California State University, Dominguez Hills



Academic Senate 1000 E. Victoria Carson, CA 90747 WH-A420 (310) 243-3312 Senate Executive CommitteeFebruary 10, 2016In attendance: J.Hill - Senate Chair; A.Perez – Parliamentarian; S. Pawar – EPC Chair; T. Norman – Statewide Senator; K. Esposito – Statewide SenatorGuests (in order of appearance): Clare Weber, Provost Junn, Brandy McLelland, President HaganPerez introduced herself with some information about her academic and professional career.Meeting began with Provost Junn and Clare Weber as Weber had some time restrictions. Junn said with regard to the culture of the campus and it having a strong affinity for involving lecturers from governance and the reclassification of lecturers, they were looking at having an outstanding lecturer award. She said she’s known other campuses that have an outstanding lecturer award, but we do not. Out of the awards that we already have, there’s two that states full-time faculty, so full-time lecturers can apply and the other says lecturers generally, so part-timers can apply. Junn said what they’re bringing to Senate Exec is whether we would want to create a new category for outstanding lecturers that we would recognize on an annual basis. If we do wish to do this – how do we implement? The awards for the outstanding professors recognition is at the end of March, so we only have a little more than a month and the awardees have been identified (not yet notified) and sent to the President’s desk. Norman mentioned that the Leaves and Honors does it in the fall. Junn said she’s willing to create a process where we use something similar to what we do for other awards, if the Leaves and Honors would be willing to meet one more time and we have sufficient time for lecturers to apply. Junn said she raised it with the Deans and AVPs and they raised some questions with regard to different lecturers who have different workloads. You could have a lecturer who doesn’t do any teaching but does fieldwork; and others who are teaching but get essentially the course equivalent to advising a student club, so the question is how do they get evaluated? Junn said whatever you’re hired to do contractually, you can indicate on your application and if you’ve done an outstanding job in whatever that is within your assigned workload, then you could be recognized for that. Some feedback received were there are lots of outstanding lecturers but some of them go beyond the norm and do lots of service activities, i.e. Michael Grimshaw for example, whose done a lot of stuff beyond his teaching and takes it upon himself to do other things he’s not paid for. However, you would not want lecturers to feel that they can only be recognized if they do something beyond what they’re getting paid for. Junn asked if this is something that the Senate would agree to and AA could just modify an existing policy to include an outstanding lecturer award; or would the Senate wish to look more deeply into it and create a new resolution and vetting it through the Senate before it would go to AA for approval, which could take as much as a year to implement? Pawar asked if you’re a lecturer and you win this would it be right to think that you would get some type of entitlement. Junn said no. Pawar asked if the awards that go through get some type of department approval? Junn said no – right now the awards that go through have no department, no Dean, no Provost, and even with the President it’s not even a recommendation. The way it’s written is that the committee will notify the President of the awardees. Pawar said she could see as a chair feeling that they’ve been put in a bind if one of the lecturers won the award but didn’t feel the person deserved entitlement in the department. Hill asked when speaking of entitlement, are we speaking about what it means in the contract or generally speaking? Pawar replied what its states in the contract. Junn said the contract is very specific with regard to entitlement, you’re evaluated on very specific criteria that has nothing to do with outside awards. Pawar asked how do you evaluate a lecturers teaching without consulting the department? AVP Weber said it could be put in the award application process, but the current faculty awards you’re nominated, or you nominate yourself, you submit a dossier (similar to a working personal action file) and you also sign a waiver for the Leaves and Honors committee to review your personnel file which gives them access to your PTEs and departmental evaluations. Pawar expressed her belief that the department should be consulted. Norman said he likes that there’s one award that’s by the faculty that doesn’t worry about the chair and administrators. He added he wouldn’t want to have a more stringent process for lecturers. Pawar said she’s all for the award, and does not believe lecturers should go through a more stringent process, but that maybe all faculty need to go through a more stringent process. She added maybe the criteria could say something like, it would be favorable, but not required, if you had a letter of support from your chair. Esposito said that it would be great to have a separate award for the lecturers but that it needs to go through the process. If we don’t give adequate time, then you’ll have some negative pushback. Let’s take it forward, get the feedback, and let’s roll it out next year and if we felt that other changes were warranted in the awards, we could do it at that time as well. Pawar said if you’re going to have an outstanding lecturer award different from the other awards that there would be different criteria? Do we want different criteria or do we want to look at the others and see what’s holding them back from applying and maybe revise those? Norman said some lecturers might think the existing awards are not accessible to them. He likes the idea of being more inclusive and reaching out. There’s just enough stigma that there may be those who think they could not compete with a tenured professor. Pawar said if we were looking at someone’s C.V. and it said “Outstanding Lecturer Award”, she might think they were outstanding at lecturing. Pawar said it something that would be for the Faculty Policy Committee. Esposito said she would be happy to look at it. Hill summarized that it looks like something we would look to get on the floor ready for implementation in the fall. Hill asked Junn regarding getting Perez WTUs that would have been assigned time for a full-time person, is Gitanjali Kaul the right person to speak with? Junn said Kaul would get guidance from the Faculty Affairs office. Weber said to be sure to make sure that the college counts it towards entitlement for subsequent appointment. Perez asked Weber if she was the one Perez would need to contact with regard to a complete list of faculty for the Senate Chair elections in March/April? Weber said yes.Weber said that there is a live link to the Faculty Handbook which is being reviewed right now by Ashish Sinha and Joyce Chan– and will be sent to Senate Exec. Hill and Norman suggested getting more eyes on it would be good, being those two are from the same college. It was agreed.Junn said with regard to the MPP situation in AA, Bersi stepped down and were looking around at different people who could fill that role with budgetary experience from local campuses. Spoke to a potential candidate. With issues of recalibrating the budget so that we meet our baseline, the decision was made not to rehire for now. Kaul has these skills, not only was she a Vice President at Florida Atlantic, she was also a Vice Provost at Cleveland State. She has had budgetary plus ALO. The stuff that had to do with Toro Learning Center and Student Success is moving to Driscoll. Reimagining First Year – Junn said we’re one of 44 institutions nationwide out of 450 that were selected. It’s being funded by Gates and USA Funds, but they do not give money to individual campuses. We brought a team of 5 including Kaul, Driscoll, Franklin, Oliverez and Junn – there was standing room only. People were amazed that we were able to get so much done in such a short time, moving our first year persistent rate to 93%, the highest we’ve ever seen.Junn and Weber left the meeting. Hill spoke to his bullet points.Chair Hill remarks - Pre & Post Award Task Force Report mentioned at last Senate meeting. President is looking for feedback on this from the Senate by March 15. The Task Force report has a set of recommendations on how to make things better with grants and contracts. Recommendations include things like adding staff in both Foundation and Graduate Studies and Research; having advisory committees; possibly having people work between both offices. The least Senate should do is to critically look through it a bit and provide some feedback. We may need to tease apart parts of it. Maybe what we want is to ask Boyum to present at Senate. Sense of the Senate is what’s being requested. So we’ll need to move quickly on this. Pawar said she would hope that Boyum would give a substantive report. Senate would resolve if this is a good idea and whether or now we want to move forward. The President would decide what/if any hires would be possible. Chancellor’s office has a little bit of money, $50K per campus, to go with a special program for pushing affordable learning. Hill said he spoke with Naomi Moy about it. Campuses have to apply for it and a criterion for getting it is the Senate has to pass a resolution in support of it. It’s well worth going after. Moy will speak to it at the upcoming Senate meeting. Norman said ask her to write a paragraph on it and he would add the language that is common to a resolution. He believed we could make a W* out of it.GWAR and Graduate Students – Kalayjian and Pawar were involved with this. There is a misunderstanding of what the policy was and what was written in the catalog in terms of students fulfilling it. If they were students who had been undergraduates on our campus vs. students who hadn’t seemed to have different requirements when in fact they did not. Kalayjian has proposed a review of catalog copy, not a revision of policy, but it still requires a procedural change. Pawar said the catalog language is confusing but the policy was never actually implemented. Hill believed that it is on its way to being resolved. Esposito asked for more background. Pawar explained that graduate students need to successfully complete the graduation writing assessment requirement to get a degree, their actually supposed to do it by the completion of 9 units. The way they can do that is to successfully a certifying course or to pass the GWE exam at a certain level, but the issue is with the grad e that they needed for the certifying course. The language was ambiguous in the online catalog. Native DH students were required to get a B or better in English 350, an Upper Division undergraduate writing course. Nonnative students were not required to get a B or better in whatever course they had completed as undergraduates on another campus. The procedural issue is that your undergraduate completion of GWAR transferred and satisfied your Graduate completion of GWAR. Procedurally is the data regarding undergraduate GWAR is transmitted into the testing office, the testing office loads it into PeopleSoft and it populates that milestone. You could have gotten at C in Long Beach but if you were a native DH student you would have to get a B. The policy has always has been that every graduate student has to be a B or better in a certifying course, it’s just that that policy was not carried out. Hill sent an email requesting the Deans to present at the upcoming Senate meetings, asking Wen to be the first to present. Esposito asked if guiding questions were given. Senate Exec agreed that it makes sense to give the Deans guidelines on what to talk about, with such as their vision and resources needed. Esposito – It might be a good idea to include a standing/stretch break at 4 PM at the Senate meeting.Parliamentarian Update – A. Perez6 people have volunteered thus far for the Foundation Post Award Advisory Council – 5 of whom meet criteria of having contracts or active grants at the foundation. Hill commented that they’ll need to be an election. Discussion ensued about starting to think about the Chair position for Senate and encouraging others to run. Hill said he would willing to hold the position of Vice Chair in the next academic year.Statewide Update – T. Norman Norman spoke to the two commission meetings he attended. He is on now on the subcommittee for the McAleer Award. Also on the Innovation Committee and looking at our campus proposal for the innovation in extended education award. Norman said he would be able to coach towards having more from our campus apply for this. Esposito asked it were necessary to translate any of the resolutions that were passed at Statewide to our campus, in particular the Inclusion of Part-time Faculty in Orientations? Do we have an existing policy like this? Norman said when it is passed at the system level it is something we’ll need to do. One that Norman said we should be giving attention to is with regard to revising the Constitutional By-Laws but we still have not had the general meeting to do that. Pawar brought up that Cathy Jacob is retiring and there is the issue of whether or not the name of the lounge can be changed. How was it named in the past? Hill thought that Stewart’s office may know. Hal Charnofsky is what it is currently named. Hill said that he and Pawar would work together to find out more information about the name and if it’s possible to change and then put together a resolution. Pawar asked if this could be brought up at every Senate Exec until completion and would like an update on it at next Senate Exec.Brandy McLelland joined the meeting speaking about one of the goals of the Strategic Plan being around enrollment management and creating structure around some of the enrollment management pieces. McLelland presented a draft proposal going forward and they’re looking for Senate appointments for of the committees she’ll be talking about. Recruitment Committee – wanting to involve more of the campus community in deciding how and when we’re going to recruit studentsRetention Committee – we’ve been doing a lot of retention activities, wanting to pool it and making sure we’re not duplicating effortsGraduation Initiative Committee – historically we’ve had to report back to the Chancellor’s office, we do need to provide specific data points to the C.O. Also the cohorts is something we’ll be working on. The 2010 (graduating in 2016) cohort we’re predicting 40% which is an 8% increase in 1 year. The 5 year for the next cohort is only at 10%, 4 year may be only near 6% or 8%.Academic Programs Committee – look at new programs, existing programs and things of that natureThere is a proposed a 4th Committee, which has not been approved yet, and that is the Finance and Financial Aid Committee – this committee would look at how the goals and objectives of enrollment, retention and recruitment committees play out in the financial world, i.e. scholarship wise – how we can use scholarships to recruit. These committees would be governed by a Steering Committee, which would be the Vice President of Enrollment Management, the Provost, the Vice Provost, the Director of IA and McLelland. Currently the proposal is to have all of the committees well populated. Every committee would pull someone from every division to serve on the committee and from the Senate, 1 for each of the 3 committees. Hill asked McLelland if it was a direct ask – her answer yes. Perez asked McLelland to send her an email – McLelland agreed. She said the Recruitment needs to right away – hopefully in March and the other committees would start very shortly after that. We have been meeting with the Deans and departments heads for about 6 months doing some overview of enrollment management as well as some training and education, but just more starting the conversation so that people can jump in knowing where we’re going. Provost Junn - update Junn spoke more on the AASCU event that Junn and several others had attended in Austin, TX on 2/4 – 2/6. They received overwhelmingly positive feedback. She said we’re further ahead than other institutions. Between the Freshman Convocation, Expanded Bridge, advances in advising, the Accelerate for the summer and the Dream Course, many elements are in place here where the other campus maybe have just one of those pieces. When you put it all together including the high impact practices which we have been doing for the last two years and the outreach and engagement with the faculty in a more grass roots way. We’re trying to figure out what we want to do to make progress on because the Reimagine First Year is a three year project and they want us to focus in on what we want to make progress on to be able to report on what those outcomes might be. Initially we had a small group attend this meeting, we will have many more subgroups that will convene and getting more student and faculty involvement once we know what exactly the project might be. National Presses pick this up and a report has been in touch to speak about this to find out what DH is doing on this project.Hagan asked Junn to give an update on where we are with regard to the MS in in Systems Engineering and Music. Junn said each year all campuses are required to fill out a progress report on degrees that are in progress as well as the degrees that may be sun setting or what new programs we want to put forward. This year we wanted to put forth two programs that it turns out the Chancellor’s office is not going to support, a bachelor’s in Music and a Masters in Systems Engineering. Typically they let you know in an email, but in our case the Chancellor decided it was important enough that they wanted to have a conference call with us. On 2/9 Hagan, Junn were on a conference call with the Chancellor, EV Chancellor and Chris Mellon. Most of the time was spent on talking about the Masters in Engineering. The main reason they would not move forward on the Bachelor’s in Music is because the program exceeds 120 units. There are other CSUs across the state who do have the Bachelors in Music and none of them are over 120. The reason it’s over 120 is because our campus is one of the only campuses that does not permit double counting. There is a new GE AdHoc Taskforce that studying some of these issues. The issue with regard to the Masters in Systems Engineering. In a separate conversation it was said that Dominguez Hills needs to have more focus on improving student graduation rates in particularly 4 year rates because of the press’ focus, and the Governor’s focus. They’re concerned that we don’t have the necessary infrastructure to build an advanced degree program at the master’s level when our undergraduate program doesn’t exist. On the call they spoke about having concern about our STEM infrastructure and wanted to know if this degree was being created as a pipeline for our own students. That combination of things is why then Executive Vice Chancellor recommended that we not move the degree forward in that form. Hagan said a lot of this was not helped by the Governors’ budget and the report on the CSUs of the 4 year graduation rates, of which CSUDH is the lowest. We have set probably one of the biggest jumps in the country in terms showing our student success in improving our six year graduation rate. The six year graduation rate for each division assigned by the chancellor is to reach 40% by the year 2025, we will reach it this year, nine years early. President Hagan UpdateHagan continued from Junn’s report that we need to identify the 20-25 thought leaders in the legislature and sit down with them and say, “This is Dominguez Hills, these are our students, this is what we’ve been able to do and this is where we’re successful. They didn’t reject us, they just didn’t support it. They suggest we come back at a later point and take a longer time to get there as opposed to a pilot program. We will continue to have discussions with them about it. With regard to the music program, it seems to be caught up in the general irritation of being a program over 120. Likely they see it as there are 17 schools with the exact same degree and they can get it under 120, why is it that we can’t. Esposito suggested that Dr. Davis or Dr. Hamden would do very well telling our story especially about retention rates with the L-Cap funding. This is year two of L-Cap implementation where we have to spell out the categories and what the performance is. That would be really easy to talk with Assembly people. Even looking at our foster population here. It seems like the story to tell. Hagan agreed, it’s a good story to tell. Hagan referred to EAB Analytics on Enrollment that’s posted on the website that point to 3 factors that have an impact on student success, one is not being prepared. The other is the correlation between high Pell grant folks and the third is unrepresented minorities. There’s a Venn diagram that shows how many students that aren’t in that category and how many are. 57% of our students are in all three. Comparing that to some of the other schools where it’s shown at 0% - 51%. New financial model has said it needs to recognize differential missions and issues impacting a campus. If we have 57% falling in these high risk categories, and other campuses where they’re not impacted at all, and we’re all getting identical funding per full-time equivalent student. This university was moved here to serve a number of school districts that don’t have the resources. Our job is to help students succeed in the timeframe that makes sense to them. Student Fee Advisory Committee has had their meeting and voted on a set of recommendations. The two things they support is an increase in nursing fee and the summer nursing fee which are category 2 fees which mean you either have to do a referendum or alternative consultation. Those, Hagan said, he could go forward with alternative consultation. He will send a copy of the proposal and a copy of the debate and the vote to put out there for discussion to Student Leadership and Faculty Leadership and ask that they discuss it. Today’s newspaper spoke to the $90 fee for the IRA. That was not supported at $90, but was supported at $60 at a vote of 8 to 4. Hagan asked the students about it. He said he was told that some of the students needed to be true to their constituency and had to vote against it. Hagan will also send this out for review.CFA Strike – President will be meeting with CFA the week of the 15th. He said his goal is to minimize the impact it will have on students. Sustainability – received a letter from the President at Cal State Long Beach about a student who was doing her Ph.D. thesis on the role of Higher Education in sustainability and campus leadership in that. Hagan said he set about finding out what we’re doing here at CSUDH about sustainability. Do we do enough in terms of sustainability within the curricula, what’s your sense of sustainability on this campus? Do we need to do more? Hill said when on the hiring committee that hired Fenning – there was a lot of talk about what they were doing what they hadn’t done around new building, and a lot of it was around food services and addressing how we manage take out. Seems like someone we could be talking about it.Lights are off until you walk up to them and then they automatically go onLibrary is award winningWe did such a good job on water conservation already in place before drought restrictionsThe governor had been here when solar panels had been installed for 525-kilowatt solar electric parking canopyWith regard to the curriculum, ASCSB is pushing business schools to put it in the curriculum on the management side. We’re trying to teach future business leaders to consider the bigger global pictureFocus on environmental justiceCAH – perhaps a GE Pathway on environmentalism, maybe a minor or certificate program to start off with.Farmers’ MarketCommunity agriculture (CSA)Hill said we do not have a coordinator that pulls it all together. Hagan said one thing that would be required is that you fund some sort of sustainability coordinator or director but it never rose to the level of priority. We still have to hire the Title IX Director. You do need someone to find out what’s happening. Hagan said he is also exploring what role he should play in all of this? Esposito said with newer buildings would be a definite place to start. What about the committee that plans Earth Day events and interacting with the people as well as promoting it. Hill pointed out the sign for the stairs is very small, and therefore people are more apt to take the elevator in a three story building. Norman said he would bring it up to the incubator committee. Perez said students seemed to have cut down on water bottle usage. Hagan thought that people would want a nonsmoking campus here such as was done in Fullerton. However he had not found support for that initiative here at CSUDH. Pawar pointed out that several trees have been cut down on campus lately and it would be nice to be notified that this is happening and why. Hagan said he also would like to know. You don’t cut down a tree until you’ve given it a lot of thought and it’s the first he’s heard about it. A possible service learning project, do we monitor the air quality here? Industry Cluster Meetings – Had a conversation with someone from the Los Angeles Advisory Council Bring together Aerospace, global logistics, healthcare and higher education folks and have discussions about where are you going as an industry and how does higher education prep for it. They loved the idea and will partner with us in creating this. DH may be the co-sponsor on all of these. Let’s say it was global logistics, we can invite people from the airport, from the Port of LA, from the train system, and invite key faculty starting here and put together panels. LAEDC said they can get the industry people. We can get the higher Ed folks. It’s not just for CSU. If all goes as planned, within a couple of months we’ll see a serious of cluster meetings. With Entertainment, AEG owns LA Live which hosts the GRAMMY Museum, they would likely host an entertainment symposium there.Hill brought up the Diversity and Inclusion Town Hall – Goodwin is putting together of panels and the black student union have asked to meet with Hagen. There was an internal debate within the committee about bringing in a facilitator. Hill passed on information that Walker had given him regarding a potential facilitator, Sherry Snipes – Global Diversity, Violence Initiative – is the prevention of campus violence sufficient enough. The dates are set for both.Meeting adjourned at 5:30 PM. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download