Resolved,
That the Academic Senate of San Jose State University express NO
CONFIDENCE
in the process which has given rise to the CETI business plan due
to its
secretive nature, the extremely limited consultation with faculty
and
campuses, and the extremely short public response period; and if
the CETI
plan is implemented, the CSU must not allow the exclusionary
process which
created the CETI plan to become a model for future CETI
governance; be it
further
Resolved,
That we are reluctant to enter into an agreement which increases
centralization in the CSU; the CETI proposal contradicts the
philosophy of
Cornerstones Principle 10, which we have endorsed, which states
that
"campuses shall have significant autonomy in developing
their own missions,
identities, and programs, with institutional
flexibility...;" be it further
Resolved,
That we are receptive to the concept of utilizing a
public/private
partnership to help meet our needs in information technology, and
remain
open to further dialogue on ways in which the CETI proposal can
be
improved, but oppose formation of the CETI corporation until and
unless
our specific concerns can be addressed. These concerns are
immediately
attached to this resolution; be it further
Resolved,
That copies of this resolution and our attached concerns be
distributed to
the Chancellor, to the Chancellor-designate, to the Academic
Senate of the
CSU, to all campus Senates, to local and state media, to members
of the
state legislature, to the proposed corporate partners of CETI,
and to the
leadership of concerned local corporations such as Apple, Sun,
Netscape,
3-Com, Cisco, Pacific Bell, Oracle, and others.
1. Need for the elaboration of a CSU perspective.
A CSU Business Plan, created openly and with full faculty,
student,
staff, and campus administrative participation, should be created
to
address the issues of a public/private partnership from a CSU
perspective.
This CSU Business Plan should supplement the CETI Business Plan
and provide
balance to the negotiations over an MOU. The CSU Business Plan
should
garner the support of the Statewide Academic Senate prior to ANY
official
formation of the CETI corporation.
2. Need for resolution of the ethical dilemmas created by the CETI proposal.
While it may not be reasonable to criticize the CETI business plan for
failing to deal with the ethical dilemmas raised in this first-of-its-kind
proposal, a CSU response should analyze and attempt to resolve such issues
as the following:
A) The public/private issue. The issue of whether profits should be
generated for certain out-of-state and private corporations by California's
public employees needs to be fully resolved before proceeding with plans
for marketing curriculum (aka "courseware').B) The monopoly issue. The issue of whether it is ever ethical to sell
a measure of exclusive access to a public institution must be resolved.
Note that this is more than a matter of law, but also a matter of principle.C) The Microsoft issue. It may not be ethical for the CSU to enter into
a business arrangement with a partner which is under investigation by the
U.S. Department of Justice for alleged antitrust violations.D) The conflict-of-interest issue. Consistent with standard ethics
codes for public officials, the Chancellor, members of the Board of
Trustees, and their immediate families should be required to divest
themselves of any holdings of stock held in the corporate partners of CETI
prior to any official decision to commit the CSU to membership in CETI.
Divestiture should be required to assure that such a decision cannot appear
to be motivated by personal financial gain.
3. Reasonable timeline for adequate faculty and campus review of an MOU.
After acceptance of a CSU Business Plan (see item 1), an MOU which
elaborates and elucidates the relationship(s) between CETI and the CSU, and
which is fully responsive to the concerns raised by the proposed CSU
Business Plan as well as the Corporate Business Plan, should be
negotiated, published, and distributed for a six month comment period, not
counting summer months, to allow for input from the campuses, campus
Senates, and Statewide Senate, prior to any further implementation of the
CETI project.
4. Cessation of inappropriate restrictions on ongoing technology efforts.
There can be no good faith dialogue with the faculty and campuses over
CETI unless the CSU takes seriously the possibility that it might need to
reject the CETI proposal. Consequently, the current suspension of normal
procedures for the purchase of technology is premature and should be
immediately lifted. Opportunities for each campus to seek and accept
technology-based gifts should not be abridged or infringed upon by any
external authority, organization, system policy, or procedure. In short,
we are unwilling to abandon our own campus based technology efforts in
favor of CETI management until there are adequate assurances from the
appropriate agencies and the Legislature of CETI's regulatory, legal, and
political viability.
5. Explanation of how CETI will change CSU relations with CETI
competitors.
More specific information is required as to how CETI will affect future
industry/university relations such as hardware and software donations,
student training for the local workforce, meeting regional needs (such as
the needs of local corporations that compete with and/or have incompatible
computing platforms with the corporate partners in CETI.) San Jose State
has regional responsibility to help train the future workforces of Apple,
Sun, Netscape, 3-Com, Cisco, Pacific Bell, Oracle, and many other
competitors to the CETI group.
6. Strategy to avoid "compensatory reduction" in funding by Legislature.
While a public/private partnership may provide a viable strategy for
dealing with the CSU's future technology needs, we would require a
specific structure which assures that the profits from such a partnership
cannot result in a compensatory reduction by the Legislature of other
public funds to the CSU. We fear that profits from CETI will become an
analogue to Lottery Funds, which have all too often been used not to
supplement but to replace other state funding.
7. Guarantee of collegial campus autonomy in the protection of
academic
freedom, privacy and intellectual property.
The autonomy of campuses in setting their own regulations concerning
privacy of electronic communications and protection of intellectual
property, and specifically to give higher degrees of protection in these
venues than the minimum required by law, should not be infringed.
Similarly, the academic freedom of faculty must remain inviolate: their
research, teaching, and expression must be able to criticize CETI without
fear of retaliation or coercion.
8. Guarantee of collegial campus control of the curriculum.
All campuses, through their systems of collegial governance, should
maintain the same measure of control over their curriculum that they
currently enjoy. They must retain responsibility for determining the
academic direction for course and program development, delivery management,
and academic assessment of course and program quality. This includes the
ability to determine if courses offered by other universities through any
"virtual university" meet the campus's own curricular standards.
9. Control of CETI governance commensurate with the magnitude
of the CSU
contribution.
The CETI governance structure should assure the CSU of control of the
corporation commensurate with its contribution to the partnership; if
access to the intellectual capital of the University is promised, or if
exclusivity over the CSU market is awarded, then the CSU must be accorded
majority control of CETI on the principle that such a contribution is far
more valuable than the limited corporate financial contributions.
Obviously, these details must be settled before a fair governance structure
can be determined, and determining governance prior to determining the
magnitude of contributions would be highly imprudent.
10. Need for educational goals to take primacy over marketing goals.
The CETI proposal needs to analyze the potential for technology not
exclusively from the standpoint of market share and feasibility but more
from the standpoint of educational appropriateness. For example, no
explanation is offered for why the CETI business plan specifically targets
General Education courses without equal attention to certain other parts
of the curriculum. We suspect the reference to GE is based upon a desire
to tap into large markets of students rather than upon sound pedagogical
analysis.
11. Guarantee of due process for unionized employees.
Technology staff or members of any CSU unions should not become
subcontracted employees without proper due process; it would be imprudent
for SJSU to suspend its own campus-activities and replace them with CETI
management while this issue threatens to destroy the legal foundation of
the proposed corporation.
12. Explanation of degree and level of standardization.
The issues of standardization need considerable elucidation to allay the
fears of faculty, staff, and students. Some standardization of desktop
facilities may be necessary for baseline technology; we desire specific
assurance that such standardization will not affect enhanced technology
issues and the need to tailor technology choices to specific pedagogical
and research needs.
13. Clarification of financial plans.
We are concerned that aspects of the financial plans are based upon
questionable assumptions, incomplete information, and excessive optimism.
The financial plans need greater clarity and we require several specific
reassurances.
A) Ownership of debt.
The plan must clearly explain who owns the debt--given the great
importance of CSU direct and indirect contributions, we believe it fair
that the corporate partners should hold all of the debt.
B) Excessive optimism about "courseware" profits.
We also are very skeptical of the optimistic projections of future
profits to be derived from "courseware" and other sources.
C) Protection against unreimbursed costs.
Technology programs that incur unreimbursed costs, e.g., delivery costs
of distance education programs, should not be imposed on a campus.
D) Proportionality in profit-sharing.
Campuses should share in revenue generated in proportion to their
contribution to the revenue stream.
E) Re-valuation of existing infrastructure.
Much of the success of the CETI plan depends upon the accuracy of a
survey (summer 1997) which was designed to measure the size of the
existing technology base. This survey was defective in important ways.
Taking place in the middle of summer when most faculty were absent, the
survey was haphazard. Most importantly, it made no differentiation between
equipment and budgets that would be covered by the CETI initiative and
equipment and budgets that would not. To promise to CETI all the budgets
and equipment itemized in the summer survey would falsely represent our
ability to participate. A new survey must be completed, but only after
there are clear lines differentiating what should be included and what
should be excluded.
F) Clarification of any fees to be charged to members of the university
community.
We should be told of any direct costs to students, faculty, and staff
for support services or other resources currently directly provided (and
funded) by the University. Furthermore, we would expect that any such
fees shall be appropriately approved by the Campus Fee Advisory Committees
set up under a recent Chancellor's order. The use of "incremental fees"
over and above standard fees must not be allowed to result in a two-class
educational system in which only wealthier students can afford
technological access to curriculum. We are therefore suspicious of any
incremental fees to be charged for curriculum taken as part of a regular
degree program of the CSU during a standard session, regardless of the
means of delivery employed.
G) Campus approval prior to any shift in Continuing Education funds.
Campus approval should be given for any shift of revenues from the
campus to external organizations for the purpose of modifying the
technology infrastructure. Self-support funds from Extended/Continuing
Education activities support a variety of campus needs, including support
for the library, student services, and departmental supplies budgets. A
shift of funding from these activities will, in effect, be a re-programming
of revenues from one form of infrastructure support to another. It will
also take away the financial incentive for our campus to provide these
programs
14. Assessment of CETI and a CSU exit strategy.
A mechanism for evaluating the CETI partnership should be established and
each campus should have the right to participate annually in this
evaluation. Participation by faculty, staff, students, and collegial
governance should be included in the process. On the basis of this
evaluation, the CSU should have the right to withdraw from CETI, and a
suitable exit mechanism for the CSU should be provided.
15. Emphasis on local direction of technology.
A) Campus goals and priorities should be primary.
The campus, rather than CETI or the system, must be the final
authority in specifying its needs and the elements of a technology
infrastructure that supports the diverse applications for both
administrative and academic organizations. This entails the right to
review, assess and evaluate any technology or operational proposals that
would affect the information technology infrastructure.Campuses must be the principal determinants of: the level of
information technology support required; the priorities of tasks
undertaken by support personnel; and the quality of service provided.
Campus direction is particularly important for all but the most
standardized networks and routine services; for example, local faculty and
administration are best equipped to understand faculty development issues,
technology initiatives that are closely tied to specific curricular needs,
and technology that supports unique campus missions and programs.B) Reassurance that choices will be appropriate for SJSU's unique
situation.The infrastructure must be modular and flexible to enable upgrading as
new or improved components or systems become available and as the range of
applications evolves.
Build-out of the San Jose State University infrastructure must include
the electronic components and additional cabling required to make the
result of SJSU's imminent telecommunications infrastructure construction
project a usable network information system. Several million more dollars
will be needed to bring the campus system to a full operational standard.C. Considerations for campus management of personnel.
The employment and benefits of current SJSU technology support
personnel must be preserved subject to normal attrition and the extant CSU
human resources retention and evaluation process. Procedures for the
management and supervision of these, and other information technology
support personnel, must be developed that will make them directly
responsive to the needs of the campus where they provide technology support
services.D. Local lines of authority and sources of legitimacy should be
respected.Presidents must retain effective administrative control of services and
resources; and, within collegial governance, we must be able to recommend
appropriate policies associated with the technology infrastructure. We
are concerned that CETI appears to centralize management and thus may
undermine both presidential authority as well as collegial governance.