Minutes: May 8th, 2001

Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting

of  May 08, 2001

 

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

Senate Members Present:

Senate Members Absent:

Senate Interns Present:

Guests:           Allen Green, Kyle Knoble, Michail Wilson, Christopher

Novak, Isabel

                     Valnerde

Announcements and Report

CHAIR'S REPORT

Chair Pamela Vaughn summarized some off-the-agenda items of momentary

and local importance for academic senators.

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for May 8, 2001

Vaughn corrected Item #11, noting that it is not a consent item.

Robert Cherny moved an addition to the agenda, adding a resolution thanking

Dean Kelley for all his contributions to the academic senate.

The agenda was approved as corrected and amended.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for April 24, 2001

The minutes were approved as corrected to acknowledge Robert Williams'

presence and with thanks to Jan Gregory for her work as substitute Secretary.

Agenda Item #3 - Elections

Franciscan Shops Board of Directors

Gina Castro (Library) was elected.

University Budget Committee

Robert Daniels (Accounting) was elected by acclamation.

Alumni Association Board

Charles Egan (Foreign Languages & Literatures) was elected by acclamation.

General Education Committee:

GE Segment I - Basic Subjects Committee

Rudolph Busby (Speech and Communication) was elected.

Agenda Item #4 - Proposed Resolution in Support of the May 16-17 Mobilization

to Reverse the Ban on Affirmative Action in the University of California System

Mitch Turitz introduced this proposed resolution. Vaughn added that

there has been a great deal of support for this among students, the legislature,

and more broadly. Jan Gregory noted that CTA has also expressed public

support, and she encouraged us to be on record doing the same.

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

The vote was taken and the resolution passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Resolution on New Independent Doctoral Programs

in the CSU

M/S/P (Gregory, Steier) to adopt this resolution.

Gregory first clarified that this has nothing to do with currently existing

or proposed joint-doctoral programs. Gregory summarized the rationales

for opposition to new independent doctoral programs as stated in the resolution.

Robert Cherny spoke in agreement and emphasized the language of the resolve

clauses on the second page of the resolution, noting that these do not

oppose all doctoral programs forever but instead oppose implementing new,

free-standing doctoral programs in the absence of additional programs.

Thomas La Belle also spoke in favor of this resolution but added that there

are some master’s programs where accrediting organizations are suddenly requiring

professional doctorate degrees for entry into the profession.

Vaughn added that the Executive Committee was trying to further contextualize

many of the concerns raised on the floor of the senate during the discussion

of the Ed.D. She assured all that Deans Perea and Hemphill were notified

of this. She added further= that this resolution should not be seen

as lack of support for future Ed.D.’s or for the joint doctoral program, but

that it is our way of going on record as saying that we don’t want one more

thing to do without the necessary funding.

Gregory suggested, with regard to La Belle's comment, that these degrees might

be done as joint degrees.

Marcia Raggio, speaking as a faculty member in audiology, commented that they

have been trying to develop a joint degree with UC for the past decade in

response to pressure from their national accrediting agency to provide the

professional doctoral degree.

M/S/P (Hu, Edwards) to second reading.

The vote was taken and the resolution passed without dissent.

Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Statement of Concern Regarding the Leadership

of Chancellor Charles B. Reed

Chair Vaughn prefaced this discussion item by reviewing other campuses recent

votes of no confidence. In light of these actions and on-going concerns,

the Executive Committee crafted this proposed statement for discussion and

brief comment today, constituent feedback, and then the intent to bring this

to a vote at our meeting next Tuesday. She added that the President

has been advised and that this statement is not a reflection on the leadership

on this campus nor an attempt to create difficulty for SFSU, but rather reflects

the feelings of at least the executive committee that we have made little

progress on working collegially with the chancellor.

La Belle commented generally that this is well-written and raises important

issues, and added additional examples like the quarter- system conversion.

He raised a question of confusion about the wording of the last paragraph

and the bold statement above it: is it a statement of no confidence

or not?

Vaughn replied that, while “no confidence" may be the accepted legislative

term, what we were attempting to express is that the chancellor could have

had us but lost us.

Dan Fendel added two things to consider: 1) in recent bargaining the CSU bargaining

team asserted that they have no intention to seek an end to the CPEC salary

gap; 2) last month the PERB board issued a complaint against the trustees

of the CSU who "failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith"

and “this conduct interfered with rights of bargaining with employees.”

He also suggested making this resolution available electronically.

Steier responded to the provost suggesting removing the bold statement and

possibly adding “to which we now add our voice” to the end of the first sentence

of the last paragraph.

Cherny hoped that all take seriously the call to consult with colleagues,

given that there has been criticism of the votes of no confidence on the grounds

that academic senates may not be representative of the faculty. He added

a concern: our chancellor's lack of success in getting money from the legislature;

he has consistently gotten a smaller percentage increase for us than the UC

and a smaller percentage increase than the state budget, so our share of the

state budget has gone down.

Gregory called attention to the emphasis on the inability of the chancellor’s

office to develop consensus and to consult with faculty. The model is

not only top down; it treats faculty as if they were insignificant players

in the academy.

Vaughn urged all again to read, share, discuss, and send suggestions via email,

prior to a vote next Tuesday.

Agenda Item #7 - Proposed Academic Senate Policy on Annual "Faculty

Development" Days

Executive Committee Vice-Chair Helen Goldsmith introduced this consent item

from the Executive Committee, noting, first, that we currently have two policies

regarding faculty development. The Asilomar program committee revisited

these policies and considered how things might be done differently.

The proposal preserves the possibility of future off-campus retreats like

Asilomar while providing flexibility for new faculty development programs

as well as opportunities for colleges and programs to develop their own faculty

development programs.

M/S/P (Vaughn, Aaron) to approve this policy.

James Edwards has asked if this were "back to the future" where

the Senate did Asilomar and the Colleges did something in off years.

Vaughn replied that this is more or less what is being proposed.

Gail Whitaker recalled moving to the current policy from the proposed model

with the thinking that there were faculty members who can’t afford to go off

campus for a retreat.

Goldsmith responded that this has more flexibility than the previous version.

Vaughn added that the real distinction is that between senate responsibility

in alternate years and college/department based responsibility in the other

years.

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

M/S/P (Steier, Hu) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the policy was approved unanimously.

Vaughn gave special thanks to the Asilomar planning committee and, especially,

Chair Helen Goldsmith.

Agenda Item #8 - Proposal on Intellectual Property Policy and Procedures

for the Development of Online Instructional Materials

Chair of the Academic Policies Committee (APC) Sung Hu introduced this APC

consent item, noting that it originated from the Education Technology Advisory

Committee and was further revised in a joint sub-committee of APC and the

Faculty Affairs Committee.

Mitch Turitz raised concerns, particularly regarding wording like "works

made for hire," "extraordinary." He would like to see

some parts of this re-worded and suggested re-introducing this next week so

that all wording concerns could be addressed.

Vaughn said we could take comments and suggestions from the senate today,

collect them over email and distribute to APC members.

Hu agreed this could work but urged people to restrict their suggestions to

specific language changes rather than just general statements of dislike.

Cherny added that if we do not move it to second reading it comes back next

meeting.

Gregory supported doing the fine-tuning through suggestions to APC.

James Kelley asked if sabbatical leaves would be considered as "extraordinary".

Hu answered that in the San Diego policy sabbatical leave is professional

development so it is excluded. Vaughn suggested APC consider specific

language excluding sabbaticals from that category.

Turitz made reference to the memorandum from Mark Smith of the AAUP where

he made a large number of specific language suggestions and additions that

Turitz read for the senate.

Sharon Johnson noted that this policy raised many questions since all of her

classes are either on-line or web-enhanced. She offered a number of

examples of types of material that might or might not be copyrightable.

She concluded that she has a lot of confusion about this policy.

Hu responded that all of the materials she mentioned that she developed for

her classes belong to her.

Cherny agreed with Hu unless you and your dean agree that those things

are not yours. Looking at the end of the policy, the notion of "extraordinary

resources" gets translated into a written agreement.

Gregory suggested that, give that this type of question is coming up on the

senate floor, it would be extremely helpful to develop a handout on what is

normally accepted as property of the faculty member.

Vaughn suggested that if you have questions, concerns, or suggestions for

specific language after reading this proposed policy carefully from beginning

to end you send those questions and concerns electronically to Sung Hu no

later than Thursday, 5:00pm.

Marlon Hom suggested that people be aware of the CET copyright clause.

Marian Bernstein urged people to please remember that this policy is only

for online materials--it is not broader than that.

Special Agenda Item in Honor of Dean James Kelley

M/S/P (Cherny, Steier) the following resolution:

Whereas Dean James Kelley has been a longtime and faithful member of the Academic

Senate SFSU and a valued contributor to its discussions; and

Whereas Dean James Kelley is retiring from a long and successful career as

dean of Science and Engineering; therefore, be it

Resolved that the Academic Senate SFSU thank Dean Kelley for his many services

to the senate, wish him well in all his future endeavors, and invite him to

join us time to time in future meetings as our guest.

This resolution was approved by acclamation.

Dean James Kelley recalled an anecdote about the eternal recurrence of plus/minus

grading discussions in academic senates and thanked the senate for its honor.

Vaughn made a general statement prior to the following agenda items related

to program discontinuance. She took this opportunity to remind all assembled

about the importance of following policy. It is the obligation of the

Senate to see that policy is followed in this and all matters of policy.

All approved policies represent a commitment by faculty and administration

to support and uphold the procedures contained in each one. To do otherwise

would be an abrogation of our responsibilities to this campus and to shared

governance. Program discontinuance is a difficult process for all involved.

It is important for those who are here now and for those who may come here

in the future to remember that the review by the Educational Policies Council

and the Academic Senate is not pro forma. Such review is an integral

part of the process, and no steps toward de facto discontinuance should

be taken prior to receiving the approval provided by the appropriate governance

bodies.

Agenda Item #9 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Master of Science Degree

in Taxation

Hu, Chair of the Education Policies Council (EPC), made a prefatory comment

before introducing the three discontinuance proposals. He noted that

EPC followed the policy with care.

The first discontinuance is a consent item from EPC.

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

M/S/P (Edwards, Steier) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the discontinuance was approved without dissent.

Agenda Item #10 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Minor in Positive Health,

Fitness and Leisure

Hu introduced this item briefly, another consent item from EPC.

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

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.

Agenda Item #11 - Proposed Discontinuance of Master of Arts in Creative

Arts: Concentration in Interdisciplinary Arts and Concentration in Creativity

and Arts Education

Hu introduced this item from EPC—a recommendation but not a consent item.

M/S/P (Duke, Edwards) an amendment to the proposal (handed out at the meeting).

Jerry Duke spoke in favor of and explained the amendment, which relates to

p.4 of the proposal, and which proposes that the College of Creative Arts

continue to offer IAC 300, IAC 301, IAC 380, and IAC 426 after the MA is phased

out and under a “CA” prefix.

Goldsmith expressed several concerns about this proposed discontinuance.

She noted the history of what EPC was told back when they approved the discontinuance

of the BA in Interdisciplinary Arts: that it was a good program but that resources

would be put into the master's degree. The committee reluctantly voting

to discontinue the BA, and now two years later we are being asked to discontinue

the MA. As liberal studies coordinator, she is concerned about guarantees

of continued offerings of courses that are part of the liberal studies program.

Her final concern was that this program offers something unique.

Gregory first spoke in favor of Goldsmith's concerns while adding some additional

ones: the success of the program seems to have contributed to its potential

demise; impact on the lecturer faculty who have been so integral to this program.

Dean Morrison responded that we did say that we would shore up the graduate

program, and we have done so in good faith. Though resources have been

provided for a new tenure-track faculty, the IAC director says that even that

one position is not sufficient. We cannot afford to sustain the program.

On IAC 426 to CA 426, these courses will be administered by committee.

On lecturers, many will teach during the phase out period, and he has met

with the Art department, urging them to give "due consideration"

to these lecturers.

Cherny noted that during his 15 years on the academic senate there has never

been such an outpouring of student sentiment in opposition to discontinuance,

which suggests we need to go beyond our usual consideration. He added

that there is a central ambiguity in university policy: the academic senate

controls curriculum; deans control resources, but resources are crucial to

the curriculum. He suggested at very least that if this vote is to discontinue

this program, the college of creative arts should give very careful consideration

to the concerns expressed by the students today and consider various ways

to carry out interdisciplinary arts programs (some of which he explained in

further detail).

Eunice Aaron agreed with Cherny and went a little further looking at the "benefit/burden"

analysis and how we know what is valued in a society: looking at where we

put resources is one way to make that determination, or, as Puff Daddy says,

"It’s all about the Benjamins." The CSU system and this campus

have made statements about what is valued: more administrators. But

this campus is about the students, and funds can be found. She strongly

suggested postponing a decision until more information is available and more

careful deliberation has occurred.

Hom asked whether or not a graduate program can be sustained by temporary

faculty according to California educational policy.

Hu replied that there is a requirement that chairs of thesis committees be

tenure track faculty.

Penelope Warren stated that she is not prepared to vote for discontinuance

today, and she went on to outline her reasons: unprecedented number of students

and lecturer faculty speaking in opposition; there are things that are missing

in the materials we are given; there is insufficient evidence that there has

been timely consultation with the parties who are effected by this discontinuance;

consultation seems to have been almost exclusively with the director of the

program with little voice given to the lecturer faculty who appear to have

been the real heart of this program; need to understand more clearly the rationale

for funding priorities within the college of creative arts; not convinced

at real attention to alternative ways to fund this program.

Vaughn noted that we reached a time certain; this item will come back to us

on May 15.

Agenda Item #12 - Seating of the 2001-2002 Academic Senate and Election

of Senate Officers

On behalf of the Executive Committee, Vaughn recognized the following outgoing

Senators and thanked them for their contributions: Rey Contreras, Vinay Shrivastava,

Charlotte Ferretti, Helen Goldsmith, Dane Johnson, James Kelley, Al Wong,

Brian deVries, Anita Leal-Idrogo, Robert Williams, John Elia, Marian Bernstein,

Jaymee Sagisi, and Erin Pasaporte.

Vaughn offered a special thank you to Helen Goldsmith as vice- chair and Dane

Johnson as secretary “extraordinaire.”

Vaughn then welcomed new and returning members of the Academic Senate: Rick

Houlberg (BECA), Rob Strong (Marketing), Scott Jerris (Accounting), Robert

Daniels (Accounting), Mary Anne Warren (Philosophy), Dawn Terrell (Psychology),

Marv Friedman (Accounting), Josh Levine (Music), Karimah Adisa-Thomas (Secondary

Education), Andres Consoli (Counseling), Andrea Boyle (Nursing), Susan Higgins

(Kinesiology), Margaret Henry (Classics), Eunice Aaron (Black Studies), and

Robert Cherny (History).

Helen Goldsmith oversaw the election of the following senators to the Executive

Committee for 2001-2002:

Pamela Vaughn, Chair of the Academic Senate.

Penelope Warren, Vice-Chair.

James Edwards, Secretary.

Dawn Terrell, At-Large.

Rob Strong, At-Large.

Agenda Item #13 - Resolution for a Summer Senate

In order to preserve some continuity in the summer, the Academic Senate has

traditionally passed a resolution delegating some of its power under ideal

circumstances to those members of the Senate available during the summer for

special meetings.

The vote was taken and the resolution was approved.

Agenda Item #14 - Presentation by Statewide Senator Robert Cherny

Statewide Senator Robert Cherny

reported on the CSU under the Master Plan with a powerpoint presentation “The

CSU at the beginning of the 21 st century: meeting the needs of the people

of California.” This is part of a process whereby the statewide academic

senate has been responding to the legislature as part of a revision to the

master plan, and this presentation is a condensed version of a longer report

(contact Robert Cherny for access information on the full, most recent version

of the report). The report illustrated disturbing trends in faculty-student

ratio, per-student funding, and other markers of the state of the CSU system.

There are a number of equally distressing projections if significant changes

are not made.

The Senate was adjourned at 4:10.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty