Minutes of the University Budget Committee

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO
5240 N. Jackson Avenue, M/S UC 43
Fresno, California 93740-8023
Office of the Academic Senate Ext. 8-2743

April 1, 2009

Members Present: J. Constable (Acting Chair), N. Bengiamin,
J. Hironaka-Juteau, E. Junn, A. Parham, J. Parks.

Members Absent: J. Kus (excused), T. Wielicki (excused).

Visitors: M. Botwin, J. Waayers.

The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair J. Constable at 3:35 p.m. in the
University Center # 203.

1. Minutes. MSC to approve the Minutes of 3/25/2009.
2. Agenda. MSC to approve the Agenda as distributed.
3. Communications and Announcements.
   A CSU System report on student evaluations of teaching relevant to the
   current discussion of (APM 322) Policy on Assessment of Teaching
   Effectiveness was distributed to the Committee from the Statewide
   Academic Senate (Jacinta Amaral).
4. New Business.
   There was none.
5. (APM 322) Policy on Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness.
   The discussion by the committee on APM 322 focused on two primary
   issues. The first, although not the primary charge of the University Budget
   Committee (UBC), addressed validity of the proposed assessment protocols.
   Discussion on student evaluations centered on statistical reliability and the
   idea of re-inventing the wheel when external evaluation vehicles exist. A
   more vigorous debate revolved around peer evaluations. Concern in this
   area centered on bias by evaluators about those being evaluated thereby
   influencing evaluation reliability, lack of an appropriately vetted peer
   evaluation vehicle, and lack of suitable comparative measures among
   faculty, class types and colleges. The second focus of the discussion
   addressed the implied costs of implementing APM 322 as written. It was
   noted by the committee that there were numerous small costs written into
   the proposal that although not direct required time of faculty and/or staff
   to complete the evaluations. A wide-ranging debate addressing costs (direct
   and indirect) resulted in the following motion:
   MSC to reject the proposal as currently written due to costs
   associated with the following items:
   1. The University is required to provide “professional development
      opportunities”, what opportunities, specifically, does this refer? What
      activities are deemed suitable as development opportunities? How
      are these opportunities to be funded?
   2. Concerns over workload required to implement the evaluations as
      written. Peer evaluations are costly with respect to faculty time and
      will likely limit time availability for scholarship. Time concerns also
      centered on student office worker time to check Scantrons.
   3. Department Chair tasks as outlined represent significant time input
      and involvement with key management decisions without appropriate
      compensation.
   4. Small departments may have insufficient personnel to meet the
      outlined requirements for all evaluation protocols. Are small
      departments permitted to bring in faculty from other departments to
      aid in their evaluations? If so what are the compensation
      mechanisms?
   5. There may be significant time costs associated with developing a
      reliable and vetted in-house system for performing student and peer
      evaluation. Using an external student evaluation system may prove a
      cost effective if it is possible to gain appropriate “teaching
      effectiveness” information.
6. Proposed Academic Year 09-10 Budget Cuts - Open discussion.
   Discussion of the AY 09-10 budget was postponed until the next UBC
   meeting.

MSC to adjourn at 5:10 p.m.

The next University Budget Committee meeting will be on Wednesday, April 15,
2009 at 3:30 p.m. in the University Center #203.

Agenda.

1. Approval of the Minutes of April 1, 2009.
2. Approval of the Agenda.
3. Communications and Announcements.
4. New Business.
5. Proposed Academic Year 09-10 Budget Cuts - Open discussion.

Download the PDF

This PDF is provided as a print-only reference document and may not be fully accessible to users of assistive technology. For more information, please visit Title II Rule on Digital Accessibility page.