ACADEMIC SENATE
of
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
401 Golden Shore, Room 139
Long Beach, California 90802-4210
562-951-4010
MINUTES
Meeting of November 7-8, 2002
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 10:45 a.m. on Thursday,
November 7, 2002, by Chair Jacquelyn Kegley.
ROLL CALL: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield)
Jacquelyn Kegley, John Tarjan; (Channel Islands) Lillian Vega-Castaneda, Observer,
(Chico) Samuel Edelman, Kathleen Kaiser; (Dominguez Hills) Dick Williams*, Rudolph
Vanterpool; (Fresno) Jacinta Amaral, Lester Pincu; (Fullerton) Vincent Buck, Bill Meyer,
Barry Pasternack; (Hayward) Calvin Caplan, Hank Reichman; (Humboldt) Robert Snyder,
Marshelle Thobaben; (Long Beach) David Hood, Craig Smith; (Los Angeles) J. Theodore
Anagnoson, Marshall Cates; (Maritime Academy) James Wheeler; (Monterey Bay) Bobbi
Bonace, J. Ken Nishita; (Northridge) Lynne Cook, Michael Reagan, Barbara Swerkes;
(Pomona) Rochelle Kellner, Marvin Klein; (Sacramento) Cristy Jensen, Thomas Krabacher,
Louise Timmer; (San Bernardino) Buckley Barrett, Tapie Rohm; (San Diego) Brent Rushall,
Thomas Warschauer; (San Francisco) Eunice Aaron, Jan Gregory; (San José) Kenneth Peter,
Bethany Shifflett, Mark Van Selst; (San Luis Obispo) Manzar Foroohar, Reg Gooden*,
Unny Menon; (San Marcos) Dick Montanari; (Sonoma) Philip McGough, Susan McKillop;
(Stanislaus) John Sarraille, Mark Thompson; (Emeriti Faculty) Len Mathy; (Chancellor's
Office) David Spence.
INTRODUCTIONS
During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:
Harold Goldwhite, Faculty Trustee and Professor of Chemistry, CSU Los Angeles
Gary Hammerstrom, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, CSU
Christine Helwick, General Counsel, California State University
Don Moore, CSU Emeritus and Retired Faculty Assoc.(non-voting delegate)
Peter Ucovich, California State Student Association Liaison to Academic Senate
Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU
Margaret Price, Assistant to Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU
Shirley Sparkman, Staff Assistant–Budget, Academic Senate CSU
Tracy Butler, Administrative Assistant, Academic Senate CSU
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS
REPORT OF CHAIR JACQUELYN ANN K. KEGLEY
September-November 2002
ACR-73 Presentation to Board of Trustees, September 17, 2002
During the Educational Policy Committee meeting of the Board of Trustees, Elizabeth
Hoffman, representing California Faculty Association (CFA), David Spence, representing
California State University (CSU) administration, and myself, as Statewide Senate Chair,
made a presentation on ACR-73. Elizabeth set the context by discussing the Assembly
Concurrent Resolution (Strom-Martin) that requested the plan to achieve a 75%-25%
balance of tenured/tenure-track faculty. Elizabeth noted how the three groups, the CFA,
the Academic Senate CSU and the Chancellor’s Office, had worked cooperatively to
develop this eight-year plan and together submitted it officially to the legislature. I noted
the significance of the plan in two senses: (1) As a major cooperative action among the
three parties; and (2) as implementing several key aspects of our Senate document, The
California State University at the Beginning of the 21st Century, including a step to change the
marginal cost funding formula and a move toward reducing the student-faculty ratio
(SFR).
In addition, I pointed out that the plan is an eight-year plan necessary because of the
extended demands on the capacity of the faculty and institutions to engage in an
increasing number of search procedures. I also noted that the success of this plan requires
CSU to be able to make better employment offers to prospective faculty and that these
increased costs are reflected in the ACR-73 Plan. Finally, I told the Board that although
this plan was expensive, it was a very important investment in the future of the CSU and
its mission of providing a high quality education for the citizens of California. David
Spence concluded the presentation by discussing the fiscal aspects of the plan.
ACR-73 Presentation- Academic Senate, CSU Northridge - September 19, 2002
On Thursday, September 19, 2002, I presented a report on ACR-73, in conjunction with
Senator Michael Reagan and President Jolene Koester, to the senate at CSU Northridge.
All three of us stressed the significance of this three-way agreement as a major step
forward in cooperative action by the Chancellor’s Office, the CFA, and the Academic
Senate CSU. In addition, I repeated the major points on the plan that I had presented to
the Board of Trustees. The presentation was well received and Northridge senate
members raised some good points.
14th Annual Envisioning California Conference: Moving California’s Master Plan for
Higher Education into the 21st Century - Sacramento, September 26-27, 2002
Six senators attended the two-day conference on the revision of the Master Plan for Higher
Education sponsored by the Center for California Studies and the Institute for Higher
Education Leadership & Policy, CSU Sacramento, and the Center for Southern California
Studies, CSU Northridge.
2
Cristy Jensen and Bob Cherny and myself were participants and Susan McKillop, James
Wheeler and Tom Krabacher were attendees. The CSU was represented as well by
Chancellor Reed, Executive Vice Chancellor David Spence; and other members of the
Chancellor’s Office and two Trustees.
The meetings were intense, at times politely contentious, but always instructive. Players
from all sectors of higher education in California were represented. Attendees included
staff from the Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education, faculty members and
administrators from 15 CSU campuses, 6 University of California (UC) campuses, 22
California Community Colleges (CCC), a number of independent postsecondary
institutions, the central administrations of all three sectors and the independent
institutions, educational researchers and policy makers, political representatives, student
body leaders, heads of the statewide academic senates, Daniel Weintraub and Dan Walters
of the Sacramento Bee, organizations concerned with higher education in California
including policy makers within the State, from across the nation, and international venues.
Representatives were also present from the offices of the Governor, the Speaker, the
Legislative Analyst, legislative staff, two legislators, administrators and faculty from
public and private high schools, representatives from the unions, Parent-Teacher
Association (PTA) and others.
I participated in a panel, along with Gayle Binion, President of the UC Academic Council;
Linda Collins, former Chair of the CCC Academic Senate; and William Tierney, Professor
of Public Policy, USC, on shared governance in the coming decade. The panel was chaired
by Cristy Jensen. A major question addressed was the survival of intersegmental
cooperation. I argued that the faculty must take a leadership role in addressing all the
complexities of transfer as well as seeking to facilitate constructive cooperation among the
segments. The problems in higher education facing California cannot be solved by a "silo"
approach.
The Task Force on Facilitating Graduation - San Francisco, October 4, 2002
The fourth meeting of the Task Force on Facilitating Graduation, co-chaired by your Chair
and Provost Luanne Kennedy (CSU Northridge), focused on finalizing their draft report
and a set of recommendations on strategies and policies for facilitating student progress
toward graduation. The discussion was enhanced by the presence and full participation of
four Trustees: Roberta Achtenberg, Chair of the Trustee Educational Policy Committee;
Shailesh J. Mehta; Ralph Pesqueira; and Erene Thomas, Student Trustee. This report and
the recommendations will be submitted to various constituencies in the CSU by midNovember.
Campus Senate Chairs Meeting - October 10, 2002
The meeting with the Campus Senate Chairs featured a budget workshop. A panel
discussed both system and campus budgeting processes with the purpose of empowering
campus academic senates to become more meaningfully involved in budget planning on
their individual campuses. The panel included: Patrick Lenz, CSU Assistant Chancellor,
Budget Development; William Griffith, Vice President, Administration/Finance, CSULB;
David Hood, Vice Chair, ASCSU and Chair, Financial Affairs Council, CSULB; and
3
William Fasse, Chair, Academic Senate, CSU Fresno. The three campus representatives
shared insights on budget planning and development as it occurred on their campuses.
David Spence joined the group to discuss enrollment management policies. There was
also discussion of electronic voting led by Dick Montanari; the 56-60 semester unit increase
for transfer students led by Bob Snyder; and e-mail privacy and whistle-blowing issues led
by Bethany Shifflett.
Intersegmental Coordinating Council Retreat - Sacramento- October 22-23, 2002
The Intersegmental Coordinating Council held a retreat in Sacramento on October 22-23.
The meeting commenced with a report on the new federal legislation, "No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001." This review was presented by Jan Somerville. Leslie Fausset and Bill
Vasey from the California Department of Education then enlightened the group about the
many complications the implementation of this bill create for California. After lunch
Chuck Lindahl gave a brief history of ICC and the California Round Table and then
reviewed the findings of the recent self-assessment survey of ICC. There was much
discussion of the results and actions that needed to be taken to improve the effectiveness
of ICC and its related groups. Wednesday was devoted to a review of the five Round
Table Initiatives and to developing plans for the year to implement and fulfill the goals of
these initiatives.
The first initiative is "Alignment of K-12 Standards and Assessments and Higher
Education Admissions and Placements Processes," the work of the CSU and its faculty to
augment the California Standards Test in English and mathematics to allow diagnostic
work, placement, and ability to enter CSU without remedial work. Those students who do
not achieve the scores needed for EPT and ELM waiver will have the opportunity to build
skills in the 12th grade through additional course work. This presumably will allow them
to pass the EPT and ELM. A pilot will be conducted in spring 2003. The other four
initiatives are: (2) "Mobilizing the Resources of All Educational Sectors to Enrich the
Capacity of the Teaching Profession in order that Students will reach High Standards”; (3)
"Expansion of Collaboration in Administrative Applications of Technology;" (4) "Intensify
the Delivery of Services Designed to Prepare Students Academically and Inform Them
About College" and (5) "Strengthen the Transfer Process Among and Within Higher
Education." Especially interesting for the Senate is the last initiative. A new ICC Transfer
Committee has been established, chaired by Marie B. Smith, President of American River
College, Sacramento. Kathy Kaiser and Ray Boddy have been appointed to serve on this
committee. In addition, as Chair of ICAS, I have established a faculty Task Force on
Transfer composed of four senators from each of the three Higher Education segments.
Our Senate representatives on that Task Force are Cristy Jensen, Bob Snyder, and Ken
Nishita, and myself. Transfer is a high priority for the legislature and for all segments.
Task Force on Workload- October 24
The Task Force on Workload met at LAX on October 24 to review the "Comparable Faculty
Workload Report," i.e., the results from the survey of comparable institutions across the
United States on the issues surveyed for the CSU last year. This Task Force has
membership from the Senate, CFA, the Chancellor’s Office and the Provosts for Academic
4
Affairs. There was extensive discussion of the report and some suggestions for some new
tables and summary text. There was also excellent discussion of possible conclusions and
recommendations. A draft press release will be developed; the report will be finalized and
the Task Force will most likely meet on December 14. This has been an excellent
cooperative effort and we look forward to final recommendations.
*****
Standing Committee Reports:
Academic Affairs Committee Chair Robert Snyder reported that AAC has an enrollment
management survey that is now out to campuses. We are interested in the extent of faculty
involvement in enrollment management decisions. We are looking at a report and/or a
resolution on the issue later in the year. California Postsecondary Education Commission
(CPEC) is going to make a report on principles regarding student fees to the legislature in
early December. We will watch what comes out of this process and work with the Senate
Fiscal & Governmental Affairs Committee(FGA) on any legislation. We will not bring a
resolution at this time. The Nursing Core Alignment project has asked for a systemwide
waiver for general education requirements. This would require a change in Executive
Order (EO) 595, which currently requires that any request by a high-unit major for a
General Education (GE) waiver begin at the campus level. We feel that curriculum review
has to begin at the campus level and cannot bypass this level. We discussed a request to
recommend a systemwide review of upper-division general education and decided not to
recommend such action at this time. The Task Force on Intellectual Property is near a
finished document. We will take this up in January.
Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations (TEKR) In September TEKR
asked the Senate and campus senate chairs to take leadership in encouraging campus
colleagues to participate in the California Commission on Teaching Credentialing (CCTC)
field review of proposed standards for accreditation of programs that prepare teachers for
single subject teaching credentials. The review addressed program standards for Science,
math, English and social science as well as common standards that will apply in all single
subject areas. TEKR thanks the Academic Senate, the campus senate chairs and campus
faculty for their contributions. It was a very tight timeline, but the CSU accomplished
much.
The draft policy report to be presented to the CCTC in December when the standards are
to be adopted notes that there were 317 responses submitted to the Commission by the
end of October. The report states:
Over 80% of all responses were from higher education faculty at colleges and
universities in California. Over 70% of responses were received from academic
departments or faculty in the CSU system. Responses were received from all twentythree CSU campuses, five UC campuses, and fourteen private or independent
institutions.
Staff is indebted to the members of the CSU Academic Senate for making copies of the
surveys, and distributing them to the academic departments at all twenty-three
5
campuses. The involvement of the Academic Senate was a major reason that more than
70% of responses came from faculty at CSU campuses.
In its October and November meetings TEKR identified two particular areas of concern
arising from many campuses relative to SB 2042 to bring to the attention of the Senate: (1)
Campuses have voiced serious concerns about the tedious document review and approval
process in which it is perceived that standards are unevenly interpreted and applied.
TEKR has discussed this with CCTC and has been invited to solicit additional faculty
reviewers even though the original reviewer selection process has ended. TEKR will be
forwarding a Call for Reviewers and asks that senators help to ensure the development of
an expanded pool of reviewers who are able to take a broad perspective in reviewing
programs. (2) A series of assessments for teacher candidates is being developed by
Educational Testing Service (ETS) under a $3 million contract from CCTC. Faculty have
many concerns about these Teacher Performance Assessments (TPAs) and their
implications for academic freedom and program autonomy. There is also widespread
concern about the implementation costs to campuses. TEKR has consulted with the
Education Deans and with Executive Vice Chancellor Spence and is confident that
committee concerns are being presented for the record at the November 7 CCTC meeting.
Initial discussions with CCTC have resulted in informal agreements that oversight of TPA
implementation will take budgetary and staffing restrictions into account. TEKR will join
Executive Vice Chancellor Spence in continuing dialogue and development of a
memorandum of understanding with CCTC. TEKR will report progress to the Senate.
Chair Cook noted that the multiple teacher credentialing reforms, primarily associated
with SB 2042, are at various stages of development and implementation. Due to the
complexity and number of reforms, rather than reporting on them orally, the committee
will develop and distribute a summary document that provides an overview of the new
and proposed standards and indicates the timelines associated with each.
Harold Goldwhite, Faculty Trustee Report of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees will meet at the office of the Chancellor on November 12-13, 2002.
Here are some of the agenda items that may be of interest. The full Board agenda can be
viewed at www.calstate.edu/BOT/agendas/
After a closed session on review of executives and confidential legal matters, the
Committee on Collective Bargaining will meet early Tuesday afternoon. The Committee
on Institutional Advancement will take action on a Title 5 change which will regulate
alumni associations. A joint meeting of Campus Planning and Educational Policies
Committees will hear a first reading of an update on Board policies regarding campus
enrollment ceilings and enrollment management. The Committees will hear how
enrollment ceilings have been determined and what measures may be required to handle
growing enrollment pressures. "The CSU is growing at the rate of a campus the size of
Hayward every year."
The Committee on Finance will receive the annual student fee report. The text makes
instructive reading. CSU average student fees are $1926/y with a range of $1724-$2834.
Systemwide average cost of education is $10,007/FTES. The average fee in our national
6
comparison group is $4584/y with a range of $1926 (CSU) - $7308. (Given the State's
current fiscal crisis, a debate on higher education fees seems likely in the near future.)
The Committee on Campus Planning, Buildings and grounds will receive the annual
seismic review. "As of September 2002 the majority of CSU buildings identified as posing a
life-safety hazard...have been mitigated."
The Committee on Governmental relations will no doubt hear an analysis of the
November election results and their expected impact on the CSU.
The Committee on University and Faculty Personnel will act on the Chancellor's
recommendation of an across-the-board executive salary increase of 1.68%. The current lag
in executive salaries in the CSU with respect to the comparison institution group is over
21%, and as I reported earlier the Board has established an Ad Hoc Committee to study
this question. The Ad Hoc Committee on off-campus facilities will hear a report on the
CSU Fullerton El Toro center.
The Committee on Educational Policy will have the first reading on a recommendation
from the Admission Advisory Council for a Title 5 amendment requiring that a student
complete 60 or more transferable semester units (rather than the current 56) to establish
eligibility as an upper-division transfer. The Committee will also receive the second
biannual report on the accountability process, and a report from the CSU Presidents'
Commission on Teacher Education.
7
ACTION
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The November minutes, having been moved and seconded,
were approved.
AS-2582-02/AA
RESOLVED:
MODIFICATION OF UPPER-DIVISION ADMISSION
REQUIREMENTS
That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU)
recommend that the Board of Trustees of the CSU amend Title 5, California
Code of Regulations, to require students to complete 60 transferable
semester units (90 quarter units) to establish eligibility for admission as an
upper-division transfer student to a CSU institution.
RATIONALE: A change from 56 transferable semester units (84 quarter units) to
60 transferable semester units (90 quarter units) to establish eligibility as upperdivision transfers has been recommended by the Admission Advisory Council. To
establish junior level standing, 60 semester (90 quarter units) are required. The
current definition of upper-division eligibility is confusing to students because
transferring with 56 semester units (84 quarter units) does not establish junior
level standing. Students with 60 transferable semester units (90 quarter units)
can register as juniors instead of sophomores and, therefore, have a better chance of
enrolling in courses needed for graduation. Juniors are also eligible for more
financial aid than sophomores based on federal loan limits. A 60-semester unit (90
quarter unit) upper-division admission requirement would also simplify external
reporting requirements. Sixty semester units (90 quarter units) represent four
semesters (six quarters) of full-time study for timely progress toward the
baccalaureate degree. This is an appropriate benchmark for establishing upperdivision transfer requirements for those students who were not eligible to attend
the CSU upon graduation from high school.
Title 5 currently requires a student to have 56 transferable semester units (84
quarter units) to qualify for upper-division transfer. Students must have a GPA of
2.0 and have completed (with a C or better in each course) at least 30 semester
units (45 quarter units) of General Education. This must include all GE
requirements in oral communication, English, critical thinking and quantitative
reasoning. Students who have completed all lower-division General Education
requirements in Areas A, B, C, D and E; and two institutions courses will usually
have between 36 and 39 semester units (54 and 59 quarter units) to transfer. This
is because Area B courses often have higher unit counts and most campuses allow
double counting of the institutions courses in Area D. Students who use the rest
of the units to complete lower-division major requirements or general electives.
8
Those students in higher-unit majors can complete the minimum General
Education requirements (30 semester units/45 quarter units) and concentrate on
satisfying lower-division major requirements in order to make more timely
progress toward completion of major requirements once they transfer. Title 5,
Section 40805, allows campuses to offer exceptions to the stipulated number of
transfer units rule in cases where lower-division major requirements are not
available at the student’s community college. Those students may arrange to
transfer sooner with permission of the CSU campus. The 56-semester unit (84
quarter unit) requirement does not apply to students eligible for lower-division
transfer. Those students were eligible for admission to a CSU campus from high
school and are admitted using different criteria. A variety of enrollment
management techniques available to the campuses apply to both categories of
students.
AS-2582-02/AA motion approved.
ATTACHMENT
§40805. Applicants with Particular Majors.
· Note
·
History
An applicant not eligible under Section 40804 or 40804.1 may be admitted to a campus as an
undergraduate transfer upon satisfaction of the requirements of each of the following subdivisions:
(a) The applicant has completed satisfactorily the comprehensive pattern of college preparatory
subjects defined in subsection (n) of Section 40601 or an alternative program determined by the
Chancellor to be equivalent;
(b) The degree objective is such that at least 56 semester units, or the equivalent, of appropriate
course work are not offered at the college from which the applicant seeks to transfer;
(c) The applicant has completed that portion of the curricular program required by the campus for
the degree objective, as is offered at the college from which the applicant seeks to transfer;
(d) The applicant has attained a grade point average of 2.0 (grade of C) or better in all transferable
college work attempted;
(e) The applicant was in good standing at the last college attended.
NOTE
Authority cited: Section 89030. Education Code. Reference: Section 89030, Education Code.
HISTORY
1. Amendment of section and NOTE filed 4-29-77; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 77.
No. 18). For prior history, see Registers 73: No. 25 and 72, No. 35.
2. Amendment filed 3-19-82; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 82. No. 12).
3. Amendment filed 8-4-83; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 83. No. 32).
4. Amendment of subsection (a) filed 9-3-87; operative 10-3-87 (Register 87. No. 3
AS-2583-02/FLOOR
RESOLVED:
AMENDMENT TO BYLAW 2a
That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) adopt
the following amendment to its Bylaws, as section 2a:
Bylaw 2 - Officers, Duties and Procedures for Nomination and Election
9
a. Officers
The Senate annually shall elect a Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary; and two
Members-at Large. These officers of the Senate shall serve until
regularly succeeded. , but for no more than two years consecutively in
the same office. This limitation does not apply to members of the
Executive Committee in their current positions at the time this is
adopted.
RATIONALE: This addition to the bylaws sets two years as the norm for service
in any given position on the Executive Committee. This is not a two-year term
limit on Executive Committee service, but a limit for service in any one position.
As a collegial body the Senate benefits by having these duties rotated and by
providing this experience to a cross section of the body. It will provide for better
communication between the Senate and the Executive Committee and a better
understanding in the Senate of the duties of the Executive Committee. There is
adequate talent in the Senate to rotate these positions on a regular basis. If any
given individual is viewed as making an especially valuable contribution to the
Executive Committee she/he could be elected to a different position after two years
(i.e., secretary rather than vice-chair). Additionally this two-year limit would
provide for a more regularized change in leadership and allow the Senate and
individual senators to anticipate this change and plan accordingly.
Bylaws are changed by a simple majority vote of the Senate. A proposed bylaw
change must be introduced at one meeting and voted on at the next meeting.
AS-2583-02/AA motion approved.
AS-2585-02/FA
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
RESOLVED:
That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) call on
campus academic senates to work with their local administrations to
review, develop, and approve campus policies on “whistle blower”
protection, which
a) Are consistent with the provisions of Section 8547.12(c) of the
Government Code, a part of the California Whistleblower Protection
Act, as applied to the CSU by Chancellor’s Executive Orders 821 and
822 of May 23, 2002; and
b) Designate an individual on campus to receive such complaints and
evaluate compliance with the order.
and be it further
RESOLVED:
That the Academic Senate CSU call on campus senates to work with their
local administrations to educate faculty and staff about the existence and
provisions of both the Executive Orders and campus policy.
10
RATIONALE: Whistle-blower complaints at the CSU have roughly
doubled since 1999. However, in some instances of administrative, staff or
faculty misconduct, those aware of the misconduct may be afraid to come
forward. The California Whistleblower Protection Act establishes a
procedure for responding to complaints filed under the Act and protects
designated whistle-blowers from retaliation. The Chancellor’s Executive
Orders were promulgated both to fulfill the requirements of the Act and to
address recent complaints which suggest that many ambiguities left the
University open to unnecessary legal risks. The Executive Order
specifically indicates that “each campus president is responsible for
developing and issuing a campus directive implementing” the
requirements of the Order. Strong campus policies protecting whistleblowers can alleviate employee fears and enable the university to curtail
wrongdoing more quickly. Experience suggests that university policies are
most effective when developed and implemented in collaboration with
faculty.
AS-2585-02/FA will be a second reading item at the January 23-24, 2003, meeting.
AS-2586-02/FA
AFFIRMING THE ROLE OF FACULTY IN DEVELOPMENT
AND PLACEMENT OF CURRICULA IN THE CALIFORNIA
STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
RESOLVED:
That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) again
strongly reaffirm the basic principles articulated in Principles and Policies:
Papers of the Academic Senate CSU about the primary role of faculty in the
development of academic programs, course development, and recruitment
decisions affecting curriculum; and be it further
RESOLVED:
That the Academic Senate CSU encourage all campus presidents and other
academic administrators to develop the widest possible consultation
processes with college or school faculty on creation, funding, placement in
the academic organization of the campus and implementation of new
academic programs, courses, or other curricular changes; and be it further
RESOLVED:
That the Academic Senate CSU affirm that these principles shall apply
regardless of external guidance or funding that may accompany the
development of new courses or programs.
RATIONALE: Principles and Policies: Papers of the Academic Senate CSU
defines the respective roles and responsibilities of various constituencies in
the CSU, specifying that “responsibility shall be vested in the faculty or its
elected senate/council representatives for developing policies and making
recommendations to the campus presidents” on a variety of matters,
including “curricular policies, such as . . . approval of new courses and
11
programs . . . and academic standards.” That role may be undermined by
the actions of groups or individuals from outside the faculty--including
government officials, community groups and private-sector interests--who
wish to influence the nature of academic programs or individual courses.
Particularly in times of budget shortfall or perceived crisis of other kinds,
the pressure exerted by individuals or groups outside the university may
appear persuasive enough to induce members of university communities to
act without regard for the long-established principles developed by the
American Association of University Professors (AAUP), embedded in
Principles and Policies, and later endorsed by the Board of Trustees, CSU.
The principles here described were reaffirmed by the Senate in September
1994 in a resolution entitled “Reaffirmation of Faculty Curricular
Prerogatives” (AS-2227-94/AA).
AS-2586-02/FA will be a second reading item at the January 23-24, 2003, meeting.
AS-2587-02/FA
ACCESS AND DISCLOSURE OF THE CONTENTS
OF COMMUNICATIONS
AS-2587-02/FA motion, a placeholder, was withdrawn.
AS-2589-02/FLOOR
RESOLVED:
BYLAW 9
That the Academic Senate of the California State University create a
9th Bylaw, as follows:
1. The Executive Committee shall be responsible for implementing the
apportionment and reapportionment of Senate seats using the formula
listed in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution. Each year it shall
conduct a "census" using the most recent and reliable Fall FTEF data
to determine whether reapportionment of seats among campuses is
necessary. The results shall be announced by the end of January of
each year.
2. When new seats are added to the Senate due to the addition of
campuses or constitutional revisions, these seats shall be filled in the
next spring election cycle following the Executive Committee's
completion of the census.
3. Whenever reapportionment results in a campus losing a seat, the seat
lost shall be the first seat to complete its three-year term following the
announcement of the reapportionment, and the seat shall not be lost
until the three-year term expires.
12
4. Whenever a campus is entitled to a new seat, the Executive
Committee shall determine whether the length of the first term for
that seat shall be 1, 2, or 3 years. In making this determination, the
Executive Committee shall attempt to stagger the years in which that
campus's seats expire, so as to maximize continuity in representation
from that campus.
RATIONALE: This Bylaw concerns apportionment of Senate seats,
prepared by the special committee appointed for this task. The purpose of
this bylaw is to give the Senate a transparent procedure for implementation
of the new constitutional amendment and for keeping apportionment up to
date in the future.
AS-2589-02/FA will be a second reading item at the January 23-24, 2003, meeting.
AS-2588-02/FA/FGA
CALL FOR RECONSIDERATON OF TRUSTEES’
PROPOSED BUDGET
RESOLVED:
That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) reaffirm
the resolutions entitled “Short-Term Budget Priorities for 2002-2003 and
2003-2004” (AS-2572-02) and “Priorities for Strategic Budget Planning”
(AS-2573-02) adopted in May 2002 (see attached); and be it further
RESOLVED:
That the Academic Senate CSU find that the budget proposal adopted by
the CSU Board of Trustees on October 31, 2002, fails to address key budget
priorities in the previously cited Senate resolutions; and be it further
RESOLVED:
That the budget proposal adopted by the Board of Trustees is inconsistent
with Senate budget priorities in that it:
● provides for only a 1% faculty salary increase within the partnership
agreement;
● seeks funding for salary costs already funded under previous
legislative allocations;
● sets the interests of faculty and university staff against each other
through an attempt to achieve “salary parity”;
● fails to cover first-year costs of ACR-73 in the partnership agreement;
and be it further
RESOLVED:
That the Academic Senate CSU call upon the Chancellor and the Board of
Trustees to develop a budget request for 2003-2004 consistent with the
priorities clearly enunciated by the Chancellor, the Senate, and other CSU
faculty representatives; and be it further
RESOLVED:
That the Academic Senate CSU encourage the Chancellor to engage in
meaningful dialogue and collaborate with the Senate to develop strategies
13
to apply Senate budget and strategic planning priorities in revising the
current and devising future budgets.
RATIONALE: Funding to adjust faculty salaries to a level that makes CSU
competitive in recruiting new faculty was a high priority in both short-term (AS2572-02/FGA) and long-term (AS-2573-02/FGA) budget goals of the Senate
adopted in May 2002. In response, Executive Vice Chancellor David Spence stated
that “The resolutions received are important views that influence CSU budget
decisions and recommendations to the board of Trustees, and they are appreciated
for articulating the view of the CSU faculty.”
The CPEC gap continues to grow under the deficit budget conditions that exist
today and in the foreseeable future. ACR-73 has challenged the CSU to raise fulltime tenure track faculty to 75% of total faculty. Below-market starting salaries,
meager raises, heavy workloads, and high living costs make faculty recruitment
and retention difficult. Experience shows that requests within the partnership
portion of the CSU budget proposal have a much higher likelihood of being
achieved than items, however worthy, in the augmentation portion, “below the
line.” The Chancellor has stated publicly that improving faculty salaries by
closing the CPEC salary gap is one of his top priorities; this gap currently stands
at 10.6 %. The Chancellor, moreover, has called for a culture of unity and trust
within the CSU. A first step in establishing this trust is to engage in sincere
efforts to implement the Senate budget priorities.
The Board of Trustees on October 31 rejected an amendment to the Chancellor’s
proposed budget request that would have given high priority to compensation
increases for all employees, including faculty.
AS-2588-02/FA/FGA motion approved.
ATTACHMENT I
AS-2572-02/FGA
May 2-3, 2002
Short-Term CSU Budget Priorities for 2002-2003 and 2003-2004
RESOLVED:
That in order to ensure that the California State University retain the ability
to provide the people of California with readily accessible and high quality
education in these times of high enrollment demand and extreme fiscal
uncertainty, the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU)
endorse the following budget priorities and urge their use in potential
adjustments to the 2002-2003 budget and the development of the CSU
Trustees proposed budget for the 2003-2004 academic year:
• That the CSU receive full marginal cost funding for all students that it
admits.
14
• That the full partnership agreement be honored, particularly those
provisions addressing state funding of the CSU.
• That sufficient resources be provided to support both the necessary
searches for and the salary levels required to attract and retain high
quality faculty counselors and librarians.
• That support for CSU libraries be increased in order to begin restoring
the cuts in human and information resources experienced during the
late 1980s and early 1990s.
• That the CSU seek full funding to adjust CSU faculty salaries to achieve
parity with comparison institutions as established and published by
the California Post-Secondary Education Commission (CPEC).
• That budgets include funding to enable the CSU to begin reducing the
current student-faculty and student tenure-track faculty ratios to levels
typical before the fiscal crisis of the early 1990s, including (a) changing
the formula for determining full-time equivalent graduate student
enrollment from the current 15 units per term to 12 units and (b)
revision of the marginal cost formula to reduce the specified studentfaculty ratio to the average level of the 1980s; and be it further
RESOLVED:
That these priorities be communicated by the Executive Committee to the
Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and his staff to assure the
greatest impact during the 2002 summer’s decision making.
RATIONALE: The Academic Senate of the CSU recognizes that the state of
California is entering a period of severe budgetary constraint and that the
resources necessary to meet many of its needs will not be available for the near
future. At the same time, however, the CSU is facing enrollment increases
unprecedented in recent years. If the CSU is to accommodate this demand while at
the same time continuing to provide all students with a quality education, it is
necessary that certain minimum funding needs in areas of enrollment, faculty
recruitment and retention, and library resources must be met. Without this
support, the ability of the CSU to provide students a quality education is in
jeopardy. Providing access to higher education without the ability to also provide a
quality education ultimately serves no one, not the student, not the CSU, and not
the people of California.
ATTACHMENT II
AS-2573-02/FGA
May 2-3, 2002
Priorities for Strategic Budget Planning
RESOLVED:
That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) endorse
the following budget priorities drawn from the report, The California State
University at the Beginning of the 21st Century, adopted by the Academic
15
Senate CSU in September 2001 to be used in the development of future
CSU Trustee budgets:
A. Seek full funding to adjust CSU faculty salaries to achieve parity with
comparison institutions. Experience over the past decade strongly
suggests that the only way to close the salary gap is to seek full
funding for the established CPEC parity figure. Accordingly, we urge
that the budget request funding for the full parity figure.
B. Seek specific funding to begin the process of reducing the current studentfaculty ratio to the level typical before the state's fiscal crisis of the early
1990s. We recommend that this be done in the following ways:
• Request supplemental funding to define a full-time equivalent
graduate student as one carrying 12 units rather than 15 with no
overall increase in the student-faculty ratio.
• Request that the marginal cost formula be revised to specify a
student-faculty ratio of 18.2:1 rather than the current level of
18.9:1; a student-faculty ratio of 18.2 represents the average
student-faculty ratio during the 1980s.
• Seek specific funding for the purpose of reducing class size,
to be apportioned to all the campuses.
C. Seek funding to begin the process augmenting CSU library collections and
restore library staffing. We suggest a specific budget supplement for this
purpose, one designed, over time, to fully restore library staffing and to
restore library budgets to at least their purchasing power of the early 1980s.
D. Seek specific funding to establish incentives to attract new faculty
members of the highest quality; hire additional tenure-track faculty
and improve funding for searches and reduce the current proportion of
lecturers. Toward this end, we recommend that the budget:
• Request that the marginal cost formula be revised to specify an
entry-level salary equal to the average entry-level salary in the
most recent academic year plus whatever salary increase has been
approved for the coming academic year. This will go far toward
ensuring that funds for increased enrollment will permit the hiring
of new tenure-track faculty members rather than forcing reliance
on less expensive lecturers.
• Seek specific funding for housing subsidies or subsidized housing
for junior faculty members, including moving expenses for newly
hired faculty members.
E. Seek specific funding to remedy insufficiencies due to delayed
maintenance and delayed purchasing during the early 1990s; bring
state-of-the-art technology to more CSU classrooms; improve the
16
current CSU physical plant to provide adequate facilities for existing
programs and for growth.
F. Seek specific funding to provide additional sabbaticals and other
research support for CSU faculty and to reconfigure the CSU faculty
workload so that a minimum of one-fifth may be devoted to faculty
development (including research, scholarship, and creative activity).
We recognize that this is potentially a costly project, but we urge that a
beginning be made to address these needs in future budgets to address
these needs, and that the CSU develop a long-term plan to accomplish
this goal over the next five years.
G. Seek specific funding to increase the number of secretarial/clerical staff
and technical staff who provide services to faculty and students, and to
improve staff wages and benefits to attract and retain the best quality
staff in these positions: and be it further
RESOLVED:
That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Chancellor of the CSU,
the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, CSU, and his staff and
the CSU Board of Trustees; and be it further
RESOLVED:
That the Executive Committee be directed to establish a process of
advocating these priorities throughout both the summer and the traditional
academic year.
RATIONALE: While the California State University (CSU) will be facing
significant and immediate budget challenges as a result of constraints on state
funding, it is nonetheless important that the CSU engage in broader strategic
planning aimed at addressing the longer-term needs of the CSU. In September
2001, the Academic Senate of the California State University adopted The
California State University at the Beginning of the 21st Century, a survey of the
experience of the CSU during the decade past and projections for the CSU in the
decade to come. This report includes a series of budget recommendations that
address the changes that will be necessary if the CSU is to meet the challenges of
the next decade. The letter of transmittal for that document states, in part:
It was never our expectation that our recommendations for funding
would be––or could be––immediately implemented, even in a period of
budget surplus. It has always been our hope, however, that our
analyses of the state of the CSU will inform future budget planning
and that our recommendations for both policy and funding will define
goals for the coming decade. We look forward to working
cooperatively and collegially with the CSU faculty, administration,
Trustees, and, as necessary, the legislature to develop these
recommendations into concrete proposals that will permit the CSU
17
not only to meet the challenges it now faces but also to serve better the
people of California.
It was the intention of the Academic Senate CSU that the recommendations be
implemented gradually, over the coming decade, as funding permits. Because these
goals are intended to inform and guide long-term planning, it is, therefore,
impossible to put a specific price either on a specific recommendation or on the
entire set of recommendations. The cost will depend both on circumstances at the
time when the recommendation is first implemented and on the length of time it
takes to provide full funding for the recommendation. The Academic Senate CSU
recognizes that the CSU is currently operating in a time of severe fiscal constraint.
Nonetheless, it urges that, in preparing its budget proposals for fiscal year 20032004 and beyond, the CSU give priority to the recommendations in this resolution.
ATTACHMENT III
2003/04 CSU Support Budget - Gold Book Final Draft 3 (5% Enrollment Growth)
Sources of Funds
Partnership Funding Agreement Base Budget Calculation
2002/03 Final General Fund Budget
Less: Lease Bond Payments and Deferred Maintenance Borrowing Debt Service Payments
Plus: Restore Funding for 2002/03 One-Time Long-Term Need Reduction
Total, CSU 2003/04 Base Budget General Fund Support
Partnership Agreement
4% Increase for General Operations ($2,652,583,000 x .04)
1% Increase for Long-Term Need ($2,652,583,000 x .01)
Full State Marginal Cost for 5% Enrollment Growth @ $6,594 per FTES
State Marginal Cost Supplement for YRO Conversion
Partnership Revenue Agreement
Revenue from Enrollment Growth
Revenue from YRO Conversions (@ 2002/03 marginal cost rate)
Buy Out Revenue from Increase in State University Fee Rates
SUBTOTAL, PARTNERSHIP REVENUE ESTIMATE 2003/04
2002/03 Unfunded Partnership Revenue
Total Sources of Funds
Use of Funds
Mandatory Costs
Full-Year Cost of Faculty (Unit 3) Compensation Agreement (2.64% Increase)
Full-Year Cost of Non-Faculty Compensation Agreement (.18% Increase)
Cost of Unit 6 2003/04 Compensation Agreement (2% Increase)
Health Benefits Rate Increase
Insurance Premium Increases
New Space
Total, Mandatory Costs
Enrollment Growth - 16,057 FTES (5% Increase)
Enrollment Growth YRO Conversions - 1,683 FTES
Financial Aid
Long-Term Need
Technology-Network Equipment
Libraries
Deferred Maintenance
$2,680,280,000
(65,697,000)
38,000,000
$2,652,583,000
$106,103,000
26,526,000
105,880,000
7,713,000
28,238,000
2,065,000
16,294,000
$292,819,000
115,840,000
$408,659,000
$29,920,000
1,917,000
979,000
32,206,000
7,265,000
6,322,000
$78,609,000
$118,934,000
$9,778,000
$8,960,000
$5,000,000
10,000,000
11,526,000
$26,526,000
18
Non-Faculty Compensation Adjustment for Parity with Faculty Agreement (2.46% Increase)
General Compensation Increase; 1% Increase for all employees (excludes Unit 6)
SUBTOTAL, 2003/04 PARTNERSHIP FUNDING AGREEMENT
$26,573,000
$23,439,000
$292,819,000
Compensation (3% effective July 1 = $37.3 million Faculty; $34 million non-faculty - excludes 1% Unit 6)
$71,295,000
ACR 73 First Year Cost Requirement
Maintain Faculty Position Base
Marginal Cost Supplement for Enrollment Growth Faculty at Average New Hire Rate
SFR 18.0 to I First Year Phase In Cost
Total, First Year ACR 73 Cost Requirement
$5,800,000
16,791,000
13,024,000
$35,615,000
Off-Campus Centers (at $991,000 per Center over 500 FTES)
High Cost Academic Programs (Nursing, Agriculture, Engineering, Computer and Bio Technology)
Total Use of Funds
$2,973,000
$5,957,000
$408,659,000
CSU Budget Office
October 14, 2002
The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m. on Friday, November 8, 2002.
*****
Approved (or corrected)
Date:________________________
_______________________________
Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, Chair
_______________________________
Les Pincu, Secretary
________________________________
Margaret Price, Recording Secretary
19