California State University, Dominguez Hills



Academic Senate 1000 E. Victoria Carson, CA 90747 WH-A420 (310) 243-3312 Academic Senate Meeting MinutesMarch 08, 2017LSU 2:30 – 4:30 PMVoting Members Present: Abdourazakou, Avila, Barab, Chun, Cid, Deng, Dotti, Durand, Ferris, Furtado, Grasse, Jarrett, Johnson, Kaplan, Krochalk, Kulikov, Ledesma, Macias, Moore, Oesterheld, Peyton, Price, Riddick, Robles, Shakib, Sneed, Tang, Thomas, Vanderhoef, Vanterpool, VillanuevaVoting Members Not Present: Chavez, Heinze Balcazar, Chavez, Ernst, Haney, Lacanlale, Ladd, Ma, Monty, Nelson, Radmacher, Rodriguez, Tsuno,Voting Ex-Officio Members Present: Dellacioppa, Esposito, Hill, Iheke, Norman, Pawar, PerezVoting Ex-Officio Members Not Present: Hagan, TalamanteNon-Voting Ex-Officio Members Present: Avila, Brasley, Davis, Goodwin, Hay, Kalayjian, LaPolt, Manriquez, McNutt, O’DonnellNon-Voting Ex-Officio Members Not Present: Carrier, Driscoll, Franklin, Huizinga, Poltorak, Sayed, Stewart, Weber, Wen Guests: T. Caron, C. Coward, G. DeVoogd, G. Rhodes2016-2017 Academic Senate Executive Committee:Jim Hill – Chair, Laura Talamante – Vice Chair, Annemarie Perez – Parliamentarian, Sheela Pawar – EPC Chair, Kara Dellacioppa – FPC Chair, Thomas Norman – Statewide Senator, Kate Esposito – Statewide SenatorRecorded and Edited by SEW and the Executive CommitteeMeeting Called to Order2:30 PMApproval of Amended AgendaMSPApproval of 2/22/17 Minutes29/0/2Approval of 2/08/17 Minutes [had not been approved at the 2/22 Senate Meeting] 31/0/1Agenda amended, President Hagan was unable to join the meeting. Agenda accepted.Chair Hill’s Report:Debrief of Senate Chairs MeetingStatewide Senate Chair spoke about the task forces associated with the Statewide Senate, in particular, the Tenure Density Task Force who had met on 2/22, and their deadline for a report was supposed to have been March 1st. They likely will not make that deadline, but there will be a report regarding tenure density for the system. Apparently, that task force sees the role of that report as something that can be used as an advocacy piece with legislators. They want to put a lot into it that would articulate the value of full-time faculty. Hill said he got to mention an idea that came up in the CSUDH Senate, in that rather than just system wide goals or campus goals that there may be ought to be a minimum. There’s an assembly bill that’s been put out there, that while it may not have much chance, it was interesting to hear someone in the assembly just thinking about it requiring tenure density to go up to 75% through the system. GE Task Force met also on 2/22. The perceived role of that task force is pre-emptive regarding legislation that might be proposed or has been proposed basically making the case for how important general education is, and in particular upper division general education, which is something our system prides itself on. That report will probably come out in 2018. Faculty Trustee, Steve Stepanek, talked a lot about the Board of Trustee retreat that they had. Hill commented that the most interesting thing to him and to perhaps to us, was a big part of their retreat which was a piece they called “educate the board”. Letting them know what the responsibilities of the board are, and what the board is supposed to be looking at. Stepanek went through a lot of history of the system. There’s a group called the California Promise, which has proposed the idea of the $48.00 solution whereby if all California taxpayers contributed $48.00 a year, that would be enough to fully fund higher education that would make all the systems tuition free. The plan for actually how to do that would be much more complicated. It would in fact, according to our faculty trustee, require multiple constitutional amendments. The likelihood that this will happen is low, but the fact that legislatures are hearing about it and talking about it is good. We need to figure out how to get access for higher education in the state of California.There was a state of the CSU address from the Chancellor which was videotaped [at the 6 minute point of Part I of the recordings]. Stepaneks’ summary of that address was: We live in uncertain timesWe need to support DACA studentsWe need to reach the graduation initiative 2025 goalsWe need to raise tenure densityWe need more advisingOther things were talked about were meta majors and how meta majors can fit in reaching those graduation initiative goals. This was another time that our campus was referred to as well as our acting Vice Provost Ken O’Donnell, due to his role as the “czar of meta majors”. Other discussion had to do with workload and chairs. Hill said the workload that people have nominally is incredibly varied through the system and through the colleges within the system. Logistic of Enrollment Management – it seemed like there were a few campuses lately that had moved enrollment management from Student Affairs to Academic Affairs. However, there were a few campuses that took the opposite approach. Remainder of the Senate Year – after today there are 4 more Senate meetings this semester and the last one has close out reports and the passing of the gavel. Given our limited time, we started trying to organize what we still need to get done and when. Hill commented that Vice Chair Talamante was really instrumental in organizing it all. Today the VP of IT will be speaking to us. At the next meeting, we will have a summary of the Faculty Climate Survey given by AVP Clare Weber. [Hill misspoke, the Faculty Climate Survey review won’t actually be given until April 26th]. Hill then said since she will be here speaking about the faculty climate survey, she will also provide response to the Senate on tenure density. Fixing and possible minor changes to the Constitution, to address voting in the electronic age and getting the General Faculty to vote, Vice Chair Laura Talamante has been working on this. The process requires us to have either some petition with a very large number of signatures or a resolution proposing the change to the General Faculty so that the General Faculty can vote on the change at a General Faculty meeting. To that end, at the next Senate meeting, there will be one, maybe two resolutions about changing the constitution, which are fixes to language, simple but substantive changes. We would like to star them so that things can get moving along. Since you’ve heard about what they are already we want to bring that forward next time and on April 12th, the first meeting after spring break, we would like to have the first half hour of the Senate meeting become a General Faculty meeting to address those constitutional changes, assuming those resolutions pass on March 22. We will also have Mark Carrier talk to us about Campus Labs which is something we’ve said we wanted to hear about for a while now. While he’s here, he can talk to us a little bit more about WSCUC plans. The Provost will address us with regard to the resolution we had about tenure track lines. That resolution called for a report from the Provost on the process and policies for distribution of tenure track lines between the colleges. We wanted to make that a separate agenda item so that we make time for a full discussion. That will also be on April 12. April 26th, we will have a report on Strategic Plan from the President’s office. We’ll also be hearing more about administrative reviews to address some of the feedback the VP of Administration & Finance along with AVP Deborah Roberson-Sims received when they presented at the Senate in February. They’ve also received more feedback since then, so they’ll be coming back to update us on how they’re incorporating the input we’ve given them. The VP of Administration and Finance with several other people got together a full charge for the Parking and Transportation Advisory Committee. The Chief of Police will be chairing that committee as an ex officio non-voting member. They’ll be asking for three students from ASI, at least one of those students would live on campus; they’ll be three faculty appointed by the Senate, including one lecturer. This is not the official call, but it will be out imminently and work towards getting a meeting going this semester. There will be two staff representatives, including one non manager and one MPP. Those will be selected from nominations by the VPs. There will be a representative from the Student DisAbility Resource Center. The Director of Facility Planning and the AVP of Administration will be ex-officio non-voting members on that committee. Some of what they’ll be looking at will beUse and allocation of parking spaces (faculty and staff parking)Strategies and Incentives to develop and enhance alternative transportationDevelopment of long term strategies in accordance with the Campus Master PlanParking issues and concernsProvost Hay’s ReportHay said he attended Paramount Studios that morning along with the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation that for a joint speaker series that LAEDC and Dominguez Hills are hosting. This was on the entertainment industry, the last one was on cyber security and there’s one more left on robotics and those kinds of things. They’re really good for us, it gets Dominguez Hills out in front of the community. We did have in the series of speakers one of our students who went on to graduate school at USC. Hay said what was talked about today were some of the things within the entertainment industry that maybe you don’t always think about. For example, some of the legal aspects for which there was an entertainment attorney; we talked a little bit about technology, and then we also talked about the changes in media, what they’re calling Generation Z and how they’re on more mobile devices. It may actually colors the way we view teaching going forward. If the students want to be on their mobile device – we spoke about building out technology and IT on campus. We talked about how there’s a huge increase in people watching T.V. and people going to the movies, where they thought at one point and time that they had saturated that market, and in fact it’s continuing to expand. The last speaker spoke about the diversity in Hollywood. The shows that seem to be more profitable right now are the shows that have more diversity in them. So hopefully that will continue to change. If diversity makes money, then maybe we have a chance. And with Dominguez Hills at the table and down there, then they can see that Dominguez Hills can help. The Provosts of the system had a two-day meeting last week at LAX. Budgeting – we discussed valuing the system in different ways and wondered why we can’t fund it in better termsThe Chancellor came to speak to us and spoke to us about a variety of things. One of them was about the new Secretary of Education De Vos. He brought up that she was meeting with the HBCUs. The HBCUs were forwarding as a priority summer PELLs which is an issue that we all talk about, namely how to we fund the students to get through the summer. If that’s an issue that may be listened to, then that’s a good thing for us. The Chancellor stated that there are five areas that the CSU’s are really looking to participate in.Ensure that we can enroll students in all the courses when they need themUse data to identify academy support to ensure the students are taking the right classesEnsure financial aid is provided to all students in need Identify and remove barriersProvide all CSU students the opportunity to complete 30 units before starting their second yearAt the Provost meeting with regard to educating our Board of Trustees, we did talk about student demographics, the more the BOT know about us, the better they can represent us. Some of the statistics were interesting. The average age of the student in the system is 22, a little older here at Dominguez Hills. The youngest in our system is 11 and the oldest is 94.Graduation Initiative: In trying to get the graduation rates up by 2025, some of the programs we’ve been using to do that and some of CSUDH faculty have been participating in like the bottle neck course initiative, where faculty ask to redesign a course to try to remove a bottleneck. They’re going to change that a little bit going forward so that instead of it being an individual effort, its department based. Instead of saying there’s an individual who would really like to change a course, they would really like the departments to get involved and say we would like to change this particular piece of our curriculum. They want to make sure we map those courses to the DFWs because in the past people would say they just want to redesign the course to make it better, they want to map it to this kind of highly productive issue of these high DFW rates. The other thing is instead of going for a 12 month term, they’ll change it to a 24 month term. The departments will have two years to implement this instead of just one year. We’re going away from the CSU Mentor program and instead to Cal State Apply. We’ll get more out of the Cal State Apply system which will go into effect June 1st. It doesn’t affect the undergraduate programs as much as it does the graduate program going into the fall. We’re working with those departments it will affect to make sure there’s a seamless transition. Ganesh Ramen, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research was at the Provost meeting. Even though we see a little bit of reduction in available dollars, the CSU has increased the amount of research. In 2015-16, the CSU participated in $575 million in grant research. They did a joint publication list from 2011 to 2016 and the CSU faculty did 7,000 joint publications with the U.C. In that same period the CSU did approximately 33,000 publications on their own. If people don’t think the CSUs are a research organization, they’re wrong. Statewide Committee UpdatesCouncil of Library Deans (COLD) met, the CSUs are moving into a more unified system and some of the subscriptions whose rates have been increasing. As they move towards a more unified system, some of those subscriptions increases can be mitigated across the system, which could save around $500,000 a year.The Center for the Advancement and Instruction in Quantitative Reasoning is going forward. It will be at the Chancellor’s office and they’ll be looking for a faculty member to be the director of that. They’re still tweaking the job description, but what they’re looking at is probably someone who would do a three year job commitment at the Chancellor’s office. It will be academic year appointment but they’ll probably buy that person out in the summer as well. Academic Human Resources Assistant Vice Chancellor, Margaret Merryfield was there. She spoke about training for folks in administrative posts. Last year they had some 70 deans attend training, they would like to continue that this year. Things like; practical ways to handle conflict, budgeting; the kind of things Deans get involved with. They also talked about the Chairs Institute. They had 188 sign-ons for the Chairs Institute. That’s an online program where you can go and they have different issues. If you have an issue you can look it up, if it’s on the chart sometimes there’s a little video and something there. They’ll be sending out a list in April which will let us know whose participated and also let us know who didn’t participate and make sure they know it’s available. Legislative day next week in Sacramento that Hay said he would be attending advocating for CSU. Budget - $157 million in Governors budget and we requested $343 million. We look at a lot of different statistics on campus and yesterday at the University Budget Committee meeting we talked about the cost of our success by getting students to take more units to graduate earlier, the mean unit goes up and cost us more. The students are there, they’re already paying maximum classes, and they’re taking more classes. So we’re teaching more classes, but our tuition dollars stay the same. That’s just one of the things we’ll be talking about. All the things we’re concerned we’ll be bringing forward and letting legislatures know about that. Q&ASenator Price said she wanted to discuss the food options in Loker Student Union. What she has heard is that Club 1910 will be closed and replaced with a Starbucks? And that Johnnies is going to be replaced with a Pizza Hut and that Toro takeout is going to be closed. Price said she’s a little in shock and was under the impression we were trying to move towards healthy foods and this seems like a move in the absolute opposite direction. Hill said that he believed that the VP of Administration & Finance had a response. VP Goodwin said they will not be closing nor have something in place of them open up. The Foundation Board has charged dining services with evaluating all of the existing options on campus and make some recommendations to the Foundation Board, but we have not completed that review so there is no action that is pending relative to a decision on any of those. Price asked how can faculty have an input on any this. Students and staff as well, we all live here. Goodwin said that Richard [Chester] is looking to reconvene the food committee/dining services committee. But specific to options that might be brought forward, there will be opportunities to provide input to that. Not sure when, as she wasn’t sure when the report will come forward, but it will not be a “secret” report. There will not be anything that happens without the opportunity to provide input. Hill said he recalls that there was a committee to talk about food before, they may have met only one or two times. Hill asked if they’re considering making that a regular committee. And also, as a bit of information, Hill said he personally spoke to Chester about the possibility of getting students, maybe in bio-chemistry or in one of the health sciences to work for credit at some point, but that can only get going during the school year. Hill asked if Goodwin knew anything about that. Goodwin said she doesn’t know anything about the last piece, but that we’re absolutely looking at making it a more permanent committee because it’s an ongoing situation obviously and it would be really helpful to have ongoing involvement. If for some reason we do not get a committee formed prior to a recommendation coming forward, then we would look to get feedback on an ad hoc basis. It will not happen over the summer when people are gone, we’re definitely looking to have broad conversation about this. Hill asked VP Goodwin if she would relay to Richard Chester that if he would like help putting together a charge for the committee so that he can interface with the academic side, Senate Exec offers to help him. Second ReadingEPC 16-16 Credit by Exam, EPC Chair Sheela PawarA motion was made to untable EPC 16-16 so that it could come back for discussion. Motion passed unanimously. Pawar pointed out a few changes that were made since the last time it was brought to the floor. Pawar discussed the new language was added for clarificationLine 16Before the first day of classesLine 30-32 Successful students will receive unit credit in keeping with the units associated with regular course. Rationale: additional information was added, particularly pertaining to some of the ethical issues that were raised by some of the various practices with credit by exam.Senator Vanterpool said with regard to lines 22 and 23 “in accordance with policies applicable to regular course enrollment”, it’s not clear to me what that means. It seems vague. Pawar said some courses cannot be taken as credit/no credit. Some of them, for example philosophy 120 is A – C/no credit. If a student wanted to take Philosophy 120 as a challenge for example, they could not take it A – F. Vanterpool asked if these courses are identified somewhere? Pawar responded, “according to this policy, they would need to be identified.” Resolution was brought to a vote: Resolution passes 29/0/3EPC 17-02 Undergraduate Declaration of Major/Minor, EPC Chair Sheela PawarPawar said they made some changes in response to discussion in the last Senate meeting. For example, what is now the fifth resolve, what was added was to clarify what is both the responsibility of the University Advisement Center and the various Departments in advising students responsibly. In the fourth resolved, there was an issue raised by Senator Monty, regarding students that were simply changing options or concentrations and since that seems like something that individual departments would need to speak to we added, “students changing options or concentrations within a major must obtain department approval but do not need to petition.” Resolution was brought to a vote:Resolution passes 33/0/1FPC 17-03 Resolution on Academic Freedom and Free Speech, FPC Chair Kara Dellacioppa Senator Norman also provided a copy of the CSU resolution on Academic Freedom. Dellacioppa asked if the other policy was passed by the Chancellor’s office – is that correct? Norman responded that the Chancellor’s office and CFA will now collectively bargain the issue of Academic Freedom. The Senate has spoken on what our preferences are. As Chair of this committee it would be very exciting to see a campus like ours also add weight to the need to make sure that we have a system-wide policy protecting academic freedom for all faculty. Hill clarified, that Thomas Norman, as Chair of the system-wide Faculty Affairs Committee. Dean LaPolt asked on lines 21 – 23, when you’re speaking about faculty autonomy. In fact there are significant restraints in terms of the production and dissemination of research and in thinking about IRB IACOOK, whether its federal, state or campus regulations, I know that’s not your intent to say that those don’t count, but how do you reconcile these statement as it is with those realities? Dellacioppa said that perhaps we can include a footnote acknowledging those regulations for research that you have to follow IRB. Hill suggested possible language to address LaPolt’s concern and staying with the intent. Statewide Senator Norman proposed an amendment, line 23, “should not be subject to institutional restraint beyond what is required by federal and state law?” Senator Shakib said no, that’s very broad. She said she would try to keep it with the ethical guidelines of the IRB and whatever others that LaPolt mentioned. Dellacioppa said she agreed. Vanterpool proposed a friendly amendment, of lines 31 – 33, suggesting this resolve. He said he was not sure if we had an intellectual property policy on campus that will inform us about how that pertains to this resolve. He said his suggestion would be to end with “to meet course-learning outcomes.” He said he’s not sure whether we do have an intellectual property policy on campus which will inform us on how that pertains to this resolve. He said he does recommend that the Senate consider coming up with a campus policy on intellectual policy. It’s becoming more and more crucial given new course designs and using online instruction where people put a lot of work into redoing courses, whose property is it? Dean Avila said he had a question with regard to lines 30 and 31. He said he has a few concerns in particular with the line that reads the “sole purview of the faculty in order to meet course-learning outcomes”. “For example,” Avila said, “suppose a department has collectively decided that all members of the department will adopt a common syllabus, use common readings, a common textbook, as part of the strategy to improve the DFW rate. For those faculty who decide not to follow this, they would be protected by this policy.” The other part that concerns Avila he said was most of what faculty are disciplined for has to do with not the things they do, but words that they say that are actions. Avila gave an example of a time earlier in his career when he was a faculty member as part of the philosophy department, he was part of review of a faculty member who was teaching a business ethics course. It had been said that this faculty member was using the business ethics course to talk about sexuality. After reviewing the course material, people raised questions and it was determined that it really wasn’t a business ethics class at all and the faculty member was dismissed. Avila said he understands what motivates this section and that faculty are the experts about the content area. He said he’s worried about this section. He’s said he’s also worried about how we evaluate each other and how possible peer review processes work that allow us to say, that person is not actually doing what the discipline says they should do with this arena and the same thing for the autonomy of departments to determine what they would like to see done in classes. Dellacioppa said there is language about it in the collective bargaining agreement with regard to this. Vanterpool said the issue the Dean raised is relevant. But in terms of these courses being approved, let’s say we approved a business ethics course, it would go through the curriculum review process with syllabi’s and the review bodies would pick up what is really being covered in the course. A lot of the problems could be cured there, before the course was even taught. Certainly there is the possibility of that a faculty member do his or her own thing in total disregard for the approved syllabis that had gone through the curriculum review process. Dean Avila said he had no general concern with that, with faculty taking ownership of their classes and exercising their autonomy. He is concerned about a review process that could be short circuited by an appeal to academic freedom. He said that he did not think academic freedom ought to protect some of these instances. Senator Robles said there is an policy on intellectual property, it’s PM 01-04 passed September 24th, 2001 when President Lyons was here. She commented that it is quite lengthy, a lot of time was spent on it, but it probably needs to be revisited. Statewide Senator Esposito said she’s always concerned when we try to craft policy to prevent the one rogue person or the outlier. She said in looking at this, we should assume, that faculty are going to be well-intentioned and not trying to prevent the one or two outliers. Shakib said you can talk about sexuality in a business ethics course. She added as long as you’re meeting the course objectives for the class, you should not be allowed to do tell them what is important for the course objectives. Avila said he’s particularly concerned about things we do with words. Speech is one thing, when you think about it abstractly as if you were publishing an article in the Journal. But when you think about speech as an action, as something that words that do things. One of the things you can do with speech is create a hostile classroom, you can create a hostile workplace. One of the concerns about our students, and about our faculty and protecting diversity on campus, has to do with addressing these issues. Avila reiterated that he’s very much in favor of academic freedom and supports it whole heartedly in his role as Dean. But also does not want to conflate a sort of carte blanc ability to say do whatever you like in every context in the university because in some of those contexts, words become actions and those words create hostile learning environments for our students. Dellacioppa said she wanted to go back to what the spirit of the resolution was. She said it’s about protecting faculty from overreach by administration and extra institutional forces that try to limit the academic freedom and free speech of faculty. Price said that intent here is about intellectual property as well as protecting the ability of a faculty member to create materials which do have to be okayed at some point. But, if there’s a hostile environment that has to be dealt with, but it’s a separate issue. Price said she wanted to refer to article 39 in the collective bargaining agreement that does provide some language that echoes this resolution. It seems well within our rights to talk about the protection of the classroom and course pedagogy. If there’s an infringement of the learning outcomes and student rights, there would be actions that are taken to investigate, but that should not infringe on the protection of faculty to create course materials. Vanterpool said now that Senator Robles has identified an existing PM he would like to withdraw his amended language and keep the resolution as stated and if the policy needs to be looked at with fresh eyes, let’s go there. Pawar said referring back to line 31, she believed that the word faculty is ambiguous. It could mean faculty as a whole or it can mean an individual faculty member. When we say that the curriculum is the purview of the faculty, we generally mean as a whole. Because we have faculty committees that do these things. She added she does not think that appealing to course learning outcomes helps because course learning outcomes are the purview of the faculty as well. Pawar said she doesn’t know what the right language is, but if we could rewrite this resolve in a way that doesn’t use the phrase purview of the faculty, that might be helpful. Hill asked if Pawar believed the intent there the intent of an individual faculty member. Pawar said the way that she read it was that the intention was to protect the rights of individual faculty members. But the rights of individual faculty members exist within departments, and within institutions that have made rules that curtail what those might be. Pawar recommended that we look at that more carefully. Dellacioppa said this was about the protection of faculty in general; individually and decided policies by committees. This is a general statement on academic freedom and supporting it in the climate that we’re all living in right now. Dellacioppa said this is more than just what goes on in the classrooms. This is about a faculty member being able to express themselves. This is a broader issue. We’re talking about a faculty member’s ability to express their ideas. Hill said this resolution is not calling for a specific new policy, it is making a generic statement. Norman said when we use the term faculty, it’s a broad term. If we want to say faculty member, we should say faculty member. Norman said he does not believe lines 31 and 32 read probably and would suggest we change it to “and shall not be influenced or abridged by any intellectual property concerns made by institutional or extra-institutional influence”. Dellacioppa accepted it as a friendly amendment. Hill read Durand’s (who had to run off to class) a suggested amendment for line 31 to read “department faculty”. Dellacioppa responded that there are programs too. Senator Iheke asked for examples of what was meant in line 16 by “beyond the classroom to include extra-mural activities”. Dellacioppa said she was referring to speaking at conferences, forums, city council meetings or just informal groups. Faculty play a lot of roles and sometimes they’re speaking, but not in the role of faculty, for instance it could be the PTA. The institution would not be able to reprimand you for something you say outside in a public or private space. Vanterpool said he believes the intent of the resolution goes to a general policy. So instead of trying to wordsmith things here that takes us in continuous circles. Let’s keep it generically as faculty and understanding that individual faculty may do things on a case by case basis that needs attention and not allow those kinds of situation guide how we frame a general policy. Senator Peyton said she agrees with the spirit of the resolution, but in your remarks about faculty and faculty freedoms and as much as she is in agreement with that in a philosophical way, she belongs to a program that has external review that require us that we demonstrate that we’re answering their standards for each course. It makes it a little tricky if faculty have the sense that they can make a huge number of changes on a syllabus, because the program is pretty tightly packed, it affects our national board scores. Maybe the health science situation is a little unique, but Peyton said she wanted to speak to that commentary so that people are aware that not all have that freedom. Dellacioppa said she believed that people that are in departments that have external review, they’re educated in the standards of those disciplines. She said to her that’s a different issue than academic freedom if someone isn’t meeting course requirements. It’s a separate thing. Every program has learning outcomes, they have standards, some have accreditation, and others don’t. You have to meet those standards in order to survive, but if someone says something political, they shouldn’t be reprimand them for that. Everyone has a right who have their opinions. Hill said we did not resolve what to do with the clause regarding research. Senator Cid said we do need to have the ability to be private citizens and say what we want. But there are also things we say that do create hostile environments for the students that we’re supposed to serve. If we are saying things that are creating hostile environments than I believe that’s a problem. FPC Committee member Caroline Coward offered that resolution is about protecting individual and faculty as a group to be able to do research in whatever area they want to do it in and not have an external force say no you can’t do research in that area or no you can’t craft your syllabus the way you want. Vanterpool called the question. Dellacioppa they could put in a note that acknowledges that faculty abides by the existing policies of the institution for conducting research. Hill said that would be a footnote, which you would consider a friendly amendment consisting with Dean LaPolt’s remarks. Resolution was put to a vote as stands, except for footnote addressing LaPolt’s earlier suggestion. Resolution passes by a vote of 28/0/1University Writing Committee Chair Siskanna Naynaha, at the invitation of Chair Hill, brought before the Senate that there was catalog copy related to GWAR that the UWC wants to make sure is consistent with current policy. Naynaha shared two document, one of which is the catalog copy with the actual markup showing the changes that were made and the other are pages from the Academic Affairs manual. One with a specific statement pertaining to graduate level GWAR, and one is the relevant page from the other policy with the relevant details on it. Naynaha said that almost all of the changes made were simple editing changes, for example eliminating passive voice where she thought it created confusion or to correct inaccurate information. The SDRC has a new name, update the name, new phone numbers and the names of office. That constitutes the vast majority of the changes that were made. The exception to that was on page two of the GWAR policy, item #3 which has a new statement. It used to state “an earned degree from one of the CSU campuses, other than CSUDH, with the GWAR having been satisfied in 1984 or later at the previous CSU campus. Naynaha said the reason we have addressed that change is because the old catalog copy codified an inequity between the treatment graduate students who are native to Dominguez Hills and graduate students who came from other CSUs or other institutions. To add further explanation, Naynaha explained that native CSUDH graduate students were held to the standard to the standard of a “B” in a GWAR certifying course in order to meet the GWAR while students from other CSUs or other institutions were held to the standard of a “C”, the fact that we are required to accept GWAR certification from other CSUs. Do to the issue of transferability, we were required to accept the “C”. Hill noted that this had been discussed quite a bit last year, but for those who weren’t, Naynaha might want to go on a little bit more. Naynaha continued, while the policy internally was consistent in implementation, there was an inequity in place and that the catalog copy was changed slightly in order to articulate the practice which actually is out of alignment with our stated policy. Our work on this catalog copy is strictly intended to bring the catalog copy for the new 2017-2018 catalog into alignment with existing policy at Dominguez Hills. Part of the impetus for making these changes came out of a proposal by Graduate Council last academic year to change graduate level GWAR requirements. This is not intended to disrupt any additional proposals or work that they may be doing. It’s simply to address the catalog copy until we do have a new proposal on the table and potentially begin working on crafting a new policy for graduate level GWAR. Peyton asked when is the catalog copy due. Naynaha responded according to Tracey Haney, she will be sending out pieces to various entities on campus who are responsible for the copy in their particular areas, sometime in April. The goal is to have the catalog live online sometime in May. Senator Furtado asked Naynaha to help her understand, as the discourse we had last time is we were conflicting between other institutions accepting “C” as a comparable appropriate score for GWAR and in the graduate program using “B” or better. But now, with this clarification are still saying that if you come with a “C” from a different institution, you’re good to go in the graduate programs. That was the bone of contention in the Grad Council too. EPC Chair Pawar responded one of the issues in the past was the assumption that transferability of GWAR meant that an undergraduate certifying course could be used to satisfy graduate level GWAR. But transferability doesn’t work from undergraduate to graduate. Transferability is between undergraduate institutions. So if you’re at Long Beach to get a Bachelors and you transfer to Dominguez Hills to get a Bachelors. But not from an undergraduate to your graduate. Peyton said she was not entirely clear on why the Graduate Council has not been involved in this conversation at a deeper level. People who have bene in this room for a while remember that there are a couple of resolutions, one that gave authority to the UWC to make decisions about writing across the curriculum graduate and undergraduate. And another resolution that was tabled that has yet to be brought forward. Both of those resolutions are connected to what this change is proposing. Peyton said in all fairness to the graduate programs, we need to have a conversation between the committees before this moves forward. Peyton continued that she brought a copy of part of the catalog from Long Beach and was unclear about why we have so many complications for student to matriculate into graduate programs here, when in other institutions within our same system have a very simple three sentence requirement. None of it has to do with taking undergraduate courses to qualify to take graduate course work other than a baccalaureate degree from an accredited institution. When we’re talking about the graduate initiative and wanting students to enter and finish quickly and not put a lot of barriers in their way, “when I look at this, I see a big problem.” She continued that the graduate programs unanimously voted in Graduate Council this year to not agree to the language that is in this proposal. Naynaha said there is no proposal before the Senate today. Peyton said she realized that Naynaha brought this before Senate as a courtesy, however, Peyton said, she believes there’s a little impropriety here. Hill said the committees need to speak with each other, the catalog does need to reflect what the policy is now. There’s a good argument that the policy might need to be changed, but that has not happened. Hill said to Peyton, I think you’re addressing things that would be policy change. Peyton responded that she and Dean Huizinga has asked to bring this issue forward to Senate but we have not been given time. She added she’s spoken to the EPC Chair Pawar about this issue and she is coming to Grad Council in April, so there has been attempt on Grad Council’s part to resolve this issue. Naynaha responded that the UWC looks forward to having those conversations and agree that the GWAR policy at CSUDH can absolutely use some retooling. Hill said we can have the Graduate Council come to Senate and we would like to and we have discussed that before.IT Presentation – VP Technology, Chris Manriquez Manriquez gave an update to the Senate about the many changes that are occurring within IT including changes in structure, reporting, and new processes. University Printing Services moving from Administration and Finance to the IT GroupReprographicsCopy CenterCopier ProgramDistance Education and Mediated Instruction moving from Extended Education to the IT GroupDHTV LMS SupportDigital Media Support OpportunitiesToro Innovation Incubator – there has been an Incubator Task Force started up by the President and now we’re looking what we would do with incubations. One of the major things that many institutions have put in place for students to get the idea of a start-up going. The ideation of taking it from a business model to where it can get funded. Manriquez said he’s guiding that and working with Interim Director Gary Polk of CBAPP.Announcements: MS Office 365Available for no cost to faculty, staff, studentsCSU HR/CS Split/Upgrade Project To begin first week of May Go-live first weekend in Nov 2017Freeze on modifications and additions to HR and Student AdminAbsence Management (we are the 23rd out of 23 campuses to be upgrading to absence management)Training begins in next two weeks by role Time keepers, approvers, and usersGo Live during the last week of MarchCSU Campus Technology EffortsCSU CalState OnlineReza is working with many of the college Associate Deans for those who have programs on CalState Online. The pages that are out there may not be reflective of what departments on our campus may want them to look like. CSUDH PolicyCSU Cal State Online Web updatesLMS SelectionsOur contract with Blackboard expires this summer so we’re looking more closely and going through an evaluative process looking at the big three or four that are out there. Right around the beginning of April we’ll be sending out communication naming the three are. The Chancellor’s office has already secured NEAs for all of the large vendors of LMSs so we can leverage the NEAs for pricing.CSUDH campus LMS selectionEvaluations in early AprilCSU LMS work with DoFIt had been brought up here in the Senate regarding discussion of a system-wide LMS. The new CIO for the System, Patrick Perry, who had come from community colleges where over the last four years the community colleges moved to a common LMS canvas for all of the community colleges. He has proposed that for the CSUs. The discussion around the idea is that it would be additive funding to the CSU in order to move to an LMS that would be common across the CSU. If the Department of Finance is willing to fund such a thing in order to bring down the friction from students that are coming from community colleges so there is a common LMS experience with that, if it’s something they’re interested funding, it’s been proposed to them in that format. September 28th – Technology in Education Conference – with speakers from the outside. Also will be reaching out to the colleges for a call for proposals. Efforts: Manriquez said he’s currently in discussions with CISCO, LinkedIn and the City of LA largely around data projects in getting some funding in toolsets to support some of our academic programs. Graduation Initiative 2025 Technology Ecosystem – looking at not only the way in which we handle process, but the systems that are behind each one of those processes. We’re looking more closely at what students interface with as they move towards graduation, like degree planning, College Scheduler, PeopleSoft. University Data & Analytics Framework – the questions we’re being asked now from many different locations are very different than they have been over the last three to five years. We’re pulling together groups from all over campus and ask questions that in addition to accreditation, in addition to the CSU, in addition to the legislature, where else are we getting questions and what other information do we want to have answers for and how can we build an underlying framework about those questions so that we can reuse them on campus for multiple purposes. Architecture for Digital Pathways – this is the way the university has its presence online. When you go look at our website, is it responsive. Does it have a lot of ways to deal with the processes and transactions online so you don’t have to physically come to campus to deal with these things, And can we do it in a way that where we still do high touch where it’s necessary, but the key is, where it’s necessary, i.e. buying a parking pass – high touch is not necessarily necessary. We really want to high touch to happen in academic environments. Q&ASenator Price asked about CM1 – she said she believes that we could all agree that the present software for our webpages is lacking user friendly ways of updating our webpages. Manriquez said our contract with CM1 expires the end of this year, or the beginning of next year. We are beginning to look at what are additional toolsets that we could potentially use such as Droogle. A majority of that effort will be running through University Advancement, we’re working in conjunction with them. Price said that faculty input, beyond the IT Committee would be really helpful. Price then asked about the Printing Shop and said the Print Shop used to be a place that was open and did really great work. And now there’s a lot of hoops to jump through and now seems kind of opaque to request printing. How can we address this? Manriquez said we’re addressing that right now by creating a digital front end so that you can go and actually submit whatever type of job you wish directly through a web interface. You have that capability and there will be an individual you can contact if you have additional jobs beyond that without having to physically be here on campus. Price asked when that will be starting. Manriquez said his anticipated start date is 85 days from now. Vanterpool asked with regard to the department and college webpages. Is there a university wide plan in place with timelines to do something about upgrading the websites that we have. These websites need a certain kind of uniform look that makes the university look great and our departments look great. Right now this is a matter of promoting our departments, websites are a tool we should be able to use to promote and I don’t think right now we can. Manriquez said he would tend to agree with Vanterpool. We have been transitioning from a website that was relevant in the 80s a few years ago to the current one we have. And then the current one we have needs some major upgrades to itself, a lot of it has to do with the content populated and the difficulty of populating that content. Manriquez said the new AVP for Marketing and Communications, John Axtel has been looking at how can we have a digital presence that’s common and be able to make it with some level of ease of use for staff and faculty to populate some pages. Whether that requires additional resources to be able to accomplish that or whether that’s a tool directly you can populate in some way shape or form, we’re looking at that now. Hill said we’ll have your presentation on our website and people have your contact information. Additionally for support around most of the academic technology pieces, people can contact Reza Boroon, rboroon@csudh.edu.Parliamentarian Report, Annemarie Perez - The campus will be getting an email in the next week about the nomination and signature process for both the next Academic Senate Chair and for the Statewide Senator. We will be sending out nomination forms. Due to the changes in the definition of General Faculty, there are almost 1000 faculty. 5% would require 51 signatures. In addition to signatures, we’ll also be requiring printed names. FPC Chair, Kara Dellacioppa said there are a lot of things in the pipeline including and RTP packet that she just met with AVP Weber on yesterday about putting all the RTP documents in one packet that can be distributed to all faculty. We may be reintroducing the Chairs Council resolution that was introduced a few years ago and edit it to make it a standing committee of the Senate. EPC Chair Pawar – EPC meets Tuesday, 3/14. You’re welcome to join us. We are working on policy proposals for undergraduate Plan B, super seniors, course modality, and advising holds. Statewide Senate Report – Statewide Thomas Norman said we will be at the State Plenary meeting next week. There is a resolution before us on exploring ways to give great security to lecturers. If anyone has any interest in that, please reach out to them.CFA Report, CFA Co-President Vivian PricePrice said she sent out a survey link, it’s a lecturer pay survey. What they’re trying to do is understand how lecturer experience pay at Dominguez Hills verses other institutions. It’s an anonymous survey. Please see that link and send it to lecturers in your department or ask your chairs to ask lecturers to fill it out. We don’t want to see our lecturers have to teach at many institutions. Our lecturers constitute more that 60% of our ranks. And we don’t want to lose our lectures to other CSUs because they get paid better at other campuses. Board of Trustees will be voting on the fee increase for students on March 22. Please come and support students at the Chancellor’s office in Long Beach. If you have any time between 8 and 1 pm. Lobby Day is April 16th, 17th, 23rd and 24th. We’re going to District Legislature to discuss why we should get more towards the request of $343 million and not the Governors $157 million. We’ll provide training on how to talk to your legislatures. The Equity Interrupted Report will be discussed. Please share this with your students. Steering Committee Meeting March 20th from 2 – 4 pm, in WH Room 303.Price said she also will attend the delegates meeting on March 20th in Burbank. It’s a great place to meet unionized workers who are janitors, teachers, iron workers, actors; its an amazing place, very educational. If you want to come with her or if you would like to be a delegate, let Price know. May 1st they’re working towards having a big turnout for May Day. Cynthia Villanueva said that the CFA would like to bring the Pension and Benefits workshop as regularly as they can. Tuesday, May 2nd from 12 – 3 pm in LSU 326 and 327. Even if your retirement is way off, it’s a good time to educate yourself. Meeting adjourned. ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download