Minutes: February 5th, 2002

                       

Senate Minutes of February 5, 2002

Chair Vaughn called

the Academic Senate to order at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present: 

Announcements

Senate Chair Pamela Vaughn that the senate is in the process of being

fully electronic by 2002. The goals are to have hard copies in the library

and senate office. Right now only senators will receive hard copies of senate

agendas and support materials. All interested parties can get the same information

form the senate web site. Chair Vaughn thanked senators Turitz, Aaron,

Gregory and Cherny for organizing the fine memorial in honor of Tim Sampson’s

life. Chair Vaughn also welcomed the return of Senator Wen Shen Pong from

his fall semester leave. Mitch Turitz, CFA president, announced that

CFA was organizing a demonstration for Saturday, 12-3, San Francisco, Marriott

Hotel and a strike/work action planning meeting for Tuesday 11:30-1 and 1-3

at the University Club. CFA will also hold two lobby days in Sacramento on

February 26 and 27. Jan

Gregory announced

that the University Foundation is now accepting donations for the newly created

Tim Sampson scholarship fund.  Information about the

Tim Sampson Scholarship fund will be sent out to all on the senate list serve.

Chair’s Report

Yesterday afternoon

we were here in this room to celebrate the life and work of Tim Sampson. Tim’s

was the fist public and very loud voice that I heard when I came to this campus

in 1993. I can still remember time spent with Tim, marching, singing, and

chanting or just listening to him on the new plans for wrongs to be righted.

As we enter the new rounds of campus strategic planning and face certain budget

short falls, I would like us all to remember that the university is not FTEF

and FTES, not policies and regulations nor programs and units, and staffing

assignments, but PEOPLE! Tim always reminded us of our own humanity and our

connection with the rest of humanity. So let us all promise to put a face

and to keep a face, a very human face, on all that we do as a university.

Thanks Tim for showing us the way.

M/S/P (Smith, Shrivastava)

to approve the agenda

Agenda Item #2:  Approval of Minutes for Meeting of December 4, 2001

M/S/P (Steier, Duke)

to approve the minutes as amended.

Agenda Item #3: Report from Vice President La Belle

Vice President La

Belle presented information on the campus efforts to improve our relationships

with community colleges.  Recently, the CSU has paid more attention to the

role of community colleges; remediation for example. Presently the CSU pulls

60 to 70% of its students from the community colleges. Under a new memorandum

of understanding certain things were stressed.  Of course articulation, undergraduate/graduate

or rather lower division, teacher education and early preparation in the curricula

that would articulate with the CSU for teacher education programs.  Improving

access.  One important focus of our efforts is to increase access for community

college students to the state CSU system by 5% each year.  Remediation was

mentioned, dual admissions programs and so on.  SFSU started in 1996 having

joint meeting with administrators and faculty from our principles feeder community

colleges.  CCSF alone is bringing us approximately half of our freshman as

transfer students.  Meeting again this past weeks working on a new four CSU

(as in 4CSU) the new agreement focused more in cross enrollment, more advising

for transfer, honors programs available for both places, email and website

accounts at CSU, library for those same students (transfer students). Working

toward early identification of those students who would come.  Last Friday

all Deans and other administrators met together with their counter parts.

There were 35 individuals at CCSF and SFSU. Basically held the meeting to

move the agreement along and increase the interaction between the similar

colleges to increase the interaction between the colleges.  Over the next

six to eight months we will hold similar meetings. The next one will be March

15, 2002 with the three San Mateo colleges, De Anza and Foothill and then

two more meetings in the fall. We have the same goal for all the meetings;

representatives from both of the colleges at the table to try and move the

agenda along between the two institutions. We are reaching out understanding

that we are partners in education.

Jan Gregory asked if we have checked check

out the implications for the library with CCSF using it.  La Belle,

yes we have looked at that and Debbie Masters is at the table.  We now have

and honors program where we allow the CCSF honor students to use the library.

We will be watching this and see what we are going through especially over

the next several years in the renovation of our library.  What we want to

do is to take the CCSF students in child development and teacher education

student, who will be moving to SFSU, giving them email, web sites, library

access as cohorts with limited and for certain purposes and certain students.

Vinay Shrivastava asks if there were any discussion

about remedial courses.

La Belle, when we drop a student from

SFSU we often recommend that they return to Community College to take remedial

course work. We also follow up and monitor those students and we encourage

them to come back. We have a long ways to go before we are really partners

in this but we are trying to change the climate to reaching out rather than

choosing up sides.  We are working with the community colleges to make sure

the same kind of curricular standards are met there as are met at SFSU. Work

together and have a long ways to go, but we are trying.

Bruce Wolfe mentioned being a CCSF transfer

student to SFSU that he would hope for a more friendlier connection and that

his was a very difficult and trying time for him and asked if there were any

student representatives in the group and if not are you willing to have a

compliment of students from both campuses to be involved in this process.

La Belle, Of course.

Agenda Item #4: Report from State Wide Senators

Robert Cherny

announced that all faculty would be receiving ballots on changes in the statewide

constitution that will adjust appropriation; further, that faculty salary

compensation in the governor budget is 1%, and there will be a revision in

the budget numbers in May. The Governor is not considering a student fee increase.

This will mean that the CSU budget will be cut. Cherny announced that the

statewide academic was hearing, in first reading, a resolution that specifies

that first year language courses other than English may not be used to meet

the CSU first year English requirement. The California Legislator has a joint

committee working on a master plan in education involving first grade through

high school.  The joint committee is trying to produce a final report this

year. Statewide academic senate has sent representatives to each of their

meetings.  Eunice Aaron announced that CSU alumni would be visiting

the state legislature February 20^th.  Jan Gregory announced

that the statewide academic senate faculty affair committee has passed a resolution

that encourages campuses to develop open policies for faculty evaluation.

Pamela Vaughn reminded all senators to remind their constituents that

we will again be voting on the SFSU academic senate constitution changes.

We failed to get a quorum last fall and will try again this semester. Additionally,

on the resolution for first year language requirements, she recommends that

the statewide academic senate consult with CSU foreign language faculty before

pressing for a change in first year GE English requirements.  Chair Pamela

Vaughn welcomed Dan Buttlaire as the new Dean of Undergraduate Students. 

Bruce Wolfe, in regards to foreign language classes, does the SFSU

senate make for our representatives to take forward to the statewide academic

senate? Vaughn, since this is the first time this has been mentioned it may

very well be something that we will take up as a body - we will talk.

Agenda Item #5: Proposed Revisions to the Bachelor of

Science in Business: Multiple Concentrations

Amy

Nichols,

Chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee made the following presentation: 

The College of Business is proposing 3 changes in its existing undergraduate

curricular program with the goal of reducing the current unit requirement

for graduation from 126 to 120 units.  The change is in response to pressure

from within the College (especially among students who cannot graduate within

four years despite best efforts and performance), from the academic administration,

and form the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB).

The Changes are: Removal of BICS 263, Introduction to Computer Information

Systems, from the core course requirements for all business majors. The course

will remain in the College of Business’s (CoB) curriculum, but will no longer

be a required course in the business core. Change the unit requirements for

all undergraduate concentrations in the College of Business from a fixed level

of 24 units (8 upper division courses) to variable units. The default level

will be set to 21 units (7 upper division courses), but concentrations may

require more units (i.e., for professional certification needs), or fewer

units (to encourage taking elective courses). The approval of the Dean will

be required for variations from the default level.  The College of Business

provided each senator with a 17 page “Summary of Proposed Change of Requirements

for Existing College of Business Undergraduate Curricular Program.” A copy

of the summary is also made available electronically on the senate’s web site.

The College of Business Interim Dean Gerald Platt and the Associate Dean were

present to answer any questions.

Lutfus

Sayeed, a

senator representing the College of Business pointed to four issues.  First,

it appears from the proposal that all the curricula decisions will be moved

from faculty committee to the dean rather than sharing the curricula issue

between the dean and the faculty committee. Second, the proposal may set aside

BICS 263 as a core requirement; however, it is still a requirement as a prerequisite

for other courses. The proposal indicates that student who require the basic

competencies of BICS 263 will be required to take an exam or if they fail

the exam BICS 263.  Those of us who teach BICS 263 believe that a basic competencies

test would not replace BICS 263. It is not clear from the proposal who is

going to administer the test or where the resources are going to come from.

Third, the overall theme of the proposal is to conform the degree programs

to 120 units, as if this is a requirement by law, when in fact it was only

a suggestion for a minimum. Fourth, the document is very long and I would

like to have time to bring this document to my constituencies in the College

of Business and to bring their comments to the senate floor. Interim Dean

Gerald Platt provided the senators with background information on the

process of this particular proposed curricula change. He stressed that undergraduate

business degree are more liberal oriented and that it is recommended by their

accreditation body that business related courses not exceed 50% of course

work. The present College of Business degrees reflect 69 units. Susan Higgins

recommend that curricula streamlining is a good thing and something we all

should consider.  She had concerns that the recommendations of 120 units were

not meant to be an outright mandate for all programs.  Additionally, that

not all students are computer literate and likely may need the computer skills

offered in BICS 263.  Interim Dean Gerald Platt emphasized that the

downsizing of the curriculum to 120 units was in response to both a memorandum

from the Chancellor’s office that recommend 120 units and after analysis of

business school in the US.  We looked at our programs regarding computer literacy.

In the college of business every student is required to take two courses in

computer literacy. We have found that more of our students come to us with

preparation that is beyond BICS 263 now. Things have changed and these students

can move right into 363. BICS 263 will remain for those students without the

necessary computer skills. Bruce Wolfe asked if any students were consulted

or were members of the committee? Interim Dean Gerald Platt. There

was no student consultation directly. We did a survey of students to ask them

about changes in the curriculum. There was no student representation on the

committee. Robert Daniels, the issue has been very divisive within

the College of Business because faculty governance of the curriculum has been

tangled up with that 120-unit issue. Indicated that when a memorandum was

circulated from the College of Business concerning the SFSU Senate’s resolution

on the 120 units as a minimum that the CoB memorandum changed the meaning

of the resolution to reflect that the SFSU Senate’s resolution had lowered

the bachelor degree requirement to 120 units. A faculty committee came up

with a proposal to examine two core courses to in the college of business.

The former dean of the College of Business decided that one course would be

eliminated; one tested out, and that all minors were to be reduced by one

course. At this point the college faculty voted in a referendum with five

issues for downsizing with no alternative. The referendum was approved 36

to 32 out of 110 voting faculty. I believe there is a problem with process

here and we should have time to address it. Fears that this may become a precedent

were the 120 units would be treated as a requirement rather than a recommended

minimum. Jan Gregory interested about what Senator Daniels has indicated

and wants to know if there was open consultation between the administration

and the faculty of the College of Business? Interim Dean Gerald Platt,

the college held two open meeting that were announced to all faculty with

the purpose of allowing faculty to discuss any issue they wanted to discuss.

Out of that meeting we revised the final ballot that went to faculty. Robert

Nickerson, Professor Business Analysis and Computing Science, requested

that the senate send back this proposal for curricula change to the College

of Business for further study. He based his recommendation on the belief that

the college faculty never discussed or debated the reduction to 120 or to

keep it at 126. It was given by the former dean to reduce but not faculty

debate or a faculty vote to proceed in that direction. Faculty was allowed

to vote on implementation issues for a reduction. The faculty was not presented

with the options for not reducing it at all. The faculty was not given the

opportunity to express their dissatisfaction with the units. Faculty was given

the opportunity to vote only on implementation. He believes that 95% of those

taking the exam to get out of taking BICS 263 will fail the exam and will

then have to take BICS 263. So there will be no unit savings as indicated

in the proposal. He believes that this proposal will weaken the college’s

programs and that senate should send it back to the College of Business for

further review and study.  Chair Pamela Vaughn, we have reached our

time certain, the proposal will remain in first reading. This is an opportunity

for the College of Business to use the two weeks between now and our next

senate meeting to clarify to its faculty that the 120 is only a recommendation

minimum and not a mandated minimum.

Agenda Item #6: Discussion: Shared Governance

Dawn Terrell, Chair of the Shared Governance

Task Force and members of her committee conducted a discussion of shared governance

issue. The task force was created last year by the senate to look at shared

governance issues. Terrell began the discussion by outlining the changes of

the committee and summarizing the concerns and consideration that the committee

had addressed during the fall semester. Dawn Terrell indicated that

the committee focused its concerns regarding shared governance on two broad

areas.  First, concerns on implementation of policy and follow through on

policy. Second, followed up on the statewide senate’s task force report on

shared governance. The task force wanted to see if any of the statewide concerns

were also issues at SFSU. The task force met for a semester and identified

a couple of important issues.  First, how do people understand shared governance

on this campus? Second, how are policies interpreted and how is shared governance

articulated?  We found that it is not always implementation of policy but

how policy is interpreted and consultation about. We saw that these issues

were related to a few areas. The areas of retention, tenure, and promotions

seem to generate a lot of questions and concerns. Not implementation of policy

but interpretation, consultation, and communication among constituencies.

We identified the area of allocation of resources with limited budgeting as

also a problem. What, if any, role does shared governance have to do with

budget cuts. Our purpose today is to hear from you about what shared governance

means to you. Mitch Turitz gave the example of the problem with FMI

and FAR reported requirements with limited consultation in relations to working

without a contract. A second example was the issue of the administration implementation

of a university FMI and FAR calendar due date that was not the same as the

other CSU campus. Bruce Wolfe asked if shared governance was specific

to academic areas or the entire campus. Would like to see a web site that

lists all the campus committees and their membership. Abdiel Onate,

it is an excellent opportunity to ponder how we are governed and how we administered.

What is the meaning of shared governance. It is connected to democratic principles

of consultation, confrontation and cooperation. We should not forget that

we are a public institution where the cooperation of all the constituents

will make it efficient. These three constituencies are administration, teachers,

and students. This forms the community, the institution. All have specific

roles and responsibilities to play in the governance of the university. What

are the roles, the fields, the areas and the prerogatives specific to these

constituencies and how do they interact when it comes to a head of the two

issues you just mentioned, specifically the interpretation of policy on hiring,

retention, and promotion and on the allocation of money.  What projects are

going to be funded, what sabbatical are going to be approved, where are the

resources going to go to achieve the mission of the university. It seems to

me it has to be very clear between the administration and the faculty what

are the areas, what are the fields of competence in which each will have the

final decision or influence the final decision. Certainly academic questions,

peer review, are the essence of the democratic institution would be functioning

on. The problem is when is it that the administration, the deans, the provost,

the president change the decision of the department. They change the priorities,

or the ranking of candidate’s work, or the priority of ranking projects of

candidates work. I think those are the questions that are crucial to clarify

and discuss here. What are the grounds, under what conditions, can changes

to department decision be legitimate. What are the grounds by which the administration

would have the expertise to decide on the quality of projects, on the allocation

of funds for projects that are academically significant, artistically significant

or scientifically significant. It seems to me that the role of the administration

essentially is one of stewardship of making sure that the academic processes

are properly followed and follow the policy of the university. But the decisions

themselves pertaining to academic questions that have to do with money, and

there is a limited amount. Only certain projects will be funded only certain

hiring’s will be made; only certain promotions will take place. I think that

one of the points here then is, it is very easy to come to an understanding

as to how it is that administrators oversee, supervise, insure the integrity

of the process by which academic and economic decision are made. Rather than

make the decision themselves. There is a big difference there and I think

the senate and the faculty and the administration have to ponder about this.

That is how I understand shared governance. This ability to come together,

to talk, to come to interpretation, and then to actions to preserve the integrity

of the process that we ourselves have given to the institution is the essence

of shared governance. Rick Houlberg: I think it is a valuable

discussion of - in relation to this issue - as my colleague just mentioned.

However, we are dealing with many of these issues based on what kind of support

we got and how that comes down. Specifically, for example the cuts which will

happen to next summer’s teaching - which are now being mandated and when it

was -brought to our department that we were going to have to cut by X percentage

our budget and what we could offer. When the Dean was asked how do we do that

- don’t let you high level tenure track faculty teach. Go out and hire lecturers.

That is where we were pointed. Our department chair has worked another way

around that and -the ones who are going to end up getting lost and losing

in this whole process - yet once again - are the students. Because the way

we get around it is to up the students that we have in any one of the individual

classes. The cynicism around the governor political action of not changing

the fees - obliviously chancellor Reed’s disinterest in our interest, a lot

of that is driven by things that we don’t effect that we don’t change - it

is obvious. So I think the discussion is valuable but we have to be very careful

about getting our hopes up that this is going to mean anything. Thank you.

Pamela Vaughn indicated that when the senate

created the task force there were representatives from students, staff, administrators

and faculty representation. What I would like to know is what the status of

that representation is? Dawn Terrell, we requested student representation

from AS and have not received one. We did have a staff representative last

semester; however, they have been unable to continue and we have not replaced

that person. There is a web site that describes the task forces’ charge and

membership of the committee. Eunice Aaron asked about the activity

surrounding the FAR when there is no money? Marlon Hom, good example

of the type of policy implementation that the task force is trying to resolve.

Is it a policy that is supposed to be used to enhance faculty development

or are we just enforcing the policy. Jan Gregory, senate could amend

the policy and the second we make distinctions between the reasonable right

of the employer to ask the employee what they are doing. FAR and the FMI,

SSI etc with or without funding. Without the FAR the administration could

keep money issues need to be separated. Dawn Terrell, we are talking

about shared governance in the collective bargaining situation, a contract.

Whether it is appropriate to report but what forum should it take. Should

it enhance professional development of just meet the policy? We will be charged

this spring to come up with some recommendations. Bruce Wolfe, sorry

there is not a student representative. Shared governance is the lifeblood

for all parties on the campus. Equal voice on the committee. Recommendation

comes from the committee that receives great weight. Susan Higgins,

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this topic. Some people do not know how

shared governance is operational zed. This task force is so important. How

we can operate together. If we feel good about the decision that is made,

is it better versus when we are imposed upon. Maybe there are more examples.

Better communication, I know that shared governance has certain responsible,

law requirements and position requirement and how they operate within the

system. How they impact on levels of operations.  Faculty are accountable

for their action. When we don’t understand we mistrust and feel paranoid. 

If this task force could take that notion of breaking down the barriers and

open where the doors of communication are closed. Jan Gregory, early

this afternoon we saw that the players did not have shared governance. Senators

involved part of that discussion, may have something to learn about the understanding.

Better understanding about the faculty role and others. Pamela Vaughn,

wondering if the university council would care to comment how bound we are

to follow though on the FAR.  Andrea Boyle, questioned the need to

have the university calendar established in such a way that retention and

tenure candidates are required to work on their WPAF during the winter break

due to meet the university deadline of late January. Would like to see the

task force address the issue of faculty input when faculty are being required

to complete tasks. Jan Gregory asked how the executive calendar works

with the union calendar. Eunice Aaron outline that compared to other

campus we have access to our administrator while on other campuses faculty

are locked out from questioning how campus life takes place. I am happy that

we are doing this. Use this vehicle and example what we have going for us

on this campus. Saul Steier, indicated that he had just finished revising

segment III course but been informed that that he would have to change the

way in which he had written the revision.  I would have to translate into

action verbs many areas. Sometime what we do does not have anything do to

with the intellectual development. I have more examples of administration

sharing goals and using these goals to intrude in the classroom, to direct

what goes on in the classroom. Dawn Terrell, one of the things that

the task force had discussed is the role of shared governance about the allocation

of resources. The senate is good about eliminating the programs, not good

in decision on how eliminating the program impacts our colleagues. Robert

Daniels indicated that it was acceptable to him that administrators make

the unpopular decisions. Mitch Turitz could see many cases when we

have written senate policy and the administration refuses to follow that policy.

Pamela Vaughn indicated that what we should be looking at established

policy and the making of the policy and what the obligation of all parties

evolved are in enforcing that policy. Part of the engagement is about what

we were talking about but what rights people have but also what are responsibilities

for each party when they engage the policy. Richard Giardina, there

is an issue in which a faculty may well decide or have a certain unwillingness

to make a decision and recognize that the role of the administration is to

make that decision. The worst thing is that a decision needs to be made, but

faculty doesn’t want to make that decision and doesn’t want the administration

to make the decision. Jan Gregory, encourage all of you to look at

the web site at the policy and procedure of the Academic Senate and its committees

and how the policy outlines the duties and responsibilities of administrators.

Some us have held this job for so long they believe that any new task is an

additional burden.  Many people do not take the time to read policy. I am

concerned about the younger and newer colleague. How do they understand the

role of faculty governance? Bruce Wolfe notes that one of the problems

in shared governance is that it goes through committee and things are slow

and sometimes difficult to get moving. Attendance is always a problem. Shared

governance does slow down the process of policymaking. There are problems;

however, it is very democratic. Richard Giardina agreed that the process

is slow, but it also requires total honesty at all levels. I know faculty

members who tell me that certain faculty or chairs should not be reappointed.

However they want somebody else to make the decision. If every level is not

working honestly in shared governance decision who should be the decision

maker the faculty or the administrators? Marlon Hom indicated that

usually when situation arise then there is conversation with the dean to have

the dean be the front man and it is not a hidden agenda. Robert Cherny,

in response to Richard Giardina statement, I reference here requirements that

may happen to turn in reports without a clear purpose for those reports. It

reminds me of past experience where a department had bitten the bullet and

written a very critical report only to have the report drop into a seemingly

black hole. There was no one up the line who paid attention to that report.

That being the case, should a department take responsibility? Similarly with

a FAR, we are required to turn it now and what is going to happen to it? It

is going to be dropped into the black hole. Who is going to read it? Are we

going to get a response to it? If there is no response to a faculty report

it breeds concision in the faculty when they have to turn them in. Abdiel

Onate, policy decisions require administrative mechanism to be implemented.

It is just an example of what Richard was saying. For us to function we need

all of the elements working together. We cannot have the university without

students, or imagine a university without administrators.

Adjourned at 4:00 PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

James Edwards

Secretary to the Faculty