Summary of the

Meeting of the Academic Senate, CSU

September 13, 2002


Lester Pincu, Secretary

Academic Senate of

The California State University





Chair Kegley stated that since she had provided her report in written form she would not take the Senate's time to read it.

Items from Chair Kegley's written report

The following is a summary of parts of Chair Kegley's written report:


            Task Force on Facilitating Graduation: May 7

A number of issues were discussed including remedial education; first year experiences; peer mentoring, incompletes, withdrawals and drop policies, orientation courses, and graduation plans.  A draft document is being prepared for the next meeting of this group in early September.  Two major questions will be addressed: (1) Where is CSU in terms of graduation rates and some of these indicators?  (2) Where do we want to be and why?


            Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates (ICAS): May 28

This meeting was the transitional meeting from 2001-2002 to the next academic year.  Next year the CSU Academic Senate will chair and staff ICAS.  The community colleges are still concerned about Accreditation issues and the loss in the governor's budget of money for key student support issues.  UC is moving forward with the revision of the SAT and will work closely with CSU on this issue.  The CSU reported on the SB 1646 issues, ACR 73, and the Board's action on the Non-Resident Fee increase.  There was extensive discussion of IMPAC and the roles, responsibilities of ICAS as well as its future directions.


            Academic Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC): June 11

The primary goal of the June 11th meeting of ATAC was to develop an agenda for next year including recommendations to Executive Vice Chancellor's David Spence for projects to be funded and/or pursued. The participants were asked to identify barriers to exploration of emerging technologies that might benefit teaching and learning as well as how to address them.  Based on these responses and other materials the committee identified action items to be pursued by ATAC in the coming year.


            ACR-73: June 17

The focus of the meeting was a draft document that will set forth a plan to achieve the goal of the 75/25 balance of tenure/track and temporary faculty within eight years as well as recommendations for actions that will be needed to make the plan feasible.  The group agreed on several key arguments for the success of the plan: Improved hiring packages that CSU is able to offer candidates; a gradual decrease in the overall CSU student-faculty ratio from the current 19.45:1 to 18.0:1; and costs analysis which will include costs to maintain the position base for the annual estimated 600 tenured/tract separations and retirements; the costs of new permanent position required for enrollment growth, the costs of new permanent positions to improve the student-faculty ratio to 18.0:1; and the costs of new permanent positions replacing lecturer positions eliminated to achieve the 75:25 ratio. The document will present to the legislature a realistic picture of the required increment to the CSU budget and the need for new dollars. 


            Faculty Flow Committee: June 6

The group first reviewed the results of the survey sent to Provosts concerning proposed "best practices" for faculty recruitment and hiring.  The survey indicates that unique qualities of each campus require that recruiting practices be personalized to accommodate their circumstances.  The Task Force also reviewed the preliminary findings of a study done by Richard Serpe and his Social and Behavioral Research Institute of recruited candidates that either accepted or declined offers for faculty positions at CSU. 


            Provosts' Retreat: June 20-21

There was extensive discussion of academic technology issues.  Associate Vice Chancellor Gary Hammerstrom indicated that the Presidents have this topic as a major item for their Executive Council Retreat.  David Spence urged strongly that ATAC and the Provosts take the lead in forging the directions for Academic Technology in the future.  There was considerable discussion of the variation among campus on budget and administrative control of academic technology by the Office of Academic Affairs.


A draft document on changes in reporting program reviews was discussed.  At issue was the proposed elimination of indicator #10 on graduate and post-baccalaureate programs.  There was serious concern that elimination of this indicator might signal less concern with graduate study.  It was decided to not eliminate indicator #10 but to provide more focused direction on what campuses were to report in this area.


            Alumni Council: June 22

The focus of this meeting was developing a strategic plan for "Advocacy" for the system.  This plan will begin with a pilot effort on promotion of the upcoming "University Facilities Bond Act." 


            Intersegmental Coordinating Committee (ICC): July 12

The focus of this meeting was to discuss the progress made on implementing the Round Table's Initiatives.  This allowed the group to see what had been accomplished thus far as well as to project plans for the coming year.  These initiatives are: Initiative I, aligning Standards and Assessments across Educational Boundaries; Initiative 2, enriching the quality of the teaching profession; Initiative 3, expanding inter-segmental collaboration in administrative applications of technology; Initiative 4, preparing students academically and informing them about college with emphasis on regional collaboration and coordination; and Initiative 5, strengthening the transfer process. 


            ICAS: August 12

This was the first ICAS meeting (for 2002-2003) to be chaired by CSU.  After some discussion of the new version of the Master Plan it was decided that a Master Plan Task Force would be established to focus on special issues that should be addressed by ICAS.  After a report the continued interest by ICC in having a special group address transfer, it was decided that ICAS should take the initiative and establish its own Task Force to address transfer issues.  In addition to affirming the centrality of faculty control of curriculum, this group will review the status of present transfer projects, investigate perceived problems with transfer, and recommend next steps. An official transmittal letter for the new English Literacy statement was approved. 


            System Budget Advisory Committee (SBAC): August 8

The meeting commenced with a report from Richard West on the status of the 2003/04 budget.  Except for an additional cut to the funding for Community Service Learning, the CSU budget has remained fairly stable and CSU has been treated pretty well in comparison to others and in this budget situation.  Further, Finance has told Richard that CSU will not be subjected to the 25% cut scenario that is projected for other state agencies. There will not likely be a budget resolution until September 15th or even later.  Discussion then focused on the 2003/4 proposed budget.  CSU is advocating a full partnership position including recognition of almost $116,000,000 of un-funded 2002/03 partnership money.  The proposed budget requests a 4% increase in General Operations and a 1% increase for long term needs as well as full marginal cost funding for a 5% enrollment growth and for YRO conversion for the remaining six campuses.  There are funding requests for compensation including the 2.64% increase for faculty, for health benefits and workers compensation.  In terms of long range need, there are requests for funding for technology, libraries, deferred maintenance, off-campus centers and high-cost academic programs.  Finally, there is a $35,615,000 funding request for the first year cost for the implementation of ACR 73. 


            ATAC: August 29

The first part of the meeting focused on discussion of the new systemwide Academic Technology Planning effort that is being launched with the support of the Chancellor, the Presidents, the Technology division of the Chancellor's Office and by ATAC (which includes representatives from the CSU Academic Senate) and the Provosts.  Representative faculty from ATAC and representatives from the Provosts will form the core of a small planning group that will engage in intensive planning for academic technology over the next three-five months. There was discussion of a proposed RFP document as well as the proposed list of policy issues to be addressed.  These include a technology fee policy, policies on course articulation and curriculum approval across campuses for multi-campus programs and courses as well as multi-campus sharing policies on WTU, FTE and budget.





The Chancellor first spoke to the Senate about the 2002-2003 budget. Although the Governor signed the budget about a week ago, we still don't know the details-we know what's in the budget, but not the details.  The Legislature passed what the Senate essentially passed on June 30, but then added many additional trailer bills which have budget language in them and even conflict each other. In the trailer bills, the most significant one is direction to Governor and the Department of Finance to cut $750 million from operations, and gives them until Dec. 1 to make these cuts.  This translates to about a 5% cut on $16 billion left for operating the agencies like the State Correctional System, CSU and UC.  Of this $16 billion, $2 billion is debt payment for bonds which leaves $14 billion vulnerable to the cuts. For the CSU this cut would come during the second half of the academic year since our academic year has already begun. That would mean a devastating $135 million cut which would be applied during just one semester, having double the impact concentrated in half of an academic year. There are rumors in Sacramento that there might be a Special Session of the Legislature in December.  Another rumor is that after the election there may be an increase on fees levied on vehicle licenses.  If so, that could yield a $1.5 billion which would cover our cut.


The Chancellor stated that we need to be concerned about our State.  He believes that we are experiencing very unhealthy "political gridlock."  There are a number of reasons for this.  One is the amendment that put term-limits in place, since those responsible for preparing the budget this year have never prepared a budget before.  The other problem is the need to obtain a 2/3 vote on the budget.  A third item that contributes to the problem was the redistricting of the State, with both parties securing "safe" seats.  This means neither side needs to compromise, resulting in two sides with no middle.  The Chancellor believes that if there is a Special Session in December, it will be not be any easier to decide budget items than it was in September.


Chancellor Reed asked the Senate's help to kill the rumor that the Board of Trustees will roll back the salary increases that were granted in July.  He asserted that this rumor is not true, and the Board and the administration are committed to meeting all of their salary obligations


In the budget we received a 5% increase for enrollment, but we have an actual preliminary fall increase of 7%.  Therefore we are unfunded by 2% or for 6000 students.  As a system we will be way over 400,000 students for the first time in our history.   For the first time the CSU must tighten up on enrollment. Chancellor Reed stated that we do have the tools available to do this.   We will have to use them to manage enrollment.  We have to make decisions in the next few weeks about enrollment.  For example, we may only want to accept applications during the month of November.   If you look at the number of applications for transfer for this spring, it's scary.  The proposed 5% will result a net increase of funded enrollment of 3% to recoup the 2% overage that we have now.  That 3% is less than half of the enrollment that's coming at us.  We also need to heed the fact that the Governor and Legislature are very sensitive about the issue of access. The culture of access of education is very sensitive in this state.  But, Chancellor Reed added, the State must be willing to pay for it.  As we begin to put enrollment management into place, there will be many complaints, but we must preserve quality, and capacity is a huge problem.   The Chancellor stated that he wants to get all of our institutions onto YRO.  He believes that will help us a little bit.  He said that it is the cheapest way to increase enrollment capacity, since we still have some room during the summer.


For the 2003-2004 budget, we're building a budget on a base without knowing what the base is.  Nonetheless, the Chancellor stated, we are asking for full funding for our mandatory costs.  These include an enrollment increase of 5%, health care (for which there has been an increase of 25-28%, Workman's Compensation Insurance (where we've seen a $7 million increase), insurance and utilities.  This alone amounts to over $200 million in mandatory costs.  In addition we are asking for about $50 in compensation increases and $33 million to fund ACR 73.  In addition we're asking for a small amount for off-campus centers.


The Chancellor indicated that this past August he had asked Dave Spence to invite the Provosts to meet for a day to talk about Academic Technology.   It will take about 2 more years to complete the technology infrastructure, but, he added, it is now necessary to mount a strong effort on the academic side to take advantage of these tools.  The efforts must be campus based and faculty driven.  He stated that using these tools should be better than what any professor can do without them, or we shouldn't use them .  He emphasized that he was not talking about a virtual university, on-line degrees or correspondence courses offerings, but a mixing of the technologies.  Part of his agenda is about capacity.  A mixture of technologies could allow faculty members to use the technology partly for instruction, for simulations, for downloading assignments, so that a faculty member might be on campus for a class one day and working another day with the students via technology. 


The Chancellor stated that he is very concerned about maintaining the diversity of our student population.  He sees it as our strength.  We are in the business of  producing those students that America needs.  Chancellor Reed ended by stating that he will work as hard as he can to increase resources, and asks that we use these resources wisely.





Trustee Farar began by stating that the Board of Trustees appreciates the hard work the Senate is doing.  They are especially appreciative or our keeping them informed by our reports, emails, and presentations at board meetings.  She believes that we were successful with the legislation of ACR 73 because we, the Senate, the administration and the CFA were all united in this effort.  Trustee Farar believes we must now mount a similar effort regarding the bond initiative, Proposition 47.  It is important that we all work to get out the vote.


Trustee Farar stated that we must to continue to focus on quality, accessibility and affordability.  This she believes is our primary mission.  We need to look at improving time to degree.  She was emphatic in stating that she wants her tenure to be thought of as focused on "shared governance."  She stated that "this is no longer an option; it is a real necessity."  Trustees, in her opinion should not micromanage.  (She quipped, that the way she sees it is "noses in, fingers out.") Communication is the key to success.  She sees herself as an inclusive leader.  Mistrust thrives on lack of communication. The Trustees can do their job best by promoting collaboration among all the players.





The Senate passed the following 3 items:


1.     Modifications of the 2000 California State University Enrollment Management Policy Regarding Proposed Presidential Advisory Groups and the Groups and the role of Academic Senates

This resolution recommends that the role of the Presidential Advisory Groups being proposed to the Board of Trustees for their meeting of September 17-18, 2002 be to gather local campus region input and to provide regional consultation.  This resolution also affirms the full participation of academic senates in the development of enrollment policies, since enrollment policy is within the purview of shared governance.


2.   Support of Proposition 47 (Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Act of 2002)

      This resolution supports Proposition 47 as a way to fund the needed facilities for public education in California.  This resolution urges voters to support this resolution and urges campus administrators and academic senates to increase public awareness of Proposition 47.


3.   Including Unit 3 Employees in the Program to Pay for Parking with Pretax Dollars

      This resolution urges the California Faculty Association (CFA) and the Board of Trustees to reach agreement to permit Unit 3 employees who pay for parking through payroll deduction to pay for such fees with pretax dollars.  All other CSU employees with the exception of Unit 3 employees are permitted this advantage.  Paying for parking with pretax dollars will benefit both faculty as well as the CSU.  The faculty member would save money, and would be encouraged to pay for parking on a 12 month rather than an academic year basis, resulting in increased revenues to the parking fund.




The Senate moved, as first reading items, the following two resolutions: [Note:  These items are being sent out to campus senates for discussion. These items will come up for a vote as second reading items during the Senate's Plenary, November 7-8, 2002.]


1.   Modification of Upper-division Admission Requirements

      This resolution recommends that the Board of Trustees amend Title 5, California Code of Regulations, to require that a student complete 60 transferable semester units (84 quarter units), instead of the current 56 transferable semester units (90 quarter units) to establish eligibility for admission as an upper-division transfer student.


2.   Amendment to Bylaw 2a

      This resolution would amend the bylaws, section 2a of the Academic Senate of the California State University.  The bylaw change restricts officers of the Senate (Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary and two Members-at-Large) from serving for more than two years consecutively in the same office.