california state university, san bernardino · committee reports 11.1 eprc 11.2 fac 11.3 q2s 12....

FSA 2019.03.05

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN BERNARDINO

FACULTY SENATE MEETING, 53RD SENATE

A G E N D A

SESSION 08– Tuesday – March 5, 2019, 2:00PM – 3:50PM, Pine Room

1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

1.1 Minutes for February 19, 2019 (FSM 2019.02.19)

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

3. CHAIR’S REPORT

4. PRESIDENT’S REPORT

5. PROVOST’S REPORT

Time Certain – 2:30PM 6. Tenure Track Faculty Hiring Task Force Presentation – George Georgiou (attachment)

7. INFORMATION ITEMS Time Certain – 2:45PM 7.1 Online Teaching at CSUSB – Mihaela Popescu & Jo Anna Grant Time Certain – 3:15PM 7.2 GI 2025 Policies – Course Report (attachment) – Craig Seal 7.3 Minutes of EC Meeting – 1/29/19 ECM 18-07 (attachment) 7.4 E-Learning Academy (attachments) 8. DISCUSSION ITEMS Time Certain – 3:30PM 8.1 College Representation on Senate – Karen Kolehmainen 8.2 Tenets of Shared Governance in CSU (attachment)

9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS

10.1 Resolution in Support of Electronic Core Collection - attachment (single reading)

11. COMMITTEE REPORTS 11.1 EPRC 11.2 FAC 11.3 Q2S 12. STATEWIDE ACADEMIC SENATOR’S REPORT.

13. SENATORS’ REPORTS/INCLUDING ASI PRESIDENT’S REPORT.

1

FSA 2019.03.05

14. DIVISION REPORTS

14.1 Vice President for Information Technology Services 14.2 Vice President for University Advancement 14.3 Academic Affairs/Deans’ Reports 14.4 Vice President for Administration and Finance 14.5 Vice President for Student Affairs

2

FSM 2019.02.19

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN BERNARDINO FACULTY SENATE MEETING, 53rd SENATE

M I N U T E S

SESSION 07 - Tuesday- February 19, 2019, 2:00PM – 3:50PM, Pine Room

Members Present: All members were present with the exception of: C. Davis, D. Fischman, Y. Hwang, A. Johnson, A. Louque, K. Kowalski, O. Mango, S. McMurran, T. Morales, K. Rowan,B. Steffel, J. Ullman, J. Vassilakos-Long

Guests Present: D. Freer, T. Carollo, S. Sudhakar, C. Seal, R. Chuang, K. Newt, G. King, S. Yildirim, T. Provenzano, C. Fundell, C. Weber, R. Mohamed, L. McNaught, H. Le Grande, J. Zhu,S. Peresuh, J. Lappin, A. Felix, C. Huesca, D. Huizinga, L. Cromwell, C. Vickers

1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTESSenator Rizzo moved and Senator Murillo seconded the motion to approve the minutesfor February 5, 2019 (FSM 18-06) as presented. PASSED Unanimously.

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDASenator Rizzo moved and Senator Murillo seconded the motion to approve the agendaas amended. PASSED Unanimously.

3. CHAIR’S REPORTNo report

4. PRESIDENT’S REPORT – (attached)

5. PROVOST’S REPORT (attached) Congratulations to Senator Ajayi for being recognized at the International Faculty

Partnership Seminar and he will be going to Paris, France.

Congratulations to Senator Murillo for his new book release the first week of February

entitled “Critical Readings on Latinos in Education”.

A special shout out to Senator Dwight Sweeney for his work with the University Center

for Developmental Disabilities. The Center was profiled in the Press Enterprise Saturday

edition on February 2, 2019 for all your work helping the disabled community locally and

and on the Palm Desert Campus.

A big shout out to Senator Rong Chen for his successful role in the Chinese New Year

Celebration last Friday hosted by the Chinese Student Association and SMSU, a wonderful

celebration and tribute, with culture and music and all sorts of wonderful things. March 7 will be Faculty Appreciation night at the Theatre. Hope you can attend

a theatre event.

33

FSM 2019.02.19

Senator Corrigan expressed concern with the CEAT awards which were late in

coming and resulted in several problems with using/utilizing the awards.However, the policies are governed by the CBA.

Response: There is a call to faculty by the bargaining team to for suggestions on what they should prioritize, suggest you submit comments for more flexibility with CEAT program.

Senator Kottke asked about a statement made by President Morales that ourour campus is slated for a 5% enrollment growth. If so, where would thefaculty come from.

Response: Provost McMahan responded that is still in discussion and we are trying to hire as many faculty as possible. We will be getting more lines out starting next month to get ahead of this. Provost McMahan will follow up.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS6.1 FAM Format with Example – Rong Chen

FAC is working on a FAM design so all FAMS are in a uniform format.

We will be revising all FAMs going forward and will be ADA compliant.

FAM will have a header and header number going forward.

6.2 FAM 820.9 Course Syllabus Policy and Guidelines Copies of the finalized document will be emailed to all Senators.

This FAM has been revised with the new FAM format.

Sections of policy have been retitled to fit in new format.

Added requirement to include syllabus course number, course title, andcatalog description.

6.3 FAM 872.2 Policy on Course Material Copies of the finalized document will be emailed to all Senators.

Title of policy was revised to: Policy on Financial Gain from Self-Authored CourseMaterials.

6.4 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) – VP Sudhakar & Tanner Carollo

Conducted in Fall 2018 at CSUSB – Is conducted every 3 years

Designed to evaluate undergraduate experience of our students on our campus

We want to continue to increase the response rates going forward

You can find more information on our website

Students with higher ratings of overall CSUSB experience have higher engagement scores

Handouts are attached

6.5 Ally Feature on Blackboard – Leon McNaught/Christine Fundell

Have support available for Faculty

Ally will make your documents more accessible and in more formats

Phase One of the pilot has been turned on

Phase Two want to invite anyone who wants to have Ally turned on in their course

Phase Three for summer is to go for bottleneck courses

44

FSM 2019.02.19

Improves access for all students

Plan to go to department meetings to promote

Senator Ajayi suggested you present to COE

Math and Science courses would be difficult to put on Ally due to need for special fonts.

Will ensure that we utilize students and others who are familiar with equations going

forward to help with math and science courses.

6.6 Coyote Champ Packs – Carlos Huesca, Staff Council Rep

Champ Packs are a final weeks packet to help with studying

Reaching out for collaboration to help with student champ packs

We made 350 last quarter and want to grow every quarter going forward

Suggested the Senate office be used for drop off of product donations

We are asking for donations—food, monies, labor and Carlos is the contact

Senators want Faculty Staff to be a co-sponsor and Staff Council will ensure FS receives

recognition in the packs

Each packet costs about $4.00 (list of items was sent by email)

We will send around an envelope to collect at the next FS Meeting

Staff Council will send out an email to the Senate when we are ready to put the

Packs together

6.7 Faculty Evaluation of FAMs Renumbering/Retitling – Rong Chen

FAC plans to reorganize the FAMs to make them easier to duplicate

We will eliminate volumes

They will be more consistent, accessible and readable

We will renumber and retitle FAMs going forward

7. DISCUSSION ITEMS

7.1 Electronic Voting – Haakon Brown

Will help with absentee balloting

Will save work for election officers

If we pursue electronic voting, what would be the concerns

How should we go about electronic voting

Current bylaws do not allow for electronic voting

Most other CSU senates do electronic voting and use Qualtrics

Suggest we store results on a non-university server

Action: Chair Kolehmainen will check with other chairs to ascertain response rate and

any issues.

8. OLD BUSINESS

9. NEW BUSINESS9.1 FAM 841.97 Writing Requirement for Graduate Candidacy – Caroline Vickers(second reading)Senator Ajayi moved and Senator Chen-Maynard seconded the motion to waive the firstReading of FAM 841.97. PASSED Unanimously

55

FSM 2019.02.19

Senator Ajayi moved and Senator Garcia seconded the motion to accept the proposed revision to the Writing Requirement for Graduate Candidacy. PASSED, 1 Opposed, 1 Abstension

10. COMMITTEE REPORTS10.1 EPRC10.2 FAC10.3 Q2S

11. STATEWIDE ACADEMIC SENATOR’S REPORT

12. SENATOR’S REPORTS/INCLUDING ASI PRESIDENT’S REPORT

13. DIVISION REPORTS13.1 Vice President for Information Technology Services13.2 Vice President for University Advancement13.3 Academic Affairs/Deans’ Reports13.4 Vice President for Administration and Finance13.5 Vice President for Student Affairs

Meeting Adjourned at 3:53PM

66

Developed – GI 2025 Transparent Policies and Procedures Approved – Academic Affairs Council (Spring 2018) Updated Fall 2018

California State University, San Bernardino Administrative Procedure

Course Repeat

1. Repeat of Courses

ORIGINAL

Repeat of Courses: Undergraduate Students

Undergraduate students may only repeat courses if they earned grades lower than a "C." This policy (which went into effect as of Fall 2009) applies to any grade earned at CSUSB at any time. A maximum of twenty-four (24) units may be repeated for grade forgiveness (formerly called grade discounting). An additional eighteen quarter units may be repeated with both grades averaged into the grade point average calculation. Students are allowed a maximum of three (3) attempts per non-repeatable course. No repeats will be allowed beyond these limits.

http://bulletin.csusb.edu/academic-regulations/

REVISED

Repeat of Courses: Undergraduate Students

Undergraduate students may only repeat courses if they earned grades lower than a "C." This policy applies to any grade earned at CSUSB at any time. A maximum of eighteen (18) quarter units (12 semester units) may be repeated for grade forgiveness. An additional eighteen (18) quarter units (12 semester units) may be repeated with both grades averaged into the grade point average calculation. Students are allowed a maximum of two attempts per course (1 original and 1 repeat). Permission to enroll for the 3rd attempt requires approval of Undergraduate Studies. Repeated courses are generally enrolled during the Open Enrollment period (assuming space is available in the course).

77



2. Grade Forgiveness

ORIGINAL

Course Repeats with Grade Forgiveness

Grade forgiveness (discounting a grade) for a repeated course is by petition only. If the petition for grade forgiveness is approved, the new grade replaces the former grade in terms of GPA calculation. Petitions should be filed after the completion of the course used to discount the previous course. Students are strongly encouraged to speak with an advisor before repeating a course for grade forgiveness to ensure that the student is eligible to repeat that course to discount the grade.


REVISED

Course Repeats with Grade Forgiveness

Grade forgiveness (discounting a grade) follows the current grade forgiveness campus process, with the grade of the last course completed being used for GPA calculations (up to the 18 quarter units or 12 semester units permitted for grade forgiveness). Students are allowed a maximum of two attempts per course (1 original and 1 repeat). Permission to enroll for the 3rd attempt requires approval of Undergraduate Studies. Repeated courses may only be enrolled during the Open Enrollment period (assuming space is available in the course). Grade forgiveness is not applicable for courses which the original grade was the result of a finding of academic dishonesty. Students are strongly encouraged to speak with an advisor before repeating a course for grade forgiveness to ensure that the student is eligible to repeat that course to discount the grade.

88



Appendix 1 – EO 1037

B. Repetition of Courses

1. Undergraduate students may repeat courses only if they earned grades lower

than a C.

2. Course Repeats with “Grade Forgiveness” (Grade forgiveness is the circumstance

in which the new grade replaces the former grade in terms of the calculation of GPA,

etc.):

2.a. Undergraduate students may repeat up to 16 semester-units (24

quarter-units) with grade forgiveness.

2.b. Undergraduate students may repeat an individual course for grade

forgiveness no more than two times.

2.c. Grade forgiveness shall not be applicable to courses for which the

original grade was the result of a finding of academic dishonesty.

3. Course Repeats with “Grades Averaged”:

Campuses may permit undergraduate students to repeat an additional 12

semester-units (18 quarter-units), i.e., units in addition to the 16 semester-units

(24 quarter- units) for which grade “replacement” is permitted. In such

instances the repeat grade shall not replace the original grade; instead both

grades shall be calculated into the student’s overall grade-point average.

4. Campuses may elect to be more restrictive on course repeats than the maxima

listed above.

5. The limits apply only to units completed at the campus.

https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1037.html

99

https://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1037.html

ECM 18-07

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN BERNARDINO FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

M I N U T E S

Tuesday, January 8, 2019 2:00-3:50PM

AD-145

Members Present: Karen Kolehmainen, Lasisi Ajayi, Rong Chen, Davida Fischman, Haakon Brown, Donna Garcia, Shari McMahan, Beth Steffel, Jodie Ullman, Jill Vasillakos-Long, Tomás Morales

Visitors: Tom Provenzano, Grace King, Craig Seal, Olivia Rosas, Amy Braceros

1. Approval of EC Minutes – 11/27/18, ECM-18-06The EC approved the Executive Committee minutes of November 27, 2018 as corrected.

2. Approval of FS Minutes – 11/13/18, FSM 18-04The EC approved the Faculty Senate Minutes of November 13, 2018 as amended.

3. Suspension & Discontinuation of Programs – Grace Kelly & Tom Provenzano• Grace reviewed programs which require action in CIM – discontinuation or conversion to

Semester. Nothing has been done with these programs—just sitting out there.• Some degree programs must fall under one of the following categories: Discontinuation,

Suspension, Elevations from Concentrations to Degree Programs or Concentration Programs notmodified in CIM due to business practice change of listing.

• Credential Programs have 2 options: Suspension (suspend through Fall 2023 via P-form)or Conversion to Semester and the P-form (must be completed by January 31, 2019)

• Grace needs to get flow chart approved before presenting to Faculty Senate. Will let Sylvia know.

4. AppointmentsThe EC made the following appointments:

• Honorary Degree Committee – Ahlam Muhtaseb, CAL (2019-2020)• Graduation Initiative Task Force – Crystal Huang, CBPA• Scholarship Committee – Melika Kordrostami, CBPA• Faculty Professional Development Coordinating Committee – Judith Sylva, COE• Committee for Exceptional Assigned Time (CEAT) – Marc Fudge, COE• Search Committee for VP of Student Affairs – Judith Sylva, COE• IT Governance Executive Committee – Yasha Karant, CNS

5. Q2S Recommendations: Catalog Rights & Summer 2020 Recommendations These items will be on the next Faculty Senate Meeting Agenda as Information Items.

6. Nominations for Faculty Trustee Position The deadline for applications has been extended to Monday, January 14, 2019. Beth Steffel is a

candidate and Chairperson Kolehmainen/Sylvia will submit the signed nomination forms directly to: Reem Osman & Tracy Butler.

7. FAC – IDS RPT GuidelinesRon will take another look at these—so they were tabled for further review.

10

ECM 18-07

• The EC had much discussion on SOTE’s, numbers, number of published articles, etc.• Need to have clear criteria and what they need to achieve.• Suggest SOTE’s count for a “percentage” of the weight given• Numbers are very easily manipulated.• Soften numbers on the SOTE’s and soften quality of publications• The voice of students is very important.• A baseline for publications should be established• SOTE’s do not predict student learning or quality of learning• Numbers make it too easy for the evaluator• Senator Chen wants to review the “policy consistencies”.• What should the number of years to apply for tenure be? Should there be a number of years

needed to work on the campus to apply? This is something we will be working on this year.Service credit issue still remains.

• FAM lists specific guidelines under Chapter 5, Personnel Evaluations for creatingdepartmental evaluation guidelines: Research: “Guidelines must avoid setting specificquantitative goals since each evaluation committee must evaluate both quantitative andqualitative aspects of professional activities and achievements.”

• To change this, we will have to reverse what the Senate voted (see above).

8. Priority Registration Appointment Process – Craig Seal, Olivia Rosas, Amy Braceros• Want to get away from the term “priority”—look more at who needs to graduate first• Former Vets, Foster Youth, Students with Disabilities, Note Takers will continue to have an

earlier registration appointment.• Those with honors and other academic recognition will still have priority within their classes.

You would have an earlier registration appointment and would not see “priorityregistration.”

• Note takers are usually within the same major• We want to start this in Spring 2019.• This will be placed as an agenda item on next FS Meeting.

9. Syllabus Policy Revised• Accessibility requirement and the 1F is revised per attachment.

10. President’s Report• President Morales wished everyone Happy New Year and briefly mentioned 3rd Annual New

Year’s Celebration.• We have a lunch date is set for January 29th with the President’s Cabinet and the EC.

11. Provost’s Report• Update on two Dean Searches: Zoom Interviews CAL – starts next week. COE applications

just closed and they will be meeting in two weeks.

12. Approval of Faculty Senate Agenda – January 15, 2019, FSA 18-05• EC Minutes should be included as Information Items on the Faculty Senate Agenda going

forward.• EPRC would like a time certain for FAM’s under New Business.

11

ECM 18-07

13. Statewide Senate Tenets of Shared Governance in CSU• Put a copy on the agenda for January 15 and ask them to review and will discuss at next FS

Meeting.

14. Electronic Voting• Discuss Electronic Voting in the next FS Meeting. Will need flexibility in the bylaws to do so.• Elections will be held earlier in the Spring this year.• Plan to submit changes to bylaws/constitution as completed vs. presenting all changes at

one time.

Meeting adjourned.

12

Tenets of System Level Shared Governance in the California State University

The Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) and the Chancellor affirm their

commitment that joint decision making is the long-accepted manner of shared governance at the system

level.i Shared governance refers to the appropriately shared authority, responsibility and cooperative

action among governing boards, administration and faculty in the governance and accountability of an

academic institution.ii

The Constitution of the ASCSU establishes the purpose of the systemwide senate, as well as the

means of consultation and decision making by which the senate will act.iii Both the ASCSU and the

chancellor recognize there will be areas of consultation and decision making in which one party or the

other will have primary responsibility.iv In the case of the faculty, primacy includes academic programs,

curricula, methods of instruction, and areas of student life that directly relate to the educational process.v

In these areas the ASCSU is the formal policy-recommending body on systemwide academic and

curricular policy and matters that directly impact them; it is also the primary consultative body on the

academic implications of systemwide fiscal decisions.vi The authority of the faculty in these areas derives

from its recognized expertise in academic matters. The chancellor maintains administrative responsibility

for the institution. The chancellor shares responsibility for the defining and attaining of systemwide goals,

which may include goals for the educational program, and the communication that links all components.

In the case of academic policy, proposals for changes in policy or for new policy may arise from

academic administrators.vii Both parties accept the fiduciary and governing authority of the Board of

Trustees of the California State University ultimately to set policy. For the CSU, consultation must take

place with the ASCSU in areas of faculty primacy described above. This primacy means the faculty voice

is given the greatest weight, although the authority for the final decision resides in the Office of the

Chancellor. In areas of faculty primacy, recommendations of the faculty are normally accepted, except in

rare instances and for compelling reasons.viii

Consultation and mutual respect are key components of shared governance. Effective consultation

and joint decision making result in decisions that better serve the CSU and its students. While discussions

may take place in different forms with other constituencies, faculty consultation means that there is an

established process of deliberation that offers a means for the faculty–either as a whole or through

authorized representatives–to develop and provide formal input in advance of decision making on the

particular issue under consideration. System level policy affecting faculty primacy areas shall result from

consultation between the chancellor and the ASCSU. Joint decision making in these areas results from

effective consultation, as characterized below. While the ASCSU serves as the official voice of the

faculty on systemwide issues, campus senates serve as the official voice of their respective faculty.

26

Consistent with the precepts of this document, but not expressly addressed herein, campuses have their

own relationships with the Office of the Chancellor. A normative culture of meaningful consultation

must be characterized by:

x openness and transparency;x commitment to civility, integrity, respect and open communication;x mutual responsibility for decisions;x trust, including trust of good intentions;x a commitment to responsible participation on the part of all parties;x a respect for evidence-based deliberation;x a recognition of established best practices and promising new data-driven practices in the

evaluation of subjects under consideration; andx a recognition that consultation must allow both parties the time to consider, debate, develop their

responses and work toward consensus while recognizing the need to proceed in a timely manner.

In accordance with the above described culture of consultation, any plan or policy that could

affect faculty primacy areas and that may actually or potentially result in an executive order, shall be

provided in draft form to the ASCSU body (or Executive Committee if during the summer), allowing for

a reasonable review period (normally expected to approximate 75 days). If requested by the Executive

Committee, additional extensions to obtain feedback may be authorized by mutual agreement. Each party

recognizes that there will be occasional circumstances in which time constraints do not allow for normal

systems of consultation to work effectively. The formal consultation process will therefore make

provision to allow for an explicit agreement between the ASCSU and the chancellor to engage in a

mutually agreed-upon process of expedited consultation in such cases, while still recognizing the formal

role of the academic senates as the faculty voice on the matters under consideration. In the unlikely event

that agreement cannot be reached, the chancellor will decide. Because an expedited process is not the

most optimal form of consultation and shortchanges a robust shared governance process, its use should be

limited to those rare circumstances that justify departing from the more comprehensive process intended

by this document.

Ultimately, genuine consultation based on sound reasoning occurs only in such a time and

manner that each party has a reasonable opportunity to affect the decision being made.

i In California, the faculty role in shared governance and the centrality of joint decision making in that process is clarified in the Higher Education Employee Relations Act (HEERA); HEERA was to establish collective bargaining for faculty at CSU to insure that in doing so, traditional shared governance practices are not inhibited or undermined: “The Legislature recognizes that joint decision making and consultation between administration and faculty or academic employees is the long-accepted manner of governing institutions of higher learning and is essential to the performance of the educational missions of these institutions, and declares that it is the purpose of this chapter to both preserve and encourage that process. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to

27

restrict, limit, or prohibit the full exercise of the functions of the faculty in any shared governance mechanisms or practices...” https://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/statutes.aspx#ST3560 ii https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities. iii http://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/records/about_the_senate/documents/constitution_2013_revision.pdf iv https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities. v https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities. vi http://www.calstate.edu/acadsen/records/about_the_senate/documents/constitution_2013_revision.pdf vii https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities. viii Report of the Board of Trustees’ Ad Hoc Committee on Governance, Collegiality, and Responsibility in the California State University. Adopted by the Board of Trustees of the California State. University, September 1985.

Addendum

This document resulted from a series of meetings between members of the ASCSU Executive Committee (Christine Miller, Catherine Nelson, Simone Aloisio, Thomas Krabacher, and Robert Keith Collins) and members of the leadership team at the Office of the Chancellor (Timothy White, Loren Blanchard, Christine Mallon, James Minor and Leo Van Cleve). The meetings took place during the 2017-18 academic year, and culminated in mutual agreement on May 8, 2018.

The following definitions aided in the crafting of this document:

Chancellor: For the purpose of this document the Chancellor refers broadly to the functions assigned to the Chancellor and the staff who work in the Office of the Chancellor.

The following definitions are used by the American Association of University Professors and the American Conference of Academic Deans in surveys of higher education governance in 1970 and 2001.(�)

“Consultation: Consultation means that there is a formal procedure or established practice which provides a means for the faculty (as a whole or through authorized representatives) to present its judgment in the form of a recommendation, vote or other expression sufficiently explicit to record the position or positions taken by the faculty. This explicit expression of faculty judgment must take place prior to the actual making of the decision in question. Initiative for the expression of faculty judgment may come from the faculty, the administration, or the board.”

“Discussion: Discussion means that there is only an informal expression of opinion from the faculty or from individual faculty members; or that there is formally expressed opinion only from administratively selected committees.”

(1) https://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/97F85F15-0C93-4F2D-8291-E0E3DAC00329/0/01surv.pdf

28

FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTION ON CSU ELECTRONIC CORE COLLECTION FUNDING

RESOLVED: That the Faculty Senate of California State University San Bernardino strongly supports centralized funding of an Electronic Core Collection (ECC) of library information resources for all CSU campuses, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Faculty Senate of California State University San Bernardino understands that the Electronic Core Collection (ECC) funding, as it was set up over a decade ago, is static, with no realistic provision made for inflation. In the recent past, annual “rescues” have been necessary to avoid egregious cuts in the collection.

RESOLVED: That the Faculty Senate of California State University San Bernardino recognizes that centralized funding benefits every CSU campus and is essential for campuses with smaller library budgets because the ECC provides direct access to general and disciplinary resources that would be difficult to fund and sustain locally; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Faculty Senate of California State University San Bernardino recognizes that centralized acquisitions of electronic resources allows the CSU system to leverage its purchasing power to negotiate prices that may be unachievable at the individual campus; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Faculty Senate of California State University San Bernardino strongly supports increasing base ECC funding: 1) to address resource cost inflation to prevent the cancellation of resources on which faculty relyto support the teaching, learning, research, and creative activities of the faculty and students ofthe CSU,2) to allow expansion of the ECC so that all CSU students and faculty, regardless of campusaffiliation, have access to a strong core of disciplinary and general resources to meet theirscholarly needs; and be it further

RESOLVED: That this resolution be shared with the Chancellor; the Assistant Vice Chancellor, Academic Technology Services; the CSU Academic Affairs Council; The CSU Council of Library Directors (COLD); California State University San Bernardino Foundation Board of Directors; and the committees charged with oversight and management of the ECC (SDLC and EAR).

29

RATIONALE: A resolution in support of increased ECC funding passed the CSU Academic Senate unanimously on January 17-18 (AS-3351-18/FGA/AA (Rev)). As noted in that resolution:

The ECC started in 1999 and in 2008, the Academic Senate of the California State University endorsed the Virtual Library AS-2854-08/AA of which the Electronic Core Collection (ECC) collection is part for CSU students and faculty. Since 2008, the budget has stagnated at $5 million with no augmentations in ten years. As a result, due to increasing costs of information resources and inflation, the purchasing power of the ECC has diminished and information sources cut to keep within the budget.

This resolution affirms the need for increased funding and brings attention to the special importance of central funding and support for the CSU libraries with smaller library budgets.

Centralized management of the ECC and its funds makes it possible to leverage the CSU’s purchasing power to achieve economies of scale in the acquisition of resources, ensuring that campuses are supported in the most cost-effective way. A sizable augmentation of the ECC budget (as recommended in the ASCSU resolution) will allow a significant expansion of the resources available to all campuses. The ECC is currently composed of the following resources:

ABI Inform (ProQuest) Academic Search Premier (EBSCO) Academic Complete eBooks (ProQuest) American Chemical Society Journal Archives American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS Ebooks Collection) America History and Life (EBSCO) Biological Abstracts (Thomson) CINAHL (EBSCO) Communication and Mass Media Complete (EBSCO) CQ Researcher Digital Dissertations Package A: Humanities and Social Sciences (ProQuest) Ethnic NewsWatch GenderWatch Global Newsstream (ProQuest) Grove’s Music JSTOR Arts and Sciences (12 collections) Life Sciences Collection (JSTOR) MathSciNet Mergent Online Modern Language Association (EBSCO and ProQuest) NetLibrary (EBSCO) Oxford English Dictionary Project Muse Standard Collection

30

FSD: 19-001

APPROVED BY THE CSUSB FACULTY SENATE

______________________________ ________________, UNANIMOUSLY Karen Kolehmainen, Chair

31

Tenure Track Faculty Hiring

George M. Georgiou

Tenure Track Faculty Hiring Task Force, ChairProfessor of Computer Science and Engineering

California State University, San Bernardino

[email protected]

February 20, 2019

32

The Tenure Track Faculty Hiring Task Force

I Lasisi Ajayi - COE

I Dionisio Amodeo - CBS

I Nicholas Bracher - CAL

I Haakon Brown - JHBC

I George Georgiou - Chair

I Yasha Karant - CNS

I Seval Yildirim - FA&D

2/3733

Tasks of the Task Force

I Based on data, make a 3-year projection plan for faculty hiring

I Identify infrastructure constraints such as the impact oflimited available space

I Make recommendation regarding optimal timeline/efficiencyof searches to capture best qualified candidates.

I May make other faculty hiring recommendations, such as howthe new hires can be best supported and if any hiring can bedone at Palm Desert.

I Deadline for report to Provost McMahan: May 31, 2019

3/3734

california state university, san bernardino · committee reports 11.1 eprc 11.2 fac 11.3 q2s 12....

Documents