MINUTES of the ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

TUESDAY, February 24, 2004

Senate Members Present:


Aaron,

Eunice

Fung,

Robert

Morishita,

Leroy

Avila,

Guadalupe

Garcia,

Oswaldo

Nichols,

Amy

Bartscher,

Patricia

Gemello,

John

Noble,

Nancy

Bernard-Powers,

Jane

Gonzales,

Dan

Otero,

Aina J.

Bernstein,

Marian

Gregory,

Jan

Palmer,

Pete

Bohannon,

Tara

Heiman,

Bruce

Pong,

Wenshen

Carrington,

Christopher

Hom,

Marlon

Scoble,

Don

Chelberg,

Gene

Houlberg,

Rick

Shrivastava,

Vinay

Chen,

Yu Charn

Irvine,

Patricia

Smith,

Brett

Cherny,

Robert

Jerris,

Scott

Stowers,

Genie

Colvin,

Caran

Kassiola,

Joel

Suzuki,

Dean

Contreras,

A. Reynaldo

Klironomos,

Martha

Ulasewicz,

Connie

Corrigan,

Robert

Langbort,

Carol

Van

Dam, Mary Ann

Daniels,

Robert

Mak,

Brenda

Vaughn,

Pamela

Edwards,

James

McKeon,

Midori

Williams,

Robert

Fielden,

Ned

Meredith,

David

Yang,

Nini


Absent:


Alvarez, Alvin (excused); Batista, Natalie; Gerson,

Deborah (excused); Liou, Shy-Shenq (excused); Rocchio, Jean; Smith, Miriam

(excused); Steier, Saul (excused); Terrell, Dawn


Visitors:


Ken Adams, Gary Aghabalian,

Geoff Brown, Dan Buttlaire, Deidre Defreese, Zi Hengsteer, Sahi

Lai, Paul Longmore, Bruce Macher,

Tony Moy, Melissa Parkins,

Julian Randolph, Terry Smith, Lavette Spencer,

Lena Song, Mitch Turitz, Christina Valero, Marilyn Verhey, Gail Whitaker,

Lolita White, Kim Wible, Patti Wright

CALL TO ORDER: 2:10

p.m.


ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Edwards congratulated Acting Dean Marilyn

Verhey on her appointment as the

new Dean of Faculty Affairs.  He further

wished a happy birthday to University Counsel Patty Bartscher and led a spirited birthday

sing-along.

Vice Chair

Colvin invited senators and other

community members to the first Asilomar planning

meeting, which will be held Thursday, February 26 at noon in the Verducci room.


CHAIR’S REPORT

Chair Edwards noted the extraordinary times

we are in and said that instead of a chair’s report he would turn this time

over to the President and the Provost for an informal discussion on the university

budget.

President

Corrigan expressed thanks to senate

Chair Edwards and appreciation

for the opportunity to come to the senate floor to talk about what we would

like to do. He noted the difficulty in a room such as this to have a conversation,

which he said grew out of a discussion with the Executive Committee this morning.

He urged senators not to panic, since he did not have a dramatic announcement,

but wanted to address the current budget situation, realizing that we would

hear later on from Brian Murphy

about the state situation. He continued that he and the Provost, along with

others, needed to start dealing with some very difficult and challenging issues.

The budget situation, he said, is challenging a marvelous partnership, one

of the best shared-governance partnerships in the CSU, but we still need to

start getting issues out on the table so that they can be discussed and that

the decisions made will affect the strength of the institution.

President

Corrigan further stated that the general

budget situation has not changed since Vice President Morishita last presented at the senate,

and if students vote for the fee increase it would be a positive development.

If Proposition 57, which he said he would support “while holding my nose,”

does not pass it will create an alternative that is not pleasant to consider.

Unless the current legislative assembly gets its act together, we will be

in for a tough haul.

He offered

up some round numbers: if the student fee does not pass, then we will have

a $13 million shortfall.  If the fees

are passed then the deficit would be $10 million. This shortage is after implementing

the strategies of picking “low-hanging fruit”, finding every loophole, playing

every kind of budget trick, and factoring in all the easy fixes - athletics,

counseling etc. We have taken from each vice presidential unit and at the

executive level any available funds, for example eliminating any emergency

funding. Yet despite this we will still have a $10 million problem that is

$4 million to the non-academic side, $10 million toward academics. Non-academic

cuts will not be across the board, but will involve big targets in selected

areas. We will try to maintain major services. On the academic side, if we

face a $6 to 9 million shortfall, the question then

is how we go about dealing with it. The usual way is to take shared cuts across

the institution, not narrow and deep cuts, in order to maintain the overall

strength of institution. But while he does not have a secret list of programs

to cut, nor does the Provost, we still need to think carefully about this

and what we are going to do.

Provost Gemello tried to portray the magnitude

of the situation. He noted that last week he had given the Deans a budget

for planning purposes. In this budget he reduced funds evenly across the campus,

increasing the student/faculty ratio by the same percentage. So if faculty talk with their Deans, they will have a picture of

what Academic Affairs will look like if the cuts are spread evenly.  For some perspective on this, we have reduced

non-faculty costs by 8%, and the same percentage reduces the faculty budget

by $8.9 million, meaning about 170 faculty positions. To look at this another

way, all the tenure/tenure-track funds along with the library material funds

come to about $65 million. Last year’s academic budget, with its cuts, was

about $118 million. If we exempted the tenure/tenure-track faculty and library

budget, there is about $53 million left, and we need to take $12 million from

that remainder. This is going to be deep and harmful to all of Academic Affairs,

and we want to begin discussions. The question is whether we follow the strategy

of spreading cuts throughout the academic programs or try to protect overall

Academic Affairs by narrow but deep cuts.

Senator Daniels asked if the numbers were posted

anywhere where they might be reviewed and digested more thoroughly.

Provost Gemello responded that they were not yet

available but could be made so shortly. He reminded senators that this was

the second planning budget of the year already.

Senator Carrington asked if there was any sense

of how the Chancellor might respond to the fee increases.

President

Corrigan indicated that if the student

newspaper the Gator was at all an indication, the suggestion was that yes,

the Chancellor would support this. Whether there was any kind of ironclad

agreement was a different matter. He speculated that if the students showed

support for the fees, the Chancellor would likely do the same.

Senator Bernard-Powers asked about past relationships

between the senate and the budget formulation. She suggested that perhaps

looking across the CSU system might provide some suggestions.

Chair Edwards responded that half of budget

committee came from the senate, either as senators or appointed by the Senate

Executive Committee.

President

Corrigan suggested for arguments sake

that if we discontinued a program it was not clear whether we could work out

an arrangement (trade degrees or programs) with other campuses. It might be

a contract an issue but is perhaps worth thinking about.

Senator Williams asked what criteria would be

used to decide to keep programs or not and what time frame would be used.

Provost Gemello suggested that action needed to

happen soon. These actions take time but it is now February, and we do not

have a real budget yet. This is the beginning of discussions with the Executive

Committee. We will try to get as much feedback as possible but will need to

establish criteria for whatever process is developed.

Senator Williams asked whether the decision to

make deep or broad cuts would be made soon. If input is taken, we will still

need to know what way cuts will go.

Provost Gemello said that we will need a lot of

input, and will need to hear from as many as possible, as to how the university

would survive, not just with mediocrity but with strength.

Senator Palmer asked whether the administration

was worried about a student backlash if the referendum passes and yet no real

change takes place.

Provost Gemello responded that he had been very

clear about this in student meetings, and that if they passed the referendum

on fees and no other cuts took place, there would be the opportunity to save

classes. He explained that he had told students that the fee increase, if

approved, would simply provide five-hundred some classes more than would otherwise

be offered, not that it would permit the campus to provide the same complement

of classes it did in 2003.

President

Corrigan remarked that this was the best

student leadership he had seen in his 15 years on campus. There have been

monthly meetings and so Associated Students had been processing this all along.

The awkward situation Senator Palmer

posed had already been faced. What they get is less of a budget cut, not a

reprieve. Senators are asking good questions but not getting to the nub of

the issue, which is if the referendum passes and we make cuts across the board,

we will be laying off extraordinary numbers of lecturers, which will affect

students across campus. We need to ask what we can do to make the studies

of 90% of the students better, because cuts are coming to programs.

Senator Stowers expressed appreciation for the

administrative request for input, but wondered what strategies the administration

is currently considering, and what direction was being contemplated.

President

Corrigan responded that even if he had

a list for cuts, posting it would not be appropriate. On the non-academic

side the administration was looking at sizable blocks of programs. On the

academic side, he acknowledged after 16 years that he had his own instincts

about what to do but said that no decision would be made until more input

was gathered.

Senator Ulasewicz asked if there was a timeframe

in place for these cuts and how long they may be in place.

Provost Gemello responded that the scenario was

different from the early 90s crunch and that he regarded these current cuts

as permanent; we are being cut without being funded. We are having less money

and still must do more teaching. We have no choice about class sizes. As to

when these changes would take place, he noted that we would have less money

come fall and said that we would be unable to make the long-term decisions

that fast, but should still try to prepare for next year, with a combination

of short and long-term strategies. We need to work together, hard and seriously.

Senator Ulasewicz asked if we had fewer lecturers

but are offering the same number of classes, what would this mean? Would there

be students graduating, say, with 100 units rather than 120 units?

Provost Gemello indicated students would still

need 120 units.

Senator Ulasewicz responded that students would

be then leaving in six years.

Provost Gemello responded it would take longer

for students to complete their degrees, a primary reason for asking students

for the fee increase. If unable to proceed to degree at the same pace, students

would pay an extra $800 in fees - exactly the administration’s point.

President

Corrigan suggested that the senate could

do something and look at how we advise students in order to move them along

more easily. The CSU system is also looking at something along the line of

the Wisconsin model, from the Governor’s directive,

where there is a penalty for not graduating in timely fashion. We will need

to consider things we can do to get students through faster. Already the system

is not admitting qualified students. Long Beach and San Diego are turning down qualified students.

Because of the budget situation we are denying access to more students and

this is a problem.

Senator Ulasewicz asked about the feasibility

of a “parent referendum” and said that perhaps we should approach parents

for help with funding.

President

Corrigan related an anecdote about raising

money for fees earlier and that he had dismissed this sort of thing before.

For many families that extra $100 is immense, and not all families are in

that kind of position, but that is the model at places like Humboldt, Sonoma, Long Beach, etc. The state may not have the

will for a surcharge on high income individuals.

Senator Daniels asked about the implications for

new tenure-track searches.

Provost Gemello said that the university was proceeding

with searches, with the understanding that Deans understand the funding situation.

If a candidate is strong, and looks to be a good long-term asset, then proceed

with the hire. If the pool of candidates is weak, however, then perhaps it

is not a good idea to make an offer. He trusted to the Deans and Department

Chairs to use sound judgment.

Senator Suzuki expressed a desire to follow up

on Senator Williams’ questions,

noting that it was hard to imagine some department or program saying that

they would volunteer to be cut.

Provost Gemello stated that the dialogue was not

about who would raise their hand, but more how to determine what constitutes

a good program. From the present forward, anything that gets reduced would

be a good program. We have been careful but we are not rich to begin with.

What we have left are all good programs. There will be hard choices among

good programs, and while all of them are good, it will be necessary to establish

what is more valuable. Another consideration is that a program might be good

but expensive or good but not so expensive. Perhaps there might be chances

for external funding.

President

Corrigan urged some attention to damage

control. He suspected that rumors would soon be flying that administrators

know what is going to happen, and that more discussions mean that everyone

thinks we know what we are doing and are just stringing things along.

Provost Gemello wanted to dispel one rumor that

he had heard and stated that the university will not be reducing from 8 to

4 colleges.

Senator Gregory reflected that if we as a group

were having difficulty talking about the issues, then departments were likely

to have even more troubles. She suggested using the record of discussion in

this meeting as a means of communication with our colleagues. She was not

sure we would leave the room with substantive information today for our departmental

colleagues.

Provost Gemello stated that one issue that had

a response yet, was what major strategy the university should follow - deep

or narrow. Once that issue is settled, then it would be clearer where we go

next.

Senator Heiman observed that we will be losing

lecturers en masse, and asked how

much money is allocated to them and how many lecturers we have this year.

Regarding our existing recruiting practices, he wondered whether we could

take a hit on our reputation, and said that new hires would find it hard.

Provost Gemello remarked that that was a good

point, and that it goes right to the heart of whether cuts should be wide

or deep. Last year had about $10-12 million for lecturers. The current projection

is that if all hires are successful, which will not be the case, and if no

faculty retire, there would be $8.5 million left for lecturers.

Professor

Emeritus Randolph made two suggestions:

the first being a recommendation to take a close look at the history of budget

crunches, which for many will seem very familiar. He thought it prudent to

consider the history of CAP, CAP+, CAP++. Secondly,

he wished to impress on the senators the urgency of the calendar and posed

the question of when the legislature actually gives their final budget.

Senator Bernard-Powers said that if the university

does not have funding whether it should go ahead with faculty hires. The Channel

Islands

campus is hiring, which does not make sense to her.

President

Corrigan responded that both the Maritime

and Channel Island campuses were exempt from any cuts.

He saw no reason to believe the system will cut back in this respect, but

noted however that the system has grown from 205 thousand to 335 thousand

students.

He noted

additionally that there was widespread worry about programs, students, and

colleges, and the university had started discussions that can be used to proceed,

further commenting that presently there is good statewide union leadership.

If programs are going to be eliminated, we are then in a position to take

care of those we affect.

Chair Edwards noted that on March

9, 2004

the Provost will take some time again for further discussion, and further

noted that a campus-wide town meeting was in the planning stages.

AGENDA ITEM #1 - APPROVAL OF THE

AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 24, 2004

Chair

Edwards stated that there were two changes

to the agenda: a correction to item 4 where Senator Chelberg should be listed as an ex-officio

committee member and not co-chair; and that item 6 and 7 were in 1st

and 2nd reading.

Meredith, Shrivastava

m/s/p

AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2004

Morishita expressed a desire to correct a

figure he stated on the second page that should read $225 million.

Heiman, Bernstein m/s/p

AGENDA ITEM #3 -REPORT—STATEWIDE

ACADEMIC SENATORS, CSU—EUNICE AARON, JAN GREGORY, ROBERT CHERNY

This

item was deferred for Agenda Item 4 since its time certain has been reached.

AGENDA ITEM #4 -REPORT—ALL-UNIVERSITY

COMMITTEE for STUDENTS, FACULTY, and STAFF with DISABILITIES—CO-CHAIRS

OSWALDO GARCIA, AND PAUL LONGMORE, and DPRC DIRECTOR, GENE CHELBERG

Senator

and Co-chair of the committee Garcia

presented a report of the committee for students faculty and staff with disabilities,

outlining a mission to not only comply with various disability related regulations,

but to initiate efforts to improve conditions across campus. This is a diverse

committee with wide representation, with subcommittees devoted to outreach,

for example to provide input to the CUSP process.

History

Professor Longmore

indicated he would try to compress his semester-long course on the history

of disability into a few minute presentation. Briefly

the disability model has moved from a traditional medical model of pathology

to one of a minority group that is hindered by socially constructed factors

which make it difficult for persons with disabilities to participate in society.

A series of federal and state laws have allowed integration, some of which

affect higher education. The deeper perspective on disability does not so

much involve considering a set of limitations, social or not, but rather collective

disability studies can offer unique perspectives on the world that are of

value. It offers good values to society in general, including civil rights

and diversity elements involved in higher education, and compliance in the

laws involved. The advanced learning of the disability studies program and

the committee address both compliance in civil rights and a deepening and

enriched diversity.

Longmore noted a long tradition at SFSU,

beginning in the early 70s when a disabled students’ union formed and actually

occupied the student union at its opening in protest of its inaccessible features.

In 1975 a disabled students service was established.

Reasonable accommodations were undertaken and that tradition reemerged in

late 90s with a lawsuit against campus. A settlement in 2001 brought important

innovations to how the university addresses accommodations, and how it deals

with disabled members. Everything on the administrative side of the issue

was brought together into DPRC, a consolidation into one administrative unit.

Second, the university hired Gene Chelberg to head DPRC. Longmore indicated he had had the advantage of knowing Chelberg as an undergraduate in Minnesota, where he was a nationally recognized

leader. SFSU is fortunate to have him and the results here in the past three

years have meant that SFSU has emerged as model to other universities. SFSU

is not just complying with regulations but furthers disabled incorporation

into the mainstream.

Senator

Chelberg noted that as director

of DPRC he served under Dean of Human Relations Ken Monteiro and wanted to acknowledge the staff of DPRC, as they are

the structure of the program and the ones who make sure stuff happens properly.

Last Fall DPRC provided student services to over 686 students - individuals

with physical, sensory and mobility impairments, and increasingly many with

learning and psychiatric disabilities. DPRC reviews and verifies disabilities

of students and works with students to make reasonable accommodations, provide

counseling, readers, note takers, lab assistants, whatever is necessary. It

arranges for over 1000 test accommodations per semester.

DPRC

provides alternative media (Braille, electronic test etc.) sign language interpreting,

and has had a 30% increase in expenditures. For employee access, there is

a 21% increase from last year. The services are confidential, and provide

reasonable accommodations, and employ an interactive process to determine

the best fit. DPRC works with human resources for solutions.

Chelberg noted that there is a great deal

of work in the area of campus access. Physical access has improved considerably,

and a lot has been done. DPRC does plan reviews on new remodels and new construction,

also checking that the work comes through as planned. DPRC does barrier remodels

with older structures, and has had a role in new buildings such as the library.

Chelberg urged senators to take

advantage of DPRC’s construction warning website.

There is also email notification, the campus shuttle system and arrangements

for adequate parking. DPRC also works on information access, utilizing different

media, and works with web standards. A new development is doing outreach in

training, wherein help and training can come to classes wherever they are

held.

Some

new trends include moving towards universal design - a philosophy about designing

environments for everyone. We seek an equitable, flexible, intuitive environment.

The goal is not to put the burden of asking on the individual, but make the

environment right where it is handled.

Human

resources is developing a “return to work” program,

which will intersect with DPRC’s services so that

people get the facilities they need.

Chelberg noted an increase in psychiatric

disabilities, which nationally now eclipse “normal” disabilities. As a consequence

we need to establish good practices (i.e. curb cuts) and try to do whatever

we can do to avoid exacerbating the results of disabilities.

The

web as an environment is becoming pervasive and is in the early stages of

recreating an environment that is inaccessible. We have a university policy

on access to information but it needs support and compliance.

Chelberg offered some suggestions on what

senators as instructors could do. These include a course syllabi statement

and inviting students to self identify to arrange for accommodations. DPRC

has a prototype statement for campus events, so that disabled students are

made welcome. When handling publications, it is wise to include a statement

about how the information could be obtained in alternative format. He expressed

willingness to handle any questions and urged senators to contact the DPRC

and the committee with issues.

AGENDA ITEM #5-REPORT—BRIAN MURPHY,

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, San Francisco Urban Institute—STATE BUDGET SITUATION

Murphy announced that he had just returned

from Sacramento, where he found a profound contradiction

between our campus’ struggle to deal with matters squarely and with integrity,

and how the capitol handles issues. He issued a plea for solidarity.

Sacramento is deadlocked in its traditional

fashion. There is very little movement on the Republican side to increase

taxes even if the bond does not pass. The single most important vote is the

one on March 2 and we are encouraging students to vote, and even if the principle

is wrong, the math simply demands passage on the bond measure. Propositions

57 and 58 are joined, but we cannot lose 56. Everyone in Sacramento is waiting for March 2, which will

then precipitate a second round of politics.

He observed

that the state now has a clinically divided Governor, with his wife and family

pulling one way, and the conservative party pulling another. The budget is

leaning towards the right. He will not move on the budget until massive public

displeasure is apparent. The only ally the Democrats have is the Governor

and he will only act if there is a lot of public noise. He begged the senate

for support - support from students and campus - to join with community college

students on March 15. He urged the senate to get faculty to fund transportation

for everyone to make common cause with UC and the community colleges on this.

Now was the time for higher education to unite.

Any

action has to have as its plea increased revenue. It will be irrelevant in

a zero sum game, as health and human services will be supported over higher

education.

The

Sacramento impression is that higher education

is absent from the discussion. There is no sense that we are feeling deeply

enough hurt for action. We need to think about mobilizing our own faculty

to support students in protest, and do this in Sacramento.

AGENDA ITEM #3 -REPORT—STATEWIDE

ACADEMIC SENATORS, CSU—EUNICE AARON, JAN GREGORY, ROBERT CHERNY

Statewide

Senator Cherny reported that our

own internal statewide senate budget will be discussed shortly, and Academic

Affairs and the senate will take a hit, enough to make a significant change

in their ability to do business. We will receive a report from the graduate

education task force, to campus after the March meeting. There are several

resolutions on fees, particularly the graduate fee super-increase. Another

resolution on graduate education suggests that if we are to increase fees,

then we want to make sure that the increase benefits graduate education. There

are upcoming resolutions on transfers, improving the information that goes

out to community college students planning to transfer, so they will be better

informed as to what is needed. As regarding the proposed penalties for excess

units, a task force looking into this.

We have

met with Board of Trustees member Bill Hauck,

who was appointed by Wilson, and reappointed by Davis, and who chairs the business roundtable.

Hauck’s observations include: if California were anything else but state it

would be bankrupt and yet as a state we cannot go bankrupt, and that is the

nature of our fiscal crisis. For Hauck

the Governor’s budget appears to be the best possible situation.

The

Governor has a line item veto, which makes him enormously powerful. We need

to cultivate him and a poor approach would be to insult him.

Hauck also posed the legislative truism:

that since UC and CSU are the only major state agencies that can raise revenue

at all, the legislature may be very willing to let us do that, even while

they are unwilling to adjust the budget in a responsible manner or make other

unpopular choices.

We asked

him about the Board of Trustees, which may not actually have a quorum. He

responded that there may be appointments from the Governor who could almost

appoint a majority. A reappointment with board experience would probably be

to the good.

Move

to extend session to 4:15.

Gregory, Palmer m/s/p

Senator

Gregory indicated that in her committee,

Faculty Affairs, that the recent focus had been on

a position paper on investing in the faculty, with the assumption that there

would be a future. She reminded senators that statewide senators Aaron and Cherny will be stepping down at the end of the semester, and she encouraged

nominations from senators here.

AGENDA ITEM #6— RECOMMENDATION from

the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE—RESOLUTION in SUPPORT of GETTING OUT THE VOTE

for the MARCH 2ND & 3RD STUDENT FEE REFERENDUM.

Williams, Meredith m/s/p

Adopted by general consent.

AGENDA ITEM #7 - RECOMMENDATION—from

the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE—RESOLUTION

in SUPPORT of GETTING OUT THE VOTE for the MARCH 2ND PRIMARY ELECTION.

Chelberg, Aaron m/s/p

Senator

Gregory reminded senators that

there is nothing wrong with faculty advocating that students vote in elections.

Gregory, Meredith moved to 2nd reading.

Approved unanimously.

AGENDA ITEM #8—INFORMATION ITEM—RESOLUTION

in SUPPORT for PROPOSITION 55 the KINDERGARTEN-UNIVERSITY PUBLIC EDUCATION

FACILITIES BOND ACT of 2002— #RF03-217.

Senator

Chelberg commented that this is

the second half of a bond measure that funds classroom infrastructure. He

encouraged senators to review the resolution and support it, as the bond directly

affects the CSU, especially SFSU.


AGENDA ITEM #9 - ADJOURNMENT - 4:05 p.m.