MINUTES OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO
5241 North Maple Avenue, M/S Thomas 43
Fresno, California 93740-8027
Office of the Academic Senate
Ext. 278-2743
FAX: 278-5745
(AS-10)
November 26, 2012
Members Excused:
G. Gechter, S. Kotkin-Jaszi, L. Liu, L. Meyer, B.
Roberts, K. Tenbergen, L. Williams
Members Absent:
N. Akhavan, K. Balint, L. Crask, D. Freed, S.
Fulop, M. Gilewicz, K. Kurtural, S. Lam, S. Lin,
S. Ogunjemiyo, L. Rios, S. Reeves, P. Waer, J.
Wang
A meeting of the Academic Senate was called to order by Vice-Chair
Ayotte at 4:05 p.m. in the Library Auditorium, Room 2206.
1.
Approval of the Agenda.
MSC to approve the agenda.
2.
Approval of the Minutes of 11/19/12.
Vice-Chair Ayotte informed the Senate that the minutes from the
11/19/12 meeting would be distributed immediately after this meeting
and would be approved at the 12/3/12 meeting.
3.
Communications and Announcements.
A.
Absence of Chair Williams.
Vice-Chair Ayotte announced that Chair Williams was absent
because of a family medical situation.
B.
Election of Faculty Representatives to the Advisory Committee to
the Trustees Committee for the Selection of the President
(ACTCSP).
Vice-Chair Ayotte stated that the policy document from the Board
of Trustees regarding the election process for the advisory
committee calls for election of two faculty representatives by the
full faculty. All full-time faculty are eligible. An email has been
Academic Senate Meeting
November 26, 2012
Page 2
sent to faculty outlining the process, which calls for each
School/College and the Library to elect one nominee for the general
election. In the general election two of the nine candidates will be
elected to the committee.
C. Board of Trustees Budget Request to California Legislature
President Welty reported that the Board of Trustees approved the
2013-14 CSU budget request to the California legislature. The
total request is for $441,770,000 with the following allocations:
Mandatory costs
(health benefits, new space, energy)
Graduation initiative & student success
Compenstion-3 percent increase pool
5 percent enrollment growth
Urgent maintenance needs
Information technology infrastructure:
upgrade and renewal
Instructional equipment replacement
Center for California Studies
$48,182,000
$58,000,000
$86,259,000
$155,825,000
$50,000,000
$20,000,000
$23,000,000
$504,000
The CSU now awaits the Governor’s budget proposal. which should
be provided around 1/10/13.
Senator Amaral (Statewide Academic Senate) asked for clarification
regarding the category of graduation initiative and student
success. President Welty replied that this is money intended for
campus initiatives to improve graduation rates and student
retention. Expenditures will be determined by individual
campuses.
D.
Possible December 10, 2012 Senate Meeting.
Vice-Chair Ayotte announced that a room has not yet been found
for the planned 12/10/12 Senate meeting and asked if the Senate
would consider postponing that meeting and the Resolution on
Ending Cohort Hiring Through the Office of the Provost scheduled
for the agenda for that meeting.
Senator Henson (English) moved that the meeting be postponed
until the first Senate meeting of the Spring semester, scheduled for
1/28/13, that the resolution be put on the agenda for that
meeting, and that the information requested in the previous
2
Academic Senate Meeting
November 26, 2012
Page 3
motion to postpone be provided by the Provost to Senators before
the end of the current semester. MSC.
E.
Status of Proposed 120 Unit Degree Cap.
Senator Kensinger (Women’s Studies) asked for information
regarding the Board of Trustees consideration of a cap of
120 units on degree requirements. President Welty stated
that there had been a modification in that proposal to move
the implementation of that cap to Fall 2014. He also stated
that this proposal will be on the agenda for the March
Board of Trustees meeting.
4.
Installation of Newly Elected Senator.
Toni DuPont Morales, new senator from the Department of Criminology,
was installed.
5.
New Business.
No new business was introduced.
6.
Policy on Dual-listed, Co-Scheduled Courses. Second Reading.
Marilyn Wilson, Chair of the Graduate Committee, was in attendance to
provide information and answer questions.
Senator Henson (English) asked if there needed to be clarification
regarding “appropriate courses” for dual-listed, co-scheduled courses.
Senator Kensinger (Women’s Studies) asked Marilyn Wilson to provide
background information regarding the proposed policy. Dr. Wilson stated
that this matter was brought to the Graduate Committee along with the
matter of blended programs at the undergraduate and graduate level.
She explained that there used to be cross-listing of undergraduate and
graduate courses, but that practice no longer continues. For some
departments with low enrollment or a limited number of graduate
students, a dual-listed course would provide for a graduate course to be
offered even when there were a small number of graduate students
enrolled. It is anticipated that dual-listing would be a rare occurrence in
most departments.
Senator Maldonado (Philosophy) noted that topics courses are excluded
from approval by the Curriculum Committee and, thus, dual-listed
3
Academic Senate Meeting
November 26, 2012
Page 4
Topics courses would not need approval. He questioned whether, given
that exclusion, this policy is needed.
Senator Ram (Political Science) noted that departments are not currently
allowed to have dual-listed courses. Discussion ensued about whether
dual-listed Topics courses would need to be approved. Dr. Wilson stated
that Topics courses were excluded from the need for approval.
Senator Jenkins (Mechanical Engineering) asked for the reason for the
restriction to no more than 1/3 of a student’s course work as dual-listed
courses. Dr. Wilson stated that there was a concern that these courses
not constitute a majority of a student’s graduate program and that duallisted courses should supplement rather than run a graduate program.
She indicated that the wording of that portion of the policy should
probably be changed to the wording from Title 5, Section 40510 of the
California Administrative Code of Regulations, which states that “not less
than one-half of the units requested for the degree shall be in courses
organized primarily for graduate students.” Senator Jenkins pointed out
that under the proposed policy, dual-listed courses are graduate courses.
Associate Provost Caldwell stated that the Title 5 policy provides the ½
limit as the floor; departments may specify that more than ½ of the units
for a degree must be in courses organized primarily for graduate
students. Senator Ram noted that current policy allows up to 30% of a
student’s graduate program to be undergraduate courses. With the
addition of 1/3 dual-listed courses, a graduate student might take only 3
non dual-listed graduate courses. She indicated that the Title 5 wording
would therefore be preferable.
Senator Kensinger asked whether the Graduate Committee had
considered the provision of the policy from CSU San Marcos that
prohibits a student who took an undergraduate dual-listed course from
taking the same course at the graduate level. Dr. Wilson said the
Committee had discussed this point but decided to omit it from the
policy and leave this to departments.
Senator Kensinger drew attention to relevant recommendations for
graduate program quality provided in a 1989 report on graduate
education (Diniellie Report). In 2001, the CSU Academic Senate
reaffirmed support for those recommendations, and the
recommendations were included in an Appendix to the 2004 Report of
the Task Force on Graduate and Postgraduate Education in the CSU
titled “Rethinking Graduate Education in the CSU: Meeting the Needs of
the People of California for Graduate Education for the 21st Century.
4
Academic Senate Meeting
November 26, 2012
Page 5
She suggested that the Graduate Committee look at the
recommendations regarding dual-listed courses.
Senator Maldonado stated that there seems to be a difference between a
student taking a class in which there are only graduate students and
taking a dual-listed class.
Senator DuPont Morales (Criminology) stated that for students enrolled
in the M.A. in Criminology who wanted to go on to a further criminology
graduate or to law school, dual listed-courses would not count.
Senator Chapman (Modern & Classical Languages & Literatures) asked
whether the Graduate Committee had discussed the need for a cap on
enrollment in dual-listed courses to prevent enrollment of graduate
students in a class with an already large undergraduate enrollment.
Senator Clune (History) asked if there could be pressure from a Dean for
a department to reduce the number of graduate courses and create duallisted courses instead.
MSC to return the proposed policy to the Graduate Committee to address
the following concerns:
• Consideration of the language from Title 5 that “no more than one-half
of the units required for the degree” be in “courses organized primarily
for graduate students”
• Definition of appropriate courses for dual-listing
• Policy regarding undergraduates taking a dual-listed course and then
re-taking it at the graduate level
• Need for approval of dual-listed Topics courses
• Need for cap on enrollment in dual-listed courses
• Assurance of department discretion on creation of dual-listed courses
• Language about accreditation issues
7.
Intellectual Property Policy. First Reading.
Grace Liu (Office of Research and Supported Programs) provided
background for the proposed revision of the policy. The current policy,
based largely on the policy from CSU San Luis Obispo, was drafted and
approved as an interim policy in 2008. In the implementation of the
policy, there was confusion over the re-payment to the University of
“extraordinary resources.” The revision to the policy is in Part II, D,
University Equity Interests, which states that “The amount of the
University’s equity interest in a particular intellectual property will be
5
Academic Senate Meeting
November 26, 2012
Page 6
agreed upon before pursuing protection/commercialization, and in the
absence of such agreement, will be presumed to be 50%. The University
share will not be greater than 50% of the value of the intellectual
property.
Senator Karr (Music) asked what constitutes “extraordinary resources”
and who defines that. Ms. Liu said that definition is provided in the
policy on page 4, point 12.
Tom McClanahan (Office of Research and Sponsored Programs) provided
additional information. Under the current policy, the inventor receives
money only after the cost of extraordinary resources is repaid to the
university. Under the revised policy, any money from the intellectual
property is split 50/50 between the University and the inventor from the
start. The definition of “extraordinary resources” in the policy is the
Chancellor’s Office definition. The first patent obtained by CSUF faculty
was obtained last year. There has been a second patent obtained. In
addition to the time it takes for a patent to be approved, there are time
lapses from patent to invention and from invention to commercialization.
No money has yet come to the University or the creators of the patents.
Discussion ensued concerning the proposed policy as advantageous to
creators/inventers in comparison to other policies at other universities.
Senator Maldonado asked if a sabbatical would be considered
“extraordinary resource” provided by the University. Provost Covino
answered that sabbaticals are not considered “extraordinary resources.”
Senator Chapman asked if there is a University office that provides
support for the marketing of patents/inventions. Dr. McClanahan said
that the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs assists with the
obtaining of patents but does not assist in marketing. The Lyle Center
does have some resources which could assist in commercialization.
Discussion ensued about any issues which have come up regarding
intellectual property, including the handling of situations in which staff
are involved as co-creators. Dr. McClanahan stated that the main issue
has been making faculty knowledgeable about the policy and getting
faculty to disclose possible patents/inventions to the Office of Research
and Sponsored Programs. In the case of co-creators, including faculty,
Staff, and students, the co-inventors split the 50% amount due to the
inventor.
6
Academic Senate Meeting
November 26, 2012
Page 7
The item will return on the next Agenda of the Academic Senate for
Second Reading.
The Senate adjourned at 5:20pm.
The next scheduled meeting of the Academic Senate will be
announced.
An Agenda will be distributed prior to the meeting.
Submitted by:
Chris Henson, Senator
Department of English Vice-Chair
Academic Senate
Approved by:
Kevin Ayotte
7