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

February 14, 2018EE 2:30 – 5:00 PM

Voting Members Present: Abdourazakou, Cid, Cutrone, Dam, Deng, Evans, Ferris, Furtado, Gaines, Heinze Balcazar, Jarrett, Johnson, Kalayjian, Kaplan, Keville, Krochalk, Lacanlale, Ledesma, Ma, Martin (proxy for Kulikov), McGlynn, Monty, Nelson, Nicol, Pawar, Phan, Pong, Radmacher, Sanford, Skiffer, Tang, Taylor, YiVoting Members Not Present: Benavides Lopez, Bono, Ernst, Grasse, Gray-Shellberg, Macias, Naynaha, Peyton, StillVoting Ex-Officio Members Present: Avila, Celly, Esposito, Gammage, Hagan, Iheke, Norman, Ortega, Talamante, ThomasVoting Ex-Officio Members Not Present: Non-Voting Ex-Officio Members Present: Avila, Brasley, Davis, Driscoll, Goodwin, Hill, LaPolt, O’Donnell Salhi, Spagna, WenNon-Voting Ex-Officio Members Not Present: Carrier, Franklin, Manriquez, McNutt, Poltorak, Sayed, StewartGuests: R. Boroon, R. Hay, L. Wilson2017-2018 Academic Senate Executive Committee:Laura Talamante – Chair, Kirti Celly – Vice Chair, Justin Gammage – Parliamentarian, Charles Thomas – Secretary, Enrique Ortega – EPC Chair, Maria Avila – FPC Chair, Kate Esposito and Thomas Norman – Statewide Senators

Recorded and Edited by SEW and the Executive CommitteeMeeting Called to Order: 2:30 PMRevised Agenda M/S/PMinutes 01/31/18 M/S/P

Senate Chair Report Assigned Time for Exceptional Levels of Service to Students Policy AA 2015-05  

o The Provost and I have spoken about updating this policy and he will contact the CO regarding funding for these awards.

Status of Presidential Searcho The confidentiality agreement that all members of the committee signed means that I am limited in what I can

report on the search and no members can discuss any information related to candidates or potential candidates.o What I am able to report is that our meeting on February 6th to discuss the applicant files went very well. We had

a robust pool of candidates for selecting our semi-finalists. I am not able to address the number of semi-finalists. The interviews will take place at LAX on March 5th, where all members of the committee will be present, we will select up to 3 finalists. The finalists will be interviewed by the entire Board of Trustees and Chancellor White, who will negotiate offers with all finalists, so that once the decision is made the announcement for the new president will be made shortly after the final interviews on March 19th.

Academic Freedom and Free Speecho The President and Provost and I have been in discussion about the development of a campus Time, Place, and

Manner Policy, which President Hagan says has now been drafted. Senate Exec and the ASI leaders will have a chance to give feedback on the draft before it is circulated to the campus.

o The Provost is also working on the implementation of the Academic Senate Resolution FPC 17-03 recommending Academic Freedom and Free Speech Policies in addition to the existing policy recommended by Senate in 2007. EPC 01-08 Resolution on Teacher Responsibility and Academic Freedom which became PM 01-07.

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418 Page 1 of 17

Talamante reported that she has been meeting with all of the Deans and Vice Presidents. In her meeting with the Dean and Associate Deans of the CEIE, Associate Dean Gary Rhodes and Talamante have started work on a Town Hall regarding Strategic Plan Goals #1, Objective C regarding strengthening our International Education both in terms of bringing International students to campus and in sending our own faculty and students to other countries. The Senate has been asked to add a Senate representative to the International Education Subcommittee, which will assist with bringing the various campus stakeholders together to plan the town hall.

First Reading Items:EPC 17-21 Resolution Calling for the Revision of the General Education Committee Charge, EPC Chair OrtegaOrtega informed everyone that the resolution was initiated by the General Education committee in response to feedback they received at the Academic Senate retreat, August 30th, 2017 and from their own committee discussion. Ortega noted he would be reviewing aloud a handout denoting the proposed revisions. A motion was made to bring the resolution to the floor, which was approved. The recommended changes including rationales were as follows:

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418 Page 2 of 17

Discussion: Senator Monty recommended substantial amendments that he would consider friendly amendments. Monty suggested making the current second resolve as the first resolve, the third resolve the second resolve and the current first resolve the third resolve. In terms of the purview of the GE committee, Monty recommended that anywhere it says GE decides, or GE approves that it be changed to GE make recommendations. He said that even proposals that are approved by the GE Committee have to go through the UCC Committee as well in so far as they would involve either a course modification or a program modification. Monty noted that the language as it is leaves room for confusion and disagreement. Regarding the membership, it seems that it would make sense to have the Undergraduate Dean, at least as an ex officio member. Senator Kalayjian, the co-chair of GE said that is already the case. Ortega said he would note it. Kalayjian said it is already noted under “1 representative appointed by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs”. Ortega asked if it would help to spell it out to which Kalayjian responded, “yes”. Provost Spagna said he was comfortable with that. Senator Pawar asked why it was that we would be recommending two appointments from the Academic Senate, was that to make the committee membership an odd number? Ortega responded this was to arrive at the number nine, which seems to be the ideal number in terms of membership. Pawar said then when you read, “Should the committee be unable to elect a chair, the Academic Senate Chair shall appoint a faculty member to serve as GEC chair,” that would make a tenth member. She asked if then the charge would specify whether that member would have voting rights. Heinze Balcazar suggested that there be an amendment that the Academic Senate elect the chair not the General Education Committee for the sake of transparency. Monty recommended the footnote be eliminated that specifies conditions under which decisions would be appealed. Monty said he wasn’t sure why there would be any conditions, there simply may be an honest disagreement that requires adjudication. He said he did not believe we should restrict the right to appeal a decision, and it’s not a decision but a recommendation; however, he does believe it could be removed as it imparts a negative tone that is not needed. Monty said in response to Heinze Balcazar, he’s not sure it’s necessary to elect a General Education Committee chair, especially as there will be an odd number and all of those on the committee from this point forward will be elected regularly. He said in the past it was possible for faculty to become members of the committee without election or at least without evidence of regular elections that were open and transparent. He said he

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418 Page 3 of 17

does agree that it should be specific if the chair going to appoint one of the members elected to the committee. He would be in favor of that, but he would not be in favor of the chair having the authority to appoint an outside person and tenth member. Heinze Balcazar said she disagrees with Senator Monty and that it is no longer an issue of transparency but it is also an issue of shared governance. Most of the departments and programs do participate in the General Education Committee, and so we do believe we need a voice. The Senate should elect the chair not the General Education Committee. Kalayjian said if you made it a requirement for Senate to elect the chair you would have to do that for all the other standing committees as well, that might be a consideration.

EXEC 17-19 Increasing Faculty Involvement in the University Budgeting Process (Amending PM 2014-04), Statewide Senator Norman introduced the resolution by saying that a strategic plan is a budget put into words and the budget is a strategic plan put into numbers. He said this resolution is really core to shared governance and while we’ve made great progress with President Hagan, great faculty involvement with the strategic plan, and we continue to make great progress since President Hagan was our interim in involving faculty more directly in the budget, he said that this resolution came about as a result of discussions from the Academic Senate retreat at a table led by Parliamentarian Justin Gammage. We heard from faculty they would like a little more work to be done. The Academic Senate Chair has been working with VP Goodwin as well as Kamal Hamden, current chair of UBC, in trying to figure out some ways to move forward. Norman noted that he believes these changes are especially important as we move forward from president to president. Norman asked for a motion to move the resolution to the floor, which was proposed and accepted. Norman reviewed the proposed changes as follows: The addition of III. Procedures in the fourth resolve listing out a sequence of time for when the University Budget

Committee would receive informationo The UBC shall meet each year in the Fall and Spring semesters with regularly scheduled meeting times and

purposes as outlined below and include additional items and meetings at the discretion of the UBC Chair and committee members:

A Sept. “Introduction to the Budget” training and overview of the actual current fiscal year allocations.B Oct. Comparison between the previous years’ approved budget and actual expenditures for each

division and college.Nov. Division Goals & Priorities; Enrollment, Census & Budget Allocation

D Feb. Review of preliminary projected budget for Dominguez Hills for subsequent year based on Governor’s January Budget proposal; Review enrollment projections.

E Mar. Begin discussion of cabinet priorities and funding requests.F April Decisions on funding requests.G May Preliminary recommendations to President based on a university-wide perspective.H June Final budget based on Governor’s May Revision

Norman explained that overall these suggested changes were to allow ample time so that the UBC would not be getting the information just before the meeting, allowing time to consult with constituents and consult with other members from college, or whichever group they would be representing. Norman said that in the fifth resolve any changes made had to do with corrections to various titles. As part of that fifth resolve, section D, It reads that “the Academic Senate Chair (or Senate Executive Committee designee) serve on the UBC to represent the Senate as a voting member. The Senate Chair (or Senate Executive designee) does not represent any individual college or the University Library”. In the sixth resolve, with regard to the University Budget Committee chair, that the past chair be an ex officio non voting member. In the seventh resolve that the Town Hall meetings be held by the Vice President for Administration and Finance/Chief Financial Officer as opposed to the president. And in the final resolve, where it reads that budget presentations/information provided to the University Budget Committee be posted and made publically accessible, the additional language reads Information relevant to UBC decision-making will be provided at least five (5) business days before the UBC meetings. Additionally, posted summary minutes of each UBC meeting should be posted one week prior to the next scheduled meeting on the UBC website. Norman said the rationale speaks to the great work that’s been done this year by the current UBC chair and the UBC members noting that they’ve made a lot of progress and they’re quite happy with the way things have been going. However, given that people change it is the Senate Executive Committee’s attempt to codify some of the best of the good ideas currently in practice.

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418 Page 4 of 17

Discussion:Senator Pawar said the following changes [in brackets] for clarification in Part C. That one faculty member shall be elected [by the faculty] of each stateside college and the [faculty of the ] University Library? Norman responded “yes”. Pawar continued in the same section, “In the event of a resignation from the UBC, the [faculty of the relevant] colleges shall elect a replacement member.” Monty asked if all the changes to PM 14-04 are in bold? If so, shouldn’t “include direct Academic Senate participation in the budgeting process” also be in bold? Monty suggested striking that language as it is not defined anywhere further in the document and is far too vague. He said if it is already part of the PM, then we could leave it. Monty asked if the proposed schedule was developed in consultation with present and past chairs of the University Budget Committee? Does it already reflect their current practice, or are we imposing a whole new set of responsibilities on the University Budget Committee chair present and University Budget Committee chairs of the future? Monty expressed concern that the chairperson would not have the ability to meet the proposed timeline nor be able to ensure that the committee would have the information at their disposal within the time requirements. Norman said that the current chair was consulted and helped to refine the resolution. There was a consultation with the VP of Finance and Administration to make sure the prescribed scheduled was realistic. Senator Sanford said the schedule looks inflexible to him and while there are things that have to be done, he suggested changing the language so that it would say these are the things that need to be addressed over the course of this time period and that the committee would get to designate when these things would be done. For example, by August the committee will submit their schedule for accomplishing these things over the next academic year. He said adding in some flexibility to the resolution is important because every committee will have a different set of workload outside of their work on the committee. Norman said the obligation for the Senate and other decision makers to know that they’re going to be able receive the information, the constituents might want to know there’s a date. Senator Tang said he is a University Budget Committee member and represents CNBS. He felt the tone of the proposal seems inflexible. He said the budget is unpredictable, and we cannot always predict in which month we can address certain things. He said he has observed as a new member that there are many factors that contribute to the success of the committee. The University Budget Committee has had an informal discussion about this when the proposal was brought to the committee from the Academic Senate Chair, and the committee’s view is that this should be more where they consult each other and then come up with a collaborative approach instead of this prescriptive approach, as it seems inflexible. Senator Heinze Balcazar said the current president has been the most transparent of all the presidents that have served during her tenure. But she feels more transparency is needed, particularly at the college and department level. She said recently they learned how we receive money back for the FTEs, she said every department should know that. In terms of the operating budget and how it’s allocated at the department and college level, there could be more transparency there. She said likes the title, increasing faculty involvement, she doesn’t really see that in the resolution but she really commends the effort because it is very important. Perhaps we can undo the inflexibility, but the motive is very important. Having a campus that has transparency regarding allocation is very important. Vice Chair Celly suggested that there isn’t any space in the resolution for the academic resource managers who are the college financial officers and the college budget officer. We may wish to speak with the Deans, faculty and ask University Budget Committee members to see if that’s a valuable contribution to the University Budget Committee and a way of increasing communicating some of the information to the faculty that Senator Heinze Balcazar spoke about. Provost Spagna said he did believe there were a few members present who had served on the University Budget Committee over the past year. He said as Provost have already put forward to the Deans to achieve that level of transparency at the department level. Spagna said having come from a centralized model and it is his belief that departments don’t thrive unless departments are empowered with information about how to spend money. Regarding enrollment based funding, Spagna said he is working with the VP of Administration and Finance who is very much on board with helping us through that. He added that the Deans will tell you that our next point is to bring this information forward with the help of ARMS and Deans to colleges and to departments to do exactly what we’re trying to achieve, which is to empower departments, making decisions at their level, knowing best about operating expenses, equipment, travel and so forth. He said he’s seen universities thrive where that happens. Monty said in response to Senator Heinze Balcazar’s observation, this resolution is quite timely. Perhaps it is less about disciplining the University Budget Committee and more about disciplining whomever our next president will be and laying down

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418 Page 5 of 17

that we have operating procedures that are not negotiable. This way if we have a president who is not as committed to transparency as President Hagan, we will have some means of defending ourselves. He added that he believed the tone of the document could be improved. Monty said the purpose of adding the Academic Senate Chair or an Executive member to the committee might be specified. He said as far as he can tell the real purpose would be to improve communication between University Budget Committee and the Academic Senate. Senators and all of the representatives from all of the programs would be receiving regular updates on what the University Budget Committee is doing. Currently, even at the Chairs’ Council, nobody knows what is going on in University Budget Committee. If we want to change that, it would be very helpful to have a Senate representative there so that the Senate representative could report to the Senate every time the committee meets about what they are doing. Monty said that one of his concerns about the schedule of tasks outlined on the first page of the resolution is that there is no mention of Senate. The decisions and recommendations are going to be made there, and they’re going to be made to the President and the President makes his decision. There is not explicit role for the Senate there and Monty said he thinks that is probably correct. Maybe the emphasis should be what the real purpose of increasing Senate involvement is, which is to better inform the entire campus community.

President Hagan’s ReportWe’ve had a great upward curve in terms of our progress and there are things that are happening over the next several months that will shift that curve even higher. WSCUC Accreditation Visit – With only 13 days out and we’re well prepared. A lot of people, too many to thank,

have contributed to getting the university read for that, including the preparation of all the paperwork. Hagan said he is really proud of all that’s been done. He said he has had two one-on-one discussions with the chair of the WSCUC Accreditation Team, he’ll have one more before they arrive. In each of those discussions there has been nothing expressed as a major concern. Obviously there’s information they’re still looking for, but they’re more positive things. Obviously, he said this accreditation; he’s aiming for ten years. He has been told that they are trying to reduce the number of ten year accreditations they are giving but that is his goal, and he believes we are well poised for it. Hagan noted that he felt that O’Donnell, Naynaha and Carrier did a phenomenal job with the rehearsal that was held on February 6. It was an excellent program with excellent preparation. He said what he found particularly useful as President and getting their perspective on questions he might be asked or questions they might be asked. He found it to be very informative.

Non Tenure Track Lecturer Report – he and Academic Senate Chair Talamante received a briefing on February 13 from the Co-Chairs Celly and Boyum. He said he’s looking forward to the full report that will be released to the entire campus in the next week or so. He believes the report will make a major change on the campus. The reporting knowledge is the reality in that close to two thirds of our classes are taught by non-tenure track lecturers. For student success it’s critical that we have to be really intentional about a lot of issues that the report talked about. Issues such as to how we recruit lecturers, how we onboard them, how we recognize them, how we compensate them, how we evaluate them. All those issues we think are important to make sure that they can provide the kind of education to our students that we want them to provide. Hagan said he believed the report will be outstanding, and he believes that if we’re going to execute the recommendations in this report, it won’t be instant. There are some low hanging fruit, but there’s a lot of discussion about how to implement things. It’s not all about money. There are different types of lecturers who have different needs, and there are different types of departments that utilize their lecturers differently. He said if we pursue this to the degree of which we intended to pursue this, because if we weren’t going to actively try to significantly improve the lives for our lecturers then we shouldn’t have launched the task force in the first place.

New buildings: we have the science building going up and to do that we tore down one of the temporary buildings. For the academic building, the schematic designs will be going before the Board of Trustees, and we’re going to have the construction documents completed this fall. We’re going to begin construction of the new academic building in spring of 2019, which will house the College of Business. In about a year from now we will be building that building. It’s going to sit on top of small college. If we’re going to be building that building, small college is going to have to be torn down, less than a year from now. If we’re going to tear down small college less than a year from now, people who are there are going to have to be relocated. We have a relatively short time frame to work that all out. We’ve had consultants on board who have looked at migration strategies, and there is lots of discussion going on even as of

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418 Page 6 of 17

yesterday. There will be a period of discomfort as people will be moved into interim homes. They might be then moved into the new building, they might be moved into another place. Knowing human nature, that when you have to move you’re not going to be happy. This discomfort is leading us to have a second new building. January 2021 that building should be open. We’re going to have a new science building and a new academic building in a relatively short period of time. Also, new dormitories and hopefully other major renovations. These two new buildings are going to have a major impact on life at this campus and as we do the appropriate migration strategies, it will be difficult.

Hagan concluded that the WSCUC visit, the work we’re doing to try and address the issues of our lecturers and the new buildings all represent significant positive changes on our campus. Too often we’re focusing on the issues and not looking at the positive steps we’re taking forward. Talamante said that she and President Hagan have been discussing town halls for going through different parts of the Strategic Plan. We had one this week on the Master Plan and Land Development. She said she’s been working on International Education with some updates coming in Senate. President Hagan suggested that maybe the best Town Hall would be one on space migration as there might be a lot of interest in bringing people together to talk about the various issues, questions and concerns.

Q&A/CommentsSenator Heinze Balcazar said in terms of the space crisis, it might be a good idea for the Academic Senate Chair to invite the Space Committee Chair to Senate to talk about the issue of space. Some of us are already nervous about this. It would be good to have the Space Committee come and tell us what they would like to do. Issues of office space for example, part-time lecturers some have one office, sometimes five people share one office. Some faculty have two offices, and there are some faculty who don’t have an office at all as well as centers that are threatened. Hagan said the issue of space on this campus has been a problem for a long time, we’re under resourced in the space area. It is a recognized issue and that’s why we’re talking about having a town hall where we can go into the issues more deeply. He said one of the issues we’re going to be discussing not everyone needs to remain on campus, there are some functions, whether we build a building or not, that might be able to function off campus. That’s something that would have to be worked out financially. We’re looking at where our seismic dollars might help make space more available and if we don’t have it, interim steps. All the issues that you’ve mentioned have been made available to the Space Committee. The idea of the Town Hall around space and space migration would give us the opportunity to discuss these issues. All of the issues, like our classrooms and to look at what they are or are not doing, down to the department level. Hagan said as a side note, is it okay if we bought some extra microphones to which Talamante said excellent suggestion but we’re kind of at the mercy of the space we come to. Hagan said well I’ll buy them. Talamante said that with the idea of a Town Hall, that will be an excellent venue to take a deeper dive. In terms of having the Space Committee come to Senate, as she just put together the agendas for the rest of the semester and we are packed, she said they could bring the topic to the Academic Senate Retreat in the fall, and they could provide an update at a Senate meeting. As far as the Town Hall goes, they could plan it for an opposite week than Senate at the same time so that those who normally set aside their Wednesdays to attend Senate would be able to attend. Senator Cid suggested that there be a Town Hall where they can discuss the environmental impact. Celly suggested the Space Committee start thinking about ways of space usage to create communities where non-tenure track faculty are integrated spatially with their tenure track colleagues. Provost Spagna’s Reporto Faculty hiring - Hiring a 100 faculty over five years: In Senate package there was a document entitled Advancing

Faculty Diversity (Application for grant program announced by the CSU Vice Chancellor) which we successfully obtained a grant for in the amount of $300,000 to advance diversity in our faculty hiring. There is critical to this campus. There is a document Provost Spagna said that he shared with Senate Executive Committee and Interim AVP Hill has also of the actual proposal. He also has the actual report of the 2016 Faculty Recruitment and Retention survey that is put out annually. It gives very important information for collectively to use as a community to use as a baseline. Spagna directed a comment to Interim AVP Hill that they would post this report on their website so that everyone would be able to look at it and expect it from now on, from year to year. Historically tenure track hires in the CSU system, the low point was in 1992 we only had a 54% success rate. Across the system, currently in 2016 the last report 85% of our hires were successful. Another element that’s very important is what’s the success on our campus in terms of hiring in the past year. Unfortunately we were only 66% successful in 2016. How can we be more successful in terms of hires? In 2016, in terms of the categories of white males, minority males, white females,

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418 Page 7 of 17

minority females or other unknown – what was our highest percentage of hiring in 2016? 52.6% in minority females which was number one in the entire system. We have more to do on that front. The issue also in terms of our campus, we’re second overall in the tenure track class of 2016, 63.2% of all the faculty we hired were in the minority status. In terms of faculty salaries, where do you think we are in the system, the top third, middle third or bottom third? Actually, we’re third in the entire system in terms of $86,700 as the starting salary for faculty in 2016. The challenge for us is to hold ourselves at a place where we’re learning. If you had to guess what the number one issue is in terms of having a lack of success in our hiring, 66%, the one thing we have to pay attention to in terms of start-up costs, we’re towards the bottom in the system. Start-up costs are things that are necessary for people to start their research agenda, to start their various programs, equipment, that’s one thing to be sensitive to. Another element is what do we do to retain people once they get here. Working with the FDC and Faculty Affairs and Development, that’s another area to pay attention to. In looking at the Advancing Faculty Diversity proposal we had, Spagna said there was a couple of things he wanted to highlight and invite faculty to look at more closely. He thanked Ken O’Donnell, the Deans and the Academic Affairs Council for putting this together. What we’re doing on campus you’ll find on page one and two. It also complements things that Spagna said he was impressed with when he came here like the Untenured Faculty Organization and some other activities we have on campus. Spagna said it was on page three he wanted to direct everyone’s attention as it’s what we’re going to be doing going forward. He thanked CSUD’s CFA on their work with CFA’s Jackie Teppen and Audrena Redmond to hold these ongoing implicit bias workshops they’ve been conducting. One of the key components of this proposal is to increase the frequency of these workshops to include all campus hiring committees. Spagna had Interim AVP Hill talk to these upcoming workshops as Hill handed out a draft of the flyers for these workshops. Hill said the first set of Unconscious Bias Workshops. April 6th and 13th are tentative dates for upcoming workshops and while they seem late in the semester, Hill commented, many departments do heavy recruiting over the summer. While some of you may not know who the committee is going to be, Department Chairs are very strongly encouraged to sign up for these. We will be having some in the fall as well. The workshops are very powerful. Spagna noted that we are only one of two CSUs that received full funding. Spagna highlighted some other aspects of the proposal: A. Early Recruitment Phase (including faculty ambassadors); B. Bringing additional faculty to campus to add number and range of finalists; C. Provide discretionary funds to recruit successful candidates to help support them professionally with appropriate startup costs. Spagna said the one thing that undergirds all of this, is it doesn’t matter whether you have good startup costs, you increase the pool, you attract the person if you can’t keep them. FDC and Faculty Affairs & Development are really important for professional development to create a culture. He added that in his nine years as Dean, he had great successful in recruiting people because he had created a culture in the college where people wanted to come there. Even when they had salaries that were a little higher in competing institutions. We have a place where over the next five years CSUDH is going to be the place to be to join us on our mission.

o Regarding transparency, there is an email that went out to all the Deans of how much money is coming to each of the colleges to work on these hires. You should all have a copy of that as well to know exactly what kind of monies are being used at the college level and being used in Central Academic Affairs to support this effort.

Q&A/CommentsSenator Nicol said while it is great to have the search committees attend the implicit bias workshops, she is concerned if search committees can address campus climate. If you’re coming in to a new campus and you’re an underrepresented minority, you would like to be able to ask what is the campus culture like. She said she was the first woman of color that was ever tenured at her previous job, it would have been helpful going in to feel comfortable to ask that question and someone to be able to provide her with campus climate information. Nicol said as an additional question, if it would be possible to get the salaries broken down by department. Spagna responded yes they can, and it is also in the report on page two in the report. With regard to the campus climate, Dr. Talamante and I addressed this and it might be at a subsequent meeting. You’ll notice that VP Franklin has been chairing the Council for Diversity and Inclusion. This Council also includes the idea of a climate survey and working on climate. Spagna said that Senator Nicol was spot on; you have to create something that’s a climate you can perpetuate. There are things that the candidates will read, they’ll get the company answers, but they need to feel touched and talked to through people who have lived the experience here and that’s what sells them if you create that culture. President Hagan said that one of the things VP Franklin requested prior

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418 Page 8 of 17

to Hagan’s departure was to make sure that they had the resources to do a full campus climate survey. We’re providing those resources to gather that kind of information in a more in depth manner.

CFA Senate Report, Daniel Cutrone Our CFA Steering Committee began the semester with a training session on Faculty and Contract Rights given by

Dave Bradfield. Bradfield represented our CFA for many years here at our University. Bradfield is now devoting his time to educating CFA members about Faculty Rights and the Faculty contact.

Issues discussed included the “Weingarten Rights” that are afforded to our faculty. Briefly it refers to the U.S. Supreme Court decision stating that individual employees have the right to refuse to acquiesce to, without union representation, an investigatory interview when the employee reasonably believes it may result in disciplinary action. His advice was simply to always have a CFA representative present at such meetings for protection and advisement. The CFA is currently assisting some of our faculty in such matters. Also Bradfield reviewed the Faculty contract and pointed out the main sections that all faculty should be aware of in order to thoroughly be familiar with their contract rights. The CFA contract provides our faculty with many assurances and is a positive guarantee for our working conditions here. In short, don’t go it alone our CFA is always here to council and assist in contractual matters.

o Bradfield presented a shorter version of “What a Faculty Contract means to Faculty” at the CFA Welcome Back gathering that afternoon. At this event several faculty asked for clarification on several points which Bradfield addressed. The Welcome Back turned out to be very informative however attendance was small. Our CFA would like to improve attendance at such events.

We are working to reach out more to members through faculty emails from the Steering Committee members. Our CFA is also making efforts to continue to support our students, especially in light of the current plan to increase

student tuition and DACA issues. We currently have ties with both the ASI and Loker Student Union. We believe that a strong relationship with students is also part of the mission that we will focus on this semester.

Most faculty have now been notified about their eligibility to receive an SSI increase. Our CFA would like to thank Dr. Hill for taking on such a neglected task. It is indeed quite a notable step towards faculty equity and the CFA appreciates his time and effort. This accomplishment demonstrates the progress that has taken place during our current administrations “inclusive” relationship with our Faculty.

The CFA Equity Conference on March 16 and 17 will be held here in Los Angeles, focusing on Social Justice and Faculty Affairs. It will be a great opportunity to meet other CFA members from across the state.

Q&A/CommentsSenator Krochalk asked with regard to the issue of California Faculty Association representation in potential disciplinary actions, how does that relate to Title IX issues and investigations? Cutrone said he did not have an answer right now and would have to come back to her on it. Senator Skiffer asked with regard to the notification of SSI increases, would faculty be notified whether or not they were receiving an increase? Cutrone deferred to Hill to respond to the question. Hill said the round of notifications that went out first were people who were receiving SSI’s and then there was a round of notifications for those who were not. Predominant reasons for not getting SSIs were people who were at SSI maximum but there were also people who did not have enough years in the current range. But all would have gotten something either way. Hill said that notifications started in the fall but it took a while for all the communications to go out. Skiffer asked if there was an appeal process? Hill said there is one but he does not remember what it is. Skiffer stated so you’ll follow up and let us know to which Cutrone responded, “yes”. Senator Heinze Balcazar directed a comment to Senator Krochalk stating that California Faculty Association encourages faculty who may be called to a disciplinary meeting not to go by themselves.

UPDATES:Adminstrative Review Process, AVP Roberson Simms – Simms said today’s presentation addressed draft of PM 2018-01 Administrative Review Process. She said as she reported previously, we currently have a process for annual evaluations for all administrators on campus. The Title V of the Education Code mandates that we do this. That annual process is going to continue. The process she is reviewing today will be integrated into the annual evaluation process for MPP IIIs and IVs. She then walked the Senate through the presentation slides. A few highlights of that presentation:

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418 Page 9 of 17

- Initial review will be in the first 12-18 months of employment with subsequent review 3 years following the initial review and a follow-up every 3 years thereafter

- 360° Feedback Process: feedback to be initiated by the President or VP for their Administrator III and IV managers; feedback to be provided to the President and respective VPs

Open invitation for feedback to the college, department, or division the Administrator oversees

(Roberson Simms commented that this would be an open invitation to any individual to provide feedback via email. A feedback survey instrument which is in the process of being finalized, would then be presented to up to 15 individuals comprised of the following)

- Feedback - up to 15, including: 2 faculty identified by the Academic Senate; 1 student identified by ASI; Individuals recommended by the individual under review Recommendations from the immediate supervisor; at least 2 reporting directly or indirectly Feedback from the search committee members; for the initial review and they have been there 12 –

18 months.- Evaluation Conclusion:

Feedback provided to President/Vice President or other Appropriate Administrator evaluator and respective VPs;

Feedback cannot be anonymous; however the feedback that the evaluator uses to prepare that annual evaluation will be prepared in the aggregate and there will be nothing that identifies

Evaluator completes and presents evaluation approved by the VP to the Administrator

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418 Page 10 of 17

Roberson Simms said we will be implementing this in spring of 2018 as well as finalizing the Presidential Memorandum, and the survey instrument. She said that her office, Human Resources, will work with the respective VPs and the President to identify those individuals that should be reviewed in this first cycle and then collaborate on the appropriate individuals for the survey instrument.

Q & A/Comments:Senator Nicol asked for a clarification for the composition of the 15 members, because she said it seemed like there were only three people outside of the administrator’s choice. Roberson Simms said there are two from Academic Senate, one student, the person under review will be able to recommend individuals and it was also mentioned there are individuals on campus that work with external customers. Those individuals may be contacted to provide feedback. Also individuals that the administrator supervises. Nicol said, conceivably the person could have 10-12 people of their own choosing. Roberson Simms said that was correct, up to 15. The goal was to set some sort of cap on the survey instrument so that it wouldn’t be administratively onerous to keep track of all the surveys. But, the Vice President or the President is sending out an email to the entire division and department to solicit feedback from others that are not part of that 15 who would be receiving the survey instrument. Nicol said she’s a bit concerned about not having exact numbers of how many people can be chosen by the person under review. Roberson Simms said that her office will be working with the Vice President and the President to make sure that there’s fair representation. There doesn’t have to be 15, but there should be representation of the constituents on campus. Senator Radmacher said that one of her concerns has to do with confidentiality. She appreciates that the information that the reviewers provide is confidential, but will the person under review know who the reviewers are in general. If I’m the individual evaluating an administrator who is her boss, she would be concerned about repercussions that could happen pending any information she might provide. Roberson Simms said the intent is to keep the identity of those providing feedback

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418Page 11 of 17

confidential. It is up to the evaluator to weigh the credibility and how it fits with the overall administrators’ performance. She said she would also want to add that the feedback documents will not be placed in personnel files. Senator Pong the content would have to be completely anonymous. Roberson Simms said the evaluators are to take the information in preparing the evaluation, aggregate it, not lift directly from the feedback instrument. It should be information that assists the evaluator in providing a fair performance evaluation. Senator Heinze Balcazar asked for clarification on what is meant by fair representation. It would seem that fair representation from the side of the MPP person, or fair representation from both sides. Heinze Balcazar added that it doesn’t appear as if there’s fair representation from faculty. Roberson Simms said faculty will have an opportunity to respond, the VP and the President will notify everyone in the college or the division of the individual being evaluated and encourage them to provide feedback via email. Heinze Balcazar said then she would like to follow-up with the issue of retaliation or reprisal. Heinze Balcazar noted that Roberson Simms just said the intent is to keep the information confidential, you’re not saying you guarantee confidentiality. That’s a very serious concern. If you can’t guaranteed confidentiality, people are not going to express what they think because they fear retaliation. Retaliation has occurred on this campus. Roberson Simms said including in the PM that it is confidential as to the individuals providing the feedback is something that was raised at the earlier presentation on this topic which is why it was included in the PM. If someone chooses to violate that PM, then we’ll need to determine how to address that. Roberson Simms said her direction is that it is confidential. Vice Chair Celly said to paraphrase Senator Pong, Radmacher, and Senator Heinze Balcazar. The critical issue is how we guarantee confidentiality. As a professional, so that they can provide professional feedback without any fear of reprisal in what is ultimately an hierarchical organization. Are these going to be confidential review teams in that the person being reviewed doesn’t know who served on those teams? Roberson Simms said they’re not establishing review teams that she believes were utilized under the former PM. The information is provided to the evaluator to prepare the evaluation for the employee that reports to them. They should be the only one privy to that information. If the President or the Vice President is not the evaluator for the administrator under review, then the appropriate administrator that is responsible for preparing that performance evaluation will receive the information. There is not committee and there won’t be dissemination of the feedback that is received. Senator Ma asked what is the purpose of the evaluation, is it to help the administrator improve? Are there any actions? Are there any policy or procedures that will be taken after the evaluation towards improving the result. Roberson Simms said the purpose is consistent with all performance evaluations that we conduct on our administrators and staff, which to identify areas that may warrant professional development. To recognize when performance is stellar and performance evaluations are used as a basis for merit increases so it is possible that the administrator is not aware of all the positive work or positive impact the particular administrator is having campus wide. Likewise there may be issues that need to be addressed. There should be collaboration between the evaluator and the administrator in terms of how to provide professional development if there are areas that need professional development. Roberson Simms concluded that this is particularly so for the initial evaluation that is being conducted 12-18 months for an administrator who has not been on the campus that long. It will be good to provide them with feedback on areas they can improve or continue doing the same.

CSUDH First Year Experience & Retention, AVP DriscollDriscoll presented a handout that depicted some of the highlights of the data we’ve captured regarding our freshmen we have been tracking since 2015. We have had some huge success programs, but some of those programs were not fall all freshman. In 2015, we had a entering cohort of 1,294 students. Of these students they had the opportunity to participate in peer coaching, supplemental instruction, peer mentoring. Our faculty who have been working with our freshmen have been phenomenal. Driscoll

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418Page 12 of 17

thanked all of those who have been working with the Dream Seminar and the Design Your Life. It has been making a tremendous impact. Driscoll pointed out that as she speaks about the entering students of 2015, the handout refers to this group as the Class of 2019. She said that some of our students are on track to graduate in four years and some of them are on track to graduate in five or six years. She added that we are respective of the diverse pathways of our students. Our students that are now Juniors are proficient in utilizing the degree audit, their proficient in understanding who their advisors are and most of them have been coached on how to sit down with a faculty member, take out their syllabus, take notes in the class and ask questions. When we looked at the end of their first year, we found that we had retained 80%. Driscoll noted that the first year retention rate across the nation is 73%, and we beat that with our students. As a member of AASC&U we have a re-envisioning the first year program that we were adopted into. Driscoll noted that this was a huge honor as there were only 44 in the nation because of the success rates we’ve been having and because we’re not focusing on small boutique programs but on large overarching programs that encompass all of our students. They had told us that we would see a huge drop in the students in the second year because of the transition issues there going to experience and huge financial needs that will be unmet with only 63% of those student left. Driscoll said after crunching the numbers, we had a 72% retention rate of our first time freshmen. If you look at over the past six years, we are trending up, which is a 12% increase. Driscoll credited the fact that we’ve been working hard together across all divisions at this. In addition, she added that the students have higher GPAs, they’re meeting with advisors and they’re working on their academic plan. They’re working with SMART Planner and asking questions about what they need to take next and if the sequence is correct. They’re asking about service learning and academic research, and any of our high impact practices. We’ve got 92% of our students are continually meeting with a peer coach. A peer coach is a student that has been hired. They help students through transition phases. Nationally we have been invited to be part of Standford’s C&C, Culture and Connection. They’ve just returned our data, and they said the freshman students and transfer students that came in last semester have a high sense of connection and belonging. Driscoll said she believes that the number is 8% higher than the counterparts that they are comparing us with.

Preparing the Knowledge Workforce of the Future Presentation ( linked presentation) Dr. Nancy DengDr. Deng discussed data regarding the current freshman class who entered in the fall of 2017. Objective of her study was to enhance our understanding of our first-year students’ digital skill level, perception of the important of digital skills, their proficiency in social media technologies, and their social media use patters, and their overall first-year experience.Deng added as an information technology faculty, she believed it important to understand how comfortable students feel with using information technology in a classroom setting. She said for the first year students who enter they are about 17-18 years old and born after 1995, considered Generation Z. They’ve grown up in the free Wi-Fi/smart phone error and are considered social media savvy. They have different expectations from our faculty and institution. Deng said she wanted to learn how they’re using social media, how social media effects them in terms of academic work at college and the social interaction in college. Deng sent out a survey in November of 2017 to all of the 1,683 freshmen, and 361 valid responses for the data analysis and reporting361 freshman, which is 21.5% of the first year student cohort. This is a link to an overview of results of that survey discussed at the Senate meeting. Some of the questions Deng was looking to have addressed through the survey were:

- What are students’ self-reflection of their first-year experience at CSUDH?- What digital skills do they believe are essential for their college success? How do they assess

their digital skills?- How are student using social media on campus?

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418Page 13 of 17

- Does social media use helps social interaction and academic work at college?

Q&A/CommentsMonty directed his comments and questions to Driscoll. He asked if he was correct in his belief that the first year seminars are what Driscoll is speaking of when talking about the Dream Seminars that they are part of the broader first year experience program. Driscoll responded that that was correct. Monty said he would be interested in hearing a report about assessments that have gone on with the first year seminar. He said he knows something similar was practiced on this campus between 2004 and 2008 before it was discontinued because of the financial crisis. He added at that point the campus was preparing for the prior WSCUC accreditation and so they generated a lot of data that demonstrated that the students who went through the first year seminars were retained and graduated at a much higher rate than those who did not. He said he would imagine that probably we would find the same thing if we were to do assessments now. If so would it be possible to present it to the Senate. Academic Senate Chair Talamante said that Dr. Paxton is set to present on exactly that in April. Monty said his other concern is that we have faculty teaching in that program and essentially he’s heard the same thing from both of them and that is twenty-five students the cap is too high, and its not just too high in theory and it also has an impact on demand and scheduling for the sections. Monty said he would like to recommend reducing those caps in order to spread the demand for these courses across fall and spring so that the instructors will have a more manageable and instructors and chairs won’t have to deal with last minute cancellation problems. Celly thanked Driscoll and Deng. She said it was really wonderful to read about us in The Atlantic and to see that we are adopting and being successful for the population as a whole. She said she’s become aware that we have quite a few students that are foster youth and have other sorts of life challenges. Celly wondered if in the next phase there was any plan to start looking at some of the micro populations or other segments of the populations and how they are responding to these types of things. Driscoll said yes we are and we are going to be bringing in someone else into the institution who will help us segregate the data.

Status of Title IX Workshops Presentation, Title IX Officer Elizabeth SchrockSchrock leads and manages campus programs to prevent and respond to gender-based discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating/domestic violence, and stalking by doing a number of things including: education and training implementing programs to prevent discrimination and harassment receiving complaints and overseeing investigations ensuring appropriate remedies for students and employees who report experiencing discriminatory

behavior ensuring compliance with CSU policies and federal state laws.

Schrock referenced Executive Order 1096 which lists out the things we have to do as a university to address discrimination, retaliation and harassment. It also speaks to everything she must educate the campus on. Some of the training topics include:

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418Page 14 of 17

Schrock said if you are interested in hosting a training she has a variety of different topics she provides trainings for on her website. She noted that she had a graduate student helping her create a peer education program for which she had anticipated they would have to “beg” for students to sign up, instead they had 57 students respond with interest. Schrock said that the Title IX Coordinated Community Response Committee (CCRC) has been full implanted and is meeting monthly.

Schrock provided information about all the various trainings she provides. Details of such can be found within her presentation. Schrock asked the Senate’s input on how to best outreach/train faculty; specifically, adjunct and part-time faculty? She also asked how best to encourage completion of required online trainings. Faculty Feedback: Monty recommended mandatory trainings that included all of the relevant trainings. He thought it was a good way to get people at the very beginning and that alone would make a substantial improvement. Senator McGlynn said in non academic work places he knows that these trainings are to be a required part of your job. McGlynn asked could Faculty Affairs require faculty to do this? President Hagan asked Roberson Simms if it was a bargaining issue and that we can’t actually mandate that faculty take this training. Roberson Simms responded that before we implemented the training there were meet and confer sessions with all of the bargaining units and there was an agreement that there would not be disciplinary aspect for failure to complete the training. However, it can always go in their performance evaluation if they don’t complete it, but how you would incentivize faculty to take it. Maybe during faculty orientation they are put in a cubicle where they complete it before they start. Senator Ma said she went through the harassment training and found it very interesting. For her it was learning a different culture and she was fascinated by all the content. She has been asked to give presentations to Chinese Scholars when they come to campus, where she has shared these trainings as part of other information she shares. She is often asked if she can share the material with them as they too find it very informative.

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418Page 15 of 17

Schrock said she would be happy to share with her content that is separate from SkillPort as she has many resources.

.Faculty Policy Committee Update, FPC Chair Maria AvilaAvila shared her committee meets every other Thursday and will be meeting on 2/15/18. They have been working on several items, some of which have been continued from last semester. Most of the work is linked with Faculty Affairs and have been communicating regularly with Interim AVP Hill. Four main items they have been working on include:

- How do we get consistent guidelines within the RTP process throughout the campus. She said that she will be discussing this for the first time with her committee on 2/15 and will bring more information later.

- Open Access Publishing – the Faculty Policy Committee has been discussing the importance of making faculty aware of ways in which Open Access Publishing can benefit students and faculty by being able to access publications for free. A first draft has been written. We’re aiming to bring this to the senate floor in March.

- Teachers Aides – something that is important for student development and faculty workload that requires clear campus guidelines as well as training and mentoring for students. We’re discussing what to do with is and Academic Senate Chair discussed it with Provost Spagna, there is more that needs to be discussed in this area.

- Faculty Policy Committee 15-01 Faculty Advocate and the current policy is Academic Affairs 2015-04 its coming back to us because we’ve heard from various faculty members some issues they’ve had and we’re re-evaluating and assessing if there’s more that needs to be done to strengthen this policy and clarification.

Parliamentarian Gammage UpdateTwo call for service confirmations

Parking and Transportation Services – Nancy Brown, non-tenure track facultyFaculty Policy Committee – Philip Vieira

The Senate affirmed these two positionsParliamentarian reported that we need one more faculty member to serve on the Parking and Transportation committee.The annual elections will be from April 1 – May 1, Gammage said he’ll be sending information soon.

Educational Policy Committee Update, EPC Chair Enrique OrtegaOrtega reported items they’ve been working on

- Review the administrative graduation rules to possibly draft a standard policy.- Explore the possibility of campus wide standard advising policies- Review syllabus policy

Statewide Senate ReportThomas J. Norman said he is working with James Minor on a new award, a faculty innovation award. Each campus will be able to offer $5,000 to a deserving faculty member that goes directly to the faculty member and $10,000 directly to their department. It could be used for reassigned time, student assistants, or conferences. We’re still finalizing it. Its slated to be awarded in May, so we’ll have to send the call out soon. Statewide Faculty Affairs committee is moving forward with a resolution really encouraging more counselors. We’re also working on a resolution to encourage support by presidents and the Chancellor's Office for those who have been the target of political attacks. Norman said that Chair Talamante wanted

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418Page 16 of 17

to make sure he pointed out that there’s a concerted effort by the presidents of academic senates within the CSUs, the California Community Colleges as well as the UCs urging further support for our DACA students. You can find a copy of the letter on the Senate presentation webpage.

Statewide Senator Kate Esposito said she forwarded an email to the Senate Coordinator from statewide with links to information regarding a Basic Needs Conference that was held in Sacramento last week. It was regarding food and shelter insecurity. Some of the statistics that came out of it that are germane to our campus, 10.9% of students in California experience homelessness; 1 in 3 cannot pay their rent; 62.9% of foster youth experience food and housing insecurity.

All presentations and keynote recordings are posted on the basic needs website:www.calstate.edu/basicneeds/conference;

Links to the Chancellor’s Office Basic Needs Action Report and the Newest CSU Basic Needs Research Study can be found here: www.calstate.edu/basicneeds; 

Open Mic: Celly thanked Senators Esposito and Norman for their work. Celly noted one of the things she took away from the Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates Support for DACA was to cooperate across systems for services which is one of the suggestions as it relates to non-tenure track faculty that we might clearly work with CSU5 and that other CSUs close in geography could get together and share resources. She said she sees the Chancellor's Office as one of their functions. She added we should build alliances and create hubs wherever they be. She said in response to the question to Weingarten Rights which is the right to have a union representative in meetings regardless of whether they are called as disciplinary meetings or not. If you need representation because you’re uncertain, it is best to err on the side of caution.

Chair Talamante said she met with the ASI President and the ASI VP last week and that they are working on a resolution that is going through the ASI resolution process regarding the University Hour and that it is moving onto a second reading. We have tentatively scheduled this to be brought to the Academic Senate in April.

Meeting adjourned.

ASM022818 ASM Minutes 021418Page 17 of 17