CSU, Chico | Academic Senate | Senate Agendas, Minutes, and Proposals | Faculty & Student Policies Committee Meetings | 2nd FASP October Minutes

2nd FASP October Minutes

Academic Senate
(530) 898-6201, Zip 020

PRESENT:   Kotar (chair), Beterbide, Corral, Eller, Haselton, Houston, Jones, Matray, Mills (Yudell), Nix-Baker, Richardson, Schurr, Steiner (Jones), Tropea (Beterbide), Yudell

ABSENT:     Henderson, Jelks, Johansen, Kirchhoff, Meyers, Place, Postma, Roberts, Trailer, Whitlock

GUESTS:      Gilbert Duenas (American Lung Association), Rick Rees (Student activities office), Dr. Diane Schmidt (Political Science faculty), Dr. Charles Zartman

Editorial Note: FASPC members did not have name-cards at the meeting, so a few of the names are not documented regarding the motions.

1. The Minutes from the September 25, 2008 FASPC meeting were approved as submitted (M/Nix-Baker, S/unknown, unanimous).

 2. The Agenda was approved after Kotar added discussion of the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) resolution, and Yudell added discussion of the nepotism policy (M/Corral, S/Yudell, unanimous).

3. Announcements:  None.

4. Proposed Changes to EM 94-50, Campus Policy on Campus Commercial Underwriting – Discussion Item: 

  •  
    •  
      • Diane Schmidt from the Political Science Department and Gilbert Duenas from the American Lung Association were again present to discuss expanding the prohibitions of EM 94-50 to prohibit “sponsorship” by tobacco companies.  There was a great deal of discussion on this topic, and the important decision points, as well as representative discussion comments, are documented below.
      • Duenas/Schmidt stated that their revised proposal is to not alter EM 94-50, unless it could be altered to prohibit tobacco sponsorship without jeopardizing alcohol sponsorship (to be careful about not hurting relationship with Sierra Nevada).
      • Duenas distributed a proposed policy, as well as an Orion article regarding tobacco companies distributing free chewing tobacco at Chico State fraternity parties.
      • Houston: Questioned whether they would still be able to distribute promotion materials even if they were not officially “sponsors.”
      • Duenas: He considered them sponsors but Greek members never told him exactly what they paid for.  [Note: There was no clear description given regarding what qualified them as “sponsors”.]
      • Duenas: They held Greek focus groups and Greeks were open to idea of barring tobacco sponsorship, but they need the funds and, in the end, would not say no to tobacco funding.
      • Matray: What are you asking for beyond the current EM94-50 prohibitions?
      • Duenas: Wants the prohibitions to extend beyond the campus, and wants the language to be stronger.
      • Haselton: What exactly are you proposing for us to do?  Create a new policy that supplements EM94-50?
      • Duenas: Amend EM 94-50 if you can only prohibit tobacco and not alcohol, otherwise create a entirely separate policy.
      • Matray: Stated that we should not spend any more time on this without a specific proposal.
      • Yudell: Not sure if we should create rules that infringe on student freedoms, even if their bad decisions lead to bad consequences (we should not act paternalistically).
      • Jones: Does not want this to create rules that faculty advisors will be responsible for enforcing.
      • Rick Rees:
      • Students have right to organize.  We can not prohibit them from being a recognized student organization.
      • Events hosted by these groups are not University sponsored events.
      • If we consider such a policy change, we must consult our lawyers and be very careful about legal implications.  Past alcohol prohibitions led to a large lawsuit.
      • He is worried about precedent, and stated that self-governance is best approach for such organizations.
      • End discussion (M/Houston, S/Corral, unanimous).
  • 5. Nepotism Policy – Introductory Item: 
    Kotar: Trailer’s recommendation (by e-mail) is to replace EM 05-16 with a simple reference to HR 2004-18.
    Kotar: Mentioned that Russ Mills has an issue with the prohibition of scheduling work assignments (since this is a common duty of a Chairperson); he would like this prohibition removed.
    Matray: Agrees with Trailer’s recommendation.
    There was much discussion, which is not documented here.
    Matray: Strongly wants to table the issue (M/Matray, S/none, no vote).
    Nix-Baker: The problem is that the CFA did not get notified of the EM05-16 policy.
    Kotar: Further, the top paragraph of page two is not in HR 2004-18.
    Matray: Does not like the trend of the FASPC discussing and acting on items without the full needed information.
    Haselton: Stated that simply referring to HR 2004-18 effectively removes the additional policy which EM 05-16 includes, and this additional policy seems beneficial.  Suggested that we decide what the policy should be before we recommend changes that simply make reference to HR 2004-18 with no alterations or supplemental CSUC campus requirements.
    Matray: Strongly wants to table the issue until the FASPC has the full information from the CFA on what they want to see change.  Stated that we should not be discussing something that someone in the Committee is not backing.
    Nix-Baker: Made is clear that she is proposing this, and wants it as an action item at the next meeting.
    Vote: End discussion, and have as action item at next meeting (M/unknown, S/unknown, vote: Matray opposed and all others in favor)

6 Report from the Subcommittees: 

CBA – FPPP Table: Some work, not completed
Sabbatical: Did some work, but will bring to next meeting.
Textbook: Did not meet; no update.
Collaboration: Did not meet; no update.

7. Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) resolution: 

  •  
    •  
      • Kotar: CLA resolution distributed, which was accepted by Senate in 2007.  The question was whether we should form a joint subcommittee between FASP and EPPC to revise it.
      • Jones: Wants stronger language against the use of the CLA in any way.
      • Matray: If edits are done, he wants to see if say the following:
      • The purpose of education is value added, and the CLA does not measure this.
      • Senate should reject results from CLA; the results do not give useful information.
      • CSUC should not participate in the use of CLA.

8. Chuck Zartman – Discussion of his problem with recent election of Dean Review Committee.

  •  
    •  
      • Zartman: His College recently selected a Dean Review Committee (College of Communication and Education), in which lecturers did not vote in the election. It is his position that lecturers should have a vote.  Even so, he was told the election would not be rerun.
      • Matray: Such policies may not be campus-wide, being decided by each College, and on similar issues (e.g. Chair review) it was decided to not create a campus-wide policy to govern the College processes.
      • Kotar: Referred Zartman to the EM that addresses dean review.

9. Adjourned.  Next meeting November 13, 2008.

Minutes by CBH