Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting

of February 20, 2001

The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Vaughn

at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present:

Alvarez, Alvin

Bartscher, Patricia

Bernstein, Marian

Cherny, Robert

Collier, James

Colvin, Caran

Concolino, Christopher

Contreras, Rey

Cullers, Susan

deVries, Brian

Duke, Jerry

Edwards, James

Elia, John

Ferretti, Charlotte

Garcia, Oswaldo

Garcia, Velia

Gerson, Deborah

Goldsmith, Helen

Gregory, Jan

Harnly, Caroline

Hom, Marlon

Hu, Sung

Hubler, Barbara

Jerris, Scott

Johnson, Dane

Johnson, Sharon

Langbort, Carol

Leal-Idrogo, Anita

McKeon, Midori

Moallem, Minoo

Amy Nichols

Onate, Abdiel

Raggio, Marcia

Sayeed, Lutfus

Shrivastava, Vinay

Smith, Miriam

Steier, Saul

Strong, Rob

Turitz, Mitch

Vaughn, Pamela

Warren, Penelope

Williams, Robert

Wong, Alfred

Yip, Yewmun

Senate Members Absent: Su, Yuli (exc); Gillotte,

Helen (exc); Avila, Guadalupe (exc); La Belle, Thomas (exc); Kelley, James (exc);

Scoble, Don (exc); Collier, James (exc); Sagisi, Jaymee; Pasaporte, Erin;

Guests: S. Shimanoff; D. Fendel; J. Combs;

R. Maghroori; J. Monteverdi; G. Whitaker, D. Fox; L. Zoloth; J. Volkert; B.

Perttula

Announcements and Report

Robert Cherny announced a new URL for the

report on the CSU in the 21st century:

http://bss.sfsu.edu/cherny/AAC/draft4.pdf. He also

announced the following URL for a joint committee of the legislature that is

developing a new master plan for K-university; there are interesting and potentially

troubling things with attempts to link testing in K-12 to admission to higher

education standing out: http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/joint/master_plan/

Chair Pamela Vaughn reminded senators to respond

to master plan by the end of month, respond to the hiring manual as soon as

possible.

Vaughn sent out her Chair's report electronically prior

to the senate meeting. In it, she highly recommended the provocative articles

in the special issue of the Hedgehog Review entitled "What's the University

For?" She especially singled out Jackson Lears' article "The Radicalism

of Tradition: Teaching the Liberal Arts in a Managerial

Age," which is worth noting for its comments on tenure and on the "current academic

crisis." With SFSU's state mission of balancing "liberal" education with a career-focus,

these articles are good food for thought.

As additional food for thought, Vaughn added that Vice Chair

Helen Goldsmith is coming to the end of her second senate term and Secretary

Dane Johnson will be on sabbatical next year, which means both positions will

need to be filled. Vaughn intends to run again for Senate Chair.

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for February 20,

2001

The agenda was amended to withdraw Agenda Item #4, Proposed

Change in Membership to the Franciscan Shops Board of Directors, with subsequent

agenda items being renumbered to reflect that deletion.

The agenda was approved as amended.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting of February

6, 2001

The minutes were approved as written.

Agenda Item #3 - Report from Marilyn Verhey, Interim

Coordinator of Academic Asessment

Marilyn Verhey reported on the development of a core

set of university-wide teaching effectiveness items, first recounting recent

Senate action on this issue, then making reference to the strategies that will

be used in 2001 to fulfill selected clauses of the Academic Senate

Resolution under the following title: "Strategies for Continued

Development of University-Wide Core Items to Assess Teaching Effectiveness.

These have been developed with collaboration of Provost Thomas La Belle, Verhey,

Vaughn, and Penelope Warren, Faculty Affairs

Committee Chair. Senator Alvin Alvarez has been designated

as a liaison to work directly with Verhey in order to have a Senate presence

in the testing that will be done. There will be a web page in order to come

up with some consensus on the items and the rating scale. They will also

use different methods to compare items with national instruments.

They will use panels of experts from across campus and colleges are welcome

to submit anonymous aggregate data from their instruments. Verhey also summarized

other types of analysis and the process for sampling.

Verhey added that at Asilomar there was very good attendance

at a workshop on measuring teaching effectiveness, and she was struck by how

qualitative that feedback was. Quantitative measures are important for reliability,

but we should all be using qualitative measures to capture

things that are going on in the classroom that no instrument

can capture.

Agenda Item #4 - Proposed Revisions to the Charge and

Membership Composition of the University Committee on Written English Proficiency

Helen Goldsmith, Vice Chair of the Academic Senate,

introduced this consent item from the Senate Executive Committee by first remarking

that many committees, departments, and entities on campus are concerned with

the written English proficiency skills of our students. Thus, it is

important that a single body on campus serve as a clearinghouse

and expert body for policies regarding written English skills. The committee

charged with literacy issues is the Committee on Written English Proficiency

(CWEP). In consultation with the Senate Executive Committee, CWEP reviewed its

charge and recommended changes, although it is not that different than the old.

It has always been the charge of CWEP to provide guidance on undergraduate and

graduate

writing; the changes stress the advisory and consultative

role, and make sure the representation on it reflects the nature of its involvement.

M/S/P (Goldsmith, Gregory) to accept the proposed revisions.

M/S/P (Duke, Elia) to second reading.

Jan Gregory spoke from the perspective of having

served many years on this committee, noting that it is under-noticed and under-used

by other segments of the campus. She encouraged faculty from other departments

to acquaint themselves with what the Committee can do.

Jerald Combs spoke of the committee's importance,

but also raised the difficulty of CWEP and GEC meeting at the same time, which

makes it impossible for the Undergraduate Dean to go to both meetings. He urged

CWEP and GEC to have meetings at different times in the future.

M/S/P (Hu, Oñate) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.

Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Minor

in Meteorology

Educational Policies Committee (EPC) Chair Sung Hu

prefaced the series of five discontinuances by summarizing the discontinuance

policy: the proposed discontinuances were publicized to the campus community,

then the EPC met and approved all five, which will be presented individually.

The Minor in Meteorology is part of the Department of Geosciences'

plan to discontinue an old minor in favor of the new Certificate in Meteorology

for Broadcasters, which has already been approved by the Senate.

Oswaldo Garcia from Geosciences and Meteorology clarified

a couple of items.

M/S/P (Cherny, Duke) to second reading.

M/S/P (Edwards, Steier) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the discontinuance was approved

unanimously.

Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Bachelor

of Science in Business

Administration Logistics Management Concentration

Sung Hu introduced this consent item from EPC, noting

retirement of faculty, low student

interest as reasons. The Department is also considering

a new program with International Business in this area.

M/S/P (Sayeed, Duke) to second reading.

M/S/P (Duke, deVries) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the discontinuance was approved

unanimously.

Agenda Item #7 -- Proposed Discontinuance of the Minor

in Intercultural Skills

Hu explained that this minor in the College of Humanities

had been approved but never implemented.

M/S/P (Steier, Sayeed) to second reading.

M/S/P (Steier, Wong) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the discontinuance was approved.

Agenda Item #8 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Preschool/Daycare/Early

Childhood Education Certificate Program

Hu explained that the university established a new

BA degree in Child & Adolescent

Development that has a Concentration in Young child and

Family. This new degree has decreased interest in the CEL certificate program.

M/S/P (Duke, Wong) to second reading.

M/S/P (Edwards, Shrivastava) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the discontinuance was approved.

Agenda Item #9 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Construction

Practices Certificate Program

Hu explained that CEL has found this certification

program to be no longer economically viable due to decreasing enrollments in

recent years.

M/S/P (Sayeed, Wong) to second reading.

M/S/P (Duke, Shrivastava) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the discontinuance was approved.

Agenda Item #10 - Proposed Revision to the Minor in Jewish

Studies

Alfred Wong , Chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval

Committee

(CRAC), introduced this first of four consent items from

CRAC by noting that the College of Humanities and the Department of Jewish Studies

recommend the addition of JS 633/HIST 633 to the minor in Jewish Studies.

Caroline Harnly asked about whether the total number

of units will remain the same. Susan Shimanoff explained that this course

replaces a course in the core with no change in total units.

M/S/P (Garcia, Edwards) to second reading.

Jerry Duke asked whether the proposal should mention

the deletion of courses. Shimanoff pointed out that the attached documents show

the current Bulletin copy and the proposed change. Duke followed up by asking

whether the course being deleted will be going into the electives.

Laurie Zoloth explained the new course changes the

focus in the core to history as a discipline within Jewish Studies, tied to

a series of courses.

M/S/P (Duke, Steier) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #11 - Proposed Revisions to Bachelor of Science

Degree in Business

administration Distributed Office Systems Concentration

Wong summarized the proposed revisions in the Concentration

in Distributed Office Systems: revisions include changing the concentration

name to Distributed Commerce Systems, and adding and deleting course from the

list of electives to reflect the rapidly changing high-tech environment.

M/S/P (Edwards, Sayeed) to second reading.

M/S/P (Duke, Edwards) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #12 - Proposed Revision to the Bachelor of

Science Degree in Business Administration Concentration in Computer Information

Systems

Wong explained that this revision consists of adding

a JAVA language track option and additional elective courses to the concentration

to reflect the rapidly changing high-tech environment.

M/S/P (Duke, DeVries) to second reading.

Gail Whitaker noted that "option" is problematic

in Bulletin copy, as it is equivalent in the CSU to "concentration." She suggests

changing this to "emphasis" or another appropriate term.

The suggestion to use "emphasis" was accepted as a friendly

amendment by the department and college.

M/S/P (Concolino, Hubler) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #13 - Proposed Revision to the Minor in Computer

Information Systems

Wong noted that the BACS department is proposing

changes to the list of electives in the minor to reflect the rapidly changing

high-tech environment.

M/S/P (Sayeed, Steier) to second reading.

M/S/P (Duke, Hu) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #14 - Proposed Reinstatement of the "U" Grade

Academic Policies Committee (APC) Chair Hu introduced

this proposal to terminate Academic Policy #S83-109. In re-examining our grading

systems, it was found that this policy is in violation of Executive Order (EO)

#268 (from 1977). Thus, it is imperative that SFSU reinstate the "U" grade.

Gregory asked for a reminder on the retreat from

the "U" grade. Penelope Warren remarked that one problem was that students

did not know what it meant to them, and some thought there were no consequences

for their grade point average. Gregory followed up by suggesting that those

are some of the same students who do not "discover" until their second semester

senior year that they are required to take JEPET between 54 and 72 units. Robert

Cherny recalled things a bit differently, noting that some people thought

this was raising our standards to give "F's" instead of "U's," though he found

the "U" to be an appropriate grade. Helen Goldsmith remembered her support

of the "U" grade but emphasized the need for educating everyone on this campus

about its use and abuse.

Harnly asked how dropping students who are not showing

up in the first weeks links up with the "U" grade. Hu replied that faculty can

still drop students using the bubble drop. Vaughn suggested that the

"U" is particularly for those students who have been coming regularly but disappear

all of a sudden. Gregory suggested adding to the policy language that this is

intended to describe the performance of students who "disappear" after the formal

drop period.

Robert Williams asked if this language will be on

the transcript. Hu said that the transcript explains each letter symbol, and

Goldsmith elaborated that it is explained as an unauthorized incomplete. Vaughn

added that there is more expansive language in the Bulletin.

M/S/P (Gregory, Hu) to second reading.

Steier asked what advantage having the U provides

us. Vaughn answered that, first, it puts us in compliance with the Executive

Order and it provides another option. Goldsmith added that another useful use

of the "U" is in providing evidence of extenuating circumstances for late semester

problems that might be different than "F's."

Harnly asked if Gregory's friendly explanatory language

is included in what we are voting on. Steier offered the following language

for Bulletin copy: "The symbol 'U' indicates that an enrolled student did not

drop or withdraw from the course before the published dates to drop or withdraw

without penalty and that the student failed to complete a substantial portion

of the course requirements." The Senate agreed to include clarifying language.

M/S/P (Duke, Steier) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #15 - Resolution Regarding Faculty Merit

Increase Program and CSU-CFA Contract Negotiations

Gregory introduced this consent item from the Senate

Executive Committee by making note of an Executive Committee change in the penultimate

resolve clause: "That any future CSU 'merit pay' program be modeled on the principles

articulated in the final report of the CSU Academic Senate Merit Pay Task Force

of the Academic Senate CSU; and be it further" Gregory explained this change

by first referring to the attached report from the CSU Merit Pay Task Force,

noting the difference between the final recommendations and the principles that

underlay those recommendations. The Executive Committee is not inclined to guide

anyone toward a particular model, but that the principles are ones that we would

want to see adopted.

M/S/P (Cherny, Steier) to approve the resolution.

Cherny spoke to the motion by providing background

on the CSU Academic Senate Merit Pay Task Force. This committee conducted a

great deal of investigation: we talked to faculty members at every CSU campus,

reviewed collective bargaining agreements from across the country, interviewed

experts in the field, interviewed a former member of the Board of Trustees who

is also a CEO. The final report is an effort to bring all the sources together

in a set of recommendations, and the Task Force members have been disappointed

that the recommendations have not been followed. By re-endorsing these principles,

this may have some effect on the negotiations for the successor agreement.

Duke asked if the new language of the penultimate

resolve clause replaces the original penultimate resolve clause. Vaughn

affirmed that this was indeed so.

M/S/P (Duke, Steier) to second reading.

Dan Fendel spoke in favor of the resolution. He noted

that this resolution speaks to future contract negotiations while he has received

news of review for the current process. He would like to see the resolution

say that nothing should proceed until things have been clarified. Vaughn replied

that our intent was to not merge the two issues: contract negotiations for the

future and the local situation. She added that the situation for this spring

is still under review. Harnly asked when such discussion would be appropriate

given the deadline of February 16 for FMI committees to proceed. Vaughn answered

that she is still in conversation with University Counsel and the President

with the goal of making progress on the issues around spring review.

Gregory spoke in favor of retaining the separateness of

the two issues, adding that we should remind ourselves and our colleagues that

the FARs themselves are not due for some time.

Sayeed asked about the possible impact of this recommendation.

Cherny responded by first noting the final resolve clause, which lists who will

receive this resolution. This is advice to the Chancellor and CFA regarding

the process of bargaining that should begin soon. Vaughn added that there are

other campus senates which are considering similar resolutions, and she also

recalled President Corrigan's wish for responses on how to proceed with merit

pay, and this resolution is a response to that request for suggestions.

Mitch Turitz asked if these recommendations can take

place on this campus without negotiations at the Statewide level. Vaughn replied

that this is directed statewide.

Gregory clarified the nature of this resolution: it does

not put us in a position as an Academic Senate of doing anything or negotiating;

what this does is to say to the Chancellor, CFA, and the Board of Trustees that

we want them to pay attention to some carefully thought through principles if

a merit pay program is included in the upcoming round of bargaining. Cherny

added that it is appropriate for an academic senate to do this: HEERA reserves

to Academic Senates decisions about criteria and standards, including criteria

and standards for merit pay. This has nothing to do with whether we on this

campus go through a FMI process this spring.

M/S/P (Edwards, Steier) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the resolution was approved without

dissent.

The Senate was adjourned at 3:35.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty