California State University Dominguez Hills
Academic Senate Minutes
March 3, 2010
Voting Members Present: Berlin, Carvalho, Dales, Edmond, Fawver, Feuer, Ferris, Fitzsimmons, Furtado, Ganezer, Gould, Hancock, Hinchberger, Jones, Kalayjian, Kaplan, Katzenstein, Keville, Kowalski, Kravchak, Krochalk, Kulikov, Malamud, Monty, Moore, Mutchler, Pawar, Sneed, Vasquez, Whetmore, and White.
Voting Members Absent: Chavez, Fisher, Furusa, Galant, García, Herbert, Hwang, Jacobs, Kalayjian, Kravchak, Miller, Murrey, Robinson, and Salhi.
Executive Committee Members 2009/2010: chair, Munashe Furusa; Vice Chair, Vacant; FPC Chair, Carl Sneed; EPC Chair, Sheela Pawar; Parliamentarian, Leena Furtado; Statewide Senators, Pat Kalayjian and Kate Fawver.
Ex Officio Members Present: Arasimowicz, Bergmann, Bersi, Bluthenthal, Bradfield, Gordon, M., Maki, Parham, Robles, Rodriguez, M., Strong, and Vogel.
Guests: Merry Eyman, Gus Martin, Cindy Grutzik, Emily Magruder, Daniel Garcia, Michael Marquez.
Recorder: Brooks, M.
Approval of Agenda Amended MSP
Approval of Minutes from 2/3/10 and 2/10/10 Both Amended MSP
3:00 p.m. Time Certain: Sandra Parham/Naomi Moy/Stephanie Braesley of the Chancellors Office-Affordable Learning Solutions-Parham reported on Affordable Learning Solutions which will help save our students a considerable amount of money. This program will provide online learning solutions and materials that will be a fraction of the cost compared to printed textbooks. The choice to have printed textbooks will still be there but the online solutions will be there as well. There is a website set up for faculty with a variety of ideas for faculty to use. Work may be shared with other professors with permission from parties. Parham said that for every challenge we are trying to find a solution. Fitzsimmons said that she would like to see faculty printing capacity restored, and that she believes students do better with printed documents in hand. Edmond said that as a student he likes it when the professor provides the printed materials. Parham asked that the students leave their minds open to working online, to give it a try. Katzenstein asked if there would be technology support to go along with this, and Parham said yes. He also asked if the textbook publishers are involved and Parham said yes. Strong said that with a license students can print the textbooks and save about 65%. Ganezer said that within his field where the curriculum is structured he has doubts about how the eBooks could be used in that context. He cannot see how faculty can depend on e-books entirely for the sciences. Malamud said that there is a reason why there is a textbook. The electronic materials that are out there are not a substitute for the textbook. He asked if the textbooks could be digital. Hinchberger said that we could give students options eBooks or printed textbooks. Hinchberger said that there is a number of different ways we can utilize this process.
Parham reported that the Library Grand Opening will be held on April 29, at 3:00 p.m. which is the same day as the Presidential Scholarship Reception. Parham described the new Library and said that it will have world renowned art and student art. It will be a museum. The entrance will be through the second floor and she said that we have received money from the chancellor’s office to refurbish the second floor to blend better with the new building. Parham said that our current library will be remodeled hopefully within the next couple of years.
General Education (GE) Update-Kate Fawver-Kate Fawver was chair because Munashe Furusa was absent due to a family emergency. Fawver gave an update of the progress on General Education. Fawver said that GE presented their final recommendations and the next step would be that Exec would make final recommendations. These recommendations would include FAC 09-09, GE recommendations and all support documents including the taskforce report; college reports; and minority reports. All of these reports will be synthesized and circulated to the senators. The senators are charged to take the synthesis back to their departments and discuss the final recommendations and return on March 17, 2010 for a formal vote. The results will be presented to the provost.
Krochalk asked if the president used the general education recommendations when she gave her report to the chancellor’s office on 2/15/10 and Fawver said yes. Feuer said that the update pertains so closely to the resolution on the agenda she asked if we could move the resolution up because it is time bound. Pawar said that EPC 10-01 is also time bound; she said that she would accept this if we can do EPC 10-01. Feuer said that would be fine.
Katzenstein asked if all the reports and data would be taken into consideration and Fawver said yes. Moore asked if these documents will be a part of the Execs summary and Fawver said no, the president has requested to have one document. Vasquez said that the documents will be available for reference. Fawver said that the objective is to provide a concrete recommendation and not a summary of the last six months; however, the documents are available if the president chooses to review them.
FAC 10-05 was moved up to the second first reading item after EPC 10-01.
First Reading Item
EPC 10-01-Resolution on Advising Holds-Pawar read the resolution to the senate. Malamud said that the resolution looked like two different issues “freshman holds” and “probation”. Second, he asked why there are holds in spring. Malamud asked why we don't try to treat students as adults and said that holds seem the wrong way to treat students. Sneed asked if this will impact their progression for their degree. Whetmore said that he worked on the groundwork for the first year freshman experience and it includes intrusive advising, and putting students through a mandatory success program so that they have a clear picture. Carvalho said that he was in favor of good advising. Katzenstein wondered what kind of additional pressure this would put on those doing advising and do we have enough advisors. Keville asked for clarification on when the holds are placed and how the process works. It does not make sense to give a new freshman who has not attended classes yet, a hold. Merry Eyman spoke and said that ideally we would like to advise our students and that we have a 33% graduation rate and we want to see that go up. She said that students are not aware of the tools available to them. She said that new freshmen do not have holds. Their first hold is placed around October of their first semester and that hold is for the spring. They come in and get their advising and the hold is lifted. She said that in the spring the hold is placed in March/April and they come in and get their advising and the hold is lifted and this happens until they graduate. Edmond said that the University Advisement Center needs a larger waiting room. The current situation is very uncomfortable with no room to sit or stand.
EPC 10-05-Call for Action by the Senate Executive Committee-Feuer said that she was confused and that she had seen the recommendations change three times. She said that GE was given a firm deadline of February 8, 2010 to complete their recommendations and they met it. On February 10, 2010 the senate met but there was no vote and we were told that all comments will go to the president. Feuer said that she learned a few days ago that the comments had not gone to the president but that Exec was preparing their own document to submit. Feuer was concerned about Exec’s excuse that the provost was asking them to do this and wondered what Exec would do if the provost asked them to comment on RTP recommendations. She said that on February 10, 2010 concrete comments were presented by GE and multiple times there was no vote but we were told that the documents would be forwarded to the president.
Edmond asked the Exec to please see that all the documents go forward to the president. Monty said that there was no problem sending these forward the problem lies with the minority reports. The minority reports indicate that there were numerous complaints about the process that took place in GE which taints the recommendations.
Gould said that he could not vote on a resolution that refers to the Executive Committee as uncollegial and perilous. Mutchler asked who is making the decisions on the GE requirements based on all the comments and Fawver said that the final authority is the provost and the president. Mutchler said that Fawver had said that at the next senate meeting we would have a chance to vote and that it would either be an up or down vote, no changes will be made…so what if it’s a down vote, does that mean there are no recommendations forwarded to the president and the provost? Fawver said that all recommendations come to the senate. The senate takes all the recommendations from the senators, sub committees and students and individual faculty and will forward them and will produce final recommendations consistent with the December vote to search for alternative avenues of cost saving measures, instead of the elimination of departments and programs. Mutchler asked what happens if we vote down and Fawver said then the senate will stand in contradiction to itself from the December 9, 2010 vote and that end result will go to the provost.
Vasquez said that as a senate we linked budget reduction to GE. She said that in a way we have created a new situation. As a senate when we adopted the resolution to avoid program elimination we asked for a cost savings proposal. The provost has said repeatedly that the majority of resources in academic affairs are tied to faculty. It doesn’t leave a lot of room for other cost saving proposals. Cost savings proposals in GE were formulated to proposals that came from faculty across the campus and there are viable savings in GE. Vasquez said that this is not a regular GE matter she said that we should be careful as a senate to adopt the GE recommendations as they are because there were problems. One of the biggest problems was the cost savings to GE that the deans included in their proposals that we voted on. If you look at those cost savings and what the GE is recommending the GE recommendations are far below that. So where are we going to find those other savings we know through the deans statements at our last meeting that they said let’s find savings here. We don’t want to revisit program elimination and so these issues are tied for the better or the worse. Vasquez said that she would hope that if the senate votes on recommendations that they be more comprehensive. Vasquez said that she would hope they would include cost savings that the deans proposed; and, the proposals that then went forward and were a part of the presidents recommendation. If we don’t do this then our vote to endorse the GE recommendation leaves us with no other option than to go back to program elimination. Vasquez registered her vote for preservation of programs. To preserve the broadest range of programs no matter how small or unique. If we look at other campuses Long Beach, Northridge they have moved to a smaller GE package. Vasquez said that she was sure that that decision was made to preserve and enhance programs and departments. If we look at private universities Harvard has eight required courses. UCLA has 10 required courses we have 15 or more required courses. Fawver asked Vasquez if she was referring to the resolution and Vasquez said yes, so that we not endorse this resolution
Suchenek said that he wanted to express his disappointment that the process of the GE recommendations is being questioned and felt that it was uncollegial.
Carvalho asked if on March 17, 2010 will the Executive Committee give the senate a synthesis and Fawver said that the Exec will send out a synthesis on March 11, 2010. Carvalho asked if on March 17, 2010 if we vote the GE recommendations down do we go back to the GE committee for new recommendations. Feuer asked if Fawver could answer that and Fawver said that she could not and that she would at the end.
Malamud said that he believed that the GE committee doesn’t answer to us so their report should go directly to the provost. Malamud said that he didn’t understand why we are even having this discussion. If it is important to have an analysis of this then it should have gone to Faculty Policy Committee or Education Policy Committee. The Exec does not make policy. Exec brings policy to the senate for the senate to decide. Whetmore said that the GE reports to the senate and the senate voted on this a couple of months ago. He also said that it is the Executive Committee’s job to bring forward policy recommendations to the floor of the senate for vote. Pawar said that the minority reports did not object to outcomes but to the process. Pawar said that untenured faculty were asked to vote with their RTP committee members right there and there were no ballots it was by a show of hands. The process was deeply flawed and therefore we should vote to disregard this resolution.
White said that he thought the recommendations were under time constraints. If there is a flaw in the process it seems to be the process here with this body in terms of what our chair said at that meeting. White said that he was concerned that a revisit of this appears not to be timely and the fact that the GE recommendations were not forwarded he felt was grossly inappropriate. He said that he would support this motion.
Sneed asked if it would be possible to bring the GE report and the Exec report to the March 17 meeting and vote on them individually. Would there be a problem having both. Feuer asked if she could respond to this and Fawver told her she could not.