Chair Cheyne called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. on Tuesday, February 20, 2001, in Nelson Hall East, Room 102 (Goodwin Forum).

Members Present: Bicknell, Burroughs, Cheyne, Dixon, Knox, Larson, Little, MacConnie, Martin, Novotney, Pecot, Snyder, Thobaben, Thompson, Travis, Varkey, Wang, F. Wilson, M. Wilson, Yarnall

Members Absent: Bockover, Christensen, Fulgham, Giovannetti, Kenyon, McCrone, McFarland, Smith, Stokes

Proxies: Benjamin Shaeffer for Goodman; Michael Bezanson for Mayer; Kymber Mayberry for Ogden-Herrera; MacConnie for Meiggs; Greta for Sheppard; Richard Paselk for Thompson

Guests: Milt Boyd, Department of Biological Sciences; Randi Darnall Burke, Student Affairs; Steve Butler, Student Affairs; Ron Fritzsche, Office of Academic Affairs; Carolyn Mueller, Office of the President; Donna Schafer, Research & Graduate Studies; Richard Vrem, Undergraduate Studies

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved and seconded (Larson/Yarnall) to approve the minutes of February 6, 2001, as submitted. There were two changes made to the minutes; one to the state senate report and one to the senate finance report. Voting occurred and the minutes were approved as amended.

2. Announcements and Communications

> Contained in today's packet is a letter to Chair Cheyne from President McCrone, dated February 12, regarding the Resolution Regarding Forwarding Files that was approved at the February 6 senate meeting and sent to the President as an emergency item. In his letter, the President indicates that the resolution is not approved and offers his rationale for that decision. The Senate Executive Committee reviewed this letter in detail and asked Chair Cheyne to prepare a response. A copy of that response will be distributed to the senators at the next meeting.

Chair Cheyne stated that the most disturbing aspect of this letter from the President is contained in its final paragraph wherein the President suggests that the Senate's conduct ". . . would fall far below minimal standards of common civility, and would not comport with the expectations articulated in Appendix U (which includes the Statement of Professional Responsibility) of our Faculty Handbook." Since receiving that letter, Chair Cheyne thoroughly reviewed the recording of that portion of the February 6 senate meeting and invites anyone else to engage in a similar thorough review. Chair Cheyne could find no accusations of the nature described by the President. However, the issue of the security of the files came up on numerous occasions, and such references could possibly be interpreted as personal accusations, but the comments also can be interpreted as relating to the broader principle of maintaining the security and integrity of the files, irrespective of the personalities involved. Given the tone of the dialogue at the meeting, it is Chair Cheyne's opinion that the latter interpretation is accurate, and that such references were made to stress the importance of file security not to make accusations. Again, Chair Cheyne extended an invitation to anyone to review the discussion that occurred at that meeting.

There was some discussion regarding the letter from the President. In response to the question of whether the President had reviewed the tapes, Chair Cheyne replied that Ron Fritzsche, Special Assistant to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, had asked for the tapes but it was not known if the President had listened to the tapes. According to Fritzsche, the tapes did not leave his possession so the President would not have had an opportunity to review them. Since the President was not at the meeting and did not listen to the tapes, then it appears as though he based his letter on hearsay. CFA Chapter President Travis announced that when the CFA Regional Representative Nina Fendel read the President's letter, which contains a reference to her, she replied to the President's letter. As requested by Ms. Fendel, a copy of her letter was distributed to the senate body.

Chair Cheyne continued with her commentary stating that in a recent conversation she had with an administrator on this campus, a mutual concern regarding the deterioration in the relationship between the HSU faculty and the administration was expressed. This conversation occurred in the midst of the controversy surrounding the management of RTP files, but prior to the last senate meeting and its aftermath. Possible strategies for addressing this unfortunate situation were discussed, including convening a small group of faculty leaders and administrators to meet and discuss these issues. It is hoped that this would help move everyone toward a more positive and productive course of action.

Chair Cheyne announced that also included in today's packet is a document titled Collegiality in the California State University System, which helps provide a systemwide perspective on this issue. Chair Cheyne stated that input from members of the senate is appreciated; it is hoped that a more positive and collaborative environment can be created. Chair Cheyne will keep the senators apprised of any developments of this situation.

> Chair Cheyne reported on the senate chairs' meeting in Long Beach on February 8. The major issues included:

Shared governance and consultation: These issues were a major topic of discussion. Experiences vary dramatically across the system, from excellent conditions in Long Beach to votes of No Confidence in the President at three CSU campuses. A more detailed discussion ensued regarding the handling of votes of no confidence and Chair Cheyne read the following excerpt from an email Jackie Kegley, Chair, CSU Academic Senate, sent to the campus senate chairs:

The Faculty Affairs Committee of the CSU Academic Senate will bring a resolution to the March Plenary reaffirming AS-2305-96/FA approved January, 1996. That resolution reads as follows: "RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate for the California State University urge the Chancellor to investigate the circumstances leading to a vote of no confidence when the Chancellor is notified that a campus president has received a vote of no confidence (or its equivalent) from the faculty or Senate of that campus and to share the findings of the investigation with the campus senate and inform the Academic Senate CSU of the completion of the investigation." Vice Chancellor Spence will be alerted that this resolution is forthcoming and the CSU Academic Senate Chair will request information on whether these procedures were followed in incidents that have occurred since 1996.

San Bernardino has requested that CFA/CSU reconsider its ban on FERP faculty serving on RTP committees, both because it is creating a serious burden in some departments and because the institution is losing the input of some of its most experienced and knowledgeable individuals.

Many concerns were expressed regarding CMS. The senate chairs formally requested that the CSU provide regular reports on the status of CMS, including actual costs to campuses, where the funds are coming from, and any impact on campus programs, including what programs are affected and to what degree.

A draft report titled The CSU at the Beginning of the 21st Century is being circulated throughout the campuses and is available on the web. Responses are being requested by March 5. There is a summary document in today's packet.

A systemwide survey related primarily to faculty workload will be conducted using a random sampling of full and part time faculty on each campus. The campus senate offices will be asked to distribute the surveys. It is hoped that the survey will yield data that provide a more accurate picture of faculty workload and, more importantly, that will help in addressing concerns regarding workload issues.

The UC system has been told to significantly increase its number of graduate students and has been mandated to phase in year round operation over the next three years, beginning with Berkeley, UCLA and Santa Barbara. Apparently the UC is seeking dialogue with the CSU on these issues.

The State of California is accepting nominations for the twenty-first annual governor's employee safety awards. This award program is designed to recognize outstanding performance of individual state employees and groups for improving job health and safety, responding to life threatening situations, and preventing and reducing the number of occupational injuries and vehicular accidents. Based on the size of the university system, the California State University has been allocated 24 nominations. Please contact Greta for more information or to submit nominations.

> Additional announcements - Senator Knox, Chair of the Athletic Review Committee, announced that an open meeting to discuss the activities of this committee is scheduled for tomorrow night, 7 p.m. at the Eureka Red Lion; and there will be a Town Hall on campus February 27, 4 p.m. in Goodwin Forum.

3. Committee and State Senate Reports

Statewide Senate - A summary of the Master Plan document is contained in today's packet and the complete document can be downloaded using the address found at the top of the summary. Input on this document is important, and all senators were encouraged to review this document and forward any comments on it to Senator Snyder.

Student Records & Registration - An audit report from last spring reviewed how grades are awarded on the different campuses and found that a number of campuses are out of compliance with the executive orders related to grade distribution. In addition to the awarding of letter grades, the awarding of incompletes and withdrawals also are being reviewed. The audit recommends that the executive orders governing the process for giving withdrawals and incompletes be reviewed. Some of the local campuses are conducting an internal audit and looking for input regarding possible changes. The statewide senate is waiting for comment from the local senates on how to proceed.

Common Calendar - The issue of a common calendar can go two different ways: moving to a semester system for all campuses would not affect Humboldt; but moving to a common calendar that determines when classes begin and end can affect Humboldt. The Chancellor has expressed interest in the latter option because of the summer session in year round operations. Although he has not yet asked the presidents to move toward this, many campuses are pursuing calendar revisions. It was suggested that a copy of Collegiality in the California State University System be distributed to the senates to help clarify the role of faculty in such revisions. For example, the section on "Collegiality and Academic Policy Decisions," which refers to the curriculum, states that the faculty should have the major voice in academic policy decisions which closely affect the curriculum. The academic calendar, one example provided in this section, serves as a reminder to campuses that faculty should have the majority input on calendar decisions. This document (the Collegiality in the California State University System) reviews the history of collegiality and shared governance in the system and defines the relationship between collegiality and shared governance. It is important to note that faculty involvement is not limited to curriculum. A review of the "Collegiality in Faculty Affairs" section lists many examples of decisions regarding personnel policies, procedures and criteria which have a potential impact on the quality of the curriculum.

Post-Baccalaureate Education in the CSU - Discussion of this topic is in the preliminary stage. The Chancellor has decided to ask for the authority to grant an Ed.D. At the statewide level, review of post-baccalaureate education in the CSU has started. All input on this topic is welcome.

University Curriculum Committee - No report.

Student Affairs - The Committee is examining the criteria by which graduate students receive credit when taking undergraduate courses for CR/NC.

Educational Policies Committee - No report.

Associated Students - It was reported that there is support for the conscientious construction of the BSS Building; the fieldhouse renovation has been temporarily suspended; approximately $100,000 from the 1/3 set aside funds will be moved back into IRA funding; Melissa Ortiz, council representative, has applied for the student trustee position on the Board of Trustees for next year; and a march celebrating Cesar Chavez has been planned that will include the local high schools.

Faculty Affairs - There is one item on the agenda today regarding policies and procedures for complaints of misconduct and/or discrimination. Items the committee will be working on this term include: review of the counselors' personnel document; review of the policies and procedures for appointing lecturers; review of service evaluation techniques as part of the evaluation of probationary faculty; review of campus policies and procedures on externally funded grants and contracts; review of the policies in the three colleges regarding the placement of lecturers on the salary range when they are hired; and review of the teaching assistants' salary schedule.

General Faculty - The general faculty election will be held tomorrow and Thursday. All senators were encouraged to vote. General Faculty President Larson announced that the question of absentee ballots and the opportunity for people to vote who are out of town or on leave during the voting days has been raised. Currently there is no mechanism in place to accommodate this request. Anyone with comment on this topic may contact President Larson or Greta. The CSU was a role model for discussing faculty participation in shared governance at a conference in Florida attended by Ron Fritzsche, Special Assistant to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. A handout describing shared governance and the next generation of faculty was distributed. Yvonne Everett, Department of NRPI, and Lilianet Brintrup, Department of Modern Languages, will be presenting at the March 7 brown bag colloquium series to be held in NHE 106.

5. 4:45 P.M. TIME CERTAIN

RESOLUTION ON CONTINUOUS ENROLLMENT POLICY FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS (#07-00/01-EP)

It was moved and seconded (Yarnall/Thobaben) to place the resolution on the floor.

WHEREAS, Graduate students who leave the campus before completing their course work or culminating experience requirements may be less likely to graduate; and

WHEREAS, The culminating experience requires the use of campus resources including, but not limited to, faculty consultation, laboratory, studio, computer, and library resources; therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommend the approval of the attached policy on continuous enrollment for graduate students; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommend that the attached policy on continuous enrollment for graduate students be included in the Graduate Student Handbook.

Background to the resolution was provided by Senator MacConnie who stated that this issue came to the Educational Policies Committee from the Graduate Council. After completion of their course work, many graduate students remain affiliated with the University by using laboratory facilities or computer and library resources, and through faculty consultation. The intent is to have students enroll in at least one unit of course work while they are still a part of the campus and to encourage them to complete their degree in a timely fashion. A leave of absence is available for cases where a student needs to cease association with the university. Donna Schafer, Dean for Research and Graduate Studies, acknowledged the work of the Educational Policies Committee in reviewing this policy. She stated that two-thirds of the CSU campuses have an enrollment policy in place. Ron Fritzsche, former Interim Dean for Research and Graduate Studies, stated that the two events that helped promote the development of this policy are 1) the idea of retention and time to degree as it was discussed at meetings of graduate deans and 2) the publication of a booklet by George Allen, Editor, that identifies several incomplete theses on the Arcata Marsh Project from former students.

Discussion included 1) The Committee did discuss the effective date of this policy and believed that it would be the fall term following approval of the resolution. The enforcement of this policy would not pertain to students already enrolled. [There was some discussion regarding whether students are held to the requirements of the catalog that was in effect when they were admitted or if they are held to the requirements for a degree program at the time they file for advancement to candidacy.] 2) Reference was made to the nonquantifiable costs to those students who do not complete their graduate programs. In some cases there is a large drop in the number of admitted graduate students to the number of degrees granted. Approval of this resolution alone will not succeed in assisting students to complete their degree work; it is but one step in a series of necessary steps needed for graduate students to reach closure. 3) The phrase no credit is earned for SP 696 should be clarified. [Since this is an Extended Education course, there is no FTE associated with it. And an Extended Education course is identified because of the cost factor--it is less expensive for a student to take one unit through Extended Education than through regular enrollment.]

Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

3. Committee Reports (continued)

CFA - CFA Chapter President Travis reported that the Union is preparing its sunshine proposals for the successor contract which requires the identification of the portions of the contract to be focused on and what changes are to be made or what new items are to be introduced for consideration. The CFA held two bargaining meetings last weekend at which members were invited to participate in a discussion of items found to be crucial for this new bargaining session. The return on the survey in the welcome back document was disappointing, and because it is important that information from both members and nonmembers be received, another survey will be distributed that encourages everyone to respond and identify those issues of importance to them. Travis encouraged all senators to complete the survey and asked that they, in turn, encourage their colleagues to return the survey.

Senate Finance - The Budget Committee of OAA had the first day of hearings of special programs that receive funding from special lines, and PAD programs, additional education preparation funds, and technology funding were mentioned. The Committee will hear from the deans and other division heads in OAA. URPBC will be meeting Friday. Of interest is the itemization of the different funding sources that come to the university in a variety of ways. There are several pages of descriptions of these different funds and authorization principles, and additional information will be provided at the next senate meeting.

4. Discussion Item: Imposition of Terms and Conditions [John Travis, CFA Chapter President]

CFA Chapter President Travis reported that on January 23 the CSU imposed terms and conditions of the contract on the faculty for the second consecutive time. At the first negotiation meeting held over a year ago, both sides agreed that the service salary increase (SSI) was to be granted to those eligible for it. (Humboldt awarded these SSIs earlier than most campuses.) Also there was fairly general agreement on the details of the general salary increase (GSI), with some dispute over a portion of it, but the Union was prepared to award faculty most of the GSI on the first of July. The issue was the faculty merit increase (FMI) program. The Union is convinced, as was the neutral fact finder, that this is a poorly designed, poorly administered, distinctively bad merit program. The CSU was never able to provide a witness that could justify the FMI program which is why the fact finder condemned it. The Chancellor's Office attempted to portray the fact finder as someone opposed to merit schemes, but that is not true. He is an expert in merit pay; he just thought this program was not a good one and it was insulting to the faculty.

The Union still wanted to negotiate the reopeners so that impasse could be avoided; however, that did not happen. A bargaining meeting was held on January 20 and 21, prior to the meeting of the Board of Trustees. The Chancellor had sent a memorandum indicating that if agreement could not be reached by Monday, January 22, then he would have no alternative but to impose. Consequently, the Union framed a new offer to the Chancellor that some believed compromised too heavily the position of the Union, but in keeping with the commitment to reach a settlement, the bargaining team agreed to this compromise. The course that the bargaining meeting took was that each time the Union made a concession, a new condition was imposed by the CSU. The Union's perception is that negotiations finally broke down when the Union was unwilling to compromise on two critical principles. The first was that the Union was unwilling to contribute a specific proportion of any compensation package to a merit program until the overall compensation package was understood. The second had to do with the Chancellor's inability to offer assurance that all the money the legislature allocates for faculty compensation increases goes to faculty compensation. The Union has contended, and the fact finder has found compelling agreeable evidence, that the SSI portion of the compensation increases are substantially self funding. It does not cost the CSU or Humboldt State University much for any SSI because of the nature of the movement of faculty out of the system. When a professor retires and an assistant professor is hired, there is a sizable salary amount that is recaptured by the system and the university that essentially funds SSIs. The Union was asking for evidence that there is an actual expenditure that takes place from the CSU and from the individual campuses to fund SSIs over time. The Chancellor's Office is unwilling or unable to provide such information. The Union insisted that the system be able to account for the money it claimed it is spending on faculty salaries. The negotiations broke down and imposition occurred. From the beginning of this reopener negotiation, the CSU never moved from its initial position; the Union made significant proposals on several occasions during this same time. The Union members at the meeting were very disappointed and completely frustrated that no settlement had been reached. The concern now is the impact on the next negotiation. There had been tentative agreement on three issues: 1) owing to increased responsibilities and the implementation of YRO, department chairs should have an increase in their salary base while they are department chairs; 2) lecturers teaching at a .4 time base need to receive benefits as provided by statute; and 3) counselors would be brought to faculty status in terms of their salary so that they would be paid at the same salary range as the assistant, associate and professor levels.

Discussion included 1) The Union's last proposal was to establish a joint labor/management task force to review the idea of merit pay and develop a possible resolution to this issue; this was rejected. Recently a letter from Chancellor Reed was distributed asking for such a task force to be formed and implying that this was his idea. The status of this proposal is not known yet. 2) Faculty received two letters regarding imposition; are there any omissions of fact in the CFA's letter? [ CFA Chapter President Travis is not aware of any.] 3) A series of resolutions has been approved recently by the various CSU senates which include a declaration of no confidence in the Chancellor to a more moderate stance saying negotiations are needed because we cannot continue to have imposition. The CFA chapter presidents were asked to bring a resolution to their senate; however, CFA Chapter President Travis and Chair Cheyne spoke about this and questioned the appropriateness of bringing such a resolution to the floor given the internal difficulties related to governance that are currently happening at Humboldt. CFA Chapter Travis probably will ask the Senate Executive Committee to endorse a resolution attesting to the importance of bargaining. 4) In all probability, the Chancellor's bargaining team also was frustrated. There had been general agreement; but the Chancellor was not at the table so when proposals were made, the CSU bargaining team had to place a call to the Chancellor. There is some hope that the Chancellor will participate in the next round.

6. Resolution Regarding Revision of the Procedure for Processing Complaints of Misconduct, Including Unlawful Discrimination [UML 00-03](#11-00/01-FA)

It was moved and seconded (Bicknell/Larson) to place the resolution on the floor.

WHEREAS, The Academic Senate of Humboldt State University has been requested to review UML 00-03 (Procedure for Processing Complaints of Misconduct, Including Unlawful Discrimination); and

WHEREAS, Humboldt State University's procedures for filing complaints must be consistent with other procedures already in place including grievance procedures in collective bargaining agreements, personnel documents such as the Management Personnel Plan, and our campus student grievance procedures for filing complaints other than discrimination or misconduct; and

WHEREAS, Clarity of institutional procedures for filing complaints is important to aid in the resolution of disputes, and in protecting complainants, respondents, and the institution from frustration and potential legal liability; therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommend that the attached revision of UML 00-03 be adopted and implemented immediately upon presidential approval.

Background on the resolution was provided by Senator Bicknell who reminded senators that last year the senate approved the resolution pertaining to the student grievance procedures for matters that were not misconduct or discrimination. This policy has been approved by the President and has been implemented. The document on the floor today has been developed to complement the student grievance procedures document by addressing those areas not addressed in the student grievance procedures. The Faculty Affairs Committee recognized the need for clarity for both the people who make a complaint or file a grievance and for department chairs, deans and other administrators who respond to such grievances and need to do so in an appropriate manner. An important aspect of this policy is that it refers the complainants, and/or the administrator who first receives the complaint, to the appropriate policy document that would cover the complainant and the respondent. There are several procedures in place to assist with the handling of such complaints: a student disciplinary procedure that protects students who have claims filed against them, and collective bargaining agreements for all the employees, except the administrators who have the management personnel plan (MPP). This document helps direct people to the appropriate document or it provides a procedure in those cases where there is no other document to cover that situation. It also eliminates any "off the record" preliminary investigation and moves one immediately into the appropriate document designed for that situation. This should prove to be a clearer and more efficient way of handling such serious complaints.

Discussion included 1) there were some inconsistencies in the language of the document that will be remedied by using the same verbiage throughout the document; 2) this document will be reviewed by legal counsel and there may be changes made to the document such as additions to the table; and 3) an additional note will be added to clarify the 20+ instructional days found in the table.

It was suggested as a friendly amendment that the language recommend the attached revision of the UML 00-03 be adopted conditionally with the understanding that upon changes in the document it will be brought back to the senate for final approval be added. There was general agreement that rather than revise the resolution to make it a conditional acceptance of the document (owing to the fact that there will be some changes made to it), the resolution be withdrawn and the senate take a straw vote to learn if the direction of the document meets senate approval. No objection to the withdrawal of the resolution was voiced. A straw vote was taken and unanimous support for the spirit and intent of the document was provided by the senators.

It was moved and seconded (Larson/Pecot) to adjourn the meeting.

Meeting adjourned 5:45 p.m.

Return to Academic Senate