Academic Senate

FASP Minutes, April 10 2008, 2:30 p.m. K-207
Approved: pending

Attendance: Place, Kotar, Yudell, Houston, Steiner, Johansen, Battle, Corral, Jones (Corral), Schurr, Mehl, Mills, Postma (Mills), Whitlock, Richardson, Tropea, Hoban, Trailer
Absent:  Roberts, Beterbide, Edebiri, Campos, Kirchhoff, Nix-Baker
Guests: Theresa Fagouri, Karen Zacharias

1. Minutes of March 27, 2008 approved with modifications
2. Agenda of April 10, 2008 approved, with new item 12 Guidelines for Speech and Advocacy.

3.         Announcements
-Nominations for Senate officers is on-going.   
4.         Modification of EM 95-07 Policy and Procedure to Establish Honorary Names to Properties, Programs, and Facilities – Action Item
-Moved by Battle
-Postma moved new language in Section IVB.  Place seconded. 
-Passed unanimously.
5.         Modification of EM 99-24 Policy on Nondiscrimination and Affirmative Action in Employment and Education – Action Item
-Moved by Kotar. 
-Passed unanimously.
6.         Modification of EM 03-21 Course Numbering Policy – Action Item
-Moved by Corral.
-Place moved that 597 and the second sentence in that section be eliminated, Houston seconded.  Yudell asked if 597 is needed.  Place responded that it may be based on the 697, which is needed.  Motion passed unanimously.
-Place moved that “…number 499 and lower…” should be changed to 599 on page 4.  Houston seconded.  Passed unanimously.
-Place moved that on page 2, the last sentence before 0-99 be changed to add “, with exceptions as stated under reserved course numbers.”  Kotar seconded.  Amendment passed unanimously.
-Corral asked whether courses up to 599 should still be used as graduate courses.  Place responded that it is okay up to 40% of their program. 
-Yudell moved new language for 399H, 499H section.  Battle seconded.  Tropea asked if it makes sense to just have courses use 499H taken twice for credit.  Mills noted that most departments use 399H for Fall, and 499H for Spring.  Kotar noted that it’s probably not worth trying to change it, since there aren’t that many students affected.  Amendment passed unanimously.
-Motion passed unanimously. 
7.         Replacement of EM 96-38 Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities – Introduction Item
-Moved by Schurr, Corral seconded.  Schurr introduced the item, noting the need for the EM given Exeutive Order 970.
-Place asked for clarification about whether attorneys can appear at student disciplinary hearings.
-Tropea noted that students are often confused at disciplinary hearings, and this imbalance should be addressed.  Schurr noted that the students have the right to seek advice beforehand.  She also said that she thinks of the hearings as an educational process, not punitive.  Tropea responded that the consequences of these hearings can be very serious.  Schurr responded that the number of expulsions has been very small in the last 27 years, and it is the president that determines this policy.  Place agreed that students need to be protected from unjust power structures, but noted that allowing attorneys in would lead to a class imbalance.  Kotar commented that any student can hire an attorney if they want to.  Tropea did not want to say that the only option is to allow attorneys.  He suggested that there be some student advocacy as part of the process.  Schurr indicated that there are so many cases that one wouldn’t want to slow it down, and that the process is not adversarial.  Mills asked where in the policy it says that students have an advisor.  The answer is in Article IV of EO 970.  Tropea indicated that his concern is primarily with the cases with potentially serious consequences.  Schurr noted that in those cases the students do bring advisors.  Place asked if it was clear that students can bring an advisor.  Schurr responded yes.  Corral noted that we can’t change the Chancellor’s office policy or the president’s policy.  Houston wondered if there was a way to address Tropea’s concerns but not through changing this policy.  Kotar indicated that if we were going to address this, we should also look at the appeal procedure.  Schurr noted that the “appeal” process is really just requesting a hearing, although the president’s decision can not be appealed.  Mills asked if it was possible that there be someone in Student Conduct who could serve as an advocate, since currently the student’s advisor would not have experience with such proceedings.  Kotar asked if students initially know that they may have an advisor.  Tropea noted that he was involved as an advisor and that it was a lot of work and there was need for a knowledgeable advisor.  Battle asked if the language the students get told that they can have the advice of an attorney. 
-Mills asked if it’s possible to have an honor system. 
-Mills noted that we don’t normally embed EO 970 and Title 5, and asked if they could just be made into appendices.  Schurr agreed. 
-Mills asked if we can add to the list of student responsibilities in Title 5. 
-Postma noted that the right of access to higher education needs to be changed.
-Tropea noted that in the section on syllabus, the syllabus not be expected to have “clearly written objectives” because of the disagreements that students have had over what that phrase means. 
-Schurr and Mills noted that many of these concerns are about procedures, not policies, which are outside the purview of FASP. 
-Passed unanimously.
8.         Modification of EM 02-108 Smoking Policy – Introduction Item
-Houston moved, Battle Seconded.
-Student feedback:  only 9 out of 240 students in HCSV were opposed to a smoke-free campus. 
-Tropea indicated that a safety-related change will not likely be opposed by the unions. 
-Whitlock wondered who would be subject to enforcement, especially including visitors to campus and how they would be informed. 
-Mehl asked if the recourse of students is merely to step off campus. 
-Passed unanimously
9.         Modification of the Faculty Personnel Policies and Procedures (FPPP): CBA Alignment – Introduction Item
-Hoban moved, Kotar seconded.
-Zacharias said 8.5.b1.l and 8.5.b.1s needs to be added to 15.5
-Zacharias:  12.16 change in CBA needs to be reflected in 8.4.e.1 in FPPP
-Zacharias:  8.4.b.2 in FPPP is out of place and should be under criteria for range elevation.
-Tropea indicated that a section about range appointment standards will need to be re-inserted.
-Passed unanimously
10.       Modification of the FPPP: Rank Ordering – Introduction Item
-Steiner moved, Houston seconded.
-Zacharias said 12.29 of CBA was clarified.  FPPP 7.2.e-g should just be replaced by a reference to 12.29.  In 7.2.d why restrict the requirement for qualifications for temporary faculty?  Kotar responded that there are enough courses that will only get taught by full-time faculty and it would be too much work to make qualifications.  Tropea said that “temporary faculty” in this section is insulting, and “lecturer” should be used instead. 
-Passed unanimously.
11.       Modification of the FPPP: Miscellaneous – Introduction Item
-Kotar moved, Mehl seconded. 
-Passed unanimously
12.       Guidelines for Speech and Advocacy—Introduction Item
-Kotar moved to untable this item.  Steiner seconded. 
-Passed unanimously.
13.       Adjourned at 4:53 PM.