Academic Senate Minutes
October 2, 2013
Members Present:Bordinaro, Esposito, Fawver, Jones, Kalayjian, Moore.
Guests: Keona Concannon, Gary Reichard.
Recorded by K. Concannon
Meeting Called to Order2:30 p.m.
Chair’s Report (Jerry Moore):
Mary Brooks is on medical leave due to her recent shoulder surgery. Her recovery is not progressing as expected, and she has been instructed to stay out of work until the end of October. Keona Concannon from the Provost’s office is assisting in recording minutes for today’s meeting, but temporary support may be sought depending on the length of Mary’s absence.
The conversation regarding the revision of the Upper Division General Education (GE) courses at last week’s Senate meeting was a spirited debate. In order to ensure that the record correctly reflects the speaker’s intended remarks, copies of that portion of the minutes will be distributed to speakers for review and revision.
Kate Esposito questioned whether this resolution should come jointly from EPC and FPC. Moore commented that this would be further discussed when the resolution was brought up later on the agenda.
The Senate Executive Committee recently received a number of responses on Senate resolutions that require action or follow up from Academic Affairs. The most recent response was in regard to FPC 13-09. Moore noted that since responses from Academic Affairs were uncommon, there is not currently a designated practice on how to reply to them. Interim Provost Reichard’s memo on FPC 13-09 mentioned two suggested revisions to the resolution. It was determined that the appropriate action would be to forward this memo to the appropriate committee (FPC) and that the committee would then determine if the changes were acceptable or not.
EPC 13-11: Upper Division GE Courses
Moore noted that after the debate on this resolution at the last Senate meeting, he read the minutes from the GE meeting of December 2011. Many of the dissenters in the recent discussion were recorded as having voted to approve a similar action two years ago. Given that the conversation on this topic has gone on for so long, Moore stated that he feels it important to finally take a vote on a resolution, while acknowledging that there are a number of related issues and concerns that still need to be addressed.
The issue stems from the difficulty in changing the course prefix and returning the course FTEs to the appropriate department. Kalayjian noted that her proposed revision may help to address the impact on lecturers.
Fawver noted concerns over whether appropriate process had been followed in bringing forth this resolution to the Senate; whether both the GE Committee had been consulted and whether EPC had vetted the resolution prior to the Senate reading.
In response to concern regarding the potential impact on lectures, Moore noted that he was assured in conversations with Academic Affairs administrators that lecturers would not be harmed. Weber stated that there is potentially adverse impact for the department losing and receiving the course once it’s reassigned.
Moore stated that there are two issues regarding lectures that need to be addressed. First, consideration must be given to lecturers as individuals who may lose seniority when being reassigned to a department which they have not previously been a part of. Second, departments must be able to decide if and to where they want a course moved.
Kalayjian noted that there are often issues in Humanities courses where a course taught by a lecturer is given to another department, depending on what is in the best interest of the involved lecturer. She suggested that SBS, SMT, and HUM committees should stay in place to determine a fair allotment of courses. Fawver replied that this was a major distinction from the original resolution, which allocates courses based on the original department from which the course proposal came (vs. who teaches it – Kalayjian revision).
Moore asked the Exec Committee whether it might be helpful to add text from Kalayjian’s revision to the original resolution (possibly eliminate SBS and SMT designations while retaining HUM).
Weber asked whether it was possible to keep all three designations as is and just change the accounting by which FTE is awarded. Kalayjian mentioned that this has been considered in the past and was found too difficult to implement.
Esposito suggested that the Senate might consider a staggered implementation process, waiting for certain departmental reallocations to be made once a lecturer’s current contract has expired. The group agreed that this may be a beneficial solution to minimize adverse impact to lecturers. Kalayjian added that due to the complex and ongoing nature of this issue, it is essential to keep the committees in place to determine these details.
Bordinaro noted that it would be helpful to have a draft MOU that dealt with lecturer impact to share with lecturers who are concerned. The group agreed that this would be ideal, though Moore noted that Academic Affairs would likely want to see a draft resolution before drafting an MOU.
Jones stated that while this resolution and potential policy mainly affects faculty, we may need to consider the impact on students. Moore replied that there are currently 4,935 students participating in these upper division GE courses.
Esposito stated that if the resolution is going to specifically mention lectures, it should jointly come from EPC and FPC. The committee agreed. Moore stated that he would edit the original resolution to add text from the Kalayjian revision, as well as a statement about the need for an MOU regarding lecturer impact. Moore will send this version out to the Exec Committee for review electronically, and then on to EPC/FPC with the hope that those committees will bring forward a revised version to the Senate meeting on November 6th or 20th.
EPC: Amendments to Posthumous Degree Policy (Esposito)
Esposito distributed a revised version of EPC 13-00 which outlines policies for awarding posthumous degrees. Following the discussion at the October 2nd Senate meeting, Esposito made only minor changes (removing references to deans of undergraduate and graduate studies). A clean copy will be distributed to the Exec Committee following today’s meeting.
Status of Lecturer Elections (Jones)
Lecturer election ballots will be sent out electronically on October 24th and will contain 5-6 candidates as well as their statements.
Provost’s Report (Gary Reichard)
Provost Reichard distributed a copy of the finalized CSUDH Institutional Learning Objectives (ILO) that were recently approved by Cabinet for Senate Exec input. These ILOs had been discussed during 2012-13, but no record was found of the result of those discussions. Fawver noted that the Exec Committee had already seen such a document and the Senate Execs approved of this version.
The Office of Undergraduate Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity (URSCA) is moving along well. An implementation team has been established and has begun work on determining various aspects of the office’s establishment. While the office is funded by Academic Affairs and ultimately reports to that division, this is a faculty-run program. Fawver noted that it would be helpful to have the faculty implementation team report to the Senate at various stages of the project to keep the Senate apprised of progress.
Reichard mentioned that Academic Affairs has recently been trying to “catch up” with regard to Senate resolutions that require Academic Affairs action or even new policy. In doing so, AA has found that there are a few seemingly minor changes to some of these policies with regard to implementation that have been suggested back to the Exec Committee. Reichard noted that for purposes of efficiency and good relations, it might be helpful to have some sort of AA review of resolutions before the Senate votes on them. This may allow for minor procedural changes to be suggested by AA that would later come up, and then may require that a revised version be taken to the Senate for an additional vote. Reichard suggested that this might best be accomplished through the presence of an AA administrator sitting as an ex-officio member on the FPC and EPC committees (suggesting Mitch Maki and Rene Castro respectively).
Weber stated that she did not feel that this would be a good idea and that these committees are comprised of only faculty for a reason. In past administrations, administrator presence in some faculty committee conversations sought to limit the scope of the committee’s (or Senate’s) authority and to steer the direction of policy. Esposito agreed and noted that the committees need the ability to discuss and formulate policies in a separate and distinct environment, without administrator presence. Reichard recognized the validity of those concerns and suggested that perhaps after the formulation of policy from either committee; perhaps the committee rep could meet with the appropriate administrator for his/her input. This would allow any minor revisions to occur at the committee level, before Senate approval.
Reichard stated that he was currently trying to determine the process for making distinctions between what would be appropriate Academic Affairs Policy (AAP) or Presidential Memo’s (PM). He noted that most campuses don’t have that distinction, and asked the committee about the history of this practice at CSUDH. Fawver and the committee noted that over the years, there has been debate as to whether the Senate should have involvement in policies and that typically PMs were determined excluded from the Senate’s purview. Reichard noted that President Hagan is committed to streamlining this process moving forward.
Reichard reported on the status of the Honors Program and noted that Kaye Bragg is moving forward with the suggestions of the Exec Committee. She is meeting with Chairs and received input from the systemwide Honors Council. Dr. Bragg will assemble all related information and present it to faculty for input and discussion.
Reichard distributed copies of the “Encounters with Student Success” proposal developed with Keith Boyum and Kaye Bragg. The proposal solicits participation from seven faculty members who will engage in a “book-club” style research program around ways to recognize and institutionalize high-impact practices at DH. Participating faculty will receive a $2,000 stipend and will be required to deliver a report to the new Provost in March 2014. Esposito suggested adding a technology expert to this group, due to the prevalence in technology coming from K-12 right now. Reichard noted that part of the proposal allows for bringing in national experts to speak to the group, and suggested that a tech expert may be sought out in that venue. Fawver also asked that this group report to the Senate periodically before the delivery of the final report.
Online Courses and Exams (Matt Jones)
Jones noted that there is a growing concern regarding the security of exams in online courses. Jones did not believe that UCC was requiring security elements for exams in online course proposals or denying proposals based on a lack thereof, he noted that there is a growing discussion on this topic. The group noted that there are no practical ways to deal with this issue, and test security (with regard to student identity) can easily be manipulated in face-to-face courses as well. In addition, any sort of restriction or requirement regarding the method or content of an exam can be seen as an infringement on academic freedom. Bordinaro will send additional information to the group for possible discussion.
Meeting Adjourned (5:15 p.m.)