March 10, 2003 Notes by Lester Pincu


..................................................................
Summary of the
Meeting of the Academic Senate, CSU
March 6-7, 2003
			by
Lester Pincu, Secretary
Academic Senate of
The California State University


CHAIR'S REPORT

Chair Kegley called the Senate's attention to a number of items, including
several meetings which took place after her written report.  These included
a meeting of ICAS, a meeting with the Budget Task Force, the Board of
Trustees' Committee on Finance, and her testimony on student fees to the
Assembly Committee on Higher Education on March 4.  This testimony has been
distributed to the Senate.

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

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

	Shared Governance Task Force, January 29, 2003

Among the most pressing issues discussed by this task force were the
building of trust, communication and sharing of information, and discussion
of processes and actions that would improve shared governance within the
system and on the campuses.  The Task Force agreed to meet after the March
Board meeting.  The group will review the Shared Governance report (January
2001) as well as other pertinent documents.

	Academic Council, February 6, 2003

The meeting of the Academic Council, which consists of Provosts and Vice
Presidents for Academic Affairs met on February 6, 2003.  There was a
presentation of the successful School Dean Orientation Program at CSU
Northridge.  This model would be an excellent one to emulate for other
campuses as well as for an orientation program for Department Chairs.

Gary Hammerstrom and David Spence provided an overview of the budget.  The
provosts shared information on the issue of tenure track hiring.  Almost
all indicated that they were proceeding with their searches and hires. They
also discussed the budget cuts to Outreach programs as well as the new
focus on early assessment and senior year experiences and the institutes on
critical Readings for secondary teachers.  There was discussion of the
report on Facilitating Graduation as well as the Academic Technology
Planning Process. The group discussed some items concerning Teacher
Education including the work to postpone the Teacher Preparation Assessment
process.  David Spence reported that the bill advocating an Undergraduate
Major, now known as "Educational Studies," has resurfaced as SB 81.

	ACR-73 Presentation at Cal Poly, SLO, February 11, 2003

This panel presentation on the ACR-73 plan was held at a meeting of the
Academic Senate of Cal Poly, SLO.  Members of the panel stressed the
importance of this kind of collaborative effort and the fact that the
ACR-73 plan implements important recommendations from our senate document,
CSU at the Beginning of the 21st Century.  These include reduction of the
SFR and re-balancing the tenure/tenured track/ temporary faculty ratio.
This plan must be kept before the legislature as an indicator of the need
to support those factors that contribute to the ability of the CSU to offer
a nigh quality education.

	Systemwide Budget Advisory Committee, February 21, 2003

The Systemwide Budget Advisory Committee met at the Chancellor's Office on
Friday, February 21, 2003.  The primary topic of discussion was the
recommendations of the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) on the Governor's
2003-04 budget.  Although the LAO is supporting the Governor's budget
reduction to the CSU of $326.1 million, she presents an alternate budget
approach for higher education that centers on three issues: student fees,
financial aid, and enrollment growth.

Student Fees:  For the UC and CSU, the LAO is recommending increasing
undergraduate fees by 15% instead of the 25% proposed in the Governor's
budget.  The LAO supports the 20% graduate fee proposal for CSU and
recommends reducing the proposed graduate fee for UC from 25% to 20%.  For
the Community Colleges, the LAO is recommending increasing the fees from
$11 to $25 (rather than the Governor's proposal of $24 per unit) to allow
CCC students to meet the cost threshold for federal financial aid (Pell
Grants).

Financial Aid:  For UC and CSU, the LAO is recommending against using the
one-third of the fee revenue generated from the student fee increase for
financial aid (State University Grants).  Instead, this revenue would be
used to offset the Governor's reduction of 326.1 million.

Enrollment Growth:  For the UC and CSU, the LAO is proposing to fund a 4%
increase for enrollment rather than the 7% proposed by the Governor.  She
believes this is more in line with projective growth in the high school
graduate rate and adult population growth.  She also rejects any funding
for over-enrollment.  For the CCC's the LAO is proposing to augment their
budget by $100 million, in additional Proposition 98 funding, to reduce the
CCC enrollment reduction from the 5.7% proposed by the Governor to 3.7%.

Another item of concern to the Senate is the LAO proposal on Remediation.
The LAO is recommending a reduction of $10 million in CSU General Fund
support as a result of reducing marginal cost funding for FTES enrolled in
pre-collegiate (remedial) writing and mathematics courses to the funding
rate for the community colleges, namely, $3,900 per FTES.

Cal Grants: The LAO is opposed to the Governor's budget proposal to reduce
Cal Grant funding by $10.2 million, representing a 9% reduction in new Cal
grant awards to individuals attending the private colleges and
universities.  The LAO believes that this will increase the overall
capacity in higher education and provide students with more meaningful
options to a college education.  The LAO does not indicate where the state
would get the additional $10.2

The LAO seems to be basing some recommendations on a misunderstanding of
the college-going population in California, especially of the students who
attend CSU.  The enrollment arguments in the LAO report assumes a 16-24
aged student college-attending group as is the belief that Cal grants will
provide adequate financial help to students.  This ignores the fact that
Cal grants go to students just out of high school and not to anyone over
24.  Many of our students are thus not eligible for these grants.  The
recommendations on reduced marginal funding for remedial courses is an
alarming recommendation and precedent and would, of course represent
serious reductions to our budget and to any hope for quality instruction.

The Chancellor's Office will be preparing details responses to the
recommendations of the LAO and they should be available shortly.

California Higher Education Student Summit (CHESS),  February 21-24, 2003

Chair Kegley participated in two panel presentations at the California
Higher Education Student Summit (CHESS) in Sacramento February 22-23.  In
the first panel: "CSU Outreach and Enrollment," she argued that access and
quality must be carefully balanced to produce the kind of healthy education
CSU must provide.  Further, access and quality influence each other and
interact in significant and subtle ways.  First, access to higher education
represents quality of life for Americans in terms of economic and personal
advancement and quality for the civic and economic future of our state.
Access to higher education for diverse populations provides a higher
quality education for all. However, access without a core commitment to
excellence is a potentially bankrupt access.  Without quality, will there
be access to adequate workforce, citizenship, and life-long learning
skills?  Quality must moderate access.  Quality demands that we address
those things that will allow students to succeed in higher education and
those quality factors such as adequate human and instructional resources
and an SFR that allows quality interaction between students and
instructors.


In the second panel, "CSU Retention, Remediation and Graduation" Chair
Kegley focused on the work of the "Facilitating Student Success in
Achieving the Baccalaureate Degree" workgroup.  She briefly discussed the
research base for the report and then talked about key factors for
student's successful completion of the degree.  These factors included
curricular, instructional and pedagogical innovations, increasing the
percentage tenured/tenure track faculty, and good student support services
such as quality advising, clear and consistent communication, roadmaps to
graduation and degree audits. She also presented the major recommendations
of the report.

	Community Service-Learning Colloquium, February 24-25, 2003

Chair Kegley presented a workshop entitled "Working with Academic Senates
to Advance Service Learning" where she presented an overview of the key
role played by the CSU Academic Senate and campus senates in answering the
call of Governor Davis in 1999 to establish a community-service learning
graduation requirement.  She outlined how the senates had responded and how
the CSU Academic Senate's resolution on the issue promoted a Board of
Trustee resolution that respected campus autonomy and the key role of
faculty in establishing curriculum. It did not promote a graduation
requirement but allowed campus to institutionalize community service
learning in ways appropriate to each campus mission and academic plan.


DISCUSSION OF SOME PROPOSEED AREAS
TO REDUCE COSTS FOR THE 2003-2004 SENATE BUDGET

The Senate was advised that the Senate's operating budget for 2003-2004 may
be reduced as much as 15%.  Although we do not know the actual budget for
next year, the Executive Committee with the Senate Office Administrator Deb
Hennessy reviewed possible areas where we might reduce operating costs.
These possible reductions were presented to the Senate, which stimulated a
frank and spirited discussion.  The Senators were encouraged to present
alternative proposals for future discussion.


MEETING WITH PAUL SPEAR AND ROLLAND HOUSER ON
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, FAIR USE AND THE UNDBUNLING OF OWNERSHIP RIGHTS

Paul Spear and Rolland Houser met with the Senate to present the final
report of the Task Force on Intellectual Property established in 2001.  Its
charge was to review local camps and systemwide policies in the area of
intellectual property in light of earlier work done a decade earlier.  In
addition, they were charged with considering the implications of recent
legislation and judicial decisions and new technologies as they apply to
intellectual property.

The major theme of the Task Force recommendations is that the CSU must
provide an education program for faculty, students, and administrators in
intellectual property rights.  The report points out that the new
provisions of the TEACH Act permit a wider use of copyrighted works of
others in distance learning, but this liberalized legal use is available
only to campuses who qualify by adhering to technical safeguards which must
be certified as meeting the requirements of the TEACH Act.  Without these
educational and technical measures, the new liberalized provisions are not
available to the campuses.

The Task Force further points to the new California law, which regulates
the recording of academic presentations and mandates the Trustees to adopt
a policy to educate students about the provisions of the law.  The CSU has
not adopted such a policy nor has it educated its students to the
illegality of making such unauthorized recordings.

The document also emphasizes the concept of unbundling copyright and patent
rights by making use of what is termed "nonexclusive licenses" which would
allow the flexibility available under the law of avoiding "all-or nothing"
copyright contracts.

The Senate gratefully accepted the report with thanks to the Committee, and
passed a resolution (see below) endorsing the report, urging wide
distribution to campuses for publication and education of faculty, students
staff and administration.


MEETING WITH CHANCELLOR CHARLES REED

The Chancellor informed the Senate that he had many items on his plate, but
that the budget was taking the majority of his time and attention.  He is
having a web page built with budget data so that the CSU community can get
easy access the latest information.  The Chancellor stated that he was
extremely concerned about the governmental process in California.  He
believes that the state will run out of money by May.  Since there is no
budget yet passed, the state is spending money at a rate based on old
figures, and will have to borrow $12 billion instead of the $8 billion
previously anticipated, and at increasingly higher interest rates.

The Chancellor stated that he is consulting as many of his constituencies
that he can, many on at least a monthly basis.  He anticipates that the
Governor will have another set of budget recommendations by May 15.
Meanwhile, the legislature seems to be frozen.  The recent Republican
proposal in the legislature for an additional 7% across-the-board cut is
impossible. An across-the-board cut does not take into account the fact
that one can not cut such fixed items as the repayment of bonds and SSI
payments.  Add to these problems two additional items: one- that the
economy is not recovering as expected, and two- in the Chancellor's
opinion, a possible war will make the economic situation even worse.
Meanwhile, "the state is burning cash."  The Chancellor stated that this is
the largest reduction the state has ever seen.


MEETING WITH STUDENT TRUSTEE
ERENE THOMAS

Trustee Thomas met with the Senate, primarily for getting a faculty
perspective on the issue of the increase in student fees.  She also spoke
about the lack of real consultation with students, and emphasized that
shared governance is more than just announcing decisions after the fact.

The Senate made it clear to Trustee Thomas that none of the senators was
pleased about raising student fees.  There was, however, sharp division as
to whether individual senators were in favor of this raise.  Senators
expressed deep concern about the hardship fee increases placed on students,
however some senators noted that without fee increases there would be a
decrease in the quality of the educational experience and a major shortage
of classes.  Trustee Thomas remained to hear the Senate's debate on the
resolution on student fees, and stated that she had gotten views of the
faculty's opinions that were much more complex than she had previously
thought.

SELECTION OF FACULTY TRUSTEE CANDIDATES

The Senate is responsible for sending a minimum of two candidates to the
Governor for him to fill the Faculty Trustee position to the Board of
Trustees of the California State University.

The Senate will send forth the following two candidates for the Governor's
consideration: Kathleen E. Kaiser, CSU Chico Jacquelyn A. Kegley, CSU
Bakersfield


ACTION ITEMS

The Senate passed the following eight items:

1. Campus Policies on Privacy of Electronic Communication 

This resolution reaffirms its support for privacy in communication,
including electronic communication among students, staff, faculty, and
others as enumerated in our previous resolution.  Our previous resolution
outlines the policy whereby all e-mail accounts are considered
confidential, except where these accounts must be accessed for technical
problem resolution, when required by state or federal law, when there is
probable cause to suspect illegal activity, or for discovery in civil
litigation.  The resolution further endorses the privacy provisions of
paragraph nine of the American Association of University Professors'
statement on Academic Freedom and Electronic Communication, and urges
campus senates to ensure adequate privacy protections consistent with these
statements.

2. Task Force on Roles and Responsibilities of Chairs

This resolution recommends that campus senates review the findings and
recommendations from the document titled Roles, Responsibilities,
Resources, and Rewards for Department Chairs, and the campus-specific
information in the task force reports, to facilitate campus-based
discussions among administrators and chairs to resolve relevant issues
detailed in these reports.  The resolution also recommends that the
chancellor's office review the findings and recommendations of the task
force and work with the Academic Senate CSU to develop systemwide policy
recommendations as appropriate.

3. Student Fees in the California State University (CSU): Mitigating Their Effects

This resolution recognizes the necessity for a short-term increase in
student fees as a last resort for protecting student access to higher
education and slowing the erosion of quality.  This resolution opposes any
increases if it does not meet conditions such as:

	Providing sufficient financial aid to cover the additional need;

	Providing for maintenance ad expansion of programs designed to
	educate students of he availability of financial aid, and the
	procedures for obtaining it

	Providing that any fee increases be implemented in a gradual,
	moderate an predicable manner; and

	Providing that any future fee increases be the result of a
	meaningful consultation process involving students, faculty and
	other members of he university community, an be based on a coherent
	and defensible policy.

4. Recommendation in Support of the New California Articulation Number
    (CAN) Model

This resolution strongly endorses the draft of the new articulation model,
with the following qualification:  That, regarding validation of CAN
courses, the CAN System solicit both lead faculty and discipline review
faculty through the academic senates of the participating systems.  The
resolution further encourages the CAN Board to continue its effort to
develop web-based CAN descriptor templates, and to extend the CAN process
to elective courses recommended for preparation within a major.

5. Recommendation on the Report from Joint Provost/Academic Senate
California State University Task Force on Facilitating Graduation:
Facilitating Student Success in Achieving the Baccalaureate Degree

This resolution endorses the principles and recommendations of the Joint
Provost/Academic Senate California State University Task Force on
Facilitating Graduation subject to the following stipulations:

	That the Chancellor's Office and the Academic Senate CSU consult on
	what further research, if any should be undertaken, and that any
	additional policy options should be developed through ongoing
	consultation with the Academic Senate CSU and the campus senates;
	and

	That the individual campuses, through the shared governance
	process, retain autonomy in their efforts to design institutionally
	tailored programs guided by the principles and recommendations in
	this report.

6. Campus Budget Consultation as a Criterion for Presidential Evaluation

This resolution strongly urges the Board of Trustees to include "Regular
consultation with campus academic senates on matters of budget planning" as
one of the specific criteria to be contained in The California State
University Criteria for Presidential Assessment.  By making consultation
with faculty through the shared governance process on matters of budget
planning a formal criterion of presidential evaluation, the Board of
Trustees would emphasize in a concrete manner the importance of such
consultation and increase the likelihood that it will occur in a meaningful
way on the individual CSU campuses.


7. Reaffirming Faculty Authority in Developing Curriculum

This resolution requests the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor's office
to join with the Academic Senate in urging the members of the Legislature
to adhere to the California Government Code (Sections 3560 and Sections
3561-b and c) which indicate that the development and execution of
curriculum within the CSU should insulated from political influence.


8. Intellectual Property, Fair Use and the Unbundling of Ownership Rights

This resolution commends the Task Force on Intellectual Property for
producing a comprehensive review of law, together with legal precedents,
surrounding intellectual property and fair use for faculty, students, staff
and the administration.  The resolution further endorses the document and
recommends its wide distribution via print, electronic and web-based means
to faculty, students, staff and the administration.  The resolution also
urges campuses to conduct workshops and use the document when revising
polices on ownership of intellectual property.


FIRST READING ITEMS

The Senate moved, as first reading items, the following five 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, May 8-9, 2003.]

1. Academic Senate Calendar 2003-2004

This resolution adopts a schedule for the 2003-04 academic year.  It also
authorizes the Senate's Executive Committee to make any necessary changes
in the schedule of meetings, if the Trustees alter their schedule, or if
budgetary constraints require a change.

2. Public Service Award

This resolution would institute a public service award to a graduate of the
CSU engaged in work in the state capitol as staff to legislative offices
and /or committees for outstanding support of higher education.

3. System Maximum Physical/Capacity Enrollment Ceilings

This resolution supports a system maximum physical capacity enrollment
ceiling for campuses.  This resolution also requests that the Board of
Trustees, in consultation with the Chancellor's Office and the Academic
Senate, to establish a new system maximum physical capacity enrollment
ceiling for campuses in the CSU.  The resolution also supports limited
incremental increases in individual campus enrollment ceilings above the
25,000 FTES physical capacity enrollment maximum

4. Adjusting Physical Capacity Enrollment Ceilings for Individual Campuses
through the Master Plan Revision Process

This resolution recommends that the Board of Trustees establish principles
for adjusting enrollment ceilings within the system physical capacity
enrollment maximum so that only individual campuses may initiate the
process to increase enrollment ceilings.  The resolution further recommends
that a campus request for an increase in its enrollment ceilings shall
include in its master plan the following:

	A written explanation of how the increase in physical capacity
	enrollment may impact on internal academic goals; and

	A resolution passed by the Academic Senate or the general faculty
	supporting the request.

5. CSU Faculty Workload Study

This resolution recommends that campus senates review the CSU Faculty
Workload Report and the comparable Faculty Workload Report together with
the group's finds and facilitate campus-based discussions to develop
strategies for aligning faculty duties and responsibilities so hat they are
competitive with those at peer institutions. This resolution also
recommends that campus senates develop methods to evaluate a faculty
member's total contribution to the institution and urges the Chancellor's
Office to work with the CFA and the Senate to develop models each campus
can use to implement the recommendations stated in the report.  The
resolution further recommends that the Senate work with the Chancellor's
Office and the CFA to educate the legislature regarding the workload of the
CSU faculty.