Intent to Raise Questions RESPONSES FROM OCTOBER 25
Intent to Raise Questions RESPONSES FROM OCTOBER 25, 2016 QUESTIONS
Question From: Christina Smith While I understand the need for fire drills, can they be avoided during midterms? This creates a challenging situation of fairness for students taking exams.
Response From: John Reid, Chief of Police �Yes, I’m sure they can be done at another date/time. The historical practice has been to set a date(s) – traditionally in October - with the help of community members from different divisions. �For Academic Affairs, Provost Wakelee and Chanda Cunningham-Spence are asked to identify potential conflicts. �That being said, we’re open to any new ideas Faculty Senate may have that will help us identify practices that will be a better fit for academic programming.
Response From: Cindy Wyels, Academic Senate Chair �We talked about seeing whether the evacuation drills may be scheduled in the first week of October (or even better, the last week of September). �Of potentially more impact, we agreed that you’d notify the provost when the dates are set – with a suggestion that the provost notify the faculty of the dates and explicitly recommend they create their course schedules with these drills in mind. There will always be conflicts, but professors would then have the best chance of minimizing disruption to their courses this way.
Question From: Antonio Jiménez I recently learned that the glossy program brochures that we use for recruiting and advising are not being printed any more. Why? Can we have them back?
Response from Hung Dang, AVP for Enrollment Management �These were discontinued due to cost and usefulness. It was not a good tool for students or advisors since the same information can be found online--and, program changes can be updated instantly. The printed program sheet tends to conflict with a more updated online information and add more confusion for students.
Question #1 from: Jesse Elliot Can Faculty Affairs committee or admin discuss the following proposal? Reexamine the committee structuring process for the current Provost Search committee. The current Chair of the committee was also on the President's Search Committee and is now Senate Chair. Having the Senate Chair lead Senate Exec's choice of the Provost Search Committee places too much power in one individual and seems counter to our value of shared governance. My recommendation is that a different Chair be selected for the Provost Search Committee or that the committee be constituted by election
Response From: Erika Beck, President �When determining the composition of the Provost search committee, strong faculty participation was one of my primary considerations. Given that the faculty senate chair is the only individual on campus who is elected to serve as a representative voice of the faculty as a whole, I could think of no more appropriate chair of this committee. �In addition to this selection, I also appointed three additional faculty members to the search committee. �Although our policy requires a single faculty appointment, I asked all three faculty members who selfnominated and were sent to me from the Senate Executive Committee to serve in this important role.
Question #2 From: Jesse Elliot Can Faculty Affairs committee or admin discuss the following proposal? Require tenure-track faculty to teach 3 (or perhaps even 6) units of teaching per academic year, with the exception of sabbatical years, but including faculty "bought out" on grants.
Response from Faculty Affairs Committee We are now discussing this in FAC meetings and will take the lead on seeking facts, perspectives and other input.
Question from: Karen Jensen I would like a clarification on the new paperwork for Technology purchases -- What is the purpose? What category of equipment need to have the paperwork? What is the implication on the time of processing for the additional paperwork? If we are using an external vendor for the equipment and they maintain the equipment, why is the extra paperwork needed?
Response from Peter Mosinskis, Dir. of IT Strategy �Summary of Response: �Purpose? T&C has always had the responsibility to review most technology purchases; the ad hoc, emailbased process resulted in loss of procurement requests at an unacceptable frequency. New processed jointly developed by Procurement & Logistical Services and T&C) to provide a more consistent, transparent, efficient and "paper less" procurement experience for IT products and services; and to assure that we are effectively managing risk throughout the procurement process.
Response from Peter Mosinskis, Dir. of IT Strategy, continued (2 of 5)… �Category of equipment requiring paperwork? �Exempt: consumable items (e. g. , blank DVD media, etc. ) & incidental computing accessories for personal use (e. g. , flash drives, external hard drives, keyboards, mice, etc. ) �All else: All other for IT-related products and services (including computers, printers, hardware and software): must be submitted online as described at http: //www. csuci. edu/tc/purchasing/.
Response from Peter Mosinskis, Dir. of IT Strategy, continued (3 of 5)… �Implication on the time needed for processing? �The time that it takes to complete a procurement varies widely on the complexity and impact of the procurement, as well as current capacity within T&C and Procurement. Typically custom procurements take longer than standard procurements. We understand this process is time consuming. There were some delays as we implemented the new process, but we are seeing significant improvement in processing time. Please be assured that T&C and Procurement stakeholders meet regularly to continue to review & refine the process.
Response from Peter Mosinskis, Dir. of IT Strategy, continued (4 of 5)… � On average, T&C and Procurement process 40 IT procurements per month. Here are some statistics for October: � Standard procurement (start-to-finish) completion time: � Average: 5 days � Minimum: 3 days � Maximum: 8 days � 3 -month maximum: 69 days � Custom procurement (start-to-finish) completion time: � Average: 7 days � Minimum: 0 days � Maximum: 12 days � 3 -month maximum: 54 days
Response from Peter Mosinskis, Dir. of IT Strategy, continued (5 of 5)… �If we are using an external vendor for the equipment and they maintain the equipment, why is the extra paperwork needed? �The Division of Technology & Communication is obligated to ensure that IT products and services procured by the campus align with campus & CSU policy, applicable laws, and industry best practices so that we can continue to have an efficient, effective, reliable and secure campus technology infrastructure. It's important to evaluate all IT products & services delivered by our partners to ensure they can be installed, used and supported without imposing undue burden or risk on campus operations.
11/15 Question From: Matt Cook Q: Why can we not award students payment when the ICSUAM specifically allows it and we have no internal document prohibiting it? HISTORY � Recently, an Academic Senator and colleague raised a question concerning payments to students. In the response provided by Finance and Administration (you can find it here: http: //senate. csuci. edu/meetingmaterials/032916/student-payments-final. pdf), it is stated that "Payment via CSU Operating Fund 485 (General Fund; e. g. GDxxx), Honoraria is not allowable. " The basis of this decision is given as, "Per the CI Honoraria / Speaker Fees Guidelines and the Integrated CSU Administrative Manual (ICSUAM) 1301 -00 Hospitality, Payment or Reimbursement of Expenses. " A review of that document and our internal document, "Honoraria/Speaker Fees Guidelines" (http: //www. csuci. edu/financialservices/documents/accounting/ci-honorarium-speaker-fees-guidelines. pdf), indicates no prohibition of awarding monies to students, thus this question.
Response slide (pending)
- Slides: 18