1st EPPC November Minutes
California State University, Chico
Academic Senate
(530) 898-6201, Zip 020
M E M O R A N D U M
SUBJ: EPPC Minutes – October14th 2010, K-209, 2:30 p.m.
Present: Way (Chair), Allen (Secretary), Schindler, Challinger, Nice, Justus, Nichols, Brady, Shepherd (Proxy for Dev), Matray, Gebicke, Boyd, Baumgartner, Lillibridge (Proxy for Rowberg), Crotts, Ford, Dizzard, Loker
Not Present: Cross, Kaiser, Selvester, Sudduth, Wolf, Barger, Long, Owens, Huyck
Guests: Michael Briand, Scott Roberts
Way called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m.
1. Approve minutes of September 30, 2010 –Crotts moved; Schindler seconded. Minutes unanimously approved.
2. Approve October 14, 2010 agenda – Lillibridge moved; Crotts seconded. Agenda unanimously approved.
3. Announcements
Bill Loker announced that the latest GE forum was successful and helpful to all. Loker also thanked FMS for the replacement of the overheard lights in Kendall 207/209.
On October 28, 2010, the Great Debate event will be held at the City Council Chambers starting at
9:30 a.m. Students and members of the public will make speeches and presentations about climate
change issues, Proposition 23, and AB 32. This event was organized by CSU, Chico’s First Year
Experience and Communication Studies. Open to the public.
Chico Experience Week is currently happening. Consult the website for a list of events.
4. Significant Changes to the BS in Exercise Physiology – Action Item
Suggested corrections to this proposal from the last EPPC meeting had been made. There was no
discussion. Item passed unanimously.
5. EPPC Guidelines – Action Item
The updated EPPC guidelines state that during the first EPPC meeting of the year, each member will
select a meeting in which he or she will take minutes as secretary. The guidelines also now include
an updated list of who makes an annual report to EPPC. There was no discussion. Item passed
unanimously.
6. Revisions to EM 05-18 Police on Risk Management Issues Related to Service Learning – Introduction Item
Briand noted that there are five proposed changes to the EM: (1) Supplement an original emphasis on risk assessment with an emphasis on the quality of service learning, (2) Define service learning as civic engagement, (3) Explain the activities that are not considered to be service learning, (4) Eliminate the long list of faculty responsibilities in the original EM and give the advisory committee the task of deciding on faculty responsibilities, and (5) Increase the size and diversity of the service learning advisory committee. Briand noted that the proposed changes would streamline the process by which faculty members could place students in service learning experiences.
There was a question about the proposed definition of civic learning and its inclusion of the phrase “sound and widely-supported public decisions and policies.” Briand said that the committee wanted collaborative service learning experiences for students, not experiences based in the partisan government sector. EPPC members asked if a student’s involvement in a political activity would be considered service learning. Briand said that it depends on whether the experience brought benefit to the community and resulted in a public good.
Lillibridge asked what was meant by “duties for each party” in section 2 of the Service Learning and Risk Management portion of the EM. Briand responded that this language ensured that students’ experiences were substantial as related to their course content. He also noted that the language referenced requirements such as showing up for work on time and dressing professionally.
Nice asked why the phrase “community service” was used instead of “community engagement”? Briand noted that community engagement could simply be students volunteering in the community but not getting academic credit for that work.
EPPC members discussed the lack of citations for quotes in the EM. Briand and Way noted that citations would be added to the document.
EPPC members discussed the proposed definition of service learning and how it’s distinguished from both civic engagement and civic learning. There was a discussion about the use of the phrase “sound and widely-supported public decisions and policies” in the definition of civic learning. Nice noted that the university should be encouraging students to try new experiences and that this language could be interpreted as limiting those kinds of new experiences.
EPPC members discussed faculty workload concerns and asked about the new procedures these proposed changes will generate for faculty. Briand and Loker noted that the service learning advisory committee needs flexibility to decide the new procedures as it tries to balance risk management requirements with faculty workload concerns. Loker said that the committee would try to have broad agreements that covered entire courses when possible.
Challinger asked for examples of activities that would be exceptions from the requirement that faculty seek student placement agreements through the committee. Briand noted the separately negotiated student placement agreement between CSU, Chico and the Chico Unified School District. He also suggested that the university might be able to grandfather in service learning courses that had been effectively taught for years. Loker said that exceptions to the requirement for service placement agreements would be few and far between because the university’s liability insurance only covered students working off campus in service learning activities when there has been a proper placement agreement.
EPPC members asked about the inclusion of definitions 2-8 if those activities are not considered service learning and suggested including an exemptions paragraph. It was noted that the current structure of the EM makes it unclear about what activities are being covered. EPPC members also noted that the definitions should be re-numbered to make it clearer that civic learning is considered to be a part of service learning.
EPPC members discussed the composition of the advisory committee. Loker noted that the positions of co-coordinators of service learning no longer exist. The AS Risk Manager isn’t needed on the committee because the CSU, Chico Risk Manager would be able to handle the same issues. The AS had been consulted and was okay with no longer being on the committee. Loker also said that the faculty member appointed annually by the Executive Committee doesn’t have to be a senator. Nice asked why the EM didn’t specify exactly how many additional faculty members and community partners would be on the committee, instead saying that “at least two” from these categories would be included. Briand responded that the committee might need more than two members from these categories depending on its workload. Ford noted that the advisory committee could grow to an unlimited number of members due to the EM’s “at least two” language and would be expanding from its current 8 members to at least 12 members.
Allen asked about how faculty members can distinguish between an internship and a service learning project. Briand said that it depends on the faculty’s intent. If there is at least an equal emphasis on acquiring service skills as there is on getting work experience, then that would be service learning. Faculty needing clarification could ask the advisory committee. Allen also suggested adding “course” to the phrase “as part of a university requirement” in section 1 under the Service Learning and Risk Management portion of the EM to make it clear that this EM also covers service learning in program electives.
EPPC members discussed how the advisory committee would improve the quality of educational service learning experiences. Briand said that the advisory committee would exist to assist and guide faculty but that there was nothing in the proposed changes to the EM that would suggest the committee’s recommendations would be binding on faculty.
Allen asked why faculty working on student placement agreements aren’t sent straight to the Office of Risk Management instead of this advisory committee. Loker noted that the Office of Risk Management was very busy and wanted a clearinghouse-type committee.
Ford asked whether there was a current problem with service learning placement agreements that needs fixed. Briand said the proposed changes were about improving service learning and getting better data about the number of service learning projects on our campus. Briand also said that the university should ensure that faculty members are all operating under a standardized student placement agreement. EPPC members discussed how the last paragraph of the EM gives the advisory committee the power to determine procedures for service learning on our campus in place of a list of faculty responsibilities.
Ford noted that the document was confusing in terms of what was and was not included and it seemed that problems with service learning still were not really being solved with the proposed changes.
EPPC members discussed whether the EM would actually require faculty to go to this committee when dealing with service learning activities in their courses. Briand noted that the EM says that faculty “must” consult the committee.
Nice suggested that the document be re-titled to better reflect its scope and clear up any confusion. He noted that the purpose of an EM should be to help students and faculty know what procedures to follow but that this EM doesn’t help with any activities that are not considered to be service learning. Briand said a website would be created to direct faculty to the correct risk management procedures for their particular types of activities. Loker said that including that much information in one EM would be too much detail for one document.
EPPC members discussed the procedure for faculty members to submit their service learning projects to the committee. Briand noted that there could be a fast turn-around for the placement agreements. EPPC members discussed the need for campus education about service learning risk management concerns.
Briand noted that the advisory committee would advise the Office of Civic Engagement, as well as faculty and the campus as a whole. He also said that the proposed EM was not intended just as an education tool for faculty but as a way to give the advisory committee needed clear authority to improve service learning.
Item passed unanimously as an introduction item with suggestions for improvement.
7. Other
No other.
8. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 3:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mahalley Allen