[Senate HTML Home]

Intent to Raise Questions

Academic Senate 2019-2010

Below is the definitive list of questions submitted to Senate through the Intent to Raise Questions process. Such questions can be raised on the Senate floor. Even if asked on the floor, all questions must be emailed to itqr@csuci.edu before the Senate Officers can seek answers.

Questions received, who sent them, and when they were received will be posted below. In addition, responses sought and received will be posted.

Questions from Fall 2019

  1. DASS has instituted a practice regarding students with an accommodation of note-taking assistance in class: rather than hiring a peer note-taker, DASS asks students to audio-record class sessions and to upload that recording to a third party for transcription. This raises a question regarding student privacy; the response of university Counsel to that question raises a separate issue about privacy and pedagogy.

    The immediate question is this: For a range of reasons I do not permit students to audio or video record classes, or to take photographs in classes: if we are to establish a space for true intellectual discussion, including of sensitive topics, and in which we may ask students to take on roles and positions that they do not necessarily themselves hold, and in which we may prod students to play devil's advocate (or play that role ourselves), it is essential that students be secure in the knowledge that their words will not be taken out of context. I also go further in some of my classes and prohibit all digital devices, primarily as a means of furnishing a distraction-free space for deep concentration and engagement. These are both intentional pedagogical strategies and as such they should be protected under academic freedom.

    I have students whose accommodation requires audio recording of lectures. And, in my classes, these students are rightly concerned about their protected status as individuals with disabilities (and I with FERPA) being revealed to their colleagues by them placing a recording device on their desks. I inquired with DASS about obtaining a microphone to wear so that my voice would be directly recorded and would be the primary voice recorded, but was told that DASS does not have this capacity. Thus my first question is, can DASS develop a protocol by which professors are furnished with a mic and are responsible for uploading the recording for transcription, not individual students?

    My response from DASS, however, raised a separate issue, and here I quote: "As for your concern regarding the privacy of our other students, it’s a valid one, and a topic I have discussed with our general counsel. According to him, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, and a classroom is considered to be a public space."

    This statement issued from Counsel requires clarification. First, on what basis is a classroom considered a public space? And if it is determined to be a public space, what are the ramifications for the ability of faculty to determine the manner in which their classroom will function from a pedagogical perspective? Can we limit attendance at our classes to tuition-paying students? Must we relinquish our classrooms to discussions, issues, protest activities, etc. that are unconnected with our subject matter, or that do not align with our pedagogy? Can I even ask unprepared, hostile, or disruptive students to leave?

    I would like to respectfully request clarification from Counsel on the manner in which classrooms are adjudged to be public spaces, and the ramifications of that decision for instruction at CI -- a matter firmly under control of faculty.

    Dr. Yao responded with a PDF that is linked here: Yao Response 191105. The text of the response is below. Note: the PDF uses color to convey quotes from the original question. The text below uses quotation marks to identify those quotes.

    Hello Greg et al,
    
    I’m happy to provide clarification to the specific questions noted below
    regarding DASS approved accommodations in relation to the faculty concerns that
    are noted. As we have discussed previously, I am also happy to have an in-person
    discussion with relevant faculty to provide the level of depth and nuance
    required to adequately address faculty concerns while concurrently meeting
    student needs as it relates to ADA compliance and their overarching academic
    success. I recently addressed similar questions/concerns with the Arts and
    Sciences Chairs at one of their recent meetings, and I would hope the
    information we discussed there has been communicated to their respective faculty
    members (as there is definitely some overlap with what I discussed with the
    Chairs and what is included in this written response). I am hoping my responses
    will serve as a “starting point,” so to speak, that can help structure more
    direct discussions moving forward. I think the more direct dialogue we have
    between faculty and DASS staff/DSA Leadership, the better we will be able to
    improve our support to both students and faculty. In addition, I think it is
    important to include legal counsel as part of these discussions, as I am not a
    legal expert as it relates to ADA compliance. Our legal counsel would be able to
    provide a more authoritative legal perspective to the ongoing discussion.
    
    ``Could Disability Accommodations & Support Services (DASS) engage with Academic
    Senate as to the protections it enforces to ensure the privacy of faculty and
    students in courses being audiorecorded?'' I’d like to start out by saying that
    faculty concerns regarding privacy and the potential for inappropriate use of
    audio recordings are legitimate, and this is especially relevant in our current
    social climate. The main concerns that have been communicated to me by faculty
    involve the potential inappropriate use of audio recordings and whether audio
    recordings may inhibit student participation in sensitive and/or controversial
    classroom discussions. Here are the measures that DASS has in place to address
    concerns:
    
    • Students who have an approved accommodation for the audio recording of class 
    lectures are required so sign an agreement form that outlines the specific 
    purpose of the audio recording and explicitly states that any unauthorized 
    use of the audio recording will result in a formal case through student 
    conduct (which may result in suspension or even expulsion, depending on 
    the level of infraction). This agreement also outlines requirements for 
    the deletion of the audio recordings.
    
    • Regarding the possibility that an audio recording may inhibit student 
    participation in sensitive discussions, it is appropriate to require that 
    the audio recording be turned off during these types of discussions, and 
    then turned back on when the lecture continues. To help protect the privacy 
    of students, one approach that has been implemented has been for the faculty 
    member to record the lecture using the recording device – that way, the 
    faculty member can turn off the recording during these sensitive discussions 
    and turn it back on when the lecture continues. On a related note, for the 
    use of audio recording for note taking transcription purposes specifically, 
    one faculty member arranged to upload and submit the recording for transcription 
    purposes themselves. This arrangement allowed the faculty member to be the one 
    in possession of the recording prior to upload.
    
    • It is also important to differentiate between students who require 
    possession of the audio recording versus those who use the audio recording 
    for note-taking transcription purposes specifically. This distinction 
    depends on the specific type of disability and individual student needs. 
    The above scenario where faculty can upload the recordings themselves for 
    transcription purposes involves students who have the audio recording for 
    note taking transcription purposes specifically. This is a more nuanced 
    distinction, and we’ve had several discussions with faculty about this 
    point (I also addressed this during my meeting with Arts and Sciences Chairs).
    
    • It might be more efficient to address the data question below as part of 
    this narrative. As you know, one of my top priorities with the DSA since my 
    arrival in June 2018 was to ensure accurate and valid data collection. 
    Unfortunately, I do not have the past 5 years’ worth of data with regards to 
    total numbers of students served in DASS (as well as a breakdown of how many 
    required note taking accommodations specifically). However, when examining our 
    People Soft database, there is a disability status student group. This is 
    limited, however, as students who are listed in the People Soft student group 
    may not officially access services through DASS. Nonetheless, here are the 
    unique students from the People Soft student group data: Fall 2015 – 485 students; 
    Fall 2016 – 520 students; Fall 2017 – 523 students; Fall 2018 – 500 students.
    
    • Below is the data requested for this semester as of 9.27.2019 (as it 
    relates specifically to note taker accommodations).
    
    FALL 2019 – as of 9.27.2019
    Unique Students with Approved Notetaking Accommodation: 188
    Total Number of Approved Notetaking Accommodations: 800
    Total Number of Course Sections Requiring Notetaker Accommodations: 594
    Percentage of Sections Using Note Taking Express: 80.5% (478/594)
    Percentage of Sections with In-Person Note Takers: 16.8% (100/594)
    Percentage of Sections without Note Takers: 2.7% (16/594)
    
    *Courses such as Math, Chemistry, Physics are prioritized for in-person note takers.
    
    
    • Shortly before my arrival, there was a movement towards Note Taker Express 
    due to challenges associated with compliance as it relates to the volume of 
    in-person note takers that are required (as noted above, we would need 594 
    individuals to cover the required sections). Anecdotally, concerns were also 
    noted about the reliability and consistency of some in-person note takers. We 
    are open to specific requests for in-person note-takers – we can work to find 
    an in-person note taker but would require Note Taker Express to ensure that we 
    are in compliance from Day 1.
    
    ``In what ways can ‘reasonable accommodation’ be balanced with individual and 
    collective privacy such that academic freedom can enhance learning, and not be diminished?''
    
    • I commented on the “individual and collective privacy” concern in my above 
    narrative – happy to answer additional questions.
    
    ``Could the annual data for the past five years be provided as to how many 
    unique students received accommodation by DASS, and the corresponding annual 
    data of how many received peer note taking accommodation and how many received 
    audio recording accommodation? (Note: please include number for F'19 even if 
    some additional students may yet to have accommodation processed)''
    
    • See above narrative.
    
    BACKGROUND:
    
    In Fall 2017, DASS piloted a project with Note Taking Express (NTE) to transcribe 
    audiorecorded lectures.
    
    The sharing and distribution of notes between the student and NTE are limited to the 
    student and NTE. However, some courses may cover sensitive matters, or engender strong 
    differences of opinion, and such disagreement can blossom in ways exemplified in the 
    media almost weekly. There is no assurance that a student may not share that recording 
    with peers.
    
    The consequences for academic freedom: 1) Knowing that dissemination is a possibility 
    may hinder open and honest dialog in the classroom. 2) Social media provides a very 
    handy tool for such dissemination, and digitized notes have the potential for easy 
    sharing. 3) Unwarranted dissemination has the very real possibility of damaging a 
    faculty member’s reputation; once the Pandora’s Box is opened, the damage is 
    difficult to  contain, and faculty reputations (and livelihoods) are at stake. 4) There 
    is a possibility that intellectual property rights might be infringed.
    
    ``DASS has instituted a practice regarding students with an accommodation of 
    note-taking assistance in class: rather than hiring a peer note-taker, DASS asks 
    students to audio-record class sessions and to upload that recording to a third 
    party for transcription. This raises a question regarding student privacy; the 
    response of university Counsel to that question raises a separate issue about 
    privacy and pedagogy.
    
    ``The immediate question is this: For a range of reasons I do not permit students 
    to audio or video record classes, or to take photographs in classes: if we are to 
    establish a space for true intellectual discussion, including of sensitive topics, 
    and in which we may ask students to take on roles and positions that they do not 
    necessarily themselves hold, and in which we may prod students to play devil's 
    advocate (or play that role ourselves), it is essential that students be secure 
    in the knowledge that their words will not be taken out of context. I also go 
    further in some of my classes and prohibit all digital devices, primarily as a 
    means of furnishing a distraction-free space for deep concentration and engagement. 
    These are both intentional pedagogical strategies and as such they should be 
    protected under academic freedom.
    
    ``I have students whose accommodation requires audio recording of lectures. And, 
    in my classes, these students are rightly concerned about their protected status 
    as individuals with disabilities (and I with FERPA) being revealed to their 
    colleagues by them placing a recording device on their desks. I inquired with 
    DASS about obtaining a microphone to wear so that my voice would be directly 
    recorded and would be the primary voice recorded, but was told that DASS does 
    not have this capacity. Thus my first question is, can DASS develop a protocol 
    by which professors are furnished with a mic and are responsible for uploading 
    the recording for transcription, not individual students?''
    
    • Yes – please see above narrative (specifically related to students who have 
    audio recordings for note- taker transcription purposes).
    
    ``My response from DASS, however, raised a separate issue, and here I quote: "As 
    for your concern regarding the privacy of our other students, it’s a valid one, 
    and a topic I have discussed with our general counsel. According to him, there is 
    no expectation of privacy in a public place, and a classroom is considered to be 
    a public space."
    
    ``This statement issued from Counsel requires clarification. First, on what 
    basis is a classroom considered a public space? And if it is determined to be 
    a public space, what are the ramifications for the ability of faculty to 
    determine the manner in which their classroom will function from a pedagogical 
    perspective? Can we limit attendance at our classes to tuition-paying students? 
    Must we relinquish our classrooms to discussions, issues, protest activities, 
    etc. that are unconnected with our subject matter, or that do not align with 
    our pedagogy? Can I even ask unprepared, hostile, or disruptive students to 
    leave?
    
    ``I would like to respectfully request clarification from Counsel on the 
    manner in which classrooms are adjudged to be public spaces, and the 
    ramifications of that decision for instruction at CI -- a matter firmly under 
    control of faculty.''
    
    • I cannot speak on behalf of our legal counsel – I would recommend that you 
    each out to him directly for a response regarding the “reasonable expectation 
    of privacy” as it relates to classroom space.
    
  2. I teach on Tuesdays, so I do not attend the Senate meetings, but I wonder whether any discussion has developed regarding the smell coming from the hemp fields that started to pop up generously in VC, and especially in the vicinity of the university off Lewis and Lantana (just across the Callegas Creek). The smell is overwhelming on the campus and on the UGlen with some people complaining about headaches and nausea (including Anna and I; see NextDoor discussion for others). The problem is especially interesting because of the Executive Order 1108: 'TOBACCO FREE CAMPUS: Pursuant to Executive Order 1108, beginning August 23, 2017, CSU Channel Islands became a smoke and tobacco free campus. Per the Site Authority “Smoking should be permitted inside residential units and in privately owned outdoor areas (patios) but prohibited in common areas of the Site Authority property” which includes the Common Areas of University Glen. Be aware that non-compliance may result in a fine.' If nobody raised the issue so far, then I would like to present this as a formal question. Is the University doing anything about it, and if no, then why not, and are there any plans to do so in the near future. Here are some useful links: Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp "Hemp, or industrial hemp, is a strain of the Cannabis sativa plant species that is grown specifically for the industrial uses of its derived products." A very scientific article that explains the smell (especially, check Terpenes): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4740396/ Some anecdotal writing about hemp: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/8-things-didnt-know-hemp
    I heard back from the Andy Calderwood, Ventura County Deputy Ag Commissioner. 
    Mr. Calderwood is unaware of any known health hazards from the smell of the Hemp 
    plant. Additionally, during my research, I was unable to uncover any studies or 
    reports on negative health effects associated with the smell of the hemp plants. 
    With that said, there may be individuals that are more sensitive to smells and 
    odors than others within our campus community.
    
    · The crop being grown is industrial hemp (see definition below).
     
    · Industrial Hemp plants are planted in spring and begin to mature around late September-October.
    
    	o Plants become odiferous as they mature and resin builds-up on their leaves.
    
    	o Just prior to harvesting, testing is done by the Ag commission to ensure the 
    	plants are complying with the industrial hemp definition and permits.
    
    	o Harvesting begins when plants mature, and started approximately two weeks 
    	ago (late September).
    
    	o Harvesting begins with cutting the top portion off of the plants.
    
    	o Subsequently the plant is allowed to grow/mature a few weeks longer and then 
    	the famers will use a combine or other machine to harvest the whole plant.
    
    Mr. Calderwood did indicate that he is taking into consideration all the feedback 
    he receives from the community and relaying that back to the county's hemp producers, 
    especially the biggest growers, HCG Partners of Las Vegas. The Ag commission will be 
    working with the growers to reduce complaints from odors through various techniques. 
    
  3. I poll students every semester on the first day of class as to what is going well at CI and what needs improvement. Overwhelmingly, the response from students (over 95%, in 4 classes, last 3 semesters) is that parking needs improvement (the pro: CI community is friendly). This week CI shared an article in the Pacific Coast News about $1 billion dollar infrastructure investment and as lecturer senator I am asking how parking is included in this plan. I noted today that students have begun to “create” parking in the far lot, arrive late to class due to parking, and have also been ticketed for parking. With students paying $200 in parking with no guarantee of a parking space (dirt lot or paved) why are we not looking at the parking issue as critically as we do the textbook free initiative that is intended to eliminate / reduce educational costs that impact student success. In short: please share with the university community what is being done about parking as the campus continues to grow.
    As of 12 November, the officers are still seeking an answer to this question. The Chair emailed Lt. Jetton. He acknowledged receiving the question with this note:
    	As for the below questions thank you for reaching out. I have received the 
    	questions and will begin to prepare our response. If possible I would like 
    	to request an opportunity to present the information to the full Academic 
    	Senate so that we may best explain the department’s philosophy,  financials 
    	and plans moving forward. This will ensure we are also available to answer 
    	any follow-up questions members of the senate may have.  Please let me know 
    	what you think.
    
    His response will be added here.
  4. I count myself as a "Maker" (3D printing, laser cutting, soldering, wood work,
     electronics, CAD, amd prototyping) and I work with two area Makerspaces (VC Makes 
     and RC Makes). "Making" is a multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary effort that 
     should not, in my opinion, be housed in any one college or academic program.  I 
     perceive that there are several disconnected efforts on campus related to the 
     creation of campus Makerspace(s) and these efforts are not coordinating with one 
     another to make sure that a campus Makerspace facility is open to ALL of our students 
     and meets the needs of ALL academic programs on campus.
    
    I have two Intent to Raise Questions:
    
        Which areas (academic programs, colleges) on the campus are pursuing the creation 
        of a MakerSpace and what is the current status of their efforts?
    
        Would the Provost consider convening a cross-disciplinary working group/ committee 
        to examine the creation of single, common facility and invite interested faculty 
        and academic programs to provide input on the creation of such a facility?
    
    If there is an opportunity to offer this question at Tuesday's Academic Senate meeting, 
    then I will raise it.
    

    At the 22 October meeting of the Academic Senate, Provost Say agreed to convene the requested working group.

  5. Since the decentralizing of the hiring process, the CI community has had to work 
    much harder to track what searches are extant, what their status may be, who is 
    on the disciplinary search committees, and probably other elements of the 
    recruitment process (e.g. a faculty hiring handbook).
    
    Could Faculty Affairs regularly report at Senate on the status of recruitment and 
    hiring, from the initial allocation of searches, intent to hire, on through to the 
    actual hiring (contract signed)?
    
    The immediate benefit would be that this information is recorded in the Academic 
    Senate agendas and minutes.  In the lack of any other centripetal tendency, this 
    would be a vast improvement over the current practice.  It would also honor the 
    need for transparency in a matter that directly affects our students, and the rest of us.
    
    Yes, Senate Officers shall seek updates on faculty hiring, including number of 
    'searches, disciplines, and their status. 
    
    The list of current tenure track searches is linked below, as well as committee 
    (DSC) memberships:
    
    https://www.csuci.edu/academics/facultyaffairs/recruitment.htm
    
    Status of the hiring handbook is very important and we are looking into this. 
    
  6. My questions concern staffing levels on campus, specifically within Academic Affairs, 
    but also in crucial units across the campus that are so understaffed as to be barely 
    functional. We feel very understaffed, despite recent staff hires in AA, because 
    the tenure-track and lecturer faculty has been growing with students and enrollment 
    but staff hires have not kept up with that growth. There is a habit, if not culture, 
    on this campus of when new work needs to be done, those duties are added onto the 
    job descriptions of already full-time staffers, rather than hiring new staff to take 
    on new work. Morale across campus is being negatively affected. Hard data about his 
    situation is hard to come by. I have heard that the higher levels of the administration 
    do not agree that we are understaffed, or plan on hiring significantly more staff, 
    because our staffing ratios are at the correct level according to the CSU system. I 
    have also heard that our staffing levels are only correct if looked at across the 
    university, suggesting that some divisions might be overstaffed. How can we improve 
    transparency so that we can get accurate staffing level data? Can AA share staff 
    hiring plans? What is the possibility of a comprehensive, campus-wide job description 
    audit/review?
    
    President Beck has made public remarks about her belief that, when compared to like institutions, CI's division of Academic Affairs is working with fewer staff. She has agreed to share the benchmarking data from NACUBO that led her to this conclusion.
  7. Prof. Avila (Art) asks:

    * Who does this agency report to?
    * Can we get a report of revenue generated by parking citations?
    * Can we know where the monies generated by parking citations go toward?
    * Can we re-direct monies generated by parking citations toward re-stripping parking 
    spaces?
    * Can we as an institution stop hosting events during Mondays through Fridays work 
    hours in the spirit of not taking the limited parking that is available?
    	

    The Senate Chair has reached out to Lt. Jetton to seek a response to this question. He acknowledged receiving the question with this note:

    	As for the below questions thank you for reaching out. I have received the 
    	questions and will begin to prepare our response. If possible I would like 
    	to request an opportunity to present the information to the full Academic 
    	Senate so that we may best explain the department’s philosophy,  financials 
    	and plans moving forward. This will ensure we are also available to answer 
    	any follow-up questions members of the senate may have.  Please let me know 
    	what you think.
    
    His response will be added here.

  8. * What are the roles and duties of Chairs?
    * How can we talk about shared governance on campus in relation to faculty and administration before we come to a common understanding and/or practices within 
    our own departments?
    * Is there a time limit to a chair position? And if not, should there be? 
    * In relation to the roles and duties of Chairs, can we mandate regular department 
    and program meetings that include all (at least) tenure track faculty?
    * In the spirit of transparency and democracy, can we limit departmental decision 
    making to be vote based?
    

    Notes that Provost Say's response (linked here) uses colors to distinguish the original questions from her responses. In what follows, the text uses quotation marks to set the original questions apart from the responses, which are bulleted.

    ``What are the roles and duties of Chairs?''
    
    * Much of this information can be found in the Chair’s Handbook, dated May 2006.  
    That being said, we are aware that this handbook is out of date and the Provost is 
    in the process of convening a task force to review/revise this document
    
    ``How can we talk about shared governance on campus in relation to faculty and 
    administration before we come to a common understanding and/or practices within 
    our own departments?''
    
    * Point well taken.  To this end, some of the chairs have suggested the development 
    of a “Council of Chairs” and the Provost has encouraged the to do so. 
    
    ``Is there a time limit to a chair position? And if not, should there be? ''
    
    * Not currently, though this is something that could be taken up in the revision 
    of the Handbook.
    
    ``In relation to the roles and duties of Chairs, can we mandate regular department 
    and program meetings that include all (at least) tenure track faculty?'' 
    
    * This is a sound recommendation
    
    ``In the spirit of transparency and democracy, can we limit departmental decision 
    making to be vote based?''  
    
    * This is up to the faculty
    
    Additionally, the Provost’s office & Faculty Affairs have scheduled a series of 
    monthly Chair Leadership workshops (the next of which is November 15th) in the 
    FIIT Studio.  These are open to current chairs and those considering the wisdom 
    of becoming a chair.  The topics were derived from questions/concerns raised by 
    chairs.  The presentations are being recorded and will be available through the 
    Faculty Affairs website.  We are also developing a “Chairs Resources” site that 
    will also be linked to Faculty Affairs.
  9. In reference to the administration’s offer to educate us on “student success”
    (The CSU Certificate Program in Student Success Analytics — Professional
    Development at the Intersection of Evidence and Equity) and the data selected to
    appear in the widely-promoted Student Success Dashboard:
    
    •	Given the effort presumably invested in building the Dashboard, I was surprised 
    not to find a single variable associated with alumni labor-market outcomes.  
    Although some limited data of questionable reliability can be found on a separate 
    site (calstatepays), our Success Dashboard makes no reference to it. 
    
    •	A major study by the Obama administration argues for the use of alumni 
    labor-market indicators to help establish that easy-to-print diplomas actually 
    have the value students and society expect (Using Federal Data to Measure and 
    Improve the Performance of U.S. Institutions of Higher Education, Executive 
    Office of the President of the United States, Sept 2015). The study was 
    accompanied by the release of the most comprehensive dataset related to higher 
    education outcomes, with over 2,000 variables and 4,000 institutions covered 
    (https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/)
    
    QUESTION:  
    1) were administrators & their experts unaware of the Obama study/dataset or 
    they concluded that none of the study’s findings and proposed real-outcomes 
    success indicators were worthy of influencing our Dashboard?
    
    •	“Quick & dirty” calculations using the latest complete dataset from the 
    College Scorecard website (cohort 2009) show:
    
    a.      the CI 54% graduation rate was the 5th highest in the CSU (ahead of Cal 
    Poly & Maritime) while the 37% of CI alumni who earned salaries below $25,000 in 
    2014-15 was one of the worse in the CSU (almost double Cal Poly’s; more than 4X 
    worse than CSU Maritime’s) and worse than those contemporaneously recorded for 
    1,419 institutions nationwide (still not factoring SoCal’s cost of living).  Note 
    also that the 2009 cohort came with a 40% admission rate.
    
    b.      the median earnings for 1,064 alumni in 2014-15 was $35,300 and not very 
    different from median earnings for HS graduates nationwide (about $31.5 and not 
    adjusting for different costs of living) and represent only 45% of median alumni 
    (parent) household income, a statistic that places CI in 2837th place nationwide 
    and the worse in the CSU.
     
    •	So: in addition to common sense, data showing a relatively high graduation 
    rate combined with low alumni pay should suggest that high(er) graduation rates 
    don’t always mean students will actually benefit and find good jobs.  From 
    their perspective, not real “success” (data show nearly 90% of students choose 
    to go to college hoping to get a better job).
    
    QUESTION:
    2)	Does admin reach more favorable indicators using the relevant dataset? 
    (“quick and dirty” may have led to mistakes)
    
    3)	If not, does admin stand by the intention to maximize graduation rates 
    without considering and clearly showing prospective students the university’s 
    labor market (real success) indicators? In other words: if CI manages to increase 
    the graduation rate from 54% to, say, 74% but the % of alumni earning less than 
    $25k rises from 37% to, say, 57% … Will the president go on record saying this 
    development was a “success”?  
    
    4)	In case admin is committed to transparency and willing to admit the importance 
    of Obama-supported labor market outcomes as quality control for the upcoming 
    surge in degree awarding, would admin be willing to finally allow and facilitate 
    early access to data that will eventually be made public though 
    https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/ ? (we could have been better prepared 
    if requests had been granted in 2013, but better late than never).
    
    Amanda Carpenter, Director of Career Development and Alumni Engagement, presented information on institutional data about alumni career and labor statistics to the Senate Executive Committee on November 26, 2019. She made a similar presentation to the Academic Senate on December 3, 2019.
    Officers have identified the crux of this question, which can be expressed in two parts:
    1. Did the Chancellor's Office consider using alumni employment metrics as part of their GI 2025 program?
    2. Is there any conversation about adding alumni employment metrics to CI's institutional continuous improvement plan? Which body or individual would shepherd that conversation through out strategic planning process?
  10. What sorts of resources/people of contact are available to handle situations with difficult 
    students who have not crossed a line that would warrant intervention through title IX or 
    student conduct officials? For example, I have a student who is making other students 
    uncomfortable through social inappropriate behaviors, talking too long about irrelevant 
    things, not responding to cues he should stop talking, etc.
    

    This question was forwarded to Rich Yao (VP of Student Affairs), Mark Patterson (Ombiuds Officer), and Jill Leafstedt (Associate Vice Provost for Innovation and Faculty Development). Responses will be added when available.

  11. It is difficult to always have one’s device all the time when logging in to CI, including 
    when in the classroom.  Not everyone has a device, or a device with them all the time.  And 
    devices are sometimes lost or broken.  Is there a way to make the Duo Security system less 
    oppressive?  Is it possible to opt out?
    
  12. Did the President, the Provost, or any other administrator on our campus suggest, request, or otherwise prompt the Chancellor’s Office to launch recent audits surrounding CERF funds and faculty release time? If so, who made the suggestion(s) or request(s)? Who was involved in discussions surrounding these audits? What motivated the suggestion(s) or request(s)? What was the desired outcome of the audit process? Have suggestions or requests been made for other audits? What is the motivation behind these additional requests?
     
    Or, are these audits happenstance? Are they a complete coincidence? How do you explain these two audits centered on issues of intense interest to the Administration, and the new policies being imposed on faculty without regard for shared governance?
    
  13. I've heard different things from different people. One tells me this is just a history department problem, others say it's only at CSUCI, while others claim it's system-wide. I've also heard that the "I.G.E.T.C." has impacted the classes student's take. (https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/admission-requirements/transfer-requirements/general-education-igetc/igetc/)
    
    I did hear that administrators want to institute the "Northridge Plan" at CSUCI, which I believe entails moving tenure faculty into classes taught by adjuncts. If you asked the Academic Senate one question it would be this: 
    
    "What is the Northridge Plan and is it being implemented just at CSUCI or is it system-wide?"
    
    A followup question might be "why is this Plan being implemented and does it improve the learning environment and meet with the school's mission?"
    

Questions from Spring 2020

  1. TBD