ACADEMIC SENATE
MINUTES
Members Present: Allen, Arkenberg, Bedell, Boyum, Buck, Byrnes,
Cox, Emry, Erickson, Fromson, Gannon, Gass, Gilbert, Gordon, Guerin, Hagan,
Hall, Hewitt, Jones, Junn, Klassen, Kreiner, Meyer, Michalopoulos,
Members Absent: Fitch, Hall,
Kelly,
I.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Gilbert
called the meeting to order and welcomed senators back after a summer’s
rest.
II.
URGENT BUSINESS
It was m/p [Bedell] as an item of urgent
business that Vice President Smith or another member of the administration in
the room provide an update to the Senate to clarify the status of fall
enrollments and target in light of confusion/frustration Bedell observed among
department chairs and faculty. Bedell
distributed a list of six questions.
1.
What is our
current FTES and how does it relate to what was predicted? Explanation of any difference?
Smith: I believe our
current count is about 23,000 FTES. That
is lighter than we expected, and the reason is that the freshman class is
smaller than we anticipated—slightly over target, but much smaller than
expected. Normally, approximately 10% of
freshmen would be no shows, but this year we are running about 16 ½ -17% no
shows. Upper division and post bacc adds
are also a tad low, but not as low as freshmen.
Freshman students average between 12 and 13 units; we were holding
spaces to accommodate 3800 freshmen who had sent in intents to register with a
$50 fee. At the end of the day on
Monday, it became obvious that many of the freshmen would not be registering;
we confirmed that we would have extra FTES that could be allocated to meet the
needs of our upper division or students beyond first time freshman status. We
looked at the enrollment data from the Monday night run on Tuesday; yesterday
we requested some of the colleges to open seats in as much as they would not be
getting enrollment from the first-time freshmen. Thus, when we saw that the expected freshmen
were not coming, we had seats available for other students; this is why some
departments have been getting changing information regarding enrollment.
2.
What are the
expectations of the administration regarding faculty adding students to classes? Closing classes, etc.?
Smith: Let me go over a little history about what
has happed to our target since last May.
In June, from a target of what was projected to this fall, we lost 582
FTES in the first round of budget cuts; that
was the $69½ million additional cut to the system. At the Board of Trustees’ meeting in July,
there was another cut of $15 million.
This campus incurred an additional 207 FTES cut. We have been very
concerned about over-enrollment because the Chancellor at the end of July
indicated there will be a penalty for over enrollment. Campuses that over-enroll will have fees
deducted from next year’s budget for that over-enrollment; therefore, the
strategy is to meet target or to be slightly below target. Unlike prior years, there is a large
disincentive in the budget for going over target.
Question from Senator
Erickson: If a college that is under-enrolled and then
other colleges are over-enrolled, will the under-enrolled college be penalized
because it does not make target?
Smith: No, in the past we have not penalized
colleges for under-enrollment in the spring.
In setting targets, we are looking toward the future; when we see that
the applications for the college are not coming in, then the FTES for the
college will be reduced. Target is not reduced if it is down because the
college closed sections resulting in a drop.
Target depends more on application trends.
3.
What was the
rationale for how the “900” were handled at that time? Future response to a similar problem?
Smith: Obviously, that was a problem! Actually, we disenrolled 1400. Earlier in that week-- and I can’t recall the
date on that--we enrolled about 400 to 500 students who had not paid any
fees. I don’t know if any of them came
back, but certainly we had no complaints from that group. We have a normal disenrollment right before
Titan II, and we do this every year. We
disenroll students to get the seats back.
If we don’t disenroll these students, then we have to overload classes
knowing that we will have some no-shows, but not knowing where they will be. In
a normal disenrollment, about 2 to 6% of FTES are disenrolled for
non-payment. When they come back, they
must pay first. This is something we
have been doing every year.
The difference
this year is that we had the fee increase after students had already paid fees. Those that had paid fees, but not the fee
increase, were upset. Further they were
upset that the message they received was by email and not hard copy. Now remember the letter went out to 19,000
plus students, and all but 908 paid. The
908 were upset because some said they do not use email during the summer; some
said they did not know how to access the email during the summer and they did
not get the message. They were disenrolled, and the demand in Titan II was
still very substantial and their seats were taken. We tried our best to get them back into their
schedule. Melissa Whatley and Dawn
Wilson in Admissions and Records worked one–on-one with these students, and I
think 85 or 86% have been accommodated according to the story in yesterday’s Daily Titan. The Associate Deans in the colleges also worked
with the students.
In hindsight, we
should have sent a hard copy; hopefully, a higher percentage would have
paid. We do have to recognize that some
students did send in an email stating that they paid their fees, and because
the fee increase came after they had paid, they should not have to pay. Their
logic was that if you buy an automobile and two months later and there is an increase,
they don’t come after you saying they want more money. Unfortunately, the government doesn’t operate
like a car dealer. So it was a little
problem on that front also. So, the “900”
obviously was a challenge to the campus; in hindsight, we certainly would have
done it differently. Hopefully, we will
have them all back in their classes.
4.
Will
departments be punished/rewarded in terms of target hit or miss? Explanation of why and how?
Smith: Senator Erickson raised the question about
penalties for being over and under target. We have some departments that have
gone way over target, and mostly this is in H&SS. The concern about going way over the target
is in part related to general education.
There are some departments in H&SS that really could use some
additional enrollment. The hope is that
there would be a sharing of general education classes as opposed to certain
departments coming 20% or 25% over target and other departments struggling to
meet target. So, it isn’t that there is
a penalty; we are trying to hold over-enrollment down, so that other
departments can share in the wealth. We then
don’t have to move FTEF from a college.
5.
Will spring
2004 admissions remain closed? Why or
why not?
Smith: We will monitor enrollments this week.
Senator
Russell: Would you address again what happens to
departments that are under target this term?
I understand you want to even it out in the long run, but am not sure
what the repercussions are for these departments?
Smith: In Academic Affairs, we have a fixed
student/faculty ratio. Next year, we
have to allocate targets carefully. Business
is a great example. Business will be way
under this year; we will take a look at how applications are coming in for
Business. If applications are light
again next year, we will probably lower their target. This is what we have done
year in and year out with colleges.
Every year,
college enrollments are adjusted.
Colleges that come in with strong enrollment, get more enrollment. But this year, we have trying to hold it down
because of the penalty from the chancellor’s office. We told the colleges running up targets this
year will get them into trouble and they are not going to get more FTES. Several
colleges had many more sections in the schedule than they had budget to cover. Money
for over-enrollment has now disappeared; departments that run up their targets will
not get larger targets. We have been
told in legislative language that the CSU will be fixed at this year’s target
next year. We are working on the
assumption of a fixed FTES for next year.
Russell: After working many years to get higher
enrollments, I am just thinking that some chairs fear what an error on either
side is going to cost them.
Smith: There were a couple of departments in several
colleges that were really running up targets.
It could be because of high demand, but when we start looking at 20-30%
over target, we really have to look at targets where other departments are struggling. One of our goals is to help the struggling
departments first, because obviously we don’t want to have to go to layoff mode. We want to help protect all departments. The way to protect them is to help those with
low enrollments to build up the enrollment some.
6.
What is the
impact of fall 2003 enrollments on the “Impaction Plan,” if any?
Smith: My concern with the impaction plan is that
our service area is too wide, and we still have too many applications. I think the change will be how impaction affects
yield. We run about a 20% yield on
application to actually enroll; that possibly could increase with impaction.
Shapiro: I am curious as why our service area is all
of
Smith: We are the CSU in
Shapiro: Where is that written in stone?
Smith: It might not be written in stone, but the
total county is viewed as our service area.
Also, we now have a branch campus at
Shapiro: It doesn’t make any sense when those students
who live closer to Cal State Long Beach are in our service area. When we are having problems here, why not
yield those areas to
Smith: I don’t believe those high schools in the
western part of the county are in the primary service area of
Gordon: What Ephraim is saying, Mark, is that those
students that you are referring to
Shapiro: I understand that, but it seems like that is
something that the Chancellor’s office could adjust.
Gordon: Actually, the campus selects its service
area. At a meeting last spring, we
looked at the three biggest senior high schools; they were all in different
counties for Cal State Fullerton. Students
select were they want to go, and
Smith: I would say also besides the impaction on
freshman, we need to give a close look to our upper division transfer
students. Last year, we closed just
before the holiday break in December, but it could be that we are going to be
looking at impaction on upper division transfers in the future. There is a fear
that with the number of applications in the system, we really have to be
protected from the first. Even though we
closed everything down pretty tight in our undergraduate program, let’s say, by
the end of December, we still had 30,000 applications sent in this fall.
Gordon: Ephraim mentioned a few minutes ago that, as
you all know, because you have seen it in the newspaper, the legislature has
decided CSU should stay flat next year with no enrollment money. I found out only yesterday that there are
members of the Assembly that are discussing now whether or not they should
allocate funds for enrollment next year because of calls they have received
from their constituency. I don’t think I
have ever opened a year that had such fluidity as right now. Everything we are discussing now could
radically change after October 7, depending upon who the next governor is going
to be. The decisions made by the
legislature, all of these changes could change.
It’s a moving target that we are trying to hit.
Guerin: On question one, I missed the projected
target or predicted target?
Smith: Right now, our official target including YRO
is 25,061. That is our projected target
for our college year, and right now with closure in spring and normal growth, I
think we will be under that target.
Gordon: I don’t want to miss the point that Ephraim
made earlier, between June and July an additional $84.5 million was assessed to
the
Kreiner: It was mentioned that you were going to
extend permits a few days. How many days?
Smith: We told the Daily Titan today that the permit to add by September 8th
would be accepted until the close of business on September 10th.
Bedell: I want to be sure then, on the second
question, the answer would be that if your department is at or above target,
you should be discouraging adding students to classes.
Smith: No, I think the question was more in terms of
running up enrollment. Our first goal is
to meet the needs of students. We don’t
want students sitting there with nine hours saying I couldn’t get three hours
and this is slowing me down. We want to
take care of students. We talk about some
departments running up enrollments using the general education program, when
students can take courses in other departments to meet the same requirement. If
there are a couple of dozen sociology majors who need a class to graduate, we want
those students accommodated. Remember
that one of our targets in the system is to improve the time to degree. Our largest category of students on this
campus is seniors, and some of them have challenges.
Buck: I am still not sure what the current
situation is. I had a colleague come by
this morning who had a bunch of students he was told he could not add, so we
told them there is no room.
Smith: Obviously, some changes were made after we
determined that the freshmen were not coming.
That was our greatest challenge, and also a challenge for the
students. One thing I forgot to mention
earlier is that this year we are determined to hold class sizes to the number
of students in the class so that we do not go over limits set by the fire marshal.
On this campus, that is a challenge.
Last year, I think we had 118 classes over limits set by the fire marshal,
so our first goal is that we would not add a student to a class when, technically,
there is not a seat in the room. So when
there are classes where there are seats available, students can add.
Buck: If we are below target in the fall, does that
means we will have more seats will be available in the spring?
Smith: If we are below the target in the fall, it
means that we will ease up on student flow to the spring and let them take more
units. You recall how we register
students now is that they can take up to 16 units during Titan II and at the
close of Titan II. Some years we open up
to 19 units and other years we hold it—trying to hold down the enrollment. Obviously, if seats are available we would
open up to 19 units earlier.
Buck: Are there disadvantages to coming in under
target?
Smith: It is a question of how much under target you
want to be. The goal is to be around
target but slightly under.
Dean Klammer: This year we know that enrollments will be
lower in the spring because we are not admitting any new students; therefore, colleges
may be planning to be over target as we normally defined it for the fall to
compensate for the fewer students in the spring.
Smith: Dr. Gordon and I will be discussing this. When we have a better handle on what the fall
enrollments look like, we will decide exactly what the process will be in the
spring.
Senator Emry: I realize the rationale for staying within
target, but I am wondering about the political ramification of closing classes
with open seats when instructors get paid for that class and we have spent the money for the seats? In the present political climate, many voters
feel that bureaucracy is simply pushing or cutting down to the end where it
hurts the most. How do you respond to
that? Why do we have do it, but how do you
respond to the concerns of the students, parents, and so on?
Gordon: We have been told that if we come in over
target next year, we are going to increase our budget reduction because the
fees over our target are going to be reduced in our budget; in essence, we are adding
to our own budget reduction, and that is not something that we want to do.
Emery: I don’t think our community will accept that
response. I understand, but I don’t
think that our community will accept that response.
Gordon: Well, otherwise we risk putting ourselves in
the worst position in terms of our own budget.
Emery: I think the system has created a public
relations problem for us.
Smith: I think you have to look at the origin of the
problem. In the past, we put the extra
students in and we have gone over the target. In the following year, we would
always collect the money. In the system,
we have been doing this year in and year out. This year, there was a change during the
budget process that really started with the legislative analyst reviewing our
budget. The governor recommended $45
million for the 6000 extra students last year, but the legislative analyst said
that because the CSU has already accommodated these students, they really don’t
need the money. We did not receive the
money; therefore, the message is clear.
Put the extra students in the class, we will take more money from
you. I think you have to explain to the
people it’s a bad situation, but we are in a situation where, if we put extra
students in a class, then our budget next year is reduced.
I think that
on this campus we have to be careful. One
of our top priorities has been to decrease the student/faculty ratio and not
increase it. Running over and getting
penalized will lead to an increased student/faculty ratio. Even with some pretty serious budget cuts, we
have been able to protect the student/faculty ratio.
Time Certain
William Barrett, Associate Vice President
Subject: Parking
Update
Mr. Barrett
reported on the parking situation at Cal State Fullerton. He noted that through a number of mitigation
measures the influx of several thousand cars Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and
today was accommodated. Mr. Barrett said
that the primary complaint was capping student permits at 19,000 because there
are still several thousand students who want permits. He said he will create a waiting list and may
begin to increase beyond the 19,000 limit as the semester proceeds;
additionally, daily permits are not available until
Mr. Barrett was
also pleased to announce that an agreement has been reached with OCTA, which
will accept the Titan Card as a free bus pass beginning September 15. Students, faculty, and staff will be able to
use their CSUF identification to travel anywhere in
Time Certain
Judith Anderson, Executive Vice President
Subject: El Toro
Update
Judith
Anderson briefed the Senate about the pending sale of the El Toro Base and presented
a concept/mission plan that has been developed to engage prospective developers
with a long term goal of maintaining a permanent Cal State Fullerton presence
on the base once the property sells. A
copy of the promotional brochure depicting the conceptual plan was distributed
to the members.
As another
item of urgent business, it was moved by Senator Fromson to ask Senator Parker and
Amir Dabirian to update the Senate on the current status about worms and
viruses that affected our computers. Motion
carried.
Parker explained
that both Blaster and Sobig had invaded the campus through student computers
and non-rollout machines that connected to the campus-protected network. IT is developing a plan to ensure that the
network remains viable in such cases, but this will require that IT play a
specific role with respect to anybody who wants to connect to the network. He noted that PAB is currently crafting a
document about how that might work.
III.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Senator
IV.
CHAIRS REPORT
Chair Gilbert
noted that due to the time constraints, he will issue it as a written
report.
V.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Senator
Arkenberg withdrew the Academic Senate Marathon Meeting Minutes of
It was m/s/p to approve the following Consent
Calendar as amended.
A. ASD 03-66 Academic Senate Meeting Minutes
B. ASD 03-78 Academic Senate Meeting Minutes
D. ASD 03-82 Academic Senate Electoral Meeting
Minutes
E. ASD 03-81 Academic Senate Calendar Fall 2003
– Spring 2004
G. NOMINEES
TO STANDING COMMITTEES
ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
Terms: One 2-year
Nominee: Barry Pasternack (CBE)
Confirmed
EXTENDED EDUCATION COMMITTEE Terms: Three 2-year
Nominees: Joseph Massey (COMM); Cindy
Martinez (HDCS); Barbra Erickson (HSS)
Continuing: Hamid
Tavakolian (CBE); Juan Sanchez Munoz (HDCS); Håken Rosengren (ARTS)
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Terms: One
2-year; One 1-year
Nominees: G.
Confirmed
Nominees: Joanne Gass (HSS); Maqsood
Chaudhry (ECS); Nancy Peleaz (CNSM)
Confirmed
GENERAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE Term: One 1-year
Nominee: Armando
Martinez-Cruz (CNSM)
GRADUATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE Terms: One
2-year
Nominee: Gustavo Vargas (CBE)
Confirmed
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE Terms: One
2-year
Nominee: Vance Wolverton (ARTS)
Confirmed
LIBRARY COMMITTEE Terms:
One 2-year; One 1-year
Nominees: Toya Wyatt (COMM); Stephen Stambough (HSS)
Confirmed
PLANNING, RESOURCE, BUDGET COMMITTEE Terms: Two
2-year
Nominees: Carol Bednar (Library); Carmen Dunlap (HDCS)
Confirmed
UNIVERSITY ADVANCEMENT COMMITTEE Terms: Four
2-year; One 1-yr
Nominees: C.
Jessie Jones (HDCS); Pamela Caldwell (COMM); Jim
Taulli (ARTS); Joni Norby (CBE); Nancy Snow (COMM)
Continuing: Rosemary McGill (Library); Carol Barnes
(HDCS); William Laton (CNSM)
NOMINEES TO MISCELLANEOUS COMMITTEES
ACADEMIC
APPEALS BOARD Terms: Two
2-year, One ASC Rep.
Nominees: Brady Rhodes (CNSM); Vic Brajer (ASC
member); Pending
AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION BOARD Terms: Three 2-year
Nominees: Dawn
Anderson (HDCS); Robert Emry (COMM); Grace Cho (HDCS)
Continuing: Gayle
Vogt (CBE); Harriet Edwards (CNSM)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST COMMITTEE Terms: One 3-year
Nominee: Armando
Martinez-Cruz (CNSM)
Continuing: David
Wong (CBE); Lenny Wiersma (HDCS); David Falconer
(ECS); Sharon Milburn (HDCS);
ATHLETICS ADVISORY COUNCIL Terms:
Three 1-year
Nominees: Betty Chavis (CBE); Steve Walk
(HDCS); Fred Ramirez (HDCS)
ATHLETICS ADVISORY COUNCIL:
ATHLETICS ACADEMIC STANDARDS Terms: One
1-year; One ASC Rep.
Nominees: Richard Wiseman (COMM); Vic
Brajer (ASC Member)
ATHLETICS
ADVISORY COUNCIL:
NCAA COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE Terms: Two
1-year
Nominees: Allan Axelrad (HSS); Kevin Meehan (HSS)
ATHLETICS ADVISORY COUNCIL:
GENDER EQUITY COMMITTEE Terms: Two 1-year
Nominees: Marika Becz (ARTS); Patti Laguna
(HDCS)
HONORS BOARD Terms:
One 2-year, One 3-year
Nominees: J.
Michael Russell (HSS); Zena
Pearlstone (ARTS)
Continuing: Marcelo
Tolmasky (CNSM); Jochen Burgtorf (HSS); Edward Fink (COMM)
Titan Student
Union Governing Board Terms: One
2-year
Nominee: Debra
Lockwood (ARTS)
Continuing: Ron
Oliver (HDCS)
UNIVERSITY
Nominees: Reyes
Fidalgo (HSS)
Continuing: Larry
Peters (ARTS); Mildred Donoghue (HDCS)
VI.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
VII.
NEW BUSINESS
A. ASD 03-86
Resolution in Support of the Kindergarten-University Public Education
Facilities Bond Act of 2004
It
was m/s/p [Fromson/
The meeting adjourned at