Academic Senate of the California State University

Meeting of September 10-11, 1998
CSU Headquarters, Long Beach, CA


CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, September 10, 1998, by Chair Gene Dinielli.

ROLL CALL: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield) Jacquelyn Kegley, John Tarjan; (Chico) Samuel Edelman, 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, David Hood, Patricia Rozée; (Los Angeles) Dorothy Keane; (Maritime Academy) Ralph Davis; (Monterey Bay) J. Ken Nishita; (Northridge) Michael Reagan, Gerald Resendez, *Diane Schwartz; (Pomona) *Edward Fonda, Marvin Klein, Rochelle Kellner; (Sacramento) Cristy Jensen, Louise Timmer; (San Bernardino) Walter Oliver, C. E. Tapie Rohm; (San Diego) Ray Boddy, Dan Whitney; (San Francisco) Eunice Aaron, Robert Cherny; (San Jose) Timothy Hegstrom, David McNeil, Bethany Shifflett; (San Luis Obispo) Reginald Gooden, Thomas Hale, Timothy Kersten; (San Marcos) A. Sandy Parsons; (Sonoma) Susan McKillop, Peter Phillips; (Stanislaus) Pamela Russ, Mark Thompson; (Chancellor's Office) David Spence.


During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:

William Dermody, Associate Chief of Staff, Chancellor’s Office

Gary Hammerstrom, Acting Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, CO

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

Charles Lindahl, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, Chancellor’s Office

Ray Lou, Executive Fellow, San Jose State University

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

Charles Reed, Chancellor

Maynard Robinson, General Manager, Technology Infrastructure Partnership, IRT, CO

Chris Tinson, California State Student Association Liaison to Senate, CSU Dominguez Hills

Thomas West, Assistant Vice Chancellor, IRT, Chancellor’s Office

Johnetta Anderson, Technical Assistant, Chancellor’s Office

Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

José Lopez, Clerical Assistant, Academic Senate CSU

Margaret Price, Assistant to Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU


Announcement of Times Certain

Thursday, September 10, 1998

1:45 p.m. Maynard Robinson, General Manager, Technology Infrastructure Partnership, IRT, and Tom West, Assistant Vice Chancellor, IRT

3:30 p.m. Charles B. Reed, Chancellor

Friday, September 11, 1998

10:00 a.m. David S. Spence, Executive Vice Chancellor

* * * * *


Some Thoughts on Behalf of the Executive Committee

The sense of prospect with which the Executive Committee and I have begun our year of service has remained quite high, not withstanding bargaining problems and a governance crisis on one of our campuses. The Executive Committee had early on begun to see evidence in support of the Senate's initiatives:

Immediate Past Chair Highsmith and I sought and received meaningful standing and input in all post-CETI planning, an agreement reached with Assistant Vice Chancellor Tom West and Managing Director Maynard Robinson. It resulted in ten of our Senators being on every level of planning and implementation of the post-CETI era, currently named Internal Technology Strategy-Technology Infrastructure Initiative (ITS-TII).

From Executive Vice Chancellor Dave Spence came more evidence of a workable relationship between central administration and the Senate, signaling (from my point of view) a partnership in which we have an opportunity to attach our meaning and content to matters relating to the professoriate and the academy. He is already asserting his role as chief academic officer, for he will become chair of the Commission on the Extended University, co-chair of the Institute on Teaching and Learning, and Chancellor Reed's designee to the Academic Senate. He has guided preliminary discussion over the integration, under the aegis of the ITL, of the faculty development function of Human Resources (HR) and the technology initiatives of Instructionally Related Technology (IRT). He has approved the Executive Committee budget proposal for 1998-99, which provides release-time support for all Senators, along with increased support for our Senate colleagues from quarter-system campuses. In a departure from practice, the chair of the Senate will now approve all Senate-related travel, but for his own. That requires the approval of the Executive Vice Chancellor.

The Governor's revision of a portion of the 1998-99 budget submitted by the CSU to cover the cost of curriculum review and revision of certain British Open University materials has caused the system to marshal CSU's teacher education resources to determine whether the Open University, 18 month, distance education, teacher preparation program has merit and applicability to CSU's attempt to meet the needs of the great number of California teachers holding emergency credentials. The Senate has been involved with naming those CSU faculty who will be asked to be involved in this year-long project. Vice Chair Vince Buck has been asked to take the lead in representing the Senate and has done so from the beginning of CSU's attempts at planning the venture (Vince even agreed to depart, for a short time, from his family trip to the U.K. to visit the Open University sites.)

Along with our K-12 priority (with all of its academic ramifications), there is, of course, Cornerstones. Chancellor Reed and Executive Vice Chancellor Spence (along with the Senate, the Board of Trustees, and the Executive Council) have announced their commitment to the principles of Cornerstones. I have a strong sense, moreover, that Reed and Spence are also committed to leaving those matters traditionally under faculty purview to the faculty. The Executive Committee has seen an array of gestures and actions which defer to the Senate and the faculty as the repository of expert judgment on academic matters.

Executive Vice Chancellor Spence has asked the Senate to co-sponsor, along with the CSU, the January 1999 American Association of Higher Education Conference in San Diego. We have agreed, for it will create an opportunity to place our study of the baccalaureate on a national stage. Immediate Past Chair Highsmith will head the planning effort. Heading another effort are Senators Jensen and Williams. As co-chairs of the Retreat Planning Committee, they are planning a meaningful, but casual, stay at Asilomar.

The Executive Committee and I are grateful for the balanced, historical perspective made available to us by Senator Charnofsky upon his return, after a brief respite, to the Executive Committee. It is also securing to be guided by the unremitting good judgment Faculty Trustee Goldwhite provides the Executive Committee and the Senate. Senators Cherny and McNeil have pursued Senate concerns about the Globalization Report into the summer, even to the point of meeting with President Gerth. More later. Senator Pincu, long concerned with the AIDS Task Force, made a presentation to the Executive Committee and the Standing Committee chairs, Executive Vice Chancellor Spence, Associate Vice Chancellor Lindahl, and Senior Director Strafaci about the need to reconstitute the Task Force. More later.

The effort to blunt legislative incursion into faculty control of the curriculum in the case of SB 1482 (Alpert) was successful, in large part through the efforts of Immediate Past Chair Highsmith. In this case, legislation which stood to impose a revision of the Intersegmental General Education Curriculum was withdrawn with the promise that the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates (ICAS) would report by 1 December 1998 on progress made in meeting the concerns of Senator Alpert over barriers to transfer to the senior segments.

Much of the work of the Senate (soon to reach a level of specificity and complexity deeper than the general statements made in this report) may be likened, by some, to attempts to square the circle; nevertheless, the Executive Committee seeks your commitment to help shape and then advance the academic agenda this year.

* * * * *

Standing Committee Reports:

Academic Affairs Committee Chair Robert Cherny reported that the committee met 1-5 p.m. on September 9 and 8:30 a.m.-noon on September 10. After announcement of liaisons to various other committees, councils, commissions, and the like, the chair reported on news from the Executive Committee meeting immediately preceding the committee meeting. The committee approved the minutes of May 6-7, 1998, and, with some additions, the proposed agenda.

The committee prepared one resolution for action by the Senate, which the Senate approved with a waiver as AS-2429-98/AA, Support for the "Report of the Task Force on Library Collections" and Restoration of Funding for Library Collections. Senator Gooden assisted by Senator Spear had primary responsibility for preparing and presenting the resolution.

The committee reviewed AS-2408-98/AA, Copyright, Fair Use, and Public Law 105-147, the "No Electronic Theft" (NET) Act of 1997, in which the Senate had urged that the faculty be informed regarding this law and educated on copyright issues more generally. Vice Chancellor Spence on advice from the University General Counsel (UGC) did not accept this recommendation. Vice Chancellor Spence arranged a meeting between AAC chair Cherny and UGC Chris Helwick and the member of her staff, Pat Carroll, who has primary responsibility for intellectual property issues. Helwick and Carroll subsequently met with the full AAC. A subcommittee of Spear and Cherny will pursue the matter with Helwick and Carroll, but all were hopeful of finding common ground. The committee also expressed concern that the CSU was not sufficiently involved in lobbying regarding pending copyright legislation, and asked Chair Cherny to transmit this concern to Senate Chair Dinielli, which was done during agenda-setting.

The committee reviewed the letter it had drafted regarding the Report of the Subcommittee on English as a Second Language of the Precollegiate Educational Policy Implementation Advisory Committee and directed chair Cherny to transmit it to Senate Chair Dinielli for subsequent transmission to the subcommittee.

The remainder of its meeting was spent considering background information for a range of issues likely to be part of the year's work. Among the issues were several having to do with the baccalaureate, including implementation of the Senate's study of the baccalaureate and of Cornerstones' recommendations regarding the baccalaureate, improving articulation within the lower division components of major degree programs across campuses, GE learning outcomes, the 120 unit baccalaureate, YRO, the CVU and distance learning, and the UW grade. Other issues included CSU policies regarding multi-campus degree programs, information competence, high school mathematics preparation, the UW grade, issues related to the electronic classroom, post-baccalaureate issues, admissions issues, and the curricular implications of the RAND corporation's "Breaking the Social Contract" report and of current AGB proposals regarding governance. Nearly all of these were judged to be of high priority for the coming year.

AAC also heard from Academic Affairs liaisons Lorie Roth (September 9) and Jo Service, who filled in for Lorie Roth (September 10), from Senate vice chair Buck on the Open University and related issues of using that model as a basis for a program to prepare teachers who have emergency waivers to secure credentials, and from Chair Cherny regarding the progress of the Globalization Taskforce.

Faculty Affairs Committee Chair Dan Whitney reported that the committee met for several hours Wednesday and Thursday, September 9 and 10, 1998. He stated: After some discussion we solved our most difficult problem–who would serve as Secretary. Since no one volunteered to serve as permanent secretary, we decided to rotate the position. Senator Timmer–thank you–volunteered to be first. We miss you, Senator Aaron.

Open University. Carol Barnes, a former colleague in the Senate, spent an hour or so telling us all we wanted to know about the Open University, but had not bothered to ask. We determined that FAC should keep an eye on things such as: possible use or misuse of the Open University paradigm for other certificates, programs, or degrees; workload issues; ownership of intellectual property; the faculty role in granting statewide accreditation/certificates, etc.; and other employment-related issues.

Governance. We spent some time examining relations with the Chancellor’s Office (CO) and collegial governance. As an aside, I feel that FAC relations with this building improved significantly with the appointment of our liaison–our colleague from the north, Gary Hammerstrom.

I reported several glowing and laudatory things about Executive Vice Chancellor (EVC) Spence that I heard from Chair Dinielli at the Executive Committee meeting.

We considered a thoughtful and carefully prepared proposal from Senator McKillop, vice chair of FAC, to create an environment that would foster better and more informal communication between the Senate and the CO–particularly EVC Spence. The proposal was discussed, but no action was taken. A suggestion many FACers seemed to agree with was that the standing committees should invite EVC Spence and other highly placed administrators to lunch with them every once in a while to engage in informal discussion of pending and anticipated areas of concern.

We approached governance with a couple of other ways as well. We heard an excellent, informative, and somewhat depressing report from Senator Kellner about–dare I call it governance–at CPSU Pomona. One of us called upon his experience with former President Tom Day in an attempt to formulate ways to respond to what’s happening at Pomona.

We also discussed what has become known as the Buck Faculty Governance report. That report was distributed to this Senate last Spring. The item will remain on our agenda.

Finally–on this topic–we were once again graced with materials from Senator McKillop, this time about a proposal by the Association of Governing Board of Universities and Colleges (AGB) to revise the principles and standards for governing institutions of higher education. Various FACers had varying degrees of concern about various parts of the proposal. Following lengthy discussion, and probably because of the lengthy discussion, we decided we were unable to put together a response to the proposal by the AGB’s September 21, 1998, deadline. Additionally, we were told that our Board (I mean the CSU Board) is not likely to be much affected by what AGB does–for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, we on FAC generally felt that our Board is pretty good and relations with them are also pretty good. We decided it was probably best to let sleeping cats nap–although we plan to remain vigilant in case the cat is not napping. Please read the article we distributed yesterday (by AAHE president Margaret Miller). The full report is on the Web at By the way, Chancellor Reed’s comments to this body yesterday were consistent with the FAC perceptions.

Faculty Development. The issue of faculty development will probably dominate our time during the coming year. We have made this our highest priority. We will be gathering information, working with ITL, doing a lot of serious thinking, and engaging in a lot of serious discussion. We will first turn our attention to new faculty entering our institutions. If things go well, we hope to develop a white paper that sets forth some best practices and identifies things that are being done in different settings, including from business and industry. As the year rolls on, we expect to move up the chronological ladder until we get to retirement-age faculty. We recognize that faculty development is being looked at and discussed by a variety of offices, both in this building and on the campuses. We see faculty development as increasingly crucial, especially in light of the technological thrust we heard about earlier. At this juncture, we see the technological aspects of faculty development as merely one aspect of a much broader topic–and not necessarily the most important aspect (that may be only my view, I’m not sure). You will recall that FAC distributed a preliminary report on faculty development in May (prepared mainly by Senator Charnofsky) and about three years ago a report written mainly by former Senator Elliot McIntire about programs for what we might call socializing new faculty. The latter aspect of faculty development is to be our focus–at first.

PSSI. We held an extended discussion about PSSI and learned about some new abuses of the process from specific campuses. We may have had a consensus that if there is any merit pay plan put in place under the next contract, it should be faculty developed and faculty administered. I think we agreed that the role of Presidents in setting awards should be minimized. Some other points of view were expressed–that’s what makes FAC such a fun committee.

The Classroom Environment. We engaged in a useful and kind of fun discussion of something that might be called, "the Classroom Environment from a Professor’s Perspective." That’s a name I gave it, but it includes such diverse things as using private funds to hire teaching assistants, who owns the course syllabus, and maybe, more broadly, faculty morale and stress. We expect this topic to take a little more time to get a handle on than is true of some other topics.

We also have many other agenda items that will keep us merrily working away during the coming academic year, but I’ll spare you the entire list.

Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Bethany Shifflett reported:

Plan for tracking legislation established.

Group decided to work at establishing connections/liaisons with our counterparts in groups such as CFA, CTC, CPEC, CSEA, CSSA.

Planning is underway for a legislative day in the spring in the context of a more year-round approach to being involved in Sacramento. This approach might include visits by individual members of FGA, FGA as a group, and/or the senate as a whole.

Our liaisons to Senate committees will be

TEKR - Senator Wort

Faculty Affairs - Senator Aaron

Academic Affairs - Senator Kegley

G. E. Chair Ken Nishita reported:

Chancellor's General Education Advisory Committee - Dean Jo Service reported to the Academic Affairs Committee that discussion of issues related to the implementation of the Cornerstones document will be part of the agenda this year as well as the continuing review of current campus-to-campus practices for the completion of the GE Breadth requirements, in general, and in "high-unit majors." Chair Ken Nishita announce that the first meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 8, 1998 from 1-5 pm. In addition to new issues, there will be a discussion of how students on different campuses fulfill the American Institutions and Ideals (Title 5) requirement.

TEKR Committee Chair Elmo Moore reported:

Open University

TEKR's liaison with the Chancellor's Office, Bill Wilson, gave a detailed report on the project, including what's happened thus far, what's going to occur in the immediate future, and what the long-range plans are. Unfortunately, in this case, "long range" means "by next June." I think the committee felt that there is the potential for a rigorous high quality program. But our main concerns were the same ones Gene has raised repeatedly:

1. How and when will the courses be brought to the CSU faculty for review and evaluation?

2. How will the faculty, who actually teach in the program and those who train them, be selected and what qualifications will be required?

Resolutions dealing with these issues will be forthcoming. The first such is agenda item #2 for this plenary session.

Actions Taken by the Board of Trustees

Last July, the Board of Trustees adopted a list of recommendations regarding the preparation of teachers. These recommendations, provided by the Board's Committee on Educational Policy, reflect previous work done by TEKR, the Presidents Commission on Teacher Education, the Institute for Education Reform, and others. They contain many excellent ideas but the members of TEKR are concerned about the proposed timelines, some of the language that was used, and the process of implementation.

Since quite a number of recommendations were approved, all of which require substantial faculty involvement, work related to this item is likely to continue for much of the year.


APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Senator Spear moved (Parsons seconded) approval of the minutes of May 7-8, 1998. The minutes were approved.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved.





RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University support the "Report of the Task Force on Library Collections" and urge the Chancellor, Board of Trustees and campuses to support the following budgetary recommendations:

• that the $10 million one-time supplemental funds for library materials included in the 1998-99 general fund budget be "’earmarked’ to assure that these funds are used to restore in part the library purchasing power lost since 1990-91."; and

• that "every effort be made to add the $10 million one-time supplement funding in 98-99 to the base budget in future years with adjustments for inflation and to assure that it is used for library acquisitions."; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU commend the Task Force on Library Collections and the Council of Library Directors for preparing the "Report of the Task Force on Library Collections" and informing the CSU community of the drastic need to increase funding for library collections to enable the CSU to continue offering educational programs of high quality.

RATIONALE: Since FY 1990-91, the support for the collections of the CSU libraries has declined disproportionately to all other aspects of the academic enterprise. The cuts began with the libraries under the notion that the budget would soon improve and sacrificing the libraries would be the lesser of other evils. When one considers that in 1990 the total expenditure for acquisitions (electronic resources, for the most part, were not purchased) for 19 libraries was $24,024,731 and that in FY 96-97 the expenditures for acquisitions (including electronic resources) for 22 libraries was $25,632,651——a mere increase of 4 percent——it becomes apparent that the libraries have not only suffered disproportionately, for a longer period of time, but also are not recovering on a par with other programs under the terms of the "compact." For example, in FY 90-91 the total expenditures for 19 CSU libraries was 4.69 percent of all general fund expenditures, whereas in FY 96-97 the total library expenditures for 22 CSU libraries was only 4.15 percent of all general fund expenditures.

Additionally, the costs of library materials have risen more steeply than any other commodities purchased by the university in the nineties. Between FY 90-91 and FY 97-98, the price of library books increased by 29 percent. During the same interval, periodicals rose by 87 percent. The result is that eight years ago 19 libraries paid for 63,822 subscriptions while last year 22 libraries paid for 47,310; a cancellation rate of 26 percent. Eight years ago 19 libraries purchased 263,379 books while last year 22 libraries purchased 226,668——a reduction of 14 percent. Does this imply less work for librarians? Not so; during the same time staffing in 19 libraries was reduced from 1,217 FTE positions (a ratio of 0.6 FTE position per 100 FTES) to 1,127 positions (a ratio of 0.43 FTE position per 100 FTES) in 22 libraries. The reduced staff was kept occupied by an increased demand for inter-library loans. Eight years ago 19 libraries borrowed 126,549 items from other libraries while last year 22 libraries borrowed 159,671 items from other libraries——an increase of 26 percent.

The rising disparity between the costs of library books and serials works to the disadvantage of the former. As a result, we are experiencing a decreasing proportion of contemporary publications in comparison to older publications within the subject areas. For example, in the dynamic field of computer science, the library holdings at San Jose State show that 21.1 percent of the books were published in 1988 while only 6.1 percent were published in 1996.

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

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

Senator Shifflett moved (Pasternack seconded) to delete the quotation marks in the second bullet of the first Resolved clause; delete "the $10 million one-time supplement" and insert in its place, "adequate"; delete "in 98-99." Motion failed.

AS-2429-98/AA motion approved without dissent.




RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University recognize the Open University initiative in Teacher Education as an innovative way of responding to the need to prepare more teachers for the state of California; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the CSU team developing and implementing the Open University Teacher Education materials to adhere to the long-standing principles of faculty control of curriculum and local campus responsibility for recommending students for credentials.

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

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

Senator Phillips moved (Amaral seconded) to delete in the first Resolved clause "as an innovative way of responding to" and replace it with "is a CSU administrative proposal to meet"; and add a third Resolved clause to read, "Resolved: That the Academic Senate CSU urge the CSU to support the expansion and development of innovative campus-based programs to meet the credentialing needs of emergency permit teachers in the state of California."

Senator Hegstrom moved (McNeil seconded) to close debate. Motion carried.

Senator Whitney called for division.

The first Phillips amendment——to add "CSU administrative proposal"——failed.

The second Phillips amendment——to add a third Resolved clause——also failed.

Senator McNeil moved (Shifflett seconded) to delete "remain vigilant lest the obvious need to implement the initiative quickly override" from the second Resolved clause and insert in its place "adhere to." Motion carried.

Senator Pincu moved (Phillips seconded) to add "Resolved: That the Academic Senate CSU acknowledge campus responsibility for curriculum and quality control be used as the model for the Open University." Motion failed.

AS-2430-98/TEKR motion approved without dissent.

* * * * *

The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m. on Friday, September 11, 1998.

* * * * *


Approved (or corrected)

Date:________________________ _______________________________

Gene L. Dinielli, Chair



Hal Charnofsky, Secretary



Margaret Price, Recording Secretary

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