Campus Responses to Draft Accountability Process Document

AS-2472-99/AA - September 9-10, 1999


RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University request the campus senates to respond to the call for responses by local senates and appropriate faculty committees to the draft Accountability Process document dated August 16, 1999; and be it further

RESOLVED: That responses from campus senates be directed to their campus president as well as to the Chair of the Academic Senate CSU, for transmittal to Executive Vice Chancellor David S. Spence; and be it further

RESOLVED: That in their consideration of the draft Accountability Process document and in their recommendations for elements to be included or excluded in the planning for accountability in the CSU, local campus senates should carefully consider such issues as the following:

1. Are the accountability indicators specified for administrative and management performance adequate, or commensurate with those spelled out for academic performance?

2. Are the accountability indicators specified for the system as a whole sufficiently parallel to those spelled out for the campuses?

3. Is there enough distinction made in the draft document between "accountability" and "assessment"?

4. Can the individual campuses reasonably be expected to achieve consensus on the parameters of such elaborate assessment processes given the very short timeline for response?

5. Are the specific accountability indicators proposed in the draft Accountability Process document consistent with the academic mission and programs of the individual campuses? Might other indicators be more appropriate? Provide examples.

6. Given that the proposed accountability process is meant to be both formative and summative, might a more open process with less rigidly defined indicators contribute better to the formative aspects of that goal? For example, is three years the most desirable period between accountability cycles?

7. Are adequate mechanisms in place on the campus for appropriate faculty oversight of the process of accountability, especially as regards the quality of degree programs?

8. Is the campus satisfied that the draft document protects against unfair or inappropriate comparisons among campuses and programs?

RATIONALE: The Draft Accountability Process document, in addition to a recitation of its background, and enunciation of some general principles, sets forth some very specific areas of responsibility and measures of accountability which have a very great potential to affect the academic missions of the CSU and its campuses in various ways. While certain areas and measures (e.g., items 2-9) are already routinely studied, with data generated for possible reporting, other items (especially items 1 and 10-12) are new, are not standardized, and will require considerable work in devising appropriate accountability processes.

The Academic Senate CSU recognizes that the November 1, 1999, deadline for responses set by the Executive Vice Chancellor hardly provides enough time for meaningful consideration and response by the local senates. Recognizing the importance of a Compact II agreement, the Academic Senate CSU considers that it is equally important that this sytemwide basic strategic accountability plan benefit from the fullest possible input of the faculty, in collaboration with the administration. We note that we would have preferred that the drafting of this Accountability Process document had been postponed until there could be full senate consultation and participation in its initial drafting.

APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY – September 9-10, 1999

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