2nd FASP February Minutes

Academic Senate
California State University, Chico                                                                
Chico, California 95929-020
(530) 898-6201


February 16, 2012

2:30 p.m., Kendall 209


Present: Clower, Cooprider, Deleon, Gampel, Gundlach, Hyunjung (Rehg), Kirchhoff, Kotar, Long, McCabe, Meadows, Miller, Mittman, Monet, Rehg, Schademan (Monet), Schierenbeck, Sistrunk, Smith, Traver   Absent: Allen, Fairbanks, Payne, Postma, Root,

Meeting began at 2:40, Kotar presiding.

1.  Minutes of the February 9, 2012 meeting were approved with no changes

2.  Announcements:  London Long – elections for A.S. legislative affairs applications closed

3.  Proposed revision of The Constitution of the Academic Senate, to clarify membership qualifications. (Action). Refer to Senate Membership Proposal. 

Kotar mentioned email from Debra Cooprider – concern on Article III, Sec 1. #7 Student Services Professional in capitals specifies a type of staff person; Cooprider had proposed lower case letters to indicate broader category of staff eligible to serve on Senate.

Clarification on phrase in Article VIII to also put it in Article III Sec 3. College Members. Moved by Meadows, seconded Kotar. Discussion: Some grammar changes should be made; this would open it to FERP faculty. McCabe (paraphrased): Not many faculty would opt for this position; those interested are likely to be involved with faculty issues anyway, but no damage to do this, it only opens it up for them to be elected. Sistrunk: concern as to whether a FERP faculty, as a retired member, should represent faculty, without actually teaching (since they are retired)? Should constitution be changed for an individual circumstance? Clarification was made that FERP faculty are under contract for the time that they are employed by the university, and thus are considered members of the faculty (Meadows). Concern over how FERP is taken – half-time for both semesters, or one semester on, one semester off approach. Comment that most take the one on/one off approach.

Clower – support for McCabe position; a retired teacher is still a teacher.

Gampel – active campaigns not usually run for this position; mostly an automatic process. Does it make sense to have a FERPer on a senate with 23 people total? Does not see a need to make a change to constitution for what may be for a specific individual circumstance.

Mittman: position of greater value to an individual earlier in career as opposed to later. For institution, what is better? Someone with knowledge of history or more of a vested interest in the institution? Gently inclined against it. Later added that it doesn’t seem appropriate to make a change to constitution for one person’s situation.

Kirchhoff – FERP has a listening voice, and can help with years of experience; FERP usually done full time for one semester, as opposed to half-time for year;

McCabe – broad descript of FERP faculty is not appropriate. Many dedicated.

Gampel – call for secret ballot, as it may affect a specific person; vote is for a change to the constitution; if approved, then language can be worked on. Result: revision to the constitution passed. 

Wordsmithing ensued on specific language changes.

Motion to amend document to change Student Services Professional in Sec 1 #7 to lower case so others can also qualify (Cooprider; Sistrunk second) to clear up classification confusion. Motion passed by voice vote.

4.  Revision of FPPP 8.1.b.2, to clarify that courses selected for student evaluation of teaching can be from self-support courses. (Introduction). Refer to FPPP Sec 8 Modifications document. 

Kotar summarized the issue. Can a person self-select a course that they want to have SETs done on? Nursing, for example, has some courses only offered in self-support sessions. Recommends language proposed. Moved as an introduction item.   

What is self-support? Clarified – courses offered through RCE, which means the cost is borne entirely by the student; no state funds support the course. What is downside? Kotar: none. Broadens courses available to use for SETs, instead of only state-assisted courses being allowed. Instructors were being told self-supported courses were not allowed, despite the FPPP not specifically forbidding SET use in self-support (i.e., RCE) courses. Passed by voice vote (Introduction)

5.  Revision of FPPP 8.1.a.2 and 8.2.d.5, to remove ambiguity regarding required classroom visitation for faculty under review. (Introduction). Refer to FPPP Sec 8 Modifications document. 

Kotar summarized issue; lots of questions from department chairs regarding visits; why differences for temp faculty. Question regarding on-line courses; Purpose of the revision is to standardize paragraphs. Discussion revolved around whether there is a need for class visits every year; could be a huge workload issue, depends on how department distributes workload – is it only the personnel committee involved or the whole department? Discussion showed that this differed across campus. Can we require reviews outside of the year when a faculty is up for review? Should we dictate to departments how or leave it up to them? Some members expressed favor for having more visits, as it helps to get feedback from peers on their teaching. Apparently, tenured faculty only have classroom visits once every five years.  

This brought up comments from some members for a desire for more mentoring. Mentoring discussion: should we mandate a mentoring visit? Could be more valuable, but if it was outside of evaluation process, may be more realistic. Effectiveness of mentoring depends on several factors – willingness of both parties, whether it is done formally or informally, etc. Might be counter-productive to force it. 

After discussion, Kotar withdrew the proposed revision to the FPPP for further evaluation and introduction at a later date.

6.  Call for volunteers for a subcommittee on a resolution on shared governance. Tim Sistrunk, Kristina Schierenbeck. and Teresa Miller volunteered;

7.  Adjourned at 4:10

 Submitted by M. Rehg
Comments attributed to members of the committee should not be construed to be direct quotes.