1st FASP April Minutes

Academic Senate
(530) 898-6201, Zip 020

FACULTY AND STUDENT POLICIES COMMITTEE MINUTES

PRESENT: Johansen (Steiner), Jones (Corral), Kotar, Mills, Postma (Mills), Tropea (Yudell), Whitlock, Yudell, Mehl (Houston), Houston, Steiner, Corral, Meyers, Nix-Baker

ABSENT: Henderson, Matray, Richardson, Roberts, Trailer, Eller, Jelks, Place, Kirchhoff, Schurr.  

GUEST: Rick Rees

1.    The minutes from March 5, 2009 FASP meeting were approved as submitted (M/Johansen, S/Houston; unanimous vote).

2.    The agenda was approved with modification

3.    Announcements:  None

4.  Student Organizations Policy Introduction Item (M/Mills, S/Corral) Rick Rees guest.  Discussion:  Does the advisor have to be an employee of the university?  Rees:  The EO 1006 says “faculty or professional staff member”.  Can part-time faculty be advisors?  Rees: Student affairs interprets the policy to include anyone in the bargaining unit including faculty.  The recognizing agent is SA, not AS.  Rees:  some of the URLs are not functional and need to be updated.  SA has a policy that includes more constitution requirements than the draft EM.  The contact person in item 3 is included in item 9, and the two should be combined.  Item 4 is about federal laws requiring that CSU Chico not allow affiliations with national organizations that discriminate against protected classes.  State university legal counsel should be contacted on whole document, especially item 5, given that there was a recent legal case involving student organizations.  Item 6 is in EO 1006, and that should be reference in item 6.  Anti-hazing is now in the penal code, not the education code, so the citation should be changed to the correct place.  The definition of ‘hazing’ has also likely changed and should be corrected to the current version.  Item 9; some organizations do not have treasurers, and they should not, because they do not handle money.  So Item 9 should be reworded.  The academic requirements in item 10 may violate some freedom of speech issues, and perhaps organizations should not be mandated to have academic requirements.  EO 1006 allows non-student members up to 20%, who cannot vote.  There is a SA complaint process for student organizations, using the conduct standard in Title V.  A standard of conduct and review process should maybe be included in the policy.  Policies for Greek organizations are in another document, and may be left out of this policy or included.  SA recognizes sport clubs, and they should maybe be covered in this policy.  A senator indicated that some sport clubs used to be affiliated with AS and treated as student organizations.  Rees:  such clubs must be student organizations (recreational groups) and meet other requirements as well, as determined by SA and recreational administration (?).  They must be fully recognized to compete intercollegiately.  A senator noted that if sport clubs have paid coaches, there might be a problem with the requirement for the advisor.  Rees:  sport clubs are really different than student organizations, because of their closer relationship to the university.  Another issue is the relationship between student organizations and academic departments or colleges.  The college of business considered writing their own policy governing their own student organizations, but decided against it for liability reasons.  SA has tried to separate student organizations from IRA-funded groups.  A senator asked if the hazing policy is needed even for non-Greek organizations.  Rees:  the hazing policy is still needed.  Passed unanimously.  

5.  Speech and Advocacy Policy. Introduction item (M/Tropea, S/ Corral).  Kotar introduced the item.  The chair of speech and advocacy board approves of the changes.  This item had been tabled for legal review, which never happened.  If we now pass the item through senate, it will be reviewed.  Passed unanimously.

6a. Emeritus Status. Discussion item.  Introduced by Kotar.  Zimmerlee asked if emeritus status should be limited to people who retire directly from Chico, or who have served here and retired while serving elsewhere.  An officer of local CSU ERFA resigned because of this issue.  A senator thought that emeritus status was not necessary for serving in the local ERFA.  Question:  did the retiree in question get emeritus status at another CSU campus?  One senator said that the current policy seems logical, since the president grants the status.  Another suggested that we could grant honorary emeritus status.  There is the question of how to interpret the FPPP and the separate question of whether it should be changed.  The second clause is ambiguous about whether the service should be at the campus.  It was suggested that the executive committee should consider this issue. 

6.  Adjournment:  The meeting adjourned at 3:47 p.m.