MINUTES of the ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING
TUESDAY, February 24, 2004
Senate Members Present:
Dam, Mary Ann
Alvarez, Alvin (excused); Batista, Natalie; Gerson,
Deborah (excused); Liou, Shy-Shenq (excused); Rocchio, Jean; Smith, Miriam
(excused); Steier, Saul (excused); Terrell, Dawn
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
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
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
campus is hiring, which does not make sense to her.
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
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
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
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.
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
item was deferred for Agenda Item 4 since its time certain has been reached.
AGENDA ITEM #4 -REPORT—ALL-UNIVERSITY
OSWALDO GARCIA, AND PAUL LONGMORE, and DPRC DIRECTOR, GENE CHELBERG
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
to extend session to 4:15.
Gregory, Palmer m/s/p
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
Gregory reminded senators that
there is nothing wrong with faculty advocating that students vote in elections.
Gregory, Meredith moved to 2nd reading.
AGENDA ITEM #8—INFORMATION ITEM—RESOLUTION
in SUPPORT for PROPOSITION 55 the KINDERGARTEN-UNIVERSITY PUBLIC EDUCATION
FACILITIES BOND ACT of 2002— #RF03-217.
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.