Members Present: Allen,
Arkenberg, Bedell, Boyum, Buck, Byrnes, Cox, Emry, Erickson, Fitch, Fromson,
Gannon, Gass, Gilbert, Gordon, Guerin, Hagan, Hall, Hewitt, Junn, Klassen,
Kelly, Kreiner, Meyer, Michalopoulos,
Members Absent: Jones, Reisman, and Jewett
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Gilbert called the meeting to order at
II. URGENT BUSINESS
President Gordon announced he wanted to bring everyone up-to-date on the discussion that took place at the last Senate meeting regarding summer school. Conversations between the CSU and CFA are in process; until a final answer is reached, there is not much he can say.
Nanjundappa announced he spoke to the Chief Lobbyist in
reminded members with the passage of Proposition 55, the funding of $50 million
will be available to begin construction of the
Chair Gilbert, on behalf of the Senate, thanked Senator Hagan for providing the majority of the funds required to purchase the microphone system for the Senate Chamber and Titan Shops for its role in ordering the equipment. He also reminded Senators to complete the recently distributed “Interest in Committee Service” form and urged the members to encourage their younger colleagues to begin getting involved in the work of the Senate.
Sutphen announced the 8th Annual Western Region Assessment
Conference will be held on campus
Senator Boyum announced that the BS in Computer Engineering has received final approval and will be in place this fall.
announced Dr. Michele Druon, Department of Modern Languages and Literature, has
been selected to serve as a resident director in International Programs in
Senator Russell announced the 34th Annual Philosophy Symposium will be held March 18 – 19 in TSU.
Senator Fitch announced the “Gender Research at CSUF” event being held on March 11 as part of Women’s History Month.
IV. CHAIRS REPORT
No chairs report.
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
It was m/s/p [Nanjundappa/Pasternack] to approve the following Consent Calendar:
A. ASD 04-15 Academic Senate Minutes
James Woodward, Chair PRBC
Subject: PRBC Report
Mr. Woodward joined the Senate members to present a report on PRBC activities. The Committee has considered several proposals for their financial implications; the Senate has received the recommendations and already acted on most of them. The chief activity of the PRBC in the fall semester is to receive reports from division heads. In these reports, division heads discuss implementation of their budget from last year and the current year’s budget. The committee is now examining how to cut an estimated $15-16 million out of the $233 million general funds support for campus. Replacing state-supported with fee-supported summer school is projected to reduce the cut to about $11 million. He then invited questions from the senators.
Nanjundappa: Tried to find budget information on the CSUF website, but could not find information beyond the date of 1999. Shouldn’t the website be updated?
Woodward: The bylaws of the PRBC were crafted during one of my earlier terms on the PRBC, and they stipulate that the CFO of the university, Sherri Newcomb, is to provide budget information at the cost center level to the PRBC in the fall of each year, ideally for the previous five years so that information is available as context for the discussions that take place in the spring. It is his understanding that this has happened only haphazardly over the last five or six years. Mr. Woodward showed the senators a thick volume that has the budget at the cost center level; the committee currently has information for this year and last year. This information is not on-line. PRBC requested a summary version of the university budget, and now has a four-page summary for this year. If this information continues to be compiled, one can determine what has changed from year to year. Last year there were substantial budget cuts in most divisions, except in those where even small cuts would seriously damage their operations, such as Advancement and the Executive Vice President’s office. This year we are looking at a comparable or perhaps somewhat larger reduction; PRBC begins discussions on how that might be implemented tomorrow afternoon.
Vargas: Are these data widely available?
Woodward: Technically speaking, all of the information for the university is public information. There have been requests that the information be put on-line. The question as to whether or not it should be generally accessible to anyone on the website has not been formally decided by the committee, and no formal action has been taken on that at this point. Mr. Woodward informed the Senators he has asked Ms. Newcomb to provide the 4-page budget for this year to the Senate office.
Senator Shapiro stated it is important to understand that all of the documents the committee is working with currently this year are draft documents. The final budget for the university will not be known with any real certainty until after the governor has made revisions to the budget. However, $11 million, as Ms. Newcomb pointed out, is probably the minimum we can expect to get away with as far as cuts for next year. The system as a whole over the past three years has absorbed $771 million in cuts and we are projected to continue this pattern again for this year.
Rutemiller: Did your committee have some input that affected some changes to the budget?
Woodward: That, of course, is the key issue. He has been assured by all of the division heads that the committee will indeed be part of an interactive process in figuring how the cuts are to be absorbed. The answer will become evident in the next few weeks.
Vargas: It would be a good practice for various constituencies on campus to have an updated copy of the budget available in the Senate office.
Mr. Woodward informed the members that the minutes of the PRBC are public documents and the meetings are open. There has been discussion by the committee as to whether there should be a regular formal report to the Daily Titan; this has not been a subject that has been greeted with complete consensus and unanimity. We are aware of the importance of public conveyance of information.
Chair Gilbert, on behalf of the Senate, thanked Mr. Woodward for his report. He noted that it is crucial to have open communication, and thinks the administration is committed to that. Chair Gilbert expressed his thanks on behalf of the Senate to the committee for their hard work on the development of the budget book over the last couple of years. Soon we will finally have the data stipulated in the bylaw, longitudinal data for 5 years, so that we can understand better how the budget is developed, cuts are made, and so forth. He also expressed thanks to Sherri Newcomb for her leadership in developing this material for the committee.
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. ASD 04-12 Resolution Clarifying Implementation of Plus/Minus Grading
It was m/s [Hall/Fromson] to approve document ASD 04-12. Senator Hall explained this resolution is a clarification and not a change in what the Senate had already passed. This resolution clarifies that a “C” is a 2.0 and a “D” is a 1.0 and that departments have autonomy in determining acceptable grades for courses to satisfy major requirements.
Boyum: Clarified that in the first Resolve on line 16, “the core competencies” refers to Section I, A. Oral Communication, requirements in Section I, B. Written Communi-cations, requirement in Section I, C. for Critical Thinking and requirements in III A. 1 for Mathematics. These are the so called “Golden Four.”
Pasternack: If a student gets a “C-“at the community college, would that count for the “Golden Four?”
Gilbert: Admission and Records staff make that determination. His understanding is that they follow the practice of the community colleges for transfer students; there is some variation in community college practices.
It was m/s [Pasternack/Michalopoulos] to amend the Resolution on line 16, changing the “C” to “C-“and changing (2.0) to (1.7); also in line 33, strike “C, e.g.” We seem to be putting our students at a disadvantage compared to transfer students and should be fair to everybody.
The motion failed; Senator Pasternack’s amendment to the Resolution was not adopted.
On the main proposal, it was m/s [Hewitt/Russell] to amend the Resolution in line 15, deleting the word “current;” the Resolution would then read “supports the requirement that at least an average grade of “C” must be attained.”
It was motioned and accepted as a friendly amendment [Meyer] as a follow up to Senator Hewitt’s amendment on line 15, to change the wording to “requirements that at least a grade of “C-“ must be attained and an average of 2.0.”
It was m/s [Shapiro/Junn] to call the question. Motion passed to close debate on the amendment.
Senator Hewitt’s amendment to the Resolution failed.
The motion to approve ASD 04-12 as submitted passed.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
It was m/s [Buck/Parker] to approve document ASD 04-18. Senator Buck explained the major change made in the document was to treat tenure/tenure-track and lecturer faculty more comparably.
Concerns about the policy were that it introduces additional barriers to faculty research activities, increases library staff workload to solve a problem that does not exist, wastes faculty members’ time to physically return materials for inventory control, and is punitive to faculty who have not violated their library privileges.
In support of the proposed policy, it was noted that the library is a public resource, not a private supplier for faculty; that students find it discouraging when needed materials are not on the shelf; and that it seems prudent to “balance the books” once a year and is good management practice.
Mr. Pollard reported that most faculty responded to the policy when it was implemented last May; some faculty are still trying to account for items they checked out long ago. His assessment is that it was a useful exercise. Senator Cox provided data regarding check-outs at our library: In May of 2003, there were 30,326 books checked out to faculty, staff and grad students. At the beginning of March 2004, there are 7,934 books checked out to faculty, staff and grad students. These data suggest that a lot of material in the offices prior to the physical return policy was implemented may not have been absolutely essential for research. This means that we have over 22,000 more items on the shelves and available for our students to check out.
It was m/s [Shapiro/Fitch]
on page 2, under “Inventory Control and Renewal of Checkout Items” on line 3,
“To maintain appropriate control of the library materials, all checked–out
items must be renewed or returned to the Library at least once a year to allow
the Library to track and maintain records of its inventory.” Strike the next sentence in its
entirety. Change the third sentence to
read as follows: “For some categories of borrowers materials must be renewed or
returned to the Library once a year; for others materials need to be renewed or
returned twice a year.” On line 12,
change the sentence to read “For ease of remembering, the dates by which all
materials checked out must be renewed or returned to the Library by January 15
and June 15.” On line 14, change the
sentence to read “The first implementation of this new policy will be
It was m/s/p [Byrnes/Bedell] to call the question and end debate.
Motion failed to adopt the Shapiro amendment.
Returned to the main motion.
It was motioned and accepted as a friendly amendment [Pasternack] on line 36 page 1, strike the word “not infrequently” and replace with the word “frequently.”
It was m/s [Buck/Fitch] an amendment to change the requirement to physically return books to the library from once each year to every other year.
It was m/s/p [Shapiro/Fitch] to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at