Academic Senate 1000 E. Victoria  Carson, CA 90747  (310) 243-3312
Senate Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2015
In attendance:
Absent:
Minutes:
Guest:
Jerry Moore, Caroline Coward, Jamie Dote-Kwan, Kate Esposito
Pat Kalayjian, Thomas Norman
Charles Thomas
Susanne Walker
Provost Junn
Chair Moore Report:
Moore brought up for discussion S-3199-14/FA Non-Tenure Track Faculty and Shared Governance in the
California State University – Moore said where he could see that CSUDH’s By-laws and Constitution are in
violation is in the section on the membership of the General Faculty which limits the General Faculty to full time.
Moore asked Tom Norman, Statewide Senator, to take the lead in helping to shape the thinking of Senate Exec
with regard to this so that the next Senate Exec (Feb 25th), Norman could present some ideas on what a
resolution might look like.
Moore presented a spreadsheet that he created to help understand the recommendations of the LDGE AdHoc
Committee for Senate Exec to review. Moore said he shared it first with Kaye Bragg and with Jamie Dote Kwan,
both of whom were members of the LDGE AdHoc Committee. The Senate Exec committee reviewed the LDGE
AdHoc committee report options and discussed several different scenarios. Moore said that neither of the
recommendations (option 1 or option 2) on the LDGE AdHoc Committee report address that students can
transfer in with a total of 39 units and satisfy all of the requirements, yet there is a difference between what a
student can transfer in with and what we’re requiring a “home-grown” student to do. Moore said bringing it
down to 52 units could be an advantage. He said the thing that jumps out is the requirement for the 2nd English
class, English 111. Both the English 110 and the English 111 have to be passed by a grade of “C” or better. What
would happen if someone got a “B” or better in English 110, would they not have to take English 111? Or another
way could be to eliminate the 2nd English class entirely and then go in and put writing across the curriculum.
Kalayjian said you could redo HUM 200 and make it more writing intensive and a little less content heavy. There
could be some ways to ensure that the writing piece is covered in the curriculum as a whole. Coward said what if
there was an either/or track, i.e. either you get your writing in English 111 or if you don’t want to take that, you
would need to take your writing elsewhere. Norman said to make it simpler you could suggest, taking a writing
intensive designated Area E instead of 111. Moore felt it might be helpful to the larger audience to have a
flowchart which would depict what the cumulative consequences could occur dependent on which
recommendation one followed. Norman said what he thought would work is to keep the flowchart very simple
along with a series of PowerPoint slides followed by the impact, and then showing another series of slides and
again, the impact. It was agreed by the group that it’s a complex issue and that likely there will be pushback from
departments regardless of which approach you go with.
Moore said what the LDGE AdHoc Committee did to lower the number of units from the current situation in Area
A violates EO1065 by not having a minimum number of 12 units in arts and humanities. Moore said the Executive
Order in Area B does an odd thing whereby it requires a minimum of 12 units including the math and quantitative
reasoning and including the laboratory activity, but EO1065 does not assign the lab activity even a single unit as if
it could be built into the other courses. There are no unit values associated with the lab at all. Kalayjian said she
saw when looking at the Fullerton GE offering, they had some offerings that did include in a three unit class, a
lab. Moore felt that could raise a lot of controversy. Moore said currently we have Chemistry, Physics, Bio, and
Earth Sciences, all of which are offering labs as one unit courses and there are staff members who are employed
in support of those as well as adjunct faculty. Moore said Option 2 has the potential of reducing the GE package
by three if we solve the Area C problem for them. Moore went on to say what’s happening there is that two
statutory; History and Political Science courses, are being moved to count against that Area D and would probably
continue to work the way it is right now, where if you test out of those courses which you can, you still have to
take a total of nine units of courses in Area D. Kalayjian discussed taking the American Institutions requirement
out of GE, reducing Area D to 9 units as it is at most CSU’s, make the History 101 class an option for Area D2 and a
Poly-Sci an option for one of the others, but take them out of the GE total and make it a graduation requirement
and say you can either take it as a class or take the exam. Esposito said that U.S. Constitution is a must for any
teacher and especially to get into the program, but she said she did like the option. Kalayjian said as far as the
120 is concerned that you’re still fulfilling all of the requirements. Norman wondered who would then suffer in
terms of that lost class. Kalayjian said potentially a student might take more classes in Area D. Norman said we
would have to make sure that Advisors are very clear, if you’re planning to take be a teacher, you don’t do the
testing out option. Moore asked how you currently monitor it – Esposito because it’s an admission requirement,
you either have met it or you haven’t. Esposito said what is going to best serve the students? Esposito said that
students should not have to take “boutique classes” to keep “boutique faculty”. Moore said that hopefully get a
better understanding of the student’s perspective once we get the results of the survey. Esposito asked can’t we
get the writing intensive classes be used to meet the writing requirement. Moore said it could if we got
agreement for that, for instance, if a student got a B or better in English 110, than they don’t need to take English
111. They would need to require the upper division writing requirement, which is a university, not a GE
requirement. And they could do so by taking writing intensive courses. Pinto shared that what she found
compelling was the idea that if a student starts at CSUDH from the beginning as a homegrown student the
student is penalized, whereby if you’re a transfer student, you only need 9 more units. With regard to community
colleges, Kalayjian said American Institutions is not part of their GE package, it is not included in Area D courses,
nor is it required to transfer, it’s a CSU requirement. Community colleges offer it, but it is not required. Pinto said
she felt it would be important in the narrative and in the discussion to remind everyone that this isn’t about
slighting any department, any of the changes being made is about our students. Moore wondered if another way
to address this is to revisit the double counting. Esposito asked why are people not for double counting. Moore
said some of the arguments are about breadth vs. depth as well as what you do in a major class should be
different than what you do in a GE course. Moore said he will check into the issue of statutory requirements vs.
EO1065 and he will look at where statutory courses are not being counted into the GE package and then Moore
said then we can move on from there. Moore said the next thing to do is a flow chart whereby a series of decision
that can be made and that at each one of those decision points would be were a resolution would be found.
Moore said he needs to figure out more about how to do that.
Revision to the GE Committee Charge – Moore started off the discussion with the question of who makes policy.
He said up until 2010-2011, the first efforts were made to try to clarify that the GE Committee and the UCC
Committee were committees of the Senate and they were reporting back to the Senate and for the first time
their decisions were not final and could be subject to review. Moore suggested including in the document
General Education Committee (supersedes AAAP010.002) Revised and Approved April 25th, 2012, the following
language within the first sentence under the heading CHARGE, “as determined by the laws of the State of
California, policies made by the California State University Board of Trustees and their designees, and/or
resolutions by the CSUDH Academic Senate.” Senate Exec agreed with this addition. Norman asked if curriculum
was entirely the domain of the faculty. Moore said that anything that’s he’s ever seen on it, yes, faculty have the
principle role for the curriculum, for example, in this case, with these two committees, the sorts of things that are
curriculum related that are outside the purview of the Senate are things about resources, scheduling, planning,
and things like that. Coward suggested omitting the word “initiates” and instead replace it with the word
“reviews” in that same first sentence. Moore agreed that “reviews and/or approves proposals” makes sense.
Coward asked if it needed to be made into a resolution. Moore said yes. Norman and Pinto said curricula
modification could be interpreted as the ability to make changes to the GE package. Kalayjian suggested
language of “the addition or removal of specific course offerings within designated GE area requirements,” which
would mean if GE receives a proposal to add to Area D3, they review and decide whether to include it. Moore
asked if we could get the ideas for alternative language discussed at Senate Exec on 2/11 be circulated in the next
few days. Norman reminded that the group that a change needed to be made to the Voting Members as it still
reads 3 from the College of Professional Studies; it should not be 1 from COE and 1 from CHHSN.
FPC Committee Report - Pat Kalayjian said that today (2/11) the FPC Committee met with Janie MacHarg and
Tiffany Herbert of Student Health and Psychological Service. They were concerned with the third resolve in FPC
15-01 as Psychological Services are not the involved in adjudication at all. According to them the CARE team,
seems to exist mostly in name only. Norman said Student Health and Psychological Services met with us more as
allies and were coaching us. After meeting with them, it was decided to remove resolve three. The faculty
advocate ensures faculty awareness of the services provided by the student affairs office, campus psychological
services, and the university policy. Kalayjian said when she showed the guidelines for dealing with disruptive and
threatening students that the FPC Committee was working on to MacHarg and Herbert, they actually said that
they wrote it a long time ago and used to give it out, but people seemed to not utilize the information. Kalayjian
said there’s a missing communication piece, for example instead of advising faculty to call psychological services,
Tom Norman said as Chair he would advise his faculty to call the police. Kalayjian said her experience of Student
Psychological Services after meeting with them is that they are operating very well. They are very well trained
and regularly go for additional training. Their subscription to COGNITO just ended, which was on-line training
program to train faculty in how to manage distressed students. Psychological Services wanted to continue it but
they had been working on a grant, and the cost of it was approximately $11K. Faculty Affairs did not seem to be
aware that we had had it. Hopefully Faculty Affairs and Psychological Services can work together to get it back.
Norman said the training is valuable as it was described that you come will out of the training knowing who to
call, what to do, who to email, and yet he said he wasn’t even aware that the training existed. Kalayjian said they
would add into the resolution that the Faculty Advocate would be the go to person for faculty and direct them to
Student Psychological Services, or the Police or Student Affairs. Esposito said she believed that Academic Affairs
would have something that legally protects a Dean or a Faculty member or prevents someone from suing, she
said she would imagine that you would have some rights and there would be a university policy. Kalayjian said
that’s what they’re working on to fill that gap because there isn’t anything currently. Coward said after this
resolution is moved, seconded, and passed, then what needs to happen? How do we direct it? Do we send it to
the President, do we send it to William Franklin? Coward suggested adding a signature to the bottom, what is the
implementation pathway? Norman said it would be good to specify Academic Affairs and Student Services, and
even have it brought before the Cabinet, not just the President.
Moore asked about FPC 15-02. Kalayjian said that is a very simple resolution that discusses the inclusion in the
syllabi of a statement on expected behavioral standards. Moore asked if we wanted to star FPC 15-02 and get
them both handled. Norman felt it would pass.
Kate Esposito – EPC Committee Chair reported that she has been trying to get time with Mitch Maki, to find out if
he feels anything is pressing. With regard to the EPC Committee, she is still trying to get people to serve on the
committee.
Provost Junn joined the meeting and shared several flow charts of different taskforces both in place and desired,
created to help implement the many different initiatives currently laid out in the strategic plan as well as the
Advisement Taskforce Report. Junn said what she and the President have been discussing is making sure they
make cohesive sense in terms of what they’re trying to achieve. How do all of these pieces fit together? Yes,
there’s the accreditation piece, yes, there’s the student success piece, yes there’s the enrollment management
piece and they all are essential to helping staff, faculty and students work together. Junn said she’s trying to find
a way to prioritize, simplify and diagram it so that if we’re doing one initiative or another, we’re not burning
ourselves out. Yes there are these pieces that we need to pay attention to, and yes they’re important and let’s
not be redundant in creating too many of these separate things when there might be another way to make it
more sensible.
Junn said the things that we do have under control that I believe we must start is a new more focused targeted,
institutionally driven plan on how do we help students and assist faculty as well. Moore said one of the things
when he looks at Junn’s chart, and as a former chair, Moore said he looks at the chart and asks what does this
really need as to what we are doing in the department? Junn said exactly, we have no way of knowing right now
because it’s all been scattershot there’s been no way to tie it back. As a campus, Junn said, on the academic side
of the house we have not tracked it. What are we doing and how are we measuring so we can track it and tell
our success stories, and it also helps us to decide which things have more impact on students. Junn said as Moore
shared, some are already doing many of these high impact practices, but who, what kind of success are they
having, what kind of impact are they having? Junn said she wants to be more systematic, measure this and
standardize it with a standard rubric for how you assess service learning so that everyone does and you can track
it for everyone in a consistent way. Junn said she would like to start by sending out a communication down
through the deans and the department chairs about what high impact practices faculty are involved in. She said
Deans have no way of knowing who’s participating unless we tell them, so we need to log people in and let the
deans and chairs know, this way they can support the faculty who want to be participating in service learning. We
also need to be programmatic and provide support for the faculty whether its course releases or stipends. Junn
said she will put into her budget request that will go forth to UBC a number of new things. Moore said from his
department he knows that they’re keeping data on where students get writing intensives courses, what the
average grade rate is, what scores when they came in, what scores they got at the end of the process. He said he
can also provide ethnicity and gender data on students providing in his Saturday field classes that go back to
1994. Moore asked why is he collecting the data if it doesn’t go anywhere else to inform the process at this level,
where is the disconnect? Junn said where are you sending that information? Moore said Needham said there’s a
program review meeting coming up, but not sure beyond that. Junn said that’s the piece, some departments are
very detailed and have done it consistently over a long period of time, some others just think it’s a task because
WASC is coming, and they assign one person, they don’t involve the department and they write a report. They
figure it goes into a black hole because in some cases it did. Junn said now they want to make everything
transparent and clear and very simple for departments and faculty to understand that this is the way you protect
the quality and the meaning of your degree. Junn said that her hope is that the new program review process
where it will be easier for departments to understand what they need to keep track of, what they need to keep
track of, what they want to keep track of in a systematic way that we collect that department and analyze it for
you in our IEA department. We have a software product that already exists, we will be adding a module to it, so
that you can upload the data and it will be there centrally, so that anyone in the department can access the
information, and that rolls up to the college level and that rolls up to the institutional level, and so when WASC
comes, you can just click on the data and you can drill all the way down and see everything. Junn said that’s why
she needs to incentivize and help faculty to do that, either with different types of grant opportunities or money
that departments can use for course releases, or for meetings for whatever it takes to get the work done. Junn
said it’s a more comprehensive strategic focused way to help people understand that all of these little things,
when you stack them all up will be student success instead of all these silos.
Junn said some of the things we’re talking about doing is if we want to document student success and create an
environment for it you need to create an entity, or a group of people, give it a name, and then track and follow it,
but make it open enough so that people can add or subtract as they see necessary. For example, if you think
about a high touch institution what would that look like? We started a convocation in fall and we’re now going to
do a spring one at the end of April and this will involve faculty this time. We’re still working on the details. Junn
asked are there more people who would want to join to plan it. She said the first one was more student focus,
and this one Junn would like to see it more academic content, discussions, panels of faculty, newly graduated,
those who have just completed their freshman year. We’ll need faculty teams who will work in small groups of 30
with all the freshman.
Junn then went on to discuss freshman seminars, another initiative. Junn shared a document that had examples
of what freshman seminars look like at Harvard and how Harvard went about doing it. She said it’s an application
system, anybody can apply, you only get 12 students in your class, it’s a first come first served basis or a professor
can choose who is in the course. Junn shared her reasons for wanting to do it on our campus. She said that for
the first time as a freshman on our campus they have only a 5% chance of working with a tenured or tenured
track faculty member. Likely they don’t work with Ph.D’s until their junior year. Junn said she would like to
propose that here at CSUDH there be 25 students per class and it could be called University 101 which is still on
the books here. It would involve lifelong learning AREA E. It could be a three unit course, credit or no credit, the
committee would decide. Junn said she would propose that in that course there should be some key elements.
The goal is for them to be in close contact with a group of students in a topic that sounds interesting. Someone
with a Ph.D. who has a real passion in their discipline and wants to teach it to freshman to open their eyes. You
would have the flexibility of building information under Area C. All faculty who apply to teach this should put in
an assignment that has to do with information literacy or writing or with critical thinking or with oral presentation
skills as a first time freshman, or a combination. Also, sprinkling into the curriculum something to help them think
about careers. Junn said with 1300 students, they would need about 54 faculty to teach this in the fall, or it could
be spread it over fall and spring. We would make it an honorific thing. Junn said we do have some outstanding
lecturers with Ph.D.’s that would qualify, and I’m not saying that if you only have a Masters that’s second class,
it’s really about the love of your discipline and having that doctoral training really does push you a little bit
further in terms of understanding the field. Moore asked how would this be implemented. Junn said freshman
don’t register until the summer. However Junn said this is why we need to move quickly on it and create a
taskforce to create the freshman year seminar. Junn said she would like to do a call for tenured or tenured track
faculty to want to be on a small committee to design what this would look like, what would be the application
process, what would be the compensation, etc. By May, we would have to have courses submitted, by the
middle of March faculty would apply and then by April starting having some training for the 54 faculty going
through the process so that they can understand how do they make sure they’re meeting the goals for Area E and
figure out when they want to teach it, in the fall or spring and then post the schedule in June so students can sign
up, it would be a required class and students would choose 4. Junn said they’re just ideas for now, but would
love to see if there is interest, 54 faculty to teach is in the fall or the spring in order to get this program up and
running. Moore asked if all the workload would come out of Academic Affairs? Junn said yes, she would pay for
it. Coward said there are many people on campus who taught University 101 and are big believers in that model.
And making sure to include writing, note taking and time management through the curriculum in her opinion
would be important. It could be imbedded into the curriculum while still focusing on the topics. Coward
suggested asking people who previously taught on Campus University 101, what are some improvements? Pinto
said she was one of the people who taught University 101 and it was pretty standard, they were given a text
book, and were told make sure your students do “x, y, and z”. Junn asked how should she go about getting
people on the faculty. Did Senate Exec want to nominate people or did Senate want to put out a call? Moore
suggested a getting a representative from each college. Moore said first we would want a bit more information
on what is being asked of them. Pinto said people usually ask what kind of time is involved, is it through the
summer, just for the semester? Junn said really just for the semester. Senate Exec and Provost Junn discussed
different ways of embedding the basic skills into the different courses being offered. While there are many
professors who would want to teach a course, they may not necessarily wish to discuss note taking or time
management. Junn suggested that there could be assignments to help build this skills and that the possibility of
hiring a grad student for grading papers so that the faculty didn’t need to do that piece of it. Discussion about
freshman seminar concluded with Moore summarizing that Junn would send additional information for the next
steps and then Senate Exec would send out a call for service.
Summer Pre-Major Headstart Program – because President expanded Bridge and EOP, while it used to be about
200 or 250, and now they have 800 students out of 1350 students freshman. However that leaves 500 students
who are not remedial student and they were not EOP, it doesn’t seem fair to leave them out of the picture. Maki
and Junn have been brainstorming, it’s in its exploratory stage, another program that brings opportunity to all of
our students. This is for the non-remedial student, it could be required, and they would come for a six week
program. We’re going to consider offering GE courses for regular student in the summer for those students who
are not remedial and would get the same kind of experience as the Bridge students and we would pay for it
because the president is paying for the 800 students in Bridge. Junn said it’s actually not that costly. It is still in
the discussion stages. This would be pre major by college and we would make sure we link them into the right GE
courses.
The Learning Lyceum (Supplemental Instruction) - this is where Junn would like to offer 50 sections and currently
there are 14 pilot sections that are running this spring. The two departments that have signed on are English and
Chemistry. We would identify areas where students are struggling, especially in the first year, but we also want to
identify them for the junior year as well and we would give the faculty extra money to have a student assistant
help them, it would be embedded into the course.
Rational GE Courses – Junn discussed the degree maps with the deans and many of them say they do not use
them. They say they use degree flow. The degree maps started as freshman who has no remediation needs and
you follow it then you can graduate in four years. But since half of the students need remediation, as soon as
they walk in the door the roadmap does not apply. The other thing that didn’t make sense, with all the budget
cuts, they told Deans I can’t give you any more money, and the Deans would tell the faculty you cannot offer two
sections of that. Moore said that happens all the time. He said because we’re really tightly stretched, if a student
comes in and misses that course, they’ve just added another semester or another year until their time to
graduation. Junn said that does not make sense. We have to reformulate how we think about permitting
department to use resources to offer classes. We can use our data, we know who our majors are, poll them to
find out when holding those classes make better sense. Starting now, there is a team of deans who are working
with Mitch Maki to figure out which are the GE courses that are filling or not filling. We do need to increase our
space utilization rates, as on Fridays and weekends many of our classrooms are empty, ignoring the fact that
some of our students would come on Saturdays. Once you have course schedules that match students’ real lives
then you have roadmaps that become more sensible.
Chris Manriquez is working on a program whereby he is able to get HP Laptops, it does not have all the programs,
but works more from a web base and it would only cost $197. He is working with the President to purchase
laptops for all incoming freshman 2015-16. The students don’t have to have one. They’ll have to check it out of
the library and then check it in to be serviced. We’re not giving it to them. Moore asked when is this designed to
be instituted. Junn said this fall and it’s another issue that needs to go before the UBC.
Freshman and Junior Center - Freshman are only 1300 but we have 2800 transfers, so it makes sense to establish
a center for the junior year. This will include transfers and native continuing. Junn would like to appoint two
faculty co-directors for the Center for the Freshman year and two co-directors for the center for the junior year.
She said we’ll send out a call for interested people and they would have task force of what to build into these
centers. The Center for the Junior year is much more applied to the departments; they’ll have much more chance
to get involved in undergraduate research, internships, fieldwork, graduate school possibly, global diversity.
Coward said she would love to see a University 301 program for transfers who need the help.
Writing Initiatives Across the Campus - Junn shared some of the highlights of what Helen Oesterheld and
Timothy Chin will be discussing at the February 4th Senate meeting. Junn discussed some of the things that had
already been launched as well as discussing the search for the WAC coordinator is up and running, there are 1012 applicants already. The English department has been working very hard, they’re looking at other innovative
models that other CSU’s to try to address the remediation problem. There’s a supplemental instruction initiative
and the expanded Toro Learning Center so we can design better workshops for students. We will consider
writing intensives for the next year if we want to try to bring that back. Moore said this intersects with another
problem Senate Exec is trying to handle which is can we bring our current General Education package in
alignment with what is done on other campuses or what our students coming in who are transfers. Right now
we’re at least 7 units over what a native freshman do as opposed to what someone who is coming is as a transfer
is being asked to do. One of the things that Senate Exec has discussed is whether or not we can reduce the
number of units in written communication that students are required to take. It’s not whether or not our student
need more exposure to learning how to write, its whether or not an English 111 should be a requirement for all
of our native freshman but not for our transfers. Moore said one of the things we were hoping we would hear
from you would be to infuse the writing into Area E, plus we have the upper division writing initiative that we’ve
already spoken about, Moore asked how can we do every single thing and not create even a greater program in
terms of our GE package as we have right now. Junn said part of the answer we need to have a small group of
people from Senate Exec to meet with the English department to try to understand where their thinking is going
because it is odd that we require our native freshman to do so much more than our transfers. Moore said at the
same time not have as coherent way to deal with the needs for our transfers for writing because so much of
emphasis here is on freshman writing. Moore said one thing you could do, if you take the equivalent of English
110 and you get a “B” or better then we want you to take another writing intensive course as you do the UNB101
and do it there and do it someplace else, but you don’t have to necessarily take that second English courses.
Kalayjian said you could scatter those lower division courses across the curriculum. Junn said part of her hope is
that when the WAC person comes on board they would help negotiate this. Junn felt it would be well worth it to
have a separate meeting with Oesterheld, Chin and a small group of Senate Exec. Moore said yes, because we
cannot have it both ways, to increase the number of lower division English courses and reduce GE. Junn said to
set it up and she would bring Kaye Bragg to the meeting as well. Kalayjian said when you think about why a
student who gets an “A” in 110 would be asked to take a follow-up course? Moore said these are great initiatives
and he’s very glad that we’re bringing the writing intensive courses back. Moore also brought up that different
campuses report out their GE packages in different ways. Courses that are not part of the GE package but they’re
requirements for graduation. Kalayjian said we’re really talking about the American Institutions classes that
aren’t specifically part of the GE package but are required for graduation. We put them in the GE package and
add 3 units to Area D, where other campuses leave them out, they make them graduation requirements, but not
as part of GE. Junn said she did not believe that was possible now, once it’s in, you can’t take them out.
Junn said she received an email from Bragg with regard to program elimination. Junn said Trustee Glazer has
raised the issue of discontinuation at the March board meeting. He suggested that Trustees might create a policy
to help campuses with difficult political relations surrounding discontinuing programs. Vice Chancellor Chris
Mallon assured him that we have a system-wide policy and that campuses are required to have campus specific
policies already. The idea is that we continue to add new degrees and the trustees are concerned that there are
a proliferation of degrees and if you’re going to add some you need to take away some. Mallon contacted Kaye
Bragg and asked if you could please send our policy on discontinuation. Bragg said she didn’t think we had one.
After some research by Mallon, it was discovered that there was a resolution from the CSUDH Senate on
discontinuance of academic degree program, FPC 10-10, and it was removed from the agenda. Mallon did some
further digging and came across an old policy that dates to 1980 written by Donald MacPhee in her files that was
sent to the Chancellor’s office on August 26th, 1980. Mallon asked if we wanted it to be considered our current
policy. Senate Exec suggested it could be considered as current policy under review? Junn said she needs an
answer quickly. Senate Exec recalled the history behind FPC 10-10 and that in the 11th hour it was decided
nothing was begin cut and thereby FPC 10-10 was not needed. Junn then read the August 26th policy to Senate
Exec. Norman brought up PM 93-04. He said it was one where we stated that the campus has a policy governing
the discontinuation of programs which was never superseded by a subsequent PM and it references EPR 79-10.
Norman felt there was something newer than 1980 and believes the 1993 document might be the binding policy
on discontinuation. Junn asked Norman to send it to her. (https://www4.csudh.edu/Assets/CSUDHSites/Academic-Programs/docs/curriculumguide_final_26sep2007.pdf). PM 93-04 seemed to be deleted from
the President’s website yet included as Appendix E in the Curriculum Guide on September 26th, 2007.
Junn asked that Senate Exec email or call her with feedback on the candidates for the Deans searches
(CAH/COE/CEIE). She said she would like to hear what people are thinking.
Junn asked what made sense to do for the two Center positions. Moore said he thought the call seemed like a
better fit coming out of the Academic Affairs office because Junn would be doing the decision making and it
wouldn’t be representative of the senate.
Meeting concluded at 5:20 pm.