ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

TUESDAY,

APRIL 27, 2004

Senate Members Present:

Alvarez,

Alvin

Gerson,

Deborah

Nichols,

Amy

Avila,

Guadalupe

Gonzales,

Dan

Noble,

Nancy

Bernard-Powers,

Jane

Gregory,

Jan

Palmer,

Pete

Bernstein,

Marian

Guerrero,

Jaimes

Pong,

Wenshen

Bohannon,

Tara

Heiman,

Bruce

Rocchio,

Jean

Boyle,

Andrea

Hom,

Marlon

Scoble,

Don

Carrington,

Christopher

Houlberg,

Rick

Shrivastava,

Vinay

Chelberg,

Gene

Irvine,

Patricia

Smith,

Brett

Chen,

Yu Charn

Jerris,

Scott

Steier,

Saul

Cherny,

Robert

Kassiola,

Joel

Stowers,

Genie

Colvin,

Caran

Klironomos,

Martha

Suzuki,

Dean

Contreras,

A. Reynaldo

Langbort,

Carol

Terrell,

Dawn

Daniels,

Robert

Liou,

Shy-Shenq

Ulasewicz,

Connie

Edwards,

James

Mak,

Brenda

Van

Dam, Mary Ann

Fung,

Robert

McKeon,

Midori

Vaughn,

Pamela

Garcia,

Oswaldo

Meredith,

David

Williams,

Robert

Gemello,

John

Morishita,

Leroy

Yang,

Nini

Absent:

Aaron, Eunice (excused); Bartscher, Patricia (excused);

Batista, Natalie; Otero, Ania J.; Smith, Miriam (excused)

Visitors:

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

p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

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.

CHAIR’S REPORT

Chair Edwards

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.

Carrington, Shrivastava,

m/s/p

AGENDA ITEM #2

- APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR April

13, 2004

Houlberg, Palmer m/s/p

AGENDA ITEM #3

-REPORT—PRESIDENT CORRIGAN & PROVOST & VICE PRESIDENT for ACADEMIC

AFFAIRS JOHN M. GEMELLO -MEETING THE BUDGET DEFICIT

Chair Edwards

introduced President Corrigan and Provost Gemello who had come

to the senate to talk about the campus budget situation.

President Corrigan

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

President Corrigan

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.

President Corrigan

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.

Provost Gemello

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.

Senator Heiman

asked if there was any more news about the “May revise” budget.

President Corrigan

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.

Senator Ulasewicz

asked if there was any more news about consolidating the Colleges.

Provost Gemello

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

campus.

Senator Bernard-Powers

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.

President Corrigan

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.

President Corrigan

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.

President Corrigan

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

serious decisions.

Senator Daniels

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?

Provost Gemello

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.

President Corrigan

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.

Senator Suzuki

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?

Provost Gemello

indicated that some programs were small or perhaps “inefficient” but it was

still necessary to look for money wherever it could be found.

President Corrigan

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

and Provost.

Chair Edwards

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

etc.

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

system.

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

the coalition.

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

- ELECTIONS

[This agenda item took

place concurrently over the next series of senate agenda items.]

Election results were

as follows:

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”

Gregory, Williams

m/s/p

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 CAÑADA 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 Cañada 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 Cañada 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

Senator Avila

supports having students on the Grade Appeal Committee.

Senator Jerris

moved to postpone discussion to May 11, Chelberg second.

Senator Jerris

noted that the proposal had some legal issues and required University Counsel

and suggested seeking such from University Counsel Bartscher.

Senator Vaughn

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

Chair Edwards

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

Meredith Ulasewicz

m/s

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

Chavez day.

Senator Vaughn

asked why spring break came in the 10th week.

Senator Gerson

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

pattern.

Jerris, Houlberg m/s/p

to second reading.

Senator Bernstein

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.

Senator Stowers

suggested that the more important issue involved children, and this meant

the necessity of finding childcare during public school break.

Senator Vaughn

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.

Senator Ulasewicz

considered every possible combination.

Cherny, Steier

move to consider moving spring break to the week that included the Chavez

holiday.

Meredith proposed an additional amendment,

to having break begin the Friday before Chavez Day (making 10 days total.)

Senator Langbort

asked about the history of swapping President’s Day for Chavez Day.

Senator Ulasewicz

asked how this is saving a Friday.

State Senator Cherny

suggested voting down the amendment then recommending a change to President’s

Day.

Senator Morishita

noted that Presidents’ Day had been moved to Christmas break.

Amended amendment not

approved.

State Senator Cherny

returned to original amendment.

Senator Chelberg

noted that a great number of staff, who do not get Spring break off, would

appreciate getting Friday off.

Senator Terrell

did not think we should be giving up holidays and did not support this.

Senator Carrington

proposed a friendly amendment to restore Presidents’ Day holiday by placing

Chavez Day during Spring Break.

Chair Edwards

ruled the amendment out of order.

Senator Avila

did not like the idea of giving up holidays, and did not support folding in

the Chavez holiday into spring break.

Senator Steier

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 &

2nd reading

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.

Senator McKeon

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.

Senator Daniels

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.

Dean Whitaker

responded that the program would in fact have to go through curriculum committee

as it would be a credential program.

Senator Daniels

asked for some language clarification in paragraph 6.

Senator Meredith

responded that the phrasing was just a literary device and had no ulterior

meaning.

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

general consent.

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    

Senator Gerson

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.”

Senator Steier

asked how far away the “confinement areas” would be from the main campus buildings.

Senator Morishita

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.

Senator Chelberg

thought that an accommodation could be arranged.

Senator Ulasewicz

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.

Senator Houlberg

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.

Senator Gerson

stated that smoking research suggested that raising the behavioral cost and

diminishing the opportunity window meant a decline in the behavior.

Senator Jerris

indicated that he would support a complete ban, but was in favor of the present

resolution.

Senator Bernard-Powers

was in favor, but also noted staff and faculty near buildings who do not currently

adhere to the thirty foot rule.

Senator Heiman

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.

Senator Ulasewicz

asked how this would be enforced and who will take responsibility.

Jerris Meredith m/s/p

second reading

Senator McKeon

desired to make a preemptive strike, that no smoking containment area be created

near the Humanities building.

Senator Vaughn

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

general consent.

AGENDA ITEM #16

- ADJOURNMENT - 4:45 p.m.