ACADEMIC SENATE

 

MINUTES

 

May 11, 2006

 

 

 

11:30 A.M. - 1:00 P.M.                                                                ACADEMIC SENATE CHAMBERS

Members Present:  Bedell, Buck, Burgtorf, Dabirian, Drezner, Fidalgo, Fitch, Fromson, Gass, Gordon, Guerin, Hall, Hagan, Hassan, Hewitt, Holland,  Jones, Kanel, Kantardjieff, Kelly, Kirtman, Klassen, Klein,  Kreiner, Liverpool, Lovell, Matz, Meyer, Nanjundappa, Pasternack,  Rhoten, Rumberger, Smith, Tavakolian, Vogt, Walicki, Williams

Absent: Alva, Dabirian, Emry, Junn, Michalopoulos, Napper, Pierson, Schroeder, Shapiro, Syed

 

I.              CALL TO ORDER

Chair Bedell called the meeting to order at 11:33 a.m.

 

II.            URGENT BUSINESS

Senator Kreiner expressed appreciation to President Gordon for his response to an accusatory e-mail message that was distributed to members of the Senate electorate prior to the All University Election. Senator Matz added that the Elections Committee issued a statement that the Senate is not supporting any messages that might be distributed by anyone from the university, other than candidate statements in the nomination process.

 

III.          ANNOUNCMENTS

Senator Nanjundappa (President, CFA Fullerton Chapter) attended a two-day workshop at the Chancellor’s office, organized by a consultant hired by the Chancellor, to introduce ways of moving towards a more cooperative, collegial working relationship between CSU and CFA.

 

Senator Fidalgo announced that the University Club’s End of the Year Party will be held at her home on May 19th at 6:00 p.m. All colleagues are welcome.

 

Senator Buck announced that D.J. Waldie will be speaking on suburban life in Southern California at 2:30 p.m. today in the TSU Alvarado Room. Everyone is invited to attend.

 

Senator Matz reminded the body that the election ends today at 4:00 p.m. The results will be publicized on Friday. As of 10:30 a.m. this morning, almost 30% of the electorate (619 voters) had voted.

 

Chair Bedell announced that the Academic Senate party will be held at his home next Thursday, May 18th at 4:00 p.m.

 

Chair Bedell notified the body that the charter of the Orange County Teacher’s Federal Credit Union (on campus) has been adjusted to focus on university employees. It no longer will offer checking and savings account services to students. Another vendor will be available to provide banking services for students. Student employees are still eligible for accounts.

 

IV.         TIME CERTAIN

Time Certain

11:45 a.m.

Subject: Continuing Discussion on UPS 210.000 Personnel Policy and Procedures for Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty

It was M/S/P [Nanjundappa/Guerin] to reconsider what was approved at the meeting on May 4, 2006.

 

·        It was M/S [Nanjundappa/Guerin] to substitute the language in section E, number 5 (p.4) to read:

 

5. In evaluations for retention, tenure, and promotion, accomplishments during service credit years shall be weighted equally to those achieved during the probationary years at CSUF. However, accomplishments during service credit years shall never be sufficient in and of themselves for the granting of promotion and/or tenure.

·        Senator Pasternack: Spoke against amendment. Troubled by the word “equally”. Change to “in reasonable proportion”. The way the statement reads is that we would have to count what a faculty member did in one year of service credit the same as what they did during his/her probationary years.

·        Senator Drezner: Expressed similar concern. The same credit will be considered twice, once for hiring, and once for tenure.

·        It was M/S [Fitch/Fromson] to change “equally” to “in reasonable proportion”.

·        V.P. Smith: We should be offering service credits for accomplishments achieved at CSUF.

·        Senator Nanjundappa: Respectfully disagree with V.P. Smith. Feels that reasonable credit for accomplishments outside of CSUF is only fair.

·        Senator Guerin: We should be circumspect in terms of granting service credit.

·        Senator Drezner: Reasonable proportion could be anything. Need to be specific.

·        Senator Fitch: If you’re weighing in reasonable proportion, you’ve got 2 years service credit, there are several more years, it would be very difficult to get 50%. The other 50% may be closer to a third.

·        Senator Drezner: It’s not a reasonable proportion to the number of years if you get three articles in your service credit years and three articles in your regular hours. So the question is how much you multiply the 3 articles in the service credit. You could give 2.9 credit. So, “in reasonable proportion” could be anything.

·        Senator Hewitt: Language is fuzzy. If faculty member has several publications before they are hired here, what will “in reasonable proportion” do to that? Potential problem. Someone may come from a Research I university and have no publications or have a minor publication at CSUF and that would be enough.  Seconded Senator Guerin’s comment about granting service credit.

·        Senator Fidalgo: The issue is the word “credit”. The University should decide how much credit it will grant.

·        President Gordon: In some cases, service credit works against the tenure process for individuals. It brings instructors up before they’ve actually developed a resume that would grant them tenure. That should be very seriously considered.

·        Senator Taylor: In response to Senator Hewitt, it says clearly in the rewritten amendment that service credit should never be sufficient in and of itself. It says that we have to look at their accomplishments here.

·        Senator Nanjundappa: Called the question. There was no opposition to end debate on this topic.

 

M/S/P [Nanjundappa/Guerin] to substitute the language in section E, number 5 (p.4) with Senator Nanjundappa’s proposed modification.

·        M/S/P [Fitch/Fromson] to amend the approved amendment in section E., changing “equally” to “in reasonable proportion”. The vote was taken first by voice, and then by division of the house. 18: Yes, 14: No, Motion passed.

 

Chair Bedell: When we adjourned, Senator Drezner had moved to delete to abbreviated review.  (Seconded by Hassan) It was the consent of the body to revisit what was done at the previous meeting.

  • [M] Senator Liverpool to reconsider removal of DPC. (P.6, Line 21)
    • Senator Kanel: In support of reconsidering.
    • Senator Drezner: Point of clarification. Does periodic review mean every year?
    • Senator Hassan: Union contract requires annual review.
    • Senator Nanjundappa: Referenced Article 15.26.
    • Senator Guerin: The FPC amendment to the Abbreviated reviews eliminated the reading of narratives. Hopefully, this reduction will be helpful, still keeping the Abbreviated reviews meaningful, and within the contract.
    • Senator Nanjundappa: Regarding the restoration of DPC: we have to comply with the contract.
    • Senator Hassan: For the record, it is Article 15.27 that speaks about this.

 

M/S/P [Liverpool/Guerin]. Wherever DPC was deleted, it will be restored. Rationale was that it is in conflict with article 15.24 of the contract.

 

Section 2. Second Year Probationary Faculty

Senator Guerin: FPC wanted to clarify (at the request of one of our college deans) the possible outcomes for each review (items a-c).

 

It was M/S [Guerin/Nanjundappa] to approve lines 34-38, number 2.

  • Senator Pasternack: Asked about the September 15th date. Suggested moving it to September 30th.
  • Senator Guerin: FPC did not change the dates/time table.
  • V.P. Smith: Tried to space the work out for the University Committee. Two weeks could cause problems for the committee.
  • Senator Pasternack: Suggested considering date change when Senator Napper can respond.
  • Senator Hassan: Recommending consideration for date change.
  • Senator Nanjundappa: Faculty would like to hear about RTP decisions before they go on Summer vacation.
    • V.P. Smith:
      • June 1: All tenured decisions notified
      • June 15: All promotion decisions notified
      • April – May the University Committee is extremely busy working on these files.
  • Senator Hall: Two more weeks will not make a difference if most work has not been done during the summer. There is no “better” schedule; there is a “more tolerable” time schedule.
  • Senator Fitch: Understand constraints, however, if we change the date, may cause problems.
  • Senator Hewitt: If we move to October 1st, it will put a larger burden on the DPC.
  • Senator Taylor: In favor of changing the date. The real burden is on the faculty member.
  • Senator Nanjundappa: Question to V.P. Smith – will this have an effect on when the letter is sent to Faculty?
    • V.P. Smith: Unsure. Recommends posing question to Senator Napper.

 

Chair Bedell: Prerogative of the Chair to defer consideration until we get more information on the impact of changing the date. He acknowledged the work of FPC.

 

Section 3. Third Year Probationary Faculty

M/S/P [Guerin/Nanjundappa] – Section approved.

 

Section 4. Fourth Year Probationary Faculty

  • M/S/P [Guerin/Nanjundappa] – Section approved as amended. Senator Fitch: Question: In the document, why isn’t it specified in the fourth year that you can request early promotion? With the consent of the body the document was amended to include this in the fourth year. (friendly amendment)

 

Section 5. Fifth Year Probationary Faculty

M/S/P [Guerin/Nanjundappa] – Section approved.

 

Section 6. Sixth Year Probationary Faculty

M/S/P [Guerin/Nanjundappa] – Section approved.

 

Section 7. Faculty Applying for Promotion to Professor

  • Senator Pasternack:
    • Comment #1: If someone does exemplary work, why would we make them hang around to wait for promotion?
      • Senator Guerin: See section on early promotion.
    • Comment #2: Make clear difference between regular promotion, non-early promotion

§         V.P. Smith: Applying for full professor: Five years has been the norm. This is the practice.

        • Senator Nanjundappa: Number of years not mentioned
    • Senator Meyer: Use “normal”
      • Friendly amendment:

Use the word “regular” before “promotion”

 

M/S/P [Guerin/ Nanjundappa] – Section approved as amended.

 

Section 8. Faculty Applying for Early Promotion

M/S/P [Guerin/Nanjundappa] – Section approved.

 

Section 9. Faculty on Professional Leave

It was M/S [Guerin/Nanjundappa] to approve.

  • Senator Guerin: FPC wanted to clarify the consequences of taking professional leave.
  • Senator Hall (friendly amendment) 

Line 12: Use “may not” instead of “cannot”

  • Senator Fitch: Colleague took professional leave before she was hired. This is not covered in the document.

 

Body consented to deferring further discussion on Sections 9 and 10 until receipt of additional information from FAR.

 

Section K. REVIEW PROCESS

  • Senator Liverpool (friendly amendment):

      Use “the appropriate Vice President” throughout the entire document.

  • Senator Guerin: Tried to use consistent terminology. “Portfolios” changed to “Appendices”
  • Senator Hall (friendly amendment):

      Need librarians covered (line 32)

 

M/S/P [Guerin/Liverpool] – Section approved as amended.

 

Section L. EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

  • Corrected the lettering/numbering of the document.

 

M/S/P [Guerin/Nanjundappa] – Section approved as amended.

 

Section M. RESPONSIBILITIES OF FACULTY MEMBERS

It was M/S [Guerin/Nanjundappa] to approve section M.  

  • Senator Guerin: The significant change suggested by FPC was to expand the number of faculty who could aid the probationary faculty in preparing their files.
    • Added “mentor”
  • Senator Hassan: Are faculty members governed by the UPS that was in place at the time of hire?
  • V.P. Smith: Faculty members are covered by the new/current UPS document.

 

The body consented to deferring discussion on this topic (section M.) until information on this is received.

 

Senator Nanjundappa proposed adding a Section N entitled “Faculty Rebuttal or Response”. His rationale was to transport Article 15.5 from MOU to UPS 210.000 to create New Section N. (His proposed text follows):

 

N. Faculty Right to Rebuttal or Response

Article 15.5   At all levels of review, before recommendations are forwarded to a subsequent review level, faculty unit employees faculty members shall be given a copy of the recommendation and written reasons therefore. The faculty unit employee faculty member may submit a rebuttal statement or response in writing and/or request a meeting be held to discuss the recommendation within seven (7) days following receipt of the recommendation. A copy of the response or rebuttal statement shall accompany the Working Personnel Action File portfolio and also be sent to all previous levels of review. This section shall not require that evaluation time lines be extended.

  • Senator Meyer: Do we want to use this word for word? (Language changes were made to make the document more consistent with the rest of UPS 210.000. See above.)
  • V.P. Smith: Unsure if the last sentence will work. Concern: If they request a meeting, we’d have to move all the days up, or it would be impossible to meet the timelines.
    • Senator Guerin: It is in the contract, we should be doing this already.
    • Matz: Who can they request a meeting with?
      • Answer: All levels. Anyone who is in an official role (DPC, Dean, Chairs)

 

M/S/P [Nanjundappa/Burgtorf] to add section N. Faculty Right to Rebuttal or Response as amended.

 

Meeting adjourned with discussion of this document on the floor.

        

V.           CHAIR’S REPORT

Chair Bedell addressed the issue raised by Senator Kreiner as an item of urgent business. He has spoken with the University lawyer. The University cannot reveal what is being done since the investigation to identify the sender is in progress. We are aware of the name of the company from which the email message was sent, but not the specific location. In order for the investigation to move forward, a subpoena will have to be delivered to the company.

        

VI.         STATEWIDE ACADEMIC SENATE REPORT

No report.

 

VII.       CONSENT CALENDAR

         M/S [Rhoten/Buck] to approve the consent calendar.

        

         Items 7.3, 7.4, 7.2, and 7.1. were removed and made items of New Business.

 

         Item 7.5 ASD 06-88 Spring 2006 New Course Proposals: BIOL 318, ASAM 325, LBST 101, AFRO 308 was approved unanimously.

 

            GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM

COURSE PROPOSALS

                                                        Spring 2006

 

College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics

 

The College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics requests inclusion of the following new course in the General Education Program under Category III.A.3., Implications and Explorations in Natural Sciences and Mathematics:

 

BIOL 318       Wildlife Conservation                                                                                                      (3)

Prerequisites:  Completion of General Education Category III.A.2.c.  Causes and consequences of loss of biological diversity, with an emphasis on wildlife populations and science-based conservation.  Threatened and endangered species and ecosystems, ecosystem management and design of nature preserves, habitat restoration, captive species reintroductions, conservation legislation.  No credit toward Biology major.

 

 

 

College of Humanities and Social Sciences

 

The College of Humanities and Social Sciences requests inclusion of the following new courses in the General Education Program under Category III.B.3., Implications, Explorations, and Participatory Experience in the Arts and Humanities, and Category V, Cultural Diversity:

 

ASAM 325      Asian American Film and Video                                                                   (3)

Prerequisite:  Completion of General Education Categories III.B.1 and III.B.2.  The course will introduce students to major themes in Asian American film and video history and criticism.  Asian American aesthetics, history and politics will be examined in areas of film and video direction, production, writing, and acting.

 

 

The College of Humanities and Social Sciences requests inclusion of the following new course in the General Education Program under Category III.C.1., Introduction to the Social Sciences:

 

LBST 101       Introduction to the Social Sciences                                                                                                                                                    (3)

This course surveys major topics in the social sciences in order to understand their systematic study of human behavior, to realize the connections among particular issues and approaches, and to reflect critically on modern life.

 

 

The College of Humanities and Social Sciences requests inclusion of the following new courses in the General Education Program under Category III.C.2., Implications, Explorations, and Participatory Experience in the Social Sciences, and Category V, Cultural Diversity:

 

AFRO 308      African American Males in American Social Systems                                                            (3)                             

Prerequisite:  Completion of General Education Category III.C.1.  This course involves a critical examination of the significant life experiences of African American males. Course emphasizes family, community, school, and broader societal systems that affect African American males functioning within legal, educational, economic, and social environments.

 

 

VIII.     NEW BUSINESS

         Due to lack to time, items 8.1 – 8.5 were not discussed.

 

IX.         ADJOURNMENT     

        Meeting was adjourned at 12:57 p.m.