HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY
Academic Senate Minutes
March 27, 2001
Chair Cheyne called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. on Tuesday, March 27, 2001, in Nelson Hall East, Room 102 (Goodwin Forum).
Members Present: Bicknell, Burroughs, Cheyne, Dixon, Kenyon, Larson, Little, MacConnie, Martin, McCrone, McFarland, Stokes, Thompson, Travis, Varkey, Wang, Yarnall
Members Absent: Bockover, Christensen, Fulgham, Giovannetti, Ogden-Herrera, Pecot, Thobaben
Proxies:Snyder for Bockover; Benjamin Shaeffer for Goodman; Michael Bezanson for Mayer; MacConnie for Meiggs; Greta for Sheppard; Little for Smith; Bicknell for Wilson
Guests: Annie Bolick-Floss, Youth Educational Services; Ken Dutro, Counseling & Psychological Services; Ron Fritzsche, Assistant to the Vice President for Academic Affairs; Robert Hensley, University Registrar; Sherry Jones Deffenderfer, Office of Academic Affairs; Anita Iglesias, Office of the Registrar; Carolyn Mueller, Office of the President; Donna Schafer, Office of Research and Graduate Studies
It was moved and seconded (Larson/Varkey) to approve the submitted minutes of March 6. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH ONE ABSTENTION.
2. Announcements and Communications
No objection was made to moving agenda item number 4 to either a 5:20 p.m. time certain item or as the last item on the agenda, whichever comes first. No time certain designation is needed for agenda items 5 and 6.
President McCrone has approved the Resolution Regarding Adoption of the Counselor Faculty Personnel Policies and Procedures, and he has approved the Resolution on Continuous Enrollment Policy for Graduate Students.
Vice President Stokes attended the March 13 Senate Executive Committee meeting to discuss the ombudsperson positions, currently held by Michael Goodman and Linda Anderson. According to Vice President Stokes, resources and workload have necessitated that next year there will be only one ombudsperson, and Linda Anderson has been appointed. The Senate Executive Committee intends to invite the two current ombudspersons and a representative from Student Affairs to an upcoming Senate Executive Committee meeting to gain a better perspective on the work of the ombudspersons and the demand for their services. This discussion may lead to Senate recommendations next year.
The agenda packet contains a copy of the Resolution Regarding the Academic Calendar, which was passed by the CSU Academic Senate chairs after the March 1 meeting in Long Beach. The resolution was developed at the request of the senate chairs from the six campuses still on the quarter system who requested assistance in responding to pressures to convert to a semester calendar without adequate consultation.
All senators should have received in campus mail a letter from Chair Cheyne to President McCrone, dated March 16, 2001, responding to the President's letter of February 12 related to the senate's Resolution Regarding Forwarding Files. In her letter Chair Cheyne requested a reconsideration of the senate's request to engage in dialogue on the protocol for handling RTP files. This issue is not yet resolved.
3. Committee and State Senate Reports
Statewide Senate - Trustee Goldwhite has indicated that review of the Chancellor has been postponed until the May meeting; all senators were urged to write letters of evaluation of Chancellor Reed. The search for an ITL Director is underway, and anyone interested in this position should submit his/her name. David Spence, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Information Technology Services, engaged in a long discussion on CMS. The concern expressed was that the new package for student records is being developed by selecting three campuses to develop a profile and then all other campuses will need to fit that profile. Assurance was given that all campuses would have an opportunity to provide input on the development of this procedure, but the process for providing such input is not known yet. Spence also reaffirmed continuing interest in articulation issues, which is why the promotion of common lower-division requirements is occurring. Regarding the common calendar, Spence basically said that the recommendation would be made to campuses on the quarter system that they change to the semester system unless there is a compelling reason for them not to change.
Resolutions passed by the senate include 1) recognizing a past task force report on merit pay principles and that the RTP process is a merit pay system; 2) encouraging proper funding for YRO and insuring local senate involvement in the process for developing the curriculum and academic calendar, etc.; 3) the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees are moving ahead with authorization of the Ed.D. program; the senate is moving more slowly and attempting to answer a number of questions related to the desirability of this particular degree, available funding, and whether a doctorate program will work for the CSU system [senators with comments on this topic should contact Senator Snyder]; and 4) encouraging the Chancellor to review the principles found in the study on post-baccalaureate education in the CSU and to begin a new study on this.
UCC - The Committee has been reviewing learning outcomes and assessments for general education areas A through E. After working with the College of Natural Resources and Sciences, a set of learning outcomes and assessments procedures for Area B was approved. Next the Committee will be looking at Areas E and C and hopes to have something completed by the end of the term. The Committee approved a local policy for program termination that will be coming to the senate as a recommendation from the UCC. Also the Committee is reviewing a revision of an interdisciplinary studies/liberal studies degree that has been presented by a subcommittee. Items tentatively scheduled to be discussed at the April 10 meeting include 1) the liberal studies elementary education oversight arrangement between the UCC and the College of Professional Studies and the Department of Education, and 2) the potential doublecounting of institutions as a general education course.
Senate Finance - URPBC met March 16 to review the proposals from Academic Affairs and Student Affairs; the Administrative Affairs proposal was to use all possible funding for the CMS Project. One Student Affairs proposal to invest in hardware and software for compliance with ADA requirements was approved unanimously. Discussion disintegrated at this point owing to confusion over when this money had to be spent. The proposals have been returned; URPBC will meet again on April 6 to discuss them.
The OAA Budget Committee has completed most of its work on hearing presentations from the divisions within Academic Affairs; the general consensus is that everyone wants more money. The presentations revealed the needs and appalling conditions found in many of the units on campus, and the failure of the system to appropriately fund things like replenishing and maintenance. The process was valuable in that it allowed those present to hear about the situations across campus which fostered feelings of sympathy and empathy. The budget picture is not known yet; information should be available soon.
Student Affairs - The CR/NC resolution is being reviewed by the Graduate Council; the Committee also reviewed the right of students to have a representative when complaints are filed against them.
Associated Students - Senator Bezanson announced that last month he had the opportunity to address the Academic Senate in Long Beach. A resolution was passed that calls for the academic senate, the Chancellor's Office and students to meet and examine the issue of intellectual property rights for students. The academic senate gave its unanimous support toward finding a solution for this issue. Since many board members were at the California Higher Education Student Summit Conference, the regular Associated Student meeting will be held next week. The students went to the Capitol and met with legislators, including Wes Chesbro. This proved to be a positive and exciting experience for the students.
Faculty Affairs - The Committee continues its work on three items: 1) review of a document from Indiana University regarding service; 2) review, for consistency among the colleges, of the procedures, forms and timelines, etc. regarding lecturer appointments and salary of lecturers; and 3) review of the teaching assistant salary schedule for a possible increase.
General Faculty - The last runoff election is scheduled for next week. General Faculty President Larson distributed a draft of a proposed absentee voting process and requested that senators provide feedback on it; the topic will be discussed at a future meeting. In Section 115 of the Faculty Handbook, reference is made to General Faculty in residence and President Larson asked if any senator had knowledge of what this phrase was intended to mean. According to Senator Travis, at one time the names of faculty who were on sabbatical or unpaid leave were not included on the precinct lists; thus, they could not vote. The language General Faculty in residence was inserted to allow for their vote.
Educational Policies - The Committee is working on the graduate program review and the proposed revisions for the regular program review. Also, the Committee continues its work on the policy on proposing new degree programs.
OAA - A committee is looking at the finals week policy. Vice President Stokes has asked the deans to make sure that students are fully aware of grading policies. Interim Dean Karen Carlton is chairing the committee so any concerns regarding finals week policy should be forwarded to her. The search committee for the Dean of Faculty Affairs met; it was announced that an on-campus search will take place.
CFA - The sunshine proposals, as required by HEERA, were distributed by CFA and have been forwarded to the CSU. Copies are available and the information may be found on the CFA web site (www.calfac.org). The CSU's sunshine proposals also will be posted on the web and are available at the university libraries. The sunshine proposals are vague and general and talk about goals and intentions more than specific bargaining strategies. The first meeting to discuss the successor contract has not been set, but probably will take place early next month.
Additional Announcements - Senator Kenyon announced that the CMS Advisory Committee has met several times, and he reminded senators that an informational web site (humboldt.edu~cms) is available. In progress is the development of a mechanism for two-way directional information on CMS (both distributing information and receiving input). The server center is to be located in Salt Lake City. Efforts are being made to inform the campus community about CMS.
5. Resolution Regarding Change in the Election Process for General Faculty Elections (#14-00/01-GF)
It was moved and seconded (Larson/ MacConnie) to place the resolution on the floor.
WHEREAS, Appendix E of the Humboldt State University Faculty Handbook, Constitution of the General Faculty of HSU, defines the election process in Section 114; and
WHEREAS, Contained in Appendix E, Section 114, of the Humboldt State University Faculty Handbook is the language:
With multiple candidates -- In elections where multiple positions are to be filled, those whose votes when added together constitute 70% or more of the votes cast will be elected. If there are more candidates retained than required for multiple positions, a run-off election will be held of those candidates.
and
WHEREAS, In previous elections the 70% requirement has led to excessive run-off elections in electing a candidate (particularly when three candidates are running for two positions); therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommend that Section 114 of Appendix E of the Humboldt State University Faculty Handbook be revised to read:
With multiple candidates -- In elections where multiple positions are to be filled, those whose votes when added together constitute 66.7% or more of the votes cast will be elected. If there are more candidates retained than required for multiple positions, a run-off election will be held of those candidates.
Background on the resolution was provided by General Faculty President Larson who stated that a reduction in the required percentage of votes cast will eliminate time consuming run-off elections and still insure that a majority is reached.
Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
This item will appear on the ballot next week.
6. Resolution Regarding Counselor Membership in the General Faculty and Representation on the Academic Senate (#15-00/01-EX)
It was moved and seconded (Travis/McFarland) to place the resolution on the floor.
WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Humboldt State University Faculty Handbook, The General Faculty and the Academic Senate, defines representation on the Academic Senate in Section 403; and
WHEREAS, Appendix E of the Humboldt State University Faculty Handbook, Constitution of the General Faculty of HSU, defines membership in the General Faculty in Article II, Section 11, and defines representation on the Academic Senate in Article VI, Section 71; and
WHEREAS, Chapter IV, Section 403; and Appendix E, Article II, Section 11, and Article VI, Section 71 of the Humboldt State University Faculty Handbook do not include membership of or representation by counselor faculty; and
WHEREAS, Counselor faculty represent an important campus constituency whose contribution to faculty governance through membership in the General Faculty and representation on the Academic Senate would offer valuable perspectives regarding our academic mission; therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommend that Chapter IV, Section 403; and Appendix E, Article II, Section 11, and Article VI, Section 71 of the Faculty Handbook be revised as specified in the attachment to this resolution to include counselors as members of the General Faculty and to provide counselor representation on the Academic Senate; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommend that any other references to General Faculty membership or representation on the Academic Senate that may appear in the Faculty Handbook be revised to include counselors as members of the General Faculty and to provide counselor representation on the Academic Senate; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommend that these changes to the Humboldt State University Faculty Handbook be taken to the General Faculty for vote in the Spring 2001 term; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommend that, if approved by the General Faculty, these changes become effective with the Spring 2001 elections for the 2001-02 academic year.
Chair Cheyne provided background on the resolution stating that during the deliberations on the counselor faculty personnel document it became clear that the Academic Senate deals with matters that affect all constituencies on campus including counselors, yet counselors are not included in membership of the general faculty, nor do they have representation on the Academic Senate. The Senate Executive Committee believed this to be an oversight and wish to remedy it by offering this resolution. The counselors are supportive of this measure.
Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
General Faculty President Larson announced that this item also will appear on the ballot next week.
7. Resolution on HSU Policy on Service-Learning Courses (#10-00/01-EP)
It was moved and seconded (MacConnie/Knox) to place the resolution on the floor.
WHEREAS, Education at Humboldt State University includes the opportunity to serve the people of California; and
WHEREAS, Service-learning is academic study that combines community service with academic instruction focusing on critical, reflective thinking and civic responsibility; and
WHEREAS, The academic study may be in any discipline or combination of fields; and
WHEREAS, The service may address a variety of community needs; and
WHEREAS, There may be courses and/or sections of courses which include service-learning components; and
WHEREAS, Courses or course sections receiving a Service-Learning designation will be so indicated in the Schedule of Classes; and
WHEREAS, A service-learning designation will make it easier for students to locate and select courses which emphasize service learning; and
WHEREAS, There is no current policy concerning the designation of service-learning courses or course sections; therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommend approval of the attached revised HSU Policy on Service-Learning Courses.
Senator MacConnie provided background on the resolution stating that this item came from the Service Learning/Experiential Education Advisory Committee. The University has made a commitment to service learning and receives financial support for this program from the CSU. The goal is to have a service learning designation attached to certain courses and/or sections of courses so that students who wish to take a service-learning related course will be able to find available courses or sections of courses. Specific criteria are required in order to designate a course as a service-learning course, as outlined in the HSU Policy on Service-Learning Courses. Final approval of the service-learning designation will be granted by the UCC, and service-learning courses will be reviewed a few years after initial implementation to determine that the service-learning requirements are being met.
Discussion included:
1) Concern was expressed regarding why some classes are being certified as service-learning classes and what the possible implications of this process may be (i.e., since the Governor has expressed interest in requiring service learning from all graduates, it may be that in the future there will be a service-learning requirement). In the past, the UCC distributed a set of guidelines for departments to follow if they wanted to offer service-learning courses. [It is not clear why we want to have a certification and university oversight process with service learning.] [The University is receiving money from Long Beach for the service-learning program, which is a university wide program, and one stipulation for receiving such funding is that within the next three years, forty classes or sections must be designated as service learning. Since it is university wide, it is believed that the UCC should have initial oversight; the UCC may decide to delegate that oversight to the college committees, for example.] [Concern was expressed that if courses are offered that do contain a service-learning element but do not have a service-learning designation, then that could result in resistance from students claiming that they did not know this component was a part of the class since it was not designated as such.] [There is no reason for the definition of service learning to cause such consternation; the distance learning courses and the diversity and common ground courses each have their own parameters. If the terms connected to service learning are unfamiliar, then a faculty member needs to learn the meaning of the terms.]
2) What is meant by the "service ethic" referred to in the second guideline and how will continuity be guaranteed? [The guidelines are from a variety of documents related to the service-learning field. In this context, the phrase service ethic means that contained in the course is a preparatory process to help students understand what approaches they may wish to take with regard to their particular service.]
3) Service learning has a broad definition; it is not just community service but it may include campus service. [Service learning is distinct from community service because of the specific connection to an academic component, and it is this distinction that calls for its own identification. Service learning is not simply volunteerism and students need to see the distinction in the catalog so that they know that the instructional process of that course will be following specific guidelines.]
4) One goal was for students to identify easily which courses have service-learning components. Another goal was to have a common campus definition for service learning which includes both time in service and academic content.
5) Concern was expressed regarding the process of trademarking the term service learning so that no one else may use it.
6) Concern was expressed regarding flexibility for students who may see an opportunity for a service-learning component in a particular class, but that class is not designated as such. Can this be pursued or not, and how confining is this policy?
7) Activities undertaken primarily for the purposes of providing a service to an individual or the community generally would be called volunteerism or community service; activities specifically selected and entered into with the purpose of utilizing the content of classroom instruction in a particular setting and bringing the experiences of that setting back into the classroom generally are called service-learning activities. The incorporation of service-learning activities is not intended to preclude or suggest that any other activities should not occur; students are asking to be able to find and engage in courses which offer service-learning opportunities and some means or mechanism of being able to identify those courses is needed. [Concern was expressed that if at some future time there are requirements for service learning, will these requirements be for service learning or for service learning plus community service or requirements for volunteerism. This campus appears to be heading toward service learning or nothing; there is no process to certify community service courses.]
8) Is it possible for the people who know about this procedure to produce a brief paper that could provide an understanding?
9) The fundamental core element of service learning is that this is a collaboration where the community gets to define what the community needs, not the university defining what the university needs. Some oversight is needed to insure that the faculty and the students value local knowledge and insure that academic knowledge and activity do not prevail over the well being of the community. [The CSU responded to the Governor's proposal that students have a service-learning experience by saying it did not want to make this a requirement but did want to promote the academic connection with community.]
10) Is there any example of another type of curriculum content with oversight by the UCC where there is no campus wide or system wide requirement? If not, then we need to think about whether there is justification for this. There are parallel examples with internships and mandatory volunteerism that do not have UCC oversight, and it seems as though the objectives of service learning could be accomplished without UCC oversight.
Chair Cheyne announced it was time to move to the 5:20 time certain item. The service-learning resolution will be on the next agenda.
Final Report of the Schedule 25 Ad-hoc Committee
Chair Cheyne stated that the report provides a clear background as to the genesis of this report and includes a list of the committee members including representatives of faculty, staff and administration. The report in the packet went through several drafts before it was endorsed unanimously by the committee members.
Discussion included:
1) Appreciation was expressed for including ADA exceptions.
2) Clarification was sought regarding the process: this is a final informational report, how does it become policy? [This report has gone to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Senate has been asked to offer any input by mid-April. The intention is that the Vice President will make the decision as to what, if any, aspects of this report are to be implemented.]
3) Page 2, Number 3.a., Room Grab: concern was expressed regarding the statement that the "Registrar's Office would assign these courses . . . " since this will work well only if there is someone available in the Registrar's Office who has a thorough understanding of the overall process. [Additional staff training is taking place in the Registrar's Office to assure that there will be someone available who is knowledgeable about Schedule 25.]
4) Page 5, Number 6.h., Classroom Priority Scheduling Policy: The policy states that no classrooms will be owned anymore and justification will be required for a particular course being held in a specific classroom. In section 6.h. reference is made to a department possibly receiving "priority room scheduling for a period of three years with an option for an extension . . . ." This appears to be inconsistent with the rest of the policy. [This section was included because the committee thought it important to include solicitation of funding; no one wanted to turn down any offer of funding. The statement reads "a department may receive priority" which does not guarantee that priority will be given; justification is still required. Such justification is directed more at specific courses being held in a specific room, not that a particular department will own the entire room.] [The committee decided to eliminate all current room ownership; however, the policy allows any department to request room ownership for three years and the members of the Classroom Priority Scheduling Committee (CPSC) will review the request and in many cases, the requests will be granted. The departments will need to provide a rationale for why they want to have a particular course scheduled in a particular room.]
5) Page 6, Section 7.c., Class Schedule Modules: It is important that the 50-50 Rule be followed because it means classes are scheduled at unpopular times and enrollment may drop so that the FTES target is not reached. If this rule is not followed by everyone, then overall enrollment figures may be skewed and the comparison among departments would not be based on equitable circumstances. The penalties noted in this section are not rigorous enough for all to follow the 50-50 rule; penalties should go into effect immediately. [The 50-50 Rule will be used as part of the decision-making process during Room Grab. For example, in a case where two departments are requesting rooms at similar times with similar maximum capacity if one department has a better 50-50 ratio, that will be taken into account.] [The penalty connected to the 50-50 Rule should be reconsidered since labs that are offered from 7 to 10 p.m. will be not be included and yet that could mean that some instructors are teaching all day.]
6) What has been the utilization of owned rooms relative to the "open pool" and non-owned rooms? [The utilization is good if not better than average in terms of scheduling because the departments tend to schedule owned rooms as much as possible.]
7) The committee was asked to address the concern that had to do with the pressure that is put on the assignment of rooms and the difficulty encountered by department personnel in locating classrooms for some courses. The goal was to improve the ability of departments to find classrooms. The committee found that there are only 50 general classrooms on campus and of these, approximately 30 are "owned" by a particular department. The committee also found that many faculty want to teach in the morning or during prime time and with the limited number of classrooms available, there is tremendous pressure to find classrooms during these times.
8) Page 4, Number 6.a. Classroom Priority Scheduling Policy: Clarification was requested regarding the statement, "All "ownership" of existing classrooms by a department would cease to exist . . . ."
9) The less local control there is of classrooms, the more likely it is that the classrooms will deteriorate over time due to neglect and the lack of any feeling of responsibility for their upkeep. [The committee discussed this issue and discovered that there are not enough rooms to go around; there is no equitable way to engage in room ownership because the number of available rooms has decreased over the years. The committee did see a higher utilization of rooms that were scheduled by individual departments, and it was the committee's sense that with the elimination of room grab, effective scheduling of those rooms could be achieved.] [Perhaps this problem could be addressed in a different arena, such as through a memo to the dean's office or the vice president's office or by developing a sense of community pride so that a sense of ownership toward whatever room one uses is fostered.]
10) Page 3, Number 5.a. Classroom Priority Scheduling Policy Rationale: Clarification was requested regarding what constitutes laboratories? For example, in the Music Department, there are rooms that serve as both laboratories and lecture classrooms. [Music 130 is the only room that would return to the Registrar's Office from the Department of Music.]
11) Page 5, Number 7.a. Class Schedule Modules: defines prime time class periods from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. and some departments have different prime times or have classes that overlap between non-prime time and prime time. [The mode of instruction for these classes are not reviewed as part of the "50-50 Rule"; the sections that go into a classroom through Schedule 25 are lecture classes only, not activity classes or labs.] [The prime time definition is too vague; perhaps language could be added that would expand the definition such as, "Prime time class periods are defined as starting at 10 a.m. and ending at 2:59 p.m."]
12) It was suggested that in two years time the University Registrar return to the senate and report on the efficacy of this process.
13) Page 2, Number 1, Six Guiding Principles: Several departments schedule their courses in a certain time frame so as to dovetail with related or prerequisite courses in other departments. By not having specific classrooms available at times convenient for the students, other less effective and less desirable rooms will need to be used. A system that has worked well for many years in scheduling classes for the students' convenience is no longer available and the new system is making it very difficult to build a schedule designed to suit the student. [The University Registrar is willing to work with the Physics Department and try to resolve any problems currently being experienced.] [Four of these guiding principles (a, b, c, e) hurt rather than help some departments, such as Computing Science.]
14) This policy is being proposed for the Spring 2002 schedule, not the Fall 2001 schedule, and attributes connected to the classes also are being reviewed.
15) Another issue that needs to be addressed is accreditation standards since some of the standards speak to the program and its faculty being able to control a particular space. Will possible loss of accreditation without ownership of a particular room be a persuasive argument for getting use of that room; will the accrediting associations believe that departments control specific rooms when a policy such as this one is on file?
Chair Cheyne reminded senators that although this item is indicated as a discussion item, that does not preclude the senate from bringing forth a resolution. This topic will be a discussion item at the next Senate Executive Committee meeting. We have until mid-April to make a formal recommendation if we wish to do so.
It was moved and seconded Yarnall/Burroughs to adjourn the meeting.
Meeting adjourned 6:05 p.m.