Form last revised on: 9/28/07

CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, POMONA

ACADEMIC SENATE

REFERRAL REQUEST FORM

Please provide all information requested in this form. Incomplete referrals will be returned. Referrals must be submitted in electronic form to:

Date: Feb. 2, 2011

Names and titles of proponents:

Ralph D. Westfall, Professor

KEYWORDS: (list at least 3 keywords to facilitate referral access through database)

shared governance, collegiality, cooperation, civility, courtesy, innovation, credibility, integrity

TITLE OF REFERRAL:

Policy Regarding Administrative Responses to Faculty Requests

BACKGROUND: (Provide background on the need for this referral and how it will benefit the University. Clearly state the expected outcome(s) or action(s) requested)

Three students in my CIS 120 Fundamentals of Web Site Development course, which is listed in the catalog as 'Credit/No credit,' requested to take it for a grade. Their requests were based on the possibility to do so that I mentioned in the course contract that all class members were required to read and sign. I went in-person to check on the possibility and was told that it couldn't be done. When I asked for documentation on policies that would justify the refusal, I was referred to a higher-up. My first email request was ignored for a week. The second was ignored for another week. A phone call the following day was answered and I was told that the information would be forthcoming. Another week passed and I had to send a third email. The day after that, I left a voice message because the person didn't answer. Finally I received an email response from another person higher in administration, claiming that the catalogue said the course was "mandatory credit/no credit."

Checking the current and previous catalogs going back to when it was first offered, I found that the course was always identified as "credit/no credit," even though other courses were specifically identified as "mandatory credit/no credit." I pointed out in an email that the catalog contradicted the rationale provided to me. I received a response that "the phrase 'Credit/No credit' And 'Mandatory credit/no credit' are intended to mean the same thing." Based on the obstructionist tactics up to that point, I felt it was necessary to file a California Public Records (freedom of information) Act request for documentation to support that claim. The first was rejected on the basis that I was requesting an analysis rather than existing documents. Therefore I revised the request to seek a meeting to review existing documents and filed it again. When that request was not responded to in the statutory 10-day limit, I followed up with another email, this time including a Cc: to the First Amendment Project (http://www.thefirstamendment.org/). That led to a meeting in which I was provided subsequently developed documentation showing that, at least in a few cases, the catalog wording of 'Credit/No credit' applied to courses that were intended to be 'Mandatory credit/no credit.'

There are two major problems demonstrated in the above narrative:

1.  It took three emails and two telephone messages over a three-week period to get a response to a simple request to the administration on behalf of three of my students.

2.  When I finally did get a response, it was based on a rationale that was easily checked and found to very clearly not true.

To put this in context, suppose I were to not respond to multiple legitimate requests from students in my classes by email and telephone over a period of weeks. And then after that, I were to reject the students' requests based on a rationale that could easily be demonstrated as being inaccurate. Would not the students have a legitimate concern that would justify their making a complaint against me as an instructor?

Also note that I previously had similar experiences with lack of response when requesting administrative decisions or simple assistance when attempting to implement innovations in teaching and in dealing with academic integrity violations. Given the importance of innovation in the economy and for continuous improvement in the accomplishment of our teaching mission, I feel that the administration should be supporting rather than passively resisting attempts to do things in ways that could be improvements over the status quo.

To address these issues, I am requesting that the Academic Senate pass a resolution along the following lines:

WHEREAS, Collegiality, shared governance, and innovation are cherished values at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona; and

WHEREAS, Failure of administrators to respond to faculty requests in a timely, considerate, sincere and honest fashion is contrary to and corrosive of these values;

RESOLVED, That the Academic Senate of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona recommends and encourages adherence by administrators to the following standards for responding to faculty requests for assistance or policy clarifications.

______

Dr. Lisa Alex, Chair

Academic Senate

Academic Senate Policy

Regarding Administrative Responses to Faculty Requests

1.0 Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to establish standards for timely, considerate, sincere and honest communication by administrators in response to situations where administrative decisions and/or support are requested by faculty to meet student needs or better achieve recognized university goals.

2.0 Policy

For issues raised by faculty which require administrative approval or assistance regarding:

A.  student needs or concerns

B.  established programs (e.g., service learning)

C.  recognized academic values (e.g., academic integrity),

Administrators should respond within three (3) working days with:

A.  an actionable decision based on:

1.  reference to existing policy or

2.  some other credible and defensible rationale (e.g., in the case of rejection: harm, loss, excessive monetary and/or labor costs, conflict with recognized university values, etc.)

B.  or a credible and defensible rationale for delaying the decision, which also identifies a reasonable target date for when such a decision will be provided.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES: (Provide a list of persons and documents that could be consulted for additional information on this topic)

Maria L. Martinez

Claudia Pinter-Lucke

George Tejadilla

The Executive Committee (EC) forwards the referrals to a standing committee that researches the proposal, contacts resources, and submits a report. The EC reviews the report, forwards it to the Senate or returns it to the standing committee for additional information, clarification, or review. After the EC accepts the report it is placed on the agenda of the next Academic Senate meeting for a first reading and a month later for a second reading where voting takes place. The referral is then sent to the President for approval. Depending on the topic the process may take from 1 to 3 quarters. A motion to waive the first reading, if approved by the Senate, would reduce the wait time by one month.

Is there a deadline by when this referral needs to be considered by the Academic Senate? X No Yes, by (date). Justification for deadline: