1st EPPC September Minutes

Academic Senate
(530) 898-6201, Zip 020

M E M O R A N D U M

 

PRESENT: Allen, Clower, Cooprider, Fairbanks, Kotar (Hunsinger, Warner), Mittman (Mills, Scholz), Monet, Ponarul, Schademan, Scholtes, Sistrunk, Zimbelman

ABSENT:   

GUESTS:    Tom Jelke, Greek life consultant

 

1.    Minutes from September 16, 2010 were approved.

 

2.    Today’s Agenda was approved.

 

3.    Announcements. We will move to Kendall 209 because we were too rowdy in our previous meeting. Kotar then explained FASP’s role and procedures in a bit more depth for new members.  We get or generate written proposals for policy changes, we edit them as a body, and them bring them to Senate for approval.

 

4.   Tom Jelke, Greek Life Consultant

• Jelke explained his role.  5 years ago, he came to CSU Chico to evaluate the state of our Greek system.  It was in very poor shape, and he nearly recommended closing it down.  Instead, he suggested some 50 implementation items to improve it.  Now, he had conducted a new study to see the current state of the system.  Things are now, he says, better, and moving in the right direction.  There are decreases in police contact, increases in philanthropy and GPAs, and also improvements in non-tangible aspects, like overall attitude expressed.  Jelke was questioned on the point of the Greek system, and on what we might do in terms of policy to improve things.  It was revealed that all fraternities and sororities have faculty advisors, but that this job is not defined anywhere, and might be, strengthening the position and thereby having a more positive impact.  UCSB is suggested as a possible good model.

 

5.   Volunteer requested (and denied)

• We have been asked to appoint one member of FASP to the Graduation Initiative Committee.  There were no volunteers, and it is unclear what FASP has to do with the GIC.  In absentia, Huntsinger was nominated, and will be contacted to see if he is interested.  The GIC will also be contacted by Kotar to ask for their minutes to explain why FASP is involved and to get an update.

6.   Prioritizing for the year

• #1 issue is Faculty Workload, AKA “Project Orange Book.”  Zimbelman raises his concerns that our current system is imperfect and has lead to many grievances.  Students numbers do not equate to workload, and a more flexible system might be preferable.  The “C Classifications” come from the Chancellor’s Office, from the “Orange Book,” which has not been seen by any FASP members.  These are based on a world where there are no classrooms that seat more than 35 students, all GE courses require 2500 words of writing, and online teaching does not exist.  Joel or Mike will supply a list of the current “C Classifications.”   We will consider this as a committee of the whole, and will compare these with the current text in the FPPP and the CBA.
• #2 RTP – Following Gampbell’s suggestion, we will consider clarifying how committees rate candidates.  Allen states that rating is for the current year.  Zimbelman disagrees, saying that it is for the current year, but also summative of earlier years, and predictive of the final decision, as the dean is asked in a 4^th year review to make a prediction of whether tenure is likely.  FPPP says that teaching, research and service are equally weighted, but this is not true in practice.
• #3 Faculty voting policies and Temporary Faculty Definitions – we will form two subcommittees to consider these issues.

 

 

7.   Adjourn:  

• Meeting adjourned at 4:00ish

Minutes submitted by Mittman