San Francisco State University Academic Senate

Minutes of April 27, 1999

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

Senate Members Present:

Aaron, Eunice; Alvarez, Alvin; Barnes, Paul; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein,

Marian; Bhat, Subodh; Cancino, Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn; Cherny, Robert; Collier,

James; Consoli, Andres; Craig, JoAnn; Cullers, Susan; Duke, Jerry; Eisman, Gerald;

Elia, John; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Goldsmith, Helen; Gonzales, Angela; Graham,

Michael; Graham, Minnie; Harnly, Caroline; Haw, Mary Ann; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung;

Jenkins, Lee; Jerris, Scott; Johnson, Dane; La Belle, Thomas; Moss, Joanna;

Oñate, Abdiel; Phillips, Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Scoble, Don; Shapiro,

Jerald; Shrivastava, Vinay; Simeon, Roblyn; Smith, Miriam; Swanson, Deborah;

Terrell, Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Valledares, Juan; Vaughn, Pamela; Verhey, Marilyn;

Wade, Patricia; Warren, Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope; Wong, Alfred; Yee, Darlene

Senate Members Absent: Kelley, James(exc.); Fehrman, Ken(exc.);

Contreras, Rey; Ferretti, Charlotte; Strong, Rob(exc.); Choo, Freddie; Tarakji,

Ghassan; Flowers, Will; Gregory, Jan(exc.); Corrigan, Robert(exc.); Montenegro,

Ricardo; Vega, Sandra.

Senate Interns Present:

Guests: S. Taylor, G. West, E. Zwillinger, D. Schafer, G. Whitaker,

J. Kassiola, D. Harris, V. Lane, C. Colvin, J. Volkert, G. Stowers, J. van Keulen,

D. Hunt, J. Davis, J. Millsapps.

Announcements and Report

Chair’s Report

  • Chair Phillips announced the results of the Academic Senate University-Wide

    elections. Academic Affirmative Action Committee: Yu-Charn Chen (Design and

    Industry), M.A. Jaimes*Guerrero (Women Studies), Hafez Modirzadeh (Music).

    Academic Freedom Committee: William Hsu (Computer Science). Athletic Advisory

    Board: Joshua Habermann (Music). Honorary Degree Committee: Elisabetta Nelsen

    (Foreign Languages), Frances McGowan (Records & Registration). Senator

    At-large: Midori McKeon (Foreign Languages), Alvin Alvarez (Counseling). University

    Advancement Activities Advisory Committee: Darlene Yee (Gerontology), Roberto

    Rivera (La Raza Studies), David Hemphill (Administrative & Interdisciplinary

    Studies), Maxine Chernoff (Creative Writing). University Promotions Committee:

    Larry Medcalf (Speech & Communication Studies), John Stubbs (Biology),

    Tommie Sellers (Elementary Education). University Written English Proficiency

    Committee: Cliff Berkman (Chemistry & Biochemistry).

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for April 27, 1999

The agenda was approved as printed.

Agenda Item #2 -- Approval of Minutes for April 13, 1999

Robert Cherny commended Secretary Johnson on catching the spirit

of the meeting that he had to miss two weeks ago.

The minutes were approved as printed.

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

Provost La Belle reviewed the many things that we accomplished at SFSU this

year. He commended the Academic Senate for acting on myriad curricular proposals

and revisions, and he noted items that had been approved: guidelines for the

fifth cycle of Academic Program Review; policy for offering existing SFSU degrees

via the College of Extended Learning; timely declaration of major policy; the

new University Advancement Activities Advisory Committee; the restructured Committee

on Multicultural Perspectives in the Curriculum. He added that it is largely

because of the cooperation between Academic Affairs and the Senate that we can

make progress in our academic efforts.

La Belle also summarized developments in advising, including the following:

advising plans for the colleges with outcomes like the Advising and Student

Services Center in the College of Business and an on-line advising course in

the College of Health and Human Services; an electronic planner from Undergraduate

Studies; and a system to implement advising at the five pivotal points.

La Belle summarized accomplishments in remediation, including the following:

every student who needed to be diagnosed through testing was tested, and nearly

every student who needed to enroll in a remedial course did; the pass rate in

these courses is higher than most CSU campuses because of a variety of extra

efforts; Math 60 has been especially successful, utilizing a distance education

course developed under the leadership of Sheldon Axler. The Remediation Task

Force coordinated these efforts.

La Belle outlined initiatives to increase the number of well-prepared new teachers

in the state, including new summer courses, augmentation to eliminate "bottleneck"

courses in Liberal Studies, a four-year integrated program in teacher education,

and a new Teacher Preparation Resource Center.

With regard to International Programs, SFSU broke campus and CSU records for

Study Abroad, 10 grants were made for faculty international curriculum development,

6 faculty and students received Fulbright fellowships, and our international

student enrollment continues to increase.

On multiculturalism, 16 faculty proposals received funding for the development

or revision of courses, workshops, and instruction in multiculturalism.

SFSU has also been extending into the community through off-campus sites with

Weekend College growing, more experiments with year-round operations and a number

of off-campus courses via distance learning. Other initiatives include offering

the Criminal Justice Program at the police academy; offering Ethics in Medicine

in a hospital setting; and teaching Ethnic Studies course at community college

locations. A campus task force is studying implications of a new Downtown Campus.

In other developments, an Academic Assessment Office has been established,

which has sponsored assessment workshops, helped departments develop assessment

plans, funded 18 faculty proposals in this area, and began the PULSE program

to survey the campus on selected issues. Good progress has been made in the

evaluation of teaching. The Center for the Enhancement of Teaching continues

to provide workshops aimed at helping faculty improve their teaching skills

and make better use of technology in teaching while administering the Technology

Enhanced Course Delivery Initiative. In the area of professional development,

faculty travel to professional conferences continues to be supported, the "Refresh"

initiative will provide $750,000 to purchase new computers or upgrades for faculty,

and the importance of lecturers to campus is being reinforced. All candidates

for the Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development have been interviewed.

La Belle added that 33 classrooms have been renovated, as well as some Ethnic

Studies and Social Work faculty offices. A new collaborative computer lab for

three colleges was established, and tutorial space for several related offices

was centralized in the HHS building.

Implementation of the university's strategic plan (CUSP) is underway, and most

of the CUSP priorities are Cornerstones priorities as well.

La Belle also mentioned the SFSU centennial celebrations and this year's Celebration

of Faculty Service. He ended on an ode to Mark Phillips, who has done an amazing

job for three years as Senate Chair, remaining in good humor, in control, and

in reasonably sound mind.

Agenda Item #4 -- Elections

Midori McKeon (Foreign Languages) was elected by acclamation to the

All-University Teacher Education Committee.

Miriam Smith (BECA)was elected to the All-University Committee on

International Programs.

Agenda Item #5 -- Proposed Revision to A.S. Policy #S81-18 Leaves with Pay

Chair Phillips introduced this discussion item from the Faculty Affairs

Committee. It comes as a discussion item rather than an action item because

there are important issues to discuss without a sense of positionality, openly

discussing the issues, which will inform the Faculty Affairs and Executive Committees

to come back to the Senate with something as close to consensus as we can get.

Marlon Hom, chair of Faculty Affairs Committee, provided background

by suggesting that everyone look back at his introduction to the Leaves with

Pay issue on pages 8-9 of the April 13, 1999, Senate Minutes. There are two

options, centered on the issue of principle of distribution: 1) recommend no

changes and make sure that the college committees and administration implement

the current policy in good faith; 2) revise the principles of distribution to

reflect the changes and dysfunctionality of the current policy. There is concern

in terms of faculty with joint appointments. He also asked for consideration

of a university faculty committee, parallel to the promotions committee, so

that applications will be reviewed by a faculty group. He suggested framing

the discussion with the question of whether leaves should be based solely on

merit.

Phillips asked first for questions of clarification.

Cherny asked if the proposal for the new committee is part of option

B and asked for further explanation of the difference between A & B.

Hom said, first, that the committee proposal is separate as it focuses on process.

He added that option A is basically the old policy with minor revisions to reflect

the current funding structure. Option B is a revision, removing the college

committees' allocation; there is in longer a set distribution at the college

level with the leaves processed through college recommendations and the final

word on distribution from the President's office.

Phillips added that he understand Option A to be similar to the policy as it

existed before but not reflecting the actual practice in recent years. Option

B is not the same as the practice of recent years but it comes closer to actual

practice of recent years. A university committee on sabbatical leave could be

passed as part of option B or not.

Darlene Yee spoke in favor of Option B, describing it as concise and

easy to understand. She suggested that the chair of a university wide sabbatical

leave committee report to the Senate rather than the President.

Mitch Turitz spoke in response to Darlene's recommendation, suggesting

that since the awarding comes from the President, technically it should come

from the President.

Cherny noted that both options A & B suggest awards on "an ethical and

representative basis"; he asked why this was added and what does it mean. Hom

replied that in 1994 or 1995, the library was not granted a leave, so they tried

to write this to have unit representation in the granting process. Phillips

added that this is the opportunity to make suggestions for change fed in to

the process.

Caroline Harnly spoke on behalf of the original option because the people

who know best which are appropriate sabbatical leaves for the department arise

out of the college themselves.

Vice President La Belle remarked that many of us coming from Research

1 universities are used to sabbaticals as an entitlement, which makes it easier

to plan curricular and instructional loads. Where you have a competitive basis

for sabbaticals with 31 allocated now and 55-60 applications per cycle, it is

very difficult for departments and colleges to plan. Given the demand, it is

difficult to know how to allocate them. Option A allocates to units irrespective

of merit. Option B takes the principle of equitable distribution without the

guarantee, also establishing a committee for oversight, which is an important

dimension.

Hom reminded senators that two decades ago there was a university committee

on sabbatical leave and that the current policy was a new policy twenty years

ago. We have to realize that some colleges are not following the policy, not

using the criteria that are specifically laid out, resulting in the policy being

changed unilaterally, which makes saying the current policy is okay unrealistic.

Sabbatical leave is a major resource issue concerning faculty welfare, so we

need faculty oversight.

Patty Bartscher, University Counsel, provided some history. Originally

the Chancellor gave money especially for sabbatical leave that the university

had to use for that purpose, which was allocated across the colleges. The Chancellor

eliminated the funding, and the money was allocated to each college from the

Vice-President's office with the old policy still applying, which meant that

each college had to give the minimum but could give more than the minimum. Certain

colleges did not want to give their minimum because it was a tax, so a bizarre

situation occurred where other colleges had to pick up the sabbaticals. The

deans agreed that funding for sabbaticals would go back to Academic Affairs,

the policy of equitable distribution would no longer apply, and they would no

longer be taxed.

Phillips offered a perspective from his time as departmental chair. Even though

he did not approve of the way in which the change was made--to essentially not

follow policy anymore--in practice it benefited them more than it hurt. He added

that he leans toward Option B if it includes the university committee. An argument

against it in terms of work load is valid, but the trade-off in terms of protection

and dialogue with those who make the final decision is the payoff. The other

argument against the university-wide committee is that it is difficult to have

faculty from one program making decision on another, but experience with other

university-wide committees suggest otherwise.

Gerald West, Dean of Faculty Affairs, spoke to correct a couple of points.

One is that this policy was brought to the Senate in 1994, and the Senate chose

not to work on it. The second is that there are horrible stories that resulted

from the ways that college and departments interpreted their role. He has heard

from faculty who were discouraged from applying and then heard from deans who

would say that there were no applicants. He concluded that Option B offers the

best solution to this problem.

Pamela Vaughn spoke in favor of Option B as long as it has a university-wide

committee for review. This is far too important an issue for us not to participate.

Phillips added that we can feed additional comments to Marlon as chair of FAC

or to Mark and the Executive Committee. He added that he agreed with Gerry's

comment: enough, let's move to action.

Agenda Item #6 -- Proposal for Revisions to the School Psychology Graduate

Program

Curriculum Review and Approval Committee Chair Alfred Wong introduced

the proposed revisions to the School Psychology Graduate Program and Diane Harris

from the program to answer questions.

Helen Goldsmith said that this proposal appears to be in violation of

the CEL policy concerning existing programs. It sounds like we are discontinuing

the possibility of doing the credential part through the general fund, and the

CEL policy says that if the existing general fund program is to be discontinued

or suspended, the department must follow the Senate policy on program discontinuation

to grant an opportunity for the campus community to assess its full impact.

Is this what is happening?

Vera Lane, Associate Dean of the College of Education, replied that in the

discussions of the CEL policy it was her understanding that it referred to degree

programs and not credentials. Goldsmith answered that the policy refers to all.

Diane Harris responded that we are not discontinuing the credential program

for our students in the master's program but extending the opportunity so that

more than the School Psychology program master's students will be able to enroll

in the credential program.

Yee also responded to Helen's question, providing perspective from last

year's CRAC, and suggesting that this is not a discontinuance but an alternative

mechanism. She added that the Psychology Department is demonstrating good creativity

and financial resourcefulness. While CEL is an alternative mechanism, she has

concerns with issues of academic quality, differential tuition, and faculty

workload.

Harris replied that we have taken into consideration all three of the issues.

Although the credential program will be offered through CEL, the School Psychology

program and the Psychology Department will control all decisions that are made.

The School Psychology program is also governed by two external entities.

Vaughn returned to Helen's question, stating that it is her understanding

that there will be no School Psychology Internship Credential Program offered

as a general fund program. Page 7 says that "Due to limited resources the Psychology

Department is not able to continue to offer a 24 unit School Psychology Internship

Credential Program. However, to facilitate the growth of the profession while

minimizing the resource burden on the department, the Credential Internship

Program will be offered through the College of Extended Learning."

Diane Harris said that this is not her understanding of this proposal. You

are reading that correctly, but we are not closing the internship program, but

it will only be offered through CEL.

Jo Volkert, Associate Dean of the College of Extended Learning, added that

we tried to avoid being in violation of the policy because the way we interpreted

it is that since the component going to CEL is the credential only, the policy

did not apply.

Goldsmith read from the first line of the CEL policy to clarify: "Schools/departments/programs

(simply referred to as departments henceforth) may offer existing degrees/credentials/certificate

programs (simply referred to as degree programs henceforth) through the College

of Extended Learning upon approval by the appropriate units as outlined in this

policy." She added that it was always intended to cover all of those items and

not to disallow students to be able to go through general fund programs.

Cherny asked Volkert if there are any credential programs offered solely

through CEL. Volkert responded that there are, but they have partners that are

offered in the general fund program.

Lane added that when we were talking about this last year, the intent was that

our resident students would be able to get the credential through the regular

program, and the intern program is for people who are hired by school districts

to teach. We have a lot of people who have master's degrees in other areas who

could add this credential.

Goldsmith wanted to make sure that a student going through our on-campus program

would be able to go through the entire three year program without going through

CEL. Diane Harris responded that our students would go through the three-year

program.

M/S/P (P. Warren, Vaughn) to return to committee to clarify whether this fits

the CEL policy.

Harris asked Vera Lane to make a statement before it returns to committee.

Lane spoke to the issue of credentials, which must go through the University

Teacher Credential Committee and then the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

Our discontinuance policy might not refer to credentials. The university is

not in a position to approve the credential, and the final approval for discontinuance

is the commission.

Chair Phillips asked for a point of clarification. The Teacher Credential Committee

and the commission have the final word on discontinuance, but the issue here

seems to be the relationship between what is offered through CEL and what is

offered in the regular program. Phillips added that there is a gray area, and

if he's confused there must be one other person. Given that we are operating

in new territory, we need to make sure that we do it as cleanly as possible.

P. Warren spoke to her motion, stating that even if we are able to satisfy

in our minds today that this is not going to be in violation of policy that

we have established for CEL, we are doing something that might be precedent

for later proposals. For that reason, she suggested that we take care that the

wording we propose is consistent with our policy. She added that she did not

want to vote against this proposal just because of the ambiguity.

Dawn Terrell addressed the concern about this level of confusion because she

knows that the School Psychology program will continue to exist; it is a very

popular field and there is a huge need. This proposal is a solution so that

we continue the program through both for general fund students and also offer

this separate piece. Terrell added that this is an important proposal and program,

and she wanted to avoid point where this confusion would make it possible to

not support the proposal.

Marian Bernstein stated that it is very important that this go back

to the committee, and the committee be very aware of the fact that APC spent

a lot of time on this issue of the relationship between a CEL program to an

existing on-campus program; thus, not only the intent but the language needs

to be crystal clear.

Cherny suggested that the committee take up work-load levels. By shifting the

internship course to CEL, the most expensive part of the program has been taken

out of the general fund. He added that he wanted to be certain that by shifting

this course to CEL we would not lose work-load protection.

M/S/P (Turitz, Vaughn) to close debate on the motion.

A vote was taken on the motion to return this proposal to committee, and the

motion passed. The proposal will be returned to committee.

Chair Phillips added the comment that he heard a favorable response about the

proposal but some confusion around what is taking place in the new policy around

CEL. There are concerns with regard to how that policy will be used, how CEL

relates to the regular programs, and this may be the first test case. It needs

to come back to us to help us understand and to make sure that this is clean

relative to the CEL policy.

Agenda Item #7 -- Proposal for Revisions to the Master in Public Administration

Alfred Wong introduced this consent item from CRAC.

M/S/P (Vaughn, Hom) to second reading.

M/S/P (Vaughn, Hom) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #8 -- Proposal for a Certificate Program in Interdisciplinary Digital

Arts

Alfred Wong introduced this consent item from CRAC.

Sung Hu commented that this is a much needed program, but he voiced

a concern that it is so exclusive in being limited to students within the College

(of Creative Arts) and to students with a very high gpa. They include a large

number of courses, which will have the effect of making these less available

to other students. He supports the proposal but suggests that the college consider

adding additional sections.

M/S/P (Duke, Barnes) to second reading.

M/S/P (Duke, Barnes) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #9 -- Proposal to Establish the University Academic Assessment

Advisory Committee

Chair of the Academic Policies Committee Helen Goldsmith introduced

this proposal to establish the University Academic Assessment Advisory Committee.

This proposal comes out of the work of the Ad Hoc Academic Assessment Committee.

M/S/P (Duke, Barnes) to second reading.

M/S/P (Barnes, Shrivastava) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal passed with no dissent. (To view

this policy, click here.)

The Senate was adjourned at 3:40.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty