SFSU Academic Senate

Minutes of April 25, 2000

The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Terrell at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present:

Aaron, Eunice; Alvarez, Alvin; Avila, Guadalupe; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein,

Marian; Boyle, Andrea; Collier, James; Concolino, Christopher; Consoli, Andres;

Corrigan, Robert; Cullers, Susan; de Vries, Brian; Edwards, James; Ferretti,

Charlotte; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Goldsmith, Helen; Graham, Michael; Gregory,

Jan; Harnly, Caroline; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung; Hubler, Barbara; Jerris, Scott;

Johnson, Dane; Johnson, Sharon; La Belle, Thomas; Langbort, Carol; McKeon, Midori;

Moallem, Minoo; Nichols, Amy; Oñate, Abdiel; Raggio, Marcia; Scoble,

Don; Smith, Miriam; Swanson, Deborah; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Vaughn,

Pamela; Wick, Jeanne; Wolfe, Bruce; Wong, Alfred; Yee, Darlene.

Senate Members Absent: Fehrman, Ken(exc.); Contreras, Rey; Craig,

JoAnn(exc.); Strong, Rob; Duke, Jerry(exc.); Cancino, Herlinda; Gonzales, Angela;

Elia, John(exc.); Gillotte, Helen(exc.); Eisman, Gerald; Kelley, James(exc.);

Sagisi, Jaymee.

Guests: M. Phillips, P. Barnes, G. Whitaker, J. Kassiola, G.

West.

Announcements and Report

Chair Terrell announced several items of Senate business: Senators need

to fill out their standing committee preferences and summer address questionnaire;

there is one more meeting, 9 May, where we will finish Senate business, seat

the new Senate, and elect officers for the coming year. There will also be an

end of the Senate year celebration immediately after to welcome the new Senators

and say goodbye to those who are departing.

Agenda Item #1 -- Approval of the Agenda for April 25, 2000

The agenda was approved as printed.

Agenda Item #2 -- Approval of Minutes for April 4, 2000

The minutes were approved as printed.

Agenda Item #3 -- Report from Vice President La Belle

Vice President La Belle provided updates in three areas: the three current

administrative searches, Year Round Operations (YRO), and WASC reaccreditation.

The searches for Dean of Ethnic Studies, Dean of the College of Extended Learning,

and Director of the Office of International Programs are nearly concluded with

the last candidates coming on to campus this week. There was a very strong applicant

pool for each; recommendations will be coming soon.

On YRO, La Belle summarized that we anticipate 150 FTE enrolling in 65 sections

with faculty paid their actual rate by WTU. The fee policy proposal is being

worked on: students would pay the equivalent of CEL fees for one course but

would receive a second course free. La Belle reminded us that we are in an experimental

mode this summer. Gail Whitaker was available for questions.

La Belle went over the work of Richard Giardina's Academic Planning and Assessment

office in preparation for WASC reaccreditation, referring to two handouts: 1)

tentative outline of the SFSU self-study for WASC reaccreditation; 2) Perspective

on Assessment, volume 2, number 2, Spring 2000. The visit will be next March,

and there has been a change in how WASC views reaccreditation. They are moving

to a system whereby the campus indicates the themes or issues around which it

wishes to be evaluated; then, the team comes to campus and looks at the ways

in which the campus is dealing with those themes. Our themes come out of the

planning process that has been going on for many years, including the following

emphases for the university: academic excellence, learning-centered, diverse,

user-friendly, community-oriented, internationalized. Drafts of our materials

are being worked on now; versions will be available in early September.

La Belle added that he participated in the CSU-Northridge visitation, and it

was apparent that faculty and Deans were not necessarily aware of what was in

the reports, so he is starting early to proselytize.

Agenda Item #4 -- Report from Pamela Vaughn

Vice Chair Pamela Vaughn reported on the 6 April 2000 meeting of CSU Academic

Senate Chairs, which was divided into two parts: a meeting among the campus

senate chairs; a meeting with the Executive Board of the Statewide Senate and

Vice Chancellor Spence. Vaughn's first impression was that shared governance

may not be perfect here, but it is a whole lot worse elsewhere.

Vaughn went over the campus concerns and discussion around the Collaborative

Management System (CMS). "First wave" [n.b., SFSU is either a second or third

wave campus depending on when and who you ask] campuses have serious concerns

that the funding for this project is falling to individual campuses even though

it is a Chancellor's office directive and the system is a disaster, especially

the student module. Vaughn added that we should not necessarily expect that

all the problems will be solved by the time we are to implement CMS, and that

we should perhaps begin broad-based discussions and planning to avoid some of

the disasters our sister campuses have experienced.

Vaughn also summarized a discussion around the move to 120 units with Spence

reminding all that this is simple to allow B.A. degrees who can do so to have

fewer than 124 units--it is a minimum. But if Title V language is not changed,

then the 120 will not be possible. At the request of the senate chairs and the

statewide Executive Committee, Spence is going to edit some of the introductory

language to make it less volatile.

Vaughn then updated us on the discussion around Community Service Learning,

where Spence was very complimentary about the work of the campuses and their

responses to the governor's service learning initiative. Spence elaborated on

the behind the scenes work into getting the governor's people supportive of

the broad-based recommendations--to allow for an expectation condition or requirement

(this last not to penalize Monterey Bay, which does have a requirement).

Agenda Item #5 -- Report from Mark Phillips, Coordinator of Educational

Outreach

Mark Phillips reported on educational outreach activities in the Office of

Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP), responding in part to the two most common

questions he's heard since leaving his post as Academic Senate chair: how's

the new job? . . . and what the hell is it anyway? Phillips summarized that

his job meets 3 primary criteria for all faculty and administrative positions

at SFSU: 1) the expectations are greater than anyone can fulfill; 2) it's fragmenting;

3) it's ambiguous.

Phillips explained that this position was created in response to growing involvement

and outreach in K-12 education. The position is a faculty position, located

in the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs for two reasons: 1) its primary

function relates to funding; 2) the position has a campus-wide role. There are

three interrelated components to what he has been doing in this position: 1)

work with the President on initiatives that emerge from or are channeled through

his office; 2) responses to state and federal legislation; 3) work with the

Provost on campus-wide K-12 opportunities. Within ORSP, several roles: supporting

role in assisting on K-12 components of larger grants; coordinating communication

across SFSU regarding funding opportunities for K-12 (which can include pre-K);

lead and facilitate campus efforts to secure funding for K-12 projects.

Phillips also identified some problems he has perceived in doing this work:

1) ineffective communication and/or insularity; 2) time--people need the money

to buy the time to do the work, but it's hard to find the time to do the proposals;

3) money being chased without any compelling problem or purpose defined.

Phillips concluded by reminding us that he is here to help faculty. If you

have the interest, let him know; this is something that is still developing.

Agenda Item #6 -- Academic Senate Elections

Mark Phillips was elected to the Franciscan Shops Board of Directors.

Irene Gonzales was elected to the Graduate Council.

Rosalind On was elected as the At-Large representative to the GE

Segment II/AERM committee.

Agenda Item #7 -- Proposed Policy on Temporary Faculty Range Elevation

Chair Marlon Hom, introduced this recommended policy from the Faculty

Affairs Committee (FAC), first providing some background. This policy makes

sure that our temporary faculty policy is in compliance with the Collective

Bargaining Agreement (CBA). He explained range, which is a salary range defined

by the salary scale in the CBA. This policy is for faculty who have maxed out

in their steps, and the policy is simple and straightforward. The appeals process,

however, is a peer process with that decision final. He added that this will

only effect a small group of lecturers.

Darlene Yee pointed out a typographical error and asked for clarification

about who would constitute membership for the departmental peer review. Hom

replied that this is not spelled out with the department chair coordinating.

Terrell added that this may vary from department to department.

Caroline Harnly suggested adding a sentence on what range elevation

means to the policy. Hom replied that making this distinction in the policy

might be more confusing.

M/S/P (Gregory, Oñate) to second reading.

M/S/P (Goldsmith, Gregory) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.

Hom thanked the members of FAC for their hard work this year: Alvin Alvarez,

Brian de Vries, Gerald Eisman, Charlotte Ferretti, Minoo Moallem, Mitch Turitz,

Laurie Zoloth, and Paul Barnes (ex oficio). This is the fifth policy they

have presented to the Senate this year, and the fifth policy that has passed.

Agenda Item #8 -- Proposed Resolution: Principles on Alternative Modes of

Delivering Curriculum

Helen Goldsmith, chair of the Academic Policies Committee (APC), introduced

for discussion the proposed principles on alternative modes of delivering curriculum,

first summarizing the history of this proposal. After the Senate discussion

with Associate Vice President Gail Whitaker on YRO, the Senate Executive

Committee asked APC to address issues brought up by year-round operations. APC

met with Whitaker and also with Jan Gregory who shared a set of principles that

are being developed by the Statewide Senate. APC decided to develop a set of

local principles. Since APC was concerned with issues beyond YRO, they developed

principles on alternative modes of delivering curriculum, which would also include

off campus instruction and weekend courses. APC would appreciate any feedback

on this draft.

Whitaker spoke very positively in favor of the draft broadly and also

made three comments: 1) she asked for clarification of "alternative modes of

operation shall not hinder ..." in B.2.; 2) in C.1., she suggested that we might

want to be more specific; that is, would it be okay for the department to make

this decisions; 3) on financial aid, she wanted to add the caveat of federal

laws that put limitation on what we can do.

Sung Hu, an APC member, clarified B.4., reminding us of valuable community

programs that use campus facilities during the summer and that might be displaced

by YRO. He suggested that C.1. is a principle rather than policy and that some

programs could have exceptions. Goldsmith encouraged further feedback or revised

language for B.4.

Yee asked if there was any expectation for the Curriculum Review and

Approval Committee (CRAC) to be involved in the process of working on alternative

modes of curriculum delivery in their review process. Goldsmith responded that

we have developed general principles rather than specific policy; we also talked

about the possibility of more detailed policy in the future.

Jeanne Wick remarked that she had read it from the perspective of web-based

and distance learning rather than YRO; she asked whether this addresses both.

Goldsmith replied that originally we had on or off line as one of the listed

things, but we did not want to preclude programs that offer on-line course as

part of their curriculum. Wick wondered whether copyright issues should be addressed.

Goldsmith reiterated that this does not specifically address on-line; it started

as a YRO policy, but then we thought weekend and off-site courses could be encompassed.

Terrell added that APC is looking at the issue of intellectual property

rights as is the Statewide Senate.

Agenda Item #9 -- Proposed Principles Concerning Lecturer Faculty

Terrell introduced the discussion of principles concerning lecturer

faculty, which comes from the Executive Committee, based on things that have

come up this year at Asilocampus and the lecturer forum but also from the ad

hoc committee on lecturers from before this year as well as a dinner the President

and Provost had with the lecturer faculty, and other forms of outreach.

Marian Bernstein suggested that in point 1.B. it would be better to

be offered an orientation program rather than "have the opportunity . . ." Vaughn

supported this as long as we don't have to specify the nature of the program.

Patricia Bartscher raised the concern that these principles are very

directive, which means they look like policy and raise expectations. She wondered

about the impact it will have if these things don't happen, and she suggested

softening the language. Deborah Swanson asked if this could be turned

into policy so that it does have teeth. Terrell replied that that is a possibility

and added that the Executive Committee did consider the language, for example,

changing the language in #7 to recommend. This is very specifically drafted

to sound strong and indicate the Senate's support for these measures, but these

are a set of recommendations.

Jan Gregory pointed out that some of the things listed as principles

are derived from the agreement and do have some force behind them while much

of it is campus based. In particular, criteria for evaluation and some of the

other issues around hiring do have more force than may be apparent.

La Belle suggested that we indicate the following as goals to be met

in the first paragraph, perhaps adding a timeline. He added that he endorses

what is here overall; it can be achieved in a number of ways, remembering that

this is a collective vision.

Terrell followed up that the plan is to bring back a revised set of principles

or goals at the 9 May 2000 meeting; she sought further feedback and encouraged

everyone to talk about this with faculty in their departments.

Vaughn followed up on Gregory's point, suggesting that it might be helpful

to indicate where there is CBA language to enhance or endorse a particular principle.

Swanson strongly supported that idea.

Terrell closed the meeting with a final announcement: this was the last meeting

with Bruce Wolfe as AS president; the Senate thanked him for his participation.

The Senate was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty