-+

 

ACADEMIC SENATE

 

MINUTES

 

March 27, 2008

 


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

Members Present:  Altar, Alva, Bhattacharya, Bullock, Fidalgo, Fromson, Grewal, Guerin, Hewitt, Hickok, Jarvis, Kanel, Klassen, Liverpool, McMahan, Mead, Oliver, Palmer, Pasternack, Rumberger, Shapiro, Smith, Spitzer, Stein, Williams

Absent: Arnold, Bedell, Bruschke, Bullock, Burgtorf, Carroll, Dabirian, Drezner, Gass, Gordon, Green, Junn, Kantardjieff, McConnell, Nyaggah, Randall, Rhoten, Sage, Stang, Taylor, Walicki

 

I.          CALL TO ORDER

            Chair Guerin called the meeting to order at 11:35 a.m.

 

II.        URGENT BUSINESS

         None.

 

III.       ANNOUNCEMENTS

         Senator Rumberger reported that only 8% of the student population has voted in the ASI elections. He          asked that faculty members encourage their students to vote.

 

         On behalf of the planning committee for the all-campus CSU budget meeting, Chair Guerin thanked           everyone who attended the meeting.

 

 

IV.      CONSENT CALENDAR

         M/S/P [Pasternack/Fromson] to approve the Consent Calendar as amended: [Approved unanimously]

         4.1 Nominees to General Committees

 

Faculty Personnel Committee

Nominees:         Ron Hughes (SOC SCI); Forthcoming Joanne Gass (HUM)

Continuing:       Laurence Timm (ARTS); Mabel Kung (CBE); Robert Gass (COMM);

Chandra Putcha (ECS); Andrea Guillaume (EDUC); Debbie Rose (HHD);

Gerald Gannon (CNSM)

 

Professional Leaves Committee

Nominees:         John Koegel (ARTS); Alfonso Agnew (CNSM); Nancy Fitch (SOC SCI);

                          Forthcoming Sharon Perry (Library); Forthcoming Xiong Wang (ECS);

Continuing:       Gus Manoochehri (CBE), Anthony Fellow (COMM); Kim Norman (EDUC); Leslie Grier (HHD); Reyes Fidalgo (HUM)

                         

Faculty Research Committee

Nominees:         Robin Johnson (ARTS); Adrian Fleissig (CBE); Jason Teven (COMM);

                          David Cherin (HHD); Forthcoming Phil Armstrong (CNSM)

Continuing:       David Cheng (ECS); Grace Cho (EDUC); Renae Bredin (HUM);

Julie Stokes (SOC SCI); Barbara Miller (Library)

 

 

 

V.        TIMES CERTAIN

Time Certain

11:45 a.m.

Subject: Continued Discussion – Second Language Graduation Requirement Report (ASD 08-43)

                  Chair Guerin reported the following in response to a question regarding a question about the formation         of the ad hoc committee on the Second Language Graduation Requirement (taken from meeting minutes        of the Executive Committee and Academic Senate):

·      Executive Committee Meeting 4-25-06:  Senators Bedell, Buck, Emry, Fidalgo, Gass, Guerin,        Hall, Hewitt, and Pasternack were present and discussed the composition of the Second Language Graduation Requirement ad hoc study group. There were 22 applicants and 15 spaces    available.

·      Executive Committee Meeting 5-2-06: The Executive Committee made recommendations in          the Chair’s Report and agreed to place Dean Rikli on the committee.

·      Executive Committee Meeting 6-20-06: The Executive Committee approved the nominees to         the study group. Present were Senators Buck, Fromson, Guerin, Hewitt, and Taylor.

·      Academic Senate Meeting 8-24-06: Chair Guerin announced in Chair’s Report that the        committee had been approved.

·      Executive Committee Meeting 2-13-07: Professor Starr met with the Executive Committee and             shared an overview of the report that he and co-chair Bhattacharya would give to the Academic             Senate on February 15th.

 

         Since the last meeting of the Academic Senate, Chair Guerin was asked to remind the body of UPS   100.006 Commitment to Civility at CSUF which calls for us to foster a climate wherein all members of        the community are treated with dignity, respect, and care as we exercise our freedom of speech and       expression. Chair Guerin requested that during this debate, those present focus on the evidence presented in the report and its treatment.  Personal attacks, including comments about the beliefs of        those who served in the SLGR ad hoc study group or the co-chairs are outside of the bounds of what is     considered civil discourse. Chair Guerin stated that as Chair, she would do her best to protect the rights          of all sides of debate.

 

         Discussion of the ad hoc study group’s report continued and Co-Chairs Bhattacharya and Starr addressed      the following questions and comments:

 

         From the gallery

         Dean Unnikrishnan: Has the ad hoc study group considered what languages other countries use as the          global language when communicating with other countries?

                        Bhattacharya: We did not get into discussion of what languages are used in different                                 disciplines.

                        Starr: We addressed the fact that there are different needs to consider when preparing for the                     global arena that we’re in. Different areas have different needs. Our recommendation is that we                           have a more flexible approach that allows those for whom second language proficiency is                                        important to be able to pursue those options.

 

         Professor Wang:  [Spoke in opposition of the second language requirement] (1) English has become the      more popular (global) language. For international students, English is their second language. If we           impose this requirement, it may make it difficult for international students to earn a degree from CSUF             or they may not choose to complete their degrees at CSUF (2) The fact that we have many   international students on campus demonstrates globalization.

 

         Professor Peale: The committee was charged with addressing the wisdom of having a program with          major exemptions from university requirements; It is a wise step to take in the practical realities of the          world in professional preparation and academic life. The concerns raised are not new. Prior to 1978, less       than 25% of 4-year colleges and universities in the United States had foreign language graduation           requirements. In 1978, President Carter convened a task force on language resources in the United States.    In 1980, universities across the country began to look at this issue very seriously. Now, between 73-74%           of colleges and universities in the United States have a second language graduation requirement.

 

         The results of a survey taken late last year in the State of California indicated that 53% of the population      of California prefers to use a language other than English in their homes.

 

         The committee’s concerns were very institutional within the Cal State system. However, in the report,          there is no expression of awareness of what the academic trend has been over the last 30 years.

 

         The survey that was conducted at Wake Forest University does not seem relevant to our experience at          CSUF because Wake Forest is a private university, owned and operated by the North Carolina Baptist          Convention. Its student body is upper and upper middle class. They do have a foreign language         graduation requirement, and 50% of the students who need the requirement complete a semester or     more abroad.

                        Starr: The committee examined the case against exemptions and the case for exemptions. The                    Wake Forest study came out of a consortium of business schools that also included others such                           as the University of Pennsylvania and Wharton School of Business. The study reported on the                                concerns of their recruiters. Our findings showed that both cases were strong and proponents                                 on this campus; these are irresolvable differences. Therefore we (the study group) recommend                                that this is a prudent time for a compromise. Rather than imposing on each other, both sides                       should work out a compromise position that gives flexibility, but at the same time, promotes                          the second language graduation requirement.

 

                        Our charge was to look at the impact of the requirement on our University specifically.

 

         Professor Stohs:  [Read a anonymous statement directed to the body]: “What we want a second       language graduation requirement to do for our students is to increase global understanding, improve employment potential, sharpen cognitive and life skills, increase appreciation of international literature,      music, and film, make travel more feasible, and increase understanding of oneself and others.” At least             25-30 courses on our campus would satisfy these goals. A second language graduation requirement may not satisfy these desires uniquely. How much of this was a consideration, if any, in forming your final      recommendation? Also, it is not easy to become proficient in a language [in a short period of time].

Starr: The ad hoc study group suggests an international approach constructed in such a way that second language proficiency is promoted and students are given incentives to pursue it. Some of the other things mentioned might be more relevant to certain programs; this why the committee recommends flexibility.

Bhattacharya: Some colleges, like the college of Business, are heavily dependent on transfer students. In that college, over 1,500 transfer students would need to fulfill the requirement over two years. Even if 45% (self-reported number) passed the speaking and listening test, 800 students would need to fulfill the requirement over two years.

 

Professor Molodowitch: A member of the Senate body mentioned that lack of proficiency in a second language could create a barrier to admission into a graduate program. Has the committee researched this?

Bhattacharya: We cover that in the report in the section entitled “Obstacles Associated with a No-Exemptions Policy”.

 

Professor Chakabati: A couple of years ago, we reduced the amount of courses/units required.  If we add the language requirement, it would defeat the purpose of reducing the units. Student tuition will increase, adding an additional burden to them to complete the requirement.

Starr: Our recommendation is to create a flexible program that promotes second language proficiency without requiring additional courses.

Professor Moini: Adding additional units may cause an adverse affect on our degree program (mechanical engineering). 18 of the required units are taken in other colleges. Shared concern that students would choose other colleges or universities where there are less units required.

Bhattacharya: A decrease in enrollment will create a ripple effect that will be felt across the campus. However, the study group did not discuss that. The report did mention that there is a CSU-wide directive to facilitate graduation and indicate the obstacles associated with removal of exemptions. The report presents good arguments for both keeping exemptions and doing away with them, but suggests a compromise where different departments and programs work together to avoid increasing the amount of required units and still address the criteria that the second language requirement should promote.

 

         Professor Shiva: Take into consideration that the instruments and technology we use on a daily basis. Consider whether teaching them a second language is more useful than teaching technology in this global society.

 

         Senators

         Senator Fidalgo: It seems that the study group’s decision to move towards a global competency requirement instead of a second language graduation requirement was made much earlier than it received the final data about implementation. How did the group form its decision?

Starr: The recommendation was not made until last. There were four different areas that the group needed to consider. Regarding exemptions, there were votes taken about different options and some group members were interested in the global competency requirement from the beginning. We had already received a substantial amount of data by that time. However, no consensus had been reached. Our report had a majority-minority component on exemptions since we could not agree. The members who supported the minority presented text that was built in and augmented, in fact, to address the case of full exemptions. The case against exemptions was presented in the majority report. Towards the end, it was realized that we all thought the globalization requirement would be a good compromise between two incompatible positions.

 

Senator Fromson: [Read statements from chairs in the College of NSM]: “Yesterday, March 26th, the CSUF Physics department unanimously voted, all members present, to recommend the second language requirement be rescinded.”

 

“In a meeting of the geology faculty on March 26th, the department voted unanimously to endorse the findings of the study group. The department affirms that the study of foreign languages is a hallmark for outstanding education, particularly in today’s globalized economy. However, we feel strongly that any SLGR must be structured so that no units be added to the existing general education requirements.”

 

To what extent did we consult with the departments when formulating this report?

Bhattacharya: We had representatives from every college except the College of Engineering. However, the College of Engineering made its position known to us and Chair Guerin in an email message.

 

Chair Guerin concluded this discussion with the acknowledgement of Co-Chairs Bhattacharya and Starr for their work on this project. Dr. Starr read the following statement in conclusion of the report (See ASD 08-77):

 

“Thank you for your questions. We hope we have answered them.

 

Our committee worked for over one and a half years to fulfill the task assigned to us in ASD 06-67. It is worth repeating that during that time, no member of the committee ever expressed views that were against the principle that cultivating second language proficiency in our students is a centrally important goal.

 

The view expressed earlier in this debate—that there were biases at the outset of this committee—is true, but only as long as one adds that the biases were as diverse as the members of the committee. This diversity of opinion is what made our challenge as a committee so daunting. Had we agreed at the outset, how very easy things would have been!

 

Nevertheless, consensus emerged by the end of our work together, and, as we have indicated, all committee members approved the submitted document. The committee is proud of its work and of its report. We stand by its data, analysis, and recommendations. They are sound.

 

In sum, the committee’s central conclusion and the reasoning that led us to it are as follows:

 

1. First- As we have shown, the case against exemptions is strong. It is incoherent to adopt a graduation requirement and then exempt substantial numbers of students from it.

 

2. Second- The case for exemptions is equally strong. As we have shown, there are multiple compelling reasons of principle and consequence that have led every eligible program to request and be granted exemptions.

 

3. Third- Whether one agrees with one side or the other in this debate, the point is that there is undeniably wide-spread disagreement among faculty from across the colleges. This disagreement found strong expression on our own committee.

 

For this reason, after one and a half years of discussion and debate, our committee concluded that the prudent course of action in the face of this very real and very contentious impasse is not to come down on one side or the other, but to construct a compromise policy that rewards and promotes second language proficiency, and that also allows flexibility for students and programs. We have suggested the contours of such a policy, and we strongly recommend its adoption.

 

Whether our central recommendations are adopted or not, however, we hope that our report, its reasoning and data, and its analysis of issues related to other areas of concern—areas such as University Board responsibilities and double-counting—have been and will prove beneficial to the process of developing a sound policy in this area.

 

We also hope that the substantial and illuminating studies undertaken by the office of the IR&AS (Institutional Research and Analytical Studies)—studies that were commissioned by, but not reported independently to this body—will be examined and used.

 

In closing: We stand by the work of the ad hoc committee and its report. Our data, analysis, and reasoning are sound, and we urge acceptance of our central recommendations.

 

We also thank you for the time and attention you have spent on this important matter, as well as on our report, and we hope we have answered your questions.

 

Thank you.”

 

Chair Guerin added that this issue will have a time certain at the next Academic Senate meeting on April      17th.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Certain

12:30 p.m.

Subject: Fiscal State of the University Report

Willie Hagan, Vice President of Administration and Finance and Chief Financial Officer

VP Hagan addressed the following in accordance to BL 07-03:

 

Currently, we are in a state of uncertainty; there is a proposed budget target reduction for the CSU and the University, but everything is still in flux.

 

How bad could the budget reduction be?

·         The State has reported a $14.5 - $16.5 billion deficit and projected a $386.1 million reduction to the CSU. This works out to be an $18.1 million reduction to CSUF.

·         CSUF has $5 million in unfunded mandates in addition to its structural deficit, ongoing operational costs, and utility cost increases (currently at $9 million per year, 10% increase projected over the next few years).

·         VP Hagan emphasized that his report discusses the fiscal state as it could be, given the recent CSU budget memo and the current campus budget situation:

o   Remaining 2006-07 structural deficit ($2,264,514) + new 2007-08 structural deficit = ($3,678,570) = Total 2007-08 structural deficit of $5,943,084.

o   The cut in State allocation, additional unfunded mandates, and compensation costs, and the projected increase in 2008-09 baseline expenditures combined with the total structural deficit results in an estimated 2008-08 budget shortfall of $18,539,836. ($18.5 million differs from $18.1 million because it takes into account additional revenue from over enrollment, structural deficit, and other factors.

o   The PRBC is in the process of reviewing the 2008-09 baseline expenditures

o   If approved for expenditure, items funded with non-recurring one-time/non-baseline resources in 2007-08 will further increase the shortfall to approximately $20,303,799.

·         As a point of discussion, VP Hagan showed an illustration of 2008-09 division reductions if prorated by percent of baseline. (Page 9 of handout)

·         Examples of what a reduction of this magnitude could mean for CSUF (not all inclusive):

o   Access denied to up to 1,000 fully eligible upper division transfer students

o   Cutting over 1,200 course sections in the next academic year

o   Fewer part-time faculty employed

o   Increase in student time to degree

o   Reduced expenditures on facilities maintenance

 

What will happen to the 2007/08 carryforward?

·         2007-08 carryforward will not be swept to University level. If your carryforward vanishes, notify division Vice Presidents or Dean, not the CFO.

 

Should I spend or save lottery funds?

·         If you can spend it, do so.

·         CSUF has $13.3 million in lottery funds. Our reserve policies allow us to have $2.1 million; therefore, we are $11.2 million over what the policy allows.

·         The Chancellor’s office constantly notifies us that if we do not spend our lottery funds, they will be taken.

·         Because we exceed the permissible lottery fund reserve, departments are encouraged to spend lottery funds.

·         2006-07 Lottery Fund Allocations approved by President Gordon on March 13, 2007

($5.8 million total):

o   $2 million distributed to academic departments

o   $2.1 million to Academic Affairs for distribution by the VPAA

o   $500,000 distributed to the Library

o   $300,000 distributed to Information Technology

o   $900,000 distributed to Student Affairs

 

·         Lottery-Campus Allocation Plan: Our money has a home; it is not sitting, unspent.

 

What is the campus decision making process for budget reductions?

·         PRBC is reviewing and has been working with division heads to focus on our priorities and strategies.

·         Each division is examining efficiencies in their budgets and looking at areas in which budget reductions could be made

·         The CFO is examining strategies to increase University revenue and reduce expenses. A report will be shared with PRBC.

·         PRBC also will receive and review updated budget projections after the May revise.

·         PRBC will make final 2008-09 budget recommendations to the President for his approval

 

 

What is our projected 2008-09 enrollment and how does this compare to 2008-09 funded (target) enrollment?  What are the fiscal implications of additional enrollment beyond our funded target?

·         Projected 2008-09 enrollment is 29,066 FTES

·         2008-09 funded enrollment target is 28,161 FTES

·         Amount over target (amount over funded level): 905 FTES

·         The University will not receive state support for enrollment over target. If the University received state support for 905 FTES over target, it would equate to approximately $4.8 million.

·         The University does not receive revenue from enrollment over target. However, 905 FTES generates $2.8 million in student fee revenue.

·         Since, historically, the University has been over-enrolled, much of the $2.8 million in student fee revenue generated by over-enrolled FTES has already been accounted for in the overall University budget.

 

Detailed charts are on the Administration and Finance website: http://finance.fullerton.edu/Budget/BudgetReport/index.htm

 

Questions:

Senator Jarvis: If fee increases were to happen, that it would impact Fullerton more than other CSU campuses because of the over-enrollment.

   VP Hagan: Yes, since we would bring in more student fee revenue from those students.

 

Senator Hewitt: Should we try to reduce utilities now (i.e., removing light bulbs, not running computers all day, etc.)?

   VP Hagan: Yes. Utility costs are increasing. Discussion has taken place about computers not running    24/7. I will ask about reducing lighting. We are currently upgrading heating and air systems to make           them more energy efficient.

 

Senator Hewitt: In light of the budget cuts, is PRBC looking at cutting non-essential items like Concert Under the Stars?

   VP Hagan: Since the cuts are going to be so significant, I think PRBC intends to look at a number of    things and their recommendations will go to the President.

 

VP Smith: On over enrollment, we do not have a set aside. 100% of the over-enrollment is kept on the campus. Normally, if there is a fee increase, one-third is set aside for state University grants.

 

Senator Williams: Does 29,000 FTES include the summer session?

   VP Smith: Of the 29,000 FTES, just under 1,400 would be in summer session, and about 1,200 would      make up El Toro.

 

VP Hagan offered to come back to the Senate to address additional questions, if needed. He also stated that he and his staff are willing to meet with departments on campus for more in-depth discussion. VP Hagan and his staff were thanked for this report.

  

VI.      STATEWIDE ACADEMIC SENATE REPORT

            Senator Pasternack indicated that lobbying regarding the state budget will take place in April.

 

VII.     CHAIR’S REPORT

         Chair Guerin reminded the body that two open hearings on the proposal to change the degree name of          from Human Communications to Human Communication Studies are scheduled for Tuesday, April 8th,   2:30-3:30 p.m. and Friday, April 11th, 9:30 – 10:30 a.m. and will be facilitated by Hilla Israeli and Mike            Loverude, chairs of the Curriculum and Graduate Education Committees.

 

          The announcement of these hearings was posted to the University Portal. The Academic Senate has          received the CFA Fullerton Chapter resolution on Academic Quality opposing any increase in class size        or student/faculty ratio. The Executive Committee will discuss this resolution and it to refer it to specific      committees for input. Faculty members should notify CFA President Nyaggah if they learn that their     classes have been increased in size. This resolution will be sent to President Gordon, Vice President       Smith, Deans, Department Chairs, the Academic Senate, and faculty.

 

Faculty members are encouraged to complete the online committee interest form. There are approximately 56 vacancies on standing committees.

 

The ASCSU Senator election will take place the week after Spring Break. Senator Pasternack is the sole candidate.

 

 

VIII.    UNFINISHED BUSINESS

         Item 8.1 was not discussed due to lack of time.

               8.1 ASD 07-183 Revised UPS 103.004 Computing Facilities Use Policy [ITC]

 

IX.      NEW BUSINESS

         Items 9.1 to 9.5 were not discussed due to lack of time.

9.1 ASD 08-44 Revised UPS 106.100 The President’s Medallion [Senate Executive Committee]

9.2 ASD 08-45 Revised UPS 410.103 Curriculum Guidelines and Procedures: Programs [UCC]

9.3 ASD 08-56 Revised UPS 240.200 Policy on Amorous Relationships Between Faculty, Staff, & Students [FAC]

9.4 ASD 08-60 Reviewed UPS 100.004 Student Participation in Department Decision Making

[SALC & FAC]

9.5 ASD 08-61Reviewed UPS 411.600 Policy on Service Learning [CISL]

 

X.        ADJOURNMENT

         Meeting adjourned at 1:04 p.m.