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.); Oñate, 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.);

Sagisi, Jaymee.

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.

Chair's Report

  • 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

    property rights.

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

with it.

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

success.

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

(LSITE) Program

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

future career.

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

Aaron.

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

on p.6.

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

usual processes.

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

faculty.

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty