Academic Senate of the California State University

Meeting of March 5-6, 1998
CSU Headquarters, Long Beach, CA


CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 5, 1998, by Chair James Highsmith.

ROLL CALL: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield) Jacquelyn Kegley; (Chico) James Postma, Paul Spear; (Dominguez Hills) Hal Charnofsky, Dick Williams; (Fresno) Jacinta Amaral, James Highsmith, Lester Pincu; (Fullerton) Vincent Buck, William Meyer, Barry Pasternack; (Hayward) Judith Stanley, Don Wort; (Humboldt) Elmo Moore, Marshelle Thobaben; (Long Beach) Gene Dinielli, Simon George; (Los Angeles) Dorothy Keane, Rosemarie Marshall; (Maritime Academy) Ralph Davis; (Monterey Bay) J. Ken Nishita; (Northridge) Michael Reagan, Gerald Resendez, Mary Lee Sparling; (Pomona) Edward Fonda, Rochelle Kellner; (Sacramento) Michael Fitzgerald, Cristy Jensen, Louise Timmer; (San Bernardino) Walter Oliver, C. E. Tapie Rohm; (San Diego) Gene Lamke*, Annette Easton, Dan Whitney; (San Francisco) Eunice Aaron, Robert Cherny, Gary Hammerstrom; (San José) David McNeil, Bethany Shifflett, Carmen Sigler; (San Luis Obispo) Reginald Gooden, Thomas Hale, Timothy Kersten; (San Marcos) Ken Mendoza, A. Sandy Parsons; (Sonoma) Homero Yearwood*, Susan McKillop; (Stanislaus) Richard Levering, Pamela Russ; (Chancellor's Office) Charles Lindahl.


During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:

New senators: Ken Mendoza, San Marcos; Carmen Sigler, San Jose.

Campus Senate Staff: Yuri Kusuyama, Dominguez Hills; Deidra Wilson, Fresno; Connie Sexauer, Hayward; Mary Greta, Humboldt; Mary McGraa, Long Beach; Eileen Roberts, Los Angeles; Sandy Horwitz, Northridge; Robin Tomasso, Barbara Brunson, Pomona; Janice McPherson, Sacramento; Marsha Shanteler, San Bernardino; Jackie Bleecker, San Diego; Kathren Merrifield-Salsedo, Sonoma; Diana Saugstad, Stanislaus.

Bernard Goldstein, Faculty Trustee and Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University

Harold Goldwhite, Director, Institute for Teaching and Learning

William Hauck, Vice Chair, CSU Board of Trustees

Allison Jones, Director, Access and Retention, Academic Affairs, Chancellor’s Office

Leonard Mathy, Professor Emeritus, Emeritus and Retired Faculty Association

representative to the Academic Senate

Donald Moore, Consultant, Association of California State University Professors

Charles B. Reed, CSU Chancellor

Michelle Rehan, Associated Students, Sonoma State University, CSSA liaison

Nancy Sprotte, Admission and Outreach Coordination, Access and Retention, Academic Affairs,

Chancellor’s Office

Virginia Whitby, Collective Bargaining Director, California State Student Association

Johnetta Anderson, Technical Assistant, Chancellor’s Office

Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

José Lopez, Clerical Assistant, Academic Senate CSU

Margaret Price, Staff Assistant - Documents, Academic Senate CSU

Sally Yu, Staff Assistant - Budget, Academic Senate CSU


Announcement of Times Certain

Thursday, March 5, 1998

1:30 p.m. William Hauck, Vice Chair, Board of Trustees

4:00 p.m. Charles B. Reed, Chancellor

* * * * *


You met the Chancellor yesterday for the first time and this morning maybe personally in the Committee Room. The Chancellor was very responsive to us in our desire to have him meet the campus chairs before he started going to campuses and made arrangements specially to meet with the chairs, and he did that in February on the day after he testified at the California Citizens Commission. They had a chance to have dinner with him and I believe they had an opportunity to get to know him a little bit before he appears on their campus.

With regard to the search for Executive Vice Chancellor, that I sit on, we had an initial screening of candidates. We screened down to a number that we wanted to interview. We interviewed those candidates about a week and a half ago and made a recommendation to Charlie on the two top candidates and both of those candidates are being interviewed——one was interviewed Tuesday, and another one will be interviewed next Tuesday. Every indication suggests that there will be an appointment at the Board meeting March 16 or 17.

Marshelle and I had the opportunity to make a California Virtual University presentation to the Association for Education Communications Technology in St. Louis. This is a group of about 3,000 K-12 and higher ed professionals and our session had about 80 people in it. It was one of the pre-sessions——we had been led to believe that this was going to be a larger session but it turned out to be smaller, but it was well received. We did it with the SUNY educational learning network and the notion of this pre-session was Virtual Universities, East and West, Meet in St. Louis. Our presentation went over very well; people liked it; people tried to sell us things afterwards; other people want us to come do the show someplace else. One of the things that was neat about doing it with SUNY is they have very much a similar approach, a decentralized approach——faculty controlled and campus-based. The SUNY presentation was on asynchronous learning; that’s what they’re doing. The CVU is a much broader notion of having a front door to all kinds of distance and mediated education, not just things that are asynchronous or on-line.

You’ve had an opportunity in Academic Affairs to look at the legislation. We had no comment on the proposed legislation before and many of the changes that——not all the changes that we proposed were made. CPEC was a little concerned that the draft legislation because it appeared to be cutting them out of the policy decisions relating to CVU. So Wes Larsen, Assemblyman Firestone’s chief aid, had a meeting yesterday to try to hammer out the legislation, which will probably improve on it. We do have a piece of work that we have to do inside the CSU——Academic Affairs has had a part of that and CLRIT will have another part——and that is to design a process for a grant program. The governor put in his budget a million dollars for each of the systems to assist faculty in the design of programs or courses that might be offered through the front door of the CVU. Always remembering that everything that is offered by the CVU is not offered by the CVU, it is offered by a WASC-accredited campus in California. The campus and the faculty processes at that campus control what goes up. The grant program was designed to assist us and our faculty in having things, creating things that can be used in the CVU catalog. We’d like to have a process agreed upon before we get the money.

CLRIT, I think, is going to be assuming greater responsibility for academic issues that relate to technology that was always its purpose but I think the reality of it will become more real. On Monday we are going to be having a retreat at LAX where a lot of issues probably will be talked about. I do want to alert you that the vice presidents at their meeting last week began a kind of spontaneous discussion about how do we cooperate on distance education. We can’t all do it on our own. Do we really want to be all competing with one another, so what kind of cooperation can we stimulate? Senior Vice Chancellor Lindahl is very concerned that that discussion be a campus-based discussion and involve faculty at the system level if as the vice presidents talk because there is no attempt here to figure out a way to centralize. It is how do we cooperate, what kind of coordination do we need, what mechanisms would allow campuses to work together on programs? That kind of discussion needs to go forward if we are to use our resources properly. Please feel free to talk to anyone who is working on technology about that.

Maynard Robinson, the project manager on CETI, thinks there is a 50-50 chance of something coming together. He is trying very hard to keep Hughes in because Hughes is a California-based company and has things to offer us. I think he is prepared to release Microsoft at any moment that they reach an ????? that they’re not in this game. There is a will to try to put this together so that it can get out in the timeline that was promised. In the meantime, other people have expressed interest in working with us so we’ll see what happens in the near future.

Gene and I attended a meeting of the Intersegmental Budget Task Force, which is a small group of mostly administrator types from Academic Affairs and Budget, that put together on behalf of ICC a set of recommendations for working together. A lot of the budget that’s under the heading intersegmental budget has been Prop 98 money and focused on the CERT objectives (technology in helping teacher ed, getting tutors for students, getting on-line opportunities for students to find out about the university, etc.). What we recommended from ICAS was that we develop a proposal for the 1999-2000 budget that relates to articulation among the segments. The ICAS Articulation Conference, scheduled for the end of April, planning group will be doing the concept paper this month for the next meeting, March 23. Allison Jones has volunteered to assist the intersegmental group of faculty in putting that concept paper together. All of the campus chairs were asked to nominate someone to attend and most of the campuses will be represented at the Conference at the LAX Westin for the one-day meeting, April 29.

ICAS also put together their own Legislative Day last month with legislators Teresa Hughes, Leroy Greene, Ted Lempert, Jack Scott, Adam Schiff, Bruce McPherson, Cathie Wright, Denise Ducheny——all the key legislators that deal with budget and education, as well as Marian Bergeson. Steve Rendini’s office (UC) arranged all the meetings, got the room in the Capitol, and everyone came and brought their staff, were engaged, friendly, on task, a really good exchange. We had a very good set of meetings that prepared us well to go as a CSU faculty to Sacramento and talk with some of the same people and our own legislators about issues of concern. What we did try to do was stay on some general themes and not try to hit too much on segmental issues. We talked about enrollment because all of us need funding. One issue, the Community Colleges did kind of operate as point person for us because their chancellor has proposed "Program for Excellence" which essentially is a pay-for-performance plan for budget for the campuses and they’ve pulled together a lot of literature and have studied it quite a bit and they made a very effective, quick case to each of the legislators that it didn’t make a whole lot of sense to have indicators like "how many students have a grade of C or above," or "how many students get an associates degree" if, in fact, what we’re doing is encouraging throughput and high grades, that may not be exactly what we want to do to have faculty get more money and all the legislators seem to understand it. It was quite amazing and interestingly enough their faculty understand it; their administrators at the campus level understand it and their students understand it. But for some reason their chancellor’s office doesn’t. Now the CSU most likely will not have to deal with that issue in that particular way.

All-university teacher ed responsibility: when the chairs met we had an unusual session because we had a two-day meeting——in the afternoon we met with Charles Reed at the start of the session; had dinner; then the next morning we had a three-hour business session; and then following that we had a math brainstorming session where we not only had the Senate and the campus chairs there, but we invited a few who are math, or math educators from the campuses who have been active in various aspects of work related to math or math education, organized by Marshelle and Bernie. Out of that is going to come a little action agenda for us to try to meld with some of the money that Governor Wilson is going to be providing to help educate math teachers. Harold Goldwhite began by pulling together some of the material from that day. Scott Farrand, Dorothy Keane, Ric Kitchen and Tom Hale provided some leadership during the discussions. Dorothy Keane and Scott Farrand will be providing an action agenda. There’s probably nothing more important we could do than try to get teachers and faculty connected during the summer as at least one major component. That’s the kind of thing, although Ernie Page was not in that field, honors the memory of Ernie Page. That’s what he did——he worked with teachers in the summer to help improve what they could do with their students. We’ll get copies of the Teacher Ed Report, with the apple on the front, for everyone, which was distributed at the ICAS Legislative Days and to TEKR.

The Executive Committee put on a show for the Board in presenting the Baccalaureate to them. We did a mini commencement, in regalia, with music. We took in three of the major components of the baccalaureate, we had a commencement speaker——Bernie gave a three-minute commencement speech; we gave each of the trustees an honorary Bachelors in Life-Long Learning (we had told Barry the day before that he wasn’t going to get one since he was no longer a trustee so he was especially pleased to receive his——"never got one like this"). We also gave him that night at the reception the set of ceramic mugs (from each of the campuses) as well as the framed resolution of commendation. At the Board meeting the next day we presented him with the very large set of beautiful color pictures of each campus, framed and matted with the campus name at the bottom of each. Next to the seal at the bottom it said, "Presented to Barry Munitz from the Faculty of the CSU" and the date. We had a duplicate made to hang in the new building so that everyone can see the gift that the faculty gave to Barry Munitz on his departure.

The Vice Chair and incoming Chair of the Board of Trustees, Bill Hauck, spoke to the Senate yesterday, and we hope to make invitation to the new trustees for Thursday of the May meeting, not for them to do presentations, but for them to come and meet with us and have an opportunity to see the Senate in action. I think that would be very useful if we can fit it in. If we don’t get to do it in May because of their schedules, we will certainly encourage that it happen next year.

I had the opportunity with Marshelle and Bernie and a number of other faculty members from the CSU to go to an assessment conference on math and science in Washington, D.C. My motivation in going was, since we were doing an assessment conference of our own on math and English, I really wanted to see where we were in the pantheon of assessment that’s going on in the United States. We got a couple of things out of the conference I believe. We met a lot of good people and found out some of the things going on in the CSU that we didn’t know before. In addition to that, we saw a wonderful methodology for generating ideas that was used at this conference that we’re going to apply at some one of our future events. We also discovered that we’re not very far behind anybody in the United States on assessment issues. We’re all working in the same vineyard and the weeds are just about as high every place. I sometimes think that we have this little teeny-tiny inferiority complex that we don’t think that we’re quite there and when we go out nationally and meet with people from other campuses and talk about what they’re doing, we discover that there are pockets out there where people are ahead of us. But for the most part, we’re ahead of a lot of other folks. We can be proud of the things we’re doing in the CSU and have done.

Math——I seem not to be able to make anybody happy on math. We have been getting lots of emails about this. Without going into great detail, let me just tell you that when I testified before the State Board of Education before they adopted their standards, we had tried in advance of that to get them to open up their process a little bit so that we could have a range of mathematics faculty and mathematics education faculty be involved in what the final standards would look like. Much to my chagrin, the L. A. Times chose to print my letter a week after I had sent it and after the Board made its decision. And after the Board had actually changed a number of things that we were concerned about especially the math errors that were in the standards. There are folks that for whatever reason chose to glom onto to something like that and characterize one’s view. I’m not a mathematician. I do not have an opinion regarding the technical aspects of the standards and I will let the math faculty and the math education faculty deal with those issues. However, it is my job as chair to represent you in your decisions. We have made decisions regarding the Math Competency Statement. We have made decisions through the CERT process for math assessment. And the State Board was one of three parties——the Community College Board, the CSU Board, and the State Board of Education——that met in October 1996 and agreed to that process and then chose to ignore it. I have no compunction to have complained to them about their process. Of course, they gave me all of one minute to talk to them so I could go into great detail about things that I thought were good as well as the things that were bad. All I can tell you is that at this point, we have standards and it’s not my job to draw a judgment on them. It is our jobs, however, to try to do what we can to make a possibility that teachers can do well with their students as great as possible. Teachers need to understand what they need to do and they need to have preparation. I’m hoping that the framework that is being developed will have greater clarity, will have examples so that teachers may know how to implement. I’m also hoping that we will be able to, through our efforts and the efforts of others in higher education, provide the kinds of education experiences to math teachers that they need. The real solution is to get good teachers with students. It’s not what the standards say. We’ve had lots of emails from teachers that say, "I have to go from here to here in the spectrum of things that I do. I have to try every trick in the book. I have to use flashcards and word problems to get them to where they need to be." I certainly do understand that. One of the last messages I got floated from David Klein (might have been his letter to a newspaper) said something about, "we all know you need basics before you can get understanding." If I had not stopped communicating with this colleague, I probably would have written back to him and said, "now that we both agree that you need both basics and real understanding, could we call a truce?" But when you have someone who doesn’t really want to hear what your position is, communication is not useful. So I have stopped communicating.

* * * * *

Standing Committee Reports:

Academic Affairs Committee Chair Paul Spear reported that the committee, in addition to the agenda items today, discussed the recommendations on ESL from the Precollegiate Education Policy Implementation Advisory Committee which may appear as a resolution in April. We have reviewed the most recent (and final) draft on the Academic Plan for the California Virtual University and will be making our recommendations for change to Chair Highsmith. We made recommendations to the Executive Committee on the process for implementing the CVU Matching Grant Program. The Governor's budget is to include $1 million in state funds with an equivalent matching amount from the CSU for each of the next three years to develop courses for the California Virtual University. The Committee is deeply concerned over the relative lack of CSU planning to offer mathematics inservice workshops to public school teachers this summer. The information must be disseminated quickly so that CSU inservice will be well-attended and competitive with other non-CSU agencies.


Faculty Affairs Committee Chair Dan Whitney reported that the committee has three motions on the Agenda: Support to Keep Department Chairs in Bargaining Unit Three; Concern about Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Positions; and Support to Extend Health Care Benefits to Domestic Partners. We will ask for a waiver so we can vote today or tomorrow on the Department Chair Resolution since it is an issue under consideration by the CSU-CFA collective bargaining teams. As usual, committee members brought a wide variety of viewpoints, the discussion was enlightening and even entertaining at times. We took the high road on this issue, pointing out all of the things we could think of that department chairs do that make it imperative they remain in bargaining unit three. The committee was unanimous in this view.

The tenure-track resolution is the first in what we hope will be a series of motions addressing the general "faculty flow" issue. This is tough to get a handle on; our goal is to encourage local campus senates to get involved in monitoring what we see as a decline in the proportion of tenured and tenure-track faculty to temporary faculty. This issue, too, is complicated by the fact that many of our temporary faculty colleagues are excellent instructors and valued members of departments.

We have several continuing items: collegial governance, faculty flow, Website charges, faculty development, the California Virtual University (CVU), and incompatible activities. Of those, faculty flow and faculty development have received the most attention. We began review of a report from the Academic Affairs office on campus faculty development centers, and we hope to have a white paper on the subject before the end of the academic year. CVU continues to concern us, particularly the extent to which it affects or could affect faculty in the performance of their multi-faceted jobs. The CVU discussion developed into a broader discussion of academic freedom and faculty determination of what they teach and how they teach it. Look for a motion in this area of inquiry before long.

We have added several new items to our Agenda:

• Accountability measures and how faculty fit and are affected by the efforts within the CO to construct an accountability model for CSU;

• What we expect or hope to get from the Academic Affairs liaison to our committee and the possible need for revisiting the notion of having a Faculty Affairs office in the CO–the committee is increasingly frustrated by a lack of real, meaningful data available to it;

• Advertising in the classroom led us into a discussion of academic freedom in one’s classroom and the distinction between advertising and information dissemination;

• Clarification of the Chancellor’s policy on the role of teaching assistants in the CSU; and

• Stress and morale is a common theme we keep returning to, and we are concerned to find ways to alleviate it.

Senator Aaron gave the committee an excellent report, with several specific examples, of how the human resources office works on her campus. She highlighted some of the problems of coordination between the CO and local campuses.

We discussed, at some length, the possible conflict of interest and workload issues that result from having our academic vice presidents/provosts serving on the CSU bargaining team. Sentiment was divided between those who felt the faculty’s chief spokesperson for academic programs should not be bargains against faculty; others felt it was better to have people familiar with academic issues and campus operations on the other side of the table. Sentiment was expressed that the AVP/Provost on a bargaining team was leaving the campus unstaffed too often. We decided not to pursue the matter.

Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Cristy Jensen reported that the Committee worked on five resolutions regarding legislation currently before the state legislature——two in cooperation with Academic Affairs and one with the Teacher Education K-12 Relations Committee.

Legislative Days planning continued. Committee members refined drafts of issues papers on unfunded enrollment, deferred maintenance, financial aid, construction bonds, and compensation. These papers will be sent to faculty senators participating in Legislative Days.

The Budget Advisory Committee Best Practices Report will be revised during the next few weeks anticipating distribution to Senate Chairs at their April 2 meeting.

Discussions continued with Richard West re: the Accountability Task Force chaired by Provost Koester. Our committee and Faculty Affairs will work together to identify faculty concerns re: the development of accountability measures and its relation to budgeting. We expect to provide input before the Executive Council Meeting in April.

G. E. Chair Ken Nishita reported that the Chancellor's Advisory Committee for General Education will meet on April 2, 1998 from 1-5 p.m. We will discuss reports from the members who attended the Teaching and Learning Conference for Assessment of English and Mathematics student learning outcomes and continue our discussion of describing the five CSU General Education-Breadth Areas (A-E) in terms of student learning outcomes. The General Education Subcommittee for community college course review has completed review of submissions for the IGETC and will complete the CSU General Education course review in early April.


TEKR Committee Chair Dick Williams reported that:

1. TEKR discussed:

Potential CSU program for in-service, K-12 math teachers;

The status of the subject matter projects.

2. TEKR resolutions:

Support for AB 1412 on textbooks (jointly with FGA);

On process for determination of K-12 math standards;

In support of the goals of SB 1422 Panel (more and better teachers, access to and transferability between CSU teacher preparation, standards for prospective teachers and K-12 students, intersegmental cooperation among educational components);

On participation of CSU faculty in K-12 activities (first reading: asks campuses to develop programs, lists possible activities, requests chancellor support).


APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Senator Charnofsky moved (Dinielli seconded) approval of the minutes of January 22-23, 1998. The minutes were approved.

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




RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University express its concern that the State Board of Education did not provide the opportunity for public input during the process of revising the California Mathematics Standards for Grades K-12 which had been developed by the duly appointed California Academic Standards Commission who did provide many opportunities for public input; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU is concerned that, in the process of revising the standards, the State Board of Education appears to have ignored a wide body of research on how children learn mathematics.

RATIONALE: The California Academic Standards Commission, an appointed group of professionals and citizens, completed their charge which was to develop standards for mathematics for grades K-12, after wide consultation, including eight public hearings, nine sets of directed community input meetings and wide circulation of drafts for comments from educators and scholars both within California and throughout the nation. The State Board of Education revised substantially the mathematics standards proposed by the California Academic Standards Commission and approved their own version without any consultation.

AS-2398-98/TEKR motion was withdrawn.


RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University commend the Advisory Panel on Teacher Education, Induction and Certification for Twenty-first Century Schools (SB 1422 Advisory Panel) for its comprehensive review of teaching credential requirements in California; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU support the goals of the SB 1422 Advisory Panel’s final report, "California’s Future: Highly Qualified Teachers for All Students"; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge Campus Academic Senates to facilitate wide discussion and careful review of, "California’s Future: Highly Qualified Teachers for All Students."

RATIONALE: The SB 1422 Advisory Panel conducted the most comprehensive review of teaching credential requirements in California’s history. The SB 1422 Advisory Panel issued its report, which is consistent with the Presidents Group on Teacher Preparation and K-18 Education, and includes the following four main goals for teacher preparation:

• Expand access to teacher preparation and recruit more teachers into the teaching profession

• Improve teaching so as to promote all children’s learning by establishing clear standards that provide strong direction for teaching candidates and preparation programs

• Increase accountability in teaching by establishing rigorous candidate-based assessments and more comprehensive program evaluation and accreditation systems

• Change the teacher certification system through collaborative responsibilities and system evaluation.

AS-2399-98/TEKR motion approved unanimously.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University reaffirm its 1994 support for extending health benefits to domestic partners and urge the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees to work with the California Faculty Association to support enabling legislation which would permit the Public Employees Retirement System to contract with agencies that could provide employee health benefits to domestic partners and their dependents.

RATIONALE: A large and growing number of higher education institutions (e.g., Harvard, Columbia, University of Michigan, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, MIT, Stanford, University of California, University of Chicago, University of Oregon, and University of Minnesota) have amended their employee benefits programs to provide employee benefits to domestic partners and their dependents. More than 136 major corporations in the United States (including AT&T, Apple, Microsoft, Bank of America, Levi Strauss, PG&E, MCA, HBO, Sprint, Time Magazine, Warner Brothers) provide employee benefits to domestic partners and their dependents. Cities such as San Francisco, Berkeley, and Seattle provide employee benefits to domestic partners and their dependents. It is time for the California State University to support benefits for domestic partners.

On behalf of the Faculty Affairs Committee, Chair Dan Whitney moved (Cherny seconded) the resolution.




RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University express its support for AB 1613 (Scott) Personal Income Taxes: Education as amended February 19, 1998.

RATIONALE: AB 1613 (Scott) would enact the Higher Education Affordability Act creating legislative intent to conform the State Personal Income Tax Law with recent changes in federal income tax laws. Those changes implement the HOPE Scholarship and lifetime learning credits for higher education expenses and provide deductions for interest paid on education loans in specified applicable taxable years.

On behalf of the Fiscal & Governmental Affairs Committee, Chair Jensen moved (Wort seconded) the resolution.

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

AS-2403-98/FGA motion approved unanimously.





RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU affirm and support the current collegial and professorial roles of department chairs in the CSU; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor, the Board of Trustees and the California Faculty Association to ensure that department chairs remain in faculty bargaining unit three.

RATIONALE: The department chair is a colleague who participates in decisions with respect to courses, curriculum, personnel, and other matters of educational policy on behalf of an academic department. The department chair is the key faculty link between administrative officers and the teaching faculty at all CSU campuses. The department chair level is where much academic-administrative policy is implemented and where feedback is generated to college, school, and campus levels. The department chair carries great collegial responsibilities and exercises vital functions of educational leadership within all CSU campuses. The effectiveness of department chairs is in direct relation to the extent to which they observe the obligation to consult with departmental faculty colleagues. While the administrative structure above the department is hierarchical, collegial governance at the department level is a joint and cooperative endeavor– it is not, and should not be, hierarchical.

Department chairs undertake a myriad of activities ranging from academic-administrative to clerical on behalf of their colleagues and the University. Many of these responsibilities require a solid disciplinary base and experience as a faculty member and teacher. A non-exhaustive list of duties demanding a disciplinary faculty experience or professorial base includes:

• serving a leading role in curricular matters by stimulating colleagues to keep abreast of developments within their discipline, developing innovative curricula, planning long-range curricular changes for the department based on disciplinary knowledge, encouraging involvement in instructionally-related research by colleagues, and being involved in local, state, and national professional organizations;

• playing a leading role in faculty development by aiding faculty members in their professional growth and instructional responsibilities, motivating colleagues to improve, assisting those who need additional motivation, providing information about available resources for faculty development on campus, reviewing student evaluations of teaching, conducting class visitations of younger colleagues, and serving as mentor and good example to other faculty;

• counseling students, advising and assisting them in career decisions, coordinating student activities related to the discipline, and assisting them in adjusting to University life;

• recruiting new faculty by applying the knowledge of one’s discipline to anticipate where growth should occur, and evaluating candidates by reviewing recommendations, conducting personal interviews, checking references, and judging teaching ability, scholarly productivity, and degree preparation and relevance;

• serving as a communication link between administration and departmental colleagues; and

• teaching

As the chief departmental representative and spokesperson, a chair must have the background and skills of an academic discipline as well as professorial standing. Department chairs must enjoy the confidence of their departmental faculty if they are to provide the leadership necessary to achieve and maintain the educational goals of the institution. This is most likely to be the case if the department chair is part of the faculty and not separated from the faculty by being removed from the bargaining unit and set apart as a Management Personnel Plan employee.

On behalf of the Faculty Affairs Committee, Chair Dan Whitney moved (Rohm seconded) the resolution.

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

Senator Spear requested consent to make the following change: in the second Resolved clause, add "and the California Faculty Association" after "Trustees." There were no objections.

AS-2404-98/FA motion approved without dissent.




RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University express its support for SB 1990 (Polanco) Bonds: Higher Education.

RATIONALE: This bill enacts the Higher Education facilities Bond Act of November 1998 which upon approval by the state electorate during the November 1998 general election, would provide authorization for the issuance of Bonds in the amount of $1,000,000,000. The need for these funds is critical to the education process in the CSU and the Bond Measure is a high priority for the faculty of the CSU.

On behalf of the Fiscal & Governmental Affairs Committee, Chair Jensen moved (Kersten seconded) the resolution.

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

AS-2405-98/FGA motion approved unanimously.




RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University express its support for SB 1412 (Schiff) Education: Textbooks and Other Instructional Materials.

RATIONALE: SB 1412 would require school districts to evaluate annually whether or not sufficient quantities of up-to-date textbooks and other up-to-date instructional materials are available for use by each pupil at each grade level. If sufficient quantities are not available, districts would be required to develop a plan for meeting this goal within two years and to publicly inform the residents of the school district of this plan. SB 1412 also appropriates increased funds for textbook acquisition.

On behalf of the Fiscal & Governmental Affairs Committee and the Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations, Chair Jensen moved (Williams seconded) the resolution.

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

Senator Keane requested consent to make the following change: after "to develop a plan" in the Rationale to add "for meeting this goal within two years and to publicly inform the residents of the school district of this plan." There were no objections.

Senator Cherny requested recusal from voting.

AS-2406-98/FGA/TEKR motion approved without dissent.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the recommendation of the CSU Admission Advisory Council that would require all upper division transfer applicants to complete, prior to transfer, at least 30 semester units of general education courses, including the required basic courses in English language (written communication, oral communication, and critical thinking) and mathematical concepts and quantitative reasoning, regardless of high school eligibility; and be it further,

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to adopt the modification of admission requirements for upper division transfer and to implement the policy beginning in Fall 2000; and be it further,

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Chancellor to facilitate extensive consultation with the California Community Colleges prior to implementation of the modified admission requirements for upper division transfer.

RATIONALE: Under current CSU admission policy, upper division transfer to the CSU is possible through completion of one of two alternative paths. Applicants who did not meet CSU’s high school eligibility requirement for CSU admission as freshmen are required to complete 56 semester units, including 30 units in general education-breadth courses including the basic courses in English language (written communication, oral communication, and critical thinking) and mathematical concepts and quantitative reasoning, prior to transfer to the CSU. Applicants who qualified for CSU admission as freshmen by completing CSU’s high school eligibility requirements but did not choose to matriculate to the CSU can transfer at the upper division level by completing 56 semester units without any requirement to complete any of CSU’s general education-breadth requirements.

The CSU Admissions Advisory Council was asked by the Chancellor to review current CSU admission policy that allows applicants to establish eligibility for admission as an upper division transfer on the basis of completion of the comprehensive pattern of high school college-preparatory subjects as an alternate to completing at least 30 semester units of general education-breadth coursework, including three required courses in English language and one course in mathematical concepts and quantitative reasoning. Recent Trustee policy requires all students at the freshmen and upper division transfer levels to demonstrate proficiency both in English and mathematics. The recommended modification of the admission policy to require all upper division transfer students to complete 30 units of general education-breadth coursework including English communication and mathematical basic skills prior to transfer is consistent with Trustee policy and better prepares students for success at the upper division level.

The recommended implementation date of Fall 2000 provides students with ample opportunity to develop an academic plan to enroll in 30 semester units of required general education-breadth coursework. To facilitate transfer of upper division students it is important to consult extensively with the California Community Colleges and to announce the modified admission policy for upper division transfer forthwith.

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair Spear moved (Rohm seconded) the resolution.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge the Chancellor, presidents, and campus senates to inform each CSU faculty member regarding Public Law 105-147, the "No Electronic Theft" (NET) Act of 1997; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge that the process of informing faculty members about this law should provide an opportunity on each campus for the education of faculty members on copyright and fair use, and urge that this law not be an occasion for the creation of arbitrary restrictions on faculty members.

RATIONALE: Public Law 105-147 (attached), which took effect on January 1, 1998, establishes both new definitions for violation of copyright and severe criminal penalties, including possible imprisonment, for violations.

The key provisions of the new law make it a violation of copyright willfully to infringe a copyright "either (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000" (emphasis added).

In 1995, the Joint Committee of the CSU, SUNY, and CUNY produced Fair Use of Copyrighted Works: A Crucial Element in Educating America, a brief survey of copyright issues and guidelines. Most of this is as valid now as before the passage of Public Law 105-147. While the passage of this new law may provide a good opportunity for consideration of the question of copyright, the four principles used in determining fair use of copyrighted works (as contained in Fair Use of Copyrighted Works) should provide the general context for an educational program aimed at CSU faculty members.

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair Spear moved (Cherny seconded) the resolution.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University endorse the position paper on "Information Competence" (attached) and recommend it to campus senates as a guide as they develop a comprehensive information competence program; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU recognize that the development of skills and knowledge in information competence is a university-wide responsibility and urge the Chancellor and campus presidents to support faculty development programs in information competence; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus senates to develop a university-wide comprehensive program in information competence to ensure that all CSU graduates are competent in locating, retrieving, organizing, critically evaluating, analyzing, synthesizing, and communicating information in a cohesive and logical manner; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus senates to consider the following recommendations as they develop a comprehensive university-wide policy on information competence:

a. Development of skills and knowledge in information competence is a responsibility shared by the instructional and library faculty;

b. Information competence should be an integral part of the curriculum;

c. The fundamentals of information competence should be introduced at the freshmen level and the skills and knowledge in information competence should be further developed and applied in general education coursework; and

d. Information competence skills should be reinforced and enhanced in the major; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates, the Chancellor, the General Education-Breadth Committee and campuses to work closely with colleagues in the California Community Colleges in fostering the development of information competence skills in the general education coursework offered in the community colleges.

RATIONALE: Many CSU campuses are developing integrated curricular offerings in information competence. In fact, the CSU has funded many campus and multi-campus information competence projects over the past three years. Few campuses, however, have developed a comprehensive program in information competence to ensure that all graduates have mastered the requisite skills and knowledge in locating, retrieving, organizing, critically evaluating, analyzing, synthesizing and communicating information in a cohesive and logical manner.

The Academic Senate CSU, in its position paper, "Information Competence", stresses the need for a comprehensive university-wide program in information competence, provides definitions and components of skills and knowledge to be developed in an information competence program, and recommends a number of issues to be considered by campuses in developing and implementing a program in information competence.


Academic Senate CSU
March 1998

In his chronicle of the life of Samuel Johnson, James Boswell wrote, "Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it."

In higher education, faculty have devoted themselves to both kinds of knowledge: knowing a subject and knowing how to find information about a subject. However, in an age of rapid advances in electronic technology, the amount and speed of information transfer has sometimes compromised teaching students these same skills. In a world awash in new information--much of it is spurious, erroneous, misleading, false--we cannot afford to compromise the teaching of how to find information and evaluate and use information responsibly and effectively.

"The latter half of the twentieth century has rightly been called the Information Age. Never has so much information been available in our history. We have moved into an environment in which information competence is at the center. With nearly 2.7 billion documents published world-wide each year, with the magnitude and complexity of current scientific research, with the rapid development of technology which has given us access to information never known before, every student who wishes to be considered educated and who needs to make a successful career must have a mastery of information competence." (Information Competence Work Group, 1996, p. 2).

In its report, "Baccalaureate Education in the CSU" (1998), the Academic Senate CSU emphasized the importance of information competence. It identified the knowledge and skills for lifelong intellectual endeavor that were essential for each graduate to have mastered. These included learning, locating, evaluating, analyzing, synthesizing, and creating information. Further support for the development of these skills were included in "The Cornerstones Report: Choosing Our Future" (January, 1998), a CSU framework for systemwide planning.

In 1995, the Commission on Learning Resources and Technology (CLRIT) initiated CSU systemwide efforts to discuss "information literacy" or "information competence". A systemwide CLRIT work group on information competence, including two faculty members from the CSU Academic Senate, was established and promoted this conversation through conferences, workshops, reports, and support for campus projects.

What is information competence?

The meaning of "information competence" has evolved to go beyond "library literacy" or "bibliographic instruction" or "computer literacy". Through discussions in systemwide CSU workshops on information competence and within the professional literature, there is general consensus that information competence is the ability to find, evaluate, use, and communicate information in all of its various formats, including the plethora of electronic communications. In other words, information competence is the fusion or integration of library literacy, ethics, critical thinking, and communication skills.

In its second report to CLRIT (1996), the Information Competency Work Group stated its position: "No student should graduate from California State University without the ability to formulate a research question or problem, to determine its information requirements, to locate and retrieve the relevant information, to organize, analyze, evaluate, treat critically and synthesize the information and to communicate and present that information in a cohesive and logical fashion. Moreover, no student should graduate from California State University without understanding the ethical, legal and socio-political issues surrounding information. If our graduates are to make a contribution to a wider socio-political world and create a better society, they must understand information--its power, its uses and its abuses." (p.2)

What are the specific skills of information competence?

In order to be able to find, evaluate, use, and communicate information, students must be able to demonstrate these skills in an integrated process:

1. State a research question, problem, or issue

2. Determine the information requirements for the research question, problem, or issue

3. Locate and retrieve relevant information

4. Organize information

5. Analyze and evaluate information

6. Synthesize information

7. Communicate using a variety of information technologies

8. Use the technological tools for accessing information

9. Understand the ethical, legal, and socio-political issues surrounding information and information technology

10. Use, evaluate, and treat critically information received from the mass media

11. Appreciate that the skills gained in information competence enable lifelong learning

How is information competence implemented?

Programs to develop the information competence of students have long been undertaken by academic libraries and academic disciplines utilizing library resources as their main source of research information. These programs teach students the value of how to locate, evaluate and use information effectively, and the critical thinking skills to assess the information in the context of their scholarly work. As made evident in the CSU workshops in 1995 and 1997, many faculty members do indeed foster the students’ ability to attain and use information resources and encourage students to develop the skills necessary to be independent, self-directed learners.

In general, however, it is uncertain whether the skills of information competence are slowly being compromised as new information advances rapidly, or whether there is a lag in developing university programs that firmly embedded these skills in the academic curriculum at a rate that keeps pace with new electronic information resources. The research undertaken by the Work Group suggests that isolated, hit-or-miss, ad hoc attempts cannot ensure that students are well equipped for the Information Age. It also indicates that the best programs that teach students information competence are those that are integrating these skills within the curriculum throughout the students’ education tenure. In addition, most of these same programs have strong alliances between the academic teaching faculty and the library faculty. The CSU Work Group’s report assumes that the information competence of students is a responsibility to be shared by academic teaching faculty and library faculty and should be an integral element of the curriculum.

Participants at the CSU workshops considered the strengths and weaknesses of the various models for implementing a program in information competence. It was generally agreed that there are many difficulties associated with implementing ANY program at all; however, there was also strong consensus that if a program were to be implemented, it must be integrated throughout the curriculum. In other words, almost no one is in favor of a "quick fix," in which a stand-alone course, taken once in the student’s career, is expected to meet a student’s need to be an informed, ethical consumer and producer of knowledge.

There is a great deal of interest in achieving this goal through a three-stage process, in which: (1) the fundamentals of information competence are introduced in a freshman-orientation/transitions course; (2) the skills are further developed by being embedded in general education courses; and, (3) the skills are reinforced and amplified in the major area.


Academic Senate of the California State University. (1998). Baccalaureate Education in the California State University.

Information Competence Work Group. (1995). Information Competence in the CSU: A Report.

Information Competence Work Group. (1996). Information Competence: Second Report.

Information Competence Work Group. (1997). Information Competence: A Set of Core Competencies.

Information Competence Work Group. (1997). Information Competence: Third Report.

The California State University. (1998). The Cornerstones Report: Choosing Our Future.

For more information on information competence:


Breivik, Patricia S. (1998). Student Learning in the Information Age. American Council on Education, Oryx Press.

Breivik, Patrica S. & Gee, E. Gordon. (1989). Information Literacy: Revolution in the Library. New York: Macmillan.

Farmer, D. W. & Mech, T. F. (eds). (1992). Information Literacy: Developing Students as Independent Learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992. Number 78.

Web sites:

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Chair Spear moved (Rohm seconded) the resolution.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge campus senates to maintain and publish a continuing inventory of existing tenured and tenure-track faculty positions; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the campus senates to seek full faculty participation in any new disposition of tenured and tenure-track faculty positions.

RATIONALE: We need to consider seriously the continuing decline in the number of tenured and tenure-track faculty at our campuses. The situation may be different on different campuses in our system; unfortunately, we no longer have a faculty affairs office in the CSU Chancellor’s Office where data can be found. It is important that the academic senates on each campus monitor use of tenured and tenure-track faculty positions at their campuses. It is the faculty's responsibility to resist the foreclosure of opportunity for a new generation of tenure-track teacher/scholars; it is also the faculty’s responsibility to work for an increase in the number of tenured and tenure-track faculty.

On behalf of the Faculty Affairs Committee, Chair Dan Whitney moved (Charnofsky seconded) the resolution.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University oppose AB 2554 (Murray) Postsecondary Education: Student Transfer which would guarantee every community college student, who attains an associate of arts or an associate of sciences degree in liberal arts or general studies in a community college, a place somewhere in the University of California or the California State University system.

RATIONALE: Existing law provides that every community college student who successfully completes a transfer agreement program in a community college will have an appropriate place in an upper-division university and that all community college students who meet the CSU or UC requirements for admission at the advanced standing level are guaranteed a place somewhere in the California State University system or the University of California.

This bill provides guaranteed admission to the CSU system for all students completing an associate of arts degree or an associate of sciences degree in liberal arts or general studies. Since some associate of arts or associate of sciences degrees may not require 56 units of credit or completion of general education transfer requirements, students qualifying for admission under the provisions of this bill might not meet current CSU requirements for admission as upper-division students. Existing law is adequate in this regard and would be weakened by the provisions of this bill.

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee and the Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee, Chair Spear moved (Jensen seconded) the resolution.




RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University, oppose in its present form, SB 1472 (Alpert, Thompson, and Watson) Education: Community College which would allow transfer students to complete the IGETC after enrollment in the CSU.

RATIONALE: The CSU has endeavored to facilitate transfer students who have completed substantial portions of the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) by having their credits accepted within the systemwide CSU General Education-Breadth, an alternative pattern for completing lower-division GE requirements without falling under campus-specific GE requirements. The CSU GE-Breadth pattern is broader than IGETC, and courses that satisfy IGETC can almost always be slotted into the CSU GE-Breadth pattern. Within the CSU GE-Breadth pattern, students can be certified for having completed one or more of five subject areas, and that certification will protect them from campus-specific lower-division GE requirements in that subject area.

This bill, by allowing transfer students to complete the IGETC after they have enrolled in the CSU, defers to a smorgasbord model of general education and would thwart efforts of intersegmental faculty to build more coherent programs for students who attend more than one institution of higher education. Conventional wisdom and extant research suggests that promoting connections across courses and having students deepen their knowledge in a sequence of courses–in GE as well as the major–leads to greater cognitive development.

We would hope that the author could be encouraged to substitute language that would enjoin the faculty of the three public segments of postsecondary education to develop solutions to the problems this bill seeks to address.

On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee and the Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee, Chair Spear moved (Jensen seconded) the resolution.



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University urge campus senates to work with local education agencies to develop K-12 Participation Programs which enable faculty from across campus to participate in activities of local K-12 schools; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU suggest that such activities might include: classroom visits and/or observations, delivering guest lectures, providing and delivering enrichment programs, participating in team teaching efforts, acting as a teacher aid, as well as engaging in other classroom activities; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge CSU system administration to provide the campuses with support mechanisms for these K-12 Participation Programs; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge campus senates and administrators for developing strategies to distribute the resources to the faculty participants and to recognize the value of the contributions of the faculty who engage in these activities.

RATIONALE: Both the Presidents Commission (Maxson report) and the SB 1422 Panel have recommended these types of activities as a means of enhancing the teacher preparation component of the CSU mission. Such activities will help all campus faculty become more aware of their role in that component of the CSU mission and to recognize the challenges faced by K-12 classroom teachers today. We should not ask faculty to engage in these additional activities without providing the support. The cooperative development by campus faculty through the campus senate and with the active participation of local education agencies could improve school relations and help K-12 students prepare for college-level work. Such activities would also send a clear message about the importance of teaching as a career choice to both CSU and K-12 students.

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



RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University adopt the following schedule for the 1998-99 academic year:

1998 Location

September 9-11 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

October 9 Interim Headquarters

November 4-6 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

December 4 Interim Headquarters


January 20-22 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

February 12 Interim Headquarters

March 10-12 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

April 9 Interim Headquarters

May 5-7 Committees/Plenary Headquarters

; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate CSU be authorized to change the schedule of meetings approved, with adequate notice to the Academic Senate CSU, if the Trustees alter their schedule, or if budgetary constraints require a change.

RATIONALE: The California State University Board of Trustees is considering the adoption in May 1998 of the following schedule for Trustee meetings in 1998-99:

1998 Location

July 14-15 Headquarters

September 15-16 Headquarters

November 10-11 Headquarters


January 26-27 Headquarters

March 16-17 Headquarters

May 11-12 Headquarters

On behalf of the Executive Committee, Vice Chair Thobaben moved (Dinielli seconded) the resolution.

* * * * *

The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m. on Friday, March 6, 1998.

* * * * *

Approved (or corrected)

Date:________________________ _______________________________

James M. Highsmith, Chair



Walter Oliver, Secretary



Margaret Price, Recording Secretary

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