Tuesday,

April 13, 2004


Senate Members Present:


Avila,

Guadalupe

Gemello,

John

Nichols,

Amy

Bartscher,

Patricia

Gerson,

Deborah

Noble,

Nancy

Bernstein,

Marian

Gonzales,

Dan

Palmer,

Pete

Bohannon,

Tara

Gregory,

Jan

Pong,

Wenshen

Boyle,

Andrea

Guerrero,

Jaimes

Shrivastava,

Vinay

Carrington,

Christopher

Heiman,

Bruce

Smith,

Brett

Chelberg,

Gene

Hom,

Marlon

Steier,

Saul

Chen,

Yu Charn

Houlberg,

Rick

Suzuki,

Dean

Cherny,

Robert

Jerris,

Scott

Terrell,

Dawn

Colvin,

Caran

Klironomos,

Martha

Ulasewicz,

Connie

Corrigan,

Robert

Langbort,

Carol

Van

Dam, Mary Ann

Edwards,

James

Liou,

Shy-Shenq

Vaughn,

Pamela

Fielden,

Ned

Mak,

Brenda

Williams,

Robert

Fung,

Robert

McKeon,

Midori

Yang,

Nini

Garcia,

Oswaldo

Meredith,

David



Absent:  Aaron, Eunice (excused); Alvarez, Alvin (excused); Batista,

Natalie; Bernard-Powers, Jane; Contreras, A. Reynaldo; Daniels, Robert;

Irvine, Patricia (excused); Morishita, Leroy (excused); Otero, Aina J.;

Rocchio, Jean (excused); Scoble, Don (excused); Smith, Miriam (excused);

Stowers, Genie (excused)


Visitors: 

Kenneth Fehrman; Hallum, Ann; Lee, Christopher;

Mullins, Willie; Rood, Jonathan; Sung, Susan; Turitz, Mitch; Verhey, Marilyn;

Whitaker, Gail


CALL TO ORDER: 2:10 p.m.


CHAIR’S REPORT


Chair

Edwards noted that in the next few weeks

the senate would be going through its annual election process for officers

and committees. He thought it important that elections have as wide a representation

as possible and urged senators with strong convictions in their own leadership

qualities to submit their names for nomination. He predicted that the upcoming

year would be difficult and that campus would need all the leadership available.

He indicated that the senate handouts for the day included a list of senate

members needed for committees. He spoke to the issue of nominations, specifying

that names other than self-nominations were welcome on the day of election

as long as they had the permission of the nominee. He indicated that some

of the positions were candidates to be elected by the Executive Committee,

not the entire senate, and promised to have more information by the following

week.


AGENDA ITEM #1 - APPROVAL OF THE

AGENDA FOR April 13, 2004


AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR March 30, 2004


Gregory, Jerris

m/s/p


Senator

Gregory noted that Item 4 of the minutes

contained a factual error and that she had actually “disclaimed full responsibility”

for the resolution by attributing some sections of the resolution to other

authors.


CFA President

Turitz indicated that he had been

present at the previous senate meeting.


AGENDA ITEM #3 -REPORT—ROBERT W.

CHERNY, CHAIR, CSU ACADEMIC SENATE


Chair

Edwards explained that the campus would

now receive a formal visit and report from the Chair of the Statewide Senate,

SFSU’s own Bob Cherny.


CSU

Senate Chair Cherny began by noting

that one of the things that statewide senators do is visit individual campus

senates, and he had personally been to half of them during his term. He felt

that he had learned a lot from these visits and hoped today to explain some

of what had been going on at the statewide senate. The most important topic

naturally has been the budget, but he commented that we will not really know

until the “May revise” what the true budget numbers would be.


He expressed

disappointment that while the Chancellor’s office had been hoping that the

mandated cuts would come to the system to be dealt with at our level, the

Department of Finance has been resisting.


Cherny thought that one of the biggest

issues for the statewide senate was facilitating graduation. He stated the

three central principles of the CSU: access, affordability

and quality.


Presently

access is under a serious threat, as there is not enough money to accept eligible

students. Impacted campuses have already been taking measures to deal with

this and more will follow. The CSU does not currently

have the money to accept students.


Cherny reported that one of the areas

of discussion was the facilitation of graduation, which for students needs

to proceed as quickly as possible with a minimum number of units; thereby

freeing room for incoming qualified students. The senate has looked at a multitude

of ways to speed graduation. There are lots of approaches, many of them campus

specific, and appropriate to various units for specific tailoring. The issue

of transfers remains a concern, something all faculty

recognize as a problem. The legislature has a long-standing interest in this

as well. Academic Affairs has been preoccupied with SB 1785 a pending bill

which specifies transfer priorities for the CSU

in some detail. While not a wrong-headed bill, it tended to simplify a complicated

problem and once adopted would give less flexibility for solutions. The senate

has been trying to do the same things without the need for legislation, and

this would be a preferred outcome.


He explained

the most important features of the bill and the concerns of the committees

dealing with it.


Students

should enter the CSU with 60 units, including lower

division GE, and 6 units of lower division work counting towards their major.

To accomplish this, students would need to declare majors earlier and proceed

taking the courses appropriate for them. In many cases students would be better

off taking sequences of classes where it made sense. Every major in the CSU would need to agree on what those lower division courses

ought to be.


Making

a clear path for community college students would be a large undertaking,

and is not well accepted by all faculty members. The senate has been working

on this with two major objectives: making it easier for community college

students to figure out what to do, so they can come to the CSU

better prepared and not have to waste time taking more courses due to misinformation,

and secondly to head off as much legislation as possible to minimize interference.


Another

issue to deal with has been a result of the Governor’s budget and concerns

“excess units” defined as any units 10% greater than what is needed to graduate.

Many believe that additional courses are beneficial to the overall education

of students, but this is not necessarily good for all of California and this pattern has closed out

other CSU eligible students. To help facilitate

the graduation of students with a minimum number of units a combination of

approaches would be necessary. Transfer students would need to declare their

majors early, as well as our own freshman. A personal graduation plan ought

to be in place, from start to finish. Students need to know what courses to

take graduate, by consultation with an advisor, and file this plan

before completing their second year of coursework. At the finish of a third

year of study, an “automatic degree audit” would clarify and illuminate any

problems. Once 100 units are reached, a student would need special advising,

and too many additional units are accrued, more stringent provisions would

be needed to guide the student to graduation. These are all elements of a

package that might eliminate the need to penalize students for excess units.

The system needs to give very clear paths for students.


At the

last meeting the senate passed a resolution regarding sustainable architecture.

CSU Chair Cherny

told a story about being at Hayward with Trustee Kathy Kaiser, who is partial to solar power,

where they noticed a large array of solar panels on the administration building,

which helps to provide power to the university. Cherny indicated that we need to be doing this with our new construction,

and have more energy efficient buildings. In the long-run this type of construction

would generate clear savings. We need to examine campus policies and determine

how to incorporate these features into building design.


For the

past two years there has been a task force on graduate study, and he reminded

senators that SFSU is the largest graduate study campus in the CSU, a facet less important for some other campuses, and perhaps

not a priority for administration. The report from the Graduate Education

Task Force, available on the web, stressed the importance of graduate education

for the CSU and tried to urge appropriate funding.


Finally,

Cherny noted that the Board of

Trustees was dangerously close to not having a quorum. Former Governor Davis took a long time making BOT appointments, which were then withdrawn by Governor Schwarzenegger.

At the present, every member of the BOT is needed

for a quorum, a matter of major concern. It is possible that the Governor

could now appoint half the board.


Senator

Jerris dryly commented on Hayward’s ability to generate solar power

as opposed to our campus. He had a question on the “45-15”unit plan, which

had been discussed in FAC with some concerns that

many community college students are not as focused on a major, or even on

what they might want to study and that it would be a chore to implement this

plan.


Cherny responded that he did not like

the “45-15” designation. For some majors the units might be higher than that

and some may need less. What was important to do was allow faculty in each

discipline to determine what is necessary. It should be a faculty decision,

not the BOT or legislature. It would establish a

priority for transfer, and would not be exclusionary.


Senator

Vaughn wanted to add a corollary regarding

declaring majors, which is that the suggestions impact students who change

majors and wanted to know if anyone had talked about this.


Cherny responded that many had indeed

considered this, and did not want to discourage it. We want students to explore,

but that after a year, we do want them to declare, and after some point make

it difficult to change. Other colleges seem to be able to do this and we should

perhaps be able to do this as well.


Senator

Vaughn had a second question about the

prohibition against second BAs that might create some problems.


Cherny noted some exceptions to the rule.

Many campuses have no rules about repeating courses and we need to look at

that.


Senator

Houlberg noted that this news was becoming

part of a general miasma of despair. Currently academic and educational ends

were being driven by other than important means. Determining what is good

for students seemed based on non-academic reasons. He expressed despair coupled

with paranoia in the push to make the community colleges a feeder system for

us. He found his only real joy presently was an approaching retirement.


Senator

Williams noted that the decision to have

students make educational decisions early in their careers was not always

wise. There are developmental issues for this, and asking 18-year old students

to make life-long decisions may cause some problems. Transfer students often

were ignorant of what a major is.


Cherny recognized this point and affirmed

that many students not only do not know what “a” major is, they do not know

what “their” major is. But they do need to know a bit about what they want

to do. The financial issues a major influence regarding the declaration of

a major, and will not simply disappear. As a state institution, we are faced

with the issue that if we don’t do something about it, it will be worse. California has one of the lowest college graduation

rates in country. We need to do better and while we do not have the money

to do so, we still need to try.


Statewide

Senator Gregory felt compelled

to note that as a statewide senator she had anticipated every question raised in discussion so far, and observed that our culture

has now functionally pushed adolescence into one’s thirties. She asserted

that the concerns expressed had been represented statewide.


AGENDA ITEM #4 -- REPORT—GAIL WHITAKER—DEAN,

COLLEGE of EXTENDED LEARNING—MOVING ACADEMIC PROGRAMS to SELF SUPPORT: POLICY

& PROCEDURE


Chair

Edwards noted a conversation now taking

place on many campuses about moving programs to self-support, and reducing

dependence on the general fund.


Dean

Whitaker wanted to make four major points. 

These were to highlight some important features of current senate policy,

identify what programs would be the best candidates for self support, and

then discuss the implications for faculty and for students.


Dean

Whitaker noted that policy #F98-204, the

current policy, applies not just to degree programs,

but also to credential and certificate programs. Secondly, she noted that

the intent of the policy was that colleges and departments would maintain

leadership of their programs, regardless of whether they are held through

general fund or self-support. The quality assurance should always come back

to the faculty.


The policy

provides instructions on developing the content and format of the proposal,

as well as the role of CEL, which is predominantly

administrative, supportive, clerical, facilities, etc. Whitaker urged chairs or deans with potential

proposals to consult with CEL about procedures and

get the right information.


This

program is targeting students who would be willing to pay more for a given

program and this would mean taking a look at the current job market, entry

level salaries, etc.  The program would

not necessarily be a subsidized set of programs, unless there was an outside

funder to provide support. 



Good

candidates would include programs that allow students to be grouped and moved

through the program as a cohort, which provides a better learning environment.

Good candidates are ones with little entanglement with other programs. Free

standing programs make a better fit. Finally, proposed business plans should

be competitively priced.


For faculty,

there may be various ways for compensation, depending on their appointment.

Tenure-track faculty in a given program can teach on a casual basis in CEL,

but if the whole program moves to self support, we need another alternative.

We need to move the faculty member on general fund support in their department

and college so that self-support funds the faculty member. We can do that

with tenure-track faculty in permanent positions. If faculty

are lecturers it depends on their appointment. Often CEL

faculty are outside the regular collective bargaining agreement and do not

get entitlements, etc.


Implications

for students include regular standards for admission, being admitted at the

beginning of a course of study, being coded differently although matriculated,

and they would be tracked differently and not considered in FTES. Otherwise

special session students might be booted from Touch Tone, etc.


As for

financial aid, there is not much for graduate students; however, alternative

loans might be available. Since undergraduates would not pay regular fees

they would be ineligible for regular financial aid, but PELL grants might

be a possibility.


Senator

Jerris spoke as a Business faculty member

and noted that his college had planned to remove themselves from the general

fund to the tune of $2.3 million. He wanted to know whether that proposal

would come through the senate. He also wanted to know whether CEL would pick up the advertising costs when launching a new

program. Also, he wanted to know if a program went on self support, and those

students would not count for FTES, how the college would manage to make up

their “missing” FTES.


Whitaker responded that she had spoken with

the CoB Dean, and that some Business programs were

good candidates for self support. CEL would handle

any advertising. As for FTES, the college target would change and the college

would alter their response accordingly.


State

Senator Gregory sought to have

the self-support FAQs in written form, and gave

credit to Whitaker when Chair of

FAC. She expressed serious concerns about lecturer employment

and moving faculty from general fund to self support.


Whitaker responded that there was the policy

and Executive Order, and was optimistic in finding ways to make it work. She

was not optimistic that so many would be able to make their programs self-supporting.

She was not expecting a flood.


State

Senator Gregory understood the

policy and Executive Order and would expect further faculty involvement.


Senator

Heiman addressed informal talk about making

courses available only to those who could pay for them, part of a widely perceived

corporatization of education, a real worry. He observed

a tension between educational missions and access, and asked if Whitaker could speak to this issue.


Whitaker thought it necessary to separate

out tasks and processes. The policy would apply in the case of duplicate programs,

but also when a program could no longer be supported by the general fund.

A whole tangle of issues needed to be sorted out with the dean to come up

with a general agreement.


Senator

Heiman noted that one concern was that

an incentive to teach in CEL would play havoc in

the program if the elite jobs were to occur only in special programs. This

elite group would not then be providing education to the campus’ main market.


Whitaker spoke to the move of the MBA program

- it should not be run on overtime.


Senator

Langbort indicated that previously faculty

had not been able to get release time and this would save some lecturers’

jobs. She wondered if any consideration had been given to Open University

students who could take regular courses, and whether regular students could

then take CEL courses.


Whitaker responded that this would be considered

outside of cohort programs.


Senator

Pong questioned whether each program could

have different fees, and who would decide that.


Whitaker responded that the fees would be

variable. Fees needed to cover expenses plus figure in indirect costs, the

number of students and number of courses. Every program would have an MOU and contract, which would specify how the money would

flow.


Senator

Pong asked if students would get the same

privileges.


Whitaker responded that currently there

are not a large number of students in these programs, but they did have library

rights. For programs moving completely off the general fund, library funds

would be needed to be accounted for in the business plan.

AGENDA ITEM #5 - RECOMMENDATION

from the ACADEMIC POLICIES COMMITTEE - REVISION to the UNIVERSITY’S GRADE APPEAL PRACTICES and PROCEDURES


APC

Chair Meredith noted the earlier

healthy discussion, and asked for clarification regarding second reading.


Chair

Edwards indicated this was a time that

amendments could be entertained.


Senator

Williams expressed discomfort that a student

would not be represented on the panel and suggested an amendment. He proposed

having a non-voting student member on the panel, with access to any information.


Meredith asked who would appoint the student.


Senator

Williams asked for input from Senator

Gerson Chair of SAC.


Senator

Gerson read a prepared statement from

SAC that indicated that SAC believed that issues of fundamental fairness would

be better served if a student served on the panel, the advantages of this

far outweighing any drawbacks. A student representative could act as advocate,

lend an alternative voice, and render the whole process less intimidating

to the grievant.


The disadvantages

appear to be more logistical, and SAC suggested the following:


  • The student representative

    should not be made a permanent position.

  • The selection of the student

    representative would conform to the general norms of arbitrations.

  • The petitioner would submit

    the names of three students to the Chair or Dean, who would then select

    one of the nominees within five calendar days.

  • After receipt, the names would

    be delivered to the petitioner and the representative.

  • If the Chair/Dean had any objection

    to all the nominees, this could only happen within five days.

  • The petitioner could then elect

    to nominate three additional students to the Dean/Chair in writing within

    10 days.

  • The Dean/Chair would then select

    a nominee from this second list.


At

all times, the faculty and the Dean/Chair would need to disclose any conflict

of interest to the petitioner. In the event of any controversy/conflict should

arise at this point, the student could opt to bring the matter to the appropriate

administrative level, i.e., the Office of the Provost.


The student

nominees should be from the class where the petitioner received the deficiency

or a major in the discipline under which the class is generated.


In order

to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the matter, the petitioner would

execute a waiver of privacy, in writing to be kept as a permanent part of

the file. Conversely, the student representative would also execute a non-disclosure

statement, with University Counsel providing the appropriate forms.


Meredith indicated that this would not be

accepted as friendly amendment.


Gerson moved the amendment, seconded by

Steier.


Senator

and Chair of FAC Jerris

spoke against the amendment, indicating that FAC

felt unanimously that faculty alone have the right to assign grades, and that

the final determination is done by faculty. Students do not belong in deliberations

about grades.


Meredith indicated that APC had sought the advice of the University Counsel and that

this was reflected in the proposed policy. As for the amendment, he thought

the means by which a student representative was selected was still insufficiently

clear.


Senator

Williams indicated that the theory of

postmodernism allowed for student involvement, and pointed out that this process

was an unusual circumstance, with very few situations every year. He suggested

that it was important to respect that adding a student representative might

have significance. 


Steier observed that AAUP is not a neutral organization. He was not keen on having

students see his own flaws but they could. It seemed clearly the case that

it was possible for a professor to make a mistake, have it pointed out and

rectified.


Senator

Vaughn noted that at the University of California, Berkeley three student representatives were

required on such committees. She thought it necessary to have more details

and would need to know what limits there were to the process.


State

Senator Gregory observed that AAUP policy on grading was directed against the excesses of

administrators, not students. Past practice on our own campus did involve

students, although rarely. She saw no need to imitate UCB.


State

Senator Cherny thought it necessary

to see the proposed amendment in writing, and that the senate needed to delay

consideration on this item until the next meeting.


State

Senator Cherny moved to delay consideration

to next meeting to hear the written amendment by SAC.


Cherny Chelberg m/s/p to postpone discussion until April 27th.

AGENDA ITEM #6 - RECOMMENDATION

from the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION on BLOCKING SPAM


Senator

Carrington had two comments, the first

concerned with the apparently flippant language of the resolution, which he

did not feel was appropriate for the topic. He expressed deep concern about

IT individuals making the decisions about the criteria for screening email.

He thought that there were issues of scholarship in areas such as sexuality

studies where IT criteria would be inappropriate.

 

AVP

Rood replied that spam takes up

huge amounts of resources, and that campus needed to handle this. He had confidence

in the ability to address individual problems, but thought that the resource

drain was paramount.


State

Senator Gregory apologized for

not revising the resolution. She suggested deleting the mention of media outlets,

and that perhaps faculty oversight should be delegated to ETAC.

 

Senator

Vaughn supported the sentiment of resolution,

but pointed out that it did not outline any process.


Senator

Williams expressed concern with IT solutions

and was not sure why sexuality studies faculty should need to give extra search

terms to campus for purposes of customizing spam protection. He was worried

about disenfrancishisement of this group.


Senator

Vaughn desired to see this discussion

expanded to include students and staff.


Senator

Ulasewicz asked if this meant blocking

spam for students and faculty. She expressed concern about the time necessary

to deal with spam, and felt concern for the students as well.


AVP

Rood indicated that the majority

of comments he received were about the need for aggressive spam suppression.


Senator

Meredith wanted to know if the blockage

had to be university wide.


Rood responded that currently the answer

was yes. Alternatives might be possible but these would require commercial

software at an added expense.


Senator

Mak observed that the federal government

allowed the use of a “do not call” list for telephone marketing, and wanted

to know if that were possible on this campus for spam.


Rood responded that the best solution

was legislation.

 

Senator

Mak asked if there was a spam registry.


Rood responded that this was possible

only with new commercial software.


Senator

Heiman asked for clarification of what

was being blocked and saw odds in favor of spam blockage.


Rood spoke to highest level spam blockage.


Senator

Carrington asked if it was currently possible

for those using email software to forward or delete spam, and what efforts

were being made to send how to the campus.


Rood responded that email coming in

would still be a burden, even if individual decisions were made locally. He

thought we had a major problem with the sheer volume of spam and that he was

getting the majority of comments about riddance.


State

Senator Cherny asked about the

technical nature of spam filtering and servers.


Rood clarified the situation, and indicated

that one major server handles all incoming mail.


Senator

Steier observed that he belonged

to a number of political and film groups that generate high spam scores, and

asked how certain emails could receive high spam scores.


Rood responded that the combination

was not set by SFSU but by the open source program “spam assassin” which included

a number of criteria. The formulas written were technical, and included not

just words or phrases, but other indicators that identified spam.


Senator

Mak did not use Eudora or Outlook and

had virus worries.


AGENDA ITEM #7 - RECOMMENDATION

from the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - PROPOSED RESOLUTION on REVENUE ENHANCEMENT


Chelberg, Carrington m/s


Chelberg

supported this with recognition that the resolution was urging other sources

of revenue. He recognized that we were still in treacherous waters and that

this had direct impact on business here and our general fund.


State

Senator Gregory mentioned that

the resolved clauses involve consideration of social issues and was urging

citizens to play the role they should be playing.


State

Senator Cherny commented that the

Wall Street Journal had compiled a list of state taxation and that California ranked 26th in the nation.


Senator

Suzuki asked regarding the last resolution

clause if there was any reason not to forward the resolution to the Governor.


Meredith, Steier m/s/p to 2nd reading.


Senator

Williams asked to have the friendly amendment

added to the final resolve clause so that the resolution would also be sent

to the Governor.


Palmer, Houlberg m/s/p


AGENDA ITEM #10—Adjournment— 4:00 p.m.