San Francisco State University Academic
Minutes of March 7, 2000
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Terrell at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Alvarez, Alvin; Avila, Guadalupe; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Boyle,
Andrea; Cancino, Herlinda; Consoli, Andres; Cullers, Susan; de Vries, Brian;
Duke, Jerry; Edwards, James; Eisman, Gerald; Elia, John; Fehrman, Ken; Fox-Wolfgramm,
Susan; Gillotte, Helen; Goldsmith, Helen; Graham, Michael; Gregory, Jan; Harnly,
Caroline; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung; Hubler, Barbara; Jerris, Scott; Johnson, Dane;
Johnson, Sharon; Kelley, James; La Belle, Thomas; Langbort, Carol; McKeon, Midori;
OÃ±ate, Abdiel; Raggio, Marcia; Smith, Miriam; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz,
Mitch; Vaughn, Pamela; Wick, Jeanne; Wong, Alfred; Yee, Darlene.
Senate Members Absent: Aaron, Eunice(exc.); Ferretti, Charlotte;
Swanson, Deborah(exc.); Craig, JoAnn(exc.); Strong, Rob(exc.); Gonzales, Angela;
Concolino, Christopher(exc.); Moallem, Minoo(exc.); Scoble, Don(exc.); Collier,
James; Corrigan, Robert(exc.); Wolfe, Bruce; Sagisi, Jaymee.
Guests: J. Kassiola, M. Rivas, G. Whitaker, J. Combs, R. Maghroori,
Announcements and Report
- Chair Terrell announced the CET conference, "The Best Kept Secrets of San
- There are on-going college elections for Senate for next year, which should
be completed by March 14.
- Terrell announced that the Academic Senate will be co-sponsoring a forum
on Lecturer issues on April 4.
Agenda Item #1 -- Approval of the Agenda for March 7, 2000
The agenda was approved is printed.
Agenda Item #2 -- Approval of Minutes for February 22, 2000
Brian DeVries' name was omitted from the list of Senate Members Present.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
Agenda Item #3 -- Report from Vice President La Belle
Vice President La Belle reported on Year Round Operations (YRO) and on the
proposed change to a minimum of 120 units for the baccalaureate degree. On YRO,
La Belle summarized that SFSU will have a summer session run through the general
fund which will parallel the CEL summer session with the general funded summer
program involving a small number of select programs and courses (he referred
to a handout that summarized the general funded program). He added that the
faculty are all volunteers, there seems to be tremendous interest from students,
and financial aid will be available (there is also a web site with additional
detailed information at www.sfsu.edu/summer2000).
La Belle outlined some additional YRO details and concerns. Adjusting computer
systems has been one of the major glitches. They anticipate 80-100 annualized
FTEs with about a quarter in cohorts of graduate students, which brings up some
concern about negative effects on CEL. He added that Gail Whitaker has handled
the planning effort and can answer further questions.
La Belle then discussed YRO employment concerns for faculty, going over the
CSU/CFA YRO plan for Humboldt State, which may become a model for other plans.
It includes three possibilities for faculty: faculty could teach full-time two
of three semesters; faculty could teach year around at reduced work-load; faculty
could work full-time fall/spring with option of earning extra pay during the
summer. SFSU will be following the third option this summer.
Jan Gregory wondered about units taught for lecturers in relation to
annual entitlement and SSI units. Gail Whitaker replied in terms of the
Humboldt State model, which specifically states that summer employment does
not count toward entitlement for lecturers, but she believes it does count toward
Sung Hu asked if departments involved will be receiving additional funding.
Whitaker replied affirmatively that formulas to compensate departments appropriately
are being worked on. La Belle added that the general fund session will be an
Marcia Raggio wondered whether departments offering summer courses through
CEL have the option of changing them to the general fund. La Belle answered
that this is not an option. Whitaker offered that it is a fluid situation. She
added that a general fund course does generate FTE for the university. La Belle
followed up that if we are unable to meet the enrollment targets, it is something
we will have to look at.
Carol Langbort asked about courses that might be offered both through
CEL and the General Fund, wondering if some students will be paying CEL prices
and some will be paying general fund prices. Whitaker responded that it is an
awkward situation, but she doesn't think we have this situation. The cohort
groups may not appear in the catalog.
Marlon Hom raised a concern about a move from summer session managed
by CEL to one that adds work to departments, wondering if chairs will receive
further summer compensation. La Belle replied that all chairs are currently
compensated for the summer, and there is no plan to increase that.
Andres Consoli asked about options for moving CEL courses to the general
fund. La Belle reiterated that we have been planning by looking at those departments
and programs that we thought would be best for this, especially looking at cohort
programs like teacher education. Right now we are set. While it may be cheaper
for students to pay the general fund fee, it's more expensive for the university.
Movement is possible for the future. La Belle reiterated his concern about the
possible negative effects on CEL. Whitaker commented that there are infrastructure
implications. We are planning now based on what we can handle without adding
additional staff. Terrell added that the Senate will be looking at these
issues, with APC and FAC doing some preliminary discussions.
La Belle talked briefly about the 120 minimum units for the baccalaureate.
This proposal to reduce all BA and BS degrees to 120 credit hours came out of
Cornerstones, and it will go to the Board of Trustees in May. There are some
exceptions, like engineering, chemistry , and music. All the other programs
have enough flexibility in them to achieve 120 credits if that is the consensus.
Most programs will be effected only by a reduction in one student elective.
Campuses will be asked to review all of their programs to assess the impact
of the change.
Agenda Item #4 -- Report from Pamela Vaughn, Chair-Programs, AsiloCampus
Vaughn summarized the most recent meetings of the AsiloCampus planning committee,
which has pored over the evaluation forms. They have decided to revisit the
Senate policy on the retreats with a view toward tightening that policy, especially
in providing structure for the on-campus year of the retreat.
Agenda Item #5 -- Report on Freshman Orientation Course from Dean Kassiola
Dean Joel Kassiola reported on the proposed first-year experience courses at
SFSU, going over a handout of "Frequently Asked Questions [FAQ] and Brief Answers,"
and addressing questions from the floor. He began by praising the hard work
of a group of faculty and members of the Office of Academic Affairs.
Looking at FAQ #1, "Why have a first-year experience [FYE] course?" Kassiola
summarized that the research is convincing; these courses help students succeed
in college. The SFSU Academic Senate has come down in favor or such a course,
as have groups involved in strategic planning. Kassiola especially emphasized
the success rate with regard to retention.
Looking at FAQ #2, "How have these courses been created?" Kassiola outlined
a process that involved an all-university committee meeting since Fall 1999;
they have unanimously approved 8 courses to begin Fall 2000, and they will be
submitted to the course review committee, undergoing the same approval process
of any new course.
On FAQ #3, the nature and structure of these courses, Kassiola summarized a
discussion that first struggled with the name for the courses themselves. They
reached a consensus on "first year experience in" followed by the college name.
Each course introduces students to SFSU and its academic life in general as
well as to the personal and interpersonal issues that students of this age group
typically experience. There will also be themes and subject matter determined
by each college.
Addressing FAQ #4, on credit for the course, Kassiola acknowledged this as
a controversial area. Research indicates that without credit students understand
that the institution is not emphasizing this. The committee felt unanimously
that nothing less than three units was necessary given the material to be covered.
Kassiola then went briefly through a couple more of the FAQ's. The committee
strongly recommends that this be required. The model here is the new student
orientation, which is required of all new students although there is no punishment
for not participating. We want to convey to incoming students that this is a
vital part of their introductory experience to the university. On the college-specific
structure, early planners felt that it was the most practical way to deliver
the courses to the over 2,000 students. For those students who do not know their
major, we will have a specially designed first year experience course to help
them choose their major, and for those who want to reconsider their choice,
each course will present the work of other colleges. The FAQ addresses other
questions like funding, rooms, impact of the 120 minimum and assessment.
Helen Gillotte had two questions: looking at FAQ #7, on funding, wondered
about the role and training of the instructor of record and, especially, the
other persons involved in leading breakout sessions. Kassiola answered that
he will be one of the instructors of record for one of the lecture sections.
Many colleges will have more than 250 students, divided into two large lecture
sections. The role of the instructor of record will be to introduce the purpose
of the course and how it will be structured. For succeeding weeks, they will
introduce and coordinate the presentations made by members of the faculty and
staff on various topics. This will be in a large lecture setting. In order to
really have a good experience in this course, you need to discuss things in
a small group, with breakout sessions of no more than 25, led by those listed
in FAQ #7. Gillotte followed up on who will be training the staff for the breakout
sessions. Kassiola added that what we plan to do is to use the spring session
to recruit and train appropriate staff.
Scott Jerris spoke generally in favor of FYE courses, but added a question
from a College of Business perspective: would transfer students be required
to take FYE courses? Kassiola answered that transfers will not be required to
take this course; however, in the future we might be able to turn to the special
needs of the transfer student population.
Marian Bernstein asked about FAQ #7, noting the lack of mention of lecturers.
Kassiola agreed with Bernstein that lecturers can make a wonderful contribution
to these separate courses; he added that lecturers are welcomed to get involved
in the courses. He noted that the course will be C/NC.
Caroline Harnly asked whether the library skills requirement will be
included. Kassiola answered enthusiastically that every one of these courses
will have an information literacy component with every student required to complete
that requirement prior to finishing the course.
Marlon Hom offered the broad comment that this course is basically tied
to the idea of retention, wondering how this is different in intention from
what we call remediation for students who are not prepared to come to school.
Might this course draw resources away from remediation as such? Kassiola replied
that every course will deny that these courses are about remediation. He added
that if you mean that students would be informed about academic skills, that
is a normal component of such courses and depending upon your expectations about
what a high school student should have in their knowledge base, one might consider
those topics remedial.
Midori McKeon asked about the .2 release time for the instructor of
record, suggesting that once the course starts running during that semester,
the person in charge will not need that much time. The coordination work will
be largely in the semester prior to the course. She suggested release time for
the previous semester, questioning the .2 release time, especially for the following
years. Kassiola responded that it is his conception that the coordinators would
also be a discussion leader in one of the breakout sessions. He agreed that
the semester before will involve recruiting, curriculum building and the choice
of guest speakers. He added, however, that McKeon's comments may underestimate
the importance of continuity, with the leader introducing and coordinating,
etc. He added that we envision more tasks for the instructor of record. Helen
Goldsmith, who is on the planning committee, added that it's not so much
that every week will be a guest lecture; the instructor of record will be a
lot more involved on a week to week basis.
Pamela Vaughn had a question about the course approval process, asking
if interested faculty who want to look at them will have to go to their Dean.
Kassiola replied that he hoped college representatives would have kept faculty
informed throughout the development of the course. He added that the process
is not yet completed; there is still time for faculty in all of the colleges
to review the specifics.
Sharon Johnson supported this idea generally but had some concerns about
the three units of credit. With FYE not in the major or general education, students
might think it's a waste of time. Kassiola replied, first, that this will be
brought to the General Education Council. At the moment, the idea is to not
include it in the GE program. If 120 units comes to pass and there are real
problems, we might want to look at this not just in terms of content college
by college but also in format and maybe even in units earned.
Darlene Yee raised concerns about FAQs #'s 3,4,7. On #3, the nature
and structure of the course, she would really like to see the curriculum proposal.
On #4, she is worried about the three units, suggesting the possibility of making
it a prerequisite mandated by the college or major. On #7, she wondered who
will get the FTEs and will students staffing the sections be looking at grades
of other students? Kassiola replied that it would be graduate students and the
grade is C/NC. Colleges will get the FTE. He elaborated on structure: some of
the courses have a theme, some of the colleges do not have themes but are looking
at the issues in a sequential way. He encouraged senators to speak to their
associate deans and get a copy of their college position.
Sung Hu asked if at this moment he recommends that departments revise
their curriculum to incorporate this. Kassiola answered that he does not want
this to be part of the major. Terrell added that even with the first
year experience course, GE and the majors, we do not need to shift. The student
will have fewer electives. Kassiola added that with the exception of the high
unit majors, which will require exceptions for the 120 units and may require
exceptions for the FYE course. It is not a good idea to think at SFSU that one
size fits all.
Andres Consoli voiced his strong support for these types of orientation
programs. Looking at FAQ #8, housing these courses, he is concerned that placing
this course at the least popular times may be a prescription for its own failure.
Kassiola agreed but said that practically it was what needed to be done.
Guadalupe Avila presented a quandary: given that these courses are mandatory
for first year students, what if they do not pass? Kassiola responded that the
group was thinking optimistically, and that issue was not raised. Kassiola added
that if it is a requirement and they do not pass, they will have to take it
again, which raises the issue of the Spring. We have been thinking about offering
a section in the Spring.
Jeanne Wick raised questions about FAQ #7, the staffing of the breakout
sessions, first assuming that the hourly pay includes attending the session
as well as the classes where they learn how to teach. With regard to Student
Affairs and the Advising Center staff, will this be overtime or will we be taking
time from work and, if so, we wouldn't be paid for that. Kassiola answered that
you would earn the pay as an overload.
Hom raised two concerns: whether or not the college based enrollment criteria
is advisable, with this course becoming a selling point for departments rather
than a learning experience. He also wanted to know whether this should be C/NC
rather than graded; grading may not be relevant. Kassiola replied that there
was significant discussion on grading, and C/NC seemed to be the best way to
go. On concern about college goals, Kassiola added that we have asked each college
to have time built in to their program for other colleges' programs and themes
to be communicated to the students.
Alfred Wong asked about the possibility of some colleges offering different
units for this class. Kassiola emphasized that he was talking about future possibilities
and specific exceptions for high unit majors.
Sharon Johnson hoped that they have an assessment plan.
Agenda Item #6 -- Proposed Resolution on Governance in the CSU
Terrell introduced the proposed resolution, recalling the last Senate
meeting where we discussed the San JosÃ© State white paper looking at
concerns about the structure of the central administration and governance. Based
on those comments, the Executive Committee drafted the resolution that is brought
here today as a consent item.
M/S/P (Gregory, Edwards) to second reading.
M/S/P (Edwards, Gillotte) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #7 -- Proposed Revisions to A.S. Policy S87-145 Policy on Selection,
Appointment, and Review of Department Chairs
Marlon Hom, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, introduced this discussion
item. He summarized the recent history of this issue, outlining the work of
the Senate ad hoc committee from three years ago. There were complaints about
the "crisis" situation of the current policy: we learned that the current policy
was not being followed in good faith; there were concerns that the policy was
written in a way that favored the incumbent chair; there were also concerns
about practices that allow body-count rather than pro-rated count for reappointment
of department chairs with some chairs using part-time faculty to stack the vote;
there is also the concern that departments are asked to give three names to
deans, with the possibility of having the dean override departmental preference.
Hom then summarized how the current policy addresses these concerns. The department
should have a balloting process first; if the incumbent chair is re-elected,
there should be a review for improvement purposes. We propose to use the pro-rated
process in the nominating and balloting process. We also propose that the department
recommend one person to the dean. We recommend that the time period for acting
chairs should be reduced to a two year maximum.
We are trying to make sure that the current policy is faculty friendly with
department faculty coming up with resolve to deal with their departmental governance
rather than top down, with the goal of having collegiality return to the process,
and with the chair's role remaining a faculty role.
Mitch Turitz spoke generally in favor of the revisions and criticized
specifically the percentage used for Special Review (section V), suggesting
51% as more appropriate. Hom agrees that that should be changed.
Darlene Yee raised a question about the rationale for a three year term
of office while also wondering more broadly about differential compensation
for chairs who are basically having to do the same job. Hom replied that the
three year term is the old way and that we can change this if there is consensus;
his feeling is that four years would be good. In terms of compensation, it is
a mystery for FAC, and FAC does not have the resources to look into the matter.
Pamela Vaughn echoed Yee's comments on the wide variety of compensation,
and also raised a point on the review of department chairs (IV A 1), suggesting
that we consider instituting a regular review of all department chairs at a
fixed time in that chairs' term, which would not be contingent upon re-election.
Ken Fehrman spoke in favor of the change generally but raised the concern
that in some departments the part-time people out-number the full-time people,
and the chair controls the money, which means that full-time people can be outvoted.
Hom confirmed that this is a central issue, replying that we cannot deprive
part-timers of their rights to participate in the process, and adding that we
are proposing a pro-rated count for part-timers.
Turitz spoke to compensation, which is in the contract under 31.57-59: "The
maximum rate of pay for all department chair classification codes and ranges
shall be increased by eight percent in addition to the GSI referred to above."
Hom commented that the issue is not pay but release time.
Midori McKeon spoke in favor of regular review of department chairs,
calling our attention article II, "Term of Office," which calls for a chair's
review after re-election. She asked what happens if the chair review is terrible?
Hom commented that there is some confusion looking at current process. If the
faculty voted to keep the chair after the nominating and balloting process,
there is a majority sentiment favoring retention of the chair. The review is
for development for the second term. Terrell added that this is one of the main
issues that we are looking at prior to bringing this back for a vote: when will
the review occur. The other main issue is the term.
Vaughn's suggestion, for example, might work best with a four year term. Terrell
urged senators to talk to their faculty constituents about these issues.
The Senate was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Secretary to the Faculty