24-25, 2003, I attended the 7th CSU Colloquium on Community Service Learning at the Chancellor’s Office. I presented a workshop entitled “Working with Academic Senates to Advance Service Learning.” I presented an overview of the key role played by the CSU Academic Senate and campus senates in answering the call of Governor Davis in 1999 to establish a community service learning graduation requirement. I outlined how the senates had responded and how the CSU Academic Senate‘s resolution on the issue promoted a Board of Trustee resolution that respected campus autonomy and the key role of faculty in establishing curriculum. It did not promote a graduation requirement but allowed campuses to institutionalize community service learning in ways appropriate to each campus mission and academic plan.

I discussed the growing emphasis on research in Community Service Learning. Two International Conferences on Community Service Learning Research have been held, one at Berkeley and one at Vanderbilt University. I pointed out several bibliographies of this research and also the Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning Research. I also discussed my role as Chair of the Teaching Committee of the American Philosophical Association and a grant from Campus Compact to hold workshops, to give grants for curricular development in community service learning and to establish a Community Service Learning Resource website. A number of other professional associations are also active in community service learning. Finally I talked about the Engaged Department Institutes that bring departments together who wish to undertake community service learning as a program theme. The group then discussed the need to reflect community service learning in retention, promotion and tenure (RPT) documents and policies. It is important to understand that community service learning inter-weaves teaching, research and service.

* * * * *

Standing Committee Reports:

Academic Affairs Committee Chair Robert Snyder reported that: Academic Affairs has two second reading items and four first reading items, two of which we will seek to waive the second reading. We will discuss those items as they come up on the agenda.

6

In addition, we are drafting letters to go to campuses encouraging faculty to participate in the lower-division major preparation initiatives and reminding provosts that the 120-unit degree is a minimum and not a maximum.

Brief reports were made by standing committee chairs. Other reports in written form were shared with the Senate and may be found in the addendum following the action items of the minutes.

7

ACTION

APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The January minutes, having been moved, seconded, and amended to add a paragraph on page 16 following AS-2589-02, regarding Apportionment of Senate Seats, were approved. SELECTION OF FACULTY TRUSTEE CANDIDATES: The Senate is responsible for sending a minimum of two candidates to the Governor for his selection to fill the Faculty Trustee position to the Board of Trustees of the California State University.

The Senate will send forth the following two candidates for the Governor’s consideration: Kathleen E. Kaiser, CSU Chico Jacquelyn A. Kegley, CSU Bakersfield AS-2591-03/FA CAMPUS POLICIES ON PRIVACY OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) reaffirm its support for privacy in communication, including electronic communication, among students, staff, faculty and others as enumerated in AS-2263-95/FA “Policy on Email Privacy” adopted March 9, 1995 [on Senate’s webpage]; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU endorse the attached privacy provisions of paragraph nine of the American Association of University Professors’ statement on “Academic Freedom and Electronic Communication”; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the campus senates of those campuses that have adopted electronic communication policies to ensure adequate privacy protections with these statements; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the campus senates where such policies have yet to be developed to draft and develop policy language with the inclusion of these privacy protections.

RATIONALE: An important aspect of academic culture implies the essential reliance on the confidentiality and privacy of all communications between the parties of the academic process consistent with the law. The Senate adopted a “Policy on E-Mail Privacy” (AS-2263-95/FA) on March 9-10, 1995, which “urged the individual campuses to support privacy in the use of email to the

8

maximum extent possible.” The Office of the Chancellor also promulgated a “Statement on Internet Use Policy” which applies to Chancellor Office activities. However, a review of individual campus policy statements reveals that most campuses have not yet developed policies at all or have policies providing inadequate protections for privacy in electronic communications among students, staff, faculty and others. It is the intention of the Academic Senate CSU to encourage campuses to provide maximum protection of privacy consistent with the law.

ATTACHMENT TO AS-2591-03/FA AS-2263-95/FA POLICY ON E-MAIL PRIVACY RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge the

Chancellor and the individual campuses to support privacy in the use of e-mail to the maximum extent possible under state and federal laws, consistent with computer system maintenance demands; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor and the individual campuses to institute policy to implement this goal in keeping with the following principles:

1. All authorized e-mail accounts stored on the CSU telecommunications network shall be considered to be confidential.

2. Requests for access to these accounts or disclosure of confidential information, for any purpose other than technical problem resolution will be reviewed by the senior Academic Affairs Officer, and honored only when required by state or federal law, or when there is probable cause to suspect illegal activity.

3. Inspections solely for the purpose of technical problem resolution must be approved by the appropriate computer affairs administrator and only for the resolution of a specific technical problem.

4. Except when under extraordinary circumstances or when prohibited by law, computer users will receive notice prior to such inspections, access, or disclosure.

5. Except where prohibited by law users not notified prior to inspection, access or disclosure will receive notice after the fact within three working days; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor and individual campuses to adopt policies in a timely fashion; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor's Office and the individual campuses to inform all authorized accounts of their e-mail privacy policy and of the limitations of privacy on e-mail. E-mail is subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, and when relevant, to discovery in civil litigation. RATIONALE: Chancellor' Office Interim Counsel has circulated a memo describing the limits of e-mail privacy and noting that "in limited and appropriate circumstances...e-mail messages may become subject to internal monitoring by an employment supervisor." This resolution attempts to limit e-

9

mail access to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the law and technical problem resolution.

AS-2263-95/FA motion approved. AS-2591-03/FA motion approved unanimously. AS-2592-03/FA RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO THE TASK FORCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRS

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) thank the task force on roles and responsibilities of department chairs for its efforts, which resulted in the document titled Roles, Responsibilities, Resources, and Rewards for Department Chairs [on the Senate’s webpage http://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/e-senator/reports/ ; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that campus senates review the findings and recommendations from the systemwide task force, survey reports, as well as campus-specific data provided by the task force, and facilitate campus-based discussions among administrators and chairs to resolve relevant issues enumerated in the reports; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that the Chancellor’s Office review the findings and recommendations of the systemwide task force survey reports and work with the California Faculty Association (CFA) and the Academic Senate CSU to develop systemwide policy as appropriate; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU commend CSU Long Beach on its efforts over the past six years to host workshops for chairs and encourage the Chancellor’s Office to continue to support these efforts and facilitate the participation of department chairs throughout the system; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU distribute electronically the Task Force’s report on Roles, Responsibilities, Resources, and Rewards for Department Chairs to relevant staff and administrators in the Chancellor’s Office, campus department chairs, presidents, provosts, deans, senate chairs, and the California Faculty Association.

RATIONALE: The task force report on Roles, Responsibilities, Resources, and Rewards for Department Chairs is an excellent resource for faculty and administrators to address the complex issues surrounding the roles and responsibilities of department chairs. Campus-based review of the CSU as well

10

as campus-specific data is essential to recognize and subsequently act on issues of concern to department chairs. Their position and duties are unique and their ability to function effectively has a direct bearing on the ability of the CSU to accomplish its mission and deliver high quality education to the wide array of students looking to the CSU for extended education and/or professional preparation.

AS-2592-03/FA motion approved unanimously. AS-2594-03/FGA STUDENT FEES IN THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY (CSU): MITIGATING THEIR EFFECTS

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) recognize the necessity for a short-term increase in student fees as a last resort for protecting student access to higher education and slowing the erosion of quality of California public higher education; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU oppose any fee increase that does not meet the following conditions: 1. Provide for sufficient financial aid to cover the additional need that

the fee will create among new and existing recipients. Until such time that the needs of all of our non-traditional students can be met by Cal Grants and other external financial aid programs, 1/3 of all revenues generated by fee increases should be directed to internal CSU financial aid programs to alleviate the increased financial need created by the fees.

2. Provide for maintenance and expansion of programs designed to educate current and potential students about the availability of financial aid and the procedures for obtaining it. Such programs should be exempted from cuts and treated as a necessary expense associated with the collection of increased fees.

3. Provide that any fee increases identified as necessary to the long-term fiscal stability of the CSU, be implemented in a gradual, moderate, and predictable manner.

4. Provide that any future fee increases be the result of a meaningful consultation process involving students, faculty and other members of the university community and be based on a coherent and defensible policy.

RATIONALE: The sole purpose for which student fees of any kind are warranted is to provide students with access to a high quality university education; fees can be supportive or destructive of this end, depending upon the

11

way in which they are implemented. Fees that raise revenues for financial aid can help preserve access by providing a pool of resources for students who might otherwise be unable to afford college; fees that raise revenues for instruction can help preserve quality by providing students with sufficient curricula and support to make timely progress to a high quality degree. Fees that do neither, but merely raise revenues to help the state close a general budget deficit, are a regressive tax on those students who can still afford a college education, and a barrier that could prevent the neediest students from attending at all.

For many students, access is primarily an issue of affordability. It is important, therefore, that any fee increases be accompanied by sufficient student aid to maintain the affordability and access that has been the hallmark of California higher education. The CSU has recently raised student fees by 15% for graduate students and 10% for undergraduates, and the Governor’s budget proposes an additional fee increase for AY 2003-04 of 25% for undergraduates and 20% for graduates.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office proposes that fees for undergraduates be raised 15% but that the traditional requirement that 1/3 of all fees be set aside for financial aid be lifted. The LAO cites the availability of Cal Grants as a reason for why the 1/3 financial aid set aside is not required. This reasoning is erroneous. A significant number of CSU students are not from the traditional 18-24 age group and many have been out of high school for more than one year, making them ineligible for most Cal Grants. The best, and in many cases the only way to provide for their financial need, is through internal State University Grants funded by the 1/3 of fee revenues that the CSU traditionally sets aside for financial aid.

The CSU is experiencing a budget shortfall so severe that, whatever the fee increases, severe cuts are expected. Those cuts should not fall upon those specific programs and services that can help students cope with the fee increases, or else student access to higher education will be even more seriously imperiled.

The body voted to send the resolution back to committee for clarification. The rewritten resolution was brought back to the body the next day. AS-2594-03/FGA motion approved. Committee Chair Snyder requested permission to reorder the agenda by placing Item 12, AS-2605-03/AA, for which he would be seeking a waiver, before Item 10. There were no objections.

12

AS-2597-03/AA RECOMMENDATION IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW CALIFORNIA ARTICULATION NUMBER (CAN) MODEL

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) commend the multi-system collaborative process that produced the new California Articulation Number (CAN) System Articulation Model dated September 2002; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU strongly endorse the DRAFT new articulation model [on the CAN webpage http://www.can.csus.edu/] (attached) with the following qualification.

With reference to the Validation of Institutional CAN Courses, the CAN System solicit both lead faculty representatives and discipline review faculty through the academic senates of the participating systems and institutions of higher education;

and be it further,

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU encourage the CAN Board to: (1) continue efforts to develop web-based CAN descriptor templates (2) extend the CAN process to elective courses recommended for

preparation within a major (3) continue collaboration with other articulation projects, (e.g., CSU-

Core Alignment, IMPAC) to facilitate student transfer between institutions of higher education.

RATIONALE: The DRAFT of the new CAN Articulation Model, designed to improve transfer and articulation among segments of California higher education, is the result of nearly two years of study by the CAN Board, involving thorough assessment and input by representatives of all three California higher education systems. This revision effort relied heavily on intersegmental collaboration and emphasizes the primacy of a discipline-faculty review process to replace the current process whereby four 4-year institutions are needed to approve a CAN course. The new CAN model will allow for the introduction of complementary faculty articulation concepts into the CAN process that originate in other forums, including the CSU Core Alignment Project and IMPAC. The new model also allows for the expansion of CAN from a system that focuses only on required courses within a major or discipline to elective courses, prerequisite to the completion of a major. Further advantages include: (1) a statewide rather than regional approach to articulation (2) a five-year review cycle for all courses within all disciplines (3) a renewal of institutional commitments to CAN (4) increased specificity in official CAN course descriptors, and

13

(5) development of a web-based template for further descriptor development.

Finally, the new model will create an appeal process and establish a specific timeline for course review to make participation in CAN both effective and efficient during campus articulation efforts.

ATTACHMENT TO AS-2597-03/AA

CAN California Articulation Number System

January 6, 2003 Dr. Jacquelyn A. Kegley Chair, Inter-segmental Council of Academic Senates

CSU, Chancellor’s Office 401 Golden Shore, Suite 139 Long Beach California, 90802-4210 Dear Dr. Kegley: This letter is to follow up on the CAN presentation to ICAS on November 22, 2002. Dr. Christy Jensen, Mary Gill and I met as agreed. CAN is a long-standing, inter-segmental articulation program that has proven its value as a system of course-to-course equivalencies. The CAN Board is recommending changes in the CAN process, which we believe will improve the CAN system without disrupting its basic value. The recommended changes in the CAN process are based on the premise that: 1. Faculty-discipline review is the most trusted process that has the greatest academic

integrity. Shifting CAN approval to a faculty-discipline review mode (rather than the current “bilateral” model that relies on a few institutions) would improve the stability and value of CAN.

2. It is important to promote collaboration with existing efforts, thus making efficient use

of faculty time, which is why we have recommended building on IMPAC, CSU Core Alignment and any other effort that might yield valuable results.

3. We are hopeful this new model will achieve greater inter-segmental cooperation

between the three public segments as well as the private institutions in the transfer process. We believe that the University of California’s faculty participation in and endorsement of CAN is highly desirable.

4. The new model will increase CAN integration into the regular curricular processes on

14

campuses and thus increase understanding among faculty leaders. Through the process of developing this new model we have consulted extensively with the transfer and articulation community, including faculty. However, given the critical nature of these changes the Board would like to formalize the process of faculty consultation by requesting the assistance of ICAS in facilitating a review by the academic senates. We are requesting that ICAS work with the respective senates (community college, CSU and UC) to solicit comments on the attached [http://www.can.csus.edu/CANModel.htm] materials. We look forward to reviewing final results of this review and hope to meet with you at an appropriate time and place in the very near future. If the results of the review yield a positive response, we hope to work with ICAS to define the next steps in this evolution to a new CAN review process. Thank you, José R. Michel, Ed.D. Director, CAN System Office Attachments cc: CAN Board of Directors Mary Gill

Dr. Christy Jensen

AS-2597-03/AA motion approved unanimously. AS-2598-03/AA RECOMMENDATION ON THE REPORT FROM THE JOINT PROVOST/ACADEMIC SENATE, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY TASK FORCE ON FACILITATING

GRADUATION: FACILITATING STUDENT SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING THE BACCAULAUREATE DEGREE

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) receive the report and commend the collaborative process by the Joint Provost/Academic Senate CSU Task Force on Facilitating Graduation that produced: Facilitating Student Success in Achieving the Baccalaureate Degree [on the Senate’s webpage http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/E-Senator/Reports/Facilitating Graduation.pdf]; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU endorse the principles and recommendations of the Joint Provost/Academic Senate CSU Task Force on Facilitating Graduation with the following stipulations: • Given that many of the factors that affect graduation rates are

outside the control of the CSU, only incremental improvement in graduation rates can be expected.

15

• Any plan to improve graduation rates must be constrained by Principle 1 of the report: “The primary goal of the academic enterprise is to provide a high quality, productive, meaningful academic experience for students.”

• The implementation of the Task Force recommendations will be severely constrained by the lack of funding necessary for faculty, staff, degree audit, and improved advising processes.

• That the California State University Board of Trustees (1) review, in consultation with the Academic Senate CSU and the

Chancellor’s Office, the data on improving graduation rates and determine what further research, if any, should be engaged. Any additional policy options that may be considered, based upon this review, should be developed through ongoing consultation with the Academic Senate CSU and the campus senates; and

(2) ensure that individual campuses of the California State University system, through the shared governance process, retain autonomy in their efforts to design institutionally tailored programs guided by the principles and recommendations articulated in the Report from the California State University Task Force on Facilitating Graduation, to facilitate student success in achieving the baccalaureate degree.

RATIONALE: The committee structure and process that developed the report, Facilitating Student Success in Achieving the Baccalaureate Degree, was a model for shared governance. It was a joint committee of provosts and faculty, selected by the Senate, and supported by staff from the Chancellor’s Office. Members of the Board of Trustees were involved in early drafts of the report and the final report is a product of all three groups. The report is being presented to the Board of Trustees on a time line that allows the Academic Senate CSU and the campus senates to respond.

The Joint Provost/Academic Senate CSU Task Force on Facilitating Graduation has produced a report grounded in a large data set, with a good review of the literature, that provides a wide range of policy options. The principles recommended by the report emphasize that facilitating student success toward achieving the baccalaureate degree must be achieved within a framework of academic excellence and program quality. Moreover, the report recognizes that the CSU has only limited influence over the most important factor determining graduation rates: “exposure to a rigorous curriculum in secondary school.” In addition, the diversity of our student body and its “priorities of family, work, and school” are not within system control. Because of this, we can expect to

16

have only limited impact on graduation rates by focusing on those things which the system can control.

At the local level, the recommendations emphasize campus autonomy by asking each campus to develop a plan “based on local institutional research, to improve graduation rates.” Many of the Task Force recommendations for CSU campuses require increased faculty, staff and equipment recourses. “Developing a plan, based on local institutional research,” requires that campuses have the resources to conduct this research. Developing “graduation roadmaps” and “improving advising practices” requires additional time by the permanent faculty whose numbers are steadily diminishing. Assuring that courses will be available “during specified terms” requires that campuses have the budgets to offer these courses.

It is important that the California State University Board of Trustees both recognize and acknowledge the need for individually tailored campus efforts to facilitate student success in achieving the baccalaureate. The diversity in institutions, programs, campus cultures, and student populations within the CSU makes it doubtful that any single formula or programmatic structure will address the needs of students on all campuses.

At the system level the California State University Board of Trustees is asked to “assess improvements in graduation rates, and to consider if more incentives and disincentives are needed for both students and institutions.” Because graduation rates are affected by a wide variety of complex issues, it is important that the California State University Board of Trustees and the Chancellor’s Office work closely with the campuses, through the shared governance process, and the Academic Senate of the California State University in developing further policy options.

AS-2598-03/AA motion approved. AS-2599-03/FGA/FA SHARED GOVERNANCE AS A CRITERION FOR PRESIDENTIAL EVALUATION

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) strongly urge the Board of Trustees to add to the CSU Criteria for Presidential Assessment [on the CSU webpage http://www.calstate.edu/datastore/prescriteria.shtml] the following criterion: “Joint Decision Making Through Shared Governance”; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU strongly urge the Board of Trustees to include within this criterion a requirement that there be evidence that

17

presidents have worked collegially with their campus academic senates and other faculty representatives on budget planning and enrollment management; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU strongly urge the Board of Trustees to include within this criterion a requirement that there be evidence that that presidents have worked collegially with their campus academic senates and other faculty representatives on policies governing academic and professional standards, curriculum and instruction, research and creative activity and other academic matters.

RATIONALE: Current criteria for presidential assessment make no reference to faculty or to shared governance, although the unique role of faculty and shared governance is enunciated in HEERA and in the statement on collegiality adopted by the Board of Trustees, which states “Collegial governance allows the academic community to work together to find the best answers to issues facing the university. Collegial governance assigns primary responsibility to the faculty for the educational functions of the institution in accordance with basic policy as determined by the Board of Trustees. This includes admission and degree requirements, the curriculum and methods of teaching, academic and professional standards, and the conduct of creative and scholarly activities.”

The statement adds that “The collegial process also recognizes the value of participation by the faculty in budgetary matters, particularly those directly affecting areas for which the faculty has primary responsibility.” More recently, both Chancellor Charles Reed and Board of Trustees chair Debra Farar have stressed the importance of involving faculty in campus budget planning, especially in light of the major fiscal challenges currently facing the CSU. Additionally, in a February 24, 2003, joint memo Executive Vice Chancellor David Spence and Academic Senate Chair Jacquelyn Kegley call for “authentic consultation and shared decision making between campus administrators and their academic senates on matters of enrollment management.” By including joint decision making with faculty through the shared governance process as a formal criterion of presidential evaluation, the Board of Trustees would emphasize in a concrete manner the importance of such consultation and increase the likelihood that it would occur in a meaningful way on the individual CSU campuses.

AS-2599-03/FGA/AA motion approved unanimously.

18

Office of the Chancellor

February 24, 2003

To: Provosts and Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs Campus Senate Chairs From: David S. Spence Jackie Kegley Executive Vice Chancellor Chair, Academic Senate Chief Academic Officer The current state budget crisis has made student enrollment management an ever more critical issue for the CSU. Further, enrollment management policies have a significant educational impact and thus the effect of these policies on access and quality is of great concern to the faculty and to Academic Senates. Because enrollment management policy is directly related to educational quality, it is necessary that decisions are made based on authentic consultation and shared decision making with the campus Academic Senates. Campus enrollment targets, and all of the enrollment management goals and options outlined in coded memorandum AA-2002-48 and its attachment, as well as the selection from and prioritization of those goals and options, are appropriate for consultation with the Academic Senate on campus. If the proposed rules apply to a smaller unit within the CSU campus, consultation with the Academic Senate and with the smaller unit is also appropriate. Chancellor Reed and the Board of Trustees have invited broad consultation on issues of budget and related matters and urges collaboration on approaches to help the CSU and each campus maintain the integrity of the institution in these difficult fiscal times. The mission of the CSU is so crucial to the future well-being of the state, and access and quality must be carefully balanced as we move forward into the future.

AS-2600-03/EX ACADEMIC SENATE CSU CALENDAR OF 2003-2004 MEETINGS

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University adopt the following schedule for the 2003-2004 academic year:

2003 Location

VOX

VERITAS

VITA

CLVII

MDCC

ATTACHMENT TO AS-2599-03/FGA/FA

THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY BAKERSFIELD • CHANNEL ISLANDS • CHICO • DOMINGUEZ HILLS • FRESNO • FULLERTON • HAYWARD • HUMBOLDTLONG BEACH • LOS ANGELES • MARITIME ACADEMY • MONTEREY BAY • NORTHRIDGE • POMONA • SACRAMENTOSAN BERNARDINO • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SAN JOSE • SAN LUIS OBISPO • SAN MARCOS • SONOMA • STANISLAUS______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

19

September 11-12 Committees/Plenary Headquarters *October 3 Interim ---- November 12-13-14 Committees/Plenary Headquarters *December 5 Interim ----

2004 January 21-23 Committees/Plenary Headquarters *February 13 Interim ---- March 10-12 Committees/Plenary Headquarters *April 2 Interim ---- May 5-7 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate CSU be authorized to change the schedule of meetings approved, with adequate notice to the Academic Senate CSU, if the Trustees alter their schedule, or if budgetary constraints require a change.

RATIONALE: The California State University Board of Trustees is in the process of determining its meeting dates for 2003-2004, as follows:

2003 Location

**July 15-16 Headquarters **September 16-17 Headquarters **November 18-19 Headquarters 2004 Location ***January 27-28 Headquarters ***March 16-17 Sacramento ***May 18-19 Headquarters ***July 13-14 Headquarters ***September 14-15 Headquarters ***November 16-17 Headquarters *location and format to be determined **dates previously approved by the CSU Board of Trustees ***2004 BOT meeting dates are tentative

AS-2600-03/EX motion will be a second reading item at the May 8-9, 2003, meeting. AS-2601-03/AA REAFFIRMING STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR

20

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT OF CURRICULUM

RESOLVED: The Academic Senate of the California State University request both the Board of Trustees and the Office of the Chancellor of the California State University to join with its Academic Senate in urging the members of the Legislature of the State of California to adhere to the provisions of sections 3560 (c) and sections 3561 (b) and (c), attached, of the California Government Code of Regulations, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html, which indicate unequivocally that the development and execution of curriculum within the California State University and its 23 member campuses should be insulated from political influence.

RATIONALE: With an appreciation for the need to keep the development and execution of the curricula of the campuses of California’s higher education systems free from political influence, the Legislature of the State of California, in collaboration with the Governor, enacted the provisions of sections 3560 (c) and 3561 (b) and (c) of the California Government Code of Regulations. These code provisions acknowledge the need for insulation of higher educational curricular process from the influence of politically mediated and/or politically motivated intrusion, to wit: “The people of the State of California have established a system of higher education under the Constitution of the State of California with the intention of providing an academic community with full freedom of inquiry and insulation from political influence in the administration thereof.”

Within the California State University, generally, and on all 23 campuses of the system specifically, institutionally imbedded processes of curriculum development and approval involving faculty discipline specialists, departments, and curriculum committees at both the college and university level ensure the focus, breadth, integrity and quality of the curriculum. Groups lobbying on behalf of specific disciplines have succeeded in convincing our state legislative bodies that the long-term benefits to be derived from leaving the development and execution of curriculum to curriculum specialists within higher education disciplines were neither genuine nor meaningful. Because the legislative process is neither designed nor equipped to develop curriculum through collegial collaboration, fostering widespread institutional buy-in, curricular mandates originating within the legislature run the risk of imposing poorly crafted, inadequately fiscally supported curricula and curriculum development guidelines on our universities.

While it is imperative that both legislators and the legislative process have access to and input from specialists in areas germane to legislative inquiry, when these inquiries suggest a need for curricular change the legislature is urged to follow both the language and the intent of the relevant government

21

codes and refer suggestions for curricular changes to the appropriate faculty body.

ATTACHMENT TO AS-2601-03/AA

CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 3560-3562.2

3560. The Legislature hereby finds and declares that:

(a) The people of the State of California have a fundamental interest in the development of

harmonious and cooperative labor relations between the public institutions of higher

education and their employees.

(b) All other employees of the public school systems in the state have been granted the

opportunity for collective bargaining through the adoption of Chapter 10.3 (commencing

with Section 3512) and Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540), and it would be

advantageous and desirable to expand the jurisdiction of the board created there under to

cover the employees of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, and the

California State University. These institutions of higher education have their own

organizational characteristics.

(c) The people of the State of California have established a system of higher education under

the Constitution of the State of California with the intention of providing an academic

community with full freedom of inquiry and insulation from political influence in the

administration thereof. In so doing, the people have caused to be created the regents to

govern the University of California, a board of directors to govern Hastings College of the

Law, an affiliate of the University of California, and a board of trustees to govern the

California State University.

(d) The people and the aforementioned higher education employers each have a fundamental

interest in the preservation and promotion of the responsibilities granted by the people of

the State of California. Harmonious relations between each higher education employer

and its employees are necessary to that endeavor.

(e) It is the purpose of this chapter to provide the means by which relations between each

higher education employer and its employees may assure that the responsibilities and

authorities granted to the separate institutions under the Constitution and by statute are

carried out in an atmosphere which permits the fullest participation by employees in the

determination of conditions of employment which affect them. It is the intent of this

chapter to accomplish this purpose by providing a uniform basis for recognizing the right

of the employees of these systems to full freedom of association, self-organization, and

designation of representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of representation in

their employment relationships with their employers and to select one of these

organizations as their exclusive representative for the purpose of meeting and conferring.

22

3561.

(a) It is the further purpose of this chapter to provide orderly and clearly defined procedures

for meeting and conferring and the resolution of impasses, and to define and prohibit

certain practices which are inimical to the public interest.

(b) The Legislature recognizes that joint decision making and consultation between

administration and faculty or academic employees is the long-accepted manner of

governing institutions of higher learning and is essential to the performance of the

educational missions of these institutions, and declares that it is the purpose of this

chapter to both preserve and encourage that process. Nothing contained in this chapter

shall be construed to restrict, limit, or prohibit the full exercise of the functions of the

faculty in any shared governance mechanisms or practices, including the Academic

Senate of the University of California and the divisions thereof, the Academic Senates of

the California State University, and other faculty councils, with respect to policies on

academic and professional matters affecting the California State University, the University

of California, or Hastings College of the Law. The principle of peer review of appointment,

promotion, retention, and tenure for academic employees shall be preserved.

(c) It is the policy of the State of California to encourage the pursuit of excellence in teaching,

research, and learning through the free exchange of ideas among the faculty, students,

and staff of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, and the California

State University. All parties subject to this chapter shall respect and endeavor to preserve

academic freedom in the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, and the

California State University.

AS-2601-03/AA motion approved unanimously. AS-2602-03/FGA ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC SERVICE AWARD FOR CSU GRADUATES SERVING AS STATE CAPITOL STAFF

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) institute a public service award that may be given each year to a graduate of the CSU engaged in work in the state capitol as staff to legislative offices/committees for outstanding support of higher education; and be it further

RESOLVED: That this award be called the __________________ Award; and be it further

RESOLVED: That ordinarily this award be presented to the honoree in connection with the annual Academic Senate CSU Legislative Day events in Sacramento; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee of Academic

23

Senate of the California State University assume responsibility for (1) developing the guidelines for implementing the award and (2) overseeing its implementation on an annual basis; and be it further

RESOLVED: That formal conferral of the award be made by Senate resolution.

RATIONALE: The staff employed in the capitol provide the public with a service that largely goes unnoticed. With, at times, the lions share of the work on matters ranging from the logistics for meetings to crafting language for legislation being done by staff it is important to recognize and reward those doing outstanding work in service to the state and its residents. With significant numbers of our graduates engaged in public service in the state’s capitol, our initiation of this award would not only give us an opportunity to honor each year one of our graduates but also afford us a unique opportunity to develop and maintain stronger ties with our graduates.

ATTACHMENT TO AS-2602-03/FGA Suggested Guidelines for Implementing the Public Service Award

1. The group responsible for all matters related to this award will be the Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee (FGA).

2. Nominations: FGA will solicit nominations from Campus Senate Chairs, Campus Presidents and their governmental affairs office, CSU academic senators, and the Chancellor’s office. Nominations will include a letter which conveys information on the candidates service, year and campus degree obtained from, and a current vita for the candidate.

3. Calendar: Early January: Solicit Nominations Late January: Due date for materials February: Review materials & select staff person to be

recognized March: Present to senate resolution naming person to be

honored Send invitations to all CSU staff & legislators in

capitol, representatives from the campus the staff member graduated from, CSU senators, campus senate chairs

April: Host reception (tied to ASCSU Sacramento leg. day) in honor of person selected and make presentation

4. Selection: Review of candidates will take into consideration:

Record of service Length of service Level of responsibilities Extent to which service provides a substantive benefit to the public

Significance of the contributions to education and/or other public institutions

24

Level of leadership and initiative evidenced Application of expertise to benefit the public and/or public institutions

5. The Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee, as the selection committee, shall recommend the recipient to the Senate for approval and conferral of the award.

6. Presentation: The award should be presented at a reception for capitol staff hosted by the Academic Senate CSU as part of its annual Legislative day activities.

AS-2602-03/FGA will be a second reading item at the May 8-9, 2003, meeting. AS-2605-03/AA/FA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, FAIR USE, AND THE UNBUNDLING OF OWNERSHIP RIGHTS RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU)

commend the Task Force on Intellectual Property for producing such a comprehensive review of the law, together with the legal precedents, surrounding intellectual property and fair use for faculty, students, staff and the administration; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU endorse the document Intellectual Property, Fair Use, and the Unbundling of Ownership Rights [on Senate’s webpage http://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/e-senator/reports ] produced by the CSU Task Force on Intellectual Property; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that the document Intellectual Property, Fair Use, and the Unbundling of Ownership Rights be published by the CSU and be widely distributed via print, electronic and web-based means to faculty, students, staff and the administration; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campuses to conduct workshops using the document Intellectual Property, Fair Use, and the Unbundling of Ownership Rights to educate faculty, students, staff and the administration about the legal issues surrounding intellectual property and fair use; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campuses to use the document Intellectual Property, Fair Use, and the Unbundling of Ownership Rights when revising policies on ownership of intellectual property.

RATIONALE: In 2001, the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) created a Task Force on Intellectual Property to review local campus and systemwide policies in the subject area of intellectual property in light of the work done in the early and mid-1990s by the

25

CSU-SUNY-CUNY Work Group on Ownership, Legal Rights of Use and Fair Use. The Task Force also was charged to consider the implications of recent legislation and judicial decisions, new technologies, and the wider use of electronic technologies as they apply to the ownership of intellectual property. Finally, the Executive Committee charged the Task Force to review and update as necessary the publications Fair Use of Copyrighted Works: A Crucial Element in Educating America (1995) and Ownership of New Works at the University: Unbundling of Rights and the Pursuit of Higher Learning (1997), and specifically to: • Address the issue of author's rights in light of new technologies and the

current legal context. • Address the issue of multiple authors' rights, including situations in which

one or more students are involved in the creation of intellectual property. • Address ownership issues regarding classroom materials created in electronic

formats, made available on the World Wide Web, or otherwise distributed electronically.

The Task Force began its work in September 2001 and made interim reports to the Academic Senate meeting in plenary session in January and May 2002. This publication was delivered to the Senate on 15 November 2002. The final report to the Senate will be made at its March 2003 meetings. Copies of these reports are available from the Senate office.

The two publications mentioned above are listed in the References section of this publication, and in the Appendix some historical information is given about the earlier effort, the products of which appeared under the auspices of the Consortium for Educational Technology for University Systems (C.E.T.U.S.) – the members of which were California State University, State University of New York, and City University of New York.

Both the earlier effort and this one were approached from the premise that university policy arises as the result of shared governance and the work of the Task Force benefited from the inputs of faculty, staff, students, and administrators. A major difference between this publication and the earlier ones is that the Task Force has attempted to address topics associated with patents as well as copyright. The work in the 1990s focused solely on copyright.

Purpose This publication addresses several important points: • The effectiveness of higher education requires a thorough understanding of

the fair-use doctrine. • Faculty and students, in particular, necessarily apply the fair-use doctrine as

they perform their work.

26

• Newly enacted copyright law pertaining to distance education known as the TEACH Act will assist those who are teaching in this arena, but it is complex and requires a substantial effort by the university so as to qualify for access to its benefits.

• The initial ownership of newly created intellectual property in traditional university settings, and the subsequent disposition of the associated ownership rights, often has been unguided – sometimes to the detriment of teaching, learning, and research.

• The effectiveness of higher education requires a better understanding of how ownership rights associated with new intellectual property promote the mutual benefit of faculty, staff, and students and their learning communities.

• New models for the allocation of intellectual rights, based on licensing agreements which anticipate the influence of new technologies on teaching, learning, research, and creative activity in American universities must be designed and implemented.

AS-2605-03/AA/FA motion approved unanimously. AS-2603-03/AA SYSTEMWIDE MAXIMUM PHYSICAL CAPACITY

ENROLLMENT CEILING

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) support a systemwide maximum physical capacity enrollment ceiling for campuses; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU request that the Board of Trustees for the CSU, in consultation with the Chancellor’s Office and the Academic Senate CSU, establish a new systemwide maximum physical capacity enrollment ceiling for campuses in the CSU based on: the historic mission of the CSU, the demographics of the State of California, the geographic distribution of the campuses, and a study of any literature relating to the optimal size of comprehensive universities and of best practices in determining university growth; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU support limited incremental increases in individual campus enrollment ceilings above the 25,000 FTES physical capacity enrollment maximum while the study of a new systemwide maximum physical capacity enrollment ceiling is progressing.

RATIONALE: The current policy on the systemwide maximum physical capacity enrollment ceiling was set 30 to 40 years ago using a relatively informal procedure. It is time that the ceiling be re-examined. While some call for the elimination of any systemwide maximum physical

27

capacity enrollment ceiling, citing the principle of campus autonomy, we do not.

We believe that there are limits to individual campus growth beyond which the nature of the CSU will change. We believe that size is a factor in our ability to provide our students with personal attention and a caring environment within which teaching is valued and student success is foremost.

Some argue for local campus autonomy in deciding such issues, subject only to CSU Board approval, but the size of a campus is not just a local statistic that has no impact on the other campuses of the system. Resources are shifted, students are shifted, and the voices of the largest campuses become louder. The disproportionate growth of a campus affects not only its neighbors, but also the entire system. Campus autonomy is an important principal, but in this case a systemwide policy is needed.

AS-2603-03/AA will be a second reading item at the May 8-9, 2003, meeting. AS-2604-03/AA ADJUSTING PHYSICAL CAPACITY ENROLLMENT

CEILINGS FOR INDIVIDUAL CAMPUSES THROUGH THE MASTER PLAN REVISION PROCESS

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University recommend that the California State University Board of Trustees establish the following principles for adjusting enrollment ceilings within the systemwide physical capacity enrollment maximum: • Only individual campuses may initiate the process to increase

enrollment ceilings. • A campus request to The California State University Board of

Trustees for an increase in its enrollment ceiling shall include in its master plan revision policy the following elements: 1. A written explanation of how the increase in the physical

capacity enrollment ceiling may impact such internal academic goals as campus mission, institutional identity, range of academic programs, student mix, internal organization, student/faculty ratios and campus cohesion.

2. A resolution passed by the Academic Senate or the general faculty supporting the request for an increase in the enrollment ceiling.

28

RATIONALE: The California State University is experiencing significant enrollment growth that is likely to continue in coming years. With increased enrollment pressure, there will be increased external pressure to raise enrollment capacity. It is essential that campuses control this process and that any increase in the campus enrollment ceiling occur in a fashion that maintains the academic integrity of the campus.

Increasing the enrollment ceiling of a campus requires a revision of the campus master plan. This involves reviewing the physical capacity of the campus. While the enrollment ceiling of a campus certainly depends on physical capacity, it also depends on the internal academic goals of the institution, including such things as campus mission and institutional identity, the range and mix of academic programs, number of majors and student diversity, and internal organization and cohesion.

The Chancellor’s Office and the Board of Trustees agree that faculty and faculty senates must be consulted in enrollment management decisions. The Academic Senate CSU has passed several resolutions (AS-2482-00/AA and AS-2483-00/AA) emphasizing the role of the faculty in establishing enrollment management policy generally and enrollment ceilings specifically. The maximum size of a campus so affects the academic character of an institution that any request for an increase in its enrollment ceiling should not go forward without careful analysis and support from the Academic Senate or the general faculty.

A written explanation of how the increase in enrollment ceilings can be expected to affect the academic character of the campus will ensure that the campus has carefully considered this issue. A resolution from the Academic Senate or the general faculty supporting the enrollment ceiling increase guarantees faculty support and consultation on this issue.

AS-2604-03/AA will be a second reading item at the May 8-9, 2003, meeting. AS-2606-03FA CSU FACULTY WORKLOAD STUDY GROUP

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) thank the CSU Faculty Workload Study Group and commend them for their efforts, which resulted in the CSU Faculty Workload Report and the Comparable Faculty Workload Report [on Senate’s webpage] as well as the accompanying Findings and Recommendations; and be it further

29

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that campus senates review the report together with the study group’s findings and facilitate campus-based discussions to develop strategies for aligning faculty duties and responsibilities so that they are competitive with those at peer institutions; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that campus senates develop methods to evaluate a faculty member’s total contribution to the institution; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge that the Chancellor’s Office work with the California Faculty Association and the Academic Senate CSU to develop models each campus can use to implement the recommendations stated in the report; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU work with the Chancellor’s Office and the California Faculty Association in an effort to educate the legislature regarding the workload of the CSU faculty, specifically relative to faculty at peer institutions.

RATIONALE: A high quality university system must provide faculty with adequate time to engage in teaching, scholarship, and service activities. While satisfaction among CSU faculty has increased over the past ten years, faculty have generally indicated a desire to spend more time doing research and creative activities.

Because faculty in the CSU already work significantly more hours per week on average (50.28 hours) than faculty at peer institutions (47.25 hours), making greater time available for research and creative activities cannot simply be accomplished by a further increase in the CSU faculty workload. Rather, campuses should develop various models and strategies that recognize the many different faculty contributions that are necessary to offer a high quality education. This would allow faculty to develop a workload that builds upon their individual strengths. Unless we align our workload with national norms with respect to teaching, research/creative activities, and service, the CSU will suffer in its efforts to recruit and retain the next generation of well-qualified faculty.

AS-2606-03/FA will be a second reading item at the May 8-9, 2003, meeting. The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m. on Friday, March 7, 2003.

* * * * *

30

ADDENDUM

Harold Goldwhite, Faculty Trustee Report of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees Preview of the Meetings of the Board of Trustees, March 10, 11, and 12, 2003 On Monday March 10, 2003, the Board of Trustees will meet in closed session at the Long Beach Hilton Hotel to consider candidates for the presidencies of CSPU Pomona and CSU Sacramento.

The Board meetings on March 11 and 12 will take place in the Titan University Union at CSU Fullerton. As usual the full Board Agendas are available at http://www.calstate.edu/BOT/agendas/

After a short closed session of the Board to consider review of executives the Committee on Collective Bargaining will meet, but I don't believe there are any agreements to ratify at this meeting. The Committee on Finance will hear further reports on how the 2003-2004 budget is shaping up in the legislature, and will consider revenue bonds for expansion of the Student Union at Pomona, and student housing at Channel Islands. It will also consider a public-private partnership at San Luis Obispo to support further student housing.

The Committee on Campus Planning, Buildings, and Grounds will hear an update on the 2003-2004 capital budget, and a review of preliminary planning for capital projects during the next five years. The committee will hear about a possible gift of real property in Placer County for an off-campus center for CSU Sacramento, and will be asked to endorse schematic plans for the Channel Islands student housing. The Committee on Organization and Rules will have a first reading of the schedule of meetings of the Board in 2004. The March 2004 Board meeting is to be on the Fresno campus.

After the Committee of the Whole hears the regular semi-annual report on litigation the Committee on Governmental relations will consider Legislative Report No.2 for 2003. The trustees' program includes bills on Ensuring Access to Cal Grant Community College Transfers; Disclosure of Outside Business Activities for academic personnel, including faculty, of the CSU; and Special Funding for the International Polytechnic High School at CSPU Pomona. The Committee on Audit will hear its regular reports; the Systemwide Audit Report; and the Single Audit Report of Federal funds.

On Wednesday morning the Committee on Institutional Advancement will hear an update on advancement activities and will consider naming proposals for the Center for Small Business and Entrepreneurship at Northridge and the Velodrome at Dominguez Hills. The Committee on Educational Policy has a full agenda. Items include campus options to achieve enrollment and access goals; the report of the CSU Task Force on Facilitating Graduation, the Second Annual Report on CSU Teacher Preparation Programs, a report on Community Service Learning in the CSU, Notable

31

Accomplishments in CSU Teaching, Research and Scholarship, Study at Sea on the Training Ship Golden Bear; and the Annual Report on Academic Planning and Program Review.

The meeting of the Board is estimated to begin at 10:45 a. m. in the Titan Student Union.

Subcommittee for GE Course Review Chair Nishita reported that approximately 800 courses were submitted this year for GE course review. Six members of the Subcommittee for GE Course Review met three days and completed the faculty reviews on February 12. This year’s course review was facilitated by three factors: (1) the quality of the CCC course submissions have improved and a streamlined staff review process is now in place, (2) six faculty reviewers were available for the review dates compared to 2-3 reviewers in past years, and (3) experienced faculty reviewers representing multiple disciplines were present at the same time; including arts/performing arts, chemistry, communication studies, history, mathematics, and social sciences. It was recommended to the GE Advisory Committee that two-year, staggered appointments to the GE Course Review Subcommittee would help to continue the efficiency of the faculty GE course review process.

CMS Student Administration Function Team by John Tarjan Some of these points may be redundant from the last report but probably bear repeating.

1. Campuses have been engaging expensive consultants to help with data entry and rule conversion. These expenses are probably justified. However, because large campuses may have several times the student base, with only a fractional increase in programs over small campuses, these costs may be proportionately much more severe for small campuses.

2. The early involvement of student users, faculty, staff, etc. is critical to the development of functional systems and the setting of priorities.

3. Implementation of this system represents a large change for large segments of the campus. The process needs to be planned for and managed. Communication, participation, training, etc. are vital to making it a success.

4. The implementation of the system has caused campuses to have to review and document their current processes and procedures. This is probably a good thing since mature organizations often fail to do this often enough. Many outdated policies and procedures have been identified and amended by implementing campuses.

5. 24/7 availability has been identified as a goal. This represents additional expense and stretching of IS resources. Students access systems around the clock and throughout the week. This raises a couple of questions.

a. When can systems be down for maintenance? b. What level of user support needs to be available 24/7?

32

6. Changing user requirements (e.g., tracking foreign students, new holds, etc.) make things more difficult and costly.

Student Administration Function Team Meeting February 19, 2003—LAX Radisson 1. Participants came from most campuses in the system, including those who have

not yet begun implementation. 2. Fresno is reporting progress after years of preparation. Web portal

implementation has gone well. Grade input was successful 83% the first time around. Additional faculty training was required to complete the rest of the grades (faculty members were required to enter their own grades). Financial aid is working well with fewer lines and more money dispersed than with the legacy systems. Fee increases will pose a new problem. Disenrollment (300 in Fall, 458 letters this term) is working. Registration is working well. 31-70-80% (anticipated) of enrollment via the web over the last three terms. Will hold onto old system for one more year. Staff works on holidays. Encourages others to look at portal—seems to work very well, have a nice design.

3. Campuses (pilots, close followers, next-in-line) can help one another by sharing experiences and perspectives.

4. Long Beach finished a detailed report to their faculty group including budget data. They are very grateful for the information garnered from the pilot campus. Are on schedule—admissions seems to be working well. Impaction means having to run a custom admissions program after initially running the baseline SA program. Have a transfer app which includes a checklist to help students complete their application. Mass mailings require other products. Are using PeopleSoft to screen and admit graduate students—faculty appear very positive. Are a worldwide pioneer in converting transcripts from other institutions via EDI. PeopleSoft assumes transfer courses are non-transferable unless rules are input to the contrary. Have completed rules for impacted majors. Can run audits on students who have yet to be admitted now in baseline. Security works well in course scheduling. Prerequisite checking is proving to be a nightmare in terms of time and effort. Plan on 3 times the amount of time that you think it will take to develop the rules. Have developed their own parking module to request, pay for passes. Have a good financial aid consulting team. The new system will greatly reduce manual verification of financial aid applications. Lots of progress being made on GE portion of degree audit (back to 1988). About 10 majors a week are being completed. Consultants have been hired to help get them back on schedule. Faculty were intimately involved with the design of the rules and the interface. Are experimenting with mass e-mailings with JetForms (program to do mass letter mailings). Can be used to notify students of registration success, failure, etc., etc. Has the capacity to either send an e-mail or physical letter. Are moving away from SSN. Will recard the whole campus, change library systems, etc. to utilize a campus ID number, which becomes a

33

login number. Archival data needed to support financial aid audits—perhaps best to data warehouse. Critical success factors—quality of the training and documentation (very important). Are documenting many business processes that were never documented before. The faculty liaison (gets release time) has been invaluable—has been a great “salesman” for the system. Including faculty is time-consuming but is essential. Faculty buy-in is critical.

5. Northridge is pursuing an abrupt conversion rather than a phased conversion strategy. Are doing more programming than other campuses up front prior to the “big bang” on October 15th. Programming and training are ongoing. Testing and training will occur through the fall. Has never used SSN as a campus identifier. Will simplify implementation somewhat. Continuously uncovering “quirks” in PeopleSoft. Lots of unanticipated problems with data, rule conversion. Doing extensive testing. Are employing many consultants. Following campuses will be able to hire experienced consultants.

6. San José has less sophisticated systems to begin with. 80% of freshmen applications come through CSUMentor. Surprisingly, 50% of graduate applications come through CSUMentor. Data entry is a problem in admissions because chose to use PeopleSoft baseline without add-on products. Grad admissions are done on-line. 30% turnover among grad advisors resulted in additional training but seems to be going well overall. Will be loading transfer data via EDI. Are pushing web registration.

7. Next-In-Line Group a. Chico—just beginning planning and training. Are forming campus

consultation groups and engaging consultants. Financial and HR are already running. Are borrowing staff from various offices and hiring temps to free up time for people to work on implementation part-time.

b. Pomona reports progress. Has used Banner since 1992. Will convert data from Banner. Will register first students in Fall 04. Will begin processing applications in January.

c. Channel Islands—absent 8. Baseline Report

a. SEVIS (foreign national reporting) progressing b. Testing and development continuing c. 60-70% of CO CMS time spent on help-desk and development support d. Work done at baseline should greatly assist campuses beginning soon—

especially in data extraction and reporting to CO. e. Comment—CO reporting requirements are supported by antiquated

processes even though the new SA would allow much more sophisticated reporting.

9. Communication—mainly through teleconference and list serves but meetings also scheduled

a. “management” meetings

34

b. user groups c. SAFT d. Various task forces, standing groups

10. Change management, communication is essential on a project of this size. Needs to be taken seriously—hard to overestimate the value of this. Various strategies need to be used to allay fears, reassure participants.

11. CO CMS group, others are very willing to share information, answer questions. 12. SEVIS Update—somewhat behind schedule but still under mandate to do

reporting under the Patriot Act. INS has made things difficult for us—particularly by changing requirements. Attendees were encouraged to get on list serves, contact INS help desk, visit the INS website.

13. ADA compliance should be a continuing agenda item. 14. 24/7 Availability/Support

a. What does this mean? b. Students use systems, need assistance at all hours. c. What does this mean on the part of PeopleSoft? d. What does this mean for the campuses? e. Maintenance, backups, help desks, etc. are issues

15. The baseline modification process was reviewed. a. Changes that PeopleSoft would change. b. Broad support across campuses already implementing is required since

this will affect all campuses. c. If implementing campuses cannot agree, the entire SAFT votes on the mod

after technical review. 16. Some modifications are not approved, mainly due to technical considerations.

Finance Committee of the Board of Trustees, February 28, 2003 Harold Goldwhite, Faculty Trustee The Finance Committee of the Board met at the Office of the Chancellor and by teleconference on Feb. 28, 2003. The meeting was purely informational and the committee took no actions.

In discussing the recent report of the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) on the Governor's proposed budget for higher education and the CSU, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Patrick Lenz commented that the LAO disregarded many real costs for the CSU. On student fees the LAO did not accept the one-third set-aside of fee increases for financial aid. This could reduce the number of CSU students receiving state grants by 7,000. The LAO also recommended funding CSU remedial classes at Community College rates, which would reduce funding by another $10 million. On Tuesday March 4, 2003 there will be a legislative hearing on a bill setting fee policies for higher education. Senate Chair Kegley and others from the CSU will testify. The CSU is preparing a detailed response to the LAO analysis.

35

In terms of process, Vice Chancellor West emphasized the extensive consultation proposed with all CSU constituencies. In addition to the Budget Summit on March 14 which will bring together Presidents, AS Chairs, and ASI Chairs from all campuses together with the Executive Committees of ASCSU and CSSA, the Board finance committee and the System Budget Advisory Committee will meet monthly at least until May. The Chancellor and his staff will meet with the Labor Council on March 12. The campuses have been given some budget scenarios for 2003-2004 based on the Governor's proposals.

Public statements were made to the Committee by Senate Chair Kegley, CSSA President Pimentel, and CFA President Meisenhelder. All were appreciative of the tone and substance of consultation on the budget to date.

Faculty Flow Committee - February 2003 - Barry Pasternack, Chair Executive Summary For the past two years a committee made up of representatives of the Academic Senate CSU, campus Provosts/VPAA and AVPAA, and representatives of the Chancellor’s Office have studied the issues of faculty recruitment, retirement, and retention (faculty flow) with an eye towards improving recruitment success, faculty retention, and better planning for future campus faculty hiring needs. The attached report focuses on the current state of affairs in the CSU together with an analysis of factors that influence recruiting success. It also contains our recommendations for campus best practices with regard to recruitment, retention, and replacement of retiring faculty, system policy changes that we believe will be beneficial in these endeavors, and possible trustee actions that might facilitate improvement in such processes.

Major findings of the committee include the following: • While the system success rate in recruiting has averaged around 75%, individual

campus success rates vary widely. For campuses in operation during the period 1998 – 2001 the overall recruiting success rate ranged from 58.5% to 94.0%.

• Success rates in recruiting also vary widely by discipline. During the 1998 – 2001 period the overall recruiting success rate ranged from a low of 58.5% for business/ management to a high of 82.1% for home economics.

• Campus success rates do not seem to be significantly affected by local housing costs or the disciplines being recruited for. There was a negative correlation between salary offered and campus success rate during the 2000 and 2001 recruitment cycles.

• Location is the reason most often cited by faculty who accept offers from CSU campuses (61%). Colleagues/faculty (28%) and department (24%) are the two and three most cited reasons. Faculty who rejected offers from CSU campuses cited high teaching load most often (26%). Also frequently cited reasons include better offers elsewhere (23%), higher salaries elsewhere (22%), spouse’s career (21%), the high cost of living (20%), and location (19%).

36

• More than 10% of the faculty who accepted offers indicated that the recruitment process could be more timely, felt their questions about benefits were not answered completely, and indicated service expectations were not clearly presented. Over 20% of the faculty who rejected offers felt that the process was not timely and service expectations were not made clear.

• The average annual salary offered to assistant professors who accepted CSU offers in 2002 was $2,354 higher than for assistant professors who rejected CSU offers. Salary was listed as a reason by only 12% of faculty who accepted CSU offers but over 20% of the faculty who rejected CSU offers. For 37% of respondents who accepted a position with the CSU, the CSU offer was higher than other offers received. For 55% of respondents who rejected an offer from the CSU, the CSU offer was lower than other offers received.

Report on ASSIST March 14, 2003 by John Tarjan ASSIST (Articulation System Stimulating Inter-institutional Student Transfer) is the official repository for articulation agreements between public institutions of higher education in the state of California. Its website is accessed millions of times each month by students and advisors. Its information is kept up-to-date and is a great resource for the state. Both general education and major preparation patterns can be included. Recent initiatives/issues include the following.

1. Participation by private universities. A fee structure was discussed by the board for the inclusion of private universities. Since the organization is funded by UC, CSU and CCC using public funds, a fee was thought to be necessary given the additional costs to be incurred. To date, it appears that the privates have decided to pursue other on-line options, but the option for using ASSIST is still open to interested private colleges and universities.

2. ADA compliance. The site has been brought into alignment with standards for use by the visually impaired and persons with other disabilities.

3. Inclusion of the UC Dual Admission Program Course Compendium. This pertains only to the UC at this time. The board approved modification of the site to include new features that will support UC’s Dual Admissions Program. UC will be providing additional funding to support the development of these features.

4. Compliance audit. A study was undertaken to investigate the extent to which receiving institutions honored their articulation agreements found in ASSIST. The audit revealed virtually 100% acceptance of articulated coursework.

5. Equipment upgrades. New computers to run ASSIST services were purchased and brought on-line in October 2002 using additional funds provided by the CCC, CSU, and UC system offices in 01-02. Given the current budget situation, most funds go for maintenance of current service levels.

6. OSCAR (Online Services for Curriculum and Articulation Review). This is a facility currently being developed which will greatly simplify the curriculum

37

development and review process. It will greatly facilitate the work of groups like the GE Course Review Subcommittee by allowing colleges to submit official course outlines electronically.

7. CAN Information in ASSIST. The CAN and ASSIST projects are working to exchange data so that ASSIST can display CAN identifiers for qualified CSU and CCC courses.

8. Funding. For 02-03 ASSIST is facing a potential funding deficit of up to $500,000. The CCC, CSU, and UC system offices are pursuing a number of options to maintain ASSIST funding at a level sufficient to maintain core operations. More information on funding will be discussed at the May 19, 2003 meeting of the ASSIST Board of Directors.

You can visit the site at http://www.assist.org/

Recommendations of the Committee Campus Actions

• Departments should start recruiting earlier. • Campuses should engage in a continuous improvement plan relative to reducing

the time necessary to prepare an offer. • Campuses should prepare a workbook for department recruitment committees

detailing the recruitment process. • Training sessions should be held annually on the campus for recruiting

committee chairs. • Departments should be encouraged to prepare recruitment brochures to be

mailed to Ph.D. granting institutions. • In hard to hire disciplines, campuses should seriously consider advertising

positions with an open rank • Campuses should collect projected retirement data on a discipline basis to project

hiring needs over each upcoming five-year period. • Campuses should undertake exit interviews of departing faculty to identify

reason for their leaving the campus.

System Office Action • For disciplines with a low success rate in recruiting, CSU should take out

advertisements in professional journals listing campuses for which positions are open.

• For disciplines with a low success rate in recruiting, on an experimental basis CSU should sponsor an information table and/or reception at major national conferences.

• Departments should work with other CSU departments to facilitate placement of faculty spouses.

• CSU should prepare a brochure highlighting faculty benefits that would be targeted to individuals who area being recruited.

• CSU should set up an office of Emeriti Affairs.

38

Trustee Action • Work towards reducing the current normal teaching load of 12 WTU’s so that it

is in line with the norms of peer institutions. • Work to increase CSU faculty salaries to a level at which they are comparable

with those offered faculty in peer institutions. • Eliminate salary caps for all ranks. • Develop a comprehensive housing assistance program for faculty • Provide support for campus based childcare and eldercare facilities. • Provide health insurance for new faculty immediately upon date of appointment. • Develop more attractive benefits for faculty and dependents. • Provide new hires with the option of going into either PERS or a defined

contribution plan such as TIAACREF. • Create an enhanced leaves program for faculty.

Approved (or corrected) Date:________________________ _______________________________ Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, Chair _______________________________ Les Pincu, Secretary ________________________________ Margaret Price, Recording Secretary

* * * * *