ACADEMIC SENATE

 

MINUTES

 

October 18, 2007


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

Members Present:  Altar, Bedell, Bhattacharya, Bruschke, Buck, Bullock, Burgtorf, Carroll, Dabirian, Drezner, Fidalgo, Fromson, Grewal, Guerin, Hewitt, Hickok, Jarvis, Junn, Kanel, Kantardjieff, Klassen, Liverpool, McConnell, McMahan, Mead, Nyaggah, Oliver, Randall, Rhoten, Sage, Stang, Williams

Absent: Alva, Arnold, Gass, Gordon, Green, Palmer, Pasternack, Richter, Shapiro, Smith, Spitzer, Stein, Taylor, Walicki

 

I.              CALL TO ORDER

Chair Guerin called the meeting to order at 11:31 a.m.

 

II.            URGENT BUSINESS

None.

 

III.          ANNOUNCEMENTS

Senator Rhoten invited all faculty to a series of workshops facilitated by her and Senator Stein on academic integrity. For more information on the workshop dates, locations, and registration, faculty may contact Senator Stein at andistein@fullerton.edu or x5434.

 

In Senator Spitzer’s stead, Senator Jarvis announced that Carl Bernstein, an investigative reporter whose reporting led to the uncovering of the Watergate scandal, will speak about his new biography on Senator Hillary Clinton at the Nixon Presidential Library on October 22, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. This event is free and open to the public. Faculty members are encouraged to bring their classes. More information can be obtained by calling (714)983-9120 or at nixon@nara.gov.

 

IV.          CONSENT CALENDAR

M/S/P [Bedell/Drezner] to approve the consent calendar as amended:

         

         4.1 Nominees to Search Committees

 

Director – Freshman Programs

Nominees:       Charles H. Lee (CNSM); Danielle Zacherl (CNSM); Dennis Siebenaler (ARTS);

                            Andi Stein (COMM); Kari Knutson-Miller (HHD)

 

4.2 Nominees to Ad Hoc Committees

 

AD HOC: UNIVERSITY CLUB BUILDING COMMITTEE

Nominees:       Debra Noble (ARTS); Ellen Junn (HHD); Sandra Sutphen (Emeriti); Pending

 

AD HOC: Brochure Revision – Academic Field Trips – Faculty and Staff Guidelines

Nominees:        Leslie Grier (HHD); Phil Armstrong (CNSM); Pending Mitch Fennell (ART);

                            Pending Paul Stapp (NSM)

 

 

AD HOC: Brochure Revision – Faculty Responsibilities for Student Health and Safety

Nominees:       Mougo Nyaggah (SOC SCI); Kari Knutsen-Miller (HHD); Harold Rogers (CNSM);

                     Sandra Sutphen (Emeriti)

 

V.            TIME CERTAIN

Time Certain

11:45 a.m.

Subject: Recognition of Senator Mohinder Grewal, Recently Named One of the “50 Leaders to Watch for their Contributions Made to the Global Navigation and Positioning Industry, 2007 - 2008”

Faculty and Senate colleague Mohinder Grewal was recognized for his accomplishment in being named one of the “50 Leaders to Watch for their Contributions Made to the Global Navigation and Positioning Industry, 2007 and 2008” in the May issue of GPS World magazine.  In January, the professor of electrical engineering celebrated the publishing of the second edition of his book entitled Global Positioning Systems: Inertial Navigation and Integration by Wiley and Sons. Dr. Grewal explained that his main contribution was in serving as an architect of a system that makes satellite navigation more accurate. He was congratulated by his fellow Senators and colleagues from the College of Engineering and Computer Science and presented with the traditional Senate keychain. Chair Guerin thanked him for his fine representation of the faculty of CSUF.

                                                

VI.          STATEWIDE ACADEMIC SENATE REPORT

Chair Guerin reported that she met with the Faculty Affairs Committee during the Statewide Academic Senate Interim Committees meetings last week. A substantial amount of time was spent discussing and preparing a resolution on what the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor should do when they receive votes of no confidence in campus presidents. The Statewide Academic Senate will meet in November.

 

VII.        CHAIR’S REPORT

Chair Guerin reported that all campus Senate Chairs met with the Provosts and discussed the campus responses to the draft of the Access to Excellence document. Also discussed was the importance of liaison between student affairs and academic affairs with respect to student development.

 

She added that our campus WASC proposal has been mailed to the WASC committee. We should receive a response in early December.

 

Chair Guerin pointed out that we had to postpone the completion of our discussion of items 8.1 and 9.1 because VP Hagan and Mr. Dickerson were attending a retreat and unable to attend this meeting.

 

VIII.      UNFINISHED BUSINESS

8.1  Fiscal State of the University Report [VP/CFO Hagan] - Postponed

 

IX.         NEW BUSINESS

9.1 ASD 07-151 Faculty/Staff Housing Survey Results and Current Status [Dickerson] - Postponed

9.2 ASD 07-150 ASCSU Consultation on Professional Fee for Graduate Business Degrees (Waiver) – Postponed

 

9.3 CSUF Academic Senate Comments on the CSU Strategic Planning Initiative, Access to Excellence

 

Senators responded to the draft of the initiative, with these questions in mind:

·        Does this vision of our future match with your vision of the future to the CSU?

·        Do you agree with what has been identified as the three core goals to work toward? Do you find that this plan motivates you to reach those goals?

·        Do you agree with the strategies selected to reach those goals? Does the plan address the resource needs and responsibilities of the strategic initiatives?

·        Are there clearly stated objectives that permit assessment of whether or not the objectives have been met? Are there strategic metrics or benchmarks to help us make those decisions?

·        Does this strategic plan include regular monitoring of progress?

 

o       Senator Drezner: There is very little mention about research. Should specify “for applied research” in the few places it is mentioned.

o       Senator Fromson: Disappointed that there was no mention of student responsibility. Faculty have an obligation to the students and students have an obligation to themselves, in the area of study outside of the classroom.

o       Senator Hewitt: (1) There is nothing in the initiative that addresses funding for these plans; (2) One of the accountability indicators is reducing the achievement gap. However, we do not have responsibility for student education before they get to this level, so using this as a measure for CSU faculty is dangerous; (3) Increasing fees will effect students who come from middle class families that do not qualify for financial assistance. As fees increase, a fair number of students may not be able to afford graduate programs, especially; (4) Very little has been done about faculty and administrative turnover because of poor funding; (5) Research and sustainability could help bring in more funding.

o       Senator Bedell: This document was quite anti-intellectual in its approach to research and scholarship and would like to see that reworked. Also, issues of quality need to be addressed throughout the document.

o       Senator Bruschke: (1) Document seems to have a bias against liberal arts areas; (2) Accountability has to be linked the amount of resources we have.

o       Senator Carroll: (1) Will faculty be responsible for increasing high school graduation rates?

(2) Perhaps we should present our campus’ collective opinion on measuring accountability to the CSU.

o       Senator Nyaggah: Workload is a problem for faculty. Are we accountable for what we are unable to do? Reduce the number of classes, increase research funding.

o       Senator Dabirian: Web technology should be incorporated into the strategy of making better use of evidence to improve learning.

o       Senator Guerin: (1) Would like the document to provide specific benchmarks and parameters that indicate what they want us to achieve; (2) Document should recognize that in order for the CSU to fulfill the goal of increasing the proportion of college graduates in California, sufficient funding will be necessary.

o       Senator McConnell: Concerned about the use of the language regarding “the educational pipeline”, more specifically, our use of abbreviations “P-16” and “P-20” to refer to pre-school through college and pre-school through doctorate. Would like the document to emphasize what distinguishes higher education from secondary education.

o       Senator Bullock: (1) Document mentions growth and adding approximately 130,000 new students to the CSU system each year by 2020, but does not reference a plan of action to address this growth; (2) Defensive tone of the document suggests that things are going terribly wrong in higher education and that somehow we have to remedy this terrible mess we are in. However, it does not identify evidence that this “mess” exists.

o       Senator Williams: (1) Document lists the strategy of improving retention and increasing graduation by removing barriers to degree completion. How many of those barriers are student barriers and how many are institutional barriers? (2) What are the tradeoffs for the cost of increasing the use of technology?

o       Senator Burgtorf: Concerned about the goal of reducing excess credit. Some students may desire to take additional classes to broaden their university experience. This document defies the purpose of the university. We should ignore it.

o       Senator Stang: If we are going to create a long term plan (i.e., over ten years, or twenty years), there should also be short term objectives, markers of progress toward the long term goal.

o       Senator Carroll: Concerned that a few of us have been using the words “assessment” and “accountability” interchangeably. Assessment is an idea and a process of evaluating how we can be better at what we do. Accountability has expectations of performance and also expectations of punishment for not reaching certain benchmarks or levels. If this document is about accountability, I do not support it.

o       Senator Mead: Concerned about funding. Document discusses plans for future years but does not address how we will pay for ongoing programs. How do we maintain what we already have in place?

o       Senator Buck: (1) Biggest issue is that this document does not address funding. The amount of funding that the CSU has achieved under the compact has not been enough to sustain quality. We need to get back to a reasonable student-faculty ratio. What is lacking is someone with a voice to persuade the public that we need more funding in higher education if we are to maintain quality; (2) Document focuses hugely on assessment.

o       Senator Kanel: (1) It is inappropriate to lump higher education with P-12 education; (2) Standardized assessment tools will lead to faculty teaching to standard, which has not worked. Our University has built-in avenues such (i.e. various committees) that assess standards and curriculum; (3) Where is the evidence that there is a deficit?

o       Senator Jarvis: What is the purpose of this document? Is it to set goals that we can easily meet so that we are not too concerned? Is just to set larger goals? Is it just an internal selling tool? Is this a real process for assessment and accountability? Document reads that we should become more like ITT Tech.

o       Senator Randall: Echo the suggestion that we make a strong statement to the Chancellor that we are in opposition to this document.  Thinks “accountability” comes from the Chancellor’s attitude towards CSU faculty. He has made comments that we have not been very productive. Concerned about narrowing our curriculum to a set of observable objectives as opposed to authentic kinds of skills that are qualitative in nature and cannot be reduced to a quantitative index.

o       Senator Klassen: Agreed with Randall. Everyday we assess our students and work with our colleagues to help each other to do a better job. More time should be spent on dealing with the issues we face as our campus continues to grow, such as faculty hiring, sabbaticals, and funding according to campus costs and needs.

o       Senator Bruschke:  If the CSU is serious about implementing this document, both the administration and the faculty would have to be equally responsible.

o       Chair Guerin: Heard opinions at the provost meeting that the document is “high on access and low on quality”. Seems clear that this body concurs.

 

Chair Guerin stated that these comments will be melded together into a report and brought back to next week’s Senate meeting for approval.

 

9.4 Discussion: Mentoring of Junior Faculty

With 170-80 newly hired faculty, the mentoring of junior faculty was identified as priority number three at the Academic Affairs/Academic Senate Retreat last August. Senators offered the following input on how the Senate Executive Committee should pursue this priority:

 

·        Senator Fidalgo: Clearly define what mentoring entails. We need a clearly-delineated process.

·        Senator Stang: (1) There is a lot of literature on mentoring available that could be used for formal mentor training; (2) From a junior faculty perspective, mentoring is vital. It builds relationships and connections; (3) Many of us choose informal mentoring. Sometimes junior faculty may find it difficult to approach a mentor about something they are struggling with, fearing that that mentor might be involved in determining their retention or in their review process [conflict of interest within departments]; (4) We need a better system of matching mentors.

·        Senator Junn: (1) Consult research literature on mentoring; (2) Understand the purpose of mentoring (professional, community, or psychological support?); (3) Consider matching methods; (4) Junior faculty coming through the pipeline have different values than senior faculty. We should use the junior faculty data from the COACHE study when building this program to look at their values.

·        Senator Burgtorf: We should have a flexible policy on mentoring, solicit interested people from campus to form an ad hoc committee, and conduct a best practices forum.

·        Senator Hewitt: (1) Mentoring is very important for our junior colleagues. It has made a huge impact on those who have had a good experience with mentoring. However, not all of our colleagues are having a good experience. Mentoring needs to be an active, not passive, process. We need a program to train us to become better mentors. A lot of us did not have that when we first came in. (2) Though mentoring is one of the most important aspects of senior faculty members’ jobs, workload demands for senior faculty make it difficult to do.

·        Senator Hickok: If any kind of proposals result from the formation of an ad hoc committee on mentoring, please consult him as the representative for the CAPS, ATHL, LIBR constituency because there may be variations in mentoring needs.

·        Senator Buck: Encourage departments to set up a mentoring program. There is value in informal mentor relationships.

·        Senator Fidalgo: In the selection of mentors, no one should be forced to participate in mentorship.

·        Senator Drezner: In my department, we have a mentor for teaching and a mentor for research. The chair assigns them, and it has worked well.

·        Senator McConnell: Would not want to create a policy that would disrupt the mentoring methods that have been working in departments.

·        Senator Mead: Define expectations for mentors.

        

X.           ADJOURNMENT

         Meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m.