ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING
APRIL 27, 2004
Senate Members Present:
Dam, Mary Ann
Aaron, Eunice (excused); Bartscher, Patricia (excused);
Batista, Natalie; Otero, Ania J.; Smith, Miriam (excused)
Allsopp, Marcia; Baldwin, Patty; Begin, Brent; Boesch, Charles;
Brewer, Jack; Buttlaire, Dan; Earthman, Elise; Fendel, Nina; Fox, Denise;
Giardina, Richard; Gillotte-Tropp, Helen; Hallum, Ann; Hittner, Amy; Kalp,
Randy; Keck, Nathaniel; Klingenberg, Larry; Le, Michelle; Mok, Ben; Mullins,
Willie; Rood, Jonathan; Sekelick, Mark; Sung, Susan; Turitz, Mitch; Verducci,
Frank; Verhey, Marilyn; Vuong, David; Whitaker, Gail; X, Eric
CALL TO ORDER: 2:10
Chair Edwards directed
all returning senators to fill out preference forms for standing committee
membership and return them to the Senate office by May 3.
Edwards noted that the Senate meets next
May 11, the year’s final meeting when new senate officers are elected. There
are customarily two meetings, the first included the present senate, and a
second, when retiring senators step aside and the new senators take their
place. At this meeting there will be elections for senate officers plus two
at-large senators. Those running for the senate offices of Chair, Vice-Chair
and Secretary traditionally offer position statements, although this ought
not to be considered mandatory.
Edwards addressed the move to online voting,
noting that traditionally the senate had used paper ballots, but for several
reasons was moving to an online system, which will go live April 27. He observed
that it was similar to online grading, employing for login purposes a faculty
member’s social security number plus a PIN. He reminded senators that, as
the year comes to a close, all senate committees are required to submit to
the senate an annual report, preferably before June 1.
noted that in previous Senate meetings the President and Provost have indicated
that the cuts to Academic Affairs means the discontinuance of some academic
programs, and that this would include some good, solid quality programs.
All these good programs
include colleagues, tenured faculty, tenure track faculty, lecturers and staff,
who have dedicated themselves to these programs. Edwards urged senators
to reflect on the commitment and energy of these individuals. He felt it is
a time for caring, compassion, and empathy for those who feel loss and in
many cases betrayal, and also a time to make sure that discontinuance is the
“right” thing to do. The discontinuance process, belongs to the Senate’s responsibility,
and will begin early in the fall semester. He urged senators to ensure that
the process is open, fair, and just.
AGENDA ITEM #1
- APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR April 27, 2004
Meredith moved a change to the agenda by
swapping items 11 and 12, thereby discussing the calendar proposal before
the appeals policy.
AGENDA ITEM #2
- APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR April
Houlberg, Palmer m/s/p
AGENDA ITEM #3
-REPORT—PRESIDENT CORRIGAN & PROVOST & VICE PRESIDENT for ACADEMIC
AFFAIRS JOHN M. GEMELLO -MEETING THE BUDGET DEFICIT
introduced President Corrigan and Provost Gemello who had come
to the senate to talk about the campus budget situation.
indicated that he wanted to speak only briefly to the senate, solely with
regard to changes since his last communication, and sought input and commentary
from the senators.
Over a two year period
the campus has had to handle $30 million worth of cuts; $22 million in this
year alone, of which $10 million came from Academic Affairs. He observed that
the permanent cuts would need some time to take effect, and did not foresee
the budget rebounding
recognized that the campus community would likely have strong feelings and
pose arguments about the proposal, but he reminded senators and visitors that
the problem was $10 million in size, and that the situation was a zero sum
game. Whatever programs that might be “saved” meant that money would need
to be found from replacements.
noted that the $4 million did not translate into the actual programs, and
might be offset by the fee increases but it was still unclear what they would
be. The plan still had a $400,000 hole that needed to be filled. A fairly
sizable piece of the plan involved college consolidation, and while no decision
has yet been made, it still represented an anticipated savings. With respect
to the $2.9 million that the students had approved in fees during their referendum,
it was still not clear whether the Chancellor would approve them, although
signs were more optimistic than earlier. He hoped for more news shortly.
assumed that everyone has seen the proposed list of programs, so he preferred,
rather than reading through the proposed list, to receive feedback from the
senators. He acknowledged the hard times the proposal brought and expressed
thanks to the senators and faculty for working with the Deans to come up with
the reduction plan. He thought this whole process very difficult, as it meant
going right to heart of the university mission. However, he felt that this
was a situation over which we had no control and it was necessary for us to
make the best of it.
asked if there was any more news about the “May revise” budget.
responded that there was no recent news to his knowledge. Tax revenues might
be a little better than expected.
Vice President of Administration
and Finance Morishita commented briefly on the revenues.
asked if there was any more news about consolidating the Colleges.
indicated that no plan existed yet, and while he had met with CUSP, the Deans,
etc. no clear consensus had yet emerged. If it was to occur, it would be a
long term discussion, which would provide input opportunities for the entire
asked about relations with the outside community. While the campus itself
had been democratic and had involved its members, she indicated that outside
the community there were people with vested interests and suggested that they
may have something to offer on the matter.
responded that himself, Provost Gemello, and Morishita had met
with the SF Chronicle editorial board to discuss the campus situation and
that they were now furnished with a clearer idea of the nature of our difficulties.
Secondly, while urging discretion to the senators, he suggested using a research
study on the impact of the university decline on the local business community
to urge for greater funds for SFSU. He thought that possibly a high powered
group of business leaders might have a more significant impact. He noted,
however, that the overreaction to initial proposed Engineering discontinuance
made for difficulties with the outside community. He thought that this might
mean several years of work to correct the misinformation generated. He could
not speak to why a given program, Gerontology for example, was listed rather
than another program, but observed that the proposals had come from the Deans.
One of the worst things to have happen would be the perception that lobbying
is what saved Engineering, when in fact that was not the case. So now it seemed
that every endangered program was working on its own lobbying strategy, and
this might result in chaos. The course the Deans had taken was the most open
and wisest available.
stated that the $10 million shortfall severely limited our choices, and characterized
the budget problem as a “tragedy” and that this was the important message
to send to the rest of the state. He commented on a letter from a resident
of Belmont similarly describing what the CSU
and higher education has had to do in California as a tragedy, that we are not considering cuts to anything
of a fraudulent, frivolous nature, and that the entire community was affected
with serious repercussions.
Senator Chen noted
that students were still asking about the BSIT program, and that if we closed
a door, we needed to open a window. He recommend reconsidering this proposal.
indicated that there should be no doubt that the College recommended discontinuance,
but that the final decision rested with the Senate. It does no good for students
to believe this is not serious business. He mentioned a discussion with the
Executive Committee on not admitting students, and that if a program’s foundation
was shaky, it was not a service to continue as normal, but these are very
observed that when he examined the proposed list of programs, the total savings
did not appear to add up to $10 million. Was there any assurance that the
other shoe would not also drop?
responded that the programs indeed did not add up to $10 million, but elements
of the plan that combined with these discontinuances did result in a $10 million
total. For example, other parts of the proposal did away with remedial courses,
there have been staff reductions the office of Academic Affairs, and these
types of additional savings added to the program.
indicated that 79% of our budget is in people, salaries, and benefits, and
that 15% was non-discretionary. What was left was 6.5% as discretionary and
of that 63% of that was in academic programs. If “the other shoe drops” (which
could mean an unfavorable “May revise,” no student fees, and/or another bond
issue problem,) there would not be much else to do except cut programs. Unless
we could change our own revenue or get other administrative changes, worse
situations were possible. California
was in difficult times.
had two questions. What was being done to leverage this situation in Sacramento? Second he observed that programs
were not going to acquiesce in their own demise. What would be the nature
of the coming dialog?
indicated that some programs were small or perhaps “inefficient” but it was
still necessary to look for money wherever it could be found.
responded to the question on political “leveraging,” noting that the CSU was
“between a rock and a hard place” due to the current standoff between the
political parties. Traditionally our best friends tended to be Democratic,
but currently Democratic leadership was looking after social programs more
than education, while the Republicans steadfastly refused to increase taxes.
All the while a minority still kept the budget from getting passed. He had
been hearing from our representatives that they would do what they could for
us, but reminded us that we still needed to recognize the political realities.
We are one of 23 campuses, and so are part of a collective decision.
State Senator Gregory
wanted to speak to the situations on other campuses. Those of us in communication
with these colleagues know that other processes are just as devastating but
suffer from defects that we have not experienced here. She thought that ours
was the most open, most faculty friendly situation in the CSU system. She
expressed a wish that all our Deans could have done as well as the President
noted that EPC, headed by the chair of APC, would deal with these proposals.
This would involve a combined senate review, with recommendations that would
come to the senate.
AGENDA ITEM #4
-- REPORT—AMY HITTNER - DIRECTOR, HEALTH PATH, DAWN TERRELL - FACULTY DIRECTOR
JUMPSTART, Faculty Rights Panel of CFA; WILLIE MULLINS - CLINICAL DIRECTOR
- COUNSELING CENTER, Counseling & Psychological Services, Human Resources
and the Career Center - COMPREHENSIVE CAMPUS TRANSITIONS PROGRAM
Dean of Faculty Affairs
Verhey asked for recognition to introduce the program.
At the present challenging
time, the community has realized that it cared about its members and wanted
to address the needs of the community. The offices of Human Resources, the
Career Center, CFA’s Faculty Rights Panel - all of these collaborated
on this program. Three members were to speak to a transition program, Willie
Mullins, Amy Hittner and Dawn Terrell.
Mullins indicated that he would not be
able to explain the whole program but noted that one of the most stressful
adjustments for anyone was a sudden alteration in work status, and that the
stress is heightened among the highly educated. He had received many calls
from colleagues about the current issue, and had been trying to figure out
an appropriate, effective response. The result is this campus-wide, comprehensive
and holistic plan. Counseling and Psychological Services and the Career Center were the most important, along
with Human Resources, which dealt with many questions about retirement, benefits
Mullins also spoke to the implementation
of the plan. He had met with the University President and his Cabinet, all
of whom were concerned and solicitous, and realized the magnitude of the changes.
He expressed readiness to continue and observed that much was being done already.
The plan would continue through summer and into the fall.
Hittner thanked senators for their time
and energy. She observed that SFSU is not just the “city’s” university but
a community of employees and students. This collaborative and cooperative
program would work on some very stressful issues. Faculty Rights panel members
herself and Terrell had felt similarly, and realized the need to work
with counseling services.
The plan required the
provision of a space in collaboration with administration, and existed not
just to serve employees under stress of salary reduction or non-appointment.
With luck perhaps the university would avoid a “survivor situation” where
one person would be saved at the expense of another.
Academic resources, CFA,
and, CSEA all have created an in-progress program, and had been given a space
within which to operate on campus. The plan’s services were spelled out in
the handout provided to the senate and included job related career changes,
and other personal services for the entire campus community. During the summer
Hittner indicated there would be services for any individuals who may
be affected, and that the full campus transition program would be in place
by the fall.
AGENDA ITEM #5
- REPORT - MARK SEKELICK - ASSOCIATE PRESIDENT, NORTH; OFFICER on the CFA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS; and CFA CHAPTER PRESIDENT, MARITIME ACADEMY - “CFA COALITION
TO SAVE THE CSU”
Sekelick indicated that he was in the Marine
Protection Program at the CSU Maritime Academy as well as being a statewide CFA representative, and had
come to speak as a faculty member. He expressed thanks to the Executive Committee
and the Senate for an invitation to speak and noted that the budget had already
been discussed. He sought to look at the budget, and attempt to put it in
context, and see what could be done about it.
Sekelick mentioned two caveats: while this
was a CFA coalition and lead by CFA, it also included other members. Also,
speaking as a CFA officer, he sometimes disagreed with local campus issues
and statewide issues, but sought common ground to work with administration.
The Governor’s budget
made many cuts to social services, and local governments stood to lose a lot.
With no new taxes, mostly it called for new fees for specific projects, and
severe restrictions to financial aid. He noted in his overview that the net
effect was over $191 million to CSU - the details mattered.
He expressed dismay at
the reduction to instruction and libraries, noting that student fees had increased
for the third time in 2 years.
He saw not just a $191
million hit but a cumulative effect on the system. This was equivalent to
closing the three largest campuses or closing half of the system. He found
the trend troubling, and noted that the general fund had been declining for
years, a long term decline. Students would be paying more and getting less,
with fewer and larger classes, etc.
He saw consequences beyond
campus - an impact the on the macro level. He observed that for every dollar
spent in the CSU, there was a return of five. As for contributions to the
local economy, the 23 campuses put $15 billion into the state economy.
He commented on the impact
of the reductions on business, with contracts cut back or curtailed, and general
decline of student service. The businesses which relied on the campus or the
CSU would likely take longer to recover. There would be a reduction in the
number of graduates heading to the workplace. Up to 20,0000 students had been
denied admission, and the CSU supplied a majority of teachers in the educational
As for the proposed budget,
he stated that if we did not do anything about it things might get worse.
He thought that we could change the eventual outcome and we should try to
influence the people who influence the policy makers, and do this through
He mentioned a capstone
course that simulated a bridge, and that students acted as a team and encountered
difficulties. The sum of the total was greater than members separately. All
individual groups do not have same impact as the sum of these individual groups.
To save the CSU meant
in the short term to influence the budget this summer.
He noted that every 10
years the CSU was back in the same boat. It was time to rebuild the master
plan. As for whom this message was directed, he noted the Republicans, the
Democrats and the Governor.
In the coalition were
business leaders, alumni, civic organizations as well as students, faculty
and staff - a thousand coalition members that included some elected officials.
He urged senators to
educate the campus about the budget, organize for political action, and reach
out for new members. Radio interviews, op ed pieces, letters, rallies, etc.
all were appropriate activities. He urged joining the coalition today and
to help organize membership and make calls to community leaders.
AGENDA ITEM #7
[This agenda item took
place concurrently over the next series of senate agenda items.]
Election results were
AUCIP Midori McKeon
AUTEC Carol Langbort
BOAR William Mullins
and Andres Consoli
CET Amy Love
Franciscan Shops Bruce Heiman
Graduate Council Patricia Irvine
AGENDA ITEM #6
- RECOMMENDATION from the CFA - PROPOSED RESOLUTION
in SUPPORT OF “CFA COALITION to SAVE the CSU”
State Senator Gregory
anticipated a friendly amendment, but added some punctuation changes in a
preemptive strike. She urged colleagues and their professional and community
organizations to become involved in this endeavor.
State Academic Chair
Cherny suggested some clarifying language in a friendly amendment spirit,
which was accepted.
The resolution was approved
by general consent.
AGENDA ITEM #8
- RECOMMENDATION from the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE—REVISIONS
to the PROPOSAL
to OFFER the CERTIFICATE in TEACHING POST-SECONDARY READING PROGRAM THROUGH
the COLLEGE OF EXTENDED LEARNING at CAÃADA COLLEGE, a consent item,
1st and 2nd reading.
Nichols, Gregory m/s/p
CRAC Chair Nichols
stated that this proposal came as a consent item from a joint CRAC/ Graduate
Council meeting where we reviewed the proposal to offer the Certificate in
Teaching Post-Secondary Reading through the College of Extended Learning at CaÃ±ada College. Currently the certificate has been a viable certificate
on campus since 1988 and was designed to assist prospective and already practicing
post-secondary teachers in meeting specific individual and professional needs
in the areas of basic literacy and reading instruction, thus meeting the requirements
for teaching reading in the community colleges.
A need was identified
to provide the 12 unit certificate off-site for those teachers living and/or
working in Santa
Clara, Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties. The certificate consists
of four courses Eng 701, Eng 702, Eng 715, Eng 705 course. Nichols indicated
that Helen Gillotte-Tropp was to speak for proposal.
Gillotte-Tropp stated that the program proposed
for CaÃ±ada was self contained, self supported, and would not impact the program
at SFSU. The program was being brought to a geographic area that was difficult
for many students to attend. There was full support of the English Department
as well as the Dean of the College.
State Senator Gregory
suggested that if senators had encountered any students who had reading comprehension
issues, they would support this item.
Houlberg Jerris m/s/p
to second reading.
The proposed revision
was approved by general consent.
AGENDA ITEM #9
- RECOMMENDATION from the ACADEMIC POLICIES COMMITTEE - REVISION to the UNIVERSITY’S GRADE
APPEAL PRACTICES and PROCEDURES - a consent item - 2nd reading
supports having students on the Grade Appeal Committee.
moved to postpone discussion to May 11, Chelberg second.
noted that the proposal had some legal issues and required University Counsel
and suggested seeking such from University Counsel Bartscher.
supports amendment, but realized the need for counsel.
Postponement of the item
to May 11 was approved with one dissent.
AGENDA ITEM #10
-- RECOMMENDATION from the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - PROPOSED RESOLUTION
on BLOCKING SPAM - a consent item - 2nd reading
noted that Vice President, Division of Information Technology Jonathan Rood
was here with us to answer any questions.
State Senator Gregory
called attention to new language on lines 27 and 40, which included a specific
role for the ETAC committee.
The resolution passed
with one dissent.
AGENDA ITEM #12
- RECOMMENDATION from the ACADEMIC POLICIES COMMITTEE - PROPOSED UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC
CALENDAR 2005-2006 - a consent item - 1st & 2nd reading
APC Chair Meredith
indicated that the calendar was similar to previous years, with the following
salient points: December 16 was the end of the Fall semester; the Spring semester
included two days of faculty development; and spring break came after Cesar
asked why spring break came in the 10th week.
asked for the reason for making Advising Day a Thursday rather than a Wednesday
which potentially disadvantaged the Tuesday/Thursday classes.
Meredith responded that this was the traditional
Jerris, Houlberg m/s/p
to second reading.
indicated that there were two different ways to find spring recess; fix it
to one side of Easter or the other, or square in middle.
Meredith indicated there were many complaints
last year about taking spring break and coming back to Chavez day in the middle
of the week, which created incongruity. Easter comes at an awkward time but
the committee supported taking spring break after Chavez Day, although it
was not ideal.
suggested that the more important issue involved children, and this meant
the necessity of finding childcare during public school break.
thought that this would continue to remain a problem and the difficulty of
having breaks which would please everyone.
Senator Hom responded
that the committee had discussed public schools and spring break with the
impossibility of satisfying everyone.
State Senator Cherny
asked if the committee had considered scheduling break during the week that
included Cesar Chavez Day.
considered every possible combination.
move to consider moving spring break to the week that included the Chavez
Meredith proposed an additional amendment,
to having break begin the Friday before Chavez Day (making 10 days total.)
asked about the history of swapping President’s Day for Chavez Day.
asked how this is saving a Friday.
State Senator Cherny
suggested voting down the amendment then recommending a change to President’s
noted that Presidents’ Day had been moved to Christmas break.
Amended amendment not
State Senator Cherny
returned to original amendment.
noted that a great number of staff, who do not get Spring break off, would
appreciate getting Friday off.
did not think we should be giving up holidays and did not support this.
proposed a friendly amendment to restore Presidents’ Day holiday by placing
Chavez Day during Spring Break.
ruled the amendment out of order.
did not like the idea of giving up holidays, and did not support folding in
the Chavez holiday into spring break.
reasoned that as he was already overworked and underpaid, he did not support
anything that would make him more so.
Amendment not approved.
The proposed original
Calendar from APC was approved with two dissents.
AGENDA ITEM #11
— RECOMMENDATION from the ACADEMIC POLICIES COMMITTEE - PROPOSED
POLICY on PRINCIPLES and PROCEDURES REGARDING the GRADUATE ADMISSION of STUDENTS
with THREE-YEAR BACHELOR’S DEGREES - a consent item - 1st &
Meredith Steier m/s
APC Chair Meredith
noted that a small number of international students come to us with three
years rather than four years of baccalaureate study. Some have three years
of college but after 5 years of high school, the British model, which are
covered under clause one; others have three years of university study, but
not 12 years of previous education, the Indian model was given as an example.
In the past these students
have been denied admission without an additional year of undergraduate study.
Beginning with clause
6 in the proposal was a new idea that some colleges might propose programs
with cohorts for students with 3-year BAs. An alternative was to have a bridge
program and students admitted individually. These procedures have been used
in the past and this was an attempt to regularize them.
offered an example of a graduate student from Germany who experienced difficulty here since their undergraduate
university study was only for three years. She thought it wise to make the
process easier, and expressed thanks to the committee for their work.
had concerns over the role of faculty in curriculum design, in particular
with respect to clause 6, the formal bridge program. He noted that the College of Business was considering a proposal to recruit
two cohorts of 80 students as a self support program and that this might not
be going through curriculum review committee and CRAC and that faculty might
be giving up their voice in these movements.
responded that the program would in fact have to go through curriculum committee
as it would be a credential program.
asked for some language clarification in paragraph 6.
responded that the phrasing was just a literary device and had no ulterior
Jerris, Steier m/s/p
with one dissent
to second reading.
The policy was approved
with one dissent.
AGENDA ITEM #13
- RECOMMENDATION from the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - PROPOSED ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING SCHEDULE FOR
Fall 2004 - a consent item - 1st & 2nd reading
Garcia, Meredith m/s/p
The schedule passed by
AGENDA ITEM #14
- RECOMMENDATION from the STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE - PROPOSED
RESOLUTION on the BAN on SMOKING on SFSU CAMPUS - a consent item
- 1st & 2nd reading
Gerson, Vaughn m/s/p
noted the resolution came to the senate after lengthy discussion in committee,
which had spent a great deal of time looking at all possibilities. The thirty
foot rule was not being respected, and there was no way to avoid smokers -
the only solution was to confine them.
Senator Houlberg proposed
a series of friendly amendments changing five words: in “whereas” clause line
10 replace “cigarette companies” with “tobacco companies”, change “advertising
to addict” “advertising to entice,” line 11 change “smoking” to “smoke” and
on line 15 eliminate “and addict.”
asked how far away the “confinement areas” would be from the main campus buildings.
expressed concern about a confinement area. The center of the quad had a small
spot near the Humanities building, but otherwise they were far flung.
thought that an accommodation could be arranged.
indicated that while not a smoker, she understand issue but was uncomfortable
with potential ostracization of campus members and the potential that more
students would be late to class etc.
noted the extreme health issues that endangered non-smokers. The proposed
restriction was a good idea, and would make life better all around. This is
an expensive and difficult habit.
stated that smoking research suggested that raising the behavioral cost and
diminishing the opportunity window meant a decline in the behavior.
indicated that he would support a complete ban, but was in favor of the present
was in favor, but also noted staff and faculty near buildings who do not currently
adhere to the thirty foot rule.
is not a smoker but recognized the danger and respected the ideas of the committee,
and related a story from another campus that built a structure for smokers
and the solution was ineffective. Students still smoked everywhere. This would
be a transitional measure but would not have perfect results.
asked how this would be enforced and who will take responsibility.
Jerris Meredith m/s/p
desired to make a preemptive strike, that no smoking containment area be created
near the Humanities building.
noted that this was a resolution and not policy.
The resolution passed
with 2 abstentions and with dissent.
AGENDA ITEM #15
- RECOMMENDATION from the STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE - PROPOSED RESOLUTION
on the HIGH COST of TEXTBOOKS - a consent item - 1st & 2nd reading
Gerson, Vaughn m/s/p
Gerson indicated that some of the data
listed came from Associated Students, public research groups, and activity
in the legislature. She commented on the high price of textbooks, and that
this was an attempt to control textbook prices, by limiting ancillary but
unneeded extras to the books.
Resolution passed by
AGENDA ITEM #16
- ADJOURNMENT - 4:45 p.m.