Minutes of the Academic Senate
April 24, 2014
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Keith Ogawa at 3:00 p.m. on April 24, 2014. Roll was
called and the following Senators were present: Chairperson Keith Ogawa, Past Chairperson Claude Malary,
Interim Vice Chairperson Charles Hamaker, Peter Freund, Laura Heid, Jeannine King, Ronald Olowin,
David Quijada, Martin Rokeach, and Parliamentarian Helga Lénárt-Cheng. Absent with notice was Berna
Aksu.
Also present were: Hisham Ahmed, Associate Dean Shawney Anderson, Michael Barram, Jerry Brunetti,
Valerie Burke, Vidya Chandrasekaran, Steve Cortright, Provost Beth Dobkin, Zach Flanagin, Elizabeth
Hamm, Jennifer Heung, Associate Dean Larisa Genin, CTO Peter Greco, Dean Pat Kreitz, Dean Zhan Li,
Barbara McGraw, Registrar Julia Odom, Chris Procello, Ellen Rigsby, Mari-Anne Rosario, Maria L. Ruiz,
Myrna Santiago, Jim Sauerberg, Gregg Thomson, Ted Tsukahara, Dean Roy Wensley, Dean Steve Woolpert,
and Paul Zarnoth.
2.
Minutes of the March 27, 2014 meeting were approved as submitted.
REPORTS
3. Chairperson's Report - Chair Ogawa reported that he met with the Department Chairs and Directors.
The Chairs/Directors have submitted several Resolutions which are listed under New Business.
The Academic Administrator's Evaluation Committee has been meeting to update the Faculty Handbook
language and the questionnaires for the evaluation process for academic administrators. There are several
evaluations scheduled for the Fall.
Chair Ogawa introduced and welcomed Hisham Ahmed as the incoming Senate Vice-Chair for next year.
Consent Agenda - UEPC
- Politics 100 - approved on the Consent Agenda.
- PERFA 80 - approved on the Consent Agenda.
- Revisions and Changes to Liberal and Civic Studies - Jerry Brunetti said he has been involved in the
L&CS program for many years. Although he may not object to the proposed changes to the program, he
feels it needs more campus-wide discussion. Chair Ogawa said the L&CS program is a valuable program that
deserves consideration by the Academic Senate. If there is one program or department that reflects Saint
Mary's values, it is L&CS. A MOTION was made by Senator Heid and SECONDED by Senator Rokeach to
remove the Liberal and Civic Studies proposal from the Consent Agenda and place it on the agenda for the
May meeting. The motion was approved by a hand vote of 8-0 with one abstention.
Consent Agenda - GPSEPC
Changes to LEAP and BALOS programs for the core curriculum - approved.
4. Committee on Committees (CoC) - Interim Vice Chairperson and Interim CoC Chair Charles Hamaker
reported that the faculty election cycle is complete. There are a few open positions to be filled by
1
appointment: SEBA representative to the Jan Term Committee and SEBA representative to the Program
Review Company.
5. Report on Nonsmoking Policy and Institutional Learning Outcomes - At the February 14, 2013 Senate
meeting, one of the agenda items was a plea from Dr. Ali Rezapour to adopt a nonsmoking policy on
campus. The motion failed by a vote of 3-3 with four abstentions.
Past Chair Malary reported that the Senate was recently invited to attend a meeting regarding the
nonsmoking campus policy. Surprisingly, it was made known that the Senate's vote was decisive in derailing
the initiative last year. The nonsmoking policy has been reopened, spurred by a letter from the Brothers
Alemany Community supporting the nonsmoking policy and the fact that the University of California system
has now moved to a smoke-free campus. Provost Dobkin said the Senate's decisions are forwarded to her
for approval, however, there are times when further conversation needs to take place and she does relays the
Senate's decisions to the Cabinet. The Senate probably has more influence that it realizes. Past Chair
Malary said there is no action to be taken on the part of the Senate at this time.
Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs) - Past Chair Malary explained that a subcommittee was formed to
develop text, which was forwarded to the UEPC. The UEPC then made a few edits and forwarded the
document on to the AARC for consideration. The document was also forwarded to the Chairs for feedback.
There were a few Chairs that had concerns about their departments; it was recommended to approve the
ILOs noting that there were some exceptions, i.e. Integral and Liberal and Civic Studies. The next/final step
is to forward the ILOs to Vice Provost Sindt. The major different between the original draft and the current
draft has to do with evaluation at the end, the removal of a mandatory gateway type of exam for all majors.
It was felt that each major should have the freedom to make that decision for itself. Mari-Anne Rosario
added that the AARC approved the content; it works for the traditional majors and programs, but
acknowledged that there are a few exceptions. Chair Ogawa said the ILOs must be approved this spring,
prior to the WASC visit in the Fall.
Steve Cortright stated that WASC may scrutinize the SMC programs and the ILOs as the principle criteria.
If there are programs that live outside of the "basket" does that also mean that they live in danger of being
singled out for some type of reprimand from WASC? Provost Dobkin responded that it is impossible to
predict the WASC response. The ILO is designed to state what we expect our students to achieve when they
obtain an undergraduate degree at SMC. The extent to which we can say that the Integral Program is part of
the College that delivers an educational experience with some consistency around the expectations that we
have for our students, the better shape we are in for WASC. It requires further discussion about how to
nuance the ILOs. It is her preference to have ILOs approved in May, even if the conversations continue
about the problematic programs; it is acceptable to let WASC know that we are in continued conversation
about specific programs if the ILOs are already in place.
Chair Ogawa said it appears a broad discussion should be scheduled for the May meeting. Steve Cortright
requested that the Integral document prepared for the UEPC and the AARC be distributed to Senators for the
May meeting.
6. Provost Updates - Provost Dobkin announced the change of date for the Faculty year-end dinner to
Thursday, May 15th.
OLD BUSINESS
2
7. Appointment and Selection Procedures - Due to the length of the Senate agenda, Chair Ogawa asked that
the issue be deferred to the May meeting. A MOTION was made by Interim Vice Chair Hamaker and
SECONDED by Senator Freund to defer the issue to the May meeting. The motion was approved by voice
vote with one abstention.
8. AARC Response to Senate re: consideration of the double major – In May of 2013 the AARC submitted
a recommendation to the Senate regarding double majors, but the issue was not resolved. In October of 2013
the Academic Senate passed the following motion and returned the issue to the AARC (Senate Action S13/14-4):
“That the Senate charge the AARC to continue discussion about a college-wide policy regarding the
uniqueness and overlap of courses toward double minors and double majors. In addition, the AARC
should reconsider the need for department chairs’ approval and report back to the Senate.”
Mari-Anne Rosario introduced the following report from the AARC in response to Senate Action S-13/14-4
on the double major policy. A MOTION was made by Interim Vice Chair Hamaker and SECONDED by
Senator Freund to open the discussion.
AARC’s consideration of the double major
AARC considered the Senate action, comments recorded in the Senate’s October minutes, data of present and past (last 5
years) double majors at the College provided by the Registrar, and a few examples of double majors with substantial
course overlap (for example, Bus Ad and Accounting, or Biology and Allied Health Sciences).
AARC holds as its opinion that the major is defined as a “group of coordinated courses within a particular discipline” and
that the responsibility and authority to decide the uniqueness of the major curriculum lies within each department or
program. Note that (2/5)ths of this year’s committee are returning members from the prior year.
If there is an overlap of courses with another discipline, the program is certainly aware of such an overlap. Each
department should determine for its own program whether a particular double major combination is/is not appropriate, or
if there are alternate or additional courses that must be taken. It’s the AARC’s opinion that the program faculty must
determine what is appropriate based on their expertise and understanding of discipline-specific norms.
The number of students who are presently undertaking a double major (75 out of 2873 undergrads) or have completed a
double major in the past (average of 15.6 students/year over the past 5 years), suggest that this is not a critical concern. In
addition, the requirements of the Business Administration major have changed, making it more challenging to combine
majors within SEBA.
Implementation
For the more common combinations of double majors (for example, Accounting and Business Administration, or
Mathematics and Physics), AARC recommends that the two departments consult and share their policies with one
another. These policies (what is not appropriate, if there are course substitutions, whether there may be a combined senior
project, whether only a minor will be allowed) should be outlined for each department in the Undergraduate Course
Catalog.
In crafting policies, departments have authority only over their own curriculum. (For example, Physics cannot deny a
student petition to also major in Math. The physics department can only deny a student from also majoring in physics.
Physics can only suggest alternate or additional physics courses, not alternate or additional Math courses.)
In the case of split majors, a student may not double major with either of the disciplines that make up the split major. For
example, a Biology-Physics split major may not double major with Biology or Physics. Split majors may, however,
undertake a second major in other disciplines. In the case of an individualized major, the UEPC plays the part of one
3
department. In the case of an interdisciplinary major, the department or dean in charge of the interdisciplinary curriculum
plays the part of one department.
Using the present online major declaration process, when a student declares their second major, we recommend that the
Registrar’s Office inform both department chairs and both faculty advisors of the student’s name and the two fields they
wish to complete. The Registrar’s Office can determine whether both majors were completed based on the Course
Catalog description of the major, given that departments should clearly outline their policies in the Catalog. The
Registrar’s Office should consider overlapping courses as acceptable, unless otherwise stated by the department. As
usual, exceptions to what’s in the Catalog must be submitted as a special petition and approved by the relevant
Department chair.
Suggested catalog language is below. Some language changes reflect new FYAC procedures, new program names, or
minor corrections.
Suggested catalog language (based on 2013-2014, pp 54-56)
II. Major field of study
Defined as a group of coordinated courses within a particular discipline or alternative program of study, ordinarily
including at least two preparatory courses at the lower-division level and at least eight courses at the upper-division level.
Certain majors may require additional background course work in related
fields. The regular major groups available to students in the various curricula of the College are listed elsewhere in this
catalog. A student may declare or change majors
on the appropriate petition form available in the Registrar’s Office. A student graduating with a double major will receive
only one degree even if the majors are in two different schools.
Students choose a major field of study, an in-depth concentration in a specific academic area, and elective courses
according to their interests. (Those who have not determined a program or major field of study at entry are encouraged to
take introductory courses in various fields and to settle on a major field of study only as their interests develop a sharper
focus.) Students are encouraged to declare their major field of study in the Spring semester of their first year.
Those who have not determined a program or major field of study are encouraged to take introductory courses in
various fields and to settle on a major field of study when their interests develop a focus. Ordinarily, students must
declare their major field of study by the beginning of their junior year. A student declares a major by submitting the
appropriate form available from the Registrar’s Office.
ALTERNATIVE MAJORS
The College offers the option of an alternative major program of study, including a Split Major, an Interdisciplinary
Major, an Individualized Major, or completion of comprehensive alternative programs. Information on the alternative
comprehensive programs can be found in the Curriculum Section under these headings: Integral Program, Liberal & Civic
Studies Program, Pre-Professional Curricula, and 3 + 2 Engineering Program, and 2 + 2 Nursing Program.
• SPLIT MAJORS. Combines work in two departments, must be approved by the chairs of the departments concerned and
by the Registrar. Such majors ordinarily comprise nine upper-division courses (six courses in one field and three in
another), in addition to the lowerdivision lower division prerequisites of both departments
• INTERDISCIPLINARY MAJOR. Includes the following: international area studies Global and Regional Studies
major, e.g., European studies; Latin American studies, student-directed studies (see director, of International Area Studies
Global and Regional Studies); American studies (see chair, Department of History); allied health science major (see
advisor, Allied Health Sciences Health Science advisor, School of Science); health and human performance major (see
chair, Department of Kinesiology); cross-cultural studies major (see dean, School of Liberal Arts).
• INDIVIDUALIZED MAJOR. A student who believes that his / her academic needs and purposes would be better served
by a distinctive program of studies may present an individualized major plan. Besides fulfilling requirements for a major,
this plan must satisfactorily lead the student toward the goal of liberal education which the College sees as essential for all
of its graduates. Students wishing to pursue an individualized major must submit their proposal to the Registrar and the
Chair of the Undergraduate Educational Policies Committee (UEPC) for approval. The guidelines for the proposal can be
found online through the Registrar’s Office.
4
DOUBLE MAJOR
A student is allowed to double complete two separate major fields of study. A student must fulfill all the
requirements of each major as specified by each program or department. To do so, all of the requirements for both
majors must be completed unless the chair of either major program approves alterations for that student. Some individual
majors may require so many courses that it is not usually possible to complete that major and another full major. It is up
to the student to arrange how courses are taken, including possible summer coursework, so as to complete all
requirements. Policies, including those regarding senior projects and courses that overlap between majors, vary by
major and are included in each program or department's curriculum description.
Split majors may not double major with either of the disciplines that make up the split major, and must consult
with both major advisors when considering an additional major. Individualized majors may complete another
major field, upon UEPC approval. Interdisciplinary majors must consult with the department or dean in charge of
the interdisciplinary program when considering another major field.
A student who double majors receives only one degree in one school, even if the second major is in another school. The
diploma will carry the name of the degree chosen by the student from the two completed; the transcript will indicate two
majors were completed.
MINOR FIELD OF STUDY
The College offers the option of a minor field of study, defined as a combination of at least five courses from a discipline
other than that of the major field, at least three of which must be upper division. Requirements for the minor, including
policies on courses that overlap with the major, vary by department and are included in each program or
department's curriculum description.
Chair Ogawa questioned the number of students involved; Mari-Anne Rosario answered that their research
indicates 2.6 % in the last five years, and they anticipate that the number will continue to decrease. A few
errors in the text were corrected: the first paragraph under “Alternative Majors”: International Area Studies
name has changed to "Global and Regional Studies," and the 2+2 Nursing should be removed. The corrected
changes were accepted, indicated in bold Italics above.
A MOTION was made by Interim Vice Chair Hamaker and SECONDED by Past Chair Malary to accept the
AARC response. The motion was approved by a voice vote of 8-0 with one abstention.
9. Structure of the Core Curriculum Committee (CCC) - Chair Ogawa introduced the proposal. A
MOTION was made by Past Chair Malary and SECONDED by Senator Heid to bring the issue to the floor.
Jim Sauerberg submitted the following document, it covers the composition and responsibilities of the CCC.
The document was briefly discussed at the previous meeting of the Senate. Based on the brief discussion,
Senator Freund and Past Chair Malary edited the document being presented for consideration, indicated in
yellow and green highlights below.
Language governing the Core Curriculum Committee
The following is the language initially approved by the Academic Senate December 6th, 2010, with revisions prompted by
March 24th, 2011 Senate actions incorporated. The language contained suggestions that it was to be reviewed after three
years.
The CCC considered it, and produced this document at its March 4 th and March 18, 2014 meetings. At that second
meeting it voted in favor of the revision shown. (The changes recommended by the CCC are in bold and strikeout.)
The CCC recommends that this document be adopted by the Academic Senate as the governing document of the CCC as
of July 1 2014, and that it be reviewed by the CCC and Academic Senate in 2016-2017.
Preamble
5
[MOVED FROM #2] The Core Curriculum is defined as the foundational and essential learning expected of all
undergraduate students at Saint Mary’s College (as articulated in the learning goals and outcomes) and the processes by
which students achieve that learning (i.e., designated approved courses and other experiences.)
[COPIED FROM Handbook Language] The Core Curriculum Committee administers and evaluates policy governing the
Core Curriculum. It undertakes course/experience reviews (through Working Groups) and designation approval;
assessment of student learning; assessment and development of the Core as a whole and in its elements; intra- and
extramural presentation of the Core via catalogues, course lists, published guidelines, workshops, et al.
I.
Overall Structure: Core Curriculum Committee (CCC)
The membership of the Core Curriculum Committee will comprise the following:
•
One (1) Chair, who will be a tenured, undergraduate faculty member elected chosen for a multi-year three-year term.
(The initial chair serves a five-year term.) [Should specify who votes in election.]
The initial chair will be selected by a search committee made up of two members each of the Senate, UEPC, and
CCIC. This initial director will be appointed for a 5-year term (superfluous?)
Subsequent chairs will serve for 3-year terms on the recommendation of the CCC, the Senate, and the UEPC
Will chair the CCC

Six (6) ranked , undergraduate faculty members: two (2) from SOLA, two (2) from SOS, one (1) from SEBA, and
one (1) from the faculty at-large. Each will be elected by the ranked faculty from the bodies s/he represents and will
serve a three-year (staggered) term. Two (2) will be from each SOLA, SOS, and 1 from SEBA, each elected by the
ranked faculty in that the school, and one (1) [s]elected from the ranked faculty at-large. Each will be
 Elected for 3-year, staggered terms
The structure to be reevaluated on a 3 year cycle.



Permanent ex Ex-officio & non-voting members
 The (1) Vice Provost for Undergraduate Academics or designee
 1 Vice Provost for Student Life or designee
 1 Registrar or designee
 1 student chosen by ASSMC.
Temporary (roll-out phase) ex-officio & non-voting members
 The Dean of Advising Director of the Office of Faculty Advising or designee
 The 1 Director of Institutional Research (or Director of Educational Effectiveness Assessment, when hired), or
designee
 One (1) representative from the library as designated by the Dean for Academic Resources.
Working Groups
Seven (7) working subcommittees, each consisting of a Chair, who is a member of the CCC, and four (4) faculty
 Group HM (Habits of Mind):
 Group MS (Math and Science):
 Group AU (Artistic Understanding):
 Group TU (Theological Understanding):
 Group HC (Historical, Social, and Cultural Understanding.):
 Group CG/CE (Common Good/Community Engagement):
 Group AD/GP (American Diversity/Global Perspectives):
The Working Group chairs are designated by the Chair of the CCC once elections are completed. In most cases, the Chair
will lead chair Group HM, as this area involves a great deal of collaboration with Collegiate Seminar, Composition, and
the majors. The faculty members on each working group are recommended to the Senate by the CCC, after consultation
with the Deans and Departments/Programs, and are to be a mix of disciplinary experts and interested non-experts. Faculty
members may self-nominate for consideration for any Working Group. Immediately after the completion of the regular
election process, the CCC will convene to undertake the selection process for the Working Groups. The Working Group
members are appointed to two 2-year, staggered renewable terms.
6
II. Duties
[MOVE TO HEAD OF DOCUMENT]N.B. The Core Curriculum is defined as the foundational and essential learning
expected of all undergraduate students at Saint Mary’s College (as articulated in the learning goals and outcomes) and
the processes by which students achieve that learning (i.e., designated approved courses and other experiences.)
The CCC and its Working Groups bear the following responsibilities:
Of the Duties of the Core Curriculum Committee:
 To address any and all policy issues regarding the Core Curriculum and its Learning Goals and oOutcomes
 To establish seven working groups, based on the Learning Goals for the Core, for the purpose of receiving and
reviewing course proposals for the meeting of specific Learning Goals and recommending courses to the CCC
for inclusion in the College s Core Curriculum
 To provide develop general guidelines that govern the work of the seven CCC Working Groups for the course
review and designation approval process
 To review the recommendations of the seven CCC Working Groups concerning the designation approval of
courses as meeting Core Goals, to remove those courses that no longer meet the requirements set by the CCC,
and to respond to faculty per those recommendations
 To make final decisions regarding the designation of courses as meeting the Core Learning Goals
 To articulate catalog language for the core and to publish a yearly listing of the courses that satisfy the learning
goals
 To develop policies for student issues and petitions regarding the meeting of Core Goals (and Outcomes?)
 To evaluate the policies, overall structure, and specific components of the Core, including Learning Goals,
Outcomes and Rationales, on a rotating schedule, and to make recommendations to the Senate for any changes
deemed necessary or advisable, based on assessment measures and evaluations supervised by the CCC
 To oversee the assessment of the Core Curriculum in terms of policy and evaluation of data
 To keep abreast of general education trends and best practices as regards goals, outcomes, structure, and
assessment
 To assist faculty in understanding the CCC guidelines for course designation approval and to facilitate the
submission of course proposals by working with appropriate Deans, Department/Program Chairs and Directors,
and individual faculty
Of the Duties of the CCC Working Groups:
 To perform the initial review of courses proposed to meet the Learning Goals of the Core Curriculum and to
recommend approval/disapproval of those courses to the CCC
 To review previously designated approved Core Curriculum courses on a four-year rolling cycle on the fiveyear anniversary of their previous approval and to recommend re-approval/disapproval of those courses to the
CCC
 To conduct assessment of the Learning Outcomes, under the guidance of the CCC
The Working Groups of the CCC assist the CCC in carrying out its responsibilities regarding courses serving the Core
Curriculum; as such, their work is guided by and subject to the authority of the CCC. Guidelines for the approval and
review process are determined by the CCC, with input from the Working Groups as appropriate. The Working Groups
make recommendations to the CCC, which has the final authority to approve those recommendations or to send them
back to the Working Group for further consideration.
III. Relationship to other faculty committees:
The CCC is an independent committee that operates under the Academic Senate's larger responsibility for the college's
academic program. All CCC recommendations regarding the process by which the CCC operates will be forwarded to the
Senate for approval. Decisions regarding approval or disapproval of individual courses (or student petitions) pertaining to
the learning goals fall within the purview of the CCC and need not be reviewed elsewhere. The CCC will issue an annual
report to the Senate of its work and decisions. Where there are potential conflicts or overlapping of responsibilities
between the UEPC, the AARC, and the CCC, the Senate will define the appropriate parameters of each group's authority
and responsibility.
IV. Workload considerations and Administrative Support
The Chair of the Core Curriculum has will have a three-course reassignment of his/her teaching duties. There will also be
a full-time administrative assistant to support the Director, the CCC, and the 7 working groups. (A job description for the
7
administrative
support
will
be
drafted
in
spring,
2011.)
Due to the exceptional workload anticipated during the initial period of implementation of the new Core, the initial The
members of the CCC will receive a course release in each year of CCC service in recognition of their Working Group
duties and the additional responsibilities they perform on behalf of the Core. e; once the Core has been fully
implemented, Every three years the Chair of the CCC, the Chair of the Academic Senate, the Vice Provost for
Undergraduate Academics, and the Provost will meet to determine if the level of service expected of a member of the
CCC
warrants
continued
compensation.
Support for the initial members of the working groups will be through direct stipends, to be determined in consultation
with the Provost; once the Core has been fully implemented, the Chair of CCC, the Chair of the Academic Senate, the
Vice Provost for Academics, and the Provost will meet to determine the appropriate level of support for faculty members
from that point forward.
V. Course Approval Process and Assessment
The CCIC will be forwarding to the UEPC a second set of recommendations concerning the process of course approval
and the issues of assessment. For now, we simply note that the CCC as proposed will oversee assessment in terms of
policy and evaluation of data, but will not be actually conducting assessment procedures itself. We will likely be
recommending the creation of an assessment position/office at the College for all the operational aspects of this part of the
process, but we have not finalized those recommendations.
Handbook Language
1.7.4.13 Core Curriculum Committee
Role: Core Curriculum signifies the foundational and essential learning expected of all undergraduate students at Saint
Mary's College (as articulated in Learning Goals, Outcomes and Rationales) and the processes by which students achieve
that learning (i.e., designated approved courses and other experiences). Under the leadership of the Chair, and in
accordance with Senate Action S-10/11-09 [update], the Core Curriculum Committee administers and evaluates policy
governing the Core Curriculum: course/experience review (through Working Groups) and designation approval;
assessment of student learning; assessment and development of the Core as a whole and in its elements; intra- and
extramural presentation of the Core via catalogues, course lists, published guidelines, workshops, et al.
Membership:
 The Chair of the Core Curriculum Committee (chairperson, voting); a tenured member of the undergraduate faculty
who is nominated to a three-year term by the Senate Executive Committee; and the UEPC Chair and out-going
Chair, both confirmed by majority vote of Academic Senate. The Chair serves at the pleasure of the Academic Senate
and reports to the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Academics;
 six ranked members of the undergraduate faculty (voting): 2 elected from the School of Liberal Arts, 2 from the
School of Science, 1 from the School of Economics and Business Administration, and 1 from the undergraduate
faculty at large, for staggered, three-year terms;
 Vice Provost for Undergraduate Academics or designee (ex officio, non- voting);
 Director of the Office of Faculty Advising or designee (ex officio, non- voting);
 Director of Educational Effectiveness (ex officio, non- voting);
 Representative from the Library, as designated by the Dean for Academic Resources (ex officio, non- voting);
 Vice Provost for Student Life or designee (ex officio, non-voting);
 Registrar or designee (ex officio, non-voting);
 Undergraduate representative chosen by the ASSMC (non-voting).
Chair's Duties: as the Core Curriculum Committee's executive, the Chair facilitates the Core's day-to-day operation; acts
as liaison to the undergraduate faculty at large and to academic officers and bodies of the College; consults on budgetary
and staff support; coordinates intra- and extramural assessment, et al., according to Senate Action S-10/11-13 [update];
the Chair receives yearly reassigned course equivalences commensurate with the office's demands.
Meetings: The Core Curriculum Committee is convened according to a schedule drawn up by the Chair.
1.7.4.14 Core Curriculum Working Groups
8
Role: Core Curriculum Working Groups function as subcommittees of the Core Curriculum Committee, as provided
under Senate Action S-10/11-9 [update]: the Groups recommend, for inclusion in the Core Curriculum, courses that
fulfill outcomes under the Core Learning Goals, according to guidelines established by the Core Curriculum Committee.
Working Groups are convened by the Chair of the Core Curriculum Committee. Each Working Group assumes specific
responsibilities under the Core Learning Goals, as follows:
Group HM (Habits of Mind);
Group MS (Math and Science);
Group AU (Artistic Understanding);
Group TU (Theological Understanding);
Group HC (Historical, Social, and Cultural Understanding);
Group CG/CE (Common Good/Community Engagement);
Group AD/GP (American Diversity/Global Perspectives.).
Membership: Each Working Group consists of:
– Working Group Chair (a member of the Core Curriculum Committee designated by the Chair of the Core Curriculum
Committee);
– Four members of the undergraduate faculty confirmed by vote of the Academic Senate on the recommendation of the
Core Curriculum Committee.
Eligibility: So as to enroll a mix of disciplinary experts and interested non-experts befitting the specific responsibilities of
each Working Group, the Core Curriculum Committee consults relevant deans and department chairs, and considers selfnominations by members of the undergraduate faculty.
Meetings: Working Groups will be convened when in the judgment of the Chair and Group Chairs the volume of material
for review requires convening.
Chair Ogawa questioned what form of compensation is offered to the CCC members; it was confirmed that
members receive a course release.
Senator Freund asked that the text specify who votes in the election for the CCC chair. Interim Vice
Chairperson Hamaker said the Faculty Handbook language specifies this information and it was agreed to
add, “See Faculty Handbook section 1.7.4.13” at the end of the first bullet point. It was also agreed to add
“and” prior to “intra-“ in the second Preamble paragraph.
A MOTION was made by Senator Freund and SECONDED by Past Chair Malary to accepted the document
as revised. The motion was approved unanimously by hand vote.
NEW BUSINESS
10. Commendation for Br. Armin A. Luistro - Past Chair Malary introduced the Commendation for Br.
Armin A. Luistro, which is to be signed by members of the Senate and presented at the Convocation. A
MOTION was made by Vice Chair Malary and SECONDED by Senator Heid to approve the
Commendation. The motion was unanimously approved.
In commendation of
Brother Armin Altamirano Luistro, FSC
On behalf of the Faculty, Students, and Administration of
Saint Mary’s College of California,
in Convocation assembled, the thirtieth day of
April, 2014
Whereas Brother Armin’s educational pedigree mirrors his commitment to Lasallian education, as attested by his having
earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy and Letters and his Master’s Degree in Religious Education and Values
Education at De La Salle University in Manila, Philippines; by his having secured a Doctorate Degree in Educational
9
Management at the University of Saint La Salle in Bacolod City, Philippines; and by his having received an Honorary
Doctorate in Humane Letters from La Salle University in Philadelphia, USA; and
Whereas Brother Armin’s record of service precisely limns his excellence in leadership, as evidenced by his having chaired, directed
or served as a trustee for organizations such as the Catholic Association of the Philippines, the Asian Institute of Management, the
ASEAN University Network, Assumption College, the International Association of University Presidents, the Association of
Southeast Asian Institutions of Higher Learning, and the SIDHAY Foundation for street children; and
Whereas Brother Armin’s lifelong endeavors to the betterment of his community has prompted the city of Manila to bestow
upon him the award titled Outstanding Manilan for Advocacy on Social Consciousness:
We, therefore, the Members of the Academic Senate of Saint Mary’s College, herewith unanimously aver: Brother Armin merits our
heartfelt gratitude and commendation.
In testament thereto, we have inscribed our signatures this day, Thursday, the twenty- fourth of April, at Saint Mary’s
College in Moraga, California, in the year of Our Lord, 2014.
11. Faculty Petition to Change Senate Meeting Days to Wednesdays at Community Time - Chair Ogawa
presented the following faculty Petition:
FACULTY PETITION
March 27, 2014
Rationale: Given that the Academic Senate is made up of elected representatives of the faculty “through which the
faculty of the College exercises its responsibilities in the governance of the academic life of the College community. (FH
1.6.1.2.1)”
And
“The Academic Senate is a faculty body with the specific responsibilities of identifying issues of legitimate faculty
concern, especially matters directly and indirectly related to the academic life of the College, and to initiate appropriate
actions to address them… (FH 1.6.1.2.1)”
And
In the process of arriving at its decisions of general faculty concern it is imperative that faculty have as great an
opportunity as possible to participate in these deliberations.
Thus,
We the undersigned petition that beginning in the 2014-2015 Academic Year that the General Session meetings of the
Academic Senate be moved from its current day and time to Wednesdays during Community Time."
Sincerely,
Lisa Manter
Myrna Santiago
Hisham Ahmed
John Ely
Rosemary Graham
Jennifer Heung
Steve Cortright
Maria Ruiz
David Quijada
Zach Flanigan
10
Chair Ogawa explained that he does not think the change in schedule will improve faculty attendance at
Senate meetings. However, he wants to give faculty every opportunity to attend Senate meetings. It is the
only time that faculty are not scheduled to teach, so it will provide for equal opportunities for all faculty.
Ted Tsukahara added that the Faculty Handbook requires attendance at Senate meetings, so scheduling
classes at that time is bad practice.
There are a few concerns: the Wednesday time will conflict with department meetings, mission activities and
other events scheduled during community time. Also, the meeting time will be shortened by 30 minutes; it is
already difficult to cover all material in the current two-hour schedule.
A suggestion was made by Professor Rigsby that department chairs could schedule adjuncts to teach all
classes in that department at a particular time so that departments could hold meetings outside of community
time.
A MOTION was made by Past Chair Malary and SECONDED by Senator King to accept the petition and
move Senate meetings to Wednesdays during Community Time. The motion passed by voice vote, 9-0-0.
12. Chairs and Program Directors Resolutions – Chair Ogawa introduced four resolutions submitted by the
Department Chairs and Program Directors. Earlier this year the Senate approved a proposal from the Chairs
and Program Directors to include the chairs/directors on one agenda each long semester for a two-year trial
period.
The Chairs and Directors submitted the following four Resolutions for Senate consideration:
Resolution 1 - Chairs’ and Program Directors’ Access to Class Rosters
Resolution 2 - Chairs’ and Program Directors’ Access to Course Evaluations
Resolution 3 - Chairs’ and Program Directors’ Access to Petitioning Students’ Program Evaluations
Resolution 4 - Chairs’ and Program Directors’ Access to Majors’ Advising Files
There was discussion about the need for faculty to have access to this information. The department chairs
and program directors said they have been asking for this information for quite some time without resolution,
prompting them to now bring their concerns before the Senate.
Provost Dobkin said she would hope to move through the Resolutions quickly and get to the structural issue
of how to create greater communication and collaboration among the faculty and administrators. Has ITS or
the Registrar been consulted? She believes there needs to be awareness and coordination among
administration and faculty for their needs.
Zach Flanagin noted there is a great desire to get the need for the information on record, because many feel
as though they have asked for years, without adequate response.
Jennifer Heung explained that the disbanding of the TUG chairs/directors group has created a void. If there
are new processes underway on campus, the chairs do not receive information about it. There is no structure
that provides communication between various bodies on campus - no flow of information to chairs. Perhaps
the Senate can facilitate a conversation and hold folks accountable. The infrastructure seems to be missing
and chairs have been asking for these things for a long time. The underlying issue is that the communication
does not exist. Perhaps the Senate can be a clearing house as there is a need for collaboration.
11
Provost Dobkin suggested that a representative body of chairs/directors be formed. The Provost would like to
see something more collaborative and proactive. She is concerned that faculty feel they have to register what
are administrative solutions to their problems in the form of Senate resolutions. Chris Procello added that a
structure has been created for chairs/directors to have access to course evaluations, to be employed by the
end of the semester.
Senator Heid said she would like to honor the needs of chairs/directors but to continue collaborative
discussion with the Registrar and ITS. Interim Vice Chair Hamaker said he views the Resolutions as an
impetus for such discussions. Senator King agreed that we need to move the conversation forward.
Provost Dobkin expressed a concern that the Resolutions direct a technological response. What if the request
is not possible, or there is a different way to address the problem?
Senator Rokeach the approval validates the need for the information. Senator Quijada said the
chairs/directors felt it was the best use of its time by putting in place four directives as recommendations.
Past Chair Malary said he would hope for a good faith effort on these recommendations.
A MOTION was made by Past Chair Malary and SECONDED by Interim Vice Chair Hamaker to adopt all
four resolutions. The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 9-0-0.
13. Resolution to Stream Senate Meetings – Chair Ogawa introduced the Resolution from Senator
Rokeach. He explained that the resolution grew from a fora held by Chair Ogawa to hear faculty concerns.
Senator Rokeach submitted the following proposal in order that all faculty be engaged and involved in the
Senate.
CTO Peter Greco commented that there could be a privacy issue as well as an issue of resources. He asked
for clarity as to what the Senate expects. It was clarified that the Senate wishes that the meetings be recorded
and available, to all those than can sign in with a SMC password, until the minutes of the meeting are
approved and posted. Senator Rokeach said a "live" streaming is not essential if it will make it more feasible
to offer access to faculty. Peter Greco explained that if it does not need to be live it is more doable. A few
amendments were accepted to change the resolution from asking for a "live stream" to being "recorded."
Ted Tsukahara commented that since the Senate meetings are being moved to Wednesdays at community
time the recording may not be necessary, now that faculty will have every opportunity for participation.
Past Chair Malary stated that he does not think the proposal will yield what it is intended to, but in order to
eliminate any obstacles for faculty to attend Senate meetings he would support it.
CTO Greco explained this will take a significant amount of revenue and labor and he asked that a review to
evaluate the efficacy be scheduled, to ensure that the result will be justified. It is a fair amount of extra
work to not only record, but also to post it; it will be a very large file requiring storage needs.
It was agreed to begin with the 2014-15 academic year, to be reviewed at the end of that year. A voice vote
was taken on the motion; it was approved by a vote of 5-2-0.
Senator Martin Rokeach
April 11, 2014
Rationale: Given that the Academic Senate is made up of elected representatives of the faculty “through which the
faculty of the College exercises its responsibilities in the governance of the academic life of the College community ...
12
The Academic Senate is a faculty body with the specific responsibilities of identifying issues of legitimate faculty
concern, especially matters directly and indirectly related to the academic life of the College, and to initiate appropriate
actions to address them… (FH 1.6.1.2.1)”
And
Faculty Promotion and Tenure to the College requires the following expected service … “Attendance at departmental and
committee meetings, general Academic Senate meetings,
Commencement and other special convocations [FH 2.6.1(3)];”
Be it resolved that
The Academic Senate in the process of arriving at its decisions of general faculty concern provide for the purposes of
increased faculty accessibility and transparency as great an opportunity as possible for faculty to participate in these
deliberations by;
•The live electronic streaming recording of all General Meetings of the Academic Senate, including Special
General Meetings, over the College’s intranet and made available to all faculty of the College;
That
•Section 1.6.1.2.9.1(2) of the FH be amended to read “The general meeting of the Senate provides a forum for all
faculty members to exchange information and opinions about issues relevant to the academic life of the College
or the concerns of the faculty. All General Meetings of the Academic Senate, including Special General
Meetings, will be recorded for streamed live to all faculty. A recording of the meeting will be available until
the next Senate meeting is convened. At that point, minutes of the previous meeting will be available for
faculty and all interested parties and any recording will be erased. , with no part, whole or otherwise,
recorded. In addition to the items requiring action by the Senate, concerning which the Senate solicits viewpoints
from attending faculty members, the agenda of the general meeting may also include: …”
And that
•The task of electronic streaming recording of the General Session meetings of the Academic Senate be
assigned to Media Services;
 The recording of General meetings is to begin in Fall 2014 and it is to be reviewed in one year to take into
account the efficacy and cost.
•No recording, video or audio, other than that made by the Governance Coordinator for the purpose of meeting
notes, be made of the General Meetings.
14. Discussion of Online Course Evaluations - Past Chair Malary introduced the issue of online course
evaluations. Senator Aksu submitted the following Resolution to the Senate. Past Chair Malary presented
her concern as Senator Aksu could not be present.
Whereas, an efficient course evaluation system will provide important information to faculty to facilitate their future
teaching effectiveness, and
Whereas, the current system in its first year of implementation campus wide has caused discomfort to many faculty in its
execution,
Be it resolved that the Academic Senate recommends the suspension of this system this semester and convene a task
group to work with the Director of Assessment to review the course evaluation system, to identify implementation issues,
and to recommend necessary modifications to improve its utility by the beginning of the next academic year.
Past Chair Malary asked Provost Dobkin if the concerns raised in the Resolution are already being addressed.
Provost Dobkin said she would need to know specifically what Senator Aksu's concerns are; Chris Procello
13
is working very hard to address each objective. She said it would not be possible to suspend the system
unless faculty want to do away with all evaluations this spring. She noted that it appears Senator Aksu's
issue is with the response rate. As with any new system, issues will arise but they are being addressed.
Ted Tsukahara reported that the original request came to the Faculty Welfare Committee. SEBA has a
situation where course evaluations were sent to a class prior to the first meeting. Many SEBA faculty
expressed their concern at a SEBA meeting that the faculty need more control with the timing of the
evaluations. Rank & Tenure has also expressed its concern. The Senate needs to work with administration
to find a better process collectively going forward.
Chris Procello said there are reporting issues and data collection issues He is working with the AARC and
has drafted a policy. There are policy issues and technology issues. Progress is being made on the
technology problems. He would suggest to focus on developing a policy and on the response rates.
A MOTION was made by Past Chair Malary and SECONDED by Interim Vice Chair Hamaker to defer the
issue to the May meeting for further discussion.
15.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Cathe Michalosky
14