The Faculty Senate met today to discuss the recommendations issued in a recent report published by the Center for Collaborative Policy. The Faculty Senate addressed questions and concerns about the recommendations to Susan Sherry, executive director of the Center for Collaborative Policy and author of the Assessment Report of Campus Governance, Culture and Climate of California State University, Sacramento. Sac State President Alexander Gonzalez authorized $50,000 out of his own budget to fund the collaborative strategies outlined in the report. Some faculty members raised concerns that because Gonzalez was funding the effort, a bias may exist between the Center’s mediators and the faculty. Sherry, as well as members of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, quickly dispelled these concerns.

The Executive Committee cited a discussion that had occurred in the early stages of the compilation of the report in which Sherry was quick to point out that the president was now a client, not an employer.

Both parties were treated fairly and as equals, members of the executive committee said.

Other concerns that were raised focused on the time-consuming nature of the mediations. Sherry said if the pain of staying in the situation was less than the pain of resolving it, then it would not be worth the time to resolve it.

Sherry added that it was apparent based on interviews conducted with faculty and administrators that the pain of staying in the situation was greater than the pain it will require to resolve these issues.

The Faculty Senate will meet to debate the recommendations made by the Center next Thursday at the regularly scheduled Faculty Senate meeting.

The faculty also heard from Dennis Geyer, university registrar for Outreach, Admissions and Records, who detailed Family Education Rights and Privacy Act rules that he said some instructors are not following. The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act is a 1974 law that outlines how instructors can display grades.

Some of the things he said he has seen are grades posted outside office doors that list students by name or by student ID number. Both of these methods are a violation of the act.

The only legal way to display grades is through the use of randomly assigned artificial numbers generated by the instructor.

Other things that Geyer said he has seen are instructors leaving graded term papers and exams in cardboard boxes outside office doors. This is also in violation of the act.

Derek Fleming can be reached at [email protected]