Academic Senate of the California State University

Meeting of January 18-19, 1996
CSU Headquarters, Long Beach, CA


CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 18, 1996, by Chair James Highsmith.

ROLL CALL: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield) Jacquelyn Kegley, Ernie Page; (Chico) Kathleen Kaiser, James Postma; (Dominguez Hills) Hal Charnofsky, C. Dick Williams; (Fresno) Jacinta Amaral, James Highsmith, Lester Pincu; (Fullerton) Keith Boyum, Vincent Buck, Albert Flores; (Hayward) Judith Stanley, Don Wort; (Humboldt) Elmo Moore; (Long Beach) Gene Dinielli, Barbara Franklin, Simon George; (Los Angeles) Harold Goldwhite, Rosemarie Marshall; (Northridge) Roberta Madison, Gerald Resendez; (Pomona) Peter Clark, Edward Fonda, Rochelle Kellner; (Sacramento) Juanita Barrena, Cristy Jensen, Sylvia Navari; (San Bernardino) Walter Oliver, J. Paul Vicknair; (San Diego) David DuFault, Annette Easton, Francis Stites, Dan Whitney; (San Francisco) Robert Cherny, Gary Hammerstrom; (San Jose) Allison Heisch, David McNeil, Robert Milnes; (San Luis Obispo) Reginald Gooden, Tom Hale; (San Marcos) Edward Thompson III; (Sonoma) Robert Girling, Perry Marker; (Stanislaus) Richard Levering, Thomas Young; (Chancellor's Office) Charles Lindahl.


During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:

Paul Leyda, Assistant Professor, California State University Maritime Academy

Eric Mitchell, University Affairs Director, California State Student Association

Jack Munsee, CFA Liaison to Academic Senate CSU

Jill Murphy, ASI Vice President of University Affairs, California State Student Association

J. Ken Nishita, Observer, CSU Monterey Bay

Cher Thomas, Director, Academic Planning, Chancellor’s Office

Todd Wilander, ASI President/CSSA Statewide Academic Senate Representative

Johnetta Anderson, Technical Assistant, Chancellor’s Office

Andrea Cullins, Staff Assistant - Budget, Academic Senate CSU

Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

Margaret Price, Staff Assistant - Documents, Academic Senate CSU

Gina Worthington, Clerical Assistant, Academic Senate CSU


Announcement of Times Certain

Thursday, January 18, 1996

2:00 p.m. - Dorothy Keane, Ernie Page, Francis Stites Report on the Symposium on Educational Reform - Implications and Responsibility for K-12 and Higher Education (dated 11-16-95)

3:00 p.m. - David Ernst, Executive Director of Integrated Technology Strategies Initiative Presentation on Integrated Technology Strategies Initiative Project

Friday, January 19, 1996

8:30 a.m. Barry Munitz, Chancellor

10:30 a.m. - Molly Broad, Executive Vice Chancellor, Budget Update


Overcoming Survival Paralysis: A new year brings opportunities to assess the successes of the past year and the challenges of the emerging one. As I have thought about the progress of the CSU in the past year, I have had a recurring fear that campus departments and schools will remain in the survival paralysis of the last five years. Sometimes I visualize the deer caught in the blaze of headlights, afraid either to stay or to run.

During the 1990s, many CSU programs have been living from year to year without certainty of either their future or future resources. This has discouraged or stifled academic planning at the department, school and campus level, made it impossible, precarious, or at least difficult to recruit tenure-track faculty, and generally dampened our spirits about the prospects of educational improvement. In spite of this negative environment, faculty generally have persevered, making advances in teaching and scholarship. But faculty take little comfort in being successful survivors without apparent institutional support or concern.

Now that we are in the first year of budgeting under the Governor’s four-year compact with higher education and California’s revenues portend a budget surplus to begin the next fiscal year, we need to consider our collective prospects over a term longer than one year. In part, studying the future of the baccalaureate gives the faculty an avenue to that consideration of prospects, but I believe system and campus leaders need to adopt longer-term, multi-year planning if we are to break out of the cycle of year-to-year paralysis. It is time for more reasoned decision-making about campus enrollment growth and funding, over more than one or two years, so that the academic units closest to teaching and learning can once again be optimistic, or at least realistic, about their future, their goals, and their ability to achieve the resources needed to improve education.

It is also time for faculty to come to grips with issues of how hiring will proceed in the next several years. Without the threat of financial exigency or layoff and with the prospect of substantial retirements before 2005 and of growing enrollment, faculty need a better, long-term sense of the resources available to enable them rationally to determine fundamental directions for curriculum, including which programs should be sustained and nourished and which ones should be redesigned, consolidated, or phased out. All of this requires system decisions on a multi-year basis: decisions about enrollment allocations, sustained improvement in faculty compensation and faculty development resources, and projections about fiscal and capital resources.

Continuing to operate on a year-to-year basis increases uncertainty and political decision-making driven by the exigencies of the moment, while reducing our ability to shape our future positively through action based on real study and planning. To the extent we can do it, the CSU should exercise some courage in making reasoned decisions and assumptions about our resources, enrollments, and directions, and then allow campus faculty and administrators––whose decisions are vital––to create the future we desire. If we do not let loose the power of the campuses and their faculty to improve education, and if we do not establish an expectation of rational behavior from state policy makers visávis education, the CSU campuses will once again be trapped in the paralysis of the early 1990s.

I have asked the Fiscal and Governmental Affairs committee to begin discussion of multi-year planning at the system level and to address academic budget priorities for 1997-1998.

Remediation Issues: The Trustees are now poised to adopt a transformed approach to reducing the need for remediation in the CSU. When passed, it will require that faculty begin the serious work that will lead to better education at K-12 and in colleges and universities in California. The Trustees have been buffeted in the press for caving in by designing a detailed, realistic and reasoned plan to help teachers and students. I believe they will stand firm for a plan that can work, and they should be praised and congratulated for taking up an issue this Senate sought to have addressed in the 70s and 80s with little success. As is often the case, a perceived "crisis" was needed for state leaders to listen and believe our concerns were real. We should thank the Trustees for taking the heat and bringing focus at the state level to a problem we cannot begin to solve on our own.

Yet, before the memory of the October joint higher education meeting to address these issues has faded, I learned from the Community College Senate President Janis Perry that Chancellor Mertes has refused to support faculty assignments or travel expenses for community college faculty to serve on the English and mathematics task forces that will recommend K-12 standards for these subjects. This is the very essence of the foundation skills problems which burden higher education and more importantly have a profound effect on the real lives of K-12 graduates. I confess a sense of sadness when we lose sight of what it is we are here to accomplish. I hope we find ways to encourage representation for the thousands of community college faculty on the front lines of education and for the hundreds of thousands of students they serve. As I suggested in my last report to you, "We, the faculty, have the responsibility and opportunity to continue to shape the way the University deals with student preparation and with student educational development.... It is also our responsibility to assure that the opportunity is not lost to work in partnership with other education sectors to improve education for all California’s students beginning in elementary school."

On a happier note, our administration is fully supporting the six faculty the Senate selected to serve on the math and English Round Table Task Forces dealing with standards. Our appointees are:

English Task Force Mathematics Task Force

John Cleman, CSU Los Angeles George Diehr, CSU San Marcos

Pat Nichols, San Jose State Scott Farrand, CSU Sacramento

Judith Rodby, CSU Chico Patricia Morgan, San Diego State

Soon we will begin naming the faculty to serve on the assessment task forces beginning in the fall of 1996. We have received notice of interest in the topic of assessment from many faculty based on a general call done earlier in the fall and we will discuss this with campus senate chairs in February.

1996-1997 Governor’s CSU Budget Proposal and Proposition 203: The Governor’s CSU budget proposal has honored his higher education compact: a 4% general increase, plus increased debt service, additional employer contributions for federal taxation (amounting to $30 million), additional revenue sufficient for a 2000 FTES increase for 96-97, and funds to replace a proposed 10% State University Fee increase for 96-97. Details of the budget proposal will be distributed to you and Executive Vice Chancellor Broad will brief us tomorrow morning.

You will remember that the net total of new funds we requested was $114 million with approximately $68 million slated for compensation, $12 million set aside for additional enrollment to the campuses (@ $5600-5900 per FTES), $15 million for mandatory costs, $9.6 million for physical plant, $4.5 million for academic/technological support, and $5.4 million for special initiatives.

The capital budget depends on bonding being available. Proposition 203 will be on the March ballot, giving us precious little time to convince the public, and perhaps even our own constituencies, that we desperately need the $300 million that would be CSU’s portion of the $3 billion bond measure. With Proposition 203, we can assure 96-97 capital projects totaling $150 million. Without it, infrastructure improvements and capacity to serve current students will be delayed. With this short a time before voting, absentee ballots and sympathetic voter registration become very important. If we do not have rapid voter education emanating from our CSU campuses about the benefits for CSU communities, this measure could fail. Campus senates should be active proponents for adequate and safe (even if spartan) education facilities.

Educational Issues and the Board of Trustees: I am pleased to report that the Chancellor and Senior Vice Chancellor have agreed to work with the Senate in planning a series of presentations for the BOT Educational Policies committee over the next years to highlight and illustrate the exemplary work of the faculty throughout the system. Our intention is to provide an opportunity for a range of schools, programs, and projects to be highlighted through direct faculty presentations to the Trustees. Planning for this has begun. If you have ideas for the series or wish to participate in the planning, please let me know.

Constitutional Amendments: All campuses (save one) have now reported an affirmative faculty vote on our constitutional changes. I will be submitting them to the Trustees next week and anticipate a normal schedule of March and May consideration by the Board. If ratified by the Board, the amendments would affect campus representation on the Senate beginning with any regular or replacement election held after the summer of 1996. I anticipate campus elections of statewide delegates to proceed as normal during this spring.

Technology: The March Board of Trustees meeting will include consideration of a major item on technology initiatives. [Academic Senate representatives are involved in this Integrated Technology Strategies (ITS) initiative through membership on the SPI Team, CLRIT, CTI, and CIMIT.] Today we will hear an update from David Ernst from IRT on the status of the planning process and how it could improve the teaching and learning environment for faculty throughout the system. David just yesterday spent several hours with the Executive Council and campus administrators explaining and discussing the planning process. He will be forwarding for our consideration next month the recommendations that will go to the Trustees in March.

Intellectual Property: The advent of increasingly powerful technology in education and communication has heightened our concern about intellectual property rights. Our Senate committees are addressing these issues as they examine reports on the academic implications of technology. Recently, the chancellor’s office sent information to campuses urging development of intellectual property policies. Some campuses have such policies. Some don’t. Last year the campus senate chairs asked for the assistance of the statewide senate in addressing these issues. We will be discussing this topic with them again in February, but it is clear that the issues are complex, are not easily dealt with in the abstract, and have the potential profoundly to affect faculty attitudes and productivity. Many of the concerns of the senates regarding the academic and educational effects of intellectual property rules overlap those concerns of the CFA regarding terms and conditions of employment. We should all be cognizant of the negotiations that are underway between CSU and CFA as the results will affect intellectual property policies developed by senates and approved by presidents. While all senates should be encouraged to become educated on the issues and address the intellectual property issues that affect their faculty, it may be unrealistic to expect much enlightened uniformity of policy across the campuses before we have more experience in this arena. I hope we will share our mistakes and successes regarding intellectual property, so we can continue to learn from one another.

The Academic Conference: The Executive Committee and committee chairs have had several meetings to plan for the academic conference next month. Your invitations have just gone out. The purpose of the conference is to generate the agenda for studying the CSU baccalaureate, with the help of students, alumni, administrators, trustees and faculty. We will have a full program Friday evening February 16 (including post prandial remarks by the Chancellor). Saturday will be given over to exploration of large themes related to the baccalaureate. The academic vice presidents have been invited to attend and bring key campus faculty who lead academic policy changes to participate in the dialogue. The conference hotel is the Hilton and the Senate is invited to attend in conjunction with the interim meetings that will occur on the 16th. The campus senate chairs’ will meet with the executive committee that day as well.

The Senate Staff: We are losing Gina Worthington, a ten-year veteran of our office, to UCLA, her doctoral program and her teaching. We will miss Gina but we know she is destined for far better things in education than making sure the Senators have received all their necessary papers. We wish her well as she joins the ranks of the faculty, and we hope we set a positive example.

The New Building: Both Deborah Hennessy and I have discussed the Senate’s space and facility needs in the new headquarters building with the "space planner." I have reinforced our major concerns in discussions with Vice Chancellor Richard West. Feel free to feed suggestions to the executive committee. There’s always the chance we have overlooked an issue important to you.

Important Miscellany: The Chancellor has asked the Senate executive committee to participate with a small group of system leaders in a Pew Roundtable for the CSU system from March 1996-March 1997 sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts and facilitated by Tom Ehrlich. This group will be addressing key issues facing the system and this affords us yet another opportunity to participate collegially in a process that may affect the direction of the CSU.

The Executive Committee will meet with the Monterey Bay campus faculty in February to discuss creation of its campus senate mechanism and its role in collegial campus governance.

Beginning this budget year, the Intersegmental Coordinating Committee, with significant participation by segmental faculty leaders, will replace the prior ad hoc administrative process used in creating intersegmental budget proposals to present to the governor’s staff.

The Accountability Measures project steering group met in December with Bernie Goldstein and Frank Young to discuss issues related to learning assessment and its role in accountability.

The Senate’s representation at the December 10-12 conference on "The Education of the New California Workforce: Exploring the Role of Higher Education in Job Preparation and Economic Development" in San Francisco included Rosemarie Marshall, Sylvia Navari, Marshelle Thobaben, Hal Charnofsky, Francis Stites, Les Pincu, and Jim Highsmith. Most had speaking parts and acquitted themselves better than O.J. Bernie Goldstein was voted most active and talkative CSU trustee, followed closely by Ralph Pesqueira. Chancellor Munitz was voted best plenary speaker, and this razzle dazzle slides from Anne Ambrose didn’t hurt in the voting.

CSU and SUNY faculty leaders met in LA on November 18 to discuss issues related to a proposed joint dialogue on faculty productivity. Chancellor Munitz agreed to support Senate participation in a second meeting January 27-29 in New York City. I have been invited to SUNY Senate’s meeting prior to the productivity dialogue. Marshelle Thobaben and Harold Goldwhite will also represent us, and Tom Young will be one of the CFA representatives. Should we agree that this discussion deserves expansion, TIAA-CREF will fund a summer conference involving a dozen or so representatives each from the CSU and SUNY Senates and from CFA and UUP (faculty unions).

The Classes of 2001 to 2005 Project steering committee met in December to begin review of a draft on student demographics prepared by Marsha Nakanishi.

* * * * *

Standing Committee Reports:

Academic Affairs Committee Chair Gary Hammerstrom reported that the Academic Affairs Committee considered five items of business at this meeting.

(1) Remedial Education. The committee reviewed the brief and resolution entitled "Precollegiate Skills Instruction in the CSU," and the Report and Recommendations of the Trustees’ Subcommittee on Remedial Education, both to be presented at the Board of Trustees meeting of January 23-24, 1995. Finding that the resolution and report incorporate the substance of the Academic Senate’s resolution on Remedial Education passed in November, the committee drafted a resolution endorsing the resolution and report, and commending the Trustees for the collegial process by which these items were developed. The committee agreed to request a waiver to allow action on this item at the January plenary.

(2) Proposed Revisions to SUAM Sections 1502.06 and 1502.07. The committee was joined by Ed McAleer, Statewide Dean of Extended Education, who answered several questions regarding concerns that the committee held about these proposed revisions. Dean McAleer agreed with the substance of our concerns and indicated that he felt that the Commission on Extended Education would respond favorably. The committee drafted a first reading resolution endorsing the SUAM revisions in principle, but withholding endorsement until action by the Commission on Extended Education on our suggestions for change. The Commission is scheduled to meet in late January.

(3) Technology Task Force Paper on Academic Issues. In December, the committee reviewed the Technology Task Force (TTF) Paper on faculty issues. It concluded that the breadth of interpretation of the "fair use" doctrine in copyright law had significant implications for curriculum delivery. Thus, the committee requested that the Faculty Affairs Committee urge the broadest possible interpretation of this doctrine in the resolution on intellectual property that it was developing. At this meeting, the committee reviewed the TTF paper on academic issues. It developed a first reading resolution endorsing four of the five recommendations presented in this paper. Action on the fifth recommendation, which urged campus senates to develop policies and procedures on intellectual property, was postponed pending resolution of collective bargaining issues between CFA and CSU.

(4) CLRIT Paper on Obstacles to the Implementation of Instructional Technology. The committee reviewed this paper which contains the findings and recommendations of two work groups established by CLRIT, one on academic issues and the second on administrative and fiscal issues. The two work groups presented a set of joint findings and recommendations and sets of individual recommendations. The committee developed a first reading resolution endorsing the joint findings and recommendations and commending the two sets of individual findings and recommendations to the campus senates for consideration in the development of policy regarding instructional technology.

(5) ESL Intersegmental Task Force Report. The committee was joined by Gari Browning, Director of Institutional Research at Orange Coast College and Chair of the ESL Intersegmental Project Group. That group is seeking endorsement of its report on ESL instruction in California higher education and support for continuation of it project. The committee found the report to be an excellent presentation on ESL instruction and developed a first reading resolution endorsing the report and urging continuation of the project.

The committee also heard from liaison reports from Patrick McDonough (Academic Affairs, Chancellor’s Office), Barbara Franklin, Admissions Advisory Council, and Kathy Kaiser (General Education). In addition, we received as a report from Les Pincu on the Workforce conference held in San Francisco in mid-December.

Faculty Affairs Committee Chair Vince Buck reported on two resolutions his committee was preparing: 1) Re-affirmation of support for tenure by the Trustees, and 2) Fair use of intellectual property. In addition, the committee is discussing the presidential selection process, PSSI procedures on campuses, faculty reward systems, faculty working in the state legislature, and faculty development. They also discussed productivity, but prefer to focus on learning productivity. He commented that quality is our responsibility as professionals.

Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Tom Young thanked the Chancellor’s liaisons to his committee for being such excellent resource people. His committee has prepared a resolution on Proposition 203 and will be requesting a waiver. Other topics discussed were budget priorities for 1997-98 (a first reading resolution will be presented on this topic at the March plenary meetings), legislative days in Sacramento (March 4-5) during which a reception will be held jointly with CSU alumni. Those interested in participating will be asked to complete a form listing their preferences for working the halls.

Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations Senator Stites gave the report in the absence of Chair Dorothy Keane, who is representing the Senate at a conference. Two resolutions were prepared: 1) The Report of the ESL Intersegmental Project entitled California Pathways (First Reading), and 2) School Reform - Implications and Responsibilities for Higher Education (First Reading). The committee also had a discussion with Gary Hart about his report on teacher education. A resolution will be forthcoming in March. Also discussed were an API study on liberal studies which is underway.

GE-Breadth Advisory Committee Chair Kathleen Kaiser reported that the CAN program is moving from Sacramento State, but the new site is yet to be determined. A common course numbering system was discussed by her committee, not from campus to campus but rather for general categories for certain kinds of courses.

The body was recessed, by Chair Highsmith, at 5:10 p.m. on Thursday, January 18, 1996.

* * * * *

The body was reconvened at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, January 19, 1996, by Chair Highsmith.

8:30 Time Certain: Barry Munitz, Chancellor On Friday morning Chancellor Barry Munitz spent an hour and a half with the Senate, discussing a wide range of topics. On the political scene the Assembly Committees, with a Republican majority in charge, have an entirely different group of Chairs and members. Brooks Firestone heads the Higher Education Committee, and Bernie Richter the Education Finance Committee. (Among Mr. Richter’s concerns about higher education are affirmative action; and faculty workload.) The Chancellor contrasted the recent meeting of the UC Regents, where the faculty’s concerns about governance issues in the Regents’ vote last July on affirmative action were essentially ignored, with the upcoming meeting of the CSU Trustees, where the modification of the Trustees’ policies on remediation reflect the intense involvement of the faculty and the faculty trustee, and demonstrate shared governance at its best. Proposition 203 which would allow the issuance of Education Bonds will be on the March 1996 ballot. a total of some $330 million would become available to the CSU for projects which are primarily related to safety and deferred maintenance. CSU faculty, staff, and students must become actively involved in the campaign to educate the public about the consequences of the passage or failure of this initiative, and time is very short. It will be crucial to try and get a large voter turnout, including absentee ballots, for the March election.

In response to questions the Chancellor discussed some of his views on collegiality. It cannot be a static concept. The Board of Trustees is as non-intrusive a group into areas where faculty views should be predominant as any Board could be -- and the Chancellor hopes to keep it that way. He believes tenure is essential as a protector of academic freedom but should not be viewed as job protection in this time when mandatory retirement has been abolished. When asked about the recent Presidential search at San Diego State, where the finalists did not have the "traditional" (for the CSU) visit with on-campus groups, including faculty, the Chancellor opined that the price the CSU would pay in losing excellent candidates who wished their candidacy to be confidential is not worth any advantage gained by a campus visit. (A number of Senators, including some from San Diego, disagreed vigorously with the Chancellor on this issue.)

The Chancellor reported that the CSU is working on productivity and strategic planning questions with a grant from the Pew Round Table. The study group, to be directed by Tom Ehrlich, former President of Indiana University and currently a Distinguished Professor at San Francisco State, will include approximately equal representation from faculty, trustees, Presidents, students, and staff. The work of the group will begin in Spring 1996 and end a year later, with the expected product being a set of strategic directives for the CSU. The Chancellor asked for input from the faculty on the future of international education in the CSU.

10:30 Time Certain: Molly Broad, Executive Vice Chancellor Later on Friday morning Executive Vice Chancellor Molly Broad visited the Senate primarily to discuss the Governor’s budget proposal for 1996-97. The Governor has followed his compact by proposing a roughly 4% increase in General Fund support for the CSU and has also proposed increases for debt service on revenue bonds; to make up for the loss of fee revenue which will occur if fees are held at 1995-96 levels, as the Governor proposes (the Trustees’ Budget request included a possible 10% fee hike and a plea to the Governor and legislature to hold fees constant, and make up the revenue); and to back fill the shortfall of fee revenue for 1995-96. Uses of the increases to the CSU include a projected 2000 FTES enrollment increase; investment in physical plant upgrades and maintenance; special initiatives for the newest campuses; and a 4% compensation increase pool, which is subject to bargaining. Like the Chancellor she stressed the importance of the bond issue for education on the March ballot.

In response to questions Vice Chancellor Broad commented that policies on intellectual property are in a state of flux in the CSU. She believes that local campus policies should prevail within a very broad set of systemwide guidelines. CFA and the CSU management are currently discussing whether some intellectual property policies are bargainable. The CSU has made improvements in managerial productivity as required by its budget to the extent of at least $10 million during each of the past two years, but faculty need to address productivity questions as well. As student demand for admission to the CSU grows in the next few years, as is predicted, we will no longer be able to use the "resources control enrollment" strategy that was initiated in a time of rapidly shrinking budgets.


APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Senator Wort moved (Whitney seconded) approval of the minutes of November 2-3, 1995. The minutes were approved.

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



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University support the consolidation of fee policies and procedures into a single comprehensive policy document; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU support the development of a fee policy that delegates the Chancellor’s authority to adjust mandatory campus fees, user fees, and penalty fees, to the campus presidents provided that consultation with appropriate campus constituencies on charging fees and allocating fee revenue is exercised in a manner that is consistent with policies adopted by the Board of Trustees; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Board of Trustees in any fee policy they may develop, to set limits on the permissible range of differential fees that may be established; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Board of Trustees to continue its student financial aid policy contained in the document, entitled Policies for Pricing and Strategies for Paying (1993), of allocating at least one-third of new student fee revenue to financial aid and consider providing fee waivers, so as to mitigate the effect of new fees upon students eligible for and receiving financial aid; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to continue the consultative process by giving the Academic Senate the opportunity to analyze and respond to any future policy proposals on student fees.

Senator Navari requested consent to make the following change: in the fourth Resolved clause substitute "and" for "or" after "financial aid," before "providing fee waivers." Senator Hammerstrom requested the change to read "and/or." Senator Barrena requested that it read "and consider providing fee waivers..." To this last change, there were no objections.

AS-2301-95/AA/F&GA motion carried.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge the Board of Trustees to support civic involvement, good citizenship and political participation among CSU students by encouraging each university president to:

1. distribute voter registration materials through campus infrastructure, such as class schedules; and,

2. supply Vote-by-Mail cards campus-wide through residential life and other student oriented programs; and,

3. implement steps to establish polling places on campus

RATIONALE: The demographics of CSU students (high mobility, low wages, single status, etc.) act to depress voter registration and voter participation. Studies suggest that when students can overcome these barriers to registration, their voting rates approximate those of the general population. Greater student voter registration and political participation enhances civic involvement and good citizenship. It can facilitate political education among students and enrich political discourse. It is consonant with the 1985 mission statement of the Board of Trustees which supported the goal of preparing "significant numbers of educated, responsible people to contribute to California's schools, economy, culture and future." The Governor has stated that governing boards, such as the CSU Board of Trustees, "should retain the authority to determine their policy regarding voter registration."

AS-2304-95/F&GA motion carried unanimously.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge the Chancellor to investigate the circumstances leading to a vote of no confidence when the Chancellor is notified that a campus president has received a vote of no confidence (or its equivalent) from the faculty or Senate of that campus and to share the findings of the investigation with the campus senate and inform the Academic Senate CSU of the completion of the investigation.

RATIONALE: Although many circumstances may contribute to a vote of no confidence, such a vote, ipso facto, is significant. Whenever a majority of the faculty, or their representatives, conclude that a situation on their campus is sufficiently serious to warrant voting no confidence in their president, the Chancellor should be concerned about the conduct of administrative leadership and the effects on the integrity of campus educational programs and campus morale. The Academic Senate calls upon the Chancellor to make that concern known to the campus and inform them, and the Academic Senate CSU, of steps s/he will take to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the vote of no confidence.

On behalf of the Faculty Affairs Committee, FAC Chair Buck moved (Whitney seconded) the resolution. Senator Goldwhite moved (Marshall seconded) to amend to change the title from "No Confidence Vote" to read "Investigation of a Vote of No Confidence." The amendment was approved.

Senator Barrena moved (DuFault seconded) to amend the last line of the Resolved clause by inserting "inform" before "the Academic Senate CSU" and adding immediately afterward "of the completion of the investigation." The amendment was approved.

Senator Amaral requested consent to clarify the wording, "campus leadership" in the second sentence of the Rationale. Chair Highsmith suggested replacing "campus" with "administrative." There were no objections.

AS-2305-96/FA motion carried.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University encourage each local campus senate to establish an annual award for faculty leadership to acknowledge and reward significant contributions to the principle and practice of shared governance.

RATIONALE: Faculty Leadership in shared governance is critical to the functioning of a university. Participation in collegial governance is one of the professional responsibilities of faculty in the California State University system. Increased teaching and research demands tend to make faculty, especially junior faculty, less engaged in governance, thereby seriously undermining the quality of education offered by our campuses. Acknowledging outstanding efforts in this area will demonstrate the importance of collegial governance and will encourage more faculty to participate and to participate well.

On behalf of the Faculty Affairs Committee, Senator Stanley moved (Whitney seconded) the resolution.

Senators Heisch and Amaral requested consent to make the following changes: delete "designed" before "to acknowledge" in the Resolved clause; delete the second line of the Rationale, "providing an educational experience of a high quality, and to the overall" and replace it with "the" before "functioning of a university."; delete the beginning of the next sentence, "Service to the university by participating" and replace it with "Participation." There were no objections.

AS-2306-96/FA motion carried unanimously.




RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the Resolution on Precollegiate Skills Instruction recommended for adoption by the CSU Board of Trustees at its meeting of January 23-24, 1996; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU endorse the Report and Recommendations of the Trustees’ Subcommittee on Remedial Education to be presented to the Board of Trustees at its meeting of January 23-24, 1996; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU commend the Board of Trustees for the collegial consultative process it followed in developing its Resolution on Precollegiate Skills Instruction and Report and Recommendations of the Trustees’ Subcommittee on Remedial Education.

RATIONALE: After issuing its initial draft report, the Trustees’ Subcommittee on Remedial Education sponsored a series of public hearings on the recommendations contained therein. The Subcommittee heard the views of faculty, students, administrators, legislators, and the general public regarding their proposals. The messages they received were simple, articulate, and uniform: (1) remediation works, (2) it is the CSU’s Master Plan obligation to admit and educate the upper one-third of the high school graduating class, (3) the CSU must work cooperatively with K-12 and the community colleges to develop a comprehensive plan to upgrade the levels of preparation of entering students based upon mutually acceptable competency standards.

The Academic Senate echoed these sentiments in its resolution passed in early November 1995, in which it further urged that a comprehensive plan to improve the writing and quantitative reasoning competencies of CSU students be based upon the nine principles for remediation/developmental education adopted by the Work Group on Underprepared Students chaired by Alex Gonzalez, Provost, CSU Fresno.

In response to the desires and recommendations of the major stakeholders in the CSU, the Trustees’ subcommittee engaged in a major revision of the draft. In so doing, they consulted extensively with the leadership of the Academic Senate and other groups to insure that the new version reflected a broad consensus. This consultative process has yielded the report and recommendations referred to in this resolution. The Senate notes with appreciation the respect paid to shared governance by the CSU Board of Trustees in its handling of this matter.

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair Hammerstrom moved (Oliver seconded) the resolution.

AAC Chair Hammerstrom moved (Stites seconded) to waive the rules to take action on the resolution at the present meeting. Motion carried.

AS-2307-96/AA motion carried unanimously.




RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse Proposition 203, the bond measure authorizing $300 million to support the Capital Outlay Budget for the CSU; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus academic senates, members of the CSU community and citizens of the State of California to support the passage of Proposition 203.

RATIONALE: The CSU faculty is aware that maintaining and increasing access to a quality higher education requires a safe and healthy learning environment. However, seven years of unfunded repair and maintenance have created "looming disasters" which place students, faculty and staff at some peril. Proposition 203 would begin to address these concerns by improving seismic safety and providing needed infrastructure and building renovations. The measure would also facilitate the delivery of a high quality education by improving campus telecommunication.

On behalf of the Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee, Chair Young moved (Madison seconded) the resolution.

F&GAC Chair Young moved (Pincu seconded) to waive the rules to take action on the resolution at the present meeting. Motion carried.

AS-2308-96/F&GA motion carried without dissent.




RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the report entitled K through 12 Reform: Implications and Responsibilities for Higher Education, which contains information vital to all segments of the California State University; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the campus senates to make local faculty aware of these reforms and their consequences; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the CSU Admissions Advisory Council to address the implications of these reforms in curriculum and assessment on admissions policies of the California State University; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to provide support for a development program to orient faculty to the pedagogies referenced in this report, including but not limited to technical tools; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU, together with the California Faculty Association, examine the implications of these reforms for retention, promotion and tenure decisions.

RATIONALE: The most immediate impact of these reforms on the California State University will be on the admissions process. In particular: How are portfolios to be evaluated? How are multi disciplinary courses to be reconciled with the traditional admissions requirements for course patterns? How are nontraditional assessments to be evaluated in place of traditional GPA admissions requirements?

A more important impact in the long term may be in the classroom. Students who have experience with electronic conferencing and information searches, who are accustomed to collaborative learning strategies and who have used mathematical and word processing software may have adopted learning styles unlike that of more traditional students.

The accompanying enclosures provide in outline form the notable reforms and their implications for the California State University.

On behalf of the Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations, Senator Stites moved (Williams seconded) the resolution.

Senator Dinielli requested consent to make the following editorial changes: to replace

the "slash" between "Table" and "Intersegmental" with a "hyphen" in the title; to substitute "endorse" for "endorses" in the first Resolved clause; and to replace "with" in the fourth Resolved clause with "to" before "the pedagogies." There were no objections.

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair Hammerstrom requested consent to reverse the order of the agenda to speak to AS-2311-96/AA before AS-2310-96/AA while awaiting attachments to AS-2310-96/AA. There were no objections.


RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University commend the Technology Task Force (1994-95) for the development of its position paper entitled Statement of Academic Issues and Recommendations for the Use of Technology-Mediated Teaching and Learning in the CSU; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU endorse recommendations one through four (attached) of the Technology Task Force position paper entitled Statement of Academic Issues and Recommendations for the Use of Technology-Mediated Teaching and Learning in the CSU.

RATIONALE: The Statement of Academic Issues and Recommendations for the Use of Technology-Mediated Teaching and Learning in the CSU contains a fifth recommendation as well.

At the present time, considerable uncertainty exists as to the jurisdictional division between the Academic Senate and the California Faculty Association on matters relating to intellectual property policies and procedures. As well, there is disagreement between CFA and the CSU as to the appropriateness for collective bargaining of certain of these issues. The Academic Senate is unwilling to endorse this recommendation until these bargaining and jurisdictional uncertainties have been resolved.

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair Hammerstrom moved (Kaiser seconded) the resolution.



WHEREAS, Gina Worthington has performed admirably and with unflagging good humor as the student assistant in the Academic Senate office for almost 10 years; and

WHEREAS, Gina has demonstrated exceptional talent while working with the Academic Senate, having unusual success in weird tasks such as locating the report "... with the hot pink cover," to finding misfiled letters and an endless parade of obscure intersegmental documents; and

WHEREAS, Gina has demonstrated saintly patience, considering the variety of assignments which have been given to her, e.g., locating misplaced keys to the refrigerators, keeping the copier toner supply, answering idiotic questions, making MacDonald’s Runs for staff working late at night; and

WHEREAS, She has maintained her sense of balance while pursuing her doctoral degree in American Indian Studies; and

WHEREAS, The skills and competencies gained in the Academic Senate office will be invaluable in her new role as a university professor (after all, she has learned from the best); therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University thank Gina Worthington with warm hugs for her superb and continued cheerful assistance and for her tolerance of the sometimes absent-minded staff and professors and wish her great success in her graduate studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, and much happiness in her life; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU confer the title of "student assistant emeritus" on Gina Worthington.

AS-2616-96/EX motion carried unanimously.





RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University support in principle the proposed changes to the State University Administrative Manual (SUAM) Section 1502.06 - Extension Program Service Area, and Section 1502.07 - Service Areas and Continuing Education Conducted by Auxiliary Organizations (Foundations), but reserve endorsement pending action by the Commission on Extended Education to adopt the following suggestions for change.

1. Revise proposed Sections 1503.02, 1502.03, and 1503.04 to state that whenever a CSU campus proposes to conduct a program within the service area of another CSU institution, the consultation between campuses will include the normal curricular approving entities, that is, relevant departments and faculty.

2. Revise proposed Sections 1503.02, 1502.03, and 1503.04 to state that whenever a CSU campus proposes to conduct a program within the service area of another CSU institution, the consultation between campuses will result in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) describing the program, and the nature and degree of cooperation and sharing (courses, degrees, FTEF, FTES, resources, etc.) between the institutions.

3. Revise requirement number 2 of the second paragraph of Section 1503.04 to "the lead and host institutions will jointly determine the effects (of offering a regional or statewide television, mass media, and/or computer-assisted program) on the host institution program and whether the added program will provide service to a larger audience."

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair Hammerstrom moved (Kaiser seconded) the resolution.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University adopt the June 1995 statement, Fair Use and the Pursuit of Higher Education: A Statement of Principle, developed by the CSU-SUNY-CUNY Joint Committee; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to adopt the statement, Fair Use and the Pursuit of Higher Education: A Statement of Principle, and encourage a liberal interpretation of fair use as set forth in §107 of the Copyright Act of 1976; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to work with the Senate to develop systemwide guidelines that promote a liberal interpretation of fair use and in the context of protecting copyright.

RATIONALE: CSU faculty develop and use copyrighted material. Although fair use for educational purposes, including teaching, scholarship, or research, is specifically identified as "...not an infringement of copyright," legal precedent defining the nature and extent of such fair use is lacking. Given the size and importance of the CSU on the educational landscape and the intellectual activity in teaching, scholarship, and research generated by CSU faculty, it is essential that CSU play a major role in shaping the debate about this important and timely topic.

On behalf of the Faculty Affairs Committee, Senator Whitney moved (Stanley seconded) the resolution.

Senator Barrena moved (Kaiser seconded) to waive the rules to take action on the resolution at the present meeting. Motion failed.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the report of the ESL Intersegmental Project entitled California Pathways: The Second Language Student in High Schools, Colleges, and Universities; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates to continue the ESL Intersegmental Project to seek validation of the descriptors for second-language students and thereafter develop assessment instruments based upon the validated descriptors; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge that the report of the ESL Intersegmental Project entitled California Pathways: The Second Language Student in High Schools, Colleges, and Universities be disseminated widely on CSU campuses with the intent of improving services and instruction for ESL students.

RATIONALE: The report, California Pathways: The Second Language Student in High Schools, Colleges, and Universities, was written by the ESL Intersegmental Project commissioned by the Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates (ICAS). A broadly based group of ESL professionals from the four segments participated in the project.

The report addresses a broad range of issues regarding the education of students whose first language is not English. It provides foundational work in articulating the needs of students learning English as a second language. The report is an important step in improving the education of ESL students within the CSU and throughout California public higher education.

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair Hammerstrom moved (Stites seconded) the resolution.




RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the Joint Findings and Recommendations (attached) of the Commission on Learning Resources and Instructional Technology (CLRIT) Work Group on Academic Issues and the CLRIT Work Group on Administrative and Fiscal Issues with the following qualifications:

(1) the Academic Senate CSU assume the word "sharing" as used in the phrase "course and degree program sharing" in Joint Findings and Recommendations numbers 5 and 6 refers to formal memoranda of understanding or other agreements concerning courses or degree programs jointly agreed upon by two or more CSU campus, and

(2) the contents of a memorandum of understanding specified in Joint Finding and Recommendation number 6 are not an exhaustive list;

and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the campus senates to consider the issues raised in the Findings and Recommendations of the CLRIT Work Group on Academic Issues and the Findings and Recommendations of the CLRIT Work Group on Administrative and Fiscal Issues in the report Removing Obstacles to the Use of Instructional Technology as campuses develop policies related to instructional technology.

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair Hammerstrom moved (Kaiser seconded) the resolution.




RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge the Chancellor to request the Board of Trustees to reaffirm its commitment to academic freedom, academic tenure, collegiality, and consensual governance in the California State University.

RATIONALE: The introduction of such notions as productivity, assessment, rolling contracts, efficiency, industrial model—all affect the very core values of the idea of a university and the uses to which it is put. Continuing to translate its mission into practice, the ASCSU again asks that, along with it, others in positions of trust be measured by their adherence to the behavior governed by principles that reach beyond our time and space to the past and to the future.

The Academic Senate CSU observes that support for academic freedom, academic tenure, consensual governance, and collegiality is intermittent, weak, and inconsistent. The Academic Senate CSU wants to renew a discussion of these matters and their value to present society.

Higher education rights and privileges for faculty and students have been developed over a period of 700 years, a period in which many entities, political and otherwise, have come and gone. Clark Kerr, for instance, points out in his The Uses of the University (1982) that about 85 institutions in the Western world which were established by the year 1520 still exist in some recognizable form today, engaged in the same ends to which their initial efforts were directed. Of these 85 institutions, 70 are universities.

What have universities engaged in that are so powerful and so meaningful as to make these universities thrive over 476 years? One reason is that from the start—whether it was Paris, Bologna, or Naples—it was understood that the universitas was not a set of buildings at a particular site but simply the body of masters and scholars taken as a whole.

Academic Freedom One major right earned over the centuries is academic freedom. As with the acquisition of other rights and privileges, universities looked to some authority to grant them. Once granted, however, these rights and privileges have been vigorously guarded by faculty and students against attack over time from various critics.

"Academic freedom is the right of a teacher to teach and of a learner to learn without unreasonable interference or restraint." It, like freedom of worship, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, is an essential characteristic of democratic society. Academic freedom is also the underpinning of the democratic model of shared governance in the academy. It is also one of the protections American society has developed to foster growth in the individual and in society, to ward off demagoguery, to negate totalitarianism of mind and spirit, and to be the arena for truth seekers and truth tellers.

Academic Tenure "Tenure is an essential condition of academic freedom: it assures the teacher that his professional findings or utterances will not be circumscribed or directed by outside pressures, which could otherwise cost him his position; and it assures students and the public, who support and rely on the teacher’s professional integrity, that the teacher’s statements are influenced only by his best professional judgment and not by fear of losing his job." Academic tenure is society’s best means of ensuring academic freedom and democratic discourse, and of providing sufficient economic security to make the academic profession attractive to women and men of ability and commitment.

Collegiality and Consensual Governance As power tends to move upward in an era when the "industrial model" is proposed for higher education, university trustees must reinforce their obligation to protect collegiality and consensual governance. Too much is at stake where the smallest educational unit is not one, but two: the teacher and the students.

When trustees and negotiators act as if "everything were on the table," they may wittingly or unwittingly make vulnerable that which has given the university its staying powers and may undermine the very academy in which they have sworn their trust.

The Academic Senate CSU believe, however, that while some things ought to change, others should not. That very operational principle should be the basis for all conversations the faculty has with interested parties. Since its inception, the Academic Senate CSU have acted on the belief, well founded, that no institution should continue without serious attention to the ends to which it is directed. It has historically and traditionally accepted that obligation, but with an abiding and keen sense of core values.

Any further neglect of these principles or discussion of them in isolation from the ends to which they are directed will have unfortunate consequences for the CSU in particular and higher education in general. A widespread rededication to a number of obvious but somewhat neglected principles is required by all to get to the point where these principles would be so infused in that which governs our behavior toward each other in the CSU that there would be no further need to talk of them.

On behalf of the Faculty Affairs Committee, Senator Dinielli moved (Whitney seconded) the resolution.

Senator Dinielli requested consent to make the following change: in the second paragraph of the Rationale, delete "What the"; after "The Academic Senate CSU," substitute "observes" for "notes is." There were no objections.

Senator Marshall moved (Barrena seconded) to refer to committee.

Senator Heisch moved (Pincu seconded) to close debate. Motion carried.

Motion to refer to committee carried.

* * * * *

The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, January 19, 1996.

* * * * *


Approved (or corrected)

Date:________________________ _______________________________

James M. Highsmith, Chair



Hal Charnofsky, Secretary



Margaret Price, Recording Secretary

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