SFSU Academic Senate Minutes
April 4, 2000
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Terrell at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Aaron, Eunice; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Boyle, Andrea; Cancino,
Herlinda; Concolino, Christopher; Consoli, Andres; Corrigan, Robert; Cullers,
Susan; de Vries, Brian; Duke, Jerry; Edwards, James; Elia, John; Fehrman, Ken;
Ferretti, Charlotte; Gillotte, Helen; Goldsmith, Helen; Graham, Michael; Gregory,
Jan; Harnly, Caroline; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung; Hubler, Barbara; Jerris, Scott;
Johnson, Dane; Johnson, Sharon; Langbort, Carol; Moallem, Minoo; Nichols, Amy;
Raggio, Marcia; Smith, Miriam; Strong, Rob; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Vaughn,
Pamela; Wick, Jeanne; Wolfe, Bruce; Wong, Alfred; Yee, Darlene.
Senate Members Absent: Alvarez, Alvin(exc.); McKeon, Midori(exc.);
Swanson, Deborah(exc.); Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan(exc.); OÃ±ate, Abdiel(exc.);
Craig, JoAnn(exc.); Gonzales, Angela; Eisman, Gerald; Avila, Guadalupe(exc.);
La Belle, Thomas(exc.); Kelley, James(exc.); Scoble, Don(exc.); Collier, James(exc.);
Guests: P. Barnes, K. Monteiro, J. Bernard-Powers, J. Kassiola,
D. Schafer, R. Quinn, R. Maghroori, B. Luzardi, P. Ricketts, G. Whitaker, M.
Allsopp, P. Saffold, D. Fox, G. Herdt, V. Lane, S. Peregoy.
Announcements and Report
Chair Terrell announced the Senate Forum on Lecturer's Issues, which would
immediately follow the Senate meeting.
- Terrell welcomed Amy Nichols (Nursing) as an at-large Senator.
- Terrell reported that the Senate Executive Committee is currently at work
on principles for alternative course delivery and on issues surrounding intellectual
Agenda Item #1 -- Approval of the Agenda for April 4, 2000
The agenda was approved as printed.
Agenda Item #2 -- Approval of Minutes for March 7, 2000
The minutes were approved as printed.
Agenda Item #3 -- Report from President Corrigan
President Corrigan reported on water intrusion and mold in the Residence Apartments
and International Community, making himself available for questions. He also
handed out several items that provided further details on this issue: a summary
of remarks delivered at his Monday, March 27, 2000, meeting with students living
in the Residence Apartments and International Community, a Question & Answer
sheet prepared after that meeting, a list of staff phone contacts related to
this issue, and a copy of his First Monday "Viewpoint" of April 3, 2000, which
provides a summary of this issue.
Corrigan first provided background on the history of the high rise apartment,
its building materials, and the water intrusion and mold that have occurred.
He concluded that, though the mold itself has not come out of the walls, the
building cannot be maintained and must be seriously deconstructed. Corrigan
then addressed the health issues, summarizing that the average 18 or 25 year
old is not in jeopardy but that some groups of people might be at risk if exposed
to the molds in that building. The next issue is when to actually close the
building. After thorough consultation, the decision was made to keep that building
open through commencement. A decision has not been made as to exactly when the
building will be permanently closed, but it will not be available in the Fall
semester. Corrigan then went over the implications and options for housing students
who would have been living in the high rise. He reiterated that the paramount
concern is the health of the students, urging faculty to be understanding of
their difficult situation.
Robert Quinn, Vice-President of Physical Planning and Development, joined
Corrigan to show a model of the building material in question, going over what
it is made of as well as its strengths and weaknesses. Used as it was in the
high rise, this material does not drain, which then causes moisture to settle
in different areas of the building, which causes mold.
Mitch Turitz asked about the impact of deconstructing this building
on the renovation of Hensill Hall and the library. Quinn answered that this
will have no impact on Hensill Hall, which is funded. The library is in a planning
queue but proposition dollars can only be used for general fund buildings, which
the high rise is not.
Sharon Johnson asked if there are assurances that the Village is not
being built with the same type of material. Corrigan assured her that there
have been assurances.
Darlene Yee asked about the health of the employees who will have to
maintain these buildings. Corrigan first added that in the buildings themselves
we do have employees who live there. Quinn replied that precautions have been
taken for the maintenance employees, including bringing in State Department
of Health officials.
Rob Strong wondered if we would be able to look to state or federal
agencies for assistance. Corrigan replied that that would be tough but that
we are looking for short-term help from the Chancellor's office. He added that
both the manufacturer and the contractor are insured, and we have ways of dealing
Agenda Item #4 -- Report from Marcia Allsopp
Marcia Allsopp, Benefits and Professional Development Manager, reported on
the open enrollment period for a voluntary life insurance program and on long-term
care. She summarized changes in the new voluntary life insurance coverage, highlighting
the 40% difference in the rate and the possibility of enrolling for up to $150,000
without evidence of insurability. She also encouraged people to come to the
benefits office with questions or for additional information.
Terrell asked if anyone can elect coverage during open enrollment whether
or not they are currently covered. Allsopp replied that this is true as long
as they are benefits eligible.
Allsopp also briefly discussed open enrollment for the Long Term Care program
administered by CalPers.
Agenda Item #5 -- Report from Statewide Senators
Eunice Aaron reported on the Fiscal and Government Affairs committee
of the Statewide Academic Senate. She summarized the positive February visits
to Sacramento to discuss CSU general issues and their more recent repercussions,
offering to provide more details for those interested. Issues addressed included
the relation of the master plan to K-12, and funding for Year Round Operations
(YRO). For one-time funds, each office was told to focus on the following: technology
needs, high-cost equipment needs, library resources, and deferred maintenance.
We know that Gray Davis is adamantly opposed to adding money to the base. We
also scheduled several meetings in the assembly for next week. Aaron added that
they are listening; they are now saying to us that we understand that we don't
have the information we need about higher education in California. We have been
offering to be their resource persons, and it seems as if we have met with some
Darlene Yee reported on the work of the Academic Affairs Committee.
They presented three resolutions that were approved by the Statewide Senate:
1) title 5 revisions to admission criteria adjusting grade point average calculation
used to determine freshmen admission eligibility so that CSU and UC would use
the same methodology; 2) extension of the current waiver for the CSU college
preparation requirement for the visual and performing arts for students admitted
to the summer 2003 term; 3) resolution on community service and service learning
at CSU that indicates strong support on local campuses for an ethic of volunteerism,
community service and community service learning programs. The resolution recognizes
that authority, responsibility and accountability for community service and
service learning programs properly resides with local campuses and their faculty.
It also urges the Chancellor and Board of Trustees to work with the Governor
and the Legislature to provide the CSU local campuses and their faculties with
the infrastructure support required to provide opportunities for all CSU students
who so desire to engage in a broad spectrum of meaningful service activities
within their communities.
Yee also listed additional items discussed by the Academic Affairs Committee:
Common Articulation Numbering (CAN) system; Entry Level Math (ELM) report; enrollment
management update; lower-division articulation; YRO; CSU-CI; State University
Grant (SUG) Awarding Policy. Yee elaborated upon the last item, remarking upon
a change that will allow local campuses to use their SUG funding most effectively
to benefit needy students. She thanked Barbara Hubler, senator and director
of Financial Aid, for her work on this, and asked Hubler to say a few words.
Hubler provided background on the change and summarized the positive effect
it will have for our students on financial aid.
Aaron announced that Jacqueline Kegley, CSU-Bakersfield faculty and vice-president
of the Statewide Senate, is a Wang fellow, and she has decided to give half
of her award back to the campus.
Jan Gregory reported briefly on Faculty Affairs. They are tracking the
progress of compensation being negotiated. They are working on intellectual
property issues. They are wondering what has happened to the provost's committee
on workload now that faculty have been added to it--it seems to have stopped
working. They have dealt with a question raised from the LA campus about the
use of anonymous surveys of faculty in evaluation of administrators. And, of
course, we have spoken about YRO, which is very much in process.
Agenda Item #6 -- Report on the Liberal Studies Integrated Teacher Education
Helen Goldsmith reported on the Liberal Studies Integrated Teacher Education
(LSITE) Program. Goldsmith first provided background on how this program, which
is designed to allow students to pursue a concurrent curriculum of subject matter
and pedagogy from the first semester they enter college as first-time freshman,
came about. For the past 25 years or so, the state of California has drawn a
clear and distinct line between subject matter and pedagogy, requiring students
to learn content at the undergraduate level and get a credential at the graduate
level. The result has not been as successful as the state had hoped, with undergraduates
feeling disconnected from and unfamiliar with the College of Education and seeing
little relationship between what they were learning in the classroom and their
career goal. The LSITE program allows freshman to earn their bachelors degree
in liberal studies and a teaching credential and do their student teaching in
little more than four years, which is a year sooner than traditional credential
programs. Students are admitted as a cohort and enroll in at least one course
together each semester; they also spend time in an elementary classroom each
semester, both observing and participating. Beginning with their first semester
as freshmen, students identify themselves as future educators and are asked
to think about what they are learning in their coursework in light of their
Goldsmith then summarized the current and prospective cohorts and the advising
structure, pointing, as well, to possibilities of blended programs for single
subject matter studies. She urged those with questions to contact her or Eunice
Agenda Item #7 -- Proposed Calendar for the 2001-2002 Academic Year
Helen Goldsmith, chair of Academic Policies Committee (APC), introduced the
proposed calendar for the 2001-2002 Academic Year. She also recapitulated the
Spring Break discussions, summarizing that after a process of wide consultation
the majority still preferred keeping the Spring Break policy unchanged. Barbara
Luzardi, Academic Scheduling coordinator, was present for questions.
Pamela Vaughn asked about whether the definition of "instructional day,"
which is Monday through Friday, will be changed with the advent of Saturday
classes. Luzardi replied that they will have to revisit that definition.
M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to second reading.
M/S/P (Fehrman, Duke) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #8 -- Proposal for the Master of Arts in Human Sexuality Studies
Alfred Wong, chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee (CRAC),
introduced this consent item from the committee, first pointing to some minor
changes in the agenda materials. Dean Joel Kassiola summarized that this
proposal has been worked on for a number of years with the collaboration of
many faculty and consultation with various committees to produce a degree that
is innovative not only here or in the CSU but throughout the nation.
Turitz asked about the listed resources, commenting that there are additional
resources that were not mentioned. Kassiola asked that this be accepted as a
friendly amendment for the document.
Minoo Moallem spoke broadly in support of the proposal but raised a
question about why Women Studies was not included in the list of programs on
p.3, D.1. Kassiola replied that faculty have been widely consulted including
Women Studies but that this list is not meant to be an exclusive list but rather
for illustrative purposes. Vaughn added that Women Studies is mentioned
Yee raised a concern about jumping from the current undergraduate minor
to a graduate degree rather than moving first to an undergraduate major. Kassiola
replied that faculty believed the professional orientation of the master degree
program was the best way to go in the current time. In terms of need, one could
make the case that an undergraduate major would make sense as well.
M/S/P (Duke, Edwards) to second reading.
Marian Bernstein suggested the following wording for programs that have
been drawn upon: "The program builds upon the strengths of many undergraduate
programs such as ..." Kassiola replied that he takes that as a friendly amendment,
adding "the many programs in San Francisco State that offer courses in this
field," perhaps not mentioning specific programs.
M/S/P (Edwards, Vaughn) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #9 -- Proposed Revision to the Master of Arts Program in Education
with Concentrations in Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Language
and Literacy Education, and Math Education
Wong introduced this recommendation from CRAC, first noting that the
course should read EED 890 rather than 897. Professor Suzanne Peregoy
was available for questions, and she briefly described why the Department of
Elementary Education is proposing this change. EED 890 is intended as an alternative
option for the culminating experience instead of EED 895, Field Study, or EED
898, Thesis. She first addressed differences in format: EED 890 would be offered
as a structured course that would meet weekly with specific assignments to be
carried out. The end product would be a formal write up of the students research.
There is also an important element of peer collaboration, which ties to content
difference. EED 890 is focused on collaborative teacher research; group processing
and support is essential to this method. Instructors who teach this course are
very experienced in this process. We anticipate in this process that more students
will finish more quickly than they do under current processes, which will save
resources, but this is not a proposal to save money. We wish to continue the
option of doing 895/898.
Dane Johnson asked Wong to explain why this was a "recommendation" from
CRAC rather than a "consent" item. Wong replied that there was a split vote.
CRAC member Ken Fehrman elaborated further, outlining his issues with
this proposal: quality control in terms of rigor of this versus rigor of others;
a work issue in terms of a professor taking on 12 graduate students for 3 units
versus individual instruction. He suggested to run this as an experimental course
and gather some data. He also raised the question of students who take the course
but do not finish in that semester. He urged the senate to not vote in favor.
Andrea Boyle raised questions about getting approval for research and
being able to complete the work in a semester. Peregoy responded that all students
will have taken the standard research methods course previously, and they will
have attended a group meeting prior to beginning the class, submitting their
research proposal to the Human Subjects committee at that time. Peregoy then
addressed students who do not finish, saying that these students will take an
incomplete, finishing independently with a first and second reader under the
Vera Lane, Associate Dean of Education, commented on the question of
quality, suggesting that this proposal will address what we are trying to have
occur in the schools where we are preparing people to be teacher-researchers
with action research.
Carol Langbort responded to some previous comments, urging us to support
this course. One thing not mentioned is that the development of this course
was based on a precedent in the College of Education. Second, this particular
course is for a very particular kind of research, classroom-based research.
She added that this is in effect another research course; they have to be classroom
teachers who want to do research in their own classroom. In terms of quality
control, if anything the quality control is greater than in field studies; there
are second readers like other culminating experiences; the class has been designed
by a committee and will be watching very closely. This is a way of giving our
students more support. We have been bombarded with preparing more teachers,
and many more want to join our program; this is a way of supporting them.
James Edwards spoke as member of CRAC who is not comfortable with this
proposal. He thinks this could be done under 895, except for increasing the
number of students, which dilutes the contact between teacher and student during
this final period of their master's program.
Yee spoke in favor of this proposal: it will give students an additional
alternative that is only different from the other two alternatives in that it
provides the students with group meeting and process, which she sees as an incentive
and motivation, making students more accountable. In education, we talk about
teamwork in the classroom; this will provide them with essential hands-on experience
in peer support.
M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to second reading.
M/S/P (Consoli, Fehrman) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #10 -- 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 (FAC), introduced
the proposed revisions to the policy on selection, appointment, and review of
Department Chairs, a consent item from the committee. He recounted the extensive
discussion, consultation, and feedback that went into the current version, also
summarizing the history of this item, which goes back to an ad hoc committee
from four years ago that was reviewing concerns about the selections of department
chairs. The major concerns were over how to count lecturer votes and the review
process. There was also concern about the department recommending three names
to the dean's office rather than putting forth their single preference. The
FAC goal is for a policy that is more collegial, that is consistent with CBA
language, and that de-links performance review from reappointment.
Fehrman asked about the "special review" and the distinction between
informal and formal review. Hom replied that if internal problems can be resolved
without formal review that is encouraged. Terrell added that the mid-appointment
review is informal in the sense of not becoming part of the personnel file.
Miriam Smith raised a concern about the number of times that department
chairs will be reviewed now and also the increased workload in conducting all
of these reviews. Hom replied that basically we did not increase the number
of reviews but just the timing. In the old process chairs were reviewed for
reappointment only; in rotation, performance was never assessed. As far as workload,
that should be negotiated with academic resources.
Andres Consoli asked about voting procedures for the external selection
of chair, given the statement that "the process must be in compliance with the
university policy on tenure-track faculty hiring." Hom explained that the tenure-track
hiring policy stipulates that the committee must be tenured faculty. Consoli
added his concern about that process, given that probationary faculty are impacted
but not given a voice. Hom added that in his department they always establish
an ad hoc committee that included representatives from different ranks of the
Vaughn returned to Smith's point, speaking as a department chair: she
is in favor of separating the chair's review from the election process, so evaluating
every chair once during his/her term is a very important. Terrell also spoke
to the issue of reviews. This proposed revision dictates that the department
itself will determine what the review process is for the midterm review. What's
important is that all members of the department will be involved.
Bruce Wolfe asked whether there is student role in this process. Hom
replied that these are unit 3 faculty, which means there is no difference from
university hiring, which means that there cannot be a direct student role.
Patricia Bartscher raised a question about changing the timeline to
the end of third year, which could mean that there is no new chair for the next
year if there is a problem and there is no agreement. Hom replied that there
would be an acting chair and a cooling off period. He explained further that
the timeline change is meant to eliminate the retaliation factory, adding that
he is not for this interpretation but that it was the majority of FAC sentiment.
M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to second reading.
Consoli asked what aspects of the policy can be changed by the department
and which cannot, pointing specifically to the statement on p.2 about "additional
charges." Hom replied that it is not a matter of change but whether they want
to add more work for the department chair. Terrell added that this policy is
being revised in part because departments were departing from the prior policy;
in this instance, departments could add additional charges, and they will define
the process of review. Consoli followed up by asking if a department can set
a term limit. Hom suggested yes in the sense of the department having the right
to nominate and select another person every three years. Terrell added that
according to this policy there will be an election process every three years;
some departments will rotate, but there has to be an election.
Wolfe returned to the point about students, adding that it's prudent to get
student input on this; with an external selection, it's even more prudent to
have a student perspective.
M/S/P (Vaughn, Fehrman) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Let it be noted that the student representatives voted in favor of this proposal,
reserving the right to reconsider in the future.
The Senate was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Secretary to the Faculty