ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

TUESDAY, April 14, 2009

SEVEN HILLS CONFERENCE CENTER, NOB
HILL ROOM

2:00 - 5:00 p.m.

ATTENDANCE:

Bartscher, Patricia

Jin, Leigh

Neely, Francis

Bugayong, Arlene

Kohn, Jim

Noble, Nancy

Burke, Adam

Landry, Lynette

Rehling, Lu

Chelberg, Gene

Lau, Jenny

Robertson, Bruce

Cheung, Yitwah

LePage, Pamela

Rosegard, Erik

Corrigan, Robert

Levy, Eileen

Rothman, Barry

Dariotis, Wei Ming

Li, Wen-Chao

Shapiro, Jerald

Davila, Brigitte

Longmore, Paul

Sherwin, Paul

Gemello, John

Luna, Debra

Shrivastava, Vinay

Goen-Salter, Sugie

Mahan, Dianne

Sinha, Dipendra

Gomes, Ricardo

McCarthy, Chris

Sveinsdottir, Asta

Gubeladze, Joseph

McCracken, Bridget

Taylor, Don

Hellman, David

Minami, Masahiko

Trautman, Ray

Holzman, Barbara

Moody, Laura

Ulasewicz, Connie

Hussain, Mahmood

Modirzadeh, Hafez

Whalen, Shawn

Jeung, Russell

Morishita, Leroy

van Dam, Mary Ann


Absences: Avani,
Nathan (exc); Boyle, Andrea (exc); Chen, Yu-Charn (exc); Chou, Fang-yu (exc); Danner, Don (exc); DuVal,
Derethia (exc); Flatt, Sylvia (exe); Fuentes, Enrique (abs); Hellenga, Kate (exc);
Salama, Mohammad (exc);Sheldon, James (abs); Yee, Darlene (exc)


Guests: Suzanne Dmytrenko, Gail Evans, Helen
Goldsmith, Ann Hallum, Joel
Kassiola, Jim Murphy, Robert Strong, Nancy Rabolt, Dawn Terrell, Jo Volkert,
Gail Whitaker,

CALL TO ORDER: 2:15 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Whalen estimates that the April 28th
Academic Senate meeting will last until 5 p.m., as there are many new items
that must be introduced in first reading at that meeting so they can return in
second reading at the final meeting on May 12th.

AGENDA ITEM #1—Approval of the Agenda for April 14, 2009.

Senator McCracken moved to add a new item #6, Resolution in
Support of Emergency Preparedness at SF State. The motion passed.

The agenda as amended was approved.

AGENDA ITEM #2—Approval of the Minutes for March 17,
2009.

The minutes of the March 17, 2009, Academic Senate meeting
were approved.

AGENDA ITEM #3—Report from Bridget McCracken, Chair,
Student Affairs Committee, and Eugene Chelberg, Associate Vice President of
Student Affairs: Introducing a New Campus Resource—Student Complaints and
Concerns Web site

Senator McCracken, chair of the Student Affairs Committee,
and Eugene Chelberg, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, reported on
the establishment of a new student complaints and concerns website, http://www.sfsu.edu/~vpsa/complaints/.
Senator Rehling was thanked for her help in writing the website material.


AGENDA ITEM #4—Recommendation from the Student Affairs
Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Enrollment Management Policy #F02-222,
Second Reading.

Senator McCracken, on behalf of the Student Affairs
Committee, moved that the Senate approve revisions to the policy on Enrollment
Management, #F02-222. The motion passed.

AGENDA ITEM #5— Recommendation from the Executive
Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Course Repeat Policy, #F08-248, Second
Reading.

Senator Trautman, on behalf of the Executive Committee,
moved that the Senate approve revisions to the policy on Course Repeat,
#F08-248. The motion passed.

AGENDA ITEM #6— Recommendation from the Student Affairs
Committee: Resolution in Support of Emergency Preparedness at SF State
(Proposed resolution on WHITE distributed at the meeting.)

Senator McCracken, on behalf of the Student Affairs
Committee, moved that the Senate adopt a resolution in support of emergency
preparedness at SF State.

Senator McCracken moved that the motion be moved to second
reading. The motion passed.

The main motion, now in second reading, was approved.

AGENDA ITEM #7—Recommendation from the Academic Policies
Committee: Proposed Revisions to
the Written English Proficiency Policy, #S07-14, First Reading.

Senator Dariotis, on behalf of the Academic Policies
Committee, moved that the Senate approve revisions to the policy on Written
English Proficiency, #S07-14, specifically, revisions in the upper division
section of the policy.

Discussion items and questions included the following:

  • Will changing the minimum grade required in
    the GWAR-designated course from a C- to a C result in students not being
    able to take the course CR/NC?

  • The
    2010 timeline seems very unrealistic. Will courses be developed in a
    hurry, and will there be a logjam in getting the courses approved by the
    Committee on Written English Proficiency (CWEP)?

  • What
    is the role of CWEP in the implementation of this policy? What is the
    relationship between CWEP and the Writing Across the Curriculum / Writing
    in the Disciplines (WAC/WID) director?

  • How
    does CWEP “facilitate” the development of supplemental writing courses
    (line 33)?

  • How
    does the course repeat policy affect students’ ability to satisfy the new
    GWAR-designated course requirement? Would students be allowed to repeat
    the course a third time?

  • Since
    there isn’t a deadline to implement the GWAR courses, students could be
    confused about their graduation requirements.

  • The
    proposed exception to the registration cap for students who do not satisfy
    the GWAR before completing 90 units is contrary to comprehensive plan to
    improve the writing of SFSU graduates submitted by the Writing Task Force
    in Fall 2005. What circumstances would lead CWEP to approve a
    GWAR-designated course to be scheduled after a student has completed 90
    units?

  • SF
    State is undertaking a radical change in how writing instruction is
    performed; the new program should be comprehensively evaluated. How will
    the Academic Senate “consult” in the assessment (lines 82-86)?

The speaker’s list was exhausted.

AGENDA ITEM #8—Recommendation from the Academic Policies
Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Graduation Writing Assessment Requirement
(GWAR) Course Criteria, #S08-14, First Reading.

Senator Dariotis, on behalf of the Academic Policies
Committee, moved that the Senate approve revisions to the Graduation Writing
Assessment Requirement (GWAR) Course Criteria, #S08-14.

Discussion items and questions included the following:

  • The
    major change in the course criteria is the change in class size. Changing
    the enrollment limit from 20 to 25 students would be consistent with the
    enrollment cap in other writing classes offered at SF State.

  • Maintaining
    the enrollment limit at 20 students may result in students being unable
    enroll in the required course, thereby delaying their graduation.

  • The
    objective of the new writing policy is to help students become excellent
    writers. Changing the limit just for pragmatic reasons—finite resources
    and an uncertain state budget appropriation—is inappropriate. Instead,
    assessment data should be used to determine the appropriate class size. If
    we’re not going forward with a better writing program, why transition from
    the JEPET/ENG 414 program?

  • The
    Writing Task Force (WTF) recommended that all writing classes have an
    enrollment limit of 20 students. However, the WTF recommended that the
    GWAR writing-intensive courses have limits of 25 students. Writing
    instruction is exceedingly intensive labor, but writing-intensive courses,
    unlike composition courses, typically do not focus on writing as their
    primary subject.

  • The
    GWAR classes are more like writing or composition courses than
    writing-intensive courses, and there won’t be separate sections of the
    GWAR courses for multi-lingual students. The 25-student limit is too high.

  • During
    the initial implementation of GWAR-designated courses this semester,
    enrollment limits have been set at 25 students. It’s disingenuous to have
    the policy specify the lower limit of 20 students, if the actual limit
    will be 25 students. Courses designed with an anticipation of a 20-student
    limit may be ineffective if the actual enrollment is 25 students.

  • CWEP’s
    authority to approve courses that exceed the enrollment maximum, as
    described on lines 13-15, should be better defined by including specific
    examples of justifiable exceptions.

  • What
    should be done for students who do not pass a GWAR course on their first
    enrollment?

  • The
    administration has previously stated that they would fund these courses at
    a 20-student enrollment limit. Has that commitment changed?

  • Faculty
    Affairs remains committed to supporting whatever criteria the faculty
    approve for the GWAR courses.

  • Last
    year, the Academic Senate was presented with the National Council of
    Teachers of English’s recommendation of a 15-student enrollment limit, and
    with CWEP’s representation that the WAC/WID coordinator supported the
    20-student enrollment limit. Have those recommendations changed in the
    interim?

  • Senators
    need to appreciate the expertise of our current WAC/WID specialist, who is
    recommending an increase in the enrollment limit to 25 students.

  • A
    writing program that combined 25-student enrollment limits in GWAR courses
    with supplemental instruction could yield better results than a program
    that had 20-student GWAR courses but no supplemental instruction.

  • The
    criteria do not include any statement on the enrollment prerequisites for
    the GWAR courses. If a placement exam or other assessment could be
    incorporated into the enrollment requirements, then under-prepared
    students could be directed to appropriate preparatory or supplemental
    instruction courses.

The speaker’s list was exhausted.

AGENDA ITEM #9—Recommendation from the Student Affairs
Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Religious Holidays Policy, #F00-212, First
Reading.

Senator McCracken, on behalf of the Student Affairs
Committee, moved that the Senate approve revisions to the policy on Religious
Holidays, #F00-212.

Discussion items and questions included the following:

  • Lines
    24-26 should be revised to yield a better understanding.

The speaker’s list was exhausted.

AGENDA ITEM #10—Recommendation from the Educational
Policies Council: Proposed Discontinuance of the Minor in Family and Consumer
Sciences Program, First Reading.

Senator Shrivastava, on behalf of Educational Policies
Council, moved that the Senate approve the discontinuance of the Minor in
Family and Consumer Sciences program.

Discussion items and questions included the following:

  • The
    proposal identifies the minor as “central to the SFSU mission”; as such,
    how could the faculty vote to discontinue the program?

  • The Department
    of Consumer and Family Studies/Dietetics has not been able to meet the
    enrollment demands of both majors and minors in their undergraduate
    programs. The department decided in 2005 to discontinue the minor program,
    to attenuate the demand for additional class sections; they decided it was
    better to deny enrollment to minors than to deny enrollment to majors.

  • The
    current motion is simply to formally discontinue a program that was
    effectively eliminated by the department in 2005. The department should
    have requested a suspension or discontinuance in 2005.

  • The
    reason for the discontinuance is limited resources, but the proposal
    identifies that there were only three students in the minor program per
    year in 1998-2002, and that no students have been admitted since. Thus,
    what resources will be saved by the discontinuance?

The speaker’s list is exhausted.

AGENDA ITEM #11—Recommendation from the Educational
Policies Council: Proposed Discontinuance of the Master of Arts in Social
Science: Concentration in Interdisciplinary Studies, First Reading.

Senator Shrivastava, on behalf of Educational Policies
Council, moved that the Senate approve the discontinuance of the Master of Arts
in Social Science: Concentration in Interdisciplinary Studies program.

Discussion items and questions included the following:

  • This
    is another discontinuance by fiat, as the department and college imposed a
    moratorium on students entering the program two years ago. The College of
    Behavioral and Social Sciences (BSS) decided to not hire faculty in this
    area.

  • The
    timing of this discontinuance proposal is particularly unfortunate.There
    will be a void in graduate studies in Social Science, as the proposed new
    Master of Arts in Social Science program will not be offered to students
    for at least several years.

  • The
    College of Behavioral and Social Sciences has worked diligently with the
    currently-enrolled students, to ensure that they will be able to complete
    their theses. The college is unhappy that this program will be
    discontinued.

The speaker’s list was exhausted.

AGENDA ITEM #12—Recommendation from the Student Affairs
Committee: Proposed Resolution on the Affordability of Textbooks, First
Reading.

Senator McCracken, on behalf of the Student Affairs
Committee, moved that the Senate adopt a resolution on the affordability of
textbooks.

Discussion items and questions included the following:

  • The
    “cradle-to-cradle” design paradigm should be incorporated into the
    textbook adoption process.

  • The
    resolution should encourage faculty to develop and adopt textbooks that
    have Creative Commons licenses.

  • No
    action or decision by faculty saves students more money than submitting
    textbook orders by the due date each semester. Three years ago, only 50%
    of textbook adoptions were submitted on time; in Fall 2008, the on-time
    rate had increased to 67%; Rob Strong, General Manager, SFSU Bookstore,
    predicts an even higher adoption rate by tomorrow’s deadline for Fall 2009
    courses.

  • The
    SFSU Bookstore has been working with the J. Paul Leonard Library to
    implement a textbook rental program for undergraduate students. The
    Library’s assistance might help the Bookstore overcome significant
    obstacles to the rental program. Large-enrollment courses with expensive, required
    textbooks will be the first courses to be served by the rental program.

  • Is a
    Senate resolution the most appropriate or effective method to bring this
    information to the faculty?

The speaker’s list was exhausted.

Chair Whalen declared the meeting adjourned at 4:24 p.m.