HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY
Academic Senate Minutes
April 24, 2001
Chair Cheyne called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, in Nelson Hall East, Room 102 (Goodwin Forum).
Members Present: Bicknell, Bockover, Burroughs, Cheyne, Dixon, Kenyon, Little, MacConnie, McCrone, McFarland, Meiggs, Novotney, Smith, Stokes, Thompson, Travis, Varkey, Wang, F. Wilson, M. Wilson
Members Absent: Christensen, Fulgham, Giovannetti, Knox, Martin, Pecot, Sheppard
Proxies: Benjamin Shaeffer for Goodman; Robert Snyder for Larson; Michael Bezanson for Mayer; Kymber Mayberry for Ogden-Herrera; Sue MacConnie for Thobaben; Fred Cranston for Yarnall
Guests: Steve Butler, Student Affairs; Ronald Fritzsche, Office of Academic Affairs; Carolyn Mueller, Office of the President; Robin Pagliuco, Student; Tamara Rivera, Student
It was moved/seconded (Meiggs/Wilson) to approve the submitted minutes of April 10, 2001. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH ONE ABSTENTION.
2. Announcements and Communications
Chair Cheyne reported on the April 19 senate chairs' meeting. The main topics of discussion included the following:
Common Calendar - There was much discussion on this topic. David Spence distributed a copy of a letter that was sent to the presidents of the campuses currently on the quarter system, which requests that the campuses consider conversion to a semester system. Spence stated that conversion was the choice of the individual campuses, but if any declined to convert they had to provide substantive reasons. Workload was a major concern of campuses considering conversion to a semester system, and one major point of discussion was the idea of moving to a workload of three courses, 4-units each. Spence seemed to respond favorably to this suggestion. In addition, Spence made it clear that $12 million was the maximum amount available to assist with the conversion process and once the $12 million was expended, there would be no additional funding available for conversion.
Title 5 - Changes are being proposed in Title 5 that will allow students who are accepted in the fall term to enroll in the summer term as non-matriculated students. Such students are called transitory students. The main rationales for this proposal are to speed time to degree and to allow first-time students to take care of any remedial courses.
Ed.D. Degree - David Spence assured the chairs that this degree would not be implemented until funding was in place for the master's degree differential. He also indicated that CSU would have to demonstrate that the Ed.D. degree offered was specifically geared toward California. In addition, if approved, it will be within the purview of each campus to decide whether it wishes to offer the degree. An approximate four-year timeline is involved: two years until authorization and probably another two years until implementation.
Intellectual Properties - There is a lot of diversity on the campuses regarding intellectual properties. On some campuses, it is not an issue at all; on other campuses, policies are being developed and there are different methods of developing such policies. Spence made it clear that there is no Chancellor's Office policy on intellectual properties and that it lies within the purview of local senates to negotiate such agreements.
PERS Coverage - There has been a significant change in insurance coverage through PERS that will become effective January 2002. The campuses in rural areas will feel it most strongly.
Chair Cheyne announced that she received a letter dated April 12 from President McCrone in which reference is made to the resolution regarding revision of the procedures for processing complaints of misconduct, including unlawful discrimination. The President states, ". . . before this resolution can be approved for implementation, the document it references requires review by our director of Human Resources; Director for Institutional Equity, Affirmative Action and Diversity; the California State University Offices of General Counsel and Employee Relations; and the Office for Civil Rights. When their recommendations and requirements have been received and incorporated, the resulting document will be reviewed with the Academic Senate."
Senator McFarland announced that next Thursday the third annual recognition awards will be held in Goodwin Forum from 3-5 p.m.
Senator Cranston announced that a member of the PERS Board spoke at a meeting of the State Council for the Emeritus Faculty Association. This speaker was asked about the differential in retirement pay [those who retired many years ago are not receiving sufficient cost-of-living increases], and he stated there is sufficient money in the PERS account to fund this. In the past the legislature has passed a bill to give the retired faculty a raise, but each time it has been vetoed by the Governor.
Vice President Butler announced that the luncheon for the outstanding student awards will be held tomorrow in the Kate Buchanan Room.
3. Committee and State Senate Reports
CMS Project Steering Committee - Senator Kenyon distributed a copy of his report noting that information may be found at http:/www.humboldt.edu/~cms/index.shtml. One item under discussion is the issue of staff workload and possible changes in staff classifications. It is believed that working on the Project should not affect staff classifications, but changed tasks and responsibilities could lead to changes in classifications. Readiness is another issue. Since there is much work to be done in a short period of time and since the Project requires a substantial financial investment, completing the preparatory work and being ready for implementation is very important. Each campus needs to assess its readiness to receive and implement the software. This will involve internal analysis as well as the use of outside consultants. Such consultants are costly, but their experience and expertise are important to the readiness assessment. The biggest task is known as process mapping, which is the process of taking the jobs that are done and distilling them into identifiable steps and processes. This is nearly completed by Human Resources; so far 48 business processes related to Human Resources have been identified. This task is labor intensive and time consuming.
Statewide Senate - Senator Snyder stated that no resolutions were discussed at the last meeting. The senate is concerned with the same items as senate chairs, such as the Ed.D. Degree, and the senate will recommend that the Ed.D. not be moved forward until the 12 WTUs funding for graduate programs has been secured from the legislature. The recommendation is to gather additional information. Library funding also is being reviewed. A resolution asking that funding be directed to the libraries and not spent on other things at the campus level, such as CMS, is under discussion.
Student Affairs - No report.
Senate Finance - The budget committee of OAA will be working on the preliminary budget allocations for 2001/2002 tomorrow. The budget principles should be approved by the Joint Council next week. There is a minor revision to the URPBC budgeting process that is up for approval. If both of these items are approved and passed, copies will be included in the final senate packet. A miscalculation of $5 million in anticipated revenues for California occurred before the energy crisis expenditures became known, so how this will filter down to the CSU budget is not yet known.
Faculty Affairs - The Committee concluded its work on four items. 1) The service document from Indiana University was recommended to the Senate Executive Committee as a valuable source of information that should be made available, along with information on the RTP process and the general information on range elevation for lecturers, to the faculty via the internet. 2) The Committee concluded its review of Executive Memorandum P 00-3, which addresses externally funded grants and contracts, and had no concerns with this document. 3) The Committee was concerned with two sections of the addendum attached to appointment letters for probationary faculty: the first is a description of the RTP process evaluations that is not consistent with Appendix J; and the second is the reference to the potential breadth of assignments and expanded areas of assignment of probationary faculty. Such concerns were expressed to the Senate Executive Committee and then to Ron Fritzsche, Assistant to the Vice President. Dr. Fritzsche has responded that the suggested revisions have been incorporated into the addendum and are to be implemented immediately. 4) The Committee's concerns regarding the procedures and timing of appointments of lecturers was discussed at the Senate Executive Committee, and it was agreed that the concern should be referred to the Joint Labor Management Committee.
The Committee continues its work on two items: 1) the teaching assistant salary schedule; and 2) clarification of procedures regarding Appendix K.
Chair Cheyne announced that agenda items 4 and 5 were discussed at the meetings of March 27 and April 10. These items are the service-learning policy and the report of the Schedule 25 ad-hoc committee. Owing to the amount of work still to be completed this year and because these items already have been addressed at great length, Chair Cheyne requested that senators offer any new information or perspectives they may have and suggested that senators refrain from offering information that has been stated previously.
Resolution on HSU Policy on Service-Learning Courses (#10-00/01-EP)
Chair Cheyne announced that this item was moved and seconded at the March 27 meeting, and a substitute resolution was offered at the April 10 meeting which was postponed to a time definite for today's meeting. Since the last meeting, the policy has been revised.
Senator MacConnie offered additional information stating that the revised document acknowledges concerns expressed at the last senate meeting; that is, UCC oversight and inclusion of a service ethic. While the issue of oversight is important, it is believed that it is more important for students to be able to identify and select service-learning courses. As a result, the periodic review described in the Procedure section has been delegated to the college curriculum committee. In addition, the word ethic has been removed so it now reads the concept of service. The guidelines remain the same.
Discussion included:
1. A statement from the chair of the CNRS Curriculum Committee was read which identified three points for consideration. 1) Any service-learning experience should be completely voluntary on the part of the student. 2) The college curriculum committee should determine whether it is appropriate that a particular course have a service-learning designation. 3) The imposition of any particular or general service-learning pedagogy or ethic is not supported.
[The chair of the CNRS Curriculum Committee did see the suggested revisions, but did not believe that all of the concerns were addressed.]
2. We need to direct students to all courses with opportunity for significant community service components in them, not just service-learning courses.
3. Having the designation of service learning in the catalog and class schedule would be most beneficial and helpful to students who have busy and hectic schedules so they are able to see at a glance that certain courses require extra time in the community.
4. There is a difference between service-learning courses and community service. Service learning carries with it both an educational component and a service component; community service carries a service component with no academic requirement attached to it. Service learning requires time and service in the community which is then brought back to the classroom where structured readings and structured activities are merged with community experiences. Providing a service-learning designation in the catalog or class schedule does not, in itself, promote service learning over community service, but it would designate which courses incorporate both the classroom time and the community time.
It was moved and seconded (Thompson/Cranston) to amend the policy so
that the first sentence in the section titled Procedure for Approving
Courses for Service-Learning Designation reads, "After receiving the
endorsement of the departmental faculty, courses will be reviewed on
the basis of the listed guidelines by the appropriate college
curriculum committee," and to amend the policy so that the first line in
Guidelines
reads, "Guidelines: Designation as a service-learning course will
required the following: suggested for consideration by the college
curriculum committee."
This was not considered friendly.
Discussion on the amendment included the following:
1. Concern was expressed that revising this document, which is the service-learning committee's document, overturns the committee's intent.
2. The intent of the suggested changes is to enable colleges to develop a broader policy on experiential education.
3. If the guidelines are imposed without the suggested amendments, then it probably will be viewed as one area of campus dictating course content to another area. Such action is not appropriate and will only result in resentment.
It was moved and seconded (Little/Dixon) to refer the resolution back to the Educational Policies Committee.
Resolution Regarding the Final Report of the Schedule 25 Ad-Hoc Committee (#09-00/01-EX)
Contained in today's packet is a substitute resolution for the one that was moved, seconded and discussed at the April 10 Senate meeting.
It was moved and seconded (Varkey/Travis) to substitute the following resolution, found in the packet, for the one currently on the floor.
WHEREAS, An ad hoc committee was formed at Humboldt State University to review the scheduling of lecture spaces and the use of Schedule 25 software in effecting such scheduling; and
WHEREAS, The Schedule 25 Ad-Hoc Committee prepared a comprehensive report, including recommendations and a Classroom Priority Scheduling Policy, that the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University discussed at its March 27 and April 10, 2001 meetings; and
WHEREAS, The manner in which lecture spaces are assigned and the policies that apply to their scheduling have pedagogical and curricular implications; and
WHEREAS, The Academic Senate of Humboldt State University has no means of assessing the effectiveness of the recommendations and policy contained in the Schedule 25 Ad-Hoc Committee's Final Report without hard data; therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University commend and extend its sincere appreciation to the members of the Schedule 25 Ad-Hoc Committee for their detailed consideration of the issues and the thoroughness of their report; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommend that the Classroom Priority Scheduling Policy contained in the Final Report of the Schedule 25 Ad-Hoc Committee be implemented on a trial basis beginning with registration in Fall 2001 for the Spring 2002 term, and that the Classroom Priority Scheduling Committee as defined in the Final Report be formed and undertake its duties in the Spring 2001 term; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommend that after two registration cycles (in Fall 2002) a committee consisting of faculty, staff and administrators be convened to evaluate the effectiveness of the Classroom Priority Scheduling Policy, this evaluation to include a survey of department chairs and support staff responsible for class scheduling to ascertain their views, experiences, concerns and suggestions regarding the manner in which lecture rooms are scheduled on this campus; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate recommend that the findings of said evaluation committee be forwarded to the Academic Senate for review and comment.
The revised resolution is an attempt to reflect some of the dialogue that occurred at the April 24, 2001, senate meeting. Regardless of what resolution goes forward, a summary of the commentary that occurred in the Academic Senate regarding Schedule 25, as well as comments and recommendations that have come from the Educational Policies Committee, will be forwarded to Vice President Stokes.
During discussion it was noted that this item was discussed at the CNRS chairs' meeting and there was general acceptance of it by that body; in part, because of the belief that this policy will be implemented whether people want it or not. The general consensus of the chairs was that they would rather have room ownership, but a modified version would not work.
Voting occurred regarding the substitution of the revised resolution for the resolution on the floor and MOTION PASSED.
Discussion included the request that the survey being sent to department chairs include the six principles and ask for comment based on those principles.
Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH ONE ABSTENTION.
3. Committee Reports (Continued)
Educational Policies Committee - The Committee is completing its work on the policy of discontinuing programs. During deliberations on this item, it was realized that there is no policy for suspending or reinstating programs so these activities will need to be addressed as well. The Committee also is completing its work on the policy for proposing a new degree program. The development of a fast track method and a pilot program method for proposing new programs during the last few years, and the incorporation of these two models into the Master Plan, is being considered. Last week the Committee was asked to respond to an audit report from the Chancellor's Office regarding grading policies on the W, the U and incompletes. The importance of having student comment was noted. On this campus, the U is counted as an F and it is not removed if a student retakes the course. Another consideration is that the policy does not allow for withdrawing from a single class in the last three weeks of the term; a student would be required to withdraw from all classes. The deadline for response is May 4. Input on any of these issues is welcome.
UCC - The Committee continues to grapple with general education learning outcomes and assessments. Area B will be reviewed by a joint UCC/senate committee that has not been convened yet. The UCC is responding to the College of Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences on Area C; it is in the process of constructing a response for Area D; and Areas A and E are more problematic and will be completed in the fall. The Committee also is dealing with liberal studies elementary education (LSEE) oversight and the LSEE blended program, which is an effort to put five years of course work into four years so teachers may finish sooner.
Associated Students - A resolution has been passed calling for the creation of an HSU renewable fund that would allow students to raise their own fees and have a task force composed of a student majority. Student elections have started.
OAA - The Athletic Review Committee will complete its report and forward a copy to OAA soon. The Committee is making recommendations for changes in programs in Athletics next year; some have budget implications and the budget committee will be discussing these soon. Also, the budget committee will be discussing the working budget and the budget principles, and it hopes to present its findings to the Joint Council on May 2 or 9. Next year's budget is not known yet; there will be some reductions. Summer enrollment is proceeding well and the summer target may be met.
CFA - As mentioned by Chair Cheyne, some changes in PERS have occurred, and this is not a bargainable issue. The benefits committee is recommending to the PERS Board that several health plans for rural areas be dropped; this is expected to be adopted. What is being proposed is that some of the health care plans (Health Net and Blue Cross/Blue Shield) will no longer be available, which leaves a very limited choice for health care services, and most likely an increase in the cost of health care. Senator Wesley Chesbro is carrying a legislative item that will allow PERS to negotiate individually with physician corporations. (Humboldt County has such a corporation; most of whom are participating in Health Net.) It is thought that a physicians corporation may provide better services than Health Net does now, without all the required referrals and qualifications, etc. It was hoped that the CSU would offer more vocal support to the faculty on this issue since this is not a union issue; however, not much support has been extended yet.
Bargaining for the successor contract has started. Several important issues were raised at the last meeting. The workload proposal, which requests that contract language on student/faculty ratios and student/tenured track faculty ratios be capped at current levels, was introduced. The CFA wants the money that has been moved away from instruction to other areas over the last decade, transferred back to instruction so that student/faculty ratios and student/tenured track faculty ratios will be reduced and the CSU will be prohibited from resolving the student/faculty ratio issue by hiring additional part-time faculty. Protection of current lecturers is desirable, but there is a need to stop the movement of instruction money from tenured faculty and tenure track faculty into the part time ranks. One strategy in this proposal is to discuss other topics, in addition to the compensation portion of the budget, which is what the CSU considers to be the only portion of the CSU budget about which the Union may speak.
Another portion of the Union's legislative strategy includes a request that the CSU join the Union in asking for an increased compensation package based on the full 6 percent increase. The CSU strategy for the last several years has been to initially request from the Governor a 4 percent salary increase for all employees of the CSU, and then after the budget has been introduced, to ask for a 2 percent augmentation for faculty. Given the current energy crisis and increased expenses, it is suspected that the legislature will not honor the additional 2 percent increase. The compensation proposal will be taken to the table at the next session in Fresno.
The Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP) was discussed briefly at the first meeting. CFA proposed to the CSU that the five-year period of FERP be extended for another year so that faculty who elect to enter the program by June 30, 2002, will have an opportunity to remain in the program for a five-year period. CSU tentatively has agreed to this request.
Resolution on CFA-CSU Contract Negotiations (#17-00/01-EX)
It was moved and seconded (Meiggs/MacConnie) to place the resolution on the floor.
WHEREAS, The California State University (CSU) has taken the unprecedented step of imposing its contract on the faculty of the CSU for the second straight year; and
WHEREAS, The salaries of the faculty of the CSU remain below the average salaries of those faculty of the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) comparison institutions, even though there have been salary increases for the past three years; and
WHEREAS, Low salaries, high faculty workload and continual contract disputes, together with California's high cost of living, have seriously hampered the ability of the CSU to hire and retain faculty necessary to the teaching and learning mission of the CSU; and
WHEREAS, After a thorough hearing of both sides, independent arbitrator Richard B. Danehy issued a Fact Finder's Report that stated that the so-called Faculty Merit Increase (FMI) program "appears to be ill conceived and poorly administrated"; and
WHEREAS, The Academic Senate of the CSU has endorsed the report of its merit pay task force and the recommendations of that report; and
WHEREAS, CSU management approved imposition of its contract in the face of the findings of the neutral fact-finder and in contradiction to the merit pay task force report; and
WHEREAS, The CFA and the CSU recently have begun a new series of negotiations for a successor contract; therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University urge that CFA and CSU work together to move successor contract negotiations forward in a timely manner and in such a way that will not have a negative impact on the recruitment and retention of faculty necessary to the teaching and learning mission of the CSU; and be it further
RESOLVED: That this Resolution by the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University be communicated to the President of Humboldt State University, the Chancellor of the California State University, the Board of Trustees of the California State University, the Governor of California, the Speaker of the California Assembly, the President Pro-Tem of the California Senate, the Academic Senate of California State University, and the President of the California Faculty Association.
Background was provided by CFA Chapter President Travis who stated that the Academic Senate of CSU Stanislaus passed a resolution that combined several issues, including a resolution of no confidence in the Chancellor, which was based partly on the results of a poll of all CSU faculty. The final analysis of the survey revealed a strong concern about the leadership provided by the present chancellor, and it happened to coincide with the Chancellor's decision to impose, again, a contract on the faculty. As a result, a number of senates proposed resolutions that were condemnatory of the Chancellor and that urged the Chancellor to enter the negotiations for successor bargaining in better faith. After the reopeners, the CFA filed with the Public Employees Relations Board an unfair labor practice alleging that CSU had bargained in bad faith by coming to the table unwilling to bargain on the issues that were available for bargaining in the reopeners contract; by limiting the range of issues to a small portion of compensation; by refusing to bargain on benefits; by not providing the Union with information that, by contract, they were obligated to provide; and by failing to provide any kind of budget procedure that explained where certain monies had been spent that should have gone to faculty salaries and compensation. The Board found that the CFA's charges were with merit and that the response from the CSU did not adequately address the issues raised by the Union so it now moves to a PERB hearing. The driving force behind this action is that faculty want a bargaining process that will allow the Union's concerns to be recognized and taken seriously.
The resolution on the floor does not take a condemnatory stance toward Chancellor Reed; it simply urges both sides to bargain in good faith in order to have a contract that is ready for ratification by the appropriate time.
There was no discussion.
Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH ONE NO VOTE.
4. Resolution on HSU Policy on Service-Learning Courses (#10-00/01-EP) [Continued]
Discussion on the motion to refer the resolution back to the Educational Policies Committee included:
1. It would be better to refer this back to committee than to vote it down since defeating the motion would be very destructive.
[Voting the motion down is not destructive. The service learning committee has done a lot of good work and is to be commended. This is a university-wide policy; it is a different matter.]
[Service learning has received approximately $85,000 this year from the CSU; a vote to defeat the resolution could put receipt of such grant money in jeopardy. The various institutions compete for grant money. Defeating this resolution may be seen as Humboldt not supporting service learning and this may hinder our ability to secure said grants.]
[It is not known if the revisions suggested earlier during this meeting would be detrimental to receiving grant money.]
[It is hoped that the reason for sending this resolution back to committee for revision is not to secure a grant.]
2. If this is referred back to the Educational Policies Committee, it would be helpful to the Committee if assistance could be given regarding the interpretation of the resolution of 1995/1996 wherein the senate supports a clearly defined institutional commitment to service and experiential learning and also recommends that the UCC establish broad guidelines for courses in service learning.
3. Those who oppose the resolution do so because they support service learning and internships and voluntary involvement in the community, not just service learning.
4. It appears as though the differences among service learning, experiential learning, community service, etc., are not clear to this group, or the definition of service learning is not acceptable.
5. The Chancellor's Office is interested in certification and assessment and this component is of concern.
6. There is a possibility that eventually part of the course requirements for teacher preparation will be a specific number of service-learning courses.
7. The motivation behind this resolution was to provide information to students so they would know that certain classes carried additional expectations when looking at the schedule of courses.
8. Some instructors do not have the extra time that would be required to meet the proposed guidelines.
9. This issue should be returned to the committee so that a clear definition can be developed.
It was moved/seconded (Cranston/Smith) to suspend the rules and take up new business after 5:30 p.m.
Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.
It was moved and seconded (Cranston/Varkey) to vote immediately on referring the service-learning resolution back to the Educational Policies Committee.
Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH ONE NO VOTE.
Voting occurred on the motion to refer the resolution on service-learning courses back to the Educational Policies Committee.
Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH ONE NO VOTE.
7. Discussion Item: CFA Analysis of Trends within the CSU [John Travis, CFA Chapter President]
Three points illustrate the current trends and the importance of the ongoing bargaining process.
1) The California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) conducted an evaluation of faculty salaries compared to 20 similar institutions and found that CSU still lags behind as a system by approximately 8 percent. This lag has not improved over the last three pay cycles, partially because the greatest lag is at the highest levels of senior faculty since many such individuals in the CSU have reached the top step and do not receive additional salary adjustments. The salary gap for faculty at the top step of the professor category is almost 12 percent. The CSU needs to address this issue.
2) In the past ten years there has been approximately a 15 percent increase in student enrollment, which has led to an increase in full-time equivalent faculty positions (1462 new positions), 1461 positions of which have been filled by lecturers. Only one new position went to tenure faculty ranks. This does not mean that only one tenure track faculty member has been hired because there have been replacements, but in terms of the overall distribution by rank in the system only one new tenure track faculty person has been hired in the CSU in the past ten years. This trend is of great concern because of the effects on workload. There is no interest in jeopardizing the positions of lecturers; there is interest in increasing the ranks of tenured faculty.
3) What has happened to the funding that has not been spent on tenure track faculty is unknown. During this period of time, with a 14 percent increase in the number of students coming to the campus, there has been a 24 percent increase in the number of managerial positions in the system (MPPs). There is concern with the growth of the number of managers within the system at the possible expense of faculty positions.
Discussion included:
1. The Union's position on FERP seems to be at variance with the workload problem because increasing the amount of FERP time will have a detrimental effect on the remaining colleagues who must manage the additional workload, particularly in the area of ancillary duties. Collective thinking is required here since it will have a significant effect on both morale and workload for faculty.
[Much thought was given to this point by the Union and the following conclusions were reached: (1) Figures indicate that the number of FTEF should increase with the number of FERPs because for every three FERPs that are exercised, we should be able to hire two new faculty. (2) The Union believes that faculty who have spent a number of years at the university have developed a remarkable level of expertise in the classroom and in other important university areas, and to not try and secure such expertise is detrimental to the institution and to the colleagues who would like to have that opportunity. (3) This program is one way to allow for the transition of a sizable number of senior faculty out of the system without causing much disruption. Currently the largest group of tenured faculty within the CSU is at the rank of professor and approaching retirement. (4) The Union believes that attempting to provide a mechanism by which their experience is not severed abruptly is a benefit to the students, the institution and the community. An attempt is underway to provide additional alternatives for such senior faculty; for example, personnel committee service. (5) Finally, the concerns surrounding the expense of offering the FERP option are unfounded since evaluation of the program has shown that this is not the case. In reality, institutions (including Humboldt State University) have realized tremendous monetary gains.]
2. Statistically the average number of years a faculty member remains in the program is only two years so extending the opportunity for faculty to continue in the program does not mean they will do that.
3. Retired faculty may work up to half time without early retirement, but as a department hire. The problem is that the rate of pay is negotiated individually and is not part of the contract. The University has hired back faculty at a portion of their regular previous salary and has hired them back at the lower rates on the lecturer schedule since technically they are lecturers when they return.
Chair Cheyne responded to the request for input regarding the service learning document and stated that there will be minutes for the three senate meetings at which this item was discussed. All senators were encouraged to contact Senator MacConnie with suggestions and commentary regarding this issue.
Chair Cheyne reminded senators that there will be a runoff election this week for the UCC.
It was moved and seconded (Dixon/ Bockover) to adjourn the meeting.
Meeting adjourned 5:55 p.m.