AS-2472-99/AA
September 9-10, 1999
Campus Responses to Draft Accountability Process Document
RESOLVED:
That the Academic Senate of the California State University request the
campus senates,
to respond to the call for responses by local senates and appropriate faculty
committees
to the draft Accountability Process document dated August 16,1999; and
be it further
RESOLVED: That responses
from campus senates be directed to their campus president as well as to
the Chair of the Academic Senate CSU, for transmittal to Executive Vice
Chancellor
David S. Spence; and be it further
RESOLVED: That in their
consideration of the draft Accountability Process document and in their
recommendations for elements to be included or excluded in the planning
for
accountability in the CSU, local campus senates should carefully consider
such issues
as the following:
1. Are the accountability indicators specified for administrative
and management
performance adequate, or commensurate with those
spelled
out
for academic
performance?
2. Are the accountability indicators specified
for the system as a whole sufficiently
parallel to those spelled out for the campuses?
3. Is there enough distinction made in the draft
document between "accountability"
and "assessment"?
4. Can the individual campuses reasonably be expected
to achieve consensus on
the parameters of such elaborate assessment processes given the very short
timeline for response?
5. Are the specific accountability indicators proposed
in the draft Accountability
Process document consistent with the academic mission and programs of the
individual campuses? Might other indicators be more appropriate? Provide
examples.
6. Given that the proposed accountability process
is
meant
to be both formative
and summative, might a more open process with less rigidly defined indicators
contribute better to the formative aspects of that goal? For example, is
three
years the most desirable period between accountability cycles?
7. Are adequate mechanisms in place on the campus
for appropriate faculty
oversight of the process of accountability, especially as regards the quality
of
degree programs?
8. Is the campus satisfied that the draft document
protects against unfair or
inappropriate comparisons among campuses and programs?
RATIONALE: The Draft Accountability Process document, in addition to a recitation of its background, and enunciation of some general principles, sets forth some very specific areas of responsibility and measures of accountability which have a very great potential to affect the academic missions of the CSU and its campuses in various ways. While certain areas and measures (e.g., items 2-9) are already routinely studied, with data generated for possible reporting, other items (especially items I and 10-12) are new, are not standardized, and will require considerable work in devising appropriate accountability processes.
The
Academic Senate CSU recognizes that the November 1, 1999, deadline for
responses set by the Executive Vice Chancellor hardly provides enough time
for meaninful consideration and response by the local senates. Recognizing
the importance of a Compact II agreement, the Academic Senate CSU considers
that it is equally important that this sytemwide basic strategic accountability
plan benefit from the fullest possible input of the faculty, in collaboration
with the administration. We note that we would have preferred that the
drafting of this Accountability Process document had been postponed until
there could be full senate consultation and participation in its initial
drafting.
APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY - September 9-10,1999