During the Course of the Meeting the Chair Introduced

MINUTES

Meeting of January 24-25, 2002

CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 10:15 a.m. on Thursday, January 24, 2002, by Chair Jacquelyn Kegley.

ROLL CALL: Senators and alternates (*) attending the meeting were: (Bakersfield) Jacquelyn Kegley, John Tarjan; (Channel Islands) Lillian Vega-Castaneda, Observer, (Chico) Kathleen Kaiser, Samuel Edelman; (Dominguez Hills) Hal Charnofsky, Dick Williams; (Fresno) Jacinta Amaral, Lester Pincu; (Fullerton) Vincent Buck, Bill Meyer, Barry Pasternack; (Hayward) Calvin Caplan, Hank Reichman; (Humboldt) Robert Snyder, Marshelle Thobaben; (Long Beach) Gene Dinielli, David Hood, Susan Rice; (Los Angeles) J. Theodore Anagnoson, Marshall Cates; (Maritime Academy) James Wheeler; (Monterey Bay) J. Ken Nishita; (Northridge) Lynne Cook, Michael Reagan, Barbara Swerkes; (Pomona) Rochelle Kellner, Marvin Klein; (Sacramento) Cristy Jensen, Thomas Krabacher; (San Bernardino) Buckley Barrett; (San Diego) Ray Boddy, Thomas Warschauer; (San Francisco) Eunice Aaron, Robert Cherny, Jan Gregory; (San José) David McNeil, Kenneth Peter, Bethany Shifflett; (San Luis Obispo) Reginald Gooden, Myron Hood, Unny Menon; (San Marcos) Dick Montanari, A. Sandy Parsons; (Sonoma) Philip McGough, Susan McKillop; (Stanislaus) John Sarraille, Mark Thompson; (Chancellor's Office) David Spence.

INTRODUCTIONS

During the course of the meeting the Chair introduced:

Mary Allen, Faculty Director, Institute of Teaching and Learning

Pat Drohan, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Capital Planning, Design & Construction

Harold Goldwhite, Faculty Trustee and Professor of Chemistry, CSU Los Angeles

Gary Hammerstrom, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, CSU

Robert Maurer/Ron Kroman, CSU Emeritus and Retired Faculty Assoc.(non-voting delegate)

Michael Lee, ACE Fellow, CSU Sacramento

Susan Meisenhelder, President, California Faculty Association

Paul Spear, Chair, Intellectual Property Committee and Professor, CSU Chico

David Spence, Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer, CSU

Cher Thomas, Director, Academic Technology Applications, CSU

Richard West, Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer, CSU

Deborah Hennessy, Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

Margaret Price, Assistant to Executive Director, Academic Senate CSU

Shirley Sparkman, Staff Assistant–Budget, Academic Senate CSU

Tracy Butler, Administrative Assistant, Academic Senate CSU

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

REPORT OF CHAIR JACQUELYN ANN K. KEGLEY

December-January 2001-2002

Master Plan Workgroup: Finance & Facilities-Post-Secondary- November 27, 2001

The California State University (CSU) was well represented at this meeting: President Ruben Armiñana (Sonoma); John Richards and Rodney Rideau represented CSU administration from Richard West’s office; Dr. Gangadharappa Nanjundappa, (Professor of Sociology, CSU Fullerton), in addition to myself attended.

The first portion of the meeting was devoted to a report from the work group on Workforce Preparation and Business Linkages given by co-chair David Rattray, President, Unite LA. Two central points were made. The first was academic integration, i.e., that workforce preparation themes and programs should be integrated throughout every level of publicly funded education. Contextual and applied learning should be central to the mission of the educational system. The second emphasis was on accountability. Higher education segments should have a report card that demonstrates outcomes in terms of entry into the workforce or to the next level of education.

The second portion of the meeting focused on two major reports. The first report, “An Intensive Study of State Appropriations Formulas for the Operations of Public Colleges and Universities in Thirty States,” was done under the direction of the workgroup chair, Bill Pickens. The second report “Linking State Resources to Campus Results,” was done by Joseph Burke for the Rockefeller Institute of Government. These reports distinguished three types of funding of higher education: “performance funding, performance budgeting and performance reporting.” The first type ties funding directly to individual indicators; the second has performance as one factor in budgeting and the third focuses on publicity for success. John Richards of the CSU made the point that there used to be formula budgeting, e.g., mode and level. Marty Hittleman, California Community Colleges (CCC) Academic Senate representative, argued that the performance funding of the CCC has not really had a significant result. I pointed out that CSU has been providing accountability reports, but that the state needed to follow through on their commitments to fund. Although CSU fulfilled its part of the compact, the governor did not. There was discussion of the need to move away from enrollment as the only factor and to look at factors such as graduation success and/or moving to the next level of education or completing a program of study. There was some consensus that the state needs to provide stability and predictability of funding. Differential fees were discussed as well as a program of stable and slowly rising fees. There was discussion of allowing institutions or the state to build a reserve fund to handle capitol needs. Everyone agreed that long-term and short-term priorities should be established and that these priorities should be protected in a downturn. There was also agreement that institutions should be given flexibility to handle their own budgeting and costs savings.

Visit at San Francisco State University (SFSU): December 4-5, 2001

On December 4, Bob Cherny, Susan McKillop and I met with Brian Murphy to discuss Master Plan Strategy. Brian was a key player and writer in the past Master Plan development. He believes that Senator John Vasconcellos will play a major role in the final draft of the Master Plan and in its disposition. Both he and Senator Dede Alpert have strong social agenda concerning closing the achievement gap for all students of California. Brian did not believe that the Master Plan would receive much attention from the governor and was not sure how much attention it would receive from the legislature. The focus is on K-16 and Brian suggested that we might work together with the Community College senate on some common concerns.

Pam Vaughn, chair of the SFSU senate took me to a Peruvian dinner on Monday evening and we were able to discuss a number of campus and statewide senate issues. On December 5, I spent a full day on the SFSU campus. In the morning I met with the campus Shared Governance Committee and was able to share some insights on the importance of shared governance and how to better promote it on campus. We also had good dialogue on a number of their governance issues. I met briefly with President Robert Corrigan and Provost Tom LaBelle. We discussed the success of the Academic Conference as well as the 21st Century document. Over lunch I met with the SFSU Senate Executive Committee during which we discussed systemwide and campus concerns. I indicated that the statewide senate was preparing a statement on budget matters that would be shared with campus senates as well as other CSU constituencies. We discussed priorities including campus autonomy and tenure-track hiring. In the afternoon, I met with the SFSU senate and reported to them on the major activities of the CSU Senate including the Master Plan work, the 21st Century document, the budget priority statement and the Task Force work.

It was an excellent visit.

Provosts’ Retreat: December 5, 2001

In addition to an update from Jackie McClain on contract negotiations and Proposition 209 court decisions, there were three main items on the agenda for the Provosts’ retreat. These were: budget reductions, year-round operations (YRO), and a report on the Academic Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC) conference. I presented copies of our 21st Century document and gave them an overview of the major points. I also gave them a draft of our budget priorities framework. Both documents were well received and much discussion followed. There was considerable discussion of a possible fee increase. There was general support for a fee increase but clear recognition of the possible effects on students. I pointed out that a good number of students could benefit from federal dollars if our fees were somewhat higher, whereas other students might be adversely affected by an increase in fees. I also urged that all of us should work closely with students on this issue. Both the Governor and the California Faculty Association (CFA) have expressed opposition to fee increases.

There was also considerable discussion among the provosts about YRO. Some believe that it is not cost-effective and would like to return to self-support in the summer. Others reported good success with YRO and reported that it had brought increased funding to their campuses. Several campuses are utilizing a combination of state-supported YRO and self-support. There was clear consensus that the best strategy is to allow campus autonomy and flexibility on this issue.

Most campuses are working on budget reductions including scenarios for a 15% reduction. I strongly urged faculty and senate participation in these discussions as well as a broad participation from the campus community.

Subject-Matter Conference: December 6-7, 2001

The conference "Subject Matter Preparation of Multiple Subjects Teachers" organized by the Committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations (TEKR) under the great leadership of Chair Lynne Cook was held in Los Angeles December 6-7. About 180 participants representing teams from each campus attended the conference. In my judgment, the conference was a great success and will do much to assist campus faculty leadership in assessing current programs and aligning them with the new California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) standards. This represents a unique opportunity for subject matter and teacher education faculty, along with faculty and administrative leadership, to develop a quality cross-disciplinary curriculum that will provide well-prepared teachers for California's children.

Barnett Berry, Executive Director, Southeast Center for Teaching Quality, University of North Carolina, opened the conference with an assessment of teacher preparation efforts throughout the nation. He also presented a strong rationale for the need for aligning subject matter preparation of teachers with K-12 Academic Content Standards. Trustee Debra Farar and Chancellor Charles Reed greeted participants and thanked them and the Senate for taking a leadership role in this important task.

In small group discussions participants were able to articulate the conceptual foundations, concerns and methods of inquiry in specific disciplines and came to see a number of related themes and goals. On Wednesday, Mary Sandy, Director, Professional Services Division, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, informed the group about the subject matter preparation standards and requirements for program accreditation. These issues were also explored in small group discussion. Campus teams were also able to begin developing plans for their campus efforts in aligning programs with the new standards.

In addition to special thanks to Lynne Cook for her superb organizing skills, appreciation and thanks are extended to Marvin Klein, Barbara Swerkes, and Dick Williams of TEKR who led small discussion groups and assisted with other conference tasks. Bob Cherny and David McNeil also assisted in planning and in leading small group discussions, as did your chair. Thanks again to all and to Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer David Spence for his financial and general support of this effort.

Workload Task Force: December 14, 2001

The Workload Task Force met on Friday, December 14, 2001. The primary task was to review the data from the survey of lecturers and a draft text of the report on the CSU portion of the study. There was considerable discussion of the kinds of comparison material that would be appropriate. It was agreed that the primary comparison data of significance is between the 1990 and the present study. Refinement of the report and of some tables will be made during the month of January. The group will meet on February 2, 2002, to approve the final version of the report on the CSU data. The report will then be immediately shared with all CSU constituencies.

Master Plan Workgroup on Student Learning: December 17, 2001

Allison Jones and I were the CSU representatives for the meeting of the workgroup on Student Learning held at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) on December 18, 2001. The meeting concentrated on careful reading and refining of draft 7 of the workgroup report. I was welcomed as a full member of the committee and was able to make contributions to the draft. Among the more interesting and/or controversial items in the report was a recommendation that oral and written proficiency in a second language be added to the common K-12 curriculum required of all students. There was also a recommendation for an inter-segmental review and revision of the K-12 curriculum to ensure “its quality and relevance to the needs to California.” There was a strong recommendation for on-going, intersegmental policymaking, collaboration and alignment of curriculum and assessments between K-12 and the university. A very controversial recommendation designed to demonstrate the state’s commitment to educate all Californians was to have each campus of the University of California (UC) expand its freshmen year enrollment by 5%; that 5% “to be selected from students in educationally disadvantaged schools who may fail to meet UC eligibility, but who display extraordinary talents or leadership in other domains.” Because this recommendation appeared at the end of the report, it did not have time for discussion. We will await further news on this from David McNeil, our regular representative to the workgroup.

Master Plan Workgroup on Finance and Facilities: Post-Secondary: December 18, 2001

I attended the meeting of the Finance and Facilities: Post-Secondary workgroup meeting in San Diego along with Ray Boddy. Ruben Armiñana, Richard West, G. Nanjundappa and Pat Drohan were also present. Pat presented an interesting new way to calculate space needs depending on program needs. There was discussion again of fees and general agreement that raising of fees was needed but that the political will to do so was absent. There was discussion of capital needs and some agreement that it would be helpful if the state could establish a trust fund for this and could allow segments to do their own financing and bond development. Senator Dede Alpert met briefly with the group. She indicated that she and other members of the Master Plan Committee intend to invest heavy political capital in getting the new Master Plan adopted and implemented. She asked for the assistance of committee members in spreading the word to the public about how important the new Master Plan will be for California. She indicated there would be opportunity for e-testimony and public hearings throughout the coming year.

After the workgroup meeting Ray Boddy and I met with Charles Ratliff, chief staff person for the Master Plan. He had read the Academic Senate’s 21st Century document in its entirety. Ratliff is going to help the committees write the report. He will be the primary overseer, writer, and orchestrator. This is a brand new undertaking. There is no parallel for a K-16 Master Plan. He assured them that this is not a done deal. He is very concerned about wanting broad input; and is still working it out. The Electronic component is being developed. It too is a first-time experiment.