Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting

of February 19, 2002

The

Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Vaughn at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present:

Aaron,

Eunice

Alvarez,

Alvin

Avila,

Guadalupe

Bishop,

Anna

Blomberg, Judith

Boyle,

Andrea

Cherny,

Robert

Collier,

James

Colvin,

Caran

Concolino,

Christopher

Consoli,

Andres

Corrigan,

Robert A.

Daniels,

Robert

Duke,

Jerry

Edwards,

James

Fung,

Robert

Garcia,

Oswaldo

Garcia,

Velia

Gerson,

Deborah

Gregory,

Jan

Harnly,

Caroline

Higgins,

Susan

Hom,

Marlon

Houlberg,

Rick

Hubler,

Barbara

Jerris,

Scott

Kassiola,

Joel

La

Belle, Thomas

Langbort,

Carol

Luft,

Sandra

McKeon,

Midori

Moallem,

Minoo

Nichols,

Amy

Oñate,

Abdiel

Pong,

Wen Shen

Raggio,

Marcia

Sayeed,

Lutfus

Scoble,

Don

Steier,

Saul

Strong,

Rob

Su,

Yuli

Terrell,

Dawn

Turitz,

Mitch

Vaughn,

Pamela

Warren,

Mary Anne

Warren,

Penelope

Wolfe,

Bruce

Yip,

Yewmun

Senate Members Absent:Ganji, Vijay (exc), Henry,

Margaret (exc), Shrivastava, Vinay (exc), Levine, Josh (exc), Smith,

Miriam (exc), Gillotte, Helen (abs), AdisaThomas, Karima (abs), Friedman,

Marv (abs), Bartscher, Patricia (abs), Newt-Scott, Ronda (abs).

Guests:Vanessa Sheared, Dan Buttlaire,

Gail Whitaker, Dave Dempsey, Pat Gallagher, Helen Goldsmith, Richard

Wiersba, Edward Ericson, Nancy McDermid, Gerald Platt, Jiunn Huang,

Alan Jung, Art Kohn, Nancy Rabolt, Ken Fehrman, Ann Hallum.

Chair’s Report

The

senate chair did not give a report in order for the senate to have more time

for debate.

Caran

Colvin moved that a proposed resolution

in support of amending spring 2002 calendar for filing faculty activity reports

be added to the agenda as item #7.

m/s/p

(Colvin, Terrell) to approve the agenda as amended

Agenda Item #2: Approval of Minutes for Meeting of February 5, 2002

m/s/p

(Terrell, Houlberg) to approve the minutes

Agenda Item #3: report from Subject Matter Studies Coordinator Helen Goldsmith

Helen Goldsmith reported to the senate that the

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) has recently changed

the special education teachers’ standards for subject matter preparation of

prospective multiple subject (elementary school) teachers. The Liberal Studies

and Child & Adolescent Development major offers subject matter preparation

programs so students do not have to take the Multiple Subjects Assessment

for Teachers (MSAT) exam. Goldsmith reported that she is in the process of

reviewing the current programs to see how much revision needs to be made to

meet the new standards. These

standards are far more specific and extensive than they were in the past,

so some substantial revisions will probably be necessary. The changes to the

standards will impact many departments as most offer courses that satisfy

the current Liberal Studies and CAD programs. In December, a team from SFSU

attended a meeting organized by the CSU Statewide Academic Senate on "Subject

Matter Preparation of Multiple Subject Teachers." The team consisted of Helen

Goldsmith, Dave Dempsey from Geosciences, Richard Hoffman from History, Deans

Jake Perea, Jerald Combs, Dan Buttlaire, Nancy McDermid, and Bob Cherny from

History. Faculty, staff and students with questions about the

new standards can contact Helen, your college dean, a member of the team that

went to the CSU meeting, and/or your college's representative(s) to the Liberal

Studies Council.A copy of the new standards is

available at http://www.ctc.ca.gov/SB2042/SB2042_info.html.

Click on "Standards of Program Quality and Effectiveness for the Subject Matter

Requirement for the Multiple Subject Teaching Credential."

Abdiel

Oñate reported that students found

the process needs to be streamlined. He asked if we would have time to review

the process? Helen Goldsmith indicated everyone who has an interest

could be involved with updating programs and the process. Helen recommends

that concerned faculty should start with a review of their area on the web

site and identify any changes. Then work with their department chair and the

dean to review and rework curriculum. Jan Gregory pointed out that

we must be careful in how our programs respond to external pressure for change.

It is the faculty who determine our curriculum not an outside agency. Helen

Goldsmith indicated that they are watching and making sure that the changes

are in accord with our curriculum standards.Robert Cherny indicated

that we are working with two key concepts. First, academic discipline and

second, academic freedom. Sometimes they conflict. What we are trying to do

is to bring the preparation of our students, who are preparing to be teachers,

in line with what the new standards require to be taught in the schools. We

owe it to our students to provide the best preparation possible, so our students

will be able to better serve the people in the public schools in the state.Dean

McDermid, College of Humanities, reported that her college has been making

great progress in reviewing and reworking programs to bring them in line with

the new standards. She indicated that most of the changes were small and in

only a few cases were they having problems.

Agenda Item #4: Proposed Revision to the Bachelor of Science in business:

Multiple Concentrations

This

item is returning to the senate from the February 5 senate meeting and remains

in first reading.

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 from

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 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.

College of Business interim Dean Gerald Pratt provided

the senate with an extensive review of the three-year process that resulted

in the proposal before the senate. He outlined that the proposal was not driven

by any required reduction of the bachelor degree to the 120-unit level. Further,

that the COB faculty were central to the process and voted for the proposed

changes.Richard Wiersba, Professor, Business Analysis

and Computing, announced that he did not attend the CRAC meeting when the

proposal was discussed because he did not know that the meeting took place.

Wiersba teaches 12 of the 13 sections of BICS 263 that are proposed to be

replaced by an exam.He indicated that an exam would not assess the true business

systems concepts that he teaches in BICS 263. He asked that the proposal be

returned to COB for further study by the faculty. m/s/p (Cherny,

Steier) to extend debate for 20 minutes to 3:25 PM

Jerry

Duke indicated that the issue just

raised was about appropriate course content and not appropriate for the senate

to consider.Rick Houlberg asked how would Dean Pratt change the proposal

and has the university worked with COB during the 3-year process?Dean Pratt

indicated that he had lots of his own opinions on how curriculum should be,

however, this proposal resulted in faculty deliberation and a faculty vote

and he supports it.Provost Tom La Belle indicated that his office had

worked closely with COB in their development of this proposal. Further, that

the proposal would move the college in the direction of resolving problems

with high demand courses and scheduling. Bruce Wolfe asked if students

had been consulted in this process? Dean Pratt indicated they had not

been consulted regarding the proposal but had been extensively surveyed at

the beginning of the process.Robert Nickerson, Professor, Business

Analysis and Computing System, indicated that he saw the facts about the process

that led to the proposal differently than the Dean. Nickerson indicated that

the reduction of the degree program to 120 units was widely received by the

majority of COB faculty as a chancellor office requirement. That this requirement

was what had driven the development and COB faculty vote on the proposal that

is before the senate. He recommended that the proposal be returned to COB

so that faculty may review it in light that the 120-unit total for a bachelor

degree is not a mandated maximum but only recommended.

m/s/p

(Duke, Terrell) to second reading

Robert Daniels recommended to the senate that there

are many problems in the interpretation that the COB dean had just provided

to the senate and that many of the statements that COB faculty had made the

decisions that led to the proposals are not true. Actually, in the COB faculty

can only make recommendations to the dean and it is the dean that makes the

decision. He asserted that there was no consideration by the undergraduate

committee at the department level.Lutfus Sayeed thanked the dean for

his detailed presentation. However, he disagrees with the dean’s interpretation

of the process. He knew of one faculty member who served on the COB curriculum

committee who specifically stated that the committee was told that the 120-unit

maximum was mandated by the chancellor’s office. Sayeed read an email from

this professor.

m/s (Cherny, Gregory) to return the proposal to the

College of Business Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

Robert

Cherny believes that the confusion over

the 120-unit recommended maximum for a degree program makes it necessary that

we return the proposal to COB undergraduate Curriculum Committee for further

review. If we were to pass it now it would be under a cloud. It appears that

significant people in the process were not informed. Send it back and then

they can pass it again. Jan Gregory recommended that the proposal be

returned to COB so that the full benefits of shared governance may follow.

Recommended that the academic senators from the COB consult with the faculty

and dean about the shared governance processes in the college.Provost La

Belle recommends that faculty vote against returning the proposal to the

COB. He believes that the college faculty had the opportunity to vote on the

proposal and they voted approval. He did not know how much more the COB could

do.

M/s/

(Wolfe, Bishop) to amend the motion to include consultation with COB students

Bruce

Wolfe strongly recommended that since

the proposal affects students that students should be involved in the process.Provost

La Belle indicated that he understood from Dean Pratt’s presentation that

students were consulted in the initial survey early on in the process. Susan

Higgins believes that student input is important but the senate should

not mandate it.Lutfus Sayeed indicated that when the market survey

was conducted that students were part of that and they were consulted.Robert

Cherny suggested that the senate should defeat this motion and that the

COB curriculum committee could consult with students. ms/p (Terrell,

Mary Ann Warren) to close debate on the amendment to the motion

Voting

on the amendment to the motion: Failed

Susan

Higgins indicated that she is in favor

of the motion to return the proposal to COB. She believes that it is clear

from our debate that COB faculty did not know that the 120 units, as a maximum

for a bachelor degree program, was not mandated by the chancellor. It should

go back to COB undergraduate curriculum committee and be voted on by the COB

faculty.Jerry Duke spoke against the motion to return the proposal

to the COB curriculum committee. He believes the process had been followed

and a faculty vote taken. Andres Consoli spoke in support of returning

the proposal to the COB. m/s/p (Terrell, Hom) to closed

debate

Voting on the motion to return the proposal to COB undergraduate

curriculum committee: Passed

Agenda Item #5: Proposed Revision to the Bachelor of

Arts Degree in English: Concentration in Creative Writing.

Amy Nichols, Chair of CRAC, introduced the proposal. Before

you, for review is the proposal for revision in the Bachelor of Arts in English

Creative writing.This proposal comes to senate as a consent item from CRAC.In

summary, the creative writing department would like to change CW 601 from

a selected choice to a required course while keeping the current 39-unit level

by shifting 3 units from literature category to creative process category.

Here to answer any questions are Susan Shimanoff, Associate Dean-College

of Humanities, shimanof@sfsu.edu, and

Nancy McDermid, Dean, College of Humanities, mcdermid@sfsu.edu.

m/s/p (Terrell, Houlberg) to second reading

Bruce

Wolfe asked

if classes were being closed. Dean McDermid indicated that they were

not closing down any classes. m/s/p (Houlberg, Steier)

to close debate

Voting

on the proposal: Passed

Agenda Item #6: Proposed B. S. Degree in Apparel Design and Merchandising

and Proposed B. B. in Interior Design.

Amy

Nichols, Chair of the Curriculum Review

and Approval Committee (CRAC), introduced the item. Before you,

for review are the changes in an already approved proposal from Fall 2000.The

proposal BS in Apparel Design and Merchandising and BS in Interior Design

is being re-reviewed based on comments received from the CSU Chancellor’s

Office and outside reviewers.The proposal originally was approved as a single

degree Apparel & Interior Design, up to the chancellor’s office and then

once reviewed, the recommendation was to reconfigure the one degree into two.According

to the Chancellor’s Office, the Master Plan Projection would encompass these

two new degrees, not requiring the submission of a new Master Plan Projection.The

department needs our approval for this revision to the original proposal.

Here to answer any questions are Nancy Rabolt, Chair CFS/D, Ann

Hallum, Associate Dean, CHHS, and Kenneth Fehrman.

Gail

Whitaker indicated that often the chancellor’s

office makes a recommendation for some minor changes in a degree program after

it has been submitted and approved by the university. In this case the chancellor’s

office asked that we separate the single new degree program into two new degree

programs. We felt that the two new programs require senate approval. Whitaker

also requested that the term “options” in the degree program be changed to

“emphasis.”

m/s/p

(Houlberg, Duke) to second reading

Bruce

Wolfe asked for an explanation of the

term “master plan projection”.Whitaker indicated that to develop new

programs in the CSU there are two phases in the process. The first phase is

the development of the concept and its approval by all levels. The second

phase is the development of the degree program and its approval. After the

first phase is complete and approved by the trustees then the proposal for

the new degree program goes on the master plan projection. Once that happens

then the campus can begin the second phase and develop and gain approval for

the actual degree program.

m/s/p

(Terrell, Steier) to close debate

Voting

on the proposal: passed.

Agenda Item #7: Resolution

in Support of Amending Spring 2002 Calendar for Filing Faculty Activity Reports.

Attachment

distributed at the meeting

Introduced

by Chair Pamela Vaughn as a recommendation from the Executive Committee.

Due to the CSU budget shortfall there is no urgency to have faculty complete

Faculty Activity Reports (FAR) by March 8th. The proposal moves

the FAR due date from March 8th to April 15th.Mitch

Turitz asked why we could not wait until a new contract is signed before

we ask faculty to complete a FAR. Dawn Terrell indicated that providing

the new time line now will allow faculty more time and we could return to

the issue once a contract is signed or not signed.Jan Gregory indicated

that the proposed change in the due date would clarify the situation for many

faculty.

M/S/P (Duke, Terrell) to second reading

In

second reading

m/s/p

(Cherny, Steier) to closed debate

Voting

on the proposed resolution: passed

Adjourned

at 4:00 PM.

Respectfully

submitted,

James

Edwards

Secretary

to the Faculty