Academic Senate Meeting
Minutes for May 12, 1998, Part I
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Aaron, Eunice; Barnes, Paul; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Cancino,
Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn; Cherny, Robert; Collier, James; Consoli, Andres; Craig,
JoAnn; Duke, Jerry; Eisman, Gerald; Fehrman, Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte; Flowers,
Will; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Gillotte, Helen; Graham, Michael; Graham, Minnie;
Hammerstrom, Gary; Hammett, Jennifer; Harnly, Caroline; Haw, Mary Ann; Hom,
Marlon; Homan, Bonnie; Houlberg, Rick; Hu, Sung; Johnson, Dane; Kelley, James;
La Belle, Thomas; Lee, Wanda; Mallare, Marie; Monteiro, Ken; Nicholson, Joel;
OÃ±ate, Abdiel; Phillips, Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Rivas, Mario; Schweitzer,
Newby; Scoble, Don; Smith, Nina Jo; Swanson, Deborah; Tarakji, Ghassan; Thomson,
Lana; Turitz, Mitch; Verhey, Marilyn; Wade, Patricia; Warren, Mary Ann; Warren,
Penelope; Wong, Alfred; Wong, Yim Yu; Woo, George; Yee, Darlene.
Senate Members Absent: Zoloth-Dorfman, Laurie; Goldsmith, Helen(exc.);
Choo, Freddie; Blank, Mark; Lyles, Lois; Leitao, David(exc.); Corrigan, Robert(exc.);
Senate Interns Present: Regina Sarafino
Guests: S. Taylor, H. Matson, D. Molberg, J. Kassiola, B. Goldstein,
G. Whitaker, K. Johnson, M. Penders, G. West, P. Saffold
Announcements and Report
- In a written communication, President Corrigan advised that the Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) will give SFSU the money to replace
Verducci Hall. The current structure will be torn down and a low-rise
state of the art student housing complex will be built on the site.
- Phillips congratulated and acknowledged the appointment of Ken Monteiro
as Dean of Human Relations.
- Provost Tom La Belle expressed his appreciation for the collegial
work of Chair Phillips, APC, and the entire Academic Senate this year.
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for Meeting of May 12, 1998
The Executive Committee corrected agenda item #12 to read "Time certain
to immediately follow Item #11" and inserted item #3b, a report from the Statewide
M/S/P (Gillotte, M.A. Warren) to approve the agenda as amended.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting of April 28, 1998
As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as
Agenda Item #3 - Resolution Honoring Faculty Trustee Bernard Goldstein
Phillips read the resolution honoring Faculty Trustee Bernard Goldstein.
M/S/P (Hammerstrom, M.A. Warren) to approve the resolution by acclamation.
Phillips also announced that Dr. Goldstein had been appointed the Acting Provost/Vice
President for Academic Affairs at Sonoma State University. Goldstein thanked
the Senate for the honor.
Phillips announced another omission from the agenda. He read a Resolution
Honoring Lana Thomson, Administrative Assistant to the SFSU Academic Senate.
M/S/P (Hammerstrom, Gillotte) to approve the resolution by acclamation.
Agenda Item #3b - Report from Statewide Academic Senators
Robert Cherny reported that the Academic Senators had received e-mail
concerning the agenda from the Statewide Academic Senate. He said that Chancellor
Reed spoke at the meeting and answered questions. Reed was asked his position
on the size of the BA major, whether he was committed to reducing the number
of units from 124 to 120, and what the implications were. Reed only responded
that he thought it was a good idea. He also thought that General Education should
take up about 1/3 of a 120 unit major and that there should be a seamless connection
between the CSU, community colleges, General Education, and the whole BA major.
Gary Hammerstrom reported that 14 items were considered at the meeting
and all but one passed unanimously. He offered to take questions about the items.
Hammerstrom also announced that the CSU Institute for Teaching and Learning
is seeking a new faculty director for a 2-3 year term. The current director,
Harold Goldwhite, is leaving in June. The position is open to any tenured faculty
member with experience in educational technology and curriculum development.
Anyone interested should contact Dr. Hammerstrom as Chair of the Search Committee.
Agenda Item #4 - Revision to the BS in Computer Science
CRAC Chair Darlene Yee introduced this item which sought two changes
in the degree. The proposed revision would address changes in the Computer Science
Accreditation Board requirements and changes in the community college mathematics
course sequence. In order to accomplish this, the units of calculus would be
reduced from 9 to 8 and a two-unit laboratory course would be added to the Data
Structures course. This would increase to 67 the total number of units for the
BS in Computer Science. Yee introduced Gerald Eisman, Chair of Computer
Science, as a resource.
M/S/P (Hammerstrom, Gillotte) to move to second reading.
M/S/P (Gillotte, Hom) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #5 - Revision to the Minor in Computer Science
CRAC Chair Darlene Yee introduced this item which sought to make the
minor consistent with the BS program. A two-unit laboratory course to accompany
the Data Structures course would be added and one three-unit upper division
elective course requirement would be reduced. This would decrease to 21 the
total units for the Minor in Computer Science. Yee introduced Gerald Eisman,
Chair of Computer Science, as a resource.
M/S/P (Scoble, M.A. Warren) to move to second reading.
M/S/P (Fehrman, M.A. Warren) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #6 - Revision to the BA in Dance
CRAC Chair Darlene Yee introduced this item which seeks to allow students
more electives and greater flexibility in course selection. Dance 433 would
be deleted and Music 120, which is comparable in course content, would replace
it. Dance 310 would be deleted from the core but retained as an elective course.
Yee introduced Jerry Duke, Chair of Dance, as a resource.
M/S/P (Scoble, Fehrman) to move to second reading.
M/S/P (Fehrman, M.A. Warren) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #7 - Revision to the Dance Minor
CRAC Chair Darlene Yee introduced this item to make the minor consistent
with the BA program. This proposal would replace Dance 433 with Music 120. Yee
introduced Jerry Duke, Chair of Dance, as a resource.
Helen Gillotte asked what happens to Dance 433? Duke responded the music
course is basically the same as the dance course it replaces. The Music faculty
will teach the theory part of the course and the Dance faculty will teach the
studio work for dance students. Gillotte asked if it makes a difference that
a 100 level course would replace a 400 level course. Duke responded no.
M/S/P (Houlberg, Fehrman) to move to second reading.
M/S/P (Houlberg, Gillotte) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #8 - Policy on Timely Declaration of Major
Sung Hu, APC member, introduced this new policy. The policy would require
a student who enters the university as a freshman or lower division transfer
student to declare a major after completing 70 units. A student who enters the
university as an upper division transfer student would be required to declare
a major by the end of the second semester at SFSU. The intent of the policy
is to put some pressure on students to have a well-planned curriculum in order
to proceed towards graduation in a timely manner. This would also give departments
a more realistic identification of majors so they could advise students as early
as possible, as well as facilitate department planning. APC surveyed department
chairs by e-mail. Of the 31 department chairs who responded, 29 were strongly
in favor of the policy. Hu introduced Mike Penders, Registrar, as a resource.
Rick Houlberg asked about students who do not have a declared major
but are trying to access the major by taking the prerequisites. He was concerned
that these students would lose their registration priority and asked if consideration
had been given to them. Hu responded that the rationale for the proposed policy
states that some students cannot declare a major until they have completed certain
department prerequisites. These students can appeal to the Dean of Undergraduate
Studies through the appeals process. Houlberg replied that if students did not
know to appeal ahead of time, they would lose their registration time. Until
that issue was addressed, he would have to vote no on the policy. Hu replied
that all affected students would receive a warning letter from the Registrar's
Office and could initiate an appeal before they lose their registration priority.
Phillips asked that when there is a cluster of students who do not fit
this requirement, could the program submit an appeal for that group of students
rather than having each student submit an individual appeal. He felt that requiring
each student to submit an appeal would essentially penalize the student for
a programmatic system that has a programmatic exception to the policy.
Penny Warren asked how complicated the appeal process would be and could
another approach be taken.
Mario Rivas felt that it was a good policy and the university does want
to move students along towards declaring a major. However, he felt that there
needs to be a process to support faculty in assisting students to make a choice
that has been thought through rather than simply to keep their registration
priority. He questioned whether it should be included in the policy that a student
who has received a warning letter would be required to seek advising prior to
declaring a major. A faculty advisor in the appropriate department should review
with the student and ensure the student's choice has been carefully considered.
Rivas suggested that the implementation of the policy be deferred until Fall
1999 so that the information could be included in the Bulletin, Advising Day
materials, admissions materials, and communications with feeder colleges. He
also suggested, and was willing to work on, developing something for the Web
to assist faculty and students in making appropriate choices in this area.
Houlberg said that the policy as written makes no provision for the 100-200
students in his department that will have to go through another piece of paperwork.
He recommended voting against the policy unless there is a provision to deal
with those students.
George Woo said that he was against the proposal since he failed to
see how taking away the student's registration priority would help accomplish
the stated purposes in the policy rationale. He felt that the way to help students
accomplish those items was to make sure the student talks to somebody in the
department. He asked if APC could describe the committee discussion about how
the punishment addresses the problem.
Cherny said that he thought this was a good policy even though it only
affects 515 students out of 25,000. He felt that students need advising on a
regular basis from their major department and that they need to declare a major
in order to know which department to see. Since the form for declaring a major
must be signed by the Department Chair, each department can establish an appropriate
advising policy before the Chair signs the form. He felt this would address
Rivas' issues about advising. He also felt that Houlberg's issues should be
addressed within that department. Cherny felt that the policy benefits the University
as a whole and that he would vote for it.
La Belle endorsed Cherny's comments. He said that advising was one of
a few recommendations from CUSP that all committee members felt was a high priority
for implementation. Since SFSU places a great value on access and is known for
giving students second chances, the University waits until the students figure
out what classes they want to take and then attempts to provide access. He felt
that was related to advising. He further observed that since student outcomes
assessment is so important, departments need to find out who their students
are early in the process so they can design experiences for those students in
order to prepare them. La Belle felt that these three reasons suggested that
relationships between students and faculty need to be enhanced, communication
needs to increase, and students need advice on the steps to complete their degree.
He recognized the problem that Houlberg described but didn't know whether those
students should be given a blanket exception or whether that particular curriculum
should be evaluated in terms of accepting students into the program. La Belle
felt that the general thrust was to build closer relationships, give students
more attention, be more user-friendly, utilize resources better, and plan the
experiences needed in order for students to be successful in achieving the departmental
goals and their own goals.
Will Flowers said that the Career Center has been looking at undeclared
majors and is developing a comprehensive program looking at undeclared major
students. This would be a support system for the students and he felt that it
could also support the proposed policy. Flowers supported the proposed policy
but did not like the disciplinary action with the appeals.
Marie Mallare felt that early declaration of a major has advantages
but that the policy needs to be looked at closely. She asked why newcomers should
be penalized for not declaring a major. She suggested that academic advising
should be addressed in the policy since that is in the forefront of how students
find direction in their education. Mallare also felt that losing registration
priority was a penalty and did not fit in with the rest of the policy. Since
this is a commuter university, students lose timelines and deadlines. She felt
that giving students multiple chances is what separates SFSU from Ivy League
Wanda Lee said that, as a former college counselor, she really liked
the idea of connecting students to majors more quickly and getting them into
the advising process. She responded negatively to the sanctions of losing registration
priority. She suggested that students who fail to comply with this policy or
fail to see an advisor lose their registration priority. Lee felt this would
get students talking to advisors.
Houlberg explained that in his department the issue is not that students don't
have a major and are wandering around without guidance. Because of demand, the
department was forced to be impacted at the University level and forced to implement
prerequisites. The students know their major and receive advising but simply
do not have the major status. He felt that those people will get caught by the
policy. Additionally, this policy deals with registration, not advising.
Paul Barnes asked if it was possible to defer the policy until the next
academic year so that the rough spots could be worked out. He suggested that
Houlberg and Susan Taylor might be involved in that process.
Hu said that clearly the policy was intended for students who were wandering
around not knowing what they want to do, not for the students Houlberg described.
He said that, personally, he did not have any objection to a department having
a wholesale list of waivers approved for those students that, for all practical
purposes, do have a major and are receiving advising.
Jennifer Hammett reiterated that she thought there was a peculiar mismatch
between the goals that everyone agreed are laudable and the means by which the
policy would achieve those goals. She also wondered about the cost of implementing
the policy, to send out warnings, screen for compliance, and process appeals.
She said that her department, Cinema, has a large number of students who have
not been able to declare a major because they have not met the prerequisites.
Those students would have to be treated outside the policy and would produce
further costs and paperwork. She questioned if the policy was worth it given
the poor fit between goals and means and the costs involved.
Susan Taylor said that the process does provide for an appeal and that
she would be the appealee. She assured the Senate that she would be happy to
work with BECA, Cinema, and any other departments or programs. With the kind
of assurances that Senator Houlberg provided, she felt it would be easy to set
up a process to deal with departments in that situation. Nevertheless, she felt
it would be useful and appropriate to get students who have not declared a major
into an advising situation. Taylor said they were moving forward with the Senate
policy concerning the pivotal points of advising and one of those points is
choosing a major. Taylor said she would be happy to work with those students
and make sure they were directed to an appropriate department.
Marian Bernstein felt that the section concerning appeals could be strengthened
if it stated that in special cases, students or faculty may appeal to the Dean
of Undergraduate Studies. That would make it easy for a Department Chair or
faculty member to group a particular number of students together. APC thought
hard about the misfit between changing the student's registration level and
declaring a major, and this was one way to let students know that it is a serious
Penders said that the policy would be tricky to implement, but the Registrar's
Office could do it. If certain groups of students were identified, they could
be exempted from the policy. He felt that might address some of Houlberg's concerns.
While Penders appreciated the senators' comments about expense, he still felt
it was doable.
Cherny asked if the policy was passed at this meeting, when would it be effective?
Hu responded that it is to be effective in Fall 1999. Cherny then asked if the
policy did not pass until the Fall semester, would it present any problems still
going into effect Fall 1999? Gail Whitaker replied that there would be
M/S/P (Hammerstrom, Houlberg) to refer the policy to committee.
Phillips said that he felt there was no reason a revised policy couldn't be
back before the Senate in September or early October.
Agenda Item #9 - Status Report from the Office of Community Service Learning
Gerald Eisman, member of the Community Service Learning Steering Committee,
began by introducing Kathy Johnson, Director of the Office of Community
Service Learning (OCSL). He said that involvement in CSL has been the most personally
satisfying activity for him and many other faculty members. What CSL has been
and continues to be is a movement from the bottom up - an initiative by faculty,
students, and staff dedicated to the marriage of theory to the practice of classroom
to the community. The goal of CSL is to create a series of incentives and supports
for faculty to incorporate CSL into the undergraduate curriculum so that over
a five-year period almost all undergraduates would have the opportunity to take
a CSL course.
For that purpose, CSL received a multi-year award from the Chancellor's Office
for $100,000 each year for three years to fund faculty development of new CSL
courses. On April 1, CSL awarded 25 additional developmental grants to faculty
for next year. Combined with the previous 38 awards, they have now made 63 awards
overall. These awards support a total of 76 faculty representing 40 departments
across all eight colleges. 93 CSL courses are now in place. 15 courses are within
the GE program, 25 are within majors, and a few meet U.S. History or Government
requirements. Eisman offered examples of CSL participation in the Departments
of Psychology, Accounting, Dance, La Raza Studies, Nursing, English, and Chemistry.
So far, $312,000 has been allocated and 5500 students have opportunities to
take CSL courses each year. Eisman offered kudos to Kathy, the OCSL staff, the
17 faculty members on the Steering Committee, and all faculty involved in the
project. Beyond developing curriculum, OCSL has created a series of reference
materials including a student handbook on CSL, readings and resources for student
assistants and faculty, and tools for effective volunteer management.
Next year, the third round of funding will kick off new courses in every college.
OCSL will launch the Community Connections Database - an on-line resource of
placement opportunities for students. The Database will be part of a website
highlighting courses, concepts, best practices, and linkages to other universities.
The OCSL will also be integrating CSL into other ongoing campus activities to
give it a central place at SFSU.
Eisman spoke about three CSL-related issues that might percolate up to the
Senate floor for policy consideration. First is a proposal to General Education
to get CSL courses into the Segment III program. Currently, there are 15 GE
courses that have CSL components, but they are looking for clusters in which
a CSL course could be a culminating experience for the cluster. They have already
contacted several cluster coordinators about this possibility. Second, they
are working on a common evaluation instrument for students who are placed in
the community. There may be some policy impact on the distribution of such a
form. Third, as part of next year's Celebration of Service, they proposed to
the Faculty Affairs Committee that the RTP guidelines be revised to include
guidelines for evaluating and recognizing faculty service.
Thus, there are issues involving curriculum, students, and faculty that they
hope to bring to the Senate as CSL moves forward. He invited all faculty to
bring ideas on how service activities could be incorporated into the curriculum.
Eisman said that CSL is a movement that matches the mission and character of
SFSU and as with most movements, they are looking for new recruits.
Agenda Item #10 - Report from Academic Program Review Committee Chair Jerry
During the 1997-98 academic year, APRC sent completed reports to the Associate
Vice President of Academic Program Development, Gail Whitaker, for Physical
Therapy, Counseling, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Black Studies, Dance, Nursing,
La Raza Studies, Health Education, and Holistic Health. Duke said that APRC
is charged with synthesizing all levels of program review to clarify and outline
all concerns and recommendations. The APRC report is the primary instrument
used by the Program Review office in developing a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the department or program. This MOU becomes the tool of guidance
to the department/program for the next review cycle.
During a review, committee members studied the documents developed in the program
review process and sent to the department chair/program head and Dean a list
of concerns and/or questions as a guide for discussion. Those documents included
the self-study, the external review report, the department and Dean's response
to the external review report, and, in the case of interdisciplinary programs,
the University Interdisciplinary Council's report. If the program was accredited,
APRC only studied the department summary of the most recent accreditation review.
The committee then met with the department chair/program head, the Dean, and
interested faculty. APRC developed a report which was sent to Whitaker. Additionally,
the APRC chair, or an APRC representative, along with Faculty Coordinator for
Program Review, Jim Bebee, attended entrance and exit meetings with the external
reviewers for Health Education, Holistic Health, Geosciences, Ethnic Studies,
Technical and Professional Writing, and Kinesiology. A meeting is scheduled
with Women Studies before the end of the spring semester.
Duke felt that the assistance and guidance of AVP Whitaker and Professor Bebee
as ad hoc members of the committee had been exceptionally helpful. Members of
APRC included Caroline Harnly, Library; David Leitao, Classics; Michael Graham,
Political Science; Marcia Raggio, Communicative Disorders; Deborah Swanson,
English; Marilyn Verhey, Nursing; and Jerry Duke, Dance. Duke felt
that the committee's work was exemplary and that the members deserved applause.
The program review booklet, which has been in use for the last two years, proved
to be an excellent guide, but Duke felt that it should be continually evaluated
by the departments and programs using it. He requested input from senators about
the booklet. Duke reported that APRC's work has intensified during the last
two years with the increasing emphasis Provost La Belle has placed on the importance
of the MOU in long-term planning. With the assignment of AVP Whitaker to the
Program Review last year, that pace increased. During the past year, committee
members spent from one to four hours outside the committee meetings on each
report. APRC is looking for ways to expedite the process.
As guidelines are developing for the upcoming fifth cycle of review, Duke questioned
if there will be enough committee time to do a proper evaluation of the materials.
He said that one solution would be to add another committee or to double the
membership on the current committee and divide it into two parts. He suggested
that a less cumbersome solution might be to more clearly define and detail the
committee's tasks. For example, APRC is aware that it has no business dealing
with requests for new resources such as additional faculty, staff, and space,
but most self-study documents are filled with justifications for more resources.
Duke felt that APRC should be dealing more with how a program is operating with
the resources they have. He also recommended that accredited programs should
be handled differently. Some accreditation reports may also deal with campus
issues and APRC could minimize its involvement in unrelated areas. He welcomed
any and all suggestions.
Phillips acknowledged departing Vice Chair Rick Houlberg as being a
part of Phillips' conscience in addition to his defined role as Vice Chair.
Houlberg was an absolute defender of shared governance and consultation as well
as a voice for student inclusion in the decision-making process. Phillips wished
him well in his new role on the University Promotions Committee. He presented
Houlberg with a SFSU sweat suit and tie. Houlberg thanked Phillips and the Senate.
Phillips also acknowledged departing Secretary Bonnie Homan as being
a major voice for lecturers and a continual voice of common sense on the Executive
Committee. He further described Homan as the indisputable magician and jester
of the Executive Committee, ensuring that things were not taken too seriously.
Phillips presented Homan with flowers and a stunning kaleidoscope. Homan thanked
Phillips and the Senate.
Secretary to the Faculty