CSUDH Academic Senate Meeting

Loker University Student Union

Minutes of April 12, 2000

M/S/P May 10, 2000

Voting Members Present: Andrews, Brulois, Butler, Charnofsky, Brett Christie, Dominguez, Dowling, Feuer, Furusa, Furusawa, Ganezer, Goders, Hare, Hunt, Jacobs, McDermott proxy for Johnson, Johnston, Kaplan, Karber, Marek Suchenek proxy for Kowalski, LaCorte, Lee, Long, Malamud, McCarthy, McDermott, McNulty, O’Connor, Stricker, Sturm, Turner, Vanterpool, Whitmore.

Voting Members Absent: Amouzegar, Billes, Britt, Robert Christie, De La Camp, Gray-Shellberg, Henschel, Heuschkel, Lalas, Maciel, McEnerney, McGee-Bracken, Needham, Press, Smith, Todd, Watson, Whetmore (on leave), Whitmore, Denise Williams (on leave), Dick Williams.

Non-Voting Ex-Officio Members Present: Blair, Bowman, Pardon, Thomas Landefeld (for Selase Williams).

Guests: Jeff Badrtalei, Helen Batchelor, Judith Chodil, Kathleen Clark, Leni Cook, Carolyn Harris, Jim Harris, Ellen Hope Kearns, Frances Lauerhass, Gary Levine, Alonzo Rodriguez.

Chair Vanterpool called the meeting to order at 2:33 p.m.

Open Forum:

EPC Chair McDermott informed the Senate that she had spoken to Vice President Pardon about concerns having to do with space allocation for instructional use. It does not appear that the campus has much process in place to help us solve the problem of existing laboratory space needs to everyone’s satisfaction. EPC needs to work on a policy recommendation in the Fall. Pardon pointed out that issues involving space utilization are compounded by the fact that we have not had major constructions on campus for some 20 years. Accordingly, for quite some time now most of the movement in allocating instructional space has been in little pieces here and there. However, the Extended Education Building has just been completed, CAMS is now under construction, and during summer we expect to have the new James Welch building under construction. To address present concerns, two things will be undertaken in the next few months: 1) an audit will be done on how space is currently utilized campus-wide, and 2) a space utilization committee will be put together. In the meantime Pardon’s office is gathering information on processes that are in place on other campuses to see what they are doing. Malamud felt that certain decisions about use of vacated office space (e.g. Extended Education’s relocation from SBS to the new building) are now being made, and a committee-to-be-formed will not help alleviate immediate concerns. Malamud asked Pardon whether he would report back at the next Senate meeting what’s going on with the SBS building.

Leni Cook, faculty representative on the Search Committee for Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs, brought to the attention of the Academic Senate certain problems concerning this search committee and another Academic Affairs search committee. The ads for the two administrative positions appeared in the March 17th and March 24th issues of the Chronicle of Higher Education -- these are really late dates for the kinds of searches at stake. To date, the Search Committee for Assoc VP for Faculty Affairs has not met. The other search committee has met, and members were told that if they wished to serve on that committee they would serve through June. But MOU provisions specify that the semester is over long before the end of June. There appears to be a concealed threat that if you are not willing to serve on your own time you are not welcome on at least one of these Academic Affairs search committees. This is not the way to treat faculty or the faculty governance process. Either compensation should be offered to faculty members sitting on these committees or a better time line for completion of the searches should be agreed to. Cook asked for support from the Senate to see to it that one or both of these options are acted upon, preferably the option for a more reasonable time line.

Ellen Hope Kearns, Professor of Clinical Sciences, objected to an item included in the Open Forum section of the Minutes of March 22, 2000. Hope Kearns’ reference is to certain statements attributed to Dean Whittemore. She requested that the voting members of the Senate strike all the applicable comments and references to Dean Whittemore from the record, noting that what the Senate has allowed to take place is inappropriate, unfair, and unprecedented. Frances Lauerhass, Professor of Foreign Languages, reminded the Senate that these were not alleged remarks; what Dowling reported was an exact repetition of what Dean Whittemore said on two different occasions at UPC meetings. Lauerhass was present at those meetings and personally heard them uttered. She urged the Senate not to strike the remarks from the Minutes. Malamud, Kaplan, McDermott, and Ganezer stressed that Open Forum is intended precisely for the purpose of airing concerns, among other things. To strike the disputed matter from the record would undermine important shared governance objectives. Vanterpool added that he too heard Whittemore’s statements and that he subsequently met with the Dean and invited him to attend a future meeting of the Senate Executive Committee. Dean Whittemore accepted the invitation. Johnston expressed strong support for Dean Whittemore, noting that quite contrary to the negative message conveyed to the Senate the Dean is working hard at preserving faculty positions in the School of Health. Feuer pointed out that since no Senate action was taken no appeal to the Senate is needed for striking Dowling’s Open Forum report from the record.

1. Approval of the Agenda M/S/P

2. Approval of the Minutes for March 22, 2000 M/S/P

3. Parliamentarian’s Report

Miguel Dominguez announced the following:

1) the nominees for Senate Chair for next academic year are Cynthia McDermott and Marek Suchenek;

2) the nominee for the Statewide Senator position is Hal Charnofsky;

3) second call for faculty nominations for the Search Committee for Assistant Vice President for Undergraduate Studies (so far there are no nominees); 3 faculty needed.

The following elections were conducted:

7

1) Martin Hare was elected by acclamation to serve on the Elections committee for Senate Chair & Statewide Senator;

2) Romelia Morales was elected by acclamation to replace Denise Williams on UCC for the remainder of Spring semester, 2000.

3) Ann Chlebicki (SOE) and Virginia Long (SOH) were elected to serve on the Search Committee for Director of Human Resources.

4. Second Reading Items:

a. EPC 00-06: CSU Dominguez Hills Institutional Review Board Policy (Attachment). EPC Chair McDermott introduced this item for Senate action. The campus needs to have a policy in place that satisfies the federal government’s mandates that any institution that conducts federally funded research establish an Institutional Review Board to protect human subjects. Charnofsky suggested that the Resolve clause be expanded to say “the Attached Institutional Review Board Policy.” This was accepted as a friendly amendment. EPC 00-06 M/S/P.

b. FPC 00-07: Revision of PM 90-08: Inclusion of Associate Deans in the Administrative Effectiveness Review Process (Attachment). FPC Chair Leonard Lee introduced the item for Senate action. He noted that several minor changes had been made since the First Reading, specifically a change in the title (“Other Full-Time MPP Personnel” changed to “Associate Deans”). This modification is subsequently reflected in the remainder of pertinent sections of the recommendation. FPC 00-07 M/S/P.

5. First Reading Items:

a. FPC 00-08 (W*): Implementation of PM 99-03: “Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty” (Attachment). Leonard Lee introduced and led discussion on the item. He noted that there is widespread confusion on campus about what the controlling document is on review/evaluation of tenured faculty. There are several documents around - a PM issued toward the end of President Herb Carter’s tenure, an older PM, and policy documents originating at the College and School levels. Furthermore, a number of faculty have expressed concern that PM 99-03 specifies a requirement for information about the process of evaluating tenured faculty to be disseminated in September of the academic year. However, the campus did not disseminate the information until March 2000. A number of faculty believe they do not have enough time to complete their evaluations, given the short notice. VP Castro has approved a mechanism for those faculty requesting additional time to postpone their evaluations until next year. The reason for FPC 00-08 is to reinforce the fact that there is a new PM, current and pertinent to the evaluation process, and that the President or his designee needs to have this promulgated to the campus community.

7

Both Malamud and Feuer felt that this was a non-issue, since there is already official campus policy on the review of tenured faculty. Why should the Senate have to vote to implement something that is already in force as policy? McDermott and Vanterpool cautioned that in this particular case approved processes have not been followed, that communication lines have been less than adequate, leading to increased frustrations among affected faculty. Goders urged that the existence of PM 99-03 and its pre-eminence be brought to the attention of the general faculty. A motion to waive parliamentary rules and to W* FPC 00-08 was passed, allowing a vote on the item. FPC 00-08 (W*) S/M/P

b.  FPC 00-09 (W*): Revision of PM 99-03: Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty (Attachment). Leonard Lee introduced and led discussion on this item. Lee pointed

out that PM 99-03 contains a clause which states that “in addition to the peer review by the committee, the department chair shall conduct a review of the tenured faculty member and make separate recommendations to the peer review committee and the appropriate administrator as may be appropriate.” There is a potential discrepancy of this PM provision with interpretation of the MOU contract language. Additionally a request is made that the title of PM 99-03 be revised to reflect the current MOU language, namely change Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty to Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty. A motion to waive parliamentary rules and to W* FPC 00-09 was passed, allowing a vote to be taken on the item. FPC 00-09 (W*) S/M/P

c. EXEC 00-10: Resolution on the Delphi Review Committee Report (Attachment). Vanterpool noted that he drafted the resolution on behalf of the Executive Committee. Charnofsky recommended that in the Resolve clause, after the word ‘report’ we should add ‘by the Delphi Review Committee.’ This modification allows the Resolve clause to stand alone. Dowling asked that the title of EXEC 00-10 be re-worded so that it properly reflects the full title of the committee designation, that is “Resolution on the Delphi Recommendations Review Committee Report.” Accordingly, other affected clauses of the resolution should be modified as well. Vanterpool stated that this item will come to the senate for a vote at the next senate meeting.

d. EPC 00-11: Policy Regarding the Task Force on Institutional Effectiveness and Program Review Report (Attachment). McDermott, EPC Chair, introduced this first reading item. McDermott placed the item in historical context-the establishment of the Mission and Goals Committee by former President Herbert Carter. The Task Force on Academic Program Review and Needs Assessment was charged with developing and proposing an integrated process of linking the elements of planning (program review and prioritization, program development and resource allocation) in a governance structure that would drive decision making. At the last senate meeting Associate VP Cecile Lindsay and David Karber, co-Chairs of the Task Force, reported to the Senate the completion of their task and the contents of the Report that has been sent to President Lyons for his consideration. The Report, attached to today’s Agenda, is before us as part of a consultation process. Dowling noted that there is a reference in the Report to Dr. Tony Moye, an external consultant, and queried whether the campus has heard from Moye. According to McDermott, to date the campus has not received a final report from Moye. Vanterpool said that this item will be brought back as a Second Reading item at the next senate meeting.

7

e. EPC 00-12: Policy for General Studies Committee Membership (Attachment). McDermott introduced the item. EPC is recommending that the General Studies Committee be composed of 10 members: a senate representative, a student representative, 3 CAS faculty representatives, 1 SOM faculty representative, 1 SOE faculty representative, 1 SOH faculty representative, the Director of Academic Student Support Programs, and the Coordinator of Liberal Studies. For the most part, EPC 00-12 is seeking to make into official campus policy practices that are already in place. Vanterpool felt that item 7 is somewhat misleading the way it lumps together two committee members from two different constituency-areas. Malamud wanted clarity on the rationale for including the Director of Academic Student Support Programs and the Coordinator of Liberal Studies on the committee. Dowling wanted to know why the Coordinator of Liberal Studies is an ex-officio member on the committee if it is important to have that individual serve as a member. Jackson Henry offered a title correction: Coordinator of Liberal Studies should be changed to Director of Liberal Studies. Dominguez and Feuer cautioned that the rationale for the role of the Director of Liberal Studies needs to be clearly spelled out. EPC 00-12 will be brought back to the Senate for a vote.

f. EPC 00-13: Policy on Incomplete Grades / Supercedes PM 92-03 (Attachment). McDermott introduced the item. The reason for bringing this item to the Senate is that there is a great deal of confusion among students as to the issuance of Incomplete grades and the amount of time they have to complete their course work. SAPAC and others are also working to clear up other confusions students have. EPC has tried to clean up the language of PM 92-03, particularly the sections that have been misinterpreted by students. One area of confusion is who is responsible for beginning the process to request an Incomplete. The recommendation clearly delineates what an instructor is expected to do, and what the students’ responsibilities are for completing course work. Hunt wanted to know whether any consideration was given to limiting completion of Incompletes to one semester rather than a year. Other discussion centered on the role Department Chairs may play in signing off on Incomplete grades; since often part-time faculty are no longer around the policy should make some allowance for this type of exception (Selase Williams; McCarthy), and that the Incomplete form itself is in need of revision, conveying greater specificity of what is required of students (Jackson Henry; Dominguez; Feuer). LaCorte cautioned that we do not overburden this particular resolution in an effort to clear up confusions over issuance of Incomplete grades. This item will be brought back for Senate action later.