Academic Senate of the California State University

Meeting of January 20-21, 2000
CSU Headquarters, Long Beach, CA


CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. on Thursday, January 20, 2000, by Chair Gene Dinielli.

ROLL CALL: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield) Jacquelyn Kegley, John Tarjan; (Chico) Samuel Edelman, Kathleen Kaiser; (Dominguez Hills) Dick Williams; (Fresno) James Highsmith, Lester Pincu; (Fullerton) Vincent Buck, Bill Meyer, Barry Pasternack; (Hayward) Calvin Caplan, Don Wort; (Humboldt) Marshelle Thobaben; (Long Beach) Gene Dinielli, Fumio Hamano, David Hood; (Los Angeles) Marshall Cates; (Maritime Academy) James Wheeler; (Monterey Bay) J. Ken Nishita, Robert van Spyk; (Northridge) Lynne Cook, Michael Reagan, Gerald Resendez; (Pomona) Rochelle Kellner, Marvin Klein; (Sacramento) Michael Fitzgerald, Cristy Jensen, Louise Timmer; (San Bernardino) Jeanne King, Peter Schroeder; (San Diego) Ray Boddy, David Strom, Dan Whitney; (San Francisco) Eunice Aaron, Jan Gregory, Darlene Yee; (San Jose) Timothy Hegstrom, David McNeil; (San Luis Obispo) Reginald Gooden, Myron Hood, Timothy Kersten; (San Marcos) Dick Montanari, A. Sandy Parsons; (Sonoma) Susan McKillop, Peter Phillips; (Stanislaus) Pamela Russ, Mark Thompson; (Chancellor's Office) David Spence.


During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:

Fumio Hamano, Chair, Electrical Engineering, CSU Long Beach

Harold Goldwhite, Faculty Trustee and Professor of Chemistry, CSU Los Angeles

Gary Hammerstrom, Assistant Vice Chancellor (Interim), Academic Affairs, CO

Charles Lindahl, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, CO

Donald Moore, Consultant, Association of California State University Professors; Emeritus and Retired Faculty Association (non-voting delegate)

Toby Sexton, California State Student Association Liaison to Senate, CSU Long Beach

Jolayne Service, Dean Academic Program Planning, Chancellor’s Office

Richard West, Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer, CO

Bill Wilson, Director, CSU TeacherNet, Chancellor’s Office

Beverly Young, Associate Director, CSU TeacherNet, Chancellor’s Office

Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

José Lopez, Staff Assistant-Documents, Academic Senate CSU

Reta Grays, Staff Assistant–Budget, Academic Senate CSU

Margaret Price, Assistant to Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU


Since the last plenary, the Senate has been given a variety of reports over time by me––I should, however, comment on a recent meeting of the Enrollment Management Workgroup. This is a Trustees’ committee appointed for the purpose of looking over the current policies and practices of enrollment management within the CSU for a particular end of determining whether those policies and practices ought to be changed; whether the mission of the CSU is somehow being affected by current enrollment practices including impaction; to see if a systemwide policy has to be revised to take into account the increasing need for impaction; to determine the probability of reaching capacity for a lot of campuses in the face of Tidal Wave II; and to reaffirm the need to fulfil our mission to the very students who most need an education from the CSU, a wholly new cohort who we don’t want to lose sight of. So the work of the committee is quite important and most recently the chair of the senate of San Diego State addressed the Workgroup, Pat Huckle. Her theme––I hope I’m being fair to that––in her address to the Workgroup was that there ought to be a system policy that is rational and logical but there also ought to be a flexibility for individual campuses to pursue their own view of their mission and there ought to be a tolerance for the differences between and among campuses. I believe we will be getting some advice from the Academic Affairs Committee soon. The February 11 interim meeting has been changed to an interim meeting and a plenary to deal with a resolution that may come from Academic Affairs––the need to set up that arrangement on the 11th is to be able to provide advice to the Workgroup which has fixed a Saturday meeting, February 12, a final meeting before it gives its advice to the Board of Trustees. Everything seems to be working calendrically, at least, toward those ends.

The UC-CSU Joint Graduate Board met just two days ago––I was present. There is an initiative being considered there which I think is of some import forwarded by Vivian Vidoli, the graduate dean at Fresno, who believes that UC and CSU ought to be working in concert and in collaboration to provide UC’s Ph.D.s for teaching positions in CSU. The point being that Vidoli has been making is that so few Ph.D.s from our research one universities are prepared to teach on the collegiate level, so that there ought to be some kind of means by which a transition takes place a little more successfully than it does in most cases. That scheme involves pre-doctoral study, post-doctoral study, views about what ought to obtain in the first year of employment in the CSU, but in any event, in context of the number of retirements that will take place in the near future, not only in CSU but in UC, there seems to be a growing need for collaboration among the two, the point here being that the CSU’s "granary" has to be replenished and it should be replenished, not only by faculty prepared and trained to do research, but also prepared and trained to do teaching.

I have given a report on WASC and its attempt to replace the current nine standards—phase one is completed, so to speak, and is about to or has gone out for public comment, but there will be two parts to the new standards rather than the current nine. The first part will deal with capacity and the second part will deal with, what was once called institutional effectiveness, is now called educational effectiveness. The point, before the discussion takes place, is that there needs to be accommodation by WASC for the newcomer institutions of the 21st century and the latter part of the 20th century that are a departure from the norm, that is the practice and the tradition that we have attached to an institution of higher education. In any event, what WASC has done is created a floor, a foundation which has to be met by all institutions that wish to be accredited by WASC and that’s a definitional matter and a way in which you gain the standing to be considered by earning your right to be called an institution of higher learning. Then the discussion of capacity and educational effectiveness takes place. Dave Spence is on the policy team dealing with educational effectiveness.

Most recently we were asked to deal with a proposal from Academic Affairs in the Chancellor’s Office to create a study group on international education curricula. To that end, I had some conversations with Gary Hammerstrom, Chuck Lindahl, and Leo Van Cleve about this and it turns out we’d like the study group to be comprised of six people: three provosts and three members appointed by the Academic Senate, and that Academic Affairs staff will be staff to this committee. We’ve tried to broaden this notion as other committees are created and for which there is great receptivity on the part of Academic Affairs for this kind of arrangement. The Executive Committee has named Senators Aaron, Gooden, and Klein. Another notice that you should be made aware of is that there is an announcement of a conference on Assessing General Education Learning Outcomes. This is timely—I’m sure in my earlier report about my work on the capacity side of the new WASC standards, I mentioned that there will be no great reliance on the area of general education on the 45 units in and of themselves as being representative of part and parcel of general education package but a greater emphasis on competencies. This conference being put on by CSU is timely because it is going to deal with such matters as examples of and processes for identifying learning outcomes and methods of assessing GE outcomes, assessment of the GE areas, and using assessment results to improve programs. Earlier the Executive Committee had been asked to provide two names, Jacinta Amaral and Ken Nishita; we’ve since added two people, Kathy Kaiser and Mark Thompson, to that group to be supported by Academic Affairs in its travel to the conference. We’re going to ask Ken Nishita to make a case to the Executive Committee for adding other people if he has a need to go beyond the four people we’ve named for that conference.

The Executive Committee was asked to join the Emeriti and Retired Faculty Association (ERFA) group for lunch a couple of weeks back and a far-ranging discussion resulted; a really nice visit. Don Moore was there. One of the outcomes: we’re going to continue and strengthen and deepen the relationship with ERFA. That group is a repository of quite a few good things––especially, they are the makers of the legacy under which we are attempting to uphold; and on a practical level, the Executive Committee asked ERFA to be in a position (and they responded in a timely fashion) to provide suggestions for retired faculty who might sit on committees to review presidents. That group has done so and we have been given a list for an upcoming review of the president of Humboldt State. We have chosen from that list Wilma Krebs from Sacramento and as an alternate, Ralph Bigelow, from Fullerton.

Hal Charnofsky, as you may know from my email, has had surgery and it was successful. The Executive Committee and the standing committee chairs had a delightful telephone conversation with him just an hour or so ago. He is in great and high spirits. We look forward to his return in February. Bethany Shifflett has had an operation that will keep her out of Senate work for three or four weeks. Vice Chair Jim Highsmith has taken over Fiscal and Governmental Affairs.

We will be given greater specificity by Dave Spence later about the rearrangement of the advisory committee set-up within the Office of the Chancellor. To our great interest would be in the creation of the Academic Technology Committee which will replace such committees as CLRIT. The Academic Technology Committee will be constituted at least in terms of the conversations I’ve had with Executive Vice Chancellor Spence of 15 people, eight of whom will be faculty.

Finally, you do have my report of the Board of Trustees’ Retreat that I attended.

* * * * *

Standing Committee Reports:

Academic Affairs Committee On behalf of the committee, Chair McNeil reported: The Academic Affairs Committee has been working mainly on two subjects: enrollment management and enrollment management. We are in fact laboring under a double burden, an exceedingly complex set of issues, and an exceedingly short timeline.

Systemwide impaction is upon us: the California Postsecondary Education Commission’s projections of enrollment capacity in the CSU predicts a systemwide capacity deficiency beginning in Academic Year 2002-03 of 964 FTE/S, growing steadily to a deficiency of 64,416 FTE/S by Academic Year 2010-11. Demographic growth in the next decade, as in the past one, will be disproportionately distributed, so some campuses will reach and exceed capacity sooner than others, but this is ultimately––in fact, immediately––a systemwide signal to the system that a campus requires more assistance and/or resources to deal with a legitimate demand for access to higher education.

The Educational Policy Committee of the Board of Trustees has expressed interest in favoring applicants considered "local" in terms of the target, and now the Academic Senate needs to provide recommendations about providing guarantees, preferences, or special consideration to local CSU-eligible applicants who apply to impacted campuses or programs. We have long promised "access" according to our responsibilities under the Master Plan, but does this mean access to higher education, to the CSU, to a nearby campus, or to the campus of one’s choice? Does it mean access to the major of one’s choice somewhere in the CSU, in one’s "local" region, or at the campus of one’s choice? To what extent should personal hardship––in particular the difficulties of "place-bound" students––be a factor in admission to a local (or regional) campus, or to a particular program on a local or regional campus? If this is to be a factor, how are we to define "place-bound" and "local"? If this is to be a factor, do we intend to provide guarantees of access or greater priority or weight in the increasingly competitive admissions process? If, on the other hand, this factor is to have little or no weight in this process, why not?

These are a few of the questions we need to answer. We seek your contributions to our discussions. The decision about who is admitted to the CSU is a vitally important matter in which the faculty have a primary responsibility. The implications of a "tidal wave" of seekers of public education have long been discussed in deliberations of this Senate, as well as in the Admission Advisory Council. In October of 1999, when the magnitude and immediacy of the situation was becoming apparent, Admission Advisory Council offered to undertake the assignment of studying the whole matter and advising the Trustees about any desirable policy changes. The Trustees’ Education Policy Committee, meeting last October 27 and November 15, established an advisory "workgroup" which met on December 6, December 15, and January 14. The next meeting of this group is to be February 12, at which time it will receive the Academic Senate CSU’s recommendations.

The Enrollment Management Workgroup will provide advice to the Admission Advisory Council Trustees’ Educational Policy Committee, which is to present an item on enrollment management for action at the Trustees’ meeting of March 14-15. The matter deserves much more time for study, deliberation, and consultation, with far greater faculty involvement in what is essentially a matter of faculty responsibility. The Principles recommended in our resolutions today are a rough draft of the guidelines we would offer to the Trustees for whatever decisions must be made at this time.

The other resolutions on the agenda for this plenary, are having to do with Title 5. One is mainly technical in nature, essentially endorsing a recommendation from the Admission Advisory Council. The second, which will be considered first in the plenary agenda, concerns the Trustee proposal to reduce the systemwide unit minimum for the baccalaureate degree––and other related changes––without the necessary participation of the Academic Senate in the decision.

Faculty Affairs Committee The Faculty Affairs Committee met for its regular meeting on January 19 and 20, 2000. Chair Kersten reported on the excellent recovery of esteemed Senator and FAC member Hal Charnofsky following his heart surgery. Senator Shifflett is also doing well following her surgery. The FAC sends its wishes for speedy recoveries. (We need Hal back at work!) The chair of the committee announced that a team of five members would travel to the AAHE meetings in February, which will discuss faculty roles and rewards. ASCSU Chair Gene Dinielli was instrumental in arranging this expedition and will lead the team in its work there. This conference correlates well with the review of workload that the FAC has been discussing in recent weeks and with the study of workload undertaken by the provost’s council. Chair Kersten reported that during the Trustees’ recent retreat the issues of year-round operations, off-campus centers, and a 120-unit maximum degree requirement were discussed.

The Faculty Affairs Committee spent most of its Wednesday afternoon meeting in discussions with guests Susan Meisenhelder, President of the CFA, and Jackie McClain, Vice Chancellor for Human Relations. These discussions included the issues of: campus experiences in implementing the FMI Program; the proposed moratorium of FMIs for next year; the intellectual property rights legislation being drafted; union plans for meetings on the future of the university; and other topics. The FAC later decided to wait until the proposed legislation on intellectual property (which is largely a legal matter involving copyright law) is introduced before pursuing the matter further. The FAC reviewed the proposed Trustee policy on campus centers, institutes, etc. It found the draft language satisfactory but pointed out there is no reference to CSU system entities, which might fall into this category. FAC urges the administration to consider whether there should be such a reference. Considerable time was spent discussing the wide array of issues raised by the administration’s proposal to implement more coordinated academic calendars and year-round state-supported operation of CSU campuses. From this discussion emerged a proposed resolution on year-round operations which was subsequently placed on the plenary agenda. The themes of this proposed resolution include: adequate funding for YRO; campus authority over the implementation of YRO; maintaining highest quality of education in the event YRO is adopted; among others.

Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee On behalf of FGA committee, Vice Chair Highsmith reported thecommittee received a report from Vice Chancellor West on the 00-01 budget proposal and the Governor's initial budget submission to the legislature. CSU was treated well: Governor Davis proposed a 5% salary increase pool, funding for new enrollment of 4.5%, and provided most requests except for $10M operating money for Channel Islands. (This will likely be in the May revision if issues regarding funding the Stockton Center have been resolved.) There may be a significant opportunity to achieve substantial one-time money in this budget because revenues are robust and the governor is reluctant to over-commit the state through permanent funding increases. If enrollment appears to be greater than 4.5% as we get spring numbers, we will seek funding to pay for new enrollment. With the overall CSU increases, marginal funding per student is rising steadily. The governor has proposed additional funding to us to assist in K-12 improvement issues, such as money to educate teachers in the use of technology. The Republicans in the legislature are seeking substantial fee reductions for CSU students. As an alternative, there may be a window of opportunity to increase financial aid, which is a great barrier for students from poor families. Student loan obligation is increasing and grant need for students is not being met even though CSU commits about $100 million in state university grants (internal aid). State aid (Cal Grants) go largely to private institutions, University of California and the community colleges due to the interplay of state policies regarding need, merit, and access. The Committee will have a legislative information day meeting in Sacramento with legislators on February 22. The Senate's legislative day on April 12 is confirmed.

TEKR Chair Lynne Cook reported that the Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relationsis continuing to study teacher education program structures, initiatives and related issues. At each meeting we devote some time to our own professional development in an area of teacher education. This month we reviewed the various credentials or permits the state has established to allow less than fully certified people to teach. The committee distributed a summary of the pre-intern, intern, emergency, and traditional (basic or "level one") certification/permit program requirements and features. The CTC has encouraged and funded local districts to offer pre-intern and intern programs. CSU campuses also offer these programs as options. TEKR continued its discussion of the proposed common admission standards for teacher credential programs and identified data the committee needs to inform its policy recommendations.

TEKR's active review of CalState TEACH has resulted in two specific arrangements. A subcommittee appointed by the Executive Committee is consulting with CalStateTEACH leaders in the development of a comprehensive evaluation study which will address, among other matters, the issues raised in the May 1999 Ad Hoc Committee Report. Based on work of that subcommittee, TEKR recommended a structure and schedule for regular reports from the Director, Jodi Servatius. Dr. Servatius provided a detailed report this week that addressed TEKR concerns about program quality and standards, faculty load and academic freedom, progress of the currently admitted students, and administrative structures. TEKR commended Dr. Servatius for her openness and willingness to gather and present detailed information during such a critical stage of program development and initiation.

GE Advisory Committee Ken Nishita reported that the GE Advisory Committee GE Advisory Committee, the GE Subcommittee for Course Review, and the newly appointed faculty to augment the GE Subcommittee's course review will meet on February 10, 2000, from 1-5 p.m. The discussion will focus on the review of courses certified to meet the United States History, Constitution, and American Ideals requirements.

CMS Project Advisory Board Barry Pasternack reported that the CMS Project Advisory Board met on January 11, 2000. The Board was informed that a new committee made up of provosts/academic vice presidents of campuses that are in Phase I is being formed in order to gain academic support for the project. It was also reported that security of faculty and student information is a concern since this information is currently proposed to be in the same database. Discussion ensued on the possibility of PeopleSoft partnering with the system on this project in order to share some of the risks. It was reported that one reason PeopleSoft was reluctant to do this is because there are too many different consultants involved in the project. Status reports were heard regarding different project workgroups.


APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Senator Pincu moved (Hood seconded) approval of the agenda. The agenda was approved.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Senator Hegstrom moved (Wort seconded) approval of the November 12, 1999, minutes. Senator Hegstrom requested an addition to the minutes: AS-2476-99/FGA was approved at the November plenary meeting but that was not noted in the minutes. The corrected minutes were approved.

Senator McNeil moved to reorder the agenda by putting Item 7, AS-2485-00/AA, as the first item of business and, a waiver would be requested. Motion approved.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University recommend that the CSU Trustees’ action on the Proposed Revision of Title 5 Regulations on Undergraduate Degrees be deferred until after the May plenary of the Academic Senate CSU to allow time for consultation with the Academic Senate CSU and the local senates regarding the specific recommended changes in the CSU degree and major requirements.

RATIONALE: According to "Collegiality in the California State University System," adopted by the Academic Senate of the California State University in March 1985, the faculty have primary responsibility for certain curricular decisions, including "the establishment of minimum conditions for the award of certificates and degrees to students." The responsibility of the faculty includes not only the appropriate curriculum requirements, but also the minimum number of units for the awarding of degrees. Response of the Academic Senate to a proposal to reduce the current unit minimum for the baccalaureate degree must be obtained before moving forward with such a change.

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair David McNeil moved (Kellner seconded) the resolution.

Senator McNeil moved (Kellner seconded) to waive the rules.

Senator Myron Hood moved to add at the end of the Resolved clause "before action is taken." There was no second.

Senator Thobaben moved (Edelman seconded) to amend by deleting the Resolved clause and adding another Resolved clause: "That the Academic Senate of the California State University recommend that the CSU Trustees’ action on the Proposed Revision of Title 5 Regulations on Undergraduate Degrees be deferred until after the May plenary of the Academic Senate CSU to allow time for consultation with the Academic Senate CSU and the local senates regarding the specific recommended changes in the CSU degree and major requirements. "

Senator Fitzgerald moved (Kersten seconded) to close debate on the amendment. Motion failed.

The Thobaben amendment was approved.

Senator Edelman moved (Kersten seconded) to close debate on the resolution. Motion approved.

AS-2485-00/AA motion approved.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University support the CSU Deans of Education recommendation regarding Common Admission Standards for Programs of Teacher Preparation provided the systemwide GPA standards are reflective of the variation in median grade point average by discipline.

RATIONALE: In order to meet the Trustees' goal of common admission standards for teacher education as well as requirements for legislative accountability and enrollment reporting, the CSU Deans of Education have recommended systemwide standards for admission into programs of teacher education. The common or systemwide admission criteria represent a balance and compromise across all the existing campus requirements. All applicants meeting systemwide admissions standards would be offered the opportunity to enter a program somewhere in the CSU.

The adoption of common admission guidelines by all campuses is an explicit goal of the CSU's Commitment to Prepare High Quality Teachers which was adopted by the CSU Board of Trustees and endorsed by the CSU Academic Senate in 1998. Increasing the CSU's ability to attract and prepare greater numbers of highly qualified teachers is critical to the quality of education in California. Highly varied requirements established by individual campuses are among the perceived barriers to entering CSU teacher credential programs. Common admission standards for all of the CSU campuses would increase the equity of access and procedural ease with which potential teachers make application and enter teacher preparation programs without reducing the academic performance standards for applicants.

It is essential that CSU admission standards ensure that highly qualified applicants are attracted and admitted to its teacher credential programs. Flexibility must be maintained that will allow campuses to make admissions decisions for individual candidates based on documented systemwide variation in grade point average among disciplines. Systemwide reports document the variation in mean undergraduate grade point averages in disciplines such as those that emphasize mathematics, science and technology. Given the critical shortage of teachers with adequate preparation in these areas, it is essential that systemwide policies not create additional barriers to recruiting and admitting qualified applicants in science and math related disciplines.

On behalf of the Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations, Chair Lynne Cook moved (Cates seconded) the resolution. AS-2479-00/TEKR will be a second reading item at the March 9-10, 2000, meeting.




RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University support Proposition 26, an Initiative Constitutional Amendment: (titled) School Facilities Bonds; Local Majority Vote, as it appears on the March 2000 primary election ballot, and urge campus senates to extend their support in the form of campus senate resolutions.

RATIONALE: Proposition 26 would 1) authorize simple majority vote approval for local school bonds, 2) authorize property taxes in excess of 1 percent to pay the bonds, and 3) prohibit bond use for teacher and administration salaries and all other school operating expenses. The initiative would also implement accountability requirements including annual performance and financial audits, and a requirement that a specific list of projects to be built with bond money be provided to voters.

The state constitution requires a 2/3 vote on all local general obligation bonds. Since 1978 this super-majority requirement has led to the defeat of one-half of proposed school district bond measures, totaling $6.8 billion of $15.5 billion proposed. The California Department of Finance projects enrollment growth of one million K-12 students over the next decade and estimates $46.6 billion will be needed to build required facilities.

The proposed amendment to the constitution establishing a majority vote requirement would improve the likelihood of voter approval of school bond measures which is critical to meeting the future demand for facilities.

On behalf of the Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee, Vice Chair Jim Highsmith moved (Edelman seconded) the resolution.

Senator Kersten moved (Highsmith seconded) to waive the rules to take action on the resolution at the present meeting. Motion carried.

AS-2480-00/FGA motion approved without dissent.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University support year-round operations (YRO) provided that the following 11 principles are adhered to:

1. YRO should not be implemented systemwide unless sufficient funding is provided by the legislature to support any and all additional costs entailed thereby.

2. If YRO is implemented, CSU shall allocate to individual campuses sufficient resources to maintain high-quality programs throughout the year, and provide for faculty who have the appropriate expertise. This principle calls for an appropriate proportion of tenure-track to temporary faculty.

3. If YRO is implemented, CSU shall provide adequate resources (e.g., office space, computer support, library resources) to support it. Adequate time should be made available to do necessary maintenance on facilities and equipment.

4. Individual campuses shall determine their own academic calendars.

5. Individual campuses shall be free to choose which programs are appropriate for year-round scheduling.

6. The CSU and individual campuses shall investigate and develop creative means to encourage students a) to enroll during the summer and b) to use facilities fully throughout the year.

7. No faculty member shall be required to teach year-round.

8. Faculty who choose to teach year-round shall receive compensation (including benefits) proportionate to their rank for the current academic year.

9. Department chairs, staff, and other employees who, as a result of YRO must work 12 months, shall receive proportionate compensation, including all benefits.

10. Faculty who choose to teach year-round shall not be adversely affected in the RTP process.

11. Lecturers’ eligibility for health and other benefits shall be based on their total annualized teaching load.

RATIONALE: In light of the anticipated student demand for entry to the CSU, there has been much discussion throughout the state on the implementation of Year-Round Operations for all of the CSU. While the Academic Senate CSU is not opposed to the concept of Year-Round Operations, it is imperative that the principles of this resolution be adhered to and used to develop subsequent policy.

On behalf of the Faculty Affairs Committee, Chair Tim Kersten moved (Gregory seconded) the resolution. AS-2481-00/FA will be a second reading item at the March 9-10, 2000, meeting.

Senator Thobaben moved the agenda.


RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge the Trustees of the CSU to adhere to the following principles when considering a policy for managing enrollment:

  • Students will be allowed to matriculate at the campus of their choice if a place is available at that campus.

  • Campuses will be permitted to adopt enrollment management practices (within system guidelines and via shared governance procedures) which allows them to preserve and enhance their distinctive missions and academic programs.

  • Every effort should be made to secure adequate funding which will allow campuses to avoid impaction while maintaining quality.

  • Efforts to increase capacity will not significantly impair student learning outcomes and the quality of the students’ collegiate experience.

  • Increasing capacity implies new capital investment in classrooms, laboratories, libraries, and housing. The use of off-campus centers and other stop-gap measures should not be viewed as a satisfactory substitute for the development, maintenance and enhancement of CSU campus facilities.

  • While increasing capacity – e.g., by scheduling more off-campus, night, weekend, and summer classes, or by increased use of technology-mediated instruction and distance education––may be a way of avoiding impaction or minimizing its effects or extent, this must not be done in disregard of its effect on faculty workload or the ability of faculty to carry out their other professional obligations, including those of scholarship and service. As new, perhaps as yet untried, ways of increasing capacity are experimented with, the same consideration must be given to their effects on other important academic functions.

  • Enrollment management criteria and procedures will not have a net effect of reducing diversity on any given campus.

  • "CSU eligible" should continue to be defined the same way throughout the system.

  • Students for whom attendance at a non-regional campus would create a hardship may be given priority consideration, but not a guarantee, in admission.

  • Enrollment management procedures should include broad outreach efforts to ensure diversity of applications.

RATIONALE: Enrollment management criteria and procedures can have a dramatic impact on the ability of the CSU to fulfill its mission. The faculty believes that these policies will ensure a continued commitment to quality, access, and affordability during the difficult times ahead as enrollment pressures increase.

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair David McNeil moved (Whitney seconded) the resolution. AS-2482-00/AA will be a second reading item at the February 11, 2000, meeting.

Senator Pincu moved (Kaiser seconded) to change adjournment time from 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Motion approved.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge the Trustees of the CSU to adopt the following principles for campuses and programs when implementing enrollment management and impaction.


  • Campus faculty and Senates shall participate fully in developing policy, procedures, and criteria for admitting students.

  • All enrollment management policy, procedures, and criteria shall be widely publicized.

  • Special admissions will be used to maintain diversity in programs where impaction adversely impacts it.

  • Each campus will be allowed to maintain a unique identity and emphases.

  • The freshmen eligibility index will remain targeted at the top 1/3 of graduating seniors.

  • An appropriate balance between upper and lower division students will be maintained.


  • All policies regarding campus impaction shall be systemwide.

  • A proportion of admissions at every impacted campus may be allocated competitively.

  • A proportion of admissions at every impacted campus will be reserved for students within the campus’ service area and be granted non-competitively.


  • Criteria for admission to impacted programs/majors will be set at a level to ensure a high probability of success for students entering a program but not specifically to reduce the numbers of eligible students

  • RATIONALE: Admissions policies go to the very heart of the nature of the CSU and its mission. The faculty believes that discipline faculty should take the lead in identifying standards and criteria for their programs. Access must be a high priority even within impacted majors. Post-impaction enrollment practices should be expected to maintain the kind of diversity already existing on the campus, including diversity of learning styles that is so valuable to the quality of the educational process.

    Outstanding applicants––e.g., high school valedictorians and some other U.C.-eligible students––should simply be guaranteed access to the campus and programs of their choice. No student should be compelled to attend a local or regional campus if a place in another campus or program––for which that student qualifies––is sought.

    To the greatest extent possible, individual campuses, and/or regional groups of campuses, should be permitted to modify enrollment management practices (within the limits fixed by policy) so as to preserve and enhance the distinctive natures of campus missions (Cornerstones Principle 10).

    The system should assist campuses in avoiding impaction by increasing capacity, including, whenever possible, new capital investments in campus classroom, laboratory, library, and housing space. The use of off-campus centers, even centers resulting from creative or synergistic partnerships with other institutions, should not be viewed as a satisfactory substitute for the development, maintenance, and enhancement of CSU campus facilities. In keeping with Cornerstones Principle 1, attempts to increase capacity must not interfere with or reduce in any way demonstrable student learning outcomes, or (in keeping with the Academic Senate CSU’s Study of the Baccalaureate) the quality of the collegiate experience.

    Students for whom attendance at a non-regional campus would create a hardship should be given special consideration, but not a firm guarantee, in admission, whether they are high priority transfers or lower priority first-time freshmen. Changes in enrollment management policies and practices should not decrease diversity on any given campus. For example, the use of selective criteria for some applicants that tend to discriminate against a particular class of students should be offset by the use of a process used for another group of applicants that favors such students. (This principle suggests a need for flexibility rather than the application of a uniform set of criteria for the entire population of applicants.)

    On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair David McNeil moved (Whitney seconded) the resolution. AS-2483-00/AA will be a second reading item at the February 11, 2000, meeting.

    Senator Pasternack moved (Cates seconded) to extend adjournment time from 2:30 to 2:45 p.m. Motion approved.


    RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the attached Proposed Title 5 Revisions Concerning Admission Criteria, with the following changes:

    1. On page 4, paragraph 40601(h) should read: "The term ‘first-time freshman’ means an applicant who has achieved units of college credit only through the first summer following high school graduation or an applicant who has achieved no units of college credit."

    2. On page 5, in paragraph 40807, the fourth and fifth lines should read: "…for any college work completed during that five-year period the applicant received "C" average (2.0) or better and (3) if the applicant’s….

    RATIONALE: The Academic Senate CSU provides the above technical improvements to wording in the Admission Advisory Council’s recommended changes to Title 5. The Senate concurs with the recommendation that the First-time Freshman Grade Point Average be calculated in a way that is consistent with how the University of California calculates GPA for purposes of admission. Student GPA for purposes of admission to the CSU would be determined by grades achieved in courses taken in the 10th, 11th, and 12th grade in fulfillment of the approved college preparatory course pattern required for admission to both the UC and the CSU.

    On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair David McNeil moved (Whitney seconded) the resolution. AS-2484-00/AA will be a second reading item at the March 9-10, 2000, meeting.


    * * * * *

    The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. on Friday, January 21, 2000.

    * * * * *

    Approved (or corrected)




    Gene L. Dinielli, Chair



    Les Pincu, Secretary



    Margaret Price, Recording Secretary

    Academic Senate Home | Calendar | Search Resolutions | Contact Us | Helpful Links