ASCSU Report on March 2019 Plenary

CSU Faculty Innovation & Leadership Awards (FILA)

Nominations for the CSU Faculty Innovation & Leadership Awards (FILA) are being accepted to recognize faculty who demonstrate leadership or advance student success programs to improve degree completion or eliminate equity gaps. 23 awardees across the CSU will be honored and presented with $5,000 cash awards and $10,000 will be allocated to their academic departments to support awardee activities.

Deadline for nominations: May 3, 2019.

General Education (GE) Task Force Report Feedback

In May, ASCSU will consider two second reading resolutions, each of which provides different advice to the 2019-20 ASCSU Executive Committee. One acknowledges receipt of the report and refers it to our Academic Affairs (AA) and Academic Preparation and Education Programs (APEP) committees for their review.  The other recommends that the ASCSU create a new standing subcommittee on General Education Program Review for the CSU system and refer the report to that committee for completion. The ASCSU will decide which path to recommend. Any recommendations the full ASCSU approves will be forwarded to the Chancellor for final approval and inclusion in system-wide GE policy.

ASCSU developed a feedback page for comments on the GETF Report. Required information includes your name and role in the university (faculty, student, administrator, etc). Responses to the survey over 4500 words should be emailed as a single PDF to ascsuoffice@gmail.com Please include your name and status (faculty, student, administrator, community member, etc.) at the beginning of the document.

Survey results and documents will be posted weekly to a public Dropbox folder accessible here.​

Resolutions Passed

  1. Request for Action on Infringement of Faculty Intellectual Property responds to the actions of organizations such as Course Hero which publish class notes, etc. without permission of the faculty who create them. It requests that the Chancellor’s Office staff help to educate students about related law, provide faculty with means to stop the appropriation of their intellectual property, block web sites that violate the law, and pursue legal action when appropriate.
  2. Border Issues and Separation of Families: Impact on Students, Faculty and Staff in the CSU calls upon the CSU to continue to support immigrant students, faculty and staff and increase programs to support these communities.
  3. 2019 Legislative Advocacy Positions of the Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) is self-explanatory and allows the Fiscal & Governmental Affairs and Executive Committees to represent formal positions as legislation moves forward in this legislative session. Positions of “support”, “oppose” or “no position” were discussed on bills of potential interest and impact for the ASCSU. Significant discussion was had about what to do when the body supports the intent of proposed legislation but opposes legislative intrusion into issues appropriately left to campuses and faculty.
  4. Support for AB 829 (Bloom) and the Occupational Therapy Doctorate (OTD) in the CSU supports granting authority for the CSU to offer this professional doctoral degree. It was felt that strong support early in the legislative process was important, hence the second reading waiver. This resolution amplifies the support position in the legislative advocacy resolution (see above). This bill is currently moving forward rapidly.
  5. Flexibility in the Implementation of Early Start calls for flexibility to meet the different needs of students attending the 22 campuses offering Early Start, including delaying some proposed curricular changes until they have been proven effective. It was deemed urgent because campuses are already well into the process of preparing for next summer’s Early Start programs.
  6. Support for a Higher Education Facilities Bond Act amplifies the support position in the legislative advocacy resolution (see above).The current budgetary practice of paying for CSU infrastructure using yearly budget allocations does not allow for the needs of the CSU to adequately be addressed. The general obligation bond being contemplated would address critical infrastructure needs and is a very high priority for the CSU.

The following topics may be included on the May plenary agenda:

  1. Resolution Rejecting the February 2019 General Education Task Force Report asks that no action be taken on the report and that it be referred to a new subcommittee, the GE Program Review Committee, for completion
  2. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on Higher Education includes a white paper on the impact of AI on employment, education, etc. and calls for the creation of a task force to study the implications of the themes from this white paper and to develop possible recommendations to address them. (Referred by to committee).
  3. Request that the ASCSU Schedule an Unconscious Bias Training in September 2019 requests completion of the training that began this year.
  4. Endorsement of the Student Success White Paper 2.0 Process encourages consultation and data collection during the completion of this white paper.
  5. Preference for Consulting Assignments for CSU Faculty, Librarians, Coaches, and Counselors encourages the publication of consulting opportunities internally and the utilization of internal CSU expertise in these assignments.
  6. Receipt of the General Education Task Force Report expresses gratitude to the members of the task force and directs the Executive Committee to refer campus feedback to two standing committees for review. Concerns expressed by various discipline councils and campuses were acknowledged during the introduction and discussion of this resolution.
  7. Preference for Hiring Incumbent Contingent Faculty, Librarians, Coaches, and Counselors to Non-Contingent Positions requests that a database of these contingent faculty be developed and that hiring committees for non-contingent positions be urged to consult it.
  8. Special Rule of Order Governing Debate on Substantive Motions: 3 For/3 Against formalizes this rule which has been followed by ASCSU without apparent documentation of its adoption.
  9. Resolution in Support of an Open Access Policy for the California State University urges a policy which increases student access to scholarly articles written by CSU scholars while maintaining copyright protections.
  10. Recommending a Four-Year Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning Requirement for Admission to the California State University: Towards a Responsible and Responsive Policy urges that steps be taken to ensure that any policies developed to reform the a-g standards with respect to this requirement mitigate any adverse impact on underserved students.(Note: there appears to be more support across the state for a fourth year of quantitative reasoning overall rather than a senior year requirement.)

For a more detailed report on the March ASCSU plenary session, see the Campus Report March 19. If you have questions, feedback, or comments, please contact Vanessa or Scott.

 

 

ASCSU GE Task Force Report

The following report was adopted from an email sent by Catherine Nelson, ASCSU Chair on February 22, 2019.

Background: In 2017, the Academic Statewide Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) recommended the establishment of a task force to “…examine, offer suggestions and report on GE programs system-wide.” The General Education Task Force (GETF) Report was completed on February 8, 2019. The report includes a conceptual model and a series of recommendations to the ASCSU for the modification of CSU GE Breadth outlined in EO 1100(Rev).

Next Steps: ASCSU is planning a two-step process. The first step is for the report to go through the two-reading resolution process that formally receives the report and refers it to the ASCSU Academic Affairs (AA) and Academic Preparation and Educational Programs (APEP) Committees for review. The first reading of the resolution will occur in March; the second reading for amendments, debate, and a vote will occur in May. The second step of the process is for the AA and APEP committees to review feedback and make recommendations. Then, in accordance with ASCSU’s established process, the GETF Report, including recommendations, will be forwarded to the Chancellor for final approval.

Note About Process: ASCSU is committed to broad and inclusive system-wide consultation to get feedback about the GETF Report. ASCSU is working to provide ample time for full consideration and discussion of the report’s contents on the various campuses. ASCSU expects to collect feedback through October 2019, with the first reading of a resolution containing any recommendations AA and APEP make following at the earliest at the November 2019 plenary meeting. Chancellor White has assured ASCSU no new executive orders regarding GE will be issued before the ASCSU weighs in on the GETF Report. The only exception would be if there is a legal requirement to do so, such as a bill passed by the legislature and signed by the governor that requires some kind of change in GE.

Opportunity for Input:  ASCSU recognizes the importance of the report and encourages all stakeholders to provide feedback, through all available mechanisms. ASCSU is currently working to set up an online mechanism for direct feedback to ASCSU. CSUMB senators (Scott and Vanessa) will let you know as soon as the system is available. In addition, ASEC is exploring additional mechanisms for campus-wide feedback. You will be notified by the Academic Senate of any planned forums or other CSUMB-wide mechanisms.

If you have questions, feedback, or comments, please feel free to contact Vanessa or Scott.

 

 

 

 

 

Tenets of System Level Governance in the CSU

On January 17th, the ASCSU will be taking action on a resolution to adopt the Tenets of System Level Governance in the CSU. Several campuses have already provided their Sense of the Senate responses when the Tenets came up for a first read in November. Your Statewide Senators would benefit from both individual feedback as well as a CSUMB Senate statement regarding the position of the campus faculty.

The Tenets represent an agreement between the ASCSU and the Chancellor’s Office that reaffirms guidelines for shared governance. It captures the outcome of six two-hour meetings between the CO’s representatives (including the Chancellor, himself, at two meetings) and the ASCSU Executive Committee. These meetings were initiated by ASCSU in response to the egregious disregard for consultation on EO1100 and EO1110. As a result, the Tenets represent an effort to remind the CO that the faculty play a primary and invaluable role in establishing curriculum in the CSU.

One of the points in favor of adopting the Tenets is that they embody a good faith effort between the ASCSU Executive Committee and the Chancellor’s Office to affirm a sense of shared governance. Further, the Tenets can stand as a first step, not a final step, in holding the CO accountable for its actions. Adopting them also affirms the actions of the Executive Committee and conveys a sense of solidarity and follow-through on behalf of CSU faculty to the CO.

On the other hand, the Tenets do not expand the rights of the faculty in any formal way; they are a negotiated understanding on the order of an MOU. And they include elements that some faculty have concerns about. Specifically, the following is raising concerns (italics added by blog author):

The formal consultation process will therefore make provision to allow for an explicit agreement between the ASCSU and the chancellor to engage in a mutually agreed-upon process of expedited consultation in such cases, while still recognizing the formal role of the academic senates as the faculty voice on the matters under consideration. In the unlikely event that agreement cannot be reached, the chancellor will decide. Because an expedited process is not the most optimal form of consultation and shortchanges a robust shared governance process, its use should be limited to those rare circumstances that justify departing from the more comprehensive process intended by this document.

The CO position is that there will be rare instances when action cannot wait for the processes of ASCSU to produce a representative response. The ASCSU pushed back and stated that even in those circumstances, the CO would work with the ASCSU to define an expedited process. Regardless, some faculty are still concerned about the possible implications of this paragraph (i.e., its concessions to the CO).

CSUMB faculty are encouraged to read through the Tenets document, as well as the response from sister campuses (given below) and provide feedback to Vanessa and Scott both as individuals and as members of the Academic Assembly. Please feel free to contact Vanessa, Scott or the Senate Chair, Michael, if you have questions.

Tenets of System Level Governance in the CSU

Responses from other campuses:

CSUS Resolution (In Support)

CSUDH Resolution (Opposed)

1985 Trustees Statement

2001 Document

Stanislaus Resolution (Opposed)

Anticipating the November ASCSU Plenary

8 October 2018 report

Celebrating CSU Community Engagement & Service Learning Centers

At the upcoming November Plenary, The Senate is scheduled to take action on the Resolution Observing the 20th Anniversary of the CSU Centers for Community Engagement and Student Success in Service Learning and Community Engagement. This is a quite brief resolutions and the key elements are that the ASCSU encourages both the Chancellor, Board of Trustees, every campus Senate and campus President to “plan for and carry out an appropriate observation of the 20th anniversary of the CSU Center for Community Engagement.” (Also mentioned in the 10 September Report on the Senate blog).

If you have questions, feedback, or comments on the resolution, please be in contact with Vanessa or Scott.

 

ASCSU Action on Shared Governance

Also at the November Plenary, the Senate is scheduled to take action on the Tenets of System Level Governance in the California State University. This document is the outcome of intensive discussions  between the ASCSU Executive team and the Chancellor’s Office and it outlines baseline tenets regarding how shared governance between the ASCSU and the Chancellor’s Offices should occur. These discussions and the resulting Tenets document represent ASCSU’s effort to call the Chancellor’s Office to account for breakdown in appropriate consultation around implementation of EO1100/1110. (Also mentioned in the 10 September Report on the Senate blog).

Since the Tenets documents itself represents an agreed-upon commitment by both the ASCSU Executive team and the Chancellor’s Office, it is unlikely the Tenets document itself will be modified. However, it is likely that the Tenets will be accompanied by a resolution, which can provide further commentary on behalf of the Senate.

If you have questions, feedback, or comments on the resolution, please be in contact with Vanessa or Scott.

 

CSU Faculty needed for Five-Year Review of Transfer Courses

The C-ID (Course Identification System) group is looking for CSU faculty to participate in the Five-Year Review process.  This review process both approves courses and ensures proper descriptors for system-wide Community College courses that transfer to the CSU. There is often a shortage of CSU faculty participating in the review process, even though their expertise is greatly needed.

Currently, C-ID initiated the 5-Year Review of the TMC and descriptors for Biology, Chemistry, and Agriculture in fall 2017 and remains in need of additional CSU faculty feedback for the following disciplines:

Agriculture Animal Science, Agriculture Business, Agriculture Plant Science, Agriculture Descriptors

Further, C-ID is initiating the 5-year review of the descriptors and transfer model curriculum (TMC) for six disciplines during the fall 2018 term, and is now seeking input to determine whether or not changes are warranted and, if so, what those changes should be. The information gathered from the surveys will be reviewed by the FDRG for each discipline and used to guide the 5-year review process.

Links to the 5-year surveys are accessible below. The deadline for feedback is October 25, 2018:

Accounting (descriptors only)

Communications Studies

Economics

Film, Television, and Electronic Media

Nutrition and Dietetics

Psychology

If you are interested in participating or would like more information regarding these roles, please send an email to support@c-id.net.

Curricular Planning Update, September 25, 2018

This update is to let you know the Administrative Update Master Course List has been published. A permanent link has been included in the GE and UR Interim Learning Outcomes and Criteria Master. This faculty recommended course list includes the Administrative Update Process for GE Units and UR Tags approved in Spring 2018, and the more recent  Administrative Update for Ethnic Studies and the Upper Division Area D Administrative Update for former D4 courses that were already 3 or 4 units. These course lists were recommended by the appropriate curricular committees, the SCCC, and approved by the Provost’s office through Spring 2020. The courses in the master list can be used by degree programs to modify their curriculum and develop pathways in the new curricular model approved last spring.

I also want to point you to the FAQ on the Revisions to EO 1100 Revised August 23, 2017 published by the Chancellor’s Office. In particular, FAQ 7 (Page 2), which explains the organization of the 48 units of GE. This organization includes 39 units of lower-division GE and the remaining 9 units upper-division, 3 units in each of the areas B, C, and D.

There will likely be more updates this week. For example, we are working on a curricular FAQ to help address curricular issues as we resolve them.

Thanks,
Michael

News from the September ASCSU Plenary

Good news on the approved budget.
The final budget for the CSU included a $197.3 Million increase for the General Fund (CSU operations) and $120 million in one-time funds. Thanks to everyone who reached out to their representatives to encourage the Legislature to prioritize the CSU and increase the amount initially proposed by the Governor! Summary details can be found on p. 33-34 of the of the Legislative Budget Conference Committee Close-Out Agenda.

The Chancellor also noted two additional budget-related matters:

  1. $25 million this year was distributed to the campuses as increased support for tenure-track hiring.
  2. For the coming year, the Board of Trustees will likely ask for a $400 million increase (double the normal ask) to support increased enrollment growth and maintenance of facilities, among other needs.

New recruitment software coming
The CSU will be rolling out new system-wide software, CHRS Recruiting, to be used by hiring committees and administrative staff. The first five campuses to implement will be  Fullerton San Bernardino, San Diego, Stanislaus, San Luis Obispo. One feature of the software will be real-time diversity profiles of the candidate pool so hiring committees will have the information they need to consider the broader demographics of the applicants. See SJSU page for more details.

Recognizing CSU Centers for Community Engagement and Student Success in Service Learning and Community Engagement – *first read*
The Senate was presented with the first read of the Resolution Observing the 20th Anniversary of the CSU Centers for Community Engagement and Student Success in Service Learning and Community Engagement. This is a quite brief resolutions and the key elements are that the ASCSU encourages both the Chancellor, Board of Trustees, every campus Senate and campus President to “plan for and carry out an appropriate observation of the 20th anniversary of the CSU Center for Community Engagement.”
     If you have questions, feedback, or comments on the resolution, please be in contact with Vanessa or Scott.

Addressing shared governance
In November, the Senate will be addressing the Tenets of System Level Governance in the California State University. This document is the outcome of intensive discussions  between the ASCSU Executive team and the Chancellor’s Office and it outlines baseline tenets regarding how shared governance between the ASCSU and the Chancellor’s Offices should occur. These discussions and the resulting Tenets document represent ASCSU’s effort to call the Chancellor’s Office to account for breakdown in appropriate consultation around implementation of EO1100/1110.
     In November, the Tenets documents comes to the floor for action. Since the Tenets documents itself represents an agreed-upon commitment by both the ASCSU Executive team and the Chancellor’s Office, it is unlikely the Tenets document itself will be modified. However, it is likely that the Tenets will be accompanied by a resolution, which can provide further commentary on behalf of the Senate.
     If you have questions, feedback, or comments on the resolution, please be in contact with Vanessa or Scott.

For a more detailed outline of the Plenary business, see document here by Senators Tarjan and Millar.