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

October 10, 2018/LSU Ballroom A/2:30 – 5:00 PMRevised/Approved

Voting Members Present, Benavides Lopez, Bono, Chhetri, Cutrone, Dam, Dixon, Evans, Fortner, Grasse, Gray-Shellberg, Hirohama, Jarrett, Johnson, Kalayjian, Krochalk, Laurent, Ledesma, Macias, McGlynn, Mendoza Diaz, Monty, Naynaha, Ospina, Park, Pawar, Phan, Pong, JPrice, VPrice, Radmacher, Sanford, Silvanto, Skiffer, Tang, Taylor, Tsuno, YiVoting Members Not Present: Deng, Ernst, Heinze Balcazar, Kitching, Kulikov, Nicol, StillVoting Ex-Officio Members Present: Celly, Esposito, Gammage, Joseph, Ortega, Pinto, Talamante, ThomasVoting Ex-Officio Members Not Present: Norman, ParhamNon-Voting Ex-Officio Members Present: Brasley, Costino, Davis (proxy Hutton), Franklin, Goodwin, Hill, LaPolt, O’Donnell, Peyton, Spagna, Stewart, Wen (proxy Shabbir)Non-Voting Ex-Officio Members Not Present: Avila, Driscoll, Manriquez, McNutt, Poltorak, Sayed Guests: T. Caron, L. Edwards, D. Roberson Simms

2018-2019 Academic Senate Executive Committee:Laura Talamante – Chair, Kate Esposito – Vice Chair, Justin Gammage – Parliamentarian, Charles Thomas – Secretary, Enrique Ortega – EPC Chair, Katy Pinto – FPC Chair, Kirti Celly and Thomas Norman – Statewide Senators

Recorded and Edited by SEW and the Executive CommitteeMeeting Called to Order: 2:30 PMApproval of Agenda M/S/PApproval of Minutes 09/26/18 M/S/P

Announcement: Academic Senate Reception 10/24 6:00 – 7:30 pm 5th Floor Library SouthLook for invitation coming out in next day or two.

Senate Chair recognized Dr. Kirti Celly for her work along with her co-Chair Keith Boyum on the NTTTF and the award given to Dr. Celly, who applied for and won the 2018 Delphi Award for Faculty Models, Programs, Policies, and Practices that Support Student Success. Celly thanked all those who participated through multiple cycles of data gathering. She thanked Dr. Keith Boyum, her co-chair, and Dr. MacHarg who had inspired Celly through sharing what happened as an outcome of labor management meetings. Celly said they sent out the NTTIF Report to many throughout the CSU system and it was through that she was encouraged to apply for the award. Celly said initially she hesitated because she didn’t believe they had done anything. However, contemporaneously they were doing things, which fructified. One of which was lecturer equity—a round of equity dedicated to improving the salaries of those non-tenure track faculty that were below the norm. She said they also met, along with Connie Betz, President Hagan who listened and modified the decisions of past years so that we would have a larger number of counseling faculty per student. And now we have more tenure-track faculty as opposed to non-tenure track faculty. Celly explained that the grant was a contemporaneous investment in understanding the issues at this university around non tenure-track faculty and their contributions, making changes to salary immediately as well as making changes to our counseling faculty.

Chair’s Report GE Ad Hoc Committee: one of the recommendations at the Senate Retreat was the need to disband the GE Ad Hoc

Committee. Chair Kalayjian reports that GE has disbanded the committee and taken up the work to “handle the remaining revisions to GE as a whole committee. Now that we are smaller, we think we can do the necessary work (clear criteria for inclusion, assessment process, etc.) and have started that endeavor.” To move this work forward and have broader campus input, GE has decided to hold a town hall regarding proposed revisions of GE in order to have a broader campus input. Date to be determined in October or early November.

Technology in Education Conference : California State University Dominguez Hills is hosting a regional conference on OCTOBER 16 from 9:00 am -3:30 pm in Loker Student Union. It is for educators, academic technologists, administrators, librarians, and IT professionals to meet and exchange ‘best practices’ with technology in online education, explore technologies, research, and projects applicable to improving the learning process. Members of the Distance and Hybrid-Learning Task Force plan to attend.

FDC RSCA & Grant Workshops:Intramural opportunities for RSCA enrichment:1) RSCA intramural grant call is open. APPLICATION DEADLINE is 11:59 PM, 1/25/192) Grants for My Research (GMR), grant writing support program for assistant professors is open. APPLICATION DEADLINE is before 11:59 p.m. on Tuesday, 11/20/18

Next grant writing training/workshop at the Faculty Development Center: Title: Creating a Successful RSCA Grant Proposal for Internal RSCA Funding and Leveraging it for External FundingDate: December 4, 2018/Time: 11 am – 1 pmThis workshop is open to all tenured faculty, probationary tenure-track faculty, full-time lecturers and part-time lecturers.Presented by: Dr. Chandra Srinivasan (Khan), Faculty Director for Research Development (Email: ckhan@csudh.edu).

CSUDH Faculty Trustee Nominations: The CSU Academic Senate has sent the call for Nominees for 2019-2021 Faculty Trustee (http://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/Records/documents/Call_For_Nominations_Faculty_Trustee_2019-2021.pdf), which will be posted to the Senate page and communicated by the Senate Parliamentarian via email to faculty. A quick summary of the timetable:

o Nominating materials must be received by Friday, January 4, 2019. The Academic Senate CSU Faculty Trustee Recommending Committee will review campus nominations January 14, 2019. As required by law, the full Senate will make its selection(s) of at least two nominees for the post of Faculty Trustee at its March 14-15, 2019 meeting. The governor appoints one candidate as CSU Faculty Trustee in late spring/early summer.

o We have a campus policy, AA 2005-23 - Procedures for Nominating of Faculty Trustee Candidates from 2005 (http://www5.csudh.edu/aapm/pdf/AAPS029-001.pdf). I have asked Provost Spagna to update our campus policy, which includes outmoded processes for the current timeline, criteria, and procedures for nominating faculty.

Elections/AppointmentsParliamentarian Gammage asked for the affirmation of Stephen Moore, from CAH to serve on the Student Grade Appeals Board. Additionally a ballot was sent around to elect faculty to serve on the search committee for the Chief Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer. Gammage reminded folks that there was still a need for a faculty member from CNBS for the Student Grade Appeals Board as well as a faculty member from CAH for the Educational Policy Committee.

Second ReadingEXEC 18-10 Resolution Calling for Timely Notice and Scheduling of MPP Campus VisitsVice Chair Esposito reviewed the two suggested minor modifications since the First Reading that were incorporated. She noted that there had been feedback suggesting referencing a search for the Library Associate Dean that took place during the summer. She said the Senate Executive Committee discussed it and the spirit of the resolution is that all MPP positions searches have as much participation as possible from the campus, not only for faculty input but also for the candidates so that they’re able to get a good sense of the campus. Senator Pawar suggested defining specific MPP positions. She said there are a lot of MPPs on campus, especially from other divisions that they do not have the same interest in whose hired. She said she would hate to hold up the hiring of MPP positions in other divisions because they have to be done during the academic year. She suggested it could read level III and IV MPPs, or perhaps MPP’s in Academic Affairs, even then, likely at certain rank. Senator J. Price made some spelling changes to CNBS and CAH in the 6th resolve. Associate Dean Caron said he was speaking on behalf of Dean Avila from CAH. One possible unintended consequence of the resolution would be that while they want as many of the campus community to participate in the search process, there is the potential

that this would be the slowing down of searches. Caron noted, especially the potential challenge of trying to coordinately faculty schedules, when the timing of such conflict because folks are heavily engaged in teaching, grading and other kinds of instructionally related activities might push forums into final’s week. Talamante said pushing things into final’s week is absolutely something we would want to avoid, so if we missed that, it wasn’t intended. Pawar was asked if it was a friendly amendment to which she responded that she wasn’t sure if it was because she would want to know the scope of MPPs on our campus. J. Price noted that there should be a comma before “and the library.” Celly noted there should be a comma after faculty and staff as well as after the College of Business Administration and Public Policy. Pawar then moved that the resolution be tabled, which was seconded. The Senate voted unanimously to table the resolution.

Senate DiscussionPrioritizing MPP Reviews – Talamante gave some context as to where the MPP review process was. She noted she brought concern about the MPP review process to President Parham, noting that they had not been able to fill a call for faculty to serve, as per the PM 2018-01, since reviews would happen after the semester had ended. She said that President Parham asked that Senate Exec prioritize the list of 19 names. Senate Exec discussed and decided to bring it to Senate. Talamante continued that President Parham’s view is that in order to do a quality job on the 360 reviews, the process would be better served with a smaller number of reviews rather than the 19 indicated by the standards of the PM. The President’s suggestion is to take a third of the list and state who the reviews should start with. It was discussed in Senate Exec and determined two possible options. First is to go by time, the people who have been here the longest and have not received that level of review. One third would be 6 point something, so perhaps 7 would work. A second option is to begin with Academic Affairs, looking at all of the Deans who have been here longer than three years, which would be 6-7 reviews. Talamante said they’re bringing this to the Senate floor for discussion to get feedback from the Senate. It’s been a long-term issue, which started before she was on Senate Exec, therefore the voice of the Senate should prevail in prioritizing the reviews. Senator Monty asked how many of the 19 are in Academic Affairs? Talamante said overall the number in Academic Affairs is 8, which would include an Interim Associate Dean. Monty said he believed they could do all of Academic Affairs, because why would they do an Interim Associate Dean? He said if they can’t get through all of those, they could go with time and rank beginning with the Deans of the colleges. He said that faculty would primarily be bearing the burden with the Academic Affairs personnel and believed they could do all 8. Senator Hirohama said her preference would be to start with the VPs such as Stewart and Manriquez since they have been here for a while. She suggested starting with those VPs and the Deans. Talamante pointed out if we do use time as the parameter, that would put us across Academic Affairs and Student Affairs and the VPs, so we would get a different cross section of the campus. Secretary Thomas said that our marching orders thus far has been to limit the number of reviews that we do this year to somewhere around 6. If we go with Senator Monty’s approach we’re at 8, and if we go with Senator Hirohama’s approach we’re beyond even that number. The question is which six. We’re not saying we don’t want to review people, but in order to have a more thorough review, the view has been that we’re looking to do less, not more. Hirohama said she didn’t see why we would restrict it to just Academic Affairs, it’s just two more Vice Presidents who have been here for a while. Talamante asked if we went with top ranks as well as time, we would have six deans and two VPs, is that the recommendation? Hirohama agreed. Hirohama noted that the potential list of those to be reviewed is the only communication that she had seen on the matter, which had gone out in May. She did not see anything further on it. She said she realizes it went to DHemail, but the subject was 2nd Call for Nominations. It was basically restricting the information to people in the Senate. Hirohama believed that the subject should have been more explicit. She said that if it was the intention to have these reviews done, it should have been announced in a better way and to the entire campus. When there is a final selection of MPPs to be reviewed, it needs to go out as a campus announcement to all faculty, staff and students that that these MPPs are under review. Secretary Thomas wished to clarify that the call Hirohama saw—the Call for Service from Parliamentarian Gammage—had to do with the Senate participation in the process. Thomas said the announcement about the actual review process that Hirohama is speaking to would likely come from Faculty Affairs or Human Resources. Hirohoma responded she understands this, that in the future, this shouldn’t be the only notice that goes to the campus. AVP Roberson-Simms said when the May notice went out from Academic Senate, early on it was realized that the timing was not going to be appropriate for faculty to participate in the process. Therefore, it had not been rolled out to the entire campus. But when we do, per the PM, we will be broadly communicating those that are under review and solicit feedback from the entire campus. Vice Chair Esposito said maybe we could look at studying a more abbreviated 360, which is another option. She said she believed that the goal was to get as many of the reviews done as possible and so she wondered if we want to think about how to abbreviate some of those 360s. Chair Talamante

responded that she would worry that we throw anything in the way of getting started this year and that this could be a longer-term goal to go back and see if there are adjustments that we wish to make. To slow it down would go against voices we’ve been hearing. Talamante said that President Parham would like to make an announcement about this towards the end of the fall and that would be the time to layout the process as well as the Senate’s roll in providing faculty reviewers. Talamante laid out the options that had been discussed for those who had been here more than three years in either category. The first recommendation would be six Deans and one Associate Dean in Academic Affairs and the other would be the six Deans and two VPs who have been here during that time range. Monty asked to identify which Deans, which Associate Dean, and which VPs. Hirohama said the old PM had a timeline and the current one does not. The old PM started in September and ended in April. To her it made sense to follow that timeline. She also questioned why all reviews couldn’t be handled within that timeframe. The Senate body chose to weigh on options described via paper ballot. Option A: The Deans (including Wen, Sayed, LaPolt, Avila, Davis, Brasley & Associate Dean Wilson). Option B: All six Deans (Wen, Sayed, LaPolt, Avila, Davis, Brasley) + two VPs (Manriquez and Stewart). Results would be announced at the end of the meeting. Provost Spagna said he’s participated in extensive 360s as the subject and the reviewer. He said in order to do them right, they’re extensive. Having said there’s a desire to do this so that it’s on cycle, meaning that this is something that’s part of the normal performance cycle. Spagna added that there is a concern about the bandwidth though, in terms of choosing how many to do. Monty said there is an existing policy, which has never been implemented and which is why there’s a huge backlog. He continued that there is no ideal solution and although he would like to see the backlog eliminated, he said it’s important to at least make a start. Once we do start, we must actually stick with it and be consistent with conducting these evaluations so that we don’t find ourselves here again. Roberson-Simms said that MPP’s are evaluated on a fiscal-year cycle, starting July 1st and they’re due June 30th. The intent is that all the feedback that’s received as a result of this process, is incorporated in that annual evaluation, which MPPs currently do undergo, they just haven’t been that broad feedback. Talamante asked when you’re soliciting feedback for the annual reviews, when do you normal solicit that feedback from those who are part of the process that faculty and staff are not part of? Roberson-Simms responded that is not normally part of the process, soliciting the feedback. Appropriate administrators have the ability to do that if they so choose, but the PM is what formalized that, but year-to-date that had not been done. Talamante asked when the annual reviews normally start? Roberson Simms responded July 1st. Talamante asked when are folks notified that it’s time to do the annual review? Roberson-Simms responded around April but that hasn’t been consistent. She said once we reach agreement on how this is going to proceed, we can make that earlier if necessary. Thomas said one of the conversations at Senate Exec was that feedback can be provided in those annual reviews. It was at least the view of the President that this should ordinarily and consistently be happening. In this conversation, it sounded atypical. How can we ensure that there are requests for information in those annual reviews to whomever may be interested? Understanding it won’t be a formal 360 process, but nonetheless, it is just the opportunity to seek feedback and engage folks. Roberson-Simms said it is the MPP reviewer that has the responsibility to understand how that person interacts with other individuals on campus and touch base and find out how their interacting from their perspective and how their performance has been. It’s not formal, so there’s no way to know if MPPs are in fact doing that. But, Roberson-Simms said, that would be the responsible way to do the evaluation. MPPs vary in terms of who they engage with on campus, so it depends on the MPP under review. Thomas said he fully understands. He’s just looking to understand how we can codify to ensure that such a best practice to whomever MPPs touch would include seeking feedback from the community in relation to the annual reviews. Roberson-Simms said she would make a suggestion to the President to modify the existing PM 2001-01 to be more comprehensive. She thought that Senator Monty also made a comment during the last Academic Senate Meeting that that PM is not in compliance with Title V, but it wasn’t intended to cover that process. But, she added, that she believed we could add some language so that it does incorporate that to be more comprehensive. Spagna said he believes what Senator Thomas just brought forward is important. This combined with Senator Monty’s comments goes along with points he raised in Cabinet when they were discussing it. Doing a 360 review is something that is in a PM and although it hasn’t been enacted on campus before, we’re going forward with it now. Spagna continued, however, there’s no reason why we cannot also address instrumentation, and we’ll be working on this in cabinet—creating instrumentation to make sure that the VPs are soliciting feedback from constituents for the annual reviews going forward. He said he sees this as a combined model – as both a 360 as well as on an annual basis seeking feedback from constituents under review.

Discussion:Area G and Executive Order 1100 Revised, Dean of Undergraduate Studies, Kimberly CostinoCostino thanked the body for the work that was done on EO1100 in the prior year. She is well aware that an extensive amount of work went into it. She said however, there is one last lingering piece that needs to be addressed and that is Area G. She noted that they were contacted by the Chancellor’s Office that Area G has to get out of the GE section of the catalog now. Costino said she would like to present a temporary fix until we can have a lengthier discussion on what we would like to do with Cultural Pluralism, which is Area G. She said she believes her proposal would buy us a little bit of time, and we could even put an expiration date on it.

Costino provided Senate with three handouts. The first handout addressed was our current catalog language: G. Objectives for Integrative Studies in Cultural Pluralism

G. Cultural Pluralism Requirement (0-3 units)Within their General Education selections or within other requirements, all students must take one course which addresses cultural pluralism (i.e. the impact of the integration of cultures).

Costino described her handout which lists all the courses for our A-G. She stated that following that list is a note which describes the courses in that list to satisfy both the Integrative Studies in Social Science and the Cultural Pluralism Requirement. She said the vast majority fulfill Area G through F3. But we also have some courses that can fulfill Area G that do not also fall under Area F3. Costino said what she is suggesting is to pull that requirement from the section of GE in the catalog and put it under a University Requirement for now. It will buy us a year and then we can discuss what we really want to do with it. She explained what that would look like in the catalog with handout #2 and the changes that would need to be made to the section entitled, “Requirements for a Bachelor’s Degree.”

And then, she said we would add a section called University Graduation Requirements, as follows:

She noted that the language about Area G has not changed from what we already have. The only difference is “Students who pass upper-division GE courses for the Social and Behavioral Sciences requirement (Area F3) will have met this requirement, but the requirement can also be met by the following courses:” She pointed to the shorter list above that are currently in G, but not in F3. She said she believes that we have some students who transfer maybe they’re taking these courses for something else. She said she did not want those courses to go away. And there might be some concerns about if we don’t have this, how is it going to impact the FTEs for those people in those departments, we do need to have those larger discussions. For now, she does not think it will impact much of anything in this next year.

Q&A: Senator Monty said Area G generates confusion. He’s not sure why the Chancellor's Office would be upset given that it is a zero-unit requirement in the catalog. It is his understanding that F3 courses, that any course approved for F3 utilization had to also meet the Area G requirement. The odd thing is that not all of the courses approved for Area G are approved for other upper-division GE requirements. Why don’t we just remove those from the catalog and require them to remove that that utilization if it’s not going to be an independent utilization anymore? They can either apply for F3 or just remove that utilization, and we can remove all of it from the catalog. There are courses on the green sheet that are in Area F1 that are listed as also meeting the Area G requirement. He noted one of them is his own program, History 376, and another PHI 383 was approved as an F1 utilization. He said he noticed that HIS 376 showed up in an Academic Requirement Advising for Area G, and he does not recall asking for it to be an Area G utilization. He said he did request this for HIS 340 and the F3 courses that they submitted. Another proposal is to not just use F3, but to go back and review proposals for F1 to see whether or not those courses would be appropriate to meet the Cultural Pluralism requirement. This way any UDGE course would meet it. He said there may be an error in the catalog as it is. He said he’s not sure that PHI 383 and HIS 376 actually meet the Cultural Pluralism requirement. Chair Talamante asked for EPC Chair Ortega to explain what feedback he’s received about what happens to the courses that have been in Area G, which aren’t already also in F3. Ortega noted that the concerns they had received last semester with regard to Area G were that any changes that were going to happen from moving one set of courses to a different area was the question of whether or not that

would require a curriculum process and if so, who should follow that? Talamante said the current conversation has been that it gives us an opportunity to think about how we embed cultural pluralism in GE and whether or not it should only be in Area F3. All courses in F3 have to also include a cultural pluralism requirement. There are courses in Area G that don’t embed in F3 but do in F1 and other courses that don’t fit in UDGE, so this would be part of the intent of looking for a short-term solution, so that those courses don’t go away yet, but be considered as part of a larger conversation. Costino said she’s hearing all kinds of feedback from different areas, so rather than having to make a quick decision without fully discussing the implications and fully taking it through the curriculum approval process, this would be something that doesn’t require a lot of changes. EO1100 says we can only have Areas A-F, and right now the catalog does say 0-3 units for Area G and that caught the CO’s attention and that’s why this came up. Senator Skiffer said she’s concerned given there are three Sociology courses in the list and an Social and Behavioral Science course too. She believes the faculty in Sociology would like to have a conversation about the implications of this change. She said she does not feel comfortable voting on it without them weighing in. Chair Talamante said there would be more time for conversation. We initially just want a sense of the senate that they would be comfortable moving forward with a resolution to deal with the fact that our catalog is out of compliance and not up-to-date. This is a proposed short-term solution. Skiffer said she is concerned about making any far-reaching decisions about this in this meeting today. Talamante said we would be voting on whether or not to bring forth a resolution. Skiffer said we’ve been here before where it was supposed to be temporary and then it becomes policy. She said this could have very serious consequences even for a year within her department. Senator Taylor asked do these classes listed on handout #3* also appear in Area F?

* ANT 312. Language and Culture (3)ANT 336. Comparative Cultures: Comparative Sociopolitical Systems (3)ANT 337. Comparative Cultures: Ethnography and Film (3)ANT 338. Comparative Cultures: Mainland Southeast Asia (3)ANT 339. Comparative Cultures: Mexico and Central America (3)ANT 340. Comparative Cultures: Peoples of Ancient Egypt (3)ANT 342. Comparative Cultures: South America (3)ANT 389. Transmission of Culture (3)HIS 376. Film as History (3)MUS 401. Afro-American Music (3)PHI 383. Comparative Religions (3)Senator Kalayjian was asked to respond. Kalayjian said she is speaking as Chair of GE at the moment. She said Costino brought this proposal to the General Education Committee last week. She said the Chancellor's Office is asking us to get Area G out of our GE package. We have to do something with it. Kalayjian emphasized what Costino is suggesting is that we don’t just eliminate it but that we take it out of GE and put it in the University Requirement section. There are no units attached to it. The requirement would remain, it just wouldn’t be a GE requirement much like we just did with the AI requirement in order to sustain Area D. That gives us a year before the next catalog comes out to consider how we want to deal with the issue of Cultural Pluralism, for example, getting rid of the term “Cultural Pluralism” and finding something that is more contemporary to address more facets of diversity rather than just cultural pluralism. Kalayjian said she wished she had thought of it because she thinks it’s a genius way not to step in roughly, which could have been done. This was a sensitive way of moving it over. Talamante requested that Senior Advisor Edwards speak from the University Advising perspective. Edwards said that the courses in F3 all count in Area G but those listed in handout #3 are not other F courses. In terms of the perspective from the University Advising Center, when we are reviewing GE requirements, we go through the Upper Division so that F3 is a clear conversation point, and it is shared that those courses will count for the cultural pluralism requirement as well. Where we see this most impacted is with our transfer students. It is possible for students who transfer in from other CSU campuses and occasionally from out of state with transfer credits that clear the upper-division social science requirement but do not have a cultural pluralism component. Therefore, the opportunity to take the other courses in G broaden the options that students have who need to just meet that Area. Costino said she did not change anything. If there are errors in the handouts, they can fix it. If they were in F2 or F1 they stayed there. What is on handout #3 are the GE Courses that aren’t also in Area F, they’re the ones that are just G. Senator Thomas said he wished to speak to Senator Skiffer’s question. He said what is being proposed as a stopgap is to not change the essence of

Area G but to remove it from GE and to keep it in tact as a university requirement. This is a one-year approach and coupled with it would be a very deliberate and clear conversation about how to merge Area’s F and G moving forward, not under pressure of the Chancellor's Office saying to get rid of it. Monty said this would result in absolutely zero impact on those SOC courses because they have an F3 utilization and F3 is not being changed. The same number of students will still be taking the same number of F3 courses with this change. This change will only potentially impact on courses listed on handout #3. Senator Park asked if this would have an impact on double counting? The response was no by several on the Senate floor. The question was called, and the Academic Senate Chair asked for a Sense of the Senate to see if they supported bringing forth a resolution that outlines what had just been discussed. 38 in favor, 2 against and 3 abstentions.

Talamante introduced the next action item and prefaced it by highlighting the additional handout On Shared Governance that was authored by Dr. Jerry Moore on April 29th, 2004 which provides a bit of history and discussion that had happened on campus on shared governance. Additionally, Talamante said, Moore references a document entitled Collegiality in the California State University System, which can also be found on our webpage.

First Reading EXEC 18-11 Resolution Opposing the “Tenets of System Level Shared Governance in the California State University.” Statewide Senator Celly asked for a motion to move the resolution to the floor. Celly first began by highlighting three items of note in Dr. Moore’s essay, items #2, #6, #11 and #12. Celly provided an overview of what Statewide Senator Norman presented two weeks prior. The Tenets document came as the result of a lot of labor of the Executive Committee of the ASCSU working with the Chancellor’s office. The Tenets document was presented in May as a fait accompli to the Statewide Senators, something that had to be accepted or not without any modification. At the first meeting of the 2018/19 academic year, Statewide went through the document again. The voices were divided as to whether the Tenets should be accepted as a starting ground to move forward, or they should be turned down because of the nature and voice expressed in them. Celly said after much discussion both on the Senate floor at the prior meeting and at the Senate Executive Committee meeting, EXEC 18-11 represents CSUDH’s recommendation to reject the Shared Tenets of System Level Governance unless they are modified. Senator Monty said he believed we need to decide the strategy we wish to take. He said he was unclear from the First Reading whether or not we are rejecting them out right or if we’re calling for their modification. He continued, if we’re anticipating that the ASCSU is going to say that we will accept them if they’re modified in certain ways, then we do want to make our recommendations about the kinds of recommendations we would like to see. However, he suggests that those comments be included in the Rationale rather than in the Resolves. He continued that he believed the Resolves should be fewer and stronger, voicing our opposition to the Tenets in their present form. He provided some language, in the first Resolve, it read that We, the ASCSUDH reject the Tenets. The second Resolved, We call on the ASCSU, in the strongest possible terms to reject the tenets. Monty offered the following language; “as a misguided and flawed effort to restore shared governance at the CSU”; and “considers censurable Chancellor White’s attempt to justify violations of shared governance by reference to external pressures on the CSU system; and then “a call to the Chancellor begin implementing and following the principles of shared governance as outlined in the documents that the Senate Executive Committee cited in the resolution, like HEERA, the California State University Board of Trustees. Monty commented that it was a joint statement based on a report of the Academic Senate in 1985 that outlined the principles of shared Governance. Then in the footnotes, if we want to recommend revisions in addition to the specific points of the resolve, we might also refer the ASCSU to the 30 recommendations made in the Senate report from 2001. He said he will email the Senate Executive Committee his recommended revisions to the Resolves. Senator Thomas asked that Monty link the reference to the 2001 document as well. Celly said she would second Monty’s recommendation that the language be stronger in the first two Resolves. Senator Thomas commented that as he understands it, a revision is not on the table for the ASCSU, “it’s up or down.” He said he agrees with Senator Monty’s recommendation that we answer the question that is before us. He would also say “Nay,” but we should also agree that we should lay forward what we would agree to in the rationale. Academic Senate Chair Talamante asked for a quick sense of the senate on whether or not the rest of the Senate agrees with the current proposed modifications before they bring it back for a Second Reading on October 24 th.

ASI Report: VPAA, Daylin Joseph, reported that they’re working on the Affordable Learning Solutions (ALS) courses with registration opening up pretty soon. They want to ensure that students are aware of ALS courses. She said the second thing they’re working on is making sure their students know the propositions that our students are voting on in November. Our campus is doing a fantastic job in making sure that our students are registered, but it seems that there may be a lack of awareness of what’s going to be on the ballot. They’re holding an event on 10/10 (that evening) make sure that students understand the propositions.

CFA Report: Daniel Cutrone – Cutrone began by saying that he was speaking not only for the CFA but in the capacity of my elected position as the Non-Full Time Faculty Representative. He noted that despite the progress that has been made there still exists a wide gap that needs bridging between our Non-Full Time Faculty and Tenure Faculty. Many Non- Full Time Faculty still feel as if they are not included and recognized as an essential element in teaching our students. Many

only have a “Masters” degree and feel as if they are treated as 2nd class citizens by faculty holding a PhD. He continued that it is important to recognize that they are the foundation of our teaching Staff and as such they should be afforded all the rights as our tenure faculty. Our CFA is working hard to resolve this gap and to build a closer working relationship as we continue this year. He suggested that in order to accomplish our goal and have a more transparent relationship we once again would like to ask each department to select a representative to communicate with our CFA. He explained that a representative would gather questions and concerns from department faculty and convey them to the steering committee, and inform people about CFA and encourage faculty to know their rights.

He said there were a few items that he would like to bring to the floor that still need to be discussed at upcoming Senate meetings. He requested a “written” answer that can be referred to in the future.

1) Confirmation/Statement on the inclusion of Non-Full Time Faculty to department meetings and their voting rights.

2) Confirmation/Statement on funds for travel to present at conferences for Non-Full Time Faculty

3) A review of where we stand on syllabus inclusions. Especially the addition of a statement on video/audio recordings in the classroom.

4) Most important there is concerns with maintenance and up keep. We are beginning to notice existing buildings in a state of disrepair.

5) To begin a discussion on establishing a program of teacher aids in each department to work with non-full-time faculty and help with grading.

7) Statement on use of Faculty and DH Email network. How do we communicate with each other? What does it mean to build community? How do we go about including more commitment from our university members?

Finally, our Faculty and CFA would like to begin to acknowledge and put on record some members of our university staff for making our work possible.

He offered appreciation to the Instructional Media Services for the difficult job of maintaining our classroom equipment. He thanked supervisor Adelbert Baylis and his staff Jaden Tran, Cynon Fernando, Amirhossein Rouhanipoor, and Eric Fernandez.

He also thanked the College of Natural and Behavioral Sciences Administrative Support Coordinator Christina Trujillo who is responsible for keeping six departments going including Science Math & Technology, Chemistry, Physics, Earth Science, Geography, and Environmental Science.

Upcoming CFA Events: We will be sending members from our steering committee to represent Dominguez Hills to the statewide CFA Assembly which will be held here in Los Angeles Oct.19th & 20th.

PresentationCampus Preparedness Update, Chief Velez said one of the purposes of today’s presentation was to talk about the upcoming drill that we’re having here on campus. On October 18, at 10:18 am Cal State Dominguez Hills will be participating in the Great Shakeout. He said it’s an annual drill that went nationwide and is now worldwide. He highlighted that last year globally 58 million participated and in the U.S. 20 million. Velez then reviewed what to expect. First advisories will be sent out, special meetings are held with the floor wardens. The drill as a whole, Velez noted, allows them to accomplish three things: Test the mass communication system; practice the earthquake drill, and practice evacuation as per the mandate Executive Orders 1056, which requires we have a mass evacuation drill. There are sites that everyone is asked to evacuate to. Due to current construction projects, this has caused us to have to relocate some of the prior evacuation sites. Velez asked that everyone review the evacuation map so that they can be aware of where they’re going to evacuate on 10/18. On 10/18, calls, texts, emails, as well as the computer will display a notice. Additionally, the rooftop speaker system will be activated. Then all are asked to follow the process of Drop, Cover and Hold On for one minutes and then evacuate the building. Velez stressed not to use elevators. Floor Wardens will provide any special instruction needed. After 15 minutes, there will be an “All Clear.”

Q&A Senator Gray Shellberg asked if the Drill is intended to be a surprise to students? Velez said no, notifications and instructions are going out campus wide, including students. Senator Mendoza-Diaz asked what kind of modifications are being made for those who are wheelchair bound? Velez stated that the Floor Wardens have received special training with regard to that. Cutrone asked if we have been able to test the outdoor system yet. Velez responded that they had, they test it annually and periodically the test the rooftop speakers. Celly asked if the Chief could remind everyone how to identify who a Floor Warden is. Velez said that the Floor Wardens will be wearing orange vests and some will have a helmet.

Senator Evans said he had some concerns about our level of preparedness for an emergency. He said if you look at the campus map for AEDs, we have no AEDs from small college through the SAC area. He said he understands we have them in patrol cars, but that assumes that a patrol car is ready to respond to an area if something should happen. He said he is a Floor Warden, and he’s received training in advanced lifesaving, but he doesn’t even have a First Aid Kit from the campus. Velez said in response to AEDs that are in the patrol cars were purchased through the Police Department budget. The AEDs around campus we do have some located throughout the campus, they’ve been purchased through the Risk Management portion of the budget. Prior to Jeff Wood leaving, he was looking into purchasing more. That particular aspect of it is being handled by Risk Management. He said Survival Kits are given to all new employees during orientation. Evans said no, it is a First Aid Kit he’s inquiring about. Velez said that they haven’t looked into giving First Aid kits to Floor Wardens, but that might be a good idea. Evans said there are Floor Wardens who have some. Velez asked if they were purchased through campus? Evans responded, “Correct”. Velez said they would look into getting him one. Esposito asked about emergency food storage, how are those areas marked? Velez said there is extra storage of food and water. They are in a building and “we know where they are” [Police Department?]. He said the Emergency Manager knows where they are and they’re secure. There are three days’ worth of food and water on campus. In addition to that, there is an MOU with the Foundation to access their food supply here at LSU in the event of an emergency. Interim Dean Peyton asked if Velez could tell the Senate where the AEDs are located on the campus. Velez said he does not know off the top of his head, but they are posted on the website. He said information can be found under Emergency Preparedness, there is a map posted. Senator Bono said he had trouble finding the Floor Wardens, it was a little confusing. Is that on the evacuation map as to where those Floor Wardens are? Velez said they’re trying to get one for each floor on campus. But they’re voluntary assignments without any type of compensation for it. There are some floors that do not have Floor Wardens. Velez said they’re always looking for volunteers and if anyone knows where there isn’t a Floor Warden, he hopes that people will step up. Hirohama asked if they were thinking about offering any kind of CERT Training in the future, in case there are injuries. Velez said they have had some Cert trainings on campus the year prior. He added that we have an Emergency Operations Center with a cadre of individuals, many of them from the Health Center and we’re well prepared to handle and emergency situation. We do prepare. We meet once a month, practicing tabletop exercise, we provide training through FEMA, we utilize use of the Command System, which is mandated through the state in order to receive funds during an emergency from FEMA.

Provost Spagna Update

- This morning a team when over to Cal State Northridge campus to look at pre-engineered space. He said he believed that they all walked away feeling that this is something that should explore, it is something that could possibly help us on multiple fronts. Spagna said he was surprised at the price tag and something we could probably navigate going forward. He said it would have to be something in consultation with a larger community. It really faces the notion of what do we do for surge space for instruction and what as we try and have our campus come up to par with our needs on campus. Spagna asked if Chair Talamante or anyone else who was on the tour would like to contribute. Talamante said it was good to see what a pre-far building looks like. From the outside, it was nothing like the temporary structures that have now on campus. It has the appearance of a modern building. It can be adjusted to meet the needs of the campus as well as modified for different needs for surge space as we go through different phases of our growth. It also seemed like we need to have some deep conversation to identify exactly what those needs are.

- Provost Spagna then turn to Interim Dean Peyton to make a very good announcement on the research creative activities front. Peyton said she was very happy to announce that Dr. Terry McGlynn has accepted the role of Interim Director of Undergraduate Research [round of applause]. She added that we are very fortunate to have Dr. McGlynn in this role as he has many years of experience in the area of undergraduate research from two different institutions and has been involved with the Council of Undergraduate Research for a while. In addition to all of the things he’s done here at Cal State Dominguez Hills.

- Spagna said connected to that, the President has asked Provost Spagna to put together a plan that’s going to involve all of Senate and others around the table about how do we start punching up our commitment to research and creative activity for faculty. For faculty who are non-full time faculty, for faculty who are untenured, for faculty who are tenured and how do we bring this into a way that supports faculty to do the creative activity and research has been a challenge. He said the challenge has not been because of good ideation or good commitment on campus we just haven’t had the infrastructure. Spagna said look forward to coming attractions to help generate that and put it together.

- Spagna reported that he and Vice Provost O’Donnell are working closely, providing budget templates as promised and every dean has been tasked with to bring down to departments and to colleges. He said, “You’re going to see

what we see. You’re going to see the university budget, you’re going to see the Academic Affairs budget, you’re going to see it brought all the way down to departments, in terms of how much money is spent. This will include chartfields as within respective departments, how is the money used. That was a commitment to increase transparency on budget. In a similar way, Spagna said he’s tasked Faculty Affairs with making department driven faculty template for department hiring over the next five year. They are putting together something for him to see in the next week and bringing it forward to the Senate Executive Committee. These templates will engage departments in putting together true five-year faculty hiring plans.

- In Academic Affairs, we’ve been engaged in business continuity planning, in case we do have a disaster. We’re looking at things like, where are classes held, how do we keep documents. He said that he is all too familiar with this based on experience at his previous campus. He said they’re really looking at how do we run a university and run business in case we do have a disaster.

- We did receive an audit of our centers and institutes. We’re making sure we’re systemic about how we run our centers and institutes. We currently don’t have a process for chartering or rechartering centers. We also don’t have reporting mechanisms. We’ll be bringing some ideas forward for you to consider there.

President’s Report (proxy, Spagna)

- We did cover the MPP evaluations. Spagna noted that Chair Talamante covered the President’s conversation with the Senate Executive Committee.

- We had an external visit of several of us to El Camino Community College. There is a lot of opportunity. It’s our number one feeder community college in terms of students coming here. Tight coupling is needed between Academic Affairs and Student Affairs with their programs. For instance, they have a big STEM enterprise over at El Camino. We don’t have the tight connections needed with us here. He said he was pleased to see in their college advancement area, that they had two TORO banners hanging. They refer to all of their students that come to us as Toro Warriors. Spagna said he proposed to them that there are a lot of research opportunities for us to do jointly between the two campuses.

- The President also put out a conversation about land use. Spagna said he believes you may have heard him speak about this before, which he has referred this to Vice President Goodwin. We will be having a larger conversation about land use and discussion of space at a Town Hall in November. The President wants everyone to know that he wants to increase exponentially our residential footprint. What do we do for the experience for our students on campus particularly with a residential footprint? In addition, the President is looking for ways to really celebrate the coming Science and Innovation Building as well as the Instruction and Innovation Building. There is a question right now in some of the plans of doing the new student housing, there was some original discussion of putting in market rate housing for the community connected to that and there’s been some rethinking of about moving it not adjacent to the student housing, having that in another section.

Talamante asked for updates about the closure of the University Theatre. There are some questions she has on behalf of faculty. Spagna responded that VP Goodwin would address those questions. VP Goodwin regarding the closing of the University Theatre for safety concerns. We recognize that it does have an impact on the academic program. It truly was driven through a collaborate discussion that was initiated by an annual inspection that took place of the University Theatre. These are annual inspections that occur on the rigging, which essentially what is the mechanism that is used to move all the stage equipment, the lighting, the sound, as well as the props. For whatever reason, there was not an inspection in 2017. There was one in 2015, 2016 and this one was the 2018. The inspection done in 2015 and 2016 was done by a different company than the one used in 2018. The most recent inspection was done by a firm that is a national expert in rigging systems and was much more definitive in terms of the challenges of the existing rigging system. It is a rigging system that is 40 years old and has not received much, if any, regular ongoing maintenance and attention that it should have be receiving. Goodwin noted that that doesn’t mean that in the fire reports that those things weren’t also identified. She would say that having read all three reports, it was done in a way that was much more challenging to tease out and to really understand. This latest report was much explicit about the issues. We followed up that report with discussions with the Dean, Associate Dean and Faculty within the college, some of those faculty who are fairly new to the University and have certified rigging expertise. We also followed up with the specific expert who wrote the report and understand the challenges inquiring if we could extend use of the theatre or did we need to make some decisions to close it. Based on all of that information and consultation, we arrived at the conclusion that no we could not continue to operate as is and could not even continue with the performance that was scheduled. It was a hard decision, but also an easy decision when considering safety. We are very much working with the Dean, Associate Dean and they’ve been working with the Faculty, Department Chairs and other to really look at what can we do to ensure that we do not skip a beat on the

academic instruction. We’re looking to accommodate the classes that were scheduled to occur in the theatre. There’s been progress made, but there’s still more to be made. There’s been a delay in a performance, that’s now going to be held in a smaller location. We’re doing everything we can to maintain the academic program and ensure that those performances go forward as scheduled. Senator Cutrone noted that some of the buildings are beginning to get into a state of disrepair where paint is crumbling. Do we have funds to follow up on that too? Goodwin said per the University Budget process last year, there was a $1 million tag that was approved for deferred maintenance and it was over a four-year period. $250,000 funded year one, ratcheting up to $500,000 then to $750,000 then to $1 million over a four-year period. We’re entering into the 2nd year of a deferred maintenance money that this campus is setting aside for things like that. We have a plan in terms of which buildings we’ll be taking care of in terms of painting going forward. Our deferred maintenance on this campus is $43 million. A million is a drop in the bucket. As some of our buildings come off line and you take away buildings 1 – 14 of small college, that takes care of $10 million worth of deferred maintenance. We will start to see that deferred maintenance come down as new buildings come online. The other thing this campus has not done as well as other campuses, because this campus has not invested in self support projects, projects like recreation center, parking structures and those kinds of things. Every new capital project is an opportunity to take care of deferred maintenance. If you look at the existing Science building, you’ll notice that a lot of the landscaping has been enhanced. As we bring forward any new project, we look for what we can do to enhance existing areas. Thomas said with regard deferred maintenance budgets, reserved maintenance budgets, regular maintenance budgets – in commercial real estate, as soon as you build a building, you immediately are putting aside money that you know that you need for the purposes of maintaining. He said he’s not only concerned about the University Theatre, he’s also concerned about the University Pool. He said he appreciates that the Chancellor’s office started this process two years ago. However, this campus and these buildings have been here for 40 years and to him, he said it seems that there’s some failures here. The theatre rigging is 40 years old. He continued that there are some real deferred maintenance issues here that well exceed whatever the original numbers are. He said while our campus is strapped, what is the CSU as a system interested in doing. It’s not that the CSU system is not aware of our budgets or has not been aware of how we’ve been utilizing our budgets, has not been aware for 40 years that we have left deferred maintenance to the side for some time. At the end of the day, this is the system’s campus as well as ours. To say that you have to figure out how to resurrect these buildings that have not been maintained appropriately for 40 years is inappropriate. Thomas said he would like to know what the CSU system is interested in doing about and if we need to do something to call upon them that hey, we have a crumbling campus, give us some money to fix it. Goodwin responded to be clear that the $1 million that’s being invested is a campus investment which is even more to the point. When new buildings come online, if they are state support buildings, the campus automatically receives an allocation of X dollars per square foot, that changes every single year, that is intended to be set aside for maintenance and operations, including deferred maintenance. However, because we haven’t had a new building in 25 years, we haven’t received that money. With the new Science & Innovation building, we will be receiving $11.30 per square foot to maintain and operate that building. That’s all short-term operations primarily. Goodwin noted that this is a huge issue for the system. It’s well over $3 billion that the system has in deferred maintenance challenges. They have an overall plan that they are discussing to move forward with from the Board of Trustees, to provide more money than they ever have in the past for infrastructure and deferred maintenance rather than new buildings. We will as a campus make sure that we don’t get left out of any of those discussions. We’ve been very aggressive in putting forward our case. Goodwin noted that President Parham has not been shy in putting forward our case, especially with these most recent issues and challenges that we have had. He is definitely looking to point to them in conversations with the Chancellor's in helping to really illustrate the needs that we have at Dominguez Hills. As many of you know, we’ve had many of the Trustees on campus and have toured them through our buildings to give them a real sense of the infrastructure needs that we have. We’re really looking to address this on multiple fronts to the best of our ability. If other people have ideas about how we can position ourselves to address this even more aggressively, Goodwin said she’s more than happy to have discussions in that regard. Gray Shellberg said that last year she had a serious fall on an outside stairwell in the SBS building. She was asked to talk about it and provide the details of the fall. She said she made specific recommendations for how to make that stairwell and others like it safer. Gray Shellberg said that absolutely nothing has been done. She recommends that when you’re looking at what you’re going to repair, you look first safety. Goodwin said she would like to personally hear about the details of the fall, it is the first time she is hearing about it and she apologizes. Goodwin safety has to be first and foremost at the center of all our considerations. Celly said while we’re on the issue of maintenance and safety, she would like to highlight there was a safety audit done on four universities in the system. San Diego, Sonoma, East Bay and Chico and not ours. Celly said she suspects that if we had been audited we would be a lot worse off. That spawned a CAL OSHA inspection of our facilities. Fortunately, they stayed in certain parts of the university. Unfortunately, some of those are academic programs and they went to the labs. We expect the results later on this month and Celly requested that those results be brought back to all of us. With regard to maintenance, lab safety plus chemical handling is we do not currently have a EHS officer and she knows we’re looking for one. We also do not have a chemist compliance person either. These

are vital areas for sciences. Goodwin said she would be happy to share about the Cal OSHA audit of our campus over the summer. She said that Celly pointed out that they stayed away from certain area of campus. There were a number buildings they visited, Welch Hall, Facilities, the Science building, etc. We have now hired a chemical safety officer. We had not had that position previously on campus. She said she would like to not be as reactive either, we would like for us not to be in that position and it’s something we’re moving towards, to be more proactive rather than reactive.

Title IX CCR Committee, Statewide Senator Celly – Celly explained that the Title IX Campus Coordinated Response Team is a committee is supposed to be at each of the universities in the system to ensure that Title IX that we have a safe environment for all members of the community. Senator McGlynn and Celly are service elected faculty members on this committee. Elizabeth Schrock is the Title IX Officer. In her absence, AVP Roberson Simms and AVP Nishioka serve as the interim Title IX officers. We are all mandated reporters. If we see, hear, are told, read about or know about any violent crime, we are supposed to report it to the Title IX officer. The policies and procedures are laid out in Executive Order 1095. Celly passed out information regarding What You Must Know As Faculty. Celly asked that they bring them back to departments. Celly said, Schrock’s dilemma, our dilemma is how do we get the information out so that we do what is right. If a student begins to tell you about a situation of domestic violence, probably the best thing to do is to tell them to pause and then let them know that you are a mandated reporter and must report what they’re about to say. There are safe spaces where they can share this, Mayra Romo, the Victims Advocate, if they do not want this to go further. They can also go to Student Health & Counseling Services who are not required to report. The other exception is an employee to employee communication. If a union member hears about something in that capacity as a union member from another union member, we are not required, in that capacity to report. The reason we’re being it up here is that there are some faculty have said we don’t need to deal with this, we only teach online. But if you read something online, such as may I extend this assignment, I just go beaten up and had to skip state for a few days with my kids, that’s a mandated requirement for reporting. Two things, one – please help spread the word and there are resources available through the Title IX webpage, and three, if there are any questions, please reach out to Elizabeth Schrock at eschrock@csudh.edu who couldn’t be here, Dr. McGlynn, Dr. Celly, AVP Roberson Simms or AVP Nishioka.

Retreat Round Table Report Back

Establishing Transparency and Standardizing College Policies & Procedures, Senator Thomas discussed what was covered at their table:

- We wanted to clarify what was a college policy and not everyone was clear as to whether or not their colleges were promulgating policy and where those policies could be found

- How those policies were enacted. Thomas said they saw a variation of different approaches. Some who knew there were policies, they could not say how they were created. For those who did, they said generally it was in consultation with their Chairs’ Council. Consultation could be as much as, “I’ve informed you” to “We had voted on it”.

- There was discussion about what we would believe to be best practices as it relates to promulgation of college policy.

They believed that the following were best practices. You need some deliberation or notice to the faculty that you are deliberating as it relates to a new policy. 2. That faculty actually has the ability to participate in that conversation. Not necessarily a vote, but they can articulate their views as it relates to the college policy. 3. That there be direct democracy or representative through Chairs’ Council. If you have representative government that you know that when you’re appointing your chair you’re appointing them as representing you for these college level policies as well. 4. The results should be public. We should know what the results were. Post it. 5. We believe there was a need for an authentication, where at the footer of the document you could identify the date it was enacted, what the votes were, so that then there could be a way to understand where the policies come from. These are what we are suggesting on how to move forward with college level policies so that we are transparent.

Parliamentarian Justin Gammage shared the results from the election for the search committee for the Chief Officer for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Nicole Vazquez and Cynthia Villanueva.

Results of paper ballot regarding how the Senate would recommend we proceed with MP 360 reviews, Option “B” received 34 votes and Option “A” received 9 votes.Faculty Policy Committee Chair, Katy Pinto – two major updates on the Faculty Policy Committee. Pinto congratulated all of those who submitted an RTP file through Interfolio. That is what actually led to one of the new items that Faculty Policy Committee is working on. Faculty Affairs sent out an email about the documents that should or should not be expected in the level of review and that generated a conversation about what might be some policies that need to be

updated to reflect the current system we use and where we might be able to clarify so that this is clear on all fronts. Faculty Policy Committee invited Dianne Vogel to meet with Faculty Policy Committee the week of October 22. Old Business – they continued their discussion and efforts around suggestions on how to update chairs duties, compensation and policies. To that end, they reviewed eight campuses, including Long Beach, Cal State LA, Fullerton San Bernardino, Humboldt, East Bay and San Jose State University. The next action item is to do a comparison of the policies around compensation and think about what might be some of the best practices across these institutions. We reviewed the rubrics that were presented from the Chairs Council and the report the Chairs Council wrote last year. Pinto noted that it was interesting to look at the rubrics that were presented in light of some of the policies that we saw across the other CSU campuses. Hopefully by next time we meet at Senate, we’ll continue that conversation. We will also have Pinto as a representative to the Working Group that Dean LaPolt is going to Chair around this issue as well. We invite and open the Faculty Policy Committee meetings that are the 1st and 3rd Monday of every month to the Chairs. Senator Radmacher who scheduled time to come was very helpful in reviewing the report and the rubric that the Chairs Council presented last year.

OPEN MIC

Senator V. Price said in response to the question of research and creative activity, there is a difference between the grants that are available in the discipline of Sciences and the Humanities and the Arts. The Humanities and the Arts tend to get small grants. A lot of times these agencies, like the National Endowment for the Humanities, will offer a very small planning grant which is supposed to be used to propose a larger implementation grant. She said she found a grant that she thought would be useful for our campus to really stimulate exploration of issues that are humanistically driven but across the campus. She said she found a team of people who were interested in pursuing it. The grant was for $35,000 for a planning grant. She said unfortunately, she found out after reading the guidelines, that the National Endowment for the Humanities, that for this grant if you had a federally negotiated rate, that you could use that. However, that rate was inappropriate for a grant that was not in the Sciences. However, that is the amount that we’re using on this campus, for everything across the board. Other people may have experienced it. She said she was given the counsel to fight. She said she did not think it should be on an individual basis. And she believes that it was something that was passed and that there’s a Foundation that demands a certain amount. She said if we’re going to be trying to create a culture and to really get people to take their time, uncompensated, to learn about the process, to fill out the forms to get a grant that really doesn’t cover the cost of doing the work, which is common. Then 47% really isn’t appropriate, even though we are a cash strapped campus, you take it out of the hide of grants. Senator McGlynn said there were other people here who were involved in this Task Force that was together a few years ago, a Pre and Post Award Service, with a huge set of recommendations, a few of which were actually implemented. The problem has been identified. He said he’s spoken to countless number of conversations with faculty in his department and other Sciences departments about how inequitable and unfair policies on how indirect costs are handled on campus is limiting our capacity to create research opportunities for students. And how long we’ve been trying to find an Executive Director for Foundation. The conversation that we’re about to have about increasing research activity on campus, that the Provost is going to be leading at the direction of the President. We definitely need to involve people from all colleges, and this is a central and fundamental issue. Do we negotiate or not negotiate how indirect cost is handled and how do we have transparent policies that are equitable is a real challenge that our campus is yet to meet? Spagna said he wants to reinforce everything that was just said and thanked those for bringing the issue up. He said when you get to the Arts & Humanities, he’s really seen big inequities that happen in terms of the support. The idea for indirect cost recovery on across the 23 campuses is all over the place and none of its transparent. He said what’s happening is we’re leaving all kinds of money on the table, for example, if you incorrectly apply a federally negotiated rate on campus, 47%, to a foundation that will only give you 10%. At a prior campus, we were turning away foundations that would have invested in the campus. We need a portfolio of options, it’s not one-size-fits-all. And it’s going to have be directed to help individual faculty in departments and in colleges to be able to do that kind of work. Spagna said we have an opportunity to really reformat and rethink what we’re doing in terms of our research and creative activity. He said he gets heartsick when he hears a faculty member say, “I almost cringe when I get a grant, because now I’m going to have to deliver. And I don’t have the confidence on the campus to be able to help me to deliver.” Spagna said we have to solve that, it’s got to be something we come together on. VP Goodwin said she wanted to speak to the idea that we require 47%, that is not the case. 47% is the calculated rate that has been determined but our average rate is more like 10% as a campus. It’s never a requirement that we enforce upon anyone. Much of this responsibility has shifted from the Foundation to Academic Affairs to the Pre/Post Award folks in Academic Affairs to work with the faculty in coming up with the IDC rate. A number of the recommendations from that Task Force have been implemented, that being one of them. She said we need to interrogate that a little more and learn more about that. Spagna said the number one type of grant we get here has an 8% indirect cost, this is USDOE. The problem is communication. If it’s applied ubiquitously, you have to get into that portfolio of how its shared, because you don’t want people to be turned

away. Senator Tsuno said over the summer he submitted two very large NEA grants. He said he was told time and time again that 47% was the number he had to use. Tsuno said 47% was such a huge number, it becomes a large obstacle when you’re writing a grant and trying to figure out how to deal with that. When you write the grant with the 47%, they don’t allow you the space to clarify that 47%, so it’s incredibly challenging to make a case that this money is going to be spent correctly and puts you at a huge disadvantage.

Senator Hirohama thanked Senator Cutrone for acknowledging Adelbert Bayliss for the Technology Classroom Support. There were two to others, Michael Little and Dennis Roper who had retired out. Additionally, there is a new night person Chea Mo, the new night support person for classrooms. Supposedly, Michael Little’s position is going to be looked out in the future. When we had the Senate Retreat, she said she did look at the NTTIF Report and there was a statement there that said that “the University should train and deploy student assistants for classroom equipment support as appropriate. She said it is not the first time she’s seen non support for staff hiring in a task force report. Classroom equipment support has been historically a staff job. If you are sitting on a task force, and the opportunities to support staff hiring comes up, please do that instead of suggesting alternate solutions.

Senator Thomas said as it relates to income-producing assets on our campus and the lack thereof in addressing some of our maintenance budget issues, we do have significant parking income that comes from the StubHub. More specifically, we have the Charger games and with the Charger games there are the $100.00 parking fees, so he would like to understand where that money is going. Additionally, he said he wanted to thank the President for his pivot for moving from market-rate housing to a more student residential footprint. He would like to see our residential footprint increase significantly and market-rate housing is not part of our larger goal. He also wanted to continue to emphasize the importance of our campus infrastructure issues. It might be important for this body to start making some very vocal and public statements as it relates to the fact that we have buildings that are 40 years old but have no maintenance budgets provided to them by the CSU. These buildings are not owned by us, they are entrusted to us. They are owned by the Trustees, and the Trustees are not maintaining their buildings.

Meeting Adjourned