Minutes: February 10th, 2004

TUESDAY,

February 10, 2004

Seven Hills Conference

Center

Nob

Hill Room

2:00 - 4:00 p.m.

Senate Members Present:

Absent:  Aaron, Eunice (excused); Batista, Natalie; Cherny,

Robert (excused); Gemello, John (excused); Klironomos, Martha (excused) Otero,

Aina J.; Pong, Wenshen (excused)

Guests:  Buttlaire, Dan; Collier, James; Ferretti, Charlotte; Hallum, Ann; Michalik, Suzanne; Monteiro,

Ken; Mullins, Willie; Murphy, Jim; Schafle, Marie; Seashore, Marjorie; Verhey,

Marilyn

CALL TO ORDER: 2:10 p.m.

CHAIR’S REPORT

Chair Edwards began by noting that he has been to a number gloomy

budget meetings lately and that he was having a difficult time finding the

silver linings in dark clouds, however

he thought that he has found one bright spot. He mentioned the current senate

budget that precludes traditional student assistant help.  He noted that currently that all the “legwork”

was done by Angela Sposito and Leigh Magness, whom he described as “angels” and that they

had also managed to work with a budget does not include senate travel money.

 He further noted, with appreciation, that the

senate was no longer sending hard copies of documents and that all agendas

and attachments will be distributed electronically and also will be accessible

on the senate website.  He declared

them the senate office’s silver lining.

AGENDA ITEM #1 - APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY

10, 2004

Chair Edwards added an additional item, Agenda Item #9, the Annual Reapportionment of Senate Seats,

a consent item from the Executive Committee in 1^st and 2^nd

reading.

m/s/p Houlberg, Steier

AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 2, 2004

m/s/p Jerris/Houlberg

Senator Williams noted on page 5 that he had moved

a motion, not a resolution, a fact that needed clarification in the following

paragraph as well.

[Before the

meeting Senator Langbort noted

that she was listed as absent at the last meeting but that her term had not

yet officially begun.]

AGENDA ITEM

#3 -REPORT—VICE PRESIDENT LEROY MORISHITA—STATE BUDGET SITUATION

Vice President

Morishita wished to address Bond

Measure #55, a $12.3 million capital outlay bond, which has the potential

to do a lot for SFSU.  This would include

minor and major capital outlays, including $4 million to the Library for furniture

and other items connected to the renovation project, and $2.5 million for

capital renewal, including the heating/venting/air conditioning systems on

campus.  Additionally, there would be

money for minor outlays of around $1 million per year.  He noted that there are always changes, but expressed

hope for the best, and urged general support for this bond.

Morishita also noted

the presence of Bond Measures 57 and 58, the first being the Governor’s $15

billion bond to help balance this year’s budget.  The data that presented by Morishita is based on passage of Bond

Measure 57.

Morishita distributed

a handout which explains the Governor’s budget and the CSU response.  Proposed

is a $2.4 million reduction to the CSU general fund, which if enacted would

bring the CSU budget figure down to $2.4 billion, compared to a $2.6 billion

budget from the previous year.

 

The CSU is

looking at this as the best possible case.  If the budget is changed, it would likely be

worse for us. Health and human services programs and K-12

 are likely to have greater priority items

than higher education.

Morishita summarized

the essential aspects of the budget handout, the official output of the Chancellor’s

Office. The CSU has responded with their own budget plan, seeking more control

and flexibility over funds.  He noted

various solutions proposed by the Governor which include increasing the student/faculty

ratio by one, and increasing the tuition of students carrying more than 132-units.

 Regarding the notion of the proposed

transfer of 10% of freshman to community colleges, Morishita noted that he had no idea how this would be funded.  Another proposal was a 7.5% reduction in academic

and institutional support, mostly in salaries; deferring money for the CMS

project; and elimination of EOP programs.  The proposed fee increases would be 10% for undergraduate

students, 40% for graduate students and 20% increases for non-resident students. 

This increase would affect financial aid negatively.

The CSU had

their own response that includes cutting re-enrollment by 5 percent.  The rationale is that if the CSU cannot do their

job of education correctly, it would reduce enrollment by 5%, roughly 20,000

students.  Our own target is going from

23,700 FTES to 21,800, a reduction of about 1150 FTES.  There would be a $6.4 million deduction to the

Chancellor’s Office.  With an enrollment

reduction obviously, the system would then also take in less in fees, effectively

adding further cuts to the system.

This translates

to us, if the proposed fees go through, as a $10.6 million reduction.  At

present, we hope for referendum support, but may have a $13.5 million problem

for next year.

One possibility

would be restructuring the fees so that undergraduate fees would go up more,

in an attempt to lower the steep 40% increase in graduate fees.  We are looking for differential fees for credential

students, and have had meetings with Chancellor’s Office about regarding this

issue.

Senator Jerris asked about fee increases, noting

that the 10% increase for undergraduate fees was too small, and perhaps ought

to be greater.

Morishita said that

the Board of Trustees was holding off discussion of fee increases to their

March meeting.

President

Corrigan observed that when the Board

of Trustees raised fees the last time, there was a great deal of emotional

reaction to this option.  He thought

that it would be a hard sell beyond 10%, even with new appointments, which

is why we have gone beyond that to see what we could do with the student referendum

on fees.

Senator Houlberg asked about the status of summer.

Morishita indicated

that campuses could switch units back to CEL, a discussion taking place right

now.  He thought we might have trouble

making our target next year if we do this.

Senator Stowers asked what percentage of SFSU’s budget is the

$2.5 million for next year and what has been cut so far.

Morishita responded

that the current budget was $215 million.  Depending on how you reckon it all, the cut is

about $14 million.

President

Corrigan said the reduction started out

at $30 million but by the time fee increases and the like were factored in,

the reduction was lowered to $14 million.  We

found some short-term solutions, but there is no money for enrollment growth

allocated for next year, and so the Governor has anticipated the Board of

Trustees action by factoring in fee increases, which leaves us little flexibility.

Morishita added that

health benefits are not being covered.  PERS

is okay, but not health benefits, so that is an extra cost for us.

Senator Williams

asked when the departments would find out about their budgets and summer session.

Morishita noted that

Provost Gemello has given the Deans

a reduction of $6 mil dollars.  If the

student fee referendum is passed by the student body the cut would be reduced

to $4.1 million.  However, we will still

need to deal with the $10.5 million deficit. The Deans have been given a preliminary

budget.

Senator Bernard-Powers asked that if the 40% increase goes through for graduate

students, if anyone had any thoughts about how this would affect our graduate

programs, which is likely to have a devastating effect.

Morishita indicated

that no elasticity studies have been done, but observed that a 10% increase

would not damage undergraduates, but 40% would certainly damage graduate degrees.

President

Corrigan reminded that this is a system

wide set of reductions. The Governor has consulted with no one, and no real

thought has been given to this issue. Because we have the largest number and

highest percentage of graduate students in the system, we will be hit harder

than any other campus by this action.

Morishita said that

he has done some serious lobbying to preserve some money by looking at how

all of the calculations are being done.

AGENDA ITEM #4 - REPORT—ACTING DEAN OF

FACULTY AFFAIRS, MARILYN VERHEY—NEW ONLINE FACULTY MANUAL

Dean Verhey began by observing that when she became

acting dean, she quickly discovered that the faculty manual needed extensive

revision. As a current member of the Faculty Affairs Committee, she offered

the credit for the manual’s revision to this committee, as chaired by Colvin and now Jerris. Some conceptual ideas emerged from discussion in the committee,

including the notion that the manual, rather than being someone’s idea of

what a manual should be, ought rather to be grounded in policy, contract language,

and previous practice. One goal was to make it up to date and be able to take

advantage of the large amounts of information available. This current draft

was reviewed by the Faculty Affairs Committee, other faculty the DPRC office,

to review it for accessibility, and the faculty rights panel, all of whom

provided input.

 

Verhey gave a quick

demo of the online manual, noting that there would be a yearly “back up” in

hardcopy. The manual is organized into ten general areas of interest, which

can be searched directly, or be browsed by subject headings. One example she

offered was connected to hiring practices. 

The manual has sections on how to constitute a hiring committee, the

tenure/track faculty, links to senate policies, hiring handbooks, and listings

of qualifications for tenure/track hires - all of which are original source

documents. She noted that the search feature was tied to the university search

engine.

Verhey asked for

input with respect to additions, corrections, new links, etc. and expressed

a desire to have the final product be as useful and user friendly as possible.

Senator Houlberg

questioned as to whom would be monitoring the manual, and expressed some concern

about student “hacking.”

 

Verhey responded

that everyone would be monitors of the manual’s accuracy and integrity but

that the keeper would be the office of Faculty Affairs and the Faculty Affairs

Committee, with office staff. The current print manual has been online for

some time and has not been compromised.

AGENDA ITEM #5 - REPORT—ACTING DEAN OF

GRADUATE STUDIES, ANN HALLUM—NEW ONLINE GRADUATE PROCEDURES

Acting Dean

Hallum of Graduate Studies, noted that the

senator’s handouts had sections.  One

provides information on the graduate office and the other on human subjects.

The online procedures were the result of interviews with a large number of

users, and the office hoped that looking at this data would help solve problems.

The new process means that students can now find information much more easily.

 Admission categories, CSU mentor program,

SFSU admission status are included on the new site. Approval of culminating

experience proposals, human subjects, GAP and other forms are now accessible,

and applications for graduation now can be done automatically.

A main goal

was to make it easier and simpler to find information, complete forms, etc.

 The online preprinted documents saves time, helps

students, and even makes reading the forms easier.  The Graduate guide gives lot of information,

with a section for faculty who act as graduate advisors.  She noted that the Graduate Advising office has

been improved and currently student assistants have taken some burden off

of faculty for general advice.  The

new process has started to make life easier for students, but also has improved

life for faculty as well.  A number

of useful reports can be easily generated through the web site.  She observed that every obstacle has an opportunity

attached to it, and demonstrated a way of using the system to help manage

the “take” rate of graduate admissions for a given department.  The system can answer how many students need

to be selected in order to reach your department goals. This will help make

decisions around graduate admissions and will also help “sweep” tracking,

to figure out which students have been in a graduate program for an extended

period of time without showing suitable progress towards a degree.

Senator Carrington

posed an indirect question as he was trying to make sense of the “take” rate.

He requested advice about dealing with the proposed 40% increase in fees for

graduate students.

 

Hallum thought she

could not provide a satisfactory answer, but noted that there will be meetings

to determine what can be made of this.  It was noted that it is possible to be hooked

into financial aid information much more aggressively than before.  She saw similar patters of applications as from

the previous year, and commented that if you compared fees around the country,

even a 40% increase could be considered reasonable.

AGENDA ITEM #6—RECOMMENDATION from the

CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE—REVISIONS to the UNDERGRADUATE

MAJOR & MINOR in RECREATION & LEISURE STUDIES, 2^ND

reading.

Revisions were approved by general consent.

AGENDA ITEM #7 - RECOMMENDATION

from the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE—REVISION to the BA

in CHILD and ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT, 2^nd reading.

m/s/p Houlberg,

Chelberg

Revisions were approved unanimously.

AGENDA ITEM #8—RECOMMENDATION from the

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE—RESOLUTION in SUPPORT of the FINAL REPORT

ON THE SUMMIT on RACE

and CULTURE at SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY

m/s/p Williams,

Meredith

Senator Williams

read the resolution.  Moved

to 2^nd reading.

Adopted

by general consent.

AGENDA ITEM #9—RECOMMENDATION from the

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - a consent item - on

REAPPORTIONMENT of SENATE SEATS

Chair Edwards began by noting the need for the

senate to adjust its numbers annually, due to growth in a college or other

changes at the university.

m/s/p Colvin, Chelberg

Vice Chair

Colvin briefly outlined the nature of the annual reapportionment of

the senate, noting the need to rebalance senate positions based on a formula

of FTEF faculty for each college.  She

stated that the Executive Committee was recommending a number of 25 as the

preferred additional number for the senate.

In order to

prepare senate ballots, the senate office needs to know the accurate number

for apportionment.  The constitution

specifies a range of 60 to 65 senators, which includes a base number of 40

senators with an additional representation to complete the senate body. The

Executive Committee of the senate recommends an additional 25 senators, which

provides the best representation and distribution for senate.

Chair Edwards

noted that the Executive Committee is recommending the framework represented

by column 9 on the distributed document.

Senator Steier

sought clarification on the determination of at-large members.

Senator Meredith pointed out some corrections

in the document, and responded that the process allowed adding 25 senators

to the base of 40 in order to have the maximum number of representatives.

Senate Assistant

Sposito

pointed out corrections: Business in column 4 has three additional representatives,

Humanities currently has 4 additional representatives, and offered further

clarifications.

Senator Chelberg

commented that since the current membership is 65 we would be preserving that

number.  The Executive Committee recommends

keeping that formula.  Also, the abbreviation

FTEF means full time equivalent faculty.

Senator Jerris

urged adoption, maintaining that the number of 25 gives the greatest base

across campus and minimizes the number of at-large members.

Moved to 2^nd

reading

m/s/p Meredith,

Garcia

Approved.

AGENDA ITEM #10—ADJOURNMENT—3:40 p.m.