Spring 2012 GF Meeting Minutes · 10/05/2012 · Applause. 5. Remarks by CFA President John...

Academic Senate

Spring General Faculty Meeting Thursday, May 10, 2012

Minutes

1. Call to order 2:02pm

2. Approval of agenda Approved.

3. Approval of August 19, 2011 Fall General Faculty Minutes Approved.

4. Remarks by Provost James Strong a. Provost Strong will also provide remarks on behalf of President Shirvani who is

unable to attend. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Faculty at the General Faculty Meeting of the Academic Senate. It is a privilege and honor to serve as Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and assist the faculty and staff in advancing the mission of the University. We are engaged in the very important work of providing the education for students to succeed academically and personally and positively contribute to society. We are engaged in this work under unusually difficult circumstances that challenge us all, and I thank the faculty for their strong focus on the priorities of the University. Of course, the country as a whole and the State of California are seriously challenged by the great recession and its aftermath and current political dynamics.

President Shirvani asked me to send greetings and express his regret that he could not be here today, as he was called to an important meeting on Capitol Hill, in Washington D.C. He wishes you well and is looking forward to seeing you at Commencement. As you know, President Shirvani will be leaving us soon to become the Chancellor of the Higher Education System in the state of North Dakota. I would like to personally thank him for providing me with the opportunity to serve as Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and wish him the very best as he assumes this prestigious position and next step in his academic and administrative career. I thank him for the leadership he has provided CSU Stanislaus.

I express thanks to Speaker Koni Stone for her outstanding work as Speaker this year. Much was accomplished in the Academic Senate in the fall and spring semesters. Speaker Stone facilitated these accomplishments with her leadership and administrative acumen, and we all appreciate her efforts. The position of Speaker can seem to be a thankless task at times, and I take the opportunity today to say thank you.

Let me also thank the Speaker-‐Elect and soon to be Speaker Mark Grobner for his leadership on the Trust Restoration Planning Committee and as a member of SEC. Mark was an effective voice on both committees, and I look forward to working with him as Speaker. I would also like to thank Interim Vice President Dennis Shimek for his excellent work on the

TRPC and more generally the thoughtful and wise counsel he provides me and the campus and his overall engagement and leadership.

A new member of the Senate team is Speaker-‐Elect John Garcia. Dr. Garcia provided strong direction and good work on the Special Visit Research Team, and I look forward to working with him through SEC and as a member of TRPC. Congratulations to all the new and re-‐ elected members of the Senate leadership team, and thank you all for taking the time and effort in providing service to the Senate, Academic Affairs and the University. Your good work is essential to a well-‐functioning University.

There is a summary report of the work of TRPC this year, and I will spend a few minutes reporting on the efforts of the committee as I have occasionally heard the legitimate question “what does TRPC do and do we need such a committee.” All of the committee members (Speaker Stone, Speaker-‐Elect Grobner, Interim VP of Faculty Affairs and HR Dennis Shimek) worked very hard and very effectively this year to restore trust and facilitate a variety of actions including policy creation, operational decision making, and communication improvements. The report details a list of 14 issues that were discussed multiple times and I believe either resulted in tangible actions (such as a new policy), significant progress on a tangible outcome, or improved communication and relationships. Those items were as follows.

1. Reorganizing the Colleges. 2. Holistic Program Review. 3. UEE Policy. 4. RPT Policy and Practice. 5. Endowed Professor/Faculty Policy. 6. University Policy and Procedures. 7. Strategic Planning. 8. Shared Governance. 9. WASC Special Visit in November 2011. 10. Ad Hoc TRPC. The operations of the committee were discussed as agenda items 23 times over

the span of 15 separate TRPC meetings. 11. Dean Searches. 12. Enrollment and Student Affairs. 13. Faculty Scholarship. 14. UBAC and Budget.

The recent WASC letter to President Shirvani dated March 7, 2012 had this to say about TRPC. “The Commission especially supports ‘the good and courageous work of tenured faculty on the Ad Hoc Trust Restoration Committee,’ which was singled out by the team as exemplifying a productive path forward.” Those tenured faculty who engaged in this “good and courageous work” were then-‐Speaker Kelvin Jasek-‐Rysdahl, current Speaker Koni Stone, and Speaker-‐Elect Mark Grobner. They should be proud of the recognition WASC provided in this letter of their significant contributions. I think it is very clear that

WASC sees the TRPC as very valuable and expects it to continue. I completely agree with that assessment.

That WASC letter of March 7 was the outcome of the Special Visit in November of 2012. I believe that visit was a very positive visit that documented the progress made in one short year to address the charge laid out in the WASC letter of July 2010. We owe a great deal of

thanks to the faculty members who served on the Special Visit Research Team – John Garcia, Paul O’Brien, and Harold Stanislaus – for their diligent and effective work in conducting the research that supported the Special Visit Report. Administrators Halyna Kornuta, Jim Tuedio, and Gina Leguria ably served with these faculty members, and I thank them for their leadership and good work on a very difficult project.

WASC has called for a second Special Visit in two and a half years, fall 2014. I see this as an opportunity to maintain University focus on the issues WASC laid out in the letter of July 2010. It was unrealistic to think we could adequately address all dimensions of “leadership and governance” concerns laid out in that memo in one year. We completely addressed the issues of assessment and program review cited in that 2010 memo. The holdover issue is “the need for continuing attention to the development of an effective working relationship between the administration and faculty. The institution’s report and the team’s on-‐site review reveal a number of purposeful initiatives on the part of the administration, and efforts by selected faculty members. The institution’s report also delineates a thoughtful research project designed to assess the impact of these initiatives on the climate of trust among stakeholders. As observed by the team and documented in the institution’s own candid report, the outcomes have been modest at best, resulting in a shared recognition that much difficult work lies ahead.”

My sense is that perhaps there was more progress beneath the surface than appeared in the snap-‐shot taken during the visit of November 2011 and/or that progress has continued subsequent to the visit and is building more momentum. I believe we are poised to make significant progress in the next two years. I have visited 20 departments this semester and one college. My perception is that there is a much better climate of trust and relationships among faculty and administration than there was in May 2010 when I first arrived. Nevertheless, I also agree with WASC that there is significant work to be done in building effective relationships among faculty, administration and all stakeholders. This work is absolutely necessary for the creative thinking and action necessary to meet the budgetary challenges and take advantage of opportunities and new ways of operating the University that move the institution to better adapt to the conditions we face and continue to meet the academic mission.

The WASC letter of March 7 goes on to state, “The Commission commends the actions that have been taken and urges in the most explicit terms that these and related initiatives must not be relaxed.”

The letter of March 7 goes on to raise two new issues, which I believe have been raised over the decades in previous WASC letters and reports. The two new issues are “the role of faculty in strategic planning and the formalization of faculty policies dealing with retention, promotion and tenure (RPT). In this regard, faculty must fully engage with the administration to address the challenge of establishing RPT policies that are institution-‐wide and include rigorous requirements that reflect good practice in higher education.”

“The Commission acted to: 2. Request a Special Visit in fall 2014 to evaluate progress in addressing the issues that were the primary focus of this visit, especially shared governance and the campus climate, as well as progress on shared roles in strategic planning and in the formulation of retention, promotion and tenure policies.”

We are already engaged in both of these new charges, but certainly more needs to be done and a full plan for meeting the charges and preparing for the WASC Special Visit in 2014 needs to be developed soon.

Relative to the strategic planning charge, the Strategic Planning Work Group began meeting more regularly during Academic Year 2011-‐2012 and completed a survey and report on faculty perceptions of the strategic plan. That report will be sent to the campus community soon, if it has not already been sent. The next step is to determine how to plan strategically in the future, build on what has been done, and address what needs to be accomplished.

Relative to RPT Policy and Practice currently, a work group is conducting an electronic survey to collect data from key participants in the process, and the survey contains open-‐ ended questions to frame a subsequent questionnaire to be sent to all faculty regarding policy improvement and practice. The RPT process this semester had much less conflict and consternation than the process had in the previous two academic years.

As you are aware, we are planning for a 7 percent budget cut to prepare the campus for a likely trigger cut in November and additional possible cuts if the economy and tax receipts continue to sputter. Colleges and other units have prepared horizontal cuts and impact statements as a starting point, and those were presented to UBAC last week. We are currently engaged in a planning process, and nothing has been decided. The Holistic Program Review Committee is working diligently to make recommendations from a longer time frame and more strategic frame of reference. I anticipate that there will be vertical cuts across Academic Affairs as horizontal cuts are less and less feasible. Academic Affairs and the University enacted vertical cuts last year. The budget planning process in Academic Affairs will be as transparent and consultative as possible given union contracts and related considerations. I anticipate a more definitive plan by the end of this month.

The University is about to have a change in presidential leadership. I am extremely pleased that CSU Sacramento Provost Joe Sheley has been named Interim President. I think this was an outstanding selection by Chancellor Reed and the Trustees. Joe Sheley is a seasoned academic leader with considerable experience managing the challenges and opportunities that face our campus. He has served ably as Provost at CSU Sacramento and helped improve tense relations between faculty and administration on that campus. He is a collaborative, consultative, and decisive leader who is well respected by all stakeholder groups. I have known Joe for two years as a fellow CSU provost attending quarterly Academic Council meetings of provosts and Chancellor’s Office leadership team and staff, and I have also communicated with him on a number of issues including the WASC charge in July 2010 as his campus faced a similar challenge. I strongly believe Joe is the right person at the right time to lead the University forward during these challenging times, and I welcome him to campus and look forward to working with him.

Thank you for your attention and I can take any questions now or later as the Speaker prefers. Filling asked for clarification because the reality is that we have instantiated RPT policies and procedures. He is often taken aback by the Provost’s single-minded repetitiveness of WASC’s criticism of our policies. Did someone tell them that these were bad policies? Since things were better this year, why are we still concerned? Provost Strong is not sure why WASC commented on our RPT policies. He noted that maybe it was due to the previous two years being contentious. There was a file for WASC to review of

the existing policy and procedures in RPT in the documentation room. He has discussed many times the ways the policy could be improved and even though it worked better this year, there are ways in which the policy can be improved and WASC agrees with him. We are one of only two campuses in which RPT elaborations go directly from the department to the URPTC without review by the Deans and the Provost. He thinks we can be more concrete in terms of quantity and quality of the scholarship produced, and he also thinks that the WASC recommendations are appropriate. Speaker Stone noted that we should thank the Provost. Applause.

5. Remarks by CFA President John Sarraille Sarraille said Speaker Stone invited him to say a few words. CFA remains engaged with the CSU administration, doing its utmost to win a fair contract. CFA is also working to reform the Board of Trustees, which one may hope would ultimately result in reforms to CSU administration and incumbent restoration of trust. Efforts to cut off vital resources continue. We are doing everything we can here and in Long Beach and Sacramento as well. We are lobbying to get funding to the CSU restored. We have endured a difficult year. We'll try to find time to take a deep breath or two, and we'll continue on. It seems likely we will soon enter into a fact-finding phase of the contract negotiation process. As has happened before, Sarraille thinks the neutral fact finder will produce a formula for compromise acceptable to CFA, but the CSU will repudiate it and announce imposition of its latest set of contract proposals, and CFA in turn will announce imminent strike activities. At that point the solidarity and resolve of all parties will be put to a test. Sarraille said he was confident that the faculty of the CSU will rise to that occasion and prevail -- that ultimately the CSU administration will agree to a fair compromise with the faculty. When Sarraille called for questions, Biological Sciences faculty member Ken Schoenly asked what language is in the BoT charter that allows them to contract out negotiations to a private group that has cost $7 million in taxpayer money. Is there something in their charter that allows them to do that? Sarraille said he is aware that the CSU hires consultants to perform various tasks. Although, the Chancellor's office has a full HR team, the CO has spent $7 million on negotiating team consultants since approximately 2008. That amount of money is what it would take to fund the proposed second year of the salary equity program to compensate for inequalities in faculty salaries - inversion and compression. Sarraille does not know of a regulation that forbids the Chancellor from contracting out labor negotiation tasks. Strahm thanked John Sarraille for his tireless leadership. Applause. 6. Reports and Announcements

a. Committee on Committee (Renae Floyd)

2011-‐2012 Report of the Committee on Committees

Committee Membership—Renae Floyd, Chair Lynn Johnson, CBA Michael Bice, CNS Erin Hall, COE Koni Stone—Speaker of the Faculty Mark Grobner—Speaker-‐Elect of the Faculty The Committee on Committees facilitated the following appointments over the course of the past academic year:

• 8 members to the Provost’s Committee to Holistically Review Academic Programs • 3 members to the Ad Hoc Committee on Winter Term Savings • 7 members to the Ad Hoc Committee on College Reorganization • 10 members to the Affirmative Action/Diversity Committee • 1 appointment to replace a vacancy on the University Retention, Promotion and Tenure

Committee • 1 appointment to replace a vacancy on the Faculty Affairs Committee • 2 members to replace 2 vacancies on the Faculty Budget Advisory Committee • 3 members to the Student Success Committee • 1 member to the University Commencement Committee • 2 members to the Enrollment Management Committee • 3 members to the Ad Hoc Advising Committee • 1 member to the Early Start Work Group • 1 member to the Graduation Initiative Work Group • 3 members to the Instructional Related Activities Committee • 1 member to the Strategic Planning Work Group • 1 member to the University Facilities Planning Advisory Committee • 1 member to the Foundation Board of Directors • 1 member to the Faculty in Residence Board of Directors • 1 member to the Provost’s Team to analyze Summer Session data • 1 member to the Associated Students, Inc. Board of Directors • 1 member to the Student Fee Advisory Committee • 1 member to the Athletic Director Search Committee • 2 members to the University Extended Education Associate Dean Search Committee • 2 members to the Vice President of Advancement Search • 1 appointment to replace a vacancy on the University Educational Policies Committee • 4 members to the University Writing Committee • 3 members to the Technology and Learning Sub-‐Committee • 2 members to the General Education Sub-‐Committee • 1 member to the Assessment of Student Learning Sub-‐Committee

The Committee on Committees was pleased to serve the general faculty in the numerous activities noted above. The CoC made a total of 75 faculty appointments to committees over the past year. There were several more challenging tasks the committee faced which included finding faculty representation for the Ad Hoc Committee on College Reorganization, the Provost’s Committee to Holistically Review Academic Programs and the Ad Hoc Committee on Winter Term Savings. The CoC wishes to convey its sincere gratitude to those colleagues who were willing to undertake these difficult assignments.

With reference to the creation of the spring general faculty ballot, the CoC received 41 committee preference forms. It is notable that last year we received 68 responses. Concern over workload and ongoing trust-‐building between faculty and administration were still major concerns for our colleagues. It was once again difficult to secure at least two names for many positions, especially for committee chair-‐elect positions. The CoC again recommends that faculty undertake a broad discussion that would focus on how departments can find ways to better support and provide mentoring for governance service when departmental colleagues wish to become involved. I wish to sincerely thank the committee members listed above for their service this year. We had a good time and I am, as always, honored to be your colleague. Respectfully submitted— Renae M. Floyd, LMFT and Counselor Chair, Committee on Committees AY 2011-‐2012

b. Faculty Affairs Committee (David Lindsay) The members of the FAC for 2011-‐12 included: David Lindsay (chair), Ian Littlewood (chair-‐elect), Renae Floyd, Terry Jones, Eungsuk Kim, Thomas (Mitch) McGhee, Stuart Sims and Koni Stone (Speaker of the Faculty). Isabel Silveira Pierce was our executive assistant. I am very grateful to the committee members for the collegial approach to our work and the dedication they showed throughout the year. I would especially like to thank Isabel Silveira-‐Pierce for her note taking support, investigative work, and consistent reminders that kept us on track. FAC met bi-‐monthly during Fall and Spring semesters and was charged with discussing and acting upon the following items during AY 2011-‐2012 (in no particular order of importance):

1. Sexual/Intimate Relations (Power Disparity) Policy – Numerous concerns and iterations related to the possible problems that arise when faculty have evaluative authority over students and also could have intimate relations with a student. A policy was crafted with the intent to be limited in scope and non-‐punitive. This policy was forwarded to the Academic Senate. During the second reading, the AAUP Statement on Consensual Relations between Faculty and Students was substituted for FAC’s draft policy. The statement was approved by the Senate and signed by the President.

2. Freedom of Speech – The Statewide Academic Senate and AAUP passed a resolution related to

freedom of speech and academic freedom. The Committee felt it was important to develop a local policy or statement to apply specifically to this campus. The Committee forwarded a policy to the Academic Senate, which passed it. The policy was not signed by the President, because the issue is being discussed at the Chancellor’s Office.

3. Endowed Faculty Policy – Recently, multiple donors have stepped forward and offered to fund endowed faculty positions. The Committee felt that it was important to establish a policy addressing the responsibilities of endowed faculty, and the procedures for funding, position establishment, selection, appointment and tenure of endowed faculty members. FAC and FBAC jointly authored the policy, which was written from a shared governance perspective. The resolution was approved by the Academic Senate.

4. Faculty Recruitment Manual – The AVP for Faculty Affairs and Human Resources, Dennis Shimek, requested consultation on a revision to the recruitment manual. The Committee suggested three modifications, which were subsequently made.

5. Suggested Changes in RPT Policy – FAC was asked to consider changes to the RPT policy that would delegate authority from the President to the Provost. These changes would entirely eliminate the Presidential level of RPT review. FAC concluded that there was no demonstrated need for the change, and that the change would fundamentally alter the shared governance dynamics between the URPTC’s level of review and the Provost’s level of review.

6. Updating the Constitution of the General Faculty – The committee reviewed various aspects of the constitution to address changes related to electronic balloting and adding the Instructional Designer to the Technology and Learning Subcommittee of UEPC. These changes were approved by the general faculty.

7. *Policy for Administrative Review/MPP Performance Review Policy – This issue is a carryover from years past. At one point when the policy regarding post tenure review (PTR) was approved, it was tethered with an agreement to establish a review process for administrators. The PTR practice has been implemented with no change in the review of MPPs. After reviewing the policy in place at Fresno State University, the Committee noted with interest the large degree of faculty participation in the MPP performance review process at our nearby sister institution.

8. *Lecturer Evaluations – The issue is that teaching evaluations for lecturers are provided to the

departments after the date by which lecturers must be evaluated for re-‐hire. FAC forwarded this item to URPTC with the understanding that it may require a joint memo from URPTC and FAC.

9. *Professional Conduct Policy – AVP Shimek recommended the committee look into establishing a professional conduct policy or something akin to the “Principles of Community” established at UC Davis. The Committee noted that the University has been passing policies for fifty years. FAC concluded that the next step towards establishing a principles of community would be to “codify” the extant policies. This could be a long process, but would make our policies more accessible and useful.

10. Campus Violence Prevention Protocol – The AVP for Faculty and Affairs Human Resources, Dennis Shimek, requested consultation on this document. The Committee reviewed it and offered suggestions for modifications.

* Item to be carried over to the next academic year. Respectively submitted, David Lindsay, 2011-‐12 FAC Chair *Item that FAC needs to carryover to AY 2010-‐11.

c. Faculty Budget Advisory Committee (Kim Tan) Tan noted that the speeches are getting shorter, but hers might not be that short of a speech. The Faculty Budget Advisory Committee is quite large, and she had the opportunity to work with past Speaker Kelvin Jasek-Rysdahl and Lynn Johnson. The committee includes people with a lot of experience. Even the members who are not holding explicit positions have been on FBAC for many years and bring with them a lot of experience. She would like to thank Isabel Pierce for taking notes. Tan also recognized the student representative Shanice Jackson, who has been recently elected ASI president.

You all have received the email regarding the budget priority resolution that was passed at the Senate this year. The main part is that faculty believe in an affordable high-quality education and support a Liberal Arts education. In regards to the budget, we are concerned with Service Learning and the Faculty Development Center being on the budget cut list. She asks that the Provost to reconsider cutting those programs. She personally has participated in many of the faculty development activities and thinks that they are very important. In terms of Service Learning, she has heard many faculty incorporate service learning into their activities. She ended by thanking Speaker Koni Stone for her leadership this past year. Thank you. Applause. 2011-2012 Report of the Faculty Budget Advisory Committee (FBAC)

FBAC Membership Kim Tan, Chair Kelvin Jasek-Rysdahl, Chair-Elect Chris Boosalis, COE John Garcia/AnaMarie Guichard for Shradha Tibrewal, CHHS Arthur Buell for Annie Hor, Library/Counseling Nhu-Y Stessman, CNS Daniel Davies for Richard Savini, COA Nael Aly, CBA Scott Davis, CHSS Thomas McGhee, Accounting Representative Koni Stone, Speaker James T. Strong, Provost Lynn Johnson, Chair-elect UEPC, ex officio Carolyn Martin, Chair-elect GC, ex officio Shanice Jackson, ASI Student Representative FBAC participated in faculty governance by helping to review the following:

-‐ Resolution to Revise Add/Drop policy -‐ Proposed Endowed Faculty Policy -‐ Proposal for BS in Health Sciences

The Add/Drop policy came from UEPC, and it requires a fee if students do not drop their classes in a timely manner.

We have donors willing to donate money to set up faculty endowments; recently the College of Business recruited an endowed Foster Farms endowed professor. Currently, there is no policy to provide guidance in such situations. Consequently, FBAC worked with FAC and Mr. Dennis Shimek (Interim VP of HR & FA) to draft a policy. The policy addresses the faculty governance or level/type of consultation between administration and department/college/faculty in the setting up and maintenance of an endowed faculty position. FBAC was particularly concerned with the monetary or resource allocation aspects of the endowed faculty position. This draft policy has been approved by the Academic Senate, and is awaiting approval by the president. Once approved, the policy can be used to provide guidance in the area of the setting up and maintenance of an endowed faculty position, and the policy is subject to continuous improvement should the need arise. FBAC also reviewed the Proposal for BS in Health Sciences. Initially, the proposal came to FBAC in the form of two concentrations, one state-‐side and one UEE. Because the proposal stated that the state-‐side concentration is associated with the creation of a new department (of health science), FBAC members advised the Academic Senate and UEPC to withdraw approval of that concentration. Since Academic Affairs is considering budget cuts due to resource constraints, FBAC is unable to evaluate what resources

will be used to set up such a new department. The proposal was modified to one UEE-‐concentration, and UEPC and the Academic Senate passed it. It is now awaiting the president’s approval. The UEE-‐concentration is expected to bring in a surplus to the college that houses that program. FBAC also prepared the Faculty Budget Priorities Resolution, and it was passed as a sense of the senate.

5/AS/12/FBAC Budget Priority Resolution (Sense of the Senate)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the Faculty of California State University, Stanislaus affirm the commitment of the CSU to public access to affordable high-quality instruction, and be it further RESOLVED: That the primary budget priority for CSU Stanislaus faculty is maintaining the academic mission of the University, and be it further RESOLVED: That University budgeting practices should protect the academic integrity of the schedule of classes, including promoting the importance of Liberal Arts Education, and be it further RESOLVED: That the priority above shall apply to all budgetary decisions, effective immediately. RATIONALE: Despite budget vagaries, higher education remains the mission of the University. As such, students and faculty play core roles on this campus, and the student/faculty should be prioritized in budgeting decisions. As the University contemplates the strategic addition of new elements to the curriculum, the core mission of the University remains its most distinguishing feature. Specifically, UEE academic endeavors should be revenue neutral or revenue enhancing, and not serve to drain scarce resources. These non-state programs should adopt a supportive posture in their relation to the mission of the University. This priority reflects the will of the faculty and should be followed in all tactical or strategic budget discussions and decision-making involving Academic Affairs. The Academic Senate, FBAC and the faculty representatives of UBAC continue to serve as the representatives of the Faculty in these discussions and decision-making processes, as stipulated in the Constitution of the General Faculty. Approved by the Academic Senate on April 17, 2012 as a Sense of the Senate Resolution. FBAC has provided prior statements of faculty budget priorities as follows: 10/AS/10/FBAC Approved by the Academic Senate on May 11, 2010 22/AS/08/FBAC 10/AS/07/FBAC

21/AS/05/FBAC 20/AS/04/FBAC 17/AS/03/FBAC 24/AS/01/FBAC 1/AS/01/FBAC

Throughout the year, we had guest speakers who informed us of what is happening on campus. I also want to thank Faculty Speaker Koni Stone who provided invaluable comments at our FBAC meetings as she has a bird’s eye view across the many committees that she sits on. I would like to thank the FBAC members for their time and commitment in serving on this committee. They all contributed in faculty governance as each of them enriched the FBAC discussions and helped to produce a quality output from our meetings. I’m sure I’m speaking on behalf of my committee that it was a pleasure that we were able to represent you this year. Respectfully submitted, Kim Tan Chair, FBAC AY 2011-2012

d. Graduate Council (Dave Colnic) Colnic gets to say thank you to Speaker Stone a few more times. There are many colleagues serving on the Graduate Council. There are two more that were not listed on the slide. Greg

Morris joined after Peter Nelligan retired and Richard Weikart served as proxy for Katherine Royer. Graduate Council David Colnic, Chair Carolyn Martin, Chair-Elect Randy Harris Robin Ringstad Dawn Poole Jeff Rhoades, ASI Senator Katherine Royer Greg Morris Tony Perrello Matthew Cover Shawna Young Kurt Baker David Colnic Susan Neufeld

TBD, Ed Director Rep. Halyna Kornuta, Executive Secretary Carolyn Martin Ex Officio Members James T. Strong, Provost/VPAA Koni Stone, Academic Senate Speaker Daryl Moore, Dean COA Linda Nowak, Dean CBA Katherine Norman, Dean COE Jim Tuedio, Interim Dean CHSS Robert Marino, Interim Dean CHHS Reza Kamali, Dean CNS Annie Hor, Interim Dean/Library Nancy Lewis, Director, Research and Sponsored Programs

One of the reasons we got a lot accomplished was due to the work of Randi Esau who kept us organized. We also want to thank VPAA/ALO Halyna Kornuta who served as a strong advocate for the charge of the Graduate Council and helped us through some tough things this semester. Much was centered around the role of graduate education at this institution. This was around the holistic review and in the context of the structure of the graduate school. These discussions centered around having a Graduate Dean, a Graduate School, all the way down to policies like the field trip policy. He hopes that you would agree that graduate education is fundamental to this institution. We fill a variety of needs relative to this institution. Expertise in this region is scarce, but we fill that scarcity. The nurses, teachers, business leaders, social workers, biologists in this region come out of our graduate programs. Without us we would have an even more severe brain drain. Much of this comes through internships and without service learning these would be incredibly difficult to provide even more so with EO#1034 from the Chancellor’s office. Our graduate students are incredibly active in scholarship, presenting on their own and with their colleagues. Taken as a whole this is not a function of individual programs but the result of our graduate school ecosystem. He wants to leave you with that thought and he thanks his colleagues on the Graduate Council and in this room. Good luck next year. As you see from the following report we accomplished a great deal. Applause.

Graduate Council Annual Report 2011-‐2012

The Graduate Council, a standing committee of the Academic Senate, is somewhat unique in its size and representation, as it is comprised of 26 individuals. Voting members include a graduate program coordinator/director from each department and college that offers a master’s or doctoral degree as well as the Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs/Accreditation Liaison Officer and the Director of the Ed.D. program in Educational Leadership. Ex-‐officio members include the deans from the six colleges and the Library, an administrator from Research & Sponsored Programs, and the Provost. The composition of the committee invites a variety of perspectives to be shared early in the development of policy and in all stages of discussion of important issues. The Council values this broad membership. This year the Council met for 8 regularly scheduled meetings.

Major outcomes, and continuing discussion items, from this year’s Council business include the following: Approved Graduate Program/Course Proposals/Revisions

• Program Revision for Education Specialist Credential: Mild/Moderate and Moderate/ Severe Disabilities

• Program Revision for Master of Arts in Education, Curriculum, and Instruction: Special Education Concentration

• Program Revision for Master of Social Work • New Program Option for Master of Social Work, Clinical Social Work – Integrative Behavioral

Health in Diverse Settings • Program Revision for Master of Science in Psychology, concentration in Counseling and

concentration in Behavior Analysis including associated new courses: o PSYC 5005 Introduction to Masters Thesis o PSYC 5025 Research Methods in Behavior Analysis o PSYC 5030 Clinical Assessment and Diagnosis o PSYC 5060 Foundations of Behavior Analysis o PSYC 5065 The Experimental Analysis of Behavior o PSYC 5140 Applied Psychopharmacology o PSYC 5150 Clinical Behavior Analysis o PSYC 5160 Multicultural and Developmental Perspectives in Counseling o PSYC 5690 Counseling Sexual Problems o PSYC 5740 Community Counseling Interventions o PSYC 5750 Advanced Applied Behavior Analysis o PSYC 5760 Couples Therapy o PSYC 5860 Trauma Interventions o PSYC 5900 Client Advocacy Practicum

• New Concentration for Masters of Arts, concentration in Behavior Analysis • New Certificate Program for Added Authorization in Autism Spectrum Disorders • New Concentration for Master of Nursing, Nursing Administration

Academic Program Reviews: • Master of Social Work

Other Action Items:

• Approved a Resolution in Honor of Pamela Roe’s Service to Graduate Education • Approved the Resolution Reaffirming Graduate Council’s Responsibility • for Graduate Curriculum and Programs • Approved the Position Description for the Faculty Director of the MA/MS Interdisciplinary

Studies Program • Selected a Graduate Council representative for the 2011-‐12 RSCAPC committee • Nominated a person to be on the ballot as Chair-‐Elect of Graduate Council for 2011-‐12 • Approved Revisions to the Thesis/Project/Dissertation Preparation Guidelines • Approved an Approval Form for Master’s Thesis and Project Binding • Approved Changes to the Thesis/Project/Dissertation Reader Review Process • Voted to Support College Reorganization • Approved a Resolution to Maintain State University Grant for Graduate Students

Discussion/Information Items:

• Voiced concerns regarding changes to administrative structure and staffing of the Graduate School

• Discussed cancellation of graduate-‐level courses • Discussed WASC Special Visit • Provided input to workgroups charges implementation of EO 1062 (field trip) and EO 1064

(student internship). • Articulated to the Provost the continued desire for a Dean of Graduate Education • Drafted a Position Description for Dean of Graduate Education • Discussed how to operationalize the Graduate Education Action Plan, which was adopted in Fall

2009 • Discussed implementation of a Strategic Planning Process for Graduate Education • Discussed implications of Holistic Academic Program Review on Graduate Education

Items currently under review

Graduate Program/Course Proposals: • Program Revision: Master of Arts in Education, concentration in Counselor Education • New Concentration: Master of Arts in Education, concentration in Licensed Professional

Clinical Counselor with associated courses o EDCL 5520 Principles of the Diagnosis Process o EDCL 5525 Applied Pharmacology for Counselors o EDCL 5545 Development and Sexuality Throughout Life o EDCL 5560 Crisis and Trauma Counseling

Discussion/Information Items: • Graduate Council Response to Holistic Academic Program Review • Strategic Planning for Graduate Education

The Council recognizes and thanks Randi Esau Owens for her excellent administrative support of Council matters throughout the academic year. Her knowledge of all things related to graduate education and curricular is impressive, and the support she provided to the council as a result was priceless. The Council thanks VPAA/ALO Halyna Kornuta for her support of the Council’s charge. On a more personal level, I would like to thank all of this year’s Grad Council members for dedicating so much time and energy to Council business. Next year we look forward to Professor Carolyn Martin’s leadership as Chair of the Graduate Council. Respectfully submitted by Dave Colnic Chair, Graduate Council AY 11-‐12

e. Leaves and Awards Committee (Michael Bice) Annual Report of the Leaves and Awards Committee for 2011 – 2012

First, I would like to give my sincere appreciation to the members of the 2011 – 2012 Leaves and Awards Committee. These members are:

Dr. Carlos Andres (Modern Languages) Mr. Arthur Buell (Library)

Dr. Athinodoros Chronis (Management, Operations, and Marketing) Dr. Todd Nelson (Psychology) Ms. Lori O’Dell (Student Representative)

I enjoyed working with every member on the Committee, and I appreciate all of their hard work this year. Moreover, I wish to extend my gratitude to Ms. Nancy Lewis (who served on behalf of the Provost) from the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs for all of her wonderful input and guidance during the RSCA grant review process. I would also like to thank Dr. Betsy Eudey, Director of FCETL, for her efforts and hard work during the review process for the Elizabeth Anne B. Papageorge Award. Additionally, I would like to thank Ms. Isabel Silveira Pierce for all of her assistance and work that supported the charge of the Leaves and Awards Committee. From preparing and sending announcements to collecting applications and distributing them wherever they needed to go, Isabel has been a wonderful asset to LAC, and she certainly made my job as Chair much easier. I am grateful for her service to the Committee. The LAC would also like to extend its appreciation to Provost James Strong for endorsing nearly all of the Committee’s recommendations, and for working with the LAC to support the activities of the faculty and to recognize excellence within our scholarly community. Emeritus Professor The first task for the LAC in 2011 – 2012 was to review the recommendation of Dr. Robin Ringstad to award emeritus status to Dr. Margaret Tynan. Dr. Tynan retired before reaching the fifteen-‐year requirement for automatic emeritus status. According to Dr. Ringstad, Dr. Tynan was instrumental in a variety of capacities since joining the Social Work faculty in 1996. She took an active leadership role in the areas of curriculum development, student affairs, gerontological expertise, and macro social work practice. She served as the Director of the Program and as Department Chair for eight years, and her expertise, knowledge, and skills were invaluable during the programs initial MSW program accreditation and two subsequent reaffirmations. The LAC reviewed the relevant documentation and unanimously recommended that Dr. Margaret Tynan be awarded Emeritus Professor status. Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity Grants For the second time in three academic years, the Chancellor’s Office was unable to provide funding for RSCA proposals. However, several weeks into the Fall Semester, President Hamid Shirvani contributed $100,000 towards RSCA. With the new funding, the deadline to submit RSCA proposals for the Fall review cycle was amended to November 4, 2011. The LAC received thirty-‐nine such proposals and completed the review and evaluation process in the shortened timeframe provided to us. Members of the Committee all agreed that most proposals were of great quality, and we were quite impressed with the breadth of research conducted by the Faculty. Very few proposals were disqualified due to insufficient documentation or failure to abide by the proposal guidelines. After much discussion, we reached a consensus to recommend full funding for twenty-‐one proposals and partial funding for four other proposals. The total funding amount recommended for these twenty-‐five proposals was $100,000. The RSCA Grants Analysis is attached with this report. Early in April 2012, Provost James Strong announced that President Shirvani would provide additional support for RSCA through the contribution of $100,000 in Foundation funds. With the evaluation process in place, a call for proposals was distributed in early May, and LAC will review, evaluate, and recommend proposals for funding in late May. An addendum to this report will be filed to discuss this after the review cycle is complete. At this time, the LAC would like to thank President Shirvani for providing $200,000 to support RSCA efforts on our campus. Sabbaticals

In Fall 2011, LAC reviewed sixteen applications for sabbatical leaves. Each application was reviewed based on the criteria set forth by the call for sabbatical applications. All sixteen applications were determined to have at least minimally met the criteria found in the call, and the applications then were separated into four priority groups as follows:

• Eight applications were placed in the highest priority group, and those applications were given our strongest recommendation for funding.

• Two applications were placed in the second-‐highest priority group. These were recommended for funding.

• Two applications were placed in the third-‐highest priority group. These were recommended for funding as well.

• Four applications were placed in the lowest-‐priority group and recommended for funding only after the prior twelve applications were considered.

Overall, LAC was impressed with the quality and diversity of the sabbatical applications received during this review cycle. Elizabeth Anne B. Papageorge Faculty Development Award The LAC received four nominations for the 2011 – 2012 Elizabeth Anne B. Papageorge Faculty Development Award and reviewed the application materials submitted by the nominators and nominees. The Committee was extremely impressed by the potential of each applicant, and the decision was not easy. After a thorough deliberation, the LAC unanimously recommended that the award should be given to Dr. Anne Weisenberg. Awards for Outstanding Professors Four nominations were received for the Outstanding Community Service Professor Award. After careful review of the materials received, the Committee members agreed that Dr. Colnic was a worthy recipient of this award and unanimously forwarded his name for the 2012 Outstanding Community Service Professor Award. Three nominations were received for the Outstanding Service in Faculty Governance Award. The Committee unanimously recommended Dr. O’Brien as the recipient of the 2012 Outstanding Service in Faculty Governance Award. Dr. O’Brien has a long history of faculty governance on our campus and at the statewide level. Nine nominations were received for the Outstanding RSCA Professor Award: The LAC noted that each of the nine nominees were strong candidates for this award, increasing the difficulty of selecting its recommendation. Ultimately, based on the overall body of work and strong letters of recommendation, LAC unanimously forwarded Dr. Bret Carroll’s name for the 2012 Outstanding RSCA Professor Award. Eight nominations were received for the Outstanding Professor Award. Just as with the Outstanding RSCA Professor Award, the candidates for the Outstanding Professor Award were very strong. The Committee thoroughly examined the materials provided by the eight nominees, and after much deliberation, LAC unanimously recommended Dr. Stephanie Paterson as the recipient of the 2012 Outstanding Professor Award. Her IDEA scores were exemplary, and letters of support were received from a large number of colleagues and students alike, praising her work in the classroom and in her area of specialty. There is another call due Monday for another $100,000 of RSCA funds raised by President Shirvani thru the Foundation. The LAC is not done, but we are happy to do it. Thank you.

Speaker Stone would like to give a special thanks to the LAC members for their dedicated work through the end of the semester. Applause.

f. Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity Policy Committee (Annhenrie Campbell)

Speaker Stone thanked this committee for their work. She is grateful for the Provost and VP Dennis Shimek for helping to distribute research funds this year. One thing that was talked about was how funding is distributed and that it has to go through RSCAPC and LAC for distribution. Applause. RSCAPC Year End Report 2011-‐2012 Submitted by Annhenrie Campbell, Chair The theme of this year's work of the Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity Policy Committee has been the evaluation of the committee's past and future operations. I am most appreciative of the efforts of the entire membership with their consistent appreciation for the importance of supporting the research, scholarship and creative activities of the University's faculty and students. Committee members this year included Chair-‐elect Lyn Myers, Zophie Zong (CBA), Anne Weisenberg (COE), Chris De Vries (CNS), Dean De Cocker (COA), Elizabeth Breshears (CHHS), Tzu-‐Man Huang (UEPC), Dawn Poole (GC), Warren Jacobs (Library), Richard Wallace , CHSS, Jeffrey Rhoades (Graduate Student Rep -‐ ASI). The ex officio members were particularly helpful for the committee this year and included Faculty Speaker Koni Stone, ORSP Representative Nancy Lewis, Campus Compliance Officer Gina Leguria and Heather Adams, staff support. Highlights of 2011/12 RSCAPC Activities: The main task of the committee this year was reviewing the committee charge and evaluating how the committee can better serve the University. In reviewing the charge, the committee recognized that its key mission is to support the Academic Senate in specific areas including (in abbreviated phrases):

1. policy development and recommendations 2. coordination of research support 3. advocating for funding for faculty RSCA 4. providing support for accreditation processes 5. providing advice to administration on RSCA planning and “system initiatives” 6. consulting with other University committees

The committee received reports about University research activities during the year which included RSCA week and the successful Student Research Competition. The committee reviewed the results of the previous year's distribution of President Shirvani's special RSCA supplemental funding of $100,000. In the previous year, the Committee was charged to develop a one-‐time distribution policy for these funds. For the review, all colleges were asked and supplied a recap of their distribution. The Committee found that the funds were successfully and widely distributed for faculty research use. Some colleges augmented the special RSCA funds with other resources for distribution.

Throughout the year, the committee reviewed the existing RSCA research grants program. Early in the year, when funding availability was not clear, the committee strongly lobbied the Provost and others to exert all efforts to be sure grants would be offered competitively for 2011-‐2012. The Committee twice adjusted the RSCA call for proposals. First to enable a later time frame for the 2011-‐2012 grant cycle due to funding delays and second to modify the call for more efficient review and administration by the Leaves and Awards Committee and the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, respectively. The committee extensively discussed issues related to the reorganization of the Graduate School and communicated its concern to the Provost. It was of great concern that graduate students may no longer have a specific, University-‐level locus for their questions, guidance and records. The various colleges differ greatly in the amount of graduate support they can offer with some having depended more heavily than others on the Graduate School to administer their graduate programs. The committee recommends strongly that there be a University-‐wide graduate structure with an appropriate administrative leader to serve students and the various graduate programs offered at CSU, Stanislaus. In March, the Provost announced that President Shirvani would be able to make another $100,000 supplement available for RSCA for the current year. The Committee remained available throughout the semester to assist in preparing any new policy guidelines needed for the distribution. In the event, the Provost and the Senate Executive Committee developed the policy for the current year, and the application and awards process is currently ongoing. In response to University-‐wide discussions on potential reorganization, the Committee has reviewed its size and structure. The current charge and constitutional description provides quite a large committee of over thirteen members. This size results from the expansion over time in the number of colleges and the desire to include members who also sit on UEPC and GC. Given that the number of colleges may decrease and that representatives from UEPC and GC would also be drawn from the colleges, there is an opportunity to streamline the committee. Streamlining would speed committee work, simplify committee scheduling, and facilitate recruitment of committee members. Chair-‐elect Myers will be leading this review in the next year.

g. University Educational Policies Committee (William Foreman) Foreman would specifically like to thank VPAA/ALO Halyna Kornuta who maintained a connection to administration during a contentious year and also Ms. Randi Esau. Applause. University Educational Policy Committee RE: Year End Report, AY 2011-‐12 Thanks to all the members of the UEPC who served this year: Lynn Johnson, chair-‐elect Mark Bender, CHSS (fall semester) Ann Strahm, CHSS (spring semester) Rick Broadwater, COA Renae Floyd, Counseling Maryann Hight, Library Tzu-‐Man Huang, CBA Mehran Khodabandeh, ASI Halyna Kornuta, Executive Secretary Valerie Lester-‐Levya, CHHS Christopher Roe, COE

Kenneth Schoenly, CNS Koni Stone, Speaker of the Faculty I would most especially thank Halyna Kornuta, who provided an important link to administration. As we worked through a number of contentious items, Dr. Kornuta’s contributions were invaluable. Lynn Johnson and Ken Schoenly were instrumental in drafting the Suspension and Discontinuation Policy. Ann Strahm provided important service not only during meetings but also as a senator, where she acted as an extra voice for the committee. All members of the committee served faithfully, providing insights and perspectives essential to crafting educational policy. The following is a list of items that came before the committee and a report on the status of each. Field Trip Policy/Loss of Motor Pool The Chancellor’s Office promulgated a new executive order (#1062) that tightens the requirements for academic field trips and service learning experiences due to concerns about risk management. At the same time, CSU, Stanislaus has lost its motor pool, moving to a rental-‐company system that shifts the funding burden to departments, and creates logistical difficulties for faculty engaging in field trips. UEPC is working with all involved constituents to join these two issues. We engaged in fact-‐finding regarding the transportation issue and cooperated with an ad hoc committee drafting the new Field Trip Policy. These discussions continue and this issue will continue on the UEPC agenda in 2012-‐13. Policy on Suspension and Discontinuation of Programs Continuing efforts begun in spring 2011, UEPC spent most of AY 2012-‐13 working and reworking a new policy on Suspension and Discontinuation of Programs. At the start of AY 2011-‐12, we had only a policy on discontinuation, as required by the Chancellor’s Office. Our vision for a new policy places suspension before discontinuation in most cases, for a standard period of five years. We moved on this policy through two major revisions this year, working closely with AVP Halyna Kornuta to negotiate an outcome acceptable to both faculty and administration. That policy was submitted to the Academic Senate and was approved unanimously. Academic Calendar No major revisions to the academic calendar were contemplated this year, though a change was made to the calendar for AY 2013-‐14 because the original start date for the semester fell before the first date allowed by the Chancellor’s Office. No other change was seriously contemplated because any such change would require adjusting the length of class periods. Faculty have already made an adjustment with the move away from the 4-‐1-‐4 schedule; asking them to do so again so soon seemed unreasonable to the committee. OIT Service Maintenance Days The Office for Information Technology asked UEPC to set aside two days before each semester as down-‐time for updates to the Blackboard and other academic computing systems. During these days, faculty will not be able to access Blackboard. These days would be marked on

future academic calendars to ensure faculty are informed about this lack of availability. The committee agreed to this request and choose dates for the AY 2012-‐13 and AY 2013-‐14 academic calendars. New Prefix for Agricultural Studies (becomes AGEC, Agricultural Economics) UEPC approved the new prefix for Agricultural Studies. Discussion revealed that much of the course work in Agricultural Studies at Stanislaus concentrates on the economics of agriculture. Program Revision: Agricultural Studies and Concentrations UEPC approved program revisions for the Agricultural Studies major and its concentrations: Agricultural Biology, Agricultural Economics, Sustainable Agriculture, and a Special Concentration. Technology and Learning Subcommittee Membership and Charge UEPC agreed to a request from TLS to add the position “Curriculum Designer” as a non-‐voting, ex officio member of the subcommittee. The Curriculum Designer had been attending all TLS meetings without official recognition. The subcommittee now has two non-‐voting ex officio staff members from the Office of Information Technology. Draft General Education Goals and Objectives UEPC approved the new general education goals and objectives drafted by the General Education subcommittee. These goals were developed in response to Executive Order #1065. Super Senior Policy The UEPC continues to work with the ad hoc committee on Advising to develop a consistent set of procedures for dealing with ‘Super Seniors’ who continue in undergraduate education beyond 120 units. That work will continue into AY 2012-‐13. The committee has learned that students’ financial aid is restricted after they reach 150 units and is cut off completely after 180 units. Students who plan to finish degree programs before reaching 150 units are able to do so without interference from CSU administration. Policy for Declaration of a Major Consulting closely with ASI representative Mehran Khodabandeh, UEPC approved a requirement that all CSU, Stanislaus students declare a major by the time they accumulate 60 units; transfer students with more than 60 units must declare a major by the beginning of their second semester on campus. New Degree Program: BS in Health Science UEPC reviewed a proposal for a new major in Health Science containing two concentrations. One concentration was to begin immediately under self-‐support through University Extended Education; the other was to begin at a later date when funding would be available under the state-‐support system. Justifications and curriculum seemed strong in this detailed proposal, but committee members were concerned about approving a proposal that depends on future funding at a time when academic programs are budget-‐stressed and some may be suspended or discontinued. Acting on its charge to review programs for their academic quality and need,

UEPC approved both concentrations, but Senate Executive Committee referred to the matter to FBAC, which concurred with the concerns expressed by UEPC and promulgated a resolution for Senate to that effect. After a discussion at Senate, the proposers of the program withdrew their proposal for a state-‐support concentration and UEPC was able to send the one self-‐support concentration to Academic Senate, where it was approved. Credit Hour Policy Responding to comments from the WASC accreditation team, AVP Kornuta developed a separate credit hour policy that expands on the details now contained in our Academic Calendar Policy. Among other things, the credit hour policy would stipulate the amount of instructional time required for given courses and the minimum amount of time students are to spend on classwork outside of direct instructional time (e.g., two hours for every one hour of instructional time for an undergraduate course). The draft policy also contains details about calculating the equivalents for classroom instruction time for on-‐line and hybrid courses. UEPC approved in principle the policies regarding traditional classroom instruction and sent the policy to Technology and Learning Subcommittee for review of those sections related to on-‐line and hybrid courses. Individual Study In January 2012, the provost announced that all independent study requests would require the signature of a dean for approval. This followed on the heels of a discussion at UEPC in AY 2010-‐11 when the Council of Deans asked that the policy for individual study be standardized throughout the university. UEPC rejected that idea at the time, noting that each college appeared to operate by slightly different rules without incident. CSU, Stanislaus faculty donate almost three times as many units of work for independent studies than they paid for as part of their workload. Some departments depend heavily on independent studies and requiring an additional signature would create a significant hardship for those departments and students. It was later pointed out that currently the university has three different and conflicting statements about its individual study policy: one on line in the faculty handbook, another in the university catalog, and a third in a memo from UEPC during AY 2010-‐11. After significant discussion, UEPC chose to review the policy only after the completion of the Holistic Program Review, which may comment regarding the impact of independent studies on cost of instruction. Program Revisions: BA in Art, BFA in Art, minor in Art Changes were required in these programs due to accreditation issues and reductions in funding. The new versions of these programs revert to previous practices because the most recent revisions to the program have become unaffordable. The revisions were approved. Academic Program Review The Committee heard a presentation on changes to the academic program review process and approved those changes. Among these was a change to require the use of experts from outside our campus during the seventh-‐year, major review. These experts will be called “outside consultants” rather than “outside reviewers.” UEPC approved these changes. Two-‐Pass Registration System

Responding to a request from administration, UEPC approved a new registration system under which students will be able to register for just 10 units at their initial registration appointment time. After all students have been able to register, a second registration period will ensue without restrictions. It is hoped that this new system will allow students to register first for the classes they most need and thereby facilitate students’ progress toward degrees. This policy was submitted to Academic Senate and approved. Technology and Learning Subcommittee: “Clicker Report” The UEPC accepted the TLS report on student response systems (clickers) as used on campus. The California State Student Association has asked all campuses to standardize their use of clickers in order to save students from buying more than one form of this technology. The UEPC chair drafted a resolution based on the report and a preliminary discussion of the issue by the committee. This draft was shared with TLS, who sent representatives to UEPC for further discussion. Substantial progress was made toward finalizing the resolution, but another session of discussion will be needed before a final revision is ready for Academic Senate. This topic should be read for Senate early in AY 2012-‐13. Advising for Pre-‐Nursing Students Discussions continue over the issue of how undeclared students hoping to enter the Nursing program are advised. Both Nursing and the Academic Resource Center have procedures in place for the effective advising of pre-‐nursing students, but the high entrance standards of the Nursing program and the large number of students whose applications are rejected have created significant workload issues for faculty in other departments related to advising and teaching courses for students who will not ultimately be able to use those courses to complete their degrees when they are not accepted to Nursing. Discussions of this issue will continue into AY 2012-‐13. Waitlists When the two-‐pass system was implemented for pre-‐registration in spring 2012, there was some question about the efficacy of using waitlists during the first pass. Chris De Vries (Physics and Astronomy), clerk of the Academic Senate, developed a white paper that considers a variety of scenarios for the use of waitlists during the first pass. The short time line between approval of the two-‐pass system and its implementation made a discussion of waitlists for spring 2012 moot. This will be a carry-‐over item for the UEPC in AY 2012-‐13. Resolution to Revise the Add/Drop Policy Administration suggested that the university should add a fee of $25 for students who drop a course after the first week of instruction. Currently, students may drop a course until the census date (the 20th day of instruction) without penalty. The suggested policy would encourage students to vacate seats quickly in courses that they do not intend to complete so that other students may take those seats in courses they need. After a first reading at Academic Senate, UEPC referred the resolution to the Faculty Budget Affairs Committee, who suggested reducing the fee to $10 and extending the free-‐drop period to seven days. UEPC ultimately rejected this idea as unlikely to accomplish the goal of the policy and declined to send the resolution back to Senate for second reading.

General Education Goals and Assessment During AY 2010-‐12, the General Education Subcommittee developed new General Education learning goals, in compliance with requirements from the Chancellor’s Office. UEPC approved these goals at the beginning of AY 2011-‐12. When these goals were presented at Senate, senators chose not to approve them before an assessment regime had been developed. During the year, GE Sub worked with new GE assessment coordinator to develop a means of assessing the goals. UEPC approved this assessment regime and it will be presented to Academic Senate in early AY 2012-‐13. In addition, UEPC oversaw the work of its subcommittees: Subcommittees of UEPC According to their end-‐of-‐year reports, the following subcommittees of UEPC completed the following work: Technology and Learning Subcommittee: 1) Petitioned UEPC and the Academic Senate successfully to add the university’s Instructional Designer (a position presently occupied by Dr. Glenn Pillsbury) as a non-‐voting, ex officio member; 2) Completed a study of student response systems (clickers) used on campus and developed a report aimed at leading to a policy to standardize our campus’s use of clickers. General Education Subcommittee: 1) Approved GE status for seven courses and removed one course from the General Education program; 2) Approved switching GEOG 2010 from the D to the B area; 3) Submitted to UEPC a revision to the new GE Goals developed during AY 2010-‐12, the plan for certifying courses for inclusion in the GE program, and a schedule for when existing GE courses will be re-‐certified under the new GE Goals; 4) Conducted an open forum and a developed a survey of department chairs pursuant to the new GE goals and methods of assessment. Teaching and Learning Subcommittee: 1) Reviewed the use of IDEA forms to evaluate teaching and learning on our campus, finding significant drawbacks to the use of these forms and developed an alternative instrument for evaluation to be submitted to UEPC for consideration in AY 2012-‐13; 2) discussed a variety of issues related to assessment of student learning, including the need for adequate funding and staffing for assessment tasks and several possible methods of improving student learning through best practices. University Writing Committee:

• Reviewed three courses for continued WP standing: SPAN 4810 Bargetto-Andres); SOCL 3310 (Kohler); COMM 3200 (Thomas).

• Requested assessment materials from nine courses to be reviewed during the 2012-2013 academic year: ANTH/GEND 3900 (Eudey); PSCI 3304 (Wellman); LIBS 3000 (Soodjinda, Davis); PSYC 4410 (Nath); CDEV 4200 (Asher); CJ 3170 (Gao, Perry); ENGL 3009 (Grimshaw).

• Maintained commitment to GWAR in response to several student petitions requesting the waiving of the GWAR.

• Worked to organize the Blackboard UWC site to maintain current records of transactions for the year, and for years to come for future chairs of this committee. Committee members Luevano, Wallace and Wittman created a spreadsheet to better organize timely course reviews.

• Continued to discuss the lack of faculty response to requests for WP course reviews. Suggested that direct contact be made with chairs of departments to assist in gaining support from faculty.

• We said good-bye to Mary Ann Simoneau (retired) in December and welcomed Rachel Grimshaw in her position.

• Revisited and revised the rubric for WPST. The rubric for scoring the WPST seems to be very helpful. • New dates for the WPST are now set to correlate with the university calendar. • Set guidelines for course review as follows:

a. WPA course guidelines and new instructors (Fall/Spring): The committee will be sending out a late request for the spring reviews. It might be helpful if the committee also had a spreadsheet with all the new instructors who were teaching a WP course for the first time. The review process should be as follows: b. A request goes out at the begging of the fall semester for review materials to be turned in. c. The materials are collected at the end of the semester and then reviewed at the begging of the

spring semester. d. A request would go out at the begging of the spring semester for the materials. e. The materials would be collected at the end of the spring semester and then be reviewed the

fallowing fall semester. h. Report of the University Retention, Promotion and Tenure Committee (Steven Filling and Renae Floyd) Floyd noted that they had a good time this past year. For the first time in many years they had no need to convene the conference committee as they agreed on all the recommendations for all the candidates. Applause. In the fall semester (2011), the URPTC reviewed one retention WPAF. In the spring semester (2012), the URPTC reviewed: • 9 WPAFs of candidates requesting tenure and promotion • 11 WPAFs of candidates requesting promotion to full professor • 4 WPAFs of candidates requesting retention For the first time in many years, the URPTC had no need to convene the conference committee (per campus RPT policy) as the provost and the URPTC agreed on the recommendations for all the candidates. In the near future participants in the 2011-2012 RPT cycle will be receiving a link to a survey soliciting your opinions on the process as you've experienced it this year. We ask that you respond to that survey so that we can continue our conversation about RPT policy and process on our campus. The committee consisted of the following esteemed colleagues: Professor Daniel Afonso, College of the Arts Professor Diane Katsma, College of Health and Human Sciences Professor Sari Miller-Antonio, College of the Humanities and Social Sciences Professor Cathy Watkins, College of Education Professor James Youngblom, College of Natural Sciences Professor Steven Filling, College of Business Administration and Co-Chair Counselor Renae Floyd, representing the Counseling and Librarian Faculties and Co-Chair We were more than ably assisted by Wendy Miller, who helped us be compliant with campus policy and, as always, kept us on track and within deadlines. We thank her and suggest to our colleagues that service on this committee is survivable in large part because of her efforts and expertise. Thank you and as always, we are honored to serve the faculty of the CSU, Stanislaus. Applause.

i. Statewide Academic Senate (Paul O’Brien/Steven Filling)

Filling noted that it may seem idyllic to have a state funded trip to southern California near the beach, but you are near a port and not a beach and you spend your time in a windowless room. As all units of the CSU the SWAS had a challenging year.

ASCSU Annual Report 2011-‐2012 As all other units of the CSU, ASCSU had a very challenging year. One of the challenges was the accumulation of depression induced by CFO Ben Quillian's reports, at every plenary meeting, of the sad state of California's, and the CSU's, finances. Senators were at times hard-‐pressed to look beyond the dolorous depiction of budget realities. The state of the CSU's finances became so dire that the ASCSU was unable to meet its commitment to provide assigned time for senators in spring semester, which severely constrained campus senators' abilities to devote the significant time required to ensure full faculty participation in the wide panoply of initiatives and projects under way. Stanislaus Senators O'Brien and Filling chose to continue full participation in ASCSU activities despite the reduction in support.

A major accomplishment for the year was the selection of a faculty member for the Board of Trustees, Dr. Bernadette Cheyne, who was subsequently appointed by Governor Brown. The CSU had been without a faculty trustee for two years, and Trustee Cheyne's appointment is a very positive factor in the shared governance process in the CSU. Trustee Cheyne visited our campus in April, and has quickly become an effective voice for faculty perspectives and a positive influence on the Board. Over the course of the year ASCSU worked on continued implementation of SB 1440-‐mandated transfer patterns in concert with California's Community Colleges, issued a wide variety of advisory statements on proposed legislation concerning higher education in California, and developed responses to a number of Chancellor's Office initiatives. A whitepaper on Cal State Online was written and issued, and numerous discussions of the Cal State Online initiative took place in a variety of venues, resulting in a much larger faculty voice in the Cal State Online initiative development and implementation. During the year the ASCSU convened a Shared Governance Task Force charged with reviewing the state of shared governance in the CSU. That group developed a resolution recommending internal ASCSU procedures that will enable senators and campuses to easily and definitively track ASCSU actions and outcomes. The task force also crafted suggested policies for the Chancellor's Office and the Board of Trustees and has forwarded those suggested policies to the Chancellor and Board for their action. The task force prepared suggested processes and reporting for the Chancellor's Office and Board of Trustees to use when faculty at a CSU campus indicate serious issues with shared governance and leadership by taking votes of no confidence in campus presidents and, in the case of system wide votes, in the Chancellor. The degree of concern and consensus on these issues is best illustrated by the fact the resolutions forwarding those proposals to the Chancellor and Board were passed unanimously. Finally, this report would be incomplete without mention of the role played this year by Senator O'Brien. As an at-‐large member of the ASCSU Executive Committee, Senator O'Brien had a measurable and positive impact on the course of events in the ASCSU. Respectfully submitted, Steven Filling Junior ASCSU Senator Filling introduced a resolution in support of Paul O’Brien as follows:

Resolution of Commendation for Senator Paul O'Brien

WHEREAS, Senator O'Brien has represented our campus effectively as a member of the Academic Senate, California State University for the last nine years, missing only a single plenary session during that span; and WHEREAS, Senator O'Brien has devoted his career to fostering genuine collegiality, tolerance and consensus building; and WHEREAS, Senator O'Brien ensured that Senator Filling never failed to have a Chancellor's Office coaster under his teacup, regardless of his location; and WHEREAS, Senator O'Brien's understanding of the need for effective working relationships with all members of the CSU and his talent for building those relationships helped our campus community survive a number of challenges; and WHEREAS, Senator O'Brien has calmly endured the verbal barrages of campus presidents and colleagues, and the Chancellor, without responding in kind; and WHEREAS, Senator O'Brien's colleagues in the Academic Senate have benefited from his gentle guidance, patience, unremitting optimism, and influential campus and ASCSU presence; and WHEREAS, Senator O'Brien has graciously shared the benefits of his Chancellor's Office parking permit with his rank and file colleagues; and WHEREAS, Senator O'Brien is the recipient of the 2011-2012 CSU Stanislaus Outstanding Professor Award for Shared Governance in recognition of his lengthy record of service at the campus and system levels; and WHEREAS, The CSU system and our Stanislaus campus have clearly benefited from Senator O'Brien's work and unique skills; therefore be it RESOLVED: That the Faculty of California State University, Stanislaus express its deep gratitude to Senator O'Brien for his time and labors and his devotion to the role of shared governance in the CSU, and wish him the best as he continues his career as educator, colleague and role model. Approved by acclamation, 10 May 2012

Unanimously passed, applause and a standing ovation.

O’Brien noted that this is wonderful. Having served as the SWAS representative for 9 years it’s a rollercoaster ride. He hopes we all hang together, and he hopes that everyone votes for the increases in education. We will survive it if we hang together. Applause.

j. Subcommittees of UEPC Speaker Stone acknowledged all of the members of the UEPC Subcommittees for their work this past year.

26

27

Stone noted that Betsy Eudey has been reappointed as Director of the Faculty Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (FCETL). The following individuals have been offered these positions pending release time. Currently, none of these positions have any resources. MA/MS Interdisciplinary Studies (David Lindsay, Search Committee Chair) - Molly Crumpton Winter

28

General Education (Megan Thomas, Search Committee Chair) – Caroline Mercier Director of the Faculty Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (Marina Gerson, Search Committee Chair) – Betsy Eudey Applause.

k. Faculty Development Committee (Marina Gerson) Gerson noted that this was a committee that she wanted to serve on for a number of years, and finally her volunteering paid off. She served on FDC last year and was pleased to be nominated for and elected to chair this year. Everything they do on that committee is good and it’s a great way to network across campus. She would like to thank Ximena Garcia for all her work keeping them on track and assisting the committee. She would like to also thank Bob Koehler for his input on instructional technology, and one thing they are asking SEC is to make an instructional technology person an official member of this committee.

Faculty Development Committee End of Year (2011-‐2012) Report

The Faculty Development Committee (FDC) sponsored and engaged in a number of activities / events and addressed numerous issues over the 2011-2012 academic year. Below is an overview of the work accomplished by the committee. The activities/events sponsored by the FDC included the annual New Faculty Orientation (NFO), Instructional Institute Day (IID), and the 10th Anniversary Celebration of the John Stuart Rogers Faculty Development Center (JSRFDC). The NFO was held August 17th in the JSRFDC to welcome 23 new faculty members to the university. In total, 53 participants, including the new faculty members, 2nd year faculty members, and university administrators, took part in the event. In addition to the opportunity to meet and connect with colleagues and campus constituents, information pertaining to a variety of topics such as teaching philosophies, syllabus format, and introductions to PeopleSoft and BlackBoard were presented. The NFO was followed by a series of informative workshops open to all faculty on August 18th. The 2012 NFO has been scheduled for August 20, 2012. The second major event, IID, was held January 24th prior to the start of the Spring 2012, semester. Dr. Joan Wink facilitated an interactive workshop on “Critical Pedagogy” for 38 faculty member participants. Dr. Wink led a variety of engaging activities that can be adapted to engage students with the content in a variety of disciplines. The FDC has planned a 10th Anniversary Celebration of the JSRFDC for May 14th, in partnership with University Advancement’s Development team. The FDC coordinated timing of the event with the Office of Service Learning, to allow community members involved in both the Service Learning recognition

29

event and the faculty center access to both celebrations. The 10th Anniversary Celebration of the JSRFDC will showcase the diversity of activities and events to which the center plays host. In addition to these three events and the on-going program of workshops, book clubs, lectures, and celebration events hosted by the JSRFDC, the committee conducted the annual FDC Teaching Mini-Grant application process. The timeline for the Mini-Grants was regrettably late in the year, as our ability to fund faculty projects was uncertain until midway through the Spring semester. Likely a result of the late call for applications, only ten files were submitted for review by the committee; seven were approved and funded. This year also marked the end of term for the current Director of the FCETL. The Director’s position description has changed substantially over the past year, with increasing responsibilities with respect to General Education (GE) and Assessment. The committee conducted a search and recommended the reappointment of Dr. Betsy Eudey for the 2012-2015 term. Dr. Eudey has been appointed, with the understanding that funding changes could result in changes to the position description and/or to Dr. Eudey’s decision to remain in the position. A variety of issues were addressed and acted upon by the FDC over the past year. These include, but are not limited to:

1. The FCETL’s budget was cut by $20,000 (~24.6%). Cost cutting measures implemented in the FCETL included: asking a member of our own faculty to present at IID, eliminating all stipends (e.g., for presenters in the Faculty Lecture Series and for participation in the Faculty Voices project), reducing production costs for the 2012 issue of Faculty Voices by only printing a few hard copies, limiting food purchases, limiting book purchases, and partnering with other offices and programs on campus when possible to share costs. We continue to explore strategies to support faculty development while responding to the institutional need to cut base budgets.

2. The committee continued discussion of the facility use policy for the JSRFDC. Consultations on the policy have been on-going for more than three years. We have approved a policy that could be in place by the end of the 2011-2012 academic year. It is our hope that revenues from facility rentals could help to support our programs in the future.

3. The committee provided feedback on the WASC Special Visit Self-Study Report to the Senate

Executive Committee (SEC).

4. The committee provided feedback regarding the establishment of updated GE goals and recertification of GE courses.

5. At the request of the committee, Dr. Betsy Eudey submitted two funding proposals to the CSU

Institute for Teaching and Learning, one focusing on pedagogies that engage the 21st century student and the other in support of program level assessment. We were accepted into the Assessment Program.

6. Dr. Betsy Eudey, the Director of the FCETL, became a participant in a group studying the impact of

faculty development activities on faculty perceptions of teaching and learning. This group is led by Wayne Tikkanen, Director of the Institute for Teaching and Learning in the Chancellor’s office.

7. The committee forwarded a request to SEC to officially include a staff member with expertise in

instructional technology as an ex officio, nonvoting member of the FDC. We have found the

30

comments and insights of Bob Koehler to be extremely valuable over the past two years and would like to see his role in the committee made official.

8. The FDC and associated faculty and staff continue working to provide a wide range of faculty

development opportunities. New offerings this year included Renae Floyd’s workshop on Managing Interactions with Disruptive or Upset Students and a spotlight on Online and Technology Enhanced Teaching. The FCETL also hosts webinars offered by off-campus affiliates, such as the recently broadcast Mid-Career Faculty Development.

9. The FDC engaged in a discussion with Brian Duggan of OIT of the importance of instructional

technology support for faculty, out of the view of our students. There was general agreement that communication could be better between OIT and faculty. The FDC was assured that in-person faculty support is available through offices in Demergasso-Bava Hall.

10. Recipients of the University’s 2010-2011 Outstanding Faculty Awards were featured speakers in the

JSRFDC lecture series. These lectures were of high quality and were especially well received.

In closing, I would like to thank Dr. Betsy Eudey, the Director of the FCETL, FDC members Lisa Adams, Donna Andrews, Andrew Dorsey, Roxanne Robbin, Koni Stone, and Interim VP Dennis Shimek, and regular guest Bob Koehler for their hard work and dedication to carrying out the committee’s responsibilities. In addition, I wish to thank Ximena Garcia, for her outstanding and invaluable administrative support, and for lending her time, talent, and expertise to FDC activities. Submitted by: Marina M. Gerson, out-going FDC Chair 7. Remarks by Speaker Koni Stone As you have just heard, it has been a busy year for all of our committees. This team of faculty leadership has worked hard and used all of their super powers. Let’s thank the 2011-‐2012 Senate Executive Committee.

2011-12 SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

31

Koni Stone, Speaker Mark Grobner, Speaker-Elect

Chris De Vries, Clerk David Lindsay, Chair of FAC Bill Foreman, Chair of UEPC

Kim Tan, Chair of FBAC David Colnic, Chair of GC

Paul O’Brien, SWAS Steve Filling, SWAS

For me, it has been an interesting year and I learned a great deal. Thank you for the opportunity to serve as your faculty speaker. I could not have done this job without the excellent support from the Academic Senate Office. Isabel Pierce and Whitney Ragsdale kept everything running smoothly. Whitney takes all of the minutes for the GE subcommittees and gets all of the Senate meetings organized. I want to thank Isabel Pierce for keeping me on task and for being very patient when I was “just in time” delivering agendas and minutes. Please join me in thanking Isabel and Whitney. There are still a number of issues and trust is a balancing act. We may not be on the high wire above the lions, but perhaps downgraded to a balance beam where we are being asked to do back flips. We were able to get a stay of execution on our present RPT policy.

I am very grateful to the immediate past speaker (wow that has a nice ring!) Kelvin Jasek-‐Rysdahl for his long and hard work to write and then pass the trust restoration plan resolution. These six principles were used to guide the work of both the faculty governance and the administration. These principles gave us the guidance to be successful on a number of issues, so I would like to show you the (abridged version, sorry Bob this might still be power pointlessness).

32

I would like to ask you to join me in thanking Kelvin for paving the way for us as we negotiate this road toward trust restoration. I would like to thank Mark Grobner for attending the TRPC, Academic Affairs Council, Leadership meetings and President’s Cabinet meetings. On many occasions, he made sure that the faculty voice was heard. 8. Passing of the Turkey Leg

33

And now for some magic! We are going to turn one Speaker-‐Elect into a NEW Speaker.

I was told that I would have to take off my tiara. It was even suggested that I bequeath my tiara to the incoming Speaker. Well, I was promised the tiara when I signed on for this gig, and I am not giving it up. Instead, I have something just as grand for our Speaker. First I will let you know how we ensure success in Chemistry: we use our magic wands to clear the smoke that is fogging up their understanding. So I am bequeathing mine to you, but first I am going to use my magic wand and the hat! Ta da! A Good Luck Bunny! Again, thank you Mark for taking on this job, you will wear this hat with dignity and grace. 9. Remarks and introduction of new faculty officers by Speaker Mark Grobner Grobner noted that he is giving the Senate a mascot this year. This is Draco. He tried to get him in the car, but he couldn’t do it.

Mark Grobner presented resolution 1/GF/12/SEC to Koni Stone.

34

1/GF/12/SEC

Commendation for Speaker Stone

hereas, Speaker Koni Stone has steadfastly and admirably fulf i l led her duties as Speaker of the Faculty during a chal lenging year, and…

hereas, Speaker Koni Stone has forgone her preferred pastimes of lounging around the around the pool and staffing concession stands at high school athletic events, and has has instead al lowed herself to be immured in numerous conference rooms without windows,

windows, and…

hereas, Speaker Koni Stone persistently gathered feedback to ensure that she was representing the opinions and ideas of the faculty constituency that she represented, and…

hereas, throughout the year, Speaker Koni Stone maintained her equanimity and col legial charm in the face of draconian budget cuts and a special WASC vis it, and …

hereas, in a year in which governance and leadership were at the forefront, her approach was a model of the way consensus can and should be developed, and…

hereas, Speaker Koni Stone did not f ixate on sharing the wonders of biochemistry with her col leagues, but rather served as a true leader of faculty, and…

hereas, Speaker Koni Stone led us in aspir ing to respectful and constructive faculty governance, with productive, yet manageable agendas that always exceeded our goals, be it therefore…

esolved that the General Faculty express its heartfelt THANK YOU to Speaker Koni Stone, and be it, further…

esolved that the Faculty wish Speaker Koni Stone al l the best in her future endeavors on behalf of Cal ifornia State University Stanislaus.

He is worried about Koni Stone as post-speaker depression will set in. No more acronym chasing for Koni. He heard that Koni likes chocolate chip cookies so he has a solution. He presented Koni with a bowl with eggs, spoon, flour, chocolate chips - - all the ingredients for baking chocolate chip cookies. Grobner would like to introduce the next Senate Executive Committee.

W W

W W W W W R R

35

He is looking forward to having a strong SEC next year, and he is optimistic for the coming year. He thinks that people misspoke about the speaker-elect position as it is a wonderful job. Accolades are poured upon you every day. He thanked the current SEC for their work this past year and noted that we still have a strong committee for the next year.

10. Open Forum/Questions Koni Stone moved to adjourn so that we may eat cake, seconded by De Vries.

11. Adjournment 3:41pm

Date post:	31-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Spring 2012 GF Meeting Minutes · 10/05/2012 · Applause. 5. Remarks by CFA President John...

Documents