ACADEMIC SENATE

 

MINUTES

 

November 10, 2005

 

 

 

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

Members Present:  Alva, Buck, Burgtorf, Dabirian, Drezner, Emry, Fidalgo, Fitch, Fromson, Gass, Gordon, Guerin, Hagan, Hall, Hewitt, Holland, Jones, Junn, Kanel, Kantardjieff, Kelly, Kirtman, Klassen, Klein, Kreiner, Liverpool, Lovell, Matz, Meyer, Michalopoulos, Nanjundappa, Napper, Pasternack, Pierson, Schroeder, Shapiro, Smith, Tavakolian, Vogt, Wiley

 

Absent:   Bedell, Hassan, Rhoten, Syed, Taylor, Walicki

 

I.             CALL TO ORDER

 Vice Chair Hall (for Chair Bedell) called the meeting to order at 11:34 a.m.

 

II.          URGENT BUSINESS

Senator Kreiner requested an item to be discussed as urgent business regarding the selection of members of the search committee for the Associate Dean of ECS.  He requested that the Senate direct ECS to comply with UPS 210.007. Vice Chair Hall requested the consent of the body to discuss the issue for ten minutes and received unanimous consent. Senator Kreiner stated that the members of their ECS Associate Dean search committee were not elected per UPS 210.007.

 

Senator Smith explained that it is difficult to select associate deans in all colleges per UPS 210.007 because most colleges, except for CBE, do not have their own college faculty senates. For example, HSS created their associate dean search committee by looking for elected committee members such as DPC members. He stated that he understood that  ECS used their DPC chairs to put together a committee. He then suggested to the Chair of the Senate that we really need to amend the UPS on the selection of associate dean search committee members because right now, we have a policy that really can’t be enforced.

 

Senator Kreiner responded by saying that this was not quite the case for ECS and moreover, that the members of the ECS search committee were not elected specifically for the purpose of recommending a new associate dean. He suggested that it would be more straightforward if departments could elect their own representative for the ECS associate dean search committee.

 

Senator Michalopoulos asked for clarification as to any action. Vice Chair Hall suggested that the Executive Committee could take the item under further discussion.

 

Senator Kreiner made the motion that ECS be directed to comply with UPS 210.007. Senator Shapiro asked for a point of order, saying that he did not hear a second for the motion. Vice Chair Hall responded that there was no second for the motion. Someone then seconded the motion and Vice Chair acknowledged the second.

 

Senator Buck stated that he didn’t believe that the policy is being followed and that the Vice President indicated that it is not possible to follow the policy. So we need to find some way to follow the policy or change it, because either way, the policy should not be ignored. He suggested that the Executive Committee might address the issue. Vice Chair Hall acknowledged Senator Buck’s comments and suggested that the Senate needs to address the document, which is out of date and doesn’t seem to function very well for every college.

 

Senator Shapiro stated that he agreed that the old policy should be changed, but that the associate dean needs to be a person who the dean is confident in and who can work with the dean and that it’s not clear that randomly electing people for associate dean is the best policy. He suggested that we look at the policy very carefully.

 

Senator Pasternack asked for a Point of Information and stated that the issue here is electing a committee to make recommendations to the dean, and not selecting an associate dean.

 

         Vote was taken, M/S/P [Kreiner/Tavakolian]: Motion passed, 1 no, 2 abstentions.

 

Senator Junn inquired as to the status of the ECS search committee’s recommendation for the associate dean in light of the motion. Vice Chair Hall stated that the Senate’s vote for ECS to comply with UPS 210.007 would serve as advice from the body to the college, the Dean, and the Vice President, and that they will have to sort how to proceed given the recommendation by the Senate.

 

 

III.       ANNOUNCEMENTS

·        Senator Nanjundappa announced that the deadline to apply for market equity increases has been postponed to November 28, 2005.

 

·        President Gordon followed up on the Convocation ceremony by speaking to the Senate. Though he had intended to, he did not discuss equity salary increases at the ceremony. He reported that 86% (or almost 9 out 10) of the assistant professors that submitted applications for salary equity increases received them. Of the associate professors that applied, 47% of them were granted increases, and 10-12% of applicants with full-time professor status received increases.

 

In his observation of the whole application process, President Gordon commented that there seemed to be some confusion among faculty about the difference between the general salary increase and the market equity increase. He suggested that because of the confusion about the two types of increases, many fine faculty members may have submitted applications, but after quantitative analyses were completed, were not granted the increase.

 

In response to President Gordon’s announcement, Senator Nanjundappa expressed that the granting of increases for 12% of the full professors was a disappointment. He thanked the President for granting increases to the faculty members who were approved, but stated that he was concerned with the CPEC salary gap for 2005-2006, which is 25.5% for full professors. He stated that during the evaluation process, consideration should be given to the CPEC gap in addition to any other supplemental information that is provided by the applicant. Senator Nanjundappa referenced the budget illustration for 2006-2007 and stated that he was disappointed with the increases.

 

Senator Pasternack commented that there is a problem at the system level, not the campus level, that full professors are underpaid.  He stated that according to AACSB guidelines for full professors in business, he and his colleagues (that have full professor status) are underpaid. Senator Pasternack asked for clarification on whether or not the CPEC salary gap or AACSB salary guidelines will be used to make decisions during the next cycle of application processing for equity salary increases.

 

Vice President Smith responded that they are following up on concerns about salary that were raised at an Academic Senate meeting in May or April. Some junior faculty who were serving on search committees had raised the issue that the candidates being hired by the departments are making up to 25% more than assistant professors in the departments. VP Smith said that based on this information, an analysis was completed, but then another concern was raised at an Academic Senate meeting that Associate professors were making less than some of the new hires. The purpose of the market equity increase analysis was not to check merit raises and how individuals at the top of the scale fit in against individuals at other institutions, but to examine internal equity in hiring. VP Smith stated that most of the money, if not all, went towards fixing this issue.

 

Senator Klassen asked for the total amount of money that was available to be awarded. President Gordon stated that the amount was around $300,000. Senator Guerin clarified this amount, stating that it was $350,000. She shared that Article 31.23 authorizes campus presidents to take care of equity issues that arise and that faculty can get market equity increases as well. Senator Guerin stated that many of her colleagues are unwilling to go through the process of interviewing and getting an offer from another campus. Many view that practice as unethical. She also reported that the Chancellor, at last week’s Statewide Academic Senate meeting, laid out a plan to take care of all of the CSU salary gap issues. The plan will span five years and include at 3.65% increase for compensation next year and over a number of years. By 2010 or 2011, all CSU employees would receive a 5+% compensation increase. Guerin expressed concerned over this plan because she feels that it’s a very long-term plan and a very gradual solution to a very serious problem. She also expressed concern that this plan was passed as being funded by student fee increases. President Gordon responded that Senator Guerin’s statement about the plan being funded by student fee increases was incorrect. He explained that when he attended the Board of Trustees meeting, it was clearly said that student fees would pay no more of a proportion of the salary increases to close all gaps, as they would for any other part of the University.

 

Senator Fitch added that unlike Senator Guerin, she knows faculty members who are applying for jobs on other campuses because of the lack of morale, salary, and the excessive workload at CSUF. As a result, she stated, we could lose some very good people.

 

Senator Kelly asked if the criteria for evaluating the associate and full professors has changed from the first round and requested if so, that it be formally announced. President Gordon’s reply was that there was no plan to change the criteria.

 

Senator Kanel shared that she had been asked by colleagues in her department to mention that while they appreciated being considered for salary increases, some received only a 1% increase, and that did not help morale. Many faculty members feel that CSUF is just a “stepping stone” university.

 

President Gordon shared with the body that there have been several requests for additional budget communication and expressed that he hopes that the body had had the chance to review the e-mail sent to all campus employees by Sherri Newcomb that morning. It is the first piece in a budget communication process and contains a variety of budget information. The report includes current and future budget planning information and devotes an entire paragraph for the five year plan to close the employee salary. President Gordon encouraged the body to review the communication and to refer any suggestions to Sherri Newcomb.

 

Senator Guerin expressed that it is important for the body to recognize the efforts made by the President and Vice President to address the salary equity issues. The President accepted her recognition and stated that he did not want anyone to feel that they walk away from challenges. He explained that when campus employees requested his and the Vice President’s consideration on equity issues this spring, he felt that they made the effort, in good faith, to satisfy them.

 

Senator Fitch pointed out that some faculty did not realize that May 20th was the deadline for the first round before it was announced retroactively. Therefore, they have applications in from this summer. She asked if this would affect the outcome of their application. Vice President Smith stated this would not affect their applications and that they would be moved and considered with the second round.

 

·        President Gordon acknowledged that the Women’s Soccer team won the Big West title. The team was selected to host the first two games of the NCAA Tournament on our campus. He recognized that this is quite an advance and a movement for the team and encouraged everyone to cheer them on tomorrow night when they play at Titan Stadium.

 

·        Senator Dabirian reported that IT is enhancing security across campus by implementing an automatic desktop lock on all campus PC’s. The system will lock after twenty minutes of inactivity.

 

The campus has received over 70 million attacks to its system since July 1, 2005 at a rate of 15-20 million attacks per month. And these numbers only account for the ones that IT caught. Senator Shapiro stated that the number of attacks that were successful should be reported in the data. Senator Dabirian stated that very few were successful. IT has set up firewalls and VPN’s to prevent harm from attacks. CSUF has taken more security measures than any other CSU campus.

 

·        Before providing a briefing on the Time-to-Degree initiative, Senator Alva announced that Dr. Patten, Professor of Humanities, Rice University, will be visiting CSUF. Senator Alva invited members to participate in the event. Dr. Rice will present “Liberal Arts for a Lifetime” at this public lecture scheduled at 4:00p.m. on November 17th.

 

·        Senator Alva proceeded to discuss the initiatives to facilitate graduation and requested that members forward any ideas or suggestions on how to address the issues regarding degree completion to her or Barry Pasternack.

 

In the document that she provided to the Senate, she explained that there are 22 recommendations outlined, divided in four categories:

·        Category One asks campuses to look at efficiency.

·        Category Two suggests examining the strategies in place to support students on different paths towards the bachelor’s degree.

·        Category Three discusses tools to keep students on an efficient path to the bachelor’s degree.

·        Category Four provides advising strategies and practices.

 

This topic was discussed further and suggestions offered included:

·        Take into account the outside work and family responsibilities of the students. Assess how many units they take, how many hours they work, and their household statuses.

·        Consider that younger students may change interests during the course of their time at CSUF.

·        Find ways to fund advising and services for students so that it is available to those who seek it.

·        Address the issues that arise within “hierarchal” majors when students repeat courses.

 

Senator Alva also explained that Time-to-Degree terminology was changed to “Facilitating Graduation.” Emphasis is not being placed on getting students out in four years. The committee for Facilitating Graduation is reviewing CSUF practices and strategies to ensure that those who want to finish a degree program in four years are able to, and those who want to explore and pursue other options are able to do it at his or her own pace, but still in an efficient manner, and without having to graduate with a tremendous number of excess units.

 

Senator Pasternack mentioned that statewide statistics indicated that students complete an average of 142 to 143 units. Transfer students may take even more units than the average amount. He also reported that the Statewide Academic Senate approved a motion to ask campuses to address their policies on the repetition of courses.

 

·        Senator Hall expressed appreciation to the Athletics Department for its distribution of athletics passes to all of the Senators.

 

·        Senator Hall also announced the Chair’s decision that ex-officio members will be considered non-voting members of committees, with the exception of the ex-officio members of the Planning Resource and Budget Committee.

 

IV.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES

         M/S/P [Junn/Pasternack] to approve ASD 05-109 Academic Senate Minutes 10-6-05 with corrections.

 

 

V.     CHAIR’S REPORT

No Chair’s report. Chair Bedell was absent due to illness.

 

 

VI.        STATEWIDE ACADEMIC SENATE REPORT

It was reported that will be a long process to finalize a contract and that most likely, no decision would be made before the holidays.

 

Also, CSU’s position in summer session is to cut summer session salaries back by about 20%. So, instead of being paid 10% of one’s salary, he or she would be paid 8%. This is still subject to negotiations.

 

 

VII.     CONSENT CALENDAR

M/S/P [Junn/Gass] to approve Consent Calendar: Nominees to Standing Committee

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Nominee:            Abbie Brown (EDUC)

Continuing:         Tae-Wan Ryu (ECS); Dana Loewy (CBE); Collete Childres (Library);

                                    Marilyn Stone (HHD); Charles Greib (ARTS); Thomas Clanin (COMM);

                                    Robert Koch (CNSM); William Marelich (SOC SCI)

 

VIII.   UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 No items of Unfinished Business were discussed.

 

 

IX.        PROPOSED RESCISSIONS – FIRST READING

Items 9.1 – 9.3 (ASD 05-115, ASD 05-116, and ASD 05-117) were referred back to the Faculty Affairs Committee for reconsideration and review.

 

Item 9.4 (ASD 05-118) was not discussed due to lack of time.

 

 

X.           NEW BUSINESS

Items 10.1 and 10.2 (ASD 05-113 and ASD 05-114) were not discussed due to lack of time.

 

The meeting adjourned at 12:56 p.m.