San Francisco State University Academic

Senate

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;

Oñate, 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,

G. West.

Announcements and Report

  • Chair Terrell announced the CET conference, "The Best Kept Secrets of San

    Francisco State."

  • 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

SSI.

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

expensive proposition.

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

2000

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 José 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.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty