Academic Senate 1000 E. Victoria Carson, CA 90747 WH-A420 (310) 243-3312 Academic Senate Meeting Minutes

April 24, 2019/Loker Student Union/2:30 – 5:00 PM

Voting Members Present: Bono, Chhetri, Cutrone, Deng, Dixon, Evans, Hirohama, Jarrett, Johnson, Kalayjian, Keville, Kitching, Krochalk, Kulikov, Ma, Macias, Mendoza Diaz, Monty, Morris, Naynaha, Nicol,Park, Pawar, Pong, JPrice, Sanford, Sharp, Skiffer, Taylor, YiVoting Members Not Present: Andrade, Benavides Lopez, Ernst, Fortner, Gray-Shellberg, Heinze-Balcazar, Laurent, McGlynn, Phan, VPrice, Radmacher, Silvanto, Still, TangVoting Ex-Officio Members Present: Celly, Esposito, Gammage, Joseph, Ortega, Pinto, Ospina, TalamanteVoting Ex-Officio Members Not Present: Norman, ParhamNon-Voting Ex-Officio Members Present: Avila, Davis (proxy Hutton), Franklin, LaPolt, Spagna, WenNon-Voting Ex-Officio Members Not Present: Costino, Brasley, Driscoll, Goodwin, Manriquez, McNutt, O’Donnell, Peyton, Poltorak, Sayed, StewartGuests: T. Caron, A. Kawakami, D. Parker, T. Ortega, F. Supernaw

2018-2019 Academic Senate Executive Committee:Laura Talamante – Chair, Kate Esposito – Vice Chair, Justin Gammage – Parliamentarian, Dana Ospina – Secretary, Enrique Ortega – EPC Chair, Katy Pinto – FPC Chair, Kirti Celly and Thomas Norman – Statewide Senators

Recorded and Edited by SEW and the Executive CommitteeMeeting Called to Order: 2:30 PMApproval of Agenda M/S/PApproval of 4/10/19 Minutes: M/S/P

Academic Senate Chair Report: Toros Helping Toros Food Drive, April 23-May 15: Thank you to VP Franklin for our new and first ever full-

time Basic Needs Coordinator, Morgan Kirk. Kirk has organized a campus food drive. What many of us might not realize is that food stores are down this time of year, but our students basic needs remain the same. Please support by bringing in nutritious canned or dried foods, drinks, and hygiene products. Our office in WH A420 has a donation box as does Student Affairs in WH A410. Megan can be contacted via email mkirk@csudh.edu or phone (310) 243-3349.

Post-Awards Analysis Report RSCA Faculty Intramural Grant Program 2019: Thank you to Dean Claudia Peyton for sending out this report. What is even better is the time and thoughtfulness that Dean Peyton showed in responding to questions about the results and how applicants are reviewed. There are several strong suggestions for reviewing the process and also for providing more support for faculty applying, which will make the process even stronger in the future.

Gender Equity Task Force Meeting: We met for the first time on April 18th with all members in attendance, including Tammy Kenber, CSU Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources. The President welcomed the task force and requested that we do more than report that our work helps the campus to realize that Gender Equity is everyone’s responsibility and that we look for data-driven and qualitative assessment to guide closing the gender gap at DH. At our May meeting everyone will join a subcommittee to begin initial research over the summer. Faculty members not on a 12-month contract have been reminded that we do not expect their summer participation, and that they can join the continuing research in the fall semester. Our goals are to 1) Assess current DH practices and outcomes, 2) Research best practices and structures, and 3) Report and Make Recommendations. We foresee coming to Senate in the fall to ask for an extension on reporting in the fall as stated in the resolution and instead holding a town hall and presenting a preliminary report in spring 2020 with a final report to Senate in fall 2020. Thank you to all who completed the Campus Climate Survey; we expect it to be useful to the task force. Currently, I am also a co-

investigator on the Women’s Leadership Development Survey that was sent to all employees identifying as female on April 23rd and will end on May 13th. The results of the survey will also inform the work of the task force and help us in making recommendations for addressing barriers women face in rising to leadership positions in higher education generally, and more specifically here at DH.

Faculty Innovation & Leadership Awards: The California State University Faculty Innovation and Leadership Award recognizes faculty who demonstrate leadership or advance student success programs to improve degree completion or eliminate equity gaps. Twenty-three faculty members from across the CSU will be recognized with a $5000 cash award and $10,000 to be allocated to the academic department to support awardee activities. The deadline for FILA nominations is Friday, May 3, 2019. Additional information can be found at: www.calstate.edu/FILA. Our campus is one of the CSUs not currently strongly represented in the applications, so please reach out to innovative faculty in your departments and programs and encourage them to apply. Senator Thomas Norman (tnorman@csudh.edu) was instrumental in the creation of this program, and he may be able to answer faculty questions in the application process.

Senate Handbook & Senate Committee Service Database: Thank you to Charles Thomas, Dana Ospina, Justin Gammage, and Susanne Walker for their respective work on developing a Senate Handbook that we will edit over the summer and be prepared to present to Senate in the fall. They have also worked on a digital Senate Committee Service Database, which allows us to track membership starting and ending dates on committees populated by the Senate. If there is time, we will have a quick demonstration of the database at the last meeting of Senate on May 8th. I want to remind senators you have served a three year term already, as a faculty senator, it’s time to go back to your departments for elections. The terms are three years. If you can't remember when you last started on Senate, it's probably time to go back to your department for elections for the upcoming terms. It's really important that you do this now so that incoming senators, if they're not you in the Fall, it's good for us to be able to get them the information they need before the semester starts so that they can begin the year feeling included and not trying to catch up from the first meeting.

NTTF Penn State University Model & the CBA: Last week, Senator Celly in her role as co-chair of the NTTF Implementation Committee and I met with Provost Spagna and CFA professional staff representative Jackie Teepen. to discuss the Penn State Model that accords NTTF professor titles and opportunities for advancement on a NTT scale from Assistant Professor of Teaching to Associate and finally to Professor of Teaching. The Collective Bargaining Agreement defines the codes that classify faculty, and thus any changes to those titles are a bargaining issue and cannot be undertaken by a single CSU. However, Ms. Teepen emphasized that these suggestions should be made to the CFA Bargaining Team (https://www.calfac.org/bargaining-team), of which our retired colleague David Bradfield is a member. She suggested we might even want to invite the bargaining team to Senate next year.

Parliamentarian ReportSenate Parliamentarian, Justin Gammage – There weren’t elections or confirmations, however, Gammage read aloud the election results for the Academic Senate Chair, the Non-tenure track faculty (NTTF) representatives as well as the staff representatives for 2019-2020.Academic Senate Chair: Dr. Charles Thomas, who ran unopposed, received 76% of the votes affirmed the nomination. There were 117 votes cast, and 89 affirmed his nomination. NTT faculty representative: Claudia Mendoza Diaz and Trevor GriffeyKeep in mind that orders were to choose two candidates.Claudia Mendoza Diaz received 58% of the voteTrevor Griffey received 34.8% of the voteDaniel Cutrone received 32.6% of the voteFarnaz Tabaee received 23.9% of the voteAdam Sanford received 19.9% of the voteGurpreet Singh received 4.3% of the vote

Staff Representatives from Academic Affairs and those not from Academic AffairsThe new Staff Representatives for 2019-2020 are Fawn Supernaw and Toumik Asatoorian.

Academic Affairs Fawn Supernaw - 29%Darryl Evans - 27.4%Lee Broussard – 22.6%Karen Hill – 17.7%Anthony Joseph Diaz - 3.2%

Non Academic AffairsToumik Asatoorian – 38.9%Nathlyn Hirohama – 33.3%Chrisgen Whitfield – 27.8

Senator Monty said he had a question and perhaps a recommendation, or maybe this will be a point to refer to further consultation to develop. Both of the NTT representatives who were elected are from the same college. Even though we have two representatives of the NTTF, might it not be worth asking if they it be stipulated that they not be from the same college just to further achieve potential for greater breadth of representation. Talamante stated given that we are going to be bringing back a second reading on constitutional amendment let’s get a Sense of the Senate by a show of hands if this was a recommendation they would like to see in the second reading of the recommendations for constitutional amendments and revisions. [the large majority raised their hands in agreement]. Gammage noted that in the current year we also have two NTTF from the same college. Gammage noted the last announcement that he’s been sending out calls to begin to populate the various committees starting for academic year 2019-2020. So please look out for the calls. We are trying to populate all of the committees by the end of this academic year, so that when we move into the next academic year, we can hit the ground running. If a new senator is to be elected in your department, please begin that process now. This way for the last meeting of the academic year, we can have a list of all the different representatives from the various departments or units introduced at that meeting.

*W FPC 19-10 Resolution to Revise the Faculty Policy Charge, FPC Chair PintoA motion was made to waive the first reading and present the item as a W*. Motion was accepted and seconded, and by a show of hands, all were in favor. Pinto reviewed the emboldened changes. There were no questions. Senator Evans called the question. Parliamentarian Gammage asked for a vote by a show of hands.

Resolution passes by a vote of 34 in favor, 0 opposed and 0 against

*W EPC 19-11 Resolution to Revise the Educational Policy Committee Charge, EPC Chair OrtegaA motion was made to waive the first reading and present the item as a W*. Motion was accepted and seconded, and by a show of hands, all were in favor. Ortega said there were only three minor changes made. Ortega reviewed the emboldened changes. Senator J. Price noted on line 34, the name of the position is Dean of Graduate Studies and Research. On line 19, he believes there should be a statement saying “matters related to issues of educational policy” should be woven in there some place. He said there are matters that are not specifically delegated to the colleges that should not be under the jurisdiction of this committee. Price’s comment was accepted as a friendly amendment. Senator Celly said that the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research should be Research and Graduate Studies, or there should be a comma after Graduate Studies. Talamante noted it should be updated to 12 members total including the ex-officio non-voting members. There were no other questions or comments. Senator Ortega called the question, which was seconded by Vice Chair Esposito, pending modifications. Parliamentarian Gammage asked for a vote by a show of hands.

Resolution passes by a vote of 32 in favor, 0 against and 0 abstentions

Second ReadingFPC 19-09, Resolution for the Establishment of Endowed Chairs or Professorships, FPC Chair PintoFPC Chair Pinto requested a motion to present, which was seconded. She noted that the Senate Executive Committee solicited commented which were considered for the Second Reading. She then read aloud the changes and modifications made between the First and Second readings. The floor was opened for discussion. Senator Phan asked if the donor doesn’t specify which department or area holds the chair positions, how it will be decided. Phan continued currently he thinks there is the Annenberg position endowed chair, which he thought the Math Department could post a position, how it will be decided. Also, Phan asked, if the resolution passes, will it be retroactive? If the position is available again, will this rule be applied for the endowed chair positions that currently exist. Talamante said our recommendations, once the resolution is voted on, however it turns out today, goes to policy, and once it is policy, then any position that comes up it is applied to even if they’re has been an endowment in the past. Provost Spagna offered that we are restricting this policy to an endowed professorship within a department. There could also be an endowed professorship within a college, and

there could also be an endowed dean. There are other levels that you can endow within a university, but the one thing that's consistent is they all have to exist in perpetuity, the money goes into an endowment, and it doesn't have an expiration date. Spagna said he believed the question before everyone is you're restricting this to just a department, but there are other opportunities that happen in a similar way we would have to explore if we had the great success of other endowments and other levels. Talamante said it came to Senate Executive Committee because there’s a new endowed chair position, and so the resolution was to address chairs and professorships not deans or other kinds of endowments. Phan asked is this endowed at the department level or endowed at the college. Spagna said as this comes forward, this is consistent with the gift grant agreement. So in this case, this is what he’s primarily seen, it's a faculty member within a department that wants to create an endurable gift within a department. And so in this case, you have a faculty member that put it in his will to put forward this endowment. And that's how that goes forward in this department. What I've seen is that once you give one of these, and this is significant to the university, $1.7 million, you start seeing others following. So it's a good problem to have. But to get our arms around it so that when other donors come forward and say I want to give to History, or I want to put one in Communications, you have a structure so that we could receive that money and be able to create that endowment in a similar way. But the university would never engage in an endowment where it was unspecified. The will, when you get into grant agreements, is to put it in a certain place. Phan asked for this particular endowed chair position, is it for other departments. Phan continued, the current Annenberg is currently in the College of Education. Does anyone know if this would be opened up later on? Talamante suggested it might be a case of going back to the original endowment. Senator Dixon read aloud his comments in response to the Second Reading. “Dear Colleagues, I have serious reservations concerning the changes to the endowment policy proposed by my political science colleagues. In the rationale; in the first resolve and lines three through six; lines thirteen through nineteen; lines thirty three through thirty four; lines thirty eight through forty and forty two of the Second reading, there are various claims to follow current university search policies. These claims are not true. To follow current university search policies, we would need equivalent text to the following: “The department chair shall oversee the conduct of the search committee. The department chair shall submit to the dean an independent assessment of finalists. The department chair shall meet with the dean to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the finalists. The dean shall make a recommendation to the Provosts.” The proposal from my departmental colleagues makes no mention that the chair and the dean have influential roles in the process, when the current process has roles for all three, the departmental faculty committee, the chair and the dean. This proposal seems regard the chair and dean as rubber stamps for anything a departmental majority directs. Still more. All of the suggested changes, especially lines 23 through 31 undermine the current language of the existing endowment agreement, which allows university officials to make alternate arrangements possible in the event the endowed chair is no longer feasible. For example, the disappearance of the host department due to obsolescence or other events. See clause five of the agreement, which gives the President discretion to redirect funds if necessary. Moreover, the signatories of the agreement are Provost Spagna and Dean LaPolt. We should not exclude the aforementioned officials or their successors in the ongoing decision making process. Furthermore, when we're dealing with a possible internal candidate to serve as the endowed chair, the only such candidates will have already jumped through the necessary promotion hoops and a more conversational approach with the appointment is appropriate. Likewise, many external candidates will have jumped through all their hoops before qualifying. The language in lines 38 – 40 is inappropriate. Finally, the original language arrived at by the FPC is consistent with current policies which welcome the departmental committees, but mediate their preferences with the preferences of chairs and deans. We should enact the original version verbatim.” Dixon noted he had three last statements he didn't write down. If it looks to him like the majority of his colleagues wish to adopt the current language, I will abstain. If it looks like the vast majority of them appear to be opposed, he will abstain. And if it looks like its close, he’s going to allow Sam Russo to vote his proxy. Senator Keville said that in line 53, he would look to include “and creative activity” after the word scholarship. Pinto accepted it as a friendly amendment. Senator Celly said she wasn’t sure that the current endowed chair position in the College of Education is renewable, but it does raise a question of should we be writing a resolution for a specific endowment or should it be broader than that endowment. Given the COE endowment seems to be also for the CISE within the College of Education, Celly commented she didn’t know if we should be writing just for the endowed chairs position within Political Science or should we be spending a few minutes thinking about broadening it. Phan asked if it does not specifically say which academic area holds the chair, what’s the procedure? Talamante said what we could we do to engage is a friendly amendment to address that? Phan said if it doesn’t state in the agreement, that perhaps going back to the donor to see if he has a preference. Talamante asked, “If I may push back to the Provost for a moment. Did I understand you correctly to say earlier that in negotiating endowed chair positions or professorships that we would work with the donor to make sure there was a specifications for the

academic unit to house the position?” Spagna responded, “Yes, actually in my background, some of you may know I was the Eisner endowed chair at my previous institution. That was a college-based chair funded by the Eisner Foundation. Seven million dollars to name the college and create the chair. And it was something that was specified that I want this person in a chair for five years of agreement. But then it opened up for a college election, and I think they're on their third chair. It's been in existence for twelve years. It is something that we can codify, that we can work with Advancement on. You're right, it’s driven by the gift grant agreement. It’s what the donor puts forward. And then it's looked at, and it should come to the college or the department to decide is this something you want to do or not, because again, it's not something that gets foisted on a university. You decide whether you want to take the money and can we do this job. Phan said in the future, in case there is not an agreement, whether we cast an agreement as retroactive. Spagna responded we have to confer back to Advancement, and you have to start with that gift grant agreement with the Annenberg chair because that's what's going to dictate what happens. And if that somehow is superseded by this, they would go back to the donor and say, hey can you live with this in terms of the change? The donor would say yes or no and then we would proceed from there. You couldn’t do something that in this resolution would retroactively undo a gift grant agreement, unless you got to the donor and said we're going to move in this direction, are you comfortable? That has to be negotiated in the gift grant agreement and adopted and adjusted based on that. Monty recommended working on this a little bit further because it’s clear that there are some questions. A number of senators are not clear on what we’re voting for. Monty said he’s among them. He does not understand the purpose of the resolution or the need for it if these issues are specified in the gift agreement. Are we trying to lay out guidelines for decision making on matters that are non-specified in this specific gift agreement? Talamante responded, “yes.” Monty continued, number one, I'm not sure that the Senate is an appropriate place to do that, because we wouldn't do that for every individual gift agreement. That’s one issue, second is that the status within political science based on the comments from the department chair, it seems to me that there may be some disagreement among the department itself, and given that this is the department where the endowed chair would be created, I’m somewhat concerned by that. He said given that that’s the case, we would do better to have further discussion and negotiation before we make any decisions. Dean LaPolt said he wanted to make a general comment in regards to whether this policy is specifically for a particular fellowship or endowment. You know, a great policy will be around long after we’re gone. And in that vein, development of policy, we tried to be as general as possible, but in working on this policy with other people that was the approach. There are about seven other CSU policies that were looked at. Other campuses do have such policies because they do provide guidance on things not covered by gift agreements. In terms of the specific recommendations to change what we saw two weeks ago, my concern is that if you require a committee to weigh in on things you're not perhaps taking into account cases where there is no one to serve on that committee. So you could again have an endowed chair not of a department but for a center like writing across the curriculum or urban environmental research or something like that, where there are no other faculty to serve on such a committee. He said he’s also experienced where no one wants to serve on a committee, they just want the chair to take care of it. So again, if we if we can trust each other to be general enough, to say the department and the dean are going to figure this out, that would be the way to go. Professor Whetmore said since I'm the one who initiated revising this, I would like to explain why. The intent was to give power back to the faculty within the department. The way this was originally written, the dean and/or the department chair can make decisions about who is going to be a department chair. And they say it could be an endowed chair forever. That's the language of agreement. Okay, She said when she read that she said she believes that faculty should have some power and some say as to what goes into their department. Dr. Dixon said that there was a claim that this would be like a hiring committee and that that was not true. It's not a claim, that's a specification, that it would be treated as though it were a hiring committee. That it would be formed in the same way and that similar procedures would be followed. That's the specification that’s in there. So once that’s in there than that’s how it would be done. Part of the faculty Senate, as I've always understood it, is to protect the rights of the faculty in policy. At least that was the way my late husband saw it. But I want to explain what I'm concerned about. It doesn't take away flexibility, except that it gives power back to the faculty to decide some things. In the original it said the academic area that will house the chair/professor in collaboration with the University advancement will first need to approve the position. Whetmore said the change that she made was the academic area that will house the endowed professor shall first elect a committee similar to a standard hiring to describe the position and its duties. This is to be done in collaboration with university advancement to ensure specifications of the intent of the endowment will be met. It is very strict that the intent of the endowment, but also that there will be an elected committee. Whetmore said she would submit that if it's in an area where there's no members, that they could still elect a committee. They can simply decide as we do when the department is too small is to elect people from elsewhere to come in and do the work. Whetmore said her next concern was simply where it

said, would be used for purposes and to subsidize or augment. She said while this part does stay consistent with donor’s wishes, it does not allow for faculty members in the department to weigh in on how specific funds can be spent, who then is to decide? Since it isn't part to further the mission of the department, it seems the department faculty should have some don't say into the kinds of things for which the money can be spent. It seems that most universities with endowed chair positions have some rule that endowed funds may not be used to pay for the university's expected portion of any given salary. To augment is to increase, to subsidize is to help pay. Whetmore said she changed it to say, “shall be used for purposes carefully consistent with the donor's wishes in accordance with rules to be created by committee within the housing academic department area and approved by the dean or designee.” In a further section, Whetmore said it basically just says that that is not the same basis as a regular chair, it is an endowed chair, it is not the same thing. It is supposed to be something different. She said she took most of the language from the UC California System’s General Policy on Endowed Chairs and Professorships. Then on line 13 she noted that the original said an endowed chair professor position, by an existing faculty member at CSUDH or be used to recruit a new faculty member. Then it just says, “in the latter case, normal University procedures for faculty recruitment should be followed”. Whetmore said she added “also in the former case, department elections should be held or an elected appointment committee should be held”. Whetmore noted that basically it’s saying, if you’re going to have a committee to have a committee to hire somebody, to bring them in from the outside. If you bring them in from the inside, let's also give the faculty some power here and have them elect whoever is coming in. And if they’re going to bring them in from somewhere else, not within the department, there should be some kind of committee also to make that appointment and make that decision instead of just having somebody say, “this is how it is”. Senator Park asked about the working on line 24 – 28. She said obviously the endowed chair is different from a regular chair, including program coordinators and their duties are also different. She asked if it were possible to specify the duties are expected of endowed chairs. I'm just curious whether the chairs the department has only wanting one chair, but not chairs. If the endowed chairs’ duties are different, than who is going to carry out the duties of department chair? Talamante said the point is to not have endowed chairs be chairs of departments in the normal ways, endowed chairs are something different and unique. Park said then a department can have both a department chair and an endowed chair at the same time? Pinto stated the suggestions from Dr. Whetmore are something we should consider in how we articulate what consultation is and how we articulate the roles of faculty members. Pinto noted in the previous version there was a line that we had talked about in Senate Executive Committee that said in consultation with faculty. As we take more time to think about what shared governance is and how we have been shaping on this campus, what shared governance means between faculty and administration. We have learned that in consultation can mean a lot of different things depending on who we are consulting with. Pinto continued, it is a little bit about how we start developing trust with each other and the expectation and the definition of what in consultation really means. Because we historically have not always had always good experience with what in consultation mean, we have made this specific to really just talking about when then faculty are included in this process. She said that she thinks that the attempt and that’s we have discussed this on Senate Executive Committee and how she has been discussing it as the FPC Chair. Chair Talamante said she was looking for a motion, but not saying what that motion should be. Senator Skiffer said she moves to consult and bring it back for another reading. Talamante asked for clarification, a motion to table for further consultation? Skiffer affirmed and said with the intention of getting it done. Not tabling it in perpetuity. The motion was seconded. The Parliamentarian asked for a show of hands of those in favor, those that oppose and any abstentions. Motion passes by a vote of 32 in favor, no one in opposition, 3 abstentions. Talamante noted the best way to help us bring it back to the floor on our last meeting is for you to forward your questions of what you don't understand, your suggestions, so that we can come back with a resolution that really reflects the sound advice of senators on the floor. Talamante thanked everyone who took their time to come to the Academic Senate Meeting and give us thoughtful feedback and posed questions for us to continue to consider.

President’s Report, proxy Provost SpagnaSpagna said he had several bullets to share

- This is a “stay tuned” item. President Parham and the Cabinet have been vigorously advocating for fiscal support for the anticipated enrollment coming into next year. And there is some good news soon to be reported about the resources to be received to increase our capacity to handle that enrollment.

- Along with the Provost, the President and the Foundation team, they want to compliment Scott Morris, Chair of the Music Department for his work in the music department. They had a very good meeting with the accreditation team and it looks very positive in terms of what they've done in music. It was a proud moment for both the

President and the Provost to meet with the accreditation team. Congratulations. They just received news that the Chancellor's Office has just approved the Bachelor of Music. Spagna asked Morris how long of a journey has it been? Morris said he’s been “annoying” them for seven years. Spagna said congratulations and another milestone for the university.

- President Parham attended the Council of Presidents last week. The big discussion coming into this summer's retreat is going to be about regional enrollment strategies which is going to benefit us in the LA basin.

- President Parham has also been actively engaged in interviewing candidates for the following positions: President’s Chief of Staff, the Vice President for Administration & Finance and the Chief Diversity Officer.

- President Parham attended the LA EDC Future Forum on 4/24 with digital media and e-sports- President Parham attended and gave some welcoming remarks at the Faculty Awards program- President Parham attended the ASI Student Award Banquet on 4/19- President Parham will be participating on 4/25 the State of Education in the South Bay.- President Parham will be attending the inaugural Dymally Jazz Festival to be held on 4/27.

Spagna said in addition to reporting for the President, he will also provide an update from Vice President Goodwin, he understands that the last Academic Senate Meeting about tree removal on campus in terms of the buildings that are going up. There are 123 mature trees that are a mix of coral tree, lemons, scented eucalyptus and carawood trees. Most of these trees have reached the end of their life cycle. One third of them (55) trees will be conserved and protected and will remain in place. Sixty eight (68) of the existing trees will be removed. The good news is we're replacing them with one hundred thirty seven (137) new trees on campus consisting of, for example, Jacaranda, olive trees, date palm trees and dessert willows with improved sustainability in adding those trees.

Final item within the President’s report is that VP Franklin had to leave early but he wanted to thank the entire Academic Senate. We had an unprecedented response rate of over 40%. He wanted to thank you all for getting out and doing that voting and support of taking the survey. It is in the hands of the vendor in terms of analyzing the data. Stay tuned for more news that front.

Provost Report, Provost Michael SpagnaSpagna said he will address two things before he turns it over to his colleague, Wayne Nishioka for a presentation that VP Goodwin would have wanted to present regarding MPP allotment. - Faculty Awards Ceremony - put on by Adrienne Mack in Academic Affairs and Dianne Vogel of Faculty Affairs

& Development. Spagna said the thing that he came away with for anybody that attended that was the community that we continue to develop on this campus. Spagna said he wished to single out Senator Pinto, not only as an award recipient, but she said in her acceptance speech gratitude to several faculty mentors who guided her during her journey. Spagna said he believed that to be indicative of the wonderful culture we continue to build here. He congratulated her again as well as the other award winners and the community we're building here.

- Spagna attended the Affordable Learning Solutions. CSUDH hit the ball out of the park. Compared to the rest of the CSUs, we have over sixty percent (60%) of our faculty that are participating in affordable learning solutions. No other CSU even comes close to that amount of faculty that participate which is all about student success.

Chair Talamante noted that she and the Provost met this week and discussed the Faculty Awards Ceremony. The one improvement that is being committed to for next year is that when we award for service time, all faculty will be included, including tenured, tenure track and non-tenure track.

Interim AVP Finance, Wayne Nishioka Presentation on Analysis of the Positions of MPPs, Faculty and StaffNishioka said he was there in response to a question raised by Senate requesting for an FTE and expenditure breakdown for faculty by category. For example, lecturers versus tenure track. Nishioka shared a few slides and the last slide will have the categories of expenditures. He noted the FTE information will be provided in September. He noted the reason for the reason why they need more time for the FTE information is that it's a very labor intensive process to analyze and collect the information across fiscal years. The budget office staff is currently have priorities for fiscal year end, monthly close and labor cost distribution. They’re also working on revenue projections for the University Budget Committee. They do need some time. Chair Talamante noted that the information they are actually looking for was based on a question from Senator V. Price asking what kind of MPP growth has there been over the

last six years, so it’s the MPP part that they’re most interested in today. Nishioka said on the first chart, it shows the positions that were approved over the past seven years, from 2012 through 2018-19. The MPP information is the gray colored bar chart as indicated by the legend.

He noted, if you look at the bottom, they have the numbers correlating to the bar chart. The MPP growth went from 102.7 in fiscal year 2012-13 to 135.4 FTEs in 2018-19 representing a 32% increase. Nishioka noted that he also has the information on faculty and staff indicated on the chart as well. He noted that the distribution of MPPs to the overall FTE count was 11%. It was consistent throughout each fiscal year. Even though we did show an increase of 32% from 2012-13 to where we are today, the distribution remained even to where we are today at 11%. The next slide shows the salary actuals that were expended by each of the major groupings. The MPP information is shown in green, representing 15% of the distribution of each fiscal year, which was consistent, similar to the positions. The last slide shows the figures that correlate to the chart, understanding that the focus is on MPPs. We show 9.1 or roughly $10 million actual salaries expended for fiscal 2012-13 year, then going from $10 million up to $13.9 in the 2017-18 fiscal year which represents a 39% increase in salary expenditures for MPPs. In looking at the overall campus expenditures, we went from $67 million up to $96 million for the entire campus.

Q&ASenator Nicol asked how many MPPs we’re actually looking at for that $13 million, how many? Nishioka said what he has here are the budgted positions. The budget position is 107 going through 135. He said what he has here are the expenditures. That may not correlate exactly with the budget but that would give you a rough idea. Nicol wanted to know, if we had the same numbers for the head count? Nishioka said that information would be provided in September. Senator Hirohama asked if with the staff counts, are they just permanent positions or are we including part-time, temporary, what are the categories? Nishioka said it includes all positions, both permanent and temporary. Talamante said that sounds like a request for the fall to have both the headcounts as well as breaking it down from full-time to temporary. Hirohoma said yes, otherwise it is a misleading number if you throw in all of the temporaries. Nishioka said he will see what he can do. The information he extracted came from the data warehouse. He will see what information is available that can be presented.

Talamante introduced ASI VP Daylin Joseph and complimented her and ASI for the incredible ASI Awards banquet Talamante attended on 4/19.

ASI Report, ASI VP Daylin JosephSenator Joseph provided election results for the election held in March are as follows:

President – Christian JacksonVP of Academic Affairs – Victor GironVice President of Finance – Rihab ShuaibDirector of Student Services – Itzel MarinCNBS Representative – Katherine MolinaCHHSN Representative – Cindy Romero

Joseph commented that it’s exciting to have new people on board and that they still have openings. She asked if Senate knows of any great leaders in their classrooms, please let them know. We’re always looking for opportunities to foster student growth on campus.

- On 4/25 is ASI’s Annual Spring Fling. While they’ve had some challenges with artists cancelling and such, they’re still very optimistic that they’ll be able to provide an incredible experience for students. The formatting will change, with more DJs performing, more of a relaxed type of event.

- Compliment to the Communications Department. She said frequently there are challenges with advising on campus from advisors not being available to advisors not being attentive. She said at her appointment today with her advisor in Communications it was amazing. It was a great appointment where her advisor was attentive, she helped her set up her courses. She was transparent and able to tell her that she’ll be able to graduate in Spring 2020. She said it was a very refreshing experience. Kudos to the Communications Department.

Chair Talamante asked what position she will be taking next year. She said she’s hoping to get the position of Director of Legislative Affairs. She noted her major is public relations and advertising. That position involves lobbying and will give her direct experience with lobbying with politicians and hopefully she’ll get the opportunity to go to Washington D.C. and Sacramento where she can do some serious lobbying.

Senator Celly said the concert series at LSU, today was the third. She noted that the atmosphere at LSU was very alive and buzzing with activity. Senator Kulikov asked for a follow-up on the concern Senator Joseph had brought up at a prior meeting having to do with a complaint about an online criminal justice class. Senator Joseph responded that last semester she discussed online classes and a student who took a course in CJA, but Joseph said she was mistaken, it was actually Sociology. The student was a criminal justice major and that’s where Joseph got confused and misspoke. She noted that the student loves her major and that she only has good things to say about it.

CFA Report, Senator CutroneCutrone noted that he was asked by Senate Chair Talamante to shorten his time at the next Senate meeting with final reports. He said that he found his term as Non-Tenure Track Faculty Representative both enlightening and rewarding. In his quest to become more involved in the “Inside” working of our University he has found that at the heart of the University is a caring, devoted and hard-working group of senators who keep this University functioning at a high level. His experience as a senator is one of the most cherished experiences of his teaching career. He said he is proud to have been part of our senate and he is sure that our incoming Non-Tenure track representatives will carry on the good work that we have accomplished together.Cutrone noted that a few weeks ago, members of the CFA were invited to speak with Trustee Sabalius during his visit. At that time, they discussed implementing a teaching tenure track position as a classification at our campus. This position would quickly increase our tenure-track density and allow “promotion” to those that have served our university for many years as long-term full-time part timers. The position would insure security for those who have served for years without a full-time contract. It would allow for advancement to Associate Professor status. It would not interfere with the current hiring practices and to advance to a higher level, would require applying to a “Research” position in a national search. Cutrone stated, “we have taken advantage of our Non-Tenure Track instructors for far too long. It must be recognized that without full-time contractors who do most of the teaching required for our students to succeed and yet have no long-term benefits. This practice needs to end if we expect our university to maintain a committed, long-term faculty. We still continue to not support our part timers and invite them to department meetings or reimburse them for expenses to present research at conferences while still requiring presentations as a means for range evaluation”. Cutrone said he has asked numerous times for an answer to these facts and yet at this time he noted he is disappointed to say he has still have not had a satisfactory reply to his inquires. He acknowledged that a first step has been taken by moving to compensate our part time faculty with service credit for the Non-Tenure Track Senate positions. As a result, this semester saw a tremendous increase in individuals willing to run for Senate as non-tenure-track faculty. He said we must continue to keep our part timers involved in our future discussions. His recommendations for CFA are that we also change our stance of dividing our membership with activities not related to our campus. It is one thing to be an activist with the many changes that are needed in our society, but at the expense of neglecting our own members here at our university is another matter that needs to be called to our attention. Cutrone said we must make things right here at home before we step out into other areas. He said he will continue to have hope and know that by speaking up and calling our attention to our misuse of our

non-tenure-track faculty, that CFA will indeed do the right thing and put into practice a process for hiring those interested as being educators as their life career. Cutrone said he applauds the Academic Senate for the work that it does and he is thankful for the opportunity to have served on our senate. He concluded by saying he only sees a bright future that lies ahead for our university. He said just a moment, he will never forget that we had the world stand still at our meetings if only for a moment.

Presentations:Faculty Recruitment Plan 2019-20, Provost SpagnaAcademic Affairs 2017-03 is one of the first policies Spagna said he had the pleasure of signing back on August 31, 2017 which is about guidelines and rationale for tenure track lines. As an overview of this, for those of you familiar with that part of the policy, this intends to facilitate the achievement of a goal number one, which is to conduct a comprehensive faculty flow data analysis for tenure to tenure track faculty in order to develop a campus multiyear plan of faculty hiring. The presentation included a copy of the overall policy. Spagna noted that the important thing is where we are here today. Each year before the end of spring semester, the Provost will provide a report to the academic senate, a rationale for the allocation of new replacement tenure track lines for the upcoming academic year. Throughout the following slides is a series of data that as we slowly accumulate this we’re truing up all of this data. Spagna said he wanted to share with the Senate some highlights, which is the idea of students measured in FTEs by college. Over several columns, there's a student to all faculty ratio, and then tenure density, tenure track to all faculty. Spagna noted that as has been discussed before in the Academic Senate, you can go headcount, you can go FTEs, we’ve gone FTE because that’s what the Chancellor's Office uses. But again, it's slicing and dicing this data. Spagna said the news on this front in terms of looking at it is not just the overall distribution of students by FTEs by college, but another item we also look at is growth. Where are colleges growing? What gets hidden in this data and what needs to be disaggregated, which is what AVP Olschwang is working on, is that within it you have to break out at FTEs growth and overall numbers by department. So which departments were staying stable, which growing and which are staying static? Same thing with the SFR (the 2nd to last column), you'll notice that HHSN and COE are lower. They usually have their accreditation or they have clinical components that required a certain SFR. That's something for us to look at as well. And then over on the right column where we've been spending most time just talking about overall tenure density. The misleading area here, in terms of tenure density, is that some departments, even within some of those colleges, the tenure density can approach only 10%. So looking at HHSN and although says 39% in overall tenure density by college, it's lower in certain departments and higher in others.

This information is important for me to share this with you as well as other slides. These are the kinds of information that we’ll have to use in the multiyear planning. So this is something to interrogate, it is a longer process. But it's something that we need to use. The other thing and say at the onset is, this is not formulae. So I want to really impress upon you that the data is to inform, it doesn't drive it in a formulaic way where we take these columnx, add them up and say okay a department is only going to get this or that.

So this is an example looking at lectures and tenure track FTE by college. This is instructive because when you look across the colleges, the one college that has the higher tenure density is CBAPP. It’s the issue of trying to get a AACSB accreditation. If you look at the other colleges, this is where we need to improve, really in tenure density and in the distribution of lecturers versus tenure track faculty.

This and the next slide has to do are the beginnings of looking at our outcomes, how are we doing in terms of graduation GI 2025. So this is only the 2012 cohort, again, I would not conclude anything from this other than the fact that we need to be aware of it and we need to look at it. In this slide the College of Education is achieving exceeding our target of six year but all of the colleges are doing well on that. We all know that the four year not to admire the obvious but the four year numbers are the ones we're really focusing on and trying to prove.

Same thing here with college transfers. All of the community college transfers, how are we doing in terms of overall for year into your graduation rates? So this is another piece of data that we want to consider.

Spagna said he asked each of the colleges to put together what are some additional things that they're looking at or are they're considering as they have conversations within the college and within the departments.

CAHProgram GoalsTriage (Do no harm)Strategic PlanDepartment Climate and Likelihood of Success

CBAPPAccreditation RequirementsAcademic PlanChairs Council Discussions

COENumber of Majors by DepartmentNew ProgramsChair Feedback

CNBSProgrammatic Accreditation & ReviewResponsiveness to New MarketsCollege Chairs InputsAvailability of Startup FundsAvailability of FacilitiesFaculty DistributionNumbers of Majors per Faculty Headcount

CHHSNProgrammatic Accreditation & ReviewDept. Tenure Density (those at 10% have priority)College Chairs InputsNew ProgramsDepartmental Leadership Pipeline

University LibraryOverall # of Campus Faculty LinesLibrary’s Strategic PlanCore/New Functional Academic Support AreasLibrary Faculty Feedback

How does this all work out? This is to give you a placemat of how rationale kind of works.

I want you to notice on this table that goes all the way to the right column, whether or not a faculty line is allocated or not. And you'll see on this table, we want to consider things like FTEs growth, accreditation, department leadership, attrition, tenure density, major to faculty ratio, strategic opportunities within a college or department. We have to be dedicated to the placemat, but the columns might change. This might expand out by another ten columns. But one thing I point out here in terms of this decision making and rationale, the only one that's hard for us to justify is where you have attrition within a given department, where you don't have any other things going on there. So the idea of doing multiyear planning, if you have attrition within a department, then the conversation becomes how do we strategically position that department for the next year. So let's say that we’ve lost, we're not having FTEs growth, and we're not having anything else happening. We're not getting a line this year, so the work within that college would be to work within that department to think about strategic programming planning resulting in a line the next year. Spagna said this thinking has already infused itself into several departments. He said the he’s knows that Modern Languages, for instance, is really looking and strategic opportunities that could increase some of their enrollment, and that's what we want to support. So again, this is not a formulae thing, it's not something where everyone sits down with a score card, but this shows you some of the rationale and the thinking that goes behind it.

The faculty scenarios by college are as follows. He noted what he promised a year ago were the preliminary numbers. Spagna said this memo goes out on April 25th and these are the recruitments they have, and these are the numbers he’ll stand behind. He does expect the numbers will go up by one or two positions, given that we’re in April and there will be the May revise.

Spagna then discussed his slide on the proposed tenured and tenure-track recruitments. He highlighted rollovers and described them as positions that were not successfully recruited and hired. He noted what his philosophy has been with rollovers is that the department and colleges had put a good faith effort and something happened that they couldn't hire. He said he’s been resistant to sweep these lines taking them back and redistributing them. I've left him within the college. Now, if a college wants to have conversations with departments, Spagna is not taking that position away, they stay within the college so it can be distributed to another department. Replacement projections are people that are either fully retiring or taking advantage of the early retirement program and then the new projected in terms of new lines that we've provided rationale for. This results in a total of 31 searches that Spagna has approved to go forward and they can start putting together recruitment plans and all the rest. He noted there are a couple of colleges within that this list that Spagna knows will have to go northward of those numbers. The two that he’s focused on are CAH and CNBS in terms of what's happening. He said he’s just looking at the new projected lines, because he said he knows that in order for those colleges to really move forward, that’s where he’s looking first. Last year CBAPP received a few more new lines because they were going through accreditation. COE and Library are pretty stable. CHHSN would probably be his third choice, because they have accreditation and leadership concerns. But when you compare the new projected to the total, you’ll see that there's a little differentiation there, and some of them are in a little better shape. Spagna said what he would expect, probably in May, is that you’ll have those go northward in the new projected columns at the very least for CAH and CNBS.

Spagna said new to the report is looking at how much money business involved. He aggregated how much is the average salary and benefit per college and wove that up into 31 searches. He noted that is ends up being $3,956,200 in terms of new salaries and benefits that we have to put in place. He also calculated assigned time, relocation and start-up funding.

He noted he was conservative on these. The average relocation was the local level, maximally $3,500, then, startup costs of around $10,000 and in terms of reassigned time, the equivalent of two years at reassigned time for the faculty being hired. That all rolls up into a little over $5,000,000 as of today that would be put into the faculty hiring. Spagna noted that that number, and some of you know that our GI 2025 money comes in a little under $3,000,000, so of that GI2025 money, some of that will be offset, but the rest will come from the university to make up the balance.

As far as the planning timeline, as of today of spring, you have the preliminary allocations that he’s committed to. He then expects to give an adjusted upwards number as get closer to the summer, and we get out of May with May revise from the Governor's office and this is for faculty hiring in fall of 2020.

Questions/Comments: Senator Taylor asked if the relocation amount was dependent on it being a local candidate. She wondered what was the rationale for assuming that lower end as far as the amount of money? Spagna said because there are two groups, we wind up having $5,000 and above and $3500 and so he used more the more conservative estimate if we were bringing people in. Anybody that is outside the local area will go up to $5,000 from across the country. So that number's going to be higher. That conservative estimate was based on that. Same thing with an average of start costs that he put it there as well. He then calculated the reassigned time based replacement costs, which is what we typically use within colleges. Senator Nicol asked a question about accreditation. When you give a hire to a college or program that’s expecting accreditation, what is the time line by which they're supposed to produce accreditation? Spagna said it really gets us to how close are they or how far are they from accreditation? Last year the decision making went for CBAPP to give them new lines because they were right in the mist of having an accreditation visit. And the conversation was what it would take for them to get close to the end line with them. If you know CBAPP accreditation, it was 60% tenure density within Business. If you notice, we didn’t hit 60%, it is 57%. But this coming year, they didn’t get the same amount. So the whole issue there becomes, we'll give it another year. They're very close and we’ll do a follow up discussion with what’s about what's going to happen with CBAPP. Spagna said the good news is he is fully secure that when the new building opens, we're going to ACSE accreditation and a big banner on the side of the building. Another example for instance is music with a group he just met with. The idea becomes how close are they and what are accreditation requirements and they vary by program and department. It's an imperfect science, but it's not something he’s letting it sit in perpetuity. It's not like we would be going out for accreditation for five years, and we keep infusing. There's got to be a closer window in terms of what's going to happen with deadline for accreditation. Nicol asked if you get to 60% for CBAPP and they lose a faculty member, do you have to then allocate another hire? Spagna responded no, because then we’ve crossed the barrier. We don't have to. Those of you who have gone through accreditation, the accrediting bodies give you these numbers and you think they're hard and fast, but they’re more of a negotiation. What they do want to see is a good faith effort. Senator Celly said even as they move forward on their undergraduate accreditation, it is seemingly at the price of program suspension or discontinuation of the MBA program. She said she sees there are a couple of lines there, one is department leadership, which she’s not sure what that means and the other is attrition. What happens when a program is suspended? What does that do to the numbers? The other question, is given the absence of strong policy, how might we use our shared governance processes such as program review panel to ensure that the MBA program gets a thorough look and assessment before any decisions are made and that it is an inclusive process. Spagna said he appreciated the questions. Some of these questions have to be addressed and drilled down to at an individual college or department level. So when you bring up the issue of what we do with an MBA program, how do we support it? Spagna said he would give just a couple general comments. One is that it's so much harder to launch a program then to do away with it. So as much as we can if we need

to retool or revitalize a program, that is his first want and what he plans on doing with the MBA. Related to attrition and leadership, attrition is more about you losing students. So if you have so if you're losing students and your enrollment is really dropping, and at the same time, you have faculty. He noted that this had happened in COE, where there was all of a sudden there was a teacher shortage and less people going into it. The faculty aren’t leaving. They have permanent jobs, but it's all of a sudden the student growth drops. You can’t take a year to year view of this. You got to take a 3-5 year view of if you have a fluctuation in the market, can the department get out with recruitment efforts or other opportunities strategically to build that. Spagna said the last thing you asked was about the leadership and that part of the placemat. It really is specific to some of the departments, particularly HHSN. They have one person that’s wearing three hats and being a coordinator, a department chair, and running the whole program. They're not going to survive if we just bring in another assistant professor because that person has to be groomed over six years. We might need to bring in an associate professor, somebody with a little more experience to be able to guide that department. Senator Sanford said he has a few questions. The tenure lines, will they be open to people who are here as NTTF? Or are you just going to throw it to the national search and say, “hey, you haven't been in the national search core.” Or as Senator Cutrone pointed out, NTTF are teaching all the classes, they don’t have time or money or energy left for research. Sanford said he would like to know if there's going to be a fair consideration for NTTF who have been here for 5 – 7 years, who applied for these tenure lines or if we're just going to be ignored. The other question is the student faculty ratio is that weighted by T, TT or NTTF. Spagna said that slide had both numbers in it. It had overall faculty, including tenure and non-tenured faculty. That's the one that says student to tenure track faculty. And then student to all faculty. Spagna then addressed Sanford’s first, and responded that all searches that we have for these tenure track positions have to by their nature be competitive. They have to be held to a standard where we're doing national recruitment. Now does a national recruitment prevent a lecturer from applying? Absolutely not. I think where we have to put some energy as a collective community, he said he would like to call it a pathway to tenure track. He said he would like the NTTTF work collectively with NTTF to provide a pathway to get to be competitive for a tenure track job, not just at Dominguez Hills but elsewhere. He said when you speak with NTTF, that’s they’re biggest disappointment. They’re asking, “are you investing in us a way that we're going to be competitive for tenure track competitive searches?” Spagna said this is where he would like to go. He said he would not be able to support the idea, that we would hold back certain lines that would not competitive. We have to do that for the robustness of what we're doing. Chair Elect Thomas asked about the department five year plans that were ultimately rolled up into these conversations. To the extent that that has been done, was that a part of it? The numbers that you have there are per college. Have those lines been allocated within the departments in that college? Or is that left to be done? And I was thinking that those five years department plans we're going be instructive in terms of where those three hires are ultimately going. Actually it’s two because one of those hires is a replacement unless they let it go. That’s one, so where those other two hires are being made on the basis those five years department plans? Spagna responded that this was shared at a previous Academic Senate Meeting by Alice Kawakami and himself. We're still a year away in terms of having the data cleaned and having a confidence in it to put together a multiyear plan. The deans have already started down that path and several of the deans already shared multiyear projected plans within colleges. The one thing we really have to clean up is what's called the academic professional database The APDB which has a lot of fluctuation in it. The second question is that each of these colleges have put forward proposals for these lines much more than these lines. And they said, these are the departments where they need to go to. You need to check at your individual level, at your college level with your dean and with your chairs, what does this look like in terms of the breakdown? Both at what they asked for, as well as what you see reflected in these new lines. It will give you an indication of what as he tries to augment in several colleges where those would logically go? Spagna said that the deans were incredible advocates in this process. He noted he’s trying to change the climate and he thinks that in the past there was a process of taking the deans, throwing the room, locking the door, and waiting to see what came out of it. And that's not what this is has been. This has been more of a collaborative process where it has to be part of a community. So one college says, I really need this this year, next year is your turn, and the Provost said, he’s got to make sure he’s in the room to make that happen. Senator Monty said this is an important step forward. He said he believes it to be a positive sign. He said as far as he understands it, the deans will be receiving this information and should be communicating with departments next week or the week after regarding the distribution of those lines within each college. And hopefully they will do something analogous for their chairs and faculty, something analogous to what Spagna has done here. He said his final comments have to do with the comments of Senator Celly. He expressed that he is somewhat troubled. He said he just learned that there have been deliberations regarding the suspension or elimination of the MBA, and the goal of essentially obtaining accreditation for the undergraduate business program. He said he’s troubled because there is no process. There's a bigger question at stake here

than just the fate of the MBA and the faculty employed in that program. We must have a process, and there must be a consultation. I think beyond the program review and beyond the UPAC. Before any decision is made of that kind, we need to revisit this issue in the Senate and develop policy for program discontinuance or suspension. This should be a high priority, not only because the fate of MBA hangs in balance. But this was also something that was recommended to us by the WSCUC team last fall. He said he was interviewed as Chair of the Program Review Panel and that was one of the things they asked him, “where is your policy regarding that you’re required to have by the CSU regarding program suspension and discontinuance? He said he had to say, we really don't have one. The issue hasn’t arisen, and we've been fortunate in that regard, but if it is here now we have to start with policy before any decisions are made. Spagna said he fully agrees with going to policy. Actually, doing that it might be good at a future meeting to have leadership of CBAPP talk about the process that they took through involving the President and Spagna in terms of consideration. Dean Wen said regarding the accreditation. Just like the Provost said we are just one step away from accreditation by ASCSB. We started the whole process 39 years ago. We’ve tried very hard and in the middle, we have a change of leadership and the dean left and got another job, dropping the ball. Finally, I think we have made some real progress. So we're going to get there soon. Wen noted that Dr. Celly said that there is no communication. Actually, we had our college meeting open forum in February, March and April. We do have whole college meetings. The last one we actually had the President and Provost join us for our meeting. The consensus was that we would like to get the ASCSB as soon as possible. EPC Chair Ortega said the Senate Executive Committee tasked the EPC Committee with beginning to draft and look at examples of program discontinuance. We're going to call today for during our update is a working room or task force to pull together as wide as possible feedback or rules for a beginning draft of what we’ve collected in EPC.

Writing Intensive Survey Update, University Writing Committee Chair NaynahNaynaha referred those who were at the previous Senate meeting to the handout that was made available that was a one page data sheet. It included all of the information that will be included in the PowerPoint presentation Naynaha would be going through. The WI or Writing Intensive Policy Faculty Survey was administered by the University Writing Committee last semester over a period of six weeks. We began our analysis at the end of last semester and completed it at the beginning of this semester. And this is her final stop on an information sharing campaign across campus that included two faculty forums, and an appearance before Academic Affairs Council plus last week. The next steps are going to include taking all of the feedback, input, questions, and concerns that have been shared with us and at the next University Writing Committee meeting, they're going to begin planning strategizing the revision of Writing Intensive Policy through next year. About the survey, we had 156 respondents. 150 people completed the survey and they received hundreds of additional detailed comments related to each question that was included in the survey. She said she would focus on major patterns or trends in the responses that faculty offered in the survey. The biggest takeaway is that the vast majority of faculty respondents favor maintaining a writing intensive course requirement for graduation at CSUDH. Virtually all respondents indicated the importance of writing and sustained writing instruction across all of the years of the student's academic career. Many faculty members also expressed concern about the quality of student writing and expressed that we need a writing intensive in order to systematically address those needs through the curriculum. Many comments also indicated that a preferable model would require students to take a writing intensive course at the GE level and then at the upper division level in the major. And finally, a number of faculty members expressed for more writing and writing instruction in nearly all courses that students take, not just writing intensive courses, in order to provide them with the skills and experiences, they need to become successful disciplinary professional writers before they graduate. A couple of interesting points:

- students should complete their communication area to requirement prior to taking writing intensive course.- Most faculty favor maintaining course caps of twenty five and no more in a writing intensive course regardless of

whether that's taught by one instructor, or supported by a GTA or tutor.- Faculty believe that believe that many different types of assignments, genres and loads of writings should count

towards the total number that are required in writing intensive course. Those should be tied in to conventions and expectations within the discipline.

- There were a few things about the types of feedback and assessment we should be providing and writing intensive courses and about the use of portfolio methodology.

- At the faculty forums we spent time talking about alternative models. There are two models for writing intensive requirements or programs in colleges and universities across the country.

o A model that looks a lot like ours: An institution might require one writing intensive course. But the difference between models at many other institutions and ours is that there is typically a robust faculty

professional development component that is attached to the writing intensive requirement to support instructors who teach those courses

o A pedagogical component: Our existing policies is very instrumentalist. It has things like how many you need to be written; how many pages need to be given feedback on; how many pages need to be revised and re submitted before the end at the semester. But it doesn't talk about things like the actual teaching or instruction of writing intensive courses in the discipline.

o Another model, which you could take a look if you search University of Minnesota, WEC, which stands for writing enhanced curriculum. This is a model that really, rather than focusing on a couple of courses in the curriculum that students will be required to take. Writing instruction is infused throughout the curriculum so that students are getting these intensive discipline specific writing experiences and instruction throughout time at CSUDH.

Q&A/CommentsSenator Sanford said he sees throughout the presentation “disciplinary specific writing practices.” He said he believed the thing we need to introduce is the idea in the first year or in first class they take. This way they’ll know that the way they’re English teacher taught them to write an essay is not the be all and end all of writing. In his class, he has to impress upon his students that they’re writing science now, it’s a different style and a different discipline. Is that part of what we’re planning for the writing intensive curriculum? Naynaha responded a writing enriched curriculum would yes address those concerns very explicitly. The second thing is that the revised composition curriculum, which we have done a lot of work over the past year, plus, in response to Executive Order 1110, we have really shifted the model for writing instruction in the department from one that's more focused on what to us is discipline specific writing practice and instruction and it’s more grounded in a literary critical model. To a composition and rhetoric model, that focuses on teaching students to write and think rhetorically and also how to take what they learn in that course and transfer it successfully into other disciplinary contexts. So there are a lot of different threads, and things are happening in different places or pockets across campus right now, but I think they're really coming together to help us arrive at exactly what you're asking about. Senator Celly asked about and learning about the writing enriched curriculum. She said her courses are all writing based. When you have 120-150 students who are writing every week or every other week, they’re doing a lot of reading. There’s really no support for it. She said she sees it as integral to their learning. Naynaha said she couldn’t agree more and for folks who are interested in learning more or doing more in perhaps a model that aligns with a writing enriched or writing enhanced curriculum, there is going to be a WAC Retreat prior to the beginning of academic year 2019-20. It's going to be a pretty rich and robust experience and its going to support faculty in implementing this kind of a curriculum in their own programs and departments.

FPC Report, FPC Chair PintoPinto said two of the things that they’ve been working on has been the FPC charge and the Endowed Chair charge. She said she would like to encourage everyone to look at the original language and then look at the language we have now and forward your recommendations to her. One of the challenged with the Endowed Chair policy is that they do have this for the first time. It would be really helpful for the university and for the department to put something in the books so that the dean of NBS and the Provost could actually start the work of appointing an endowed chair once the monies have gotten there. The sooner we can try to facilitate that the better. Given the time that we have left in the semester, that’s the one thing we would like to bring to the floor again. At our final report, we will make recommendations about resolution that we can talk about in the fall. Chair Talamante said the Senate would send out an email with both versions so that Senators can provide feedback to Chair Pinto.

EPC Report, EPC Chair OrtegaOrtega said to reiterate that the Senate Executive Committee and the Educational Policy Committee would like to ask for feedback regarding the issue of program discontinuance for the formation of a policy of program discontinuance. Our committee's been discussing different ways in which we could capture feedback campus wide, whether or not it is from a task force. One member mentioned we may be suffering from a bit of task force weariness. But whether it’s in the form of a task force or a working group by which we could capture wide campus feedback on these issues or an initial draft. We would be interested to receive your feedback here on the

floor or via email suggestions as to the best waiting to form a working group or what way we can capture these types of feedback.

Chair Talamante asked if anyone would like to offer feedback? She then asked Chair Ortega if there was any kind of draft that could be shared? Ortega said yes. Talamante said we’ll send that out as well.

OPEN MICSenator Sanford thanked the Senate. He said he was given the opportunity to take over for Senator Luckett as Senator when he left. In spring 2018, this body approved me to replace him. And I was allowed to continue working here when I was voted in by the NTT faculty for this past academic year. Like Senator Cutrone, I greatly appreciate this behind the curtain look at how Senate works with and within our campus to better our position as faculty and help our students and keep our programs running. He said he was sorry he will not be able to continue on the Senate for the NTT faculty for this coming year. He wished the new NTT senators elect at least as positive experience that he has had as senator in this body over the past eighteen months. He said he wished to thank all for the professionalism and kindness that they have expressed whenever they’ve interacted with him. He said he appreciated the understanding that was given to someone who is disabled in the way that he is. He noted he doesn't often get an opportunity like this. He really wanted to thank you for all the opportunities he has had as an NTT Senator.

Senator Hirohama said at the last Academic Senate Meeting she did not get to thank Senator J. Price for using his tea time with the President to support staff hiring in the departments. She said she wished to discourage temp hiring as a solution for these deficits. She recently saw a recruitment for a temporary position for the Asian Pacific Islander/Africana Studies/Chicano/a Studies area. She said in looking back at that, there was a temporary person in that role who left back in August of 2018. We apparently had another temp in there or someone else had to pick up the slack and now we’re looking to have another temp in there. I just want to say it would be nice if we start looking at hiring a permanent person. Hirohama expressed that the hiring of all of these temporary staff positions, disrespects the knowledge and skills that a permanent person brings in supporting their faculty, department and college.

Senator Ma said she wasn’t sure if it was appropriate to raise this issue. Recently there was an email having to do with academic advising and learning. The email called for faculty advising. She said this is a wonderful program. She said before she worked for CSUDH, she was a library faculty in another institution. She was allowed to participate in an advising program. Here, when she clicked on the link, she came across two issues. One, the library is not listed as one of the colleges. The second item is international students is not one of the categories. She said she believes that international students in particular need advising. Culturally, social structures, and many other areas are very different and these students need support. She noted that at one time she had seven students following her around and would count on her for advice. Provost Spagna that he made a note of it and would look into it.

Senator Skiffer said she wanted to offer a brief note from CFA. We have what's called on this campus something called statutory grievances guide. These are grievances that fall outside of our Collective Bargaining Agreement, but that raise very important issues for faculty. She noted that on Friday, May 3 there will be a meeting. Skiffer said she wanted to ask everyone to keep an eye on your email for the invitation. She noted that it is very important to attend, that we have a presence and that we’re aware of what’s going on our campus.

Senator Esposito said she wished to give a shout out regarding online voting for a grant that Kamal Hamden submitted. It would be great if we could all vote. All the details are in the email that went out. It would take only take 20 seconds.

Senator Celly said she has had the privilege of being a tenure track faculty member since 2002. She said being involved in Senate, and part of a community of faculty, staff, and students who care collectively and individually about our future and engage in meaningful deliberations about our present and our future and are not afraid to take

stock in where we are. She said she is incredibly grateful for the opportunity to serve with Academic Senate and to have served with CFA. She said these are the kinds of transformative experiences that are under the rubric of faculty development, but they don’t really get counted as faculty development to others. She said two of the most rewarding things she has done is served on the Title IX CCR and the other is working with CFA as the Unit 3 rep on the university wide EHS committee. They both take time, but it’s meaningful work making sure our environment is a safe, productive environment for all.

Senate Chair Elect Thomas apologized for not being at the Academic Senate meeting earlier as he was at a department meeting. He said first he wished to thank everyone for their support. He said he knows he has big shoes to fill. He joked that he is very concerned about how well she runs an agenda and gets us out on time, and he is certainly not going to filibuster here to take you past 5:00 pm because he knows he will be cut off. More importantly, he said he looks forward to working with ASI, with CFA, with administration and continuing the momentum that we have established here at Senate, He said he wished particularly to thank the NTTF for their service and that their service continues. He concluded by asking the body to think about is that we are all representatives. We are representatives of our departments, we are representatives of NTTF and as such, this is the place where we will make policy decisions or have a hand in policy decisions that the campus is ultimately going to adopt. Thomas said, “There's a little saying that you've heard in another context, which is, if you see something, say something. I encourage even the parties that are leaving Senate to continue to recognize that you are representatives. You are able to share what you have seen and when you bring it to Senate, then it can at least be addressed and considered in terms of where we can appropriately deal with policy moving forward”. He said he’s honored to work with everyone.

Chair Talamante said at the next Academic Senate Meeting they will bring back a Second Reading on the recommended changes to the Constitution and By-Laws. She said please let faculty know in the departments and programs that they should come to the General Faculty meeting. She noted that now that we have our Constitution and By Laws updated, if the resolution passes, there will then be a vote that will go out electronically. So we're doing the General Faculty meeting and the Second Reading of the resolution on the same day. Please help get the word out. We’ll be at Extended Education next time.

Meeting adjourned.