Offleash

Well everyone, I'm sorry for the month's lay-off in blogging. Partly it's because I have had trouble figuring out what to say to you all. In this last month, I've been involved in lots of discusions about the budget and the 'scenario planning' that the university has undertaken. As a member of UBC, I've learned a lot about what challenges are being faced not only by the division of Academic Affairs but by other divisions in the university.

Since I last blogged, we've had 3 UBC meetings, one of which was an all day meeting. We have another meeting this Wednesday. The point of these meetings is to make a recommendation to the Executive Council and the President about how CSUSM should respond to the CSU mandated budget cuts --- if these become necessary. I know a lot of you have been involved in your units and departments in collecting data and responding to ideas about how we might cut. I've solicited some information from some of you (primarily department chairs) and some of you have spontaneously shared with me the stories of what your units are talking about. It is not a pretty picture.

There's a lot that confounds and frustrates me about this process. Like, for example, the fact that we're even supposed to be denying that we are undertaking to cut our budget as the CSU, CFA and other stakeholders go to Sacramento together and ask for some relief. As those who heard Sen, Denise Ducheny speak on campus on Feb. 7, this is a case that is going to be hard to make given the challenges faced by the legislature, the refusal of our elected officials to either consider targeted tax increases or to rescind earlier breaks given to folks in good time, or the fact that we are competing for state dollars with the poor, elderly and sick.

Still the case is, I hope, being made. At least it is by CFA. You may have seen statewide CFA President Lillian Taiz's letter in the NY Times on Saturday. Not sure how many CA legislators read the Times, esp on a Saturday, but the case is a good one, about investing for the future. One of the questions that came up at the COAS faculty meeting last Friday was 'where are our administrators' when it comes to making the case locally --- not the case for private philanthropy [subject of later comments] but the case that people with influence ------ usually business folks, not either ordinary citizens like students and their parents --- can make in Sacramento. The question was "so what's up with that"? I think we'd all like to know that.

As I mentioned a bit earlier, the UBC process will move forward this week. I'm not going to try and explain it or defend it ---- hopefully, I'll be able to say more once it's over. I know people are still confused about things like structural deficits and how the various divisional structural deficits are related (they are not) to the permanent university budget gap. But as a wise colleague of mine on the Senate Exec Committee has pointed out, reality ought to drive the budget -- the budget can't drive reality. The point he is making is this: Academic Affairs and other divisions have allocated more money than they have to permanent needs. They have covered this with fiscal money and with over-enrollment. Now, unless one assumes there has been gross mismanagement by the people who we pay to administer and allocate budgets (and this would not, for the most part, be either faculty or staff) ---- and there is little suggestion that this has been the case or that the things we've been paying for aren't important and reasonable to do ---- then the fact of the matter is that there simply isn't enough money, in all divisions, but particularly in Academic Affairs. I bring this up not to cause trouble (because believe me, I do hear about it when my comments are judged to be 'unhelpful') but because it highlights the dilemma we face.

This month marks 18 years since I was offered and accepted my job at CSUSM. I can't tell you how many times I've been told to 'be patient' or that the new -- fill in the blank: president, provost, vice president, dean, etc. -- needs 'time' to figure things out, to start their own program, to do things a new way. Well, while CSUSM may be a line on a resume to some of these people, for many of us it's our career and we're tired of being patient. And maybe the middle of a (not yet official) budget crisis is a bad time to have an attack of cynicism or to have a meltdown, but I'm getting there.

I'm back, more blogging to come. Please share.

For those of you who aren't up on your 'texting' spelling, I believe in real words (the kind I like) the title reads:

Access to Excellence? Rolling on the floor, laughing out loud.

Honestly, the CSU, being all hip and the like, actually refers to its Access to Excellence document as A2E. The Chancellor's Office up there on Golden Shore is such a happening place.

In any event, next week at their meeting, the CSU Trustees will take up (and likely endorse, approve -- whatever they do) the final text of A2E . I guess we're all supposed to be in some kind of kumbaya moment with the Chancellor and the Trustees, but honestly ---- the wheels are falling off this car, it's running on fumes because, after all, who can afford to put gas in the tank and the Trustees are going on about access to what? excellence? Give me a break!!

I think we need to start talking about SRO4M -- now that I'm a way-hip texter, that would be 'standing room only for mediocrity' --- now that's something that the CSU Chancellor and the Trustees can deliver.

The spring faculty research colloquium is coming up. RSVPs for a place at the table(s) have been extended to March 11. I think this sort of snuck up on me because of other things (and I actually haven't collected my mail for a while . . . .) but I'll be sure to send my money in by week's end. I hope you will, too.

I don't know Professor Burns (and, sadly, even though we are all in the same building, that is true of many other people whom I see in Markstein but have never met), but the topic sounds really interesting. I hope you will sign up by Tuesday.

Hurry...there are a few tickets left!

RSVP EXTENDED to Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Research Colloquium-William Burns

Thursday, March 20, 2008 beginning at 5:30pm in the Field House

The Faculty Center Spring Research Colloquium speaker, William Burns (COBA), will be discussing “Managing Fear: Business Models for Managing Disasters.” Tickets are $20. Please RSVP to the Faculty Center, KEL 2400, x4019. Make checks payable to CSUSM Foundation. The colloquium is a faculty professional development activity, and so is limited to CSUSM tenure-track faculty, adjunct faculty, and ad­ministrators with faculty rank.

You have probably heard about this -- if not, please put it on your calendar.

On Monday, March 10 from 1-2 in ARTS 111, the President, CFA Chapter President, CSUEU Chapter President and ASI President will lead the campus in a summit to discuss their advocacy for the CSU during these difficult budget times.

A couple events have been held around the state so far. At Dominguez Hills, there was extensive press coverage. It was an opportunity to make the case that the CSU is vital to California's future, and while it is central to CA's economic recovery, the CSU also educates people whose impact on society, the arts and culture --- in addition to economic impact -- is immense.

This is an unprecedented alliance of CSU stakeholders who have agreed to work together because the health and future of the CSU is bigger than the many, many issues that divide us. As Janet Powell explained at yesterday's Academic Senate meeting, the point of the summit is not just to whip up enthusiasm and support for the CSU (so, I apologize for having called it a pep rally; I guess I'll just have to wait for another occasion to see Executive Council build a human pyramid and the deans lead us in rousing cheers), one of the main outcomes of this meeting is to get people to commit to DOING something to help the CSU. Can you call or write your assembly representative or your state senator? Can you write a letter to the editor? Will you go lobby -- either in Sacramento or at local district offices? Could you pen an op-ed?

I'm sure we'll learn a lot more about what we might do to help. Janet tells me that she hopes that everyone who attends will commit to doing something.

Here's a clip of the summit at Dominguez Hills: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2rBUWBqn3w

I was not able to attend the Academic Affairs Town Hall meeting last Thursday (I have a long overdue book review to write -- which sort of requires actually reading the book AND the tides were great for a dog beach afternon . . . . ) but Marshall Whittlesey, Chair of the Senate's General Education Committee asked me to post this account of the meeting --- which was about GE -- and to ask readers for some comments and discussion of the topic. I am happy to oblige:

Says Marshall: "Sharon and Marshall each took 25 minutes to discuss several different issues.

Sharon summarized what is going on with assessment of GE on campus. Her goals include for key bullet points : to have a simple process, provide useful information, allow for faculty feedback and give something back to faculty. She began by compiling the goals of the GE program as discernable from the GE policy documents that we have. Some of these (based partly on responses to a form she handed out at the beginning) seem not to be the goals that today's faculty would emphasize. So far assessment has been done in areas A2 (Writing), A3 (critical thinking), B4 (quantitiative reasoning), Dh (US History), D and D7 (lower division social sciences). She explained the rubric used to judge written communication: several areas (thesis, organization, mechanics) are judged on a 5 point scale. Similarly, attainment of certain student learning objectives are measured for information literacy. She emphasized that if faculty members want to assess something they are interested in, she is more than willing to assist in this. She provided some tables with results on students. Then the faculty, chairs and GEC are to consider the implications of these data. She listed some future goals: creation of a web site, and e-asessment database, evaluating GE documents for revision, and engaging the university in a dialogue

Marshall handed out a 'quiz' designed to be a launch for discussion about various issues facing the GE program. The major issues brought up were:

(1) large overlap between electives and GE courses in areas CC and DD - are we okay with this as a faculty, or not? Is GEC doing what the faculty wants by allowing a large number of 'major' courses (i.e., those courses which count as an elective in some major) also to be GE courses?

(2) size of the GE program - currently 51 units, it was not reduced when, several years ago, the size of the undergraduate degree was reduced from 124 units to 120. Marshall explained that it was simpler to 'spread the pain' around the various majors, rather than concentrate the reduction in one or two areas in GE. Marshall claimed that in some cases this has created problems for majors trying to get in under 120 units, resulting in some courses being proposed for GE that weren't originally designed to be GE. So, the question is: are the faculty okay with this situation? We could, theoretically, reduce the GE program by as much as 3 units, per state guidelines. Also, the Chancellor has asked the CSU to reduce the state-wide GE package to 45 units.

(3) Area E courses - Marshall gave the entire list of existing GE courses and asked if this was what faculty thought area E should look like. The GEC has been discussing the makeup of area E for over a year.

GEL 101. The Student, The University, The Community SOC 203. The Child in Society

GEL 110. Quantitative Skills & College Success SOC 204. Human Relationships Across the Life Course

GEL 120. Reading & Writing for College Success SOC 303. Families and Intimate Relationships

KINE 306. Exercise Fitness and Health SOC 309. Aging and Society

PE 203. Physical Education for Elementary School Children SOC 315. Gender in Society

PSYC 104. Psychology for Living SOC 317. Youth and Society

GEL 200. The Student in an Information Society

(4) Marshall pointed out that the campus GE Philosophy statement requires information and computer literacy in most lower division GE areas, not just area E. Is this what we want?

A discussion ensued. A key comment from Michael M. - regarding item (1) - was that we've never really come to a consensus as a campus about whether our GE curriculum is a core curriculum, or a distribution requirement."

Yesterday's meeting of the CSU Budget Alliance, the coalition of the CSU administration, collective bargaining units, CSSA -- faculty, staff, students -- and friends of the CSU went really well. Attendance was terrific; ARTS 111 was more than full. People stood in the aisles, sat on the floor and pretty much were a 'fire hazard' waiting to happen.

The speakers, President Haynes, Caitlin Gelrud and the presidents of CSUSM CFA and CSUEU explained the impacts on students, staff, faculty and the state of California if the cuts to higher education proposed by the governor were allowed to stand.

I was disppointed that my print edition of the North County Times did not print a story about the event, but the web page carried this video. Although it's only a couple minutes long, those of you who could not attend should get a sense of the event.

What's missing from the video, though, is the message stressed by each of the speakers: we weren't sitting in ARTS 111 just to learn more about how budget cuts would impact the system, we were also there to commit ourselves to ACT on behalf of the CSU. Call state legislators, write a letter to the editor, put up a lawn sign ---- check with your union reps if you want to know more. We need to stand up for the CSU and make sure that the public -- but also our state senators, assembly representatives, and the governor -- 'get it', that they know that "THE CSU IS THE SOLUTION" to California's economic problems. We are a major engine of the state economy. Our health is intimately connected to the state's economic health.

Please do something.

Janet Powell, CSUSM Chapter President of CFA, sent along this link to the Channel 8/KFMB report on the rally held Monday. Along with the piece from the NC Times I linked to yesterday, it gets the word out.

If you want to know what you can do to help, check out the website of the Alliance for the CSU, where there are suggestions for how you can act.

PLEASE commit to do something!

If you want to write or call your state senator or assembly person and don't know who they are, you can check out the CFA web page where you can find out. Here's the link. Don't be embarrassed that you don't know, be embarrassed that you don't act to help our students and higher ed in California.

On Thursday, March 20 during University Hour (12-1), President Haynes will hold an open forum with faculty (as part of her continuing commitment to speak directly to all constituencies at least once a semester) .

The forum will be held in Markstein Hall 101 which holds 45 students.

The Alliance for the CSU meeting this week was NOT the place to ask questions about what's going on with things internal to CSUSM. This forum, however, IS such a place. I hope you will come and ask the question you've been dying to ask. I'll bet you that we are all awaiting an answer to your questions, whatever they are.

Let's fill the place!!!

Today, Wednesday, March 19 -- 4-5:30, Kellogg Reading Room --- reception for adjunct/part time/lecturer faculty (invitation only) ---- Please RSVP if you haven't yet. Hope to see you there. My thanks to the Provost for arranging this event to thank our great part time faculty for their contributions to CSUSM.

Thursday, March 20 -- 12-1 -- Open forum with the President. Markstein 101. Q & A. Some of you have made really good points in the comments to a previous post about how frustrating attendinng these things are because administrators are now as practiced as politicians as spinning, avoiding answering, and (shall we say in generous way) mistating the reality. I can't disagree with that -- in fact those comments mirror my reaction to many of the meetings I go to. So yes, at some point this is all bad political theatre, but I continue to believe that one of the only weapons that faculty continue to have as we fight to maintain quality and integrity at CSUSM is to show that they/we are paying attention to what's going on and to keep asking questions and making it clear what they/we think about things. So I hope you will come, despite how frustrating it is. You're all very creative people and I trust you all to find ways of asking (and keep asking again and again and again) questions that can't be side-stepped or dodged or avoided.

Spring Faculty Colloquium Dinner -- 5ish (I don't have the invite to hand), Clarke Field House. This semester's presenter Professor William Burns, COBA. For details contact the Faculty Center.

From today's edition of Inside Higher Education -- an article on the CSU's Lower Division Transfer Project. Harder to do than you might think .. . .

Here you were probably thinking I'd let loose with a list of the things at CSU that are currently causing headaches unto madness (pace Monty Python: "my brain hurts; it will have to come out!") --- that post will have to wait for another day, but it will come --- but no, this is more of a pet peeve and a really frivolous one at that.

Anywaaaay -- I was filling out my brackets for the NCAA pool and I was ruminating for a moment on how much I regret that CSUSM became the Cougars. Boooooring. Today we have the (ok, really MY) Hoyas playing the UMBC (University of Maryland Baltimore County) Retrievers --- as in Chesapeake Bay, like woof, woof ------- now how cool is that? It's all I can do to root against them with a name like that. But basically, wouldn't it just have been more fun to remain the Tukwat ---- and be one of the more memorable names in college sports. Ok, it's not the UCSC Banana Slugs, the Maryland Terrapins, the Manhattan Jaspers (which I have no idea what it means, but like anyway) or the UConn (get it, Yukon) Huskies or my personal favorite that came in second in the referendum to rename Stanford's sports teams sometime in the 1980s the Robber Barons (much better than The Cardinals) --- but it would have demonstrated some real creativity. Oh yeah, remember when and under whom the name change was enacted.

Sigh.

BTW -- Hoyas take it all!!! Hoya Saxa!

Quick report on yesterday's open Faculty Forum with the President. Not much to report, only 4 faculty attended (including me) and all were members of the Senate Exec committee. President Haynes was gracious, as ever, and stayed to hear our concerns which were primarily about the budget process and about how the system is planning (oxymoron?) to deal with near term realities. I want to thank her and Matt Ceppi for taking time out of what are very busy schedules to come talk with us.

I think the sentiments in the comments which followed an earlier email announcement of this forum are shared widely; hence, perhaps, the low attendance.

Three AA administrators also attended -- which is fine, they are nice people with good questions, the more the merrier and we would never ask them to leave or kick them out. But it does beg a question about many meetings administrators have which faculty are not welcome at or never hear of (even if the fate of faculty is being discussed) . If you look at the Constitution and By-Laws of the Senate, all our committees are inclusive in various ways in that they invite students, administrators and some staff to attend. Indeed the ONLY meeting that the Senate holds in a normal week to which no administrators are invited is the 30 minute agenda-setting meeting that Senate officers hold each week to (duh!) put the agenda together for the next Senate Exec and/or Senate meeting.