May 26, 2005













9:00 A.M. - 11:15 A.M.                                                          ACADEMIC SENATE CHAMBERS

Members Present:  Alva, Arkenberg, Bedell, Buck, Burgtorf, Cox, Emry, Erickson, Fidalgo, Fitch, Fromson, Gass, Gilbert, Gordon, Guerin, Hagan, Hall, Jones, Junn, Kantardjieff, Kelly, Kreiner, Matz, Meyer, Michalopoulos, Nanjundappa, Pasternack, Rahmatian, Rhoten, Schroeder, Shapiro, Smith, and Walicki


Absent:  Allen, Azimi, Jewett, Kanel, Klassen, Randall, Rhodes, Tavakolian, Vasquez and Vogt


I.              CALL TO ORDER

Chair Bedell called the meeting to order at 9:06 a.m.



M/S [Gilbert/Gass] to approve ASD 05-80 a Resolution on Staffing Levels in Admissions and Records from the Executive Committee.  Senator Gilbert spoke to the fairly obvious serious staffing problems in terms of their ability to give timely evaluation to applications plus a variety of other problems.  The Senate Executive Committee is going on record with this resolution urging the administration to do everything that it can.


Senator Smith responded saying that staffing in Admissions and Records has been a challenge especially this year with CMS rolling out and the department has to spend time getting ready for People Soft, which has created a heavier demand than usual.  Also, we are at 41,000 applications for the fall and an all-time record for graduate classes.  There is a plan which is being reviewed next week for back filled people for CMS and A&R is on the list to be evaluated. Senator Smith noted the current head count is about 71 and plan to add 6-8 people and some would be permanent and some would be temporary.


President Gordon stated part of the problem that has occurred; don’t know how many of you have seen the listing in the newspaper the other day of the applications by the CSU campuses.  You will notice that three stood out—San Diego, Long Beach and Fullerton.  San Diego and Long Beach were averaging around 37-38,000 and then we were there at 25,000 for freshman.  We went to the new impacted schedule and accept these only for the first two months.  I think in the future as many of you know, I chair the system-wide admissions committee and when we did an analysis of the application flow in the CUSP, it was real clear after about the first ten campuses.  The applications to all 23 campuses were coming from the fee waiver student.  Since they have nothing to lose, many of them just throw their applications in for all 23 campuses.  We made a recommendation at the CSU and am hopeful that it will passed and think it will be, and I think that when that passes it will reduced the number of applications to the CSU, especially to the top three campuses-- San Diego, Long Beach and Fullerton.  It will become more manageable and has nothing to do with the resolution.  He noted that he and Senator Smith have already discussed this and already have a plan in place to do this and already setting aside space for additional staff members and that is going forward. 


Senator Nanjundappa  asked about the funding for 2005-06 request only for $10,000 for the system, asked if there was any plan or problems to increase the admission level to the CSU campuses including those.


President Gordon responded not that he was aware of it.  His real concern about this, as you know, I was just in Sacramento on Monday and there is a discussion going on between the governor and the legislator and I sincerely hope that what happened last year does not happen this year.  To answer your question “no” and do not know of any additions.  If they were to approve it in July or August, does not allow especially larger campuses, sufficient time to introduce all of these students.  Discussions are going right now.  This year there were a number of campuses that did not make target and I think the reason is that the money came so late last year and just could not make up.


Q:  Since you sit on the system-wide committee, is there any thought to having some sort of initial screening, because students click on all 23 campuses or many campuses, is there any thought to having some sort of initial screening, in other words put GPA first, could there be some technology or software they could screen it and then go to a second level of more intense evaluation when it comes to an individual campus.  It seems like all 23 campuses are having evaluators sitting down all doing the same thing.


President Gordon answered that admission process is set by the system and by the state so we have the various differences of changing the process, as you know, the UC system has a date of which they hold all of the applications and do several levels of screening, and do not this enrolling admissions process as the CSU does.  We have discussed this but the process is right now as the applications come in, they are evaluated for the criteria for admission and they students are immediately known.  But this would work against this resolution by holding them.


Motion passed with one abstention to approve ASD 05-80.


M/S [Nanjundappa/Guerin] to approve ASD 05-78 Resolution on Faculty Salary Equity Issues Unanimously Approved by CFA Fullerton Chapter Board May 20, 2005.  Senator Nanjundappa pointed out three major points:

Ř      Fullerton campus faces a very critical shortage of permanent faculty members.

Ř      Salary equity issue among all faculty ranks.  The gap used by CPEC is about 16.8%--this has gone up consistently since 1981.

Ř      If not addressed immediately based on my discussion with at least 25 different junior faculty, CFA Chapter is very concerned that inequities will not only further erode the morale among the faculty, but also, will cause additional faculty members to leave CSUF in search of pay equity.  Over a three-period from 2002-04, a total of 46 faculty resigned their positions at CSUF.  Faculty recruitment is a labor—and cost-intensive process; hence, retaining the quality faculty is extremely important.


Senator Guerin stated we have just been through a very busy year of recruitment and know how much work it is.  We are going to be bringing about 58 new faculty members next fall.  It is important that we work together to make them feel welcome.  This resolution would get the message to the faculty that the campus leadership understands what you are saying and is taking the steps that the contract allows to deal with some of the problems that have emerged over the past few years.


Time Certain

9:15 a.m.

Ephraim Smith, Vice President for Academic Affairs

Subject:  Faculty Recruitment


Vice President Smith presented faculty recruitment plans for the year and distributed two charts—1) Net Grains (positive)/Losses (negative) Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty and 2004-2005 Count of Tenure and Probationary Instructional Faculty by Age.  As of today, we have written oral acceptances on 65 new tenure-track faculty.  We are expecting at least one more acceptance and that is out of 80 searches that we started the year with.  We have 3 full retirements; 5 resignations and 3 were involuntary, one death, new FERPS as of this morning there are 26 and possibly get one more, 16 people leaving FERP; 14 went to the full five years and 2 resigned early, giving us a net gain of about 35.  We should continue seeing 25-30 new FERPS each year, a couple of full retirements and it is very constant and not see any spikes unless there will be a big handshake.  Last year, we had 13 retirements on a Golden Handshake and we were anticipating many more.  San Diego State probably had 3 to 4 times as many as we did on the Golden Handshake, so we were extremely low.  We might have had more full-time lecturers accept than tenure-track faculty on the handshake.  Salary and housing continues to be an issue.  When we really analyze the data, it will indicate that we have more hires from within California.  The system as a whole, hires 40% of new hires from California-that would be graduates of the University of California and from the private schools and believe this year, we are going to be higher for that but will not know until we get all of the data in.  As of now, the new hires 58% are female, 42% are males. 


Time Certain

9:45 a.m.

President Gordon

Subject:  Faculty Leadership in Collegial Governance Award


President Gordon announced this was our seventh year in selecting our Collegial Governance Award to one of our faculty members.  Jane Hall was the sixth recipient of the Faculty Leadership in Collegial Governance Award. 


Senate returned to discussing document ASD 05-78.


M/S [Pasternack/Fromson] to propose an amendment at the end of the first resolve to add “and to pay 12-month department chairs an additional 7% compensation so that their compensation is equitable when compared to 9-month department chairs.” 


M [Shapiro] to call the question on the Pasternack amendment.  Motion passed to end debate on Pasternack amendment. 


Motion failed on the Pasternack/Fromson amendment.


President Gordon stated that on the first resolution that Senator Nanjundappa stated he rejected it was true.  The first resolution was flawed and could not have been enacted by any campus in the system.  The resolution is outside of the CBA and it was clearly told so by the Chancellor’s office.


Senator Smith added that he was told by the Chancellor’s office the original resolution as adopted by the Senate had two flaws in it:  1) were segmenting the assistant professors and would need to be open to all; and 2) you were creating a committee with a contract where you discussing a process and cannot set up a process outside of the contract. 


President Gordon’s second comment was that he didn’t want to sound like he was opposed to every one of these.  In matter of fact on this issue and have stated many times to VP Smith has and VP Hagan has and have been working on this issue for quite a awhile and already have a plan in place.  I want to make sure that this is reiterated once more with some changes and modifications to the current resolution.  My problems with the resolution and will say so now think that with the first resolved there should be no particular dollar figure at all and do know what we are going to come up.  Do not think it should state “President Gordon with PAB” or any other group.  I think President Gordon working with Academic Affairs and budgets of which I have already made the request to VP Smith, VP Hagan and Ms. Newcomb to see if we would be able to come up with some dollars to actually implement that and resolve three is already a part of CFA and part of the agreement and do not understand why that is a separate resolve.  Faculty members can apply for these and do handle them as quickly as we can and have at least 140-150 and that is a lot of work for everyone right up the line and are handling them as quickly as possible.  Will vote against the resolution but basically for the problems I see and not for the concept of trying to find funds to resolve the issue at hand.


M/S [Jones/Kreiner] propose to amend the resolution under the first resolve to include “faculty and staff equity; second resolve “faculty and staff members” after the word faculty insert “or staff” and in the third resolve after the word faculty insert “and staff.”


M/S and accepted as a friendly amendment [Meyer/Kreiner] to delete the word “staff” out of the second resolve and add a third resolve to read “Resolved that staff members of all bargaining units are encouraged to submit salary equity applications as per their current contract.”


President Gordon offered a friendly amendment to the Meyer amendment and accepted to add “if appropriate, their collective bargaining agreement allows pay equity increases.” 


M and accepted as a friendly amendment [Pasternack] to change the title of the resolution by deleting the word “faculty” and would read “Resolution on Salary Equity Issues Unanimously Approved by CFA Fullerton Chapter Board.”


Moved and passed [Shapiro] to call the question on the Meyer amendment.  Motion passed on the Meyer amendment adding a new third resolved.


M/S [Emry/Jones] to amend the first resolved “that President Gordon work to identify funds” and delete the words “with the PAB and/or PRBC” and delete the words “a minimum of $600,000.”


Moved and accepted as a friendly motion [Buck] to divide the motion. First motion, move to delete “a minimum of $600,000” and insert “Resolved that President Gordon work to identify funds.”  Senator Guerin stated this is not a friendly amendment.  Motion failed. 


Second motion move to delete “with the PAB and and/or PRBC.”  Motion passed. 


Motion passed to approve as amended ASD 05-78.



President Gordon announced Dr. Steve Murray was appointed as the new Dean, College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics.  Chair Bedell reminded the members of President Gordon’s BBQ on June 1 and to please RSVP. 


Chair Bedell acknowledged outgoing Senators who have given outstanding service and presented certificates of appreciation to Senators Rhonda Allen, Suellen Cox, John Erickson, Leon Gilbert, Jade Jewett, Morteza Rahmatian, Lynda Randall and Brady Rhodes.


Senator Pasternack announced Dr. Zvi Drezner, IS&DS was presented the prestigious “Lifetime Achievement in Location Analysis Award.”    


IV.         MINUTES

4.1 ASD 05-66 Academic Senate Minutes of April 14, 2005 were approved.

4.2 ASD 05-71 Academic Senate Minutes April 28, 2005 were approved.

4.3 ASD 05-68 Academic Senate Minutes of May 12, 2005 were approved.


V.           CHAIR’S REPORT

Chair Bedell asked Senator Hagan to present a brief report to the Senators on the Nutwood Parking Structure.  Senator Hagan reviewed some of the actions taken to improve to slow traffic down and increase the margin of safety.  Copies of Senator Hagan’s memo will be distributed to all faculty. 



No report.



M/S [Gilbert/Pasternack] to approve the Consent Calendar.  Senator Shapiro requested removal of ASD 05-73 from the Consent Calendar and will become first item of New Business.  The following Consent Calendar item was approved:

7.1 ASD 05-72 Revised UPS 320.020 University Writing Requirements



8.1   ASD 05-49 Revised UPS 330.232 Policy on the Use of Alcoholic and Malt Beverages by Students and by Student Organizations

  Chair Bedell reminded the members when the Senate adjourned on May 12, a motion was on the floor to amend line 23 to read “University Policy on Consumption by Students on University Property, University Events or Representing the University” and to amend line 26 II, 1 delete “21 years of age” and insert the words “legal drinking age.”  Motion passed on the Pasternack amendment.  Motion passed to approve ASD 05-49 as amended.



7.2   ASD 05-73 University Board on the Second Language Graduation Requirements

M/S [Gilbert/Junn] to approve this document.  Senator Gilbert stated since we are coming up on the institution of the implementation of the second language requirements, beginning in fall of 2006, there is a strong feeling that we need to have an oversight board that would essentially shepherd that process and review it as it was implemented. 


Senator Fidalgo requested an editorial correction on page 1, line 33 to delete the word “de” to read “Instituto Cervantes.”


M/S [Pasternack] on page 3, line 35 at the end of the line add “the following voting members.  Motion failed due to a second.


M/S [Pasternack/Fitch] page 3, after #4, 5, 6 and 7 to put in parentheses “non-voting.”  Motion passed on the Pasternack amendment.


Moved and accepted as a friendly amendment [Gilbert] to create a parallel structure on page 3, II. A.4 and add both departments as it is written in #5 “Coordinate with the University Testing Center and Department of Modern Languages and Literature.”


M/S [Gilbert] in #5 to add the “Testing Coordinator for the Department of Modern Languages and Literature” to the board.  Motion failed due to a second.


Motion passed to approve ASD 05-73 as amended.


9.1   ASD 05-56 Revised UPS 410.105 Policy for Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of Science Differentiation

        M/S/P [Fromson/Alva] to approve the document.


9.2   ASD 05-50 Revised UPS 260.101 Leaves Policy

        M/S [Pasternack/Fromson] to approve the document.  Senator Pasternack presented a brief overview of the proposed changes made by the Faculty Affairs Committee. 


M/S/F [Nanjundappa/Kreiner] to refer this document back to the committee to make the appropriate corrections consistent with 22.5 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 


M/S/F [Nanjundappa/Michalopoulos] on page 2 under B.  to insert a new #4 to read “A faculty member on a leave of absence without pay for professional purposes shall, when otherwise eligible, accrue service credit towards probation, sabbatical eligibility, difference in pay eligibility, service salary increase eligibility and seniority.”


Motion passed to approve ASD 05-50.


9.3   ASD 05-57 Revised UPS 410.115 Certificate Programs

        M/S [Fromson/Rhoten] to approve the document.  Mr. Norman briefly reviewed the changes proposed to the document. 


M/S and accepted as a friendly amendment [Pasternack/Gass] to change the first sentence page 2, line 22 F. to read “A mock-up of the certificate to be awarded when the certificate does not follow a previously approved format.” 


M and accepted as a friendly amendment [Alva] on page 2, under Routes of Approval on line 30 change the title to “Associate Vice President for Academic Programs” and page 2, line 8 to delete “University Curriculum Committee” and insert “Academic Programs in consultation with the relevant committees.”  Motion passed to approve ASD 05-57 as amended.


9.4   ASD 05-58 New UPS Non-Credit/CEU Certificate Programs

        M/S [Rhoten/Meyer] to approve the document. 


M and accepted as a friendly amendment [Pasternack] on page 2, under G, line 1 after the word “certificate” insert “when the certificate does not follow a previously  approved format.” 


M and accepted as a friendly amendment [Alva] to recommend everywhere where it states “non-credit” replace it with “non-academic credit” throughout the document to differentiate between credits applied towards the degree and continuing Education units.  Motion passed to approve ASD 05-58 as amended. 


M/S/P [Fitch/Shapiro] to take a break and resume with the Senate Electoral Meeting at 11:30 a.m.  The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.


Due to time limitations, documents ASD 05-74, ASD 05-76 and ASD 06-52 were not discussed.