ACADEMIC
SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

for

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2004

    

Meeting
Attendance:

Abella,
David

Gonzales,
Dan

Palmer,
Pete

Avila,
Guadalupe

Gonzalez,
Marty

Pong,
Wenshen

Axler,
Sheldon

Gregory,
Jan

Ritter,
Michael

Bartscher,
Patricia

Guerrero,
Jaimes

Scoble,
Don

Bernard-Powers,
Jane

Heiman,
Bruce

Smith,
Brett

Bernstein,
Marian

Hom,
Marlon

Steier,
Saul

Blando,
John

Kim, John

Suzuki,
Dean

Bohannon,
Tara

Klingenberg,
Larry

Todorov,
Jassen

Boyle,
Andrea

Klironomos,
Martha

Trujillo,
Michael

Carrington,
Christopher

Langbort,
Carol

Ulasewicz,
Connie

Chelberg,
Gene

Li,
Wen-Chao

Van Dam,
Mary Ann

Chen, Yu
Charn

Liou,
Shy-Shenq

Velez,
Pauline

Colvin,
Caran

Mak,
Brenda

Williams,
Robert

Contreras,
A. Reynaldo

McReynolds,
Jai

Yang,
Nini

Fehrman,
Kenneth

Midori,
McKeon

Yee,
Darlene

Fielden,
Ned

Meredith,
David


Fung,
Robert

Monteiro,
Ken


Garcia,
Oswaldo

Nichols,
Amy


Gemello,
John

Noble,
Nancy









Absences: 
Alvarez, Alvin
(exc); Corrigan, Robert (exc); Daley, Yvonne;

Gerson,
Deborah; Irvine,
Patricia (exc); Morishita, Leroy (exc); Stowers, Genie (exc)


Guests: Dan Buttlaire, Wan-Lee Cheng, Lorraine Dong, Richard
Giardina, Joel Kassiola, Dawn

Terrell, Helen
Goldsmith, Ray Miller, Jaih McReynolds, Gail Whitaker, Jane Veeder, Marilyn

Verhey



CALL TO ORDER: 2:24 p.m.


ANNOUNCEMENTS


Chair Colvin announced that discontinuance
documents were available at the senate office, along with supplemental
materials.


State
Senator Monteiro pointed out to
senators the printed announcement about the community and diversity reception
the following Wednesday from 4-6pm in the University Club, and invited senators
to attend and enjoy themselves.


Vice chair Williams gave an update on Asilomar and
encouraged wide participation, and indicated the Asilomar website was open for
registration.

 

AGENDA ITEM
#1—APPROVAL of the AGENDA for OCTOBER 5, 2004


Approved by general consent.



AGENDA ITEM
#2—APPROVAL of the MINUTES for SEPTEMBER 21, 2004

 

Approved by general consent.


AGENDA ITEM #3— REPORT from NED
FIELDEN, CHAIR, CoC: COMMITTEE on COMMITTEES ANNUAL REPORT, AY 2003-2004

Fielden, Chelberg
m/s/p


Secretary Fielden outlined the background on the
COC report, noting that the COC was a subgroup of the Executive Committee,
chaired by the secretary, which reviewed all the annual reports of the various
senate committees, 29 this year, to compile an annual state of the committees
report. Each senate committee was charged to produce an annual report, which
summarized the work of the committee over the year, and perhaps more importantly,
allowed the Executive Committee to identify issues or problems. He observed
that it was not a sin to mention difficulties in an annual report, which was,
in fact, helpful to the Executive committee. One problem on campus seemed to be
that the right hand often did not know what the left was doing, and the COC
report served as a minor antidote to this. If no annual report were filed (or
signed) then the COC would grow very nervous, and start to wonder if the
committee in question had actually done any work over the year 


Overall,
the committees on campus worked well. Most of the committees, probably three
quarters of them, seemed in good shape. People were addressing issues,
grappling with problems, creating policy, smoothing the academic path. In some
cases committees appeared to be carelessly run and a failure to provide a
report would be a primary but not sole indication of this. If senators chaired
a committee or were part of one of these reporting committees, Fielden urged
them to pay attention to the COC recommendations, ideally addressing them in
subsequent annual reports. He noted that some senators might notice a more
sharply worded report this year, as opposed to previous years. This was meant
as a challenge to the committees, who would have an opportunity to discuss any
issues with the Executive Committee. He declared this the year of the “No
Committee Left Behind” initiative, and suggested that the Senate Executive
Committee might be in a position to help deal with whatever difficulties were
present.


Finally,
Fielden thanked all the committee members, many members of which were not in
the room at the moment, for their work over the year. Some of the committee
work was not easy at all, and all committees, regardless of how efficiently
they were run, required time and energy.


Fielden
provided a correction to the All University Committee on Students, Faculty and
staff with Disabilities executive summary, noting that a signature page had
indeed been provided.


AGENDA ITEM #4—REPORT from LORRAINE DONG, CHAIR,
UPC—UNIVERSITY PROMOTIONS


UPC Chair Dong summarized the main concerns of
UPC, centered on the tardiness of reporting. This issue had been mentioned two
years previously but had become an epidemic by 2003-4. By the first deadline of
the year, on February 12, only three colleges had completely submitted their
files. 17 of 28 of candidate files were late. Files trickled in all semester,
sometimes still in incomplete status. One dean did not sign documents that then
needed to be returned for signatures. UPC needed a special meeting in April to
deal with late submissions, which was not a healthy sign. Noting that this had
a serious impact on how the committee handled their business, she hoped that it
would not be an issue again. She sought campus-wide support and understanding.
She had met with Dean of Faculty Affairs Verhey and Senate Chair Colvin with
one suggestion that emerged - the senate office would issue a reminder to
colleges with tardy files, as a collegial method of improving promptness.


Senator Steier
had not seen the actual report and asked for a statistical summary.


Dong
responded that of 23 candidates for associate level, UPC had recommended 21.

Of 14 to
full professor, 10 were recommended.


Senator Pong thanked UPC for their hard work
and posed two questions. First, he noted the comments in the report about
applicants applying for promotion within 2, 3 or 4 years, and that UPC
suggested standards. But as a faculty member he thought some clarification. Secondly,
when a WPAF arrived late, he asked who was at fault.

 

Dong responded that the UPC did not use
the word “early” with respect to promotion, but rather looked at a candidate’s
work during that rank. One year was certainly not enough to provide evidence of
achievement. As for the second question, when files arrived late, it meant
meetings were delayed, but this did not mean that faculty were penalized.


Senator Bernard-Powers asked to have repeated
the percentage of files late and how many of the colleges were tardy.


Dong responded that UPC did not name
colleges, noting only that on Feb. 12 only three colleges were complete. After
the first week only 17 of 23 were complete. Of particular concern was the fact
that as late as March two faculty members were continuing to put material into
their files - an unacceptable situation. Files should not be forwarded to UPC
at this state of preparation; rather earlier levels of review should catch
these problems.


State
Senator Yee thanked Dong for this
work, and echoed her concerns about lateness. She thought it imperative to look
at the quantity of files, and that there are only five members on the
community, and they must pay attention to the quality of review. She urged
careful attention and mindful reviews of files. It seemed essential that files
be handled promptly, and that the committees make the right decisions. She
suggested recognizing deans and committees who were timely.


Senator Pong said FAC was addressing these
concerns, including revised eligibility standards for promotion, and had had a
discussion about naming delinquent colleges.


Dong responded that UPC would not
penalize faculty for late submissions but would appreciate being informed of
delays.


Senator Nichols sought to come back to the issue
of “early” promotion, noting that there was no such thing, but that the wording
of current policy might be outdated. The policy discussed timing of promotion
as related to salary increases, which no longer occurred in the manner
described by the policy. The timing issue was ambiguous and it was probably
time to update the promotions policy.


Dong responded that this was one of
UPC’s recommendations.


Senator Pong reminded senators that FAC was
reviewing the policy and updating to correspond to the CFA collective
bargaining agreement. He sought not to discourage people from seeking promotion
early, and was pleased to see the elevation and accomplishments of our faculty.


AGENDA ITEM #5—
ELECTIONS


Yu Charn Chen, Professor, Design & Industry
was elected by acclamation to the Segment II Committee on Life Long Development


AGENDA ITEM #6—STUDENT AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE: RESOLUTION ON VOTER REGISTRATION


Avila, Monteiro m/s/p


SAC Chair Avila
indicated that the Senate had approved similar resolutions in previous years.
Also in past years CFA had taken the lead in registering new voters but more of
the campus was now involved. She supported this resolution and was pleased to
have administrative support.


CFA chapter
president Turitz expressed pleasure
and amazement at the number of university groups who had come together with CFA
on this initiative. He noted that CSEA had been a partner, and wondered if
their name could be included in the resolution.


State
Senator Gregory indicated that the
Urban Institute had undertaken to try to coordinate campus efforts. Second, she
noted that there had been some confusion about appropriate lobbying for
registration. Federal and state legislation urged state institutions to
participate in voter registration and that there was nothing wrong with any
effort in this direction.


Meredith moved to second reading, Steier seconded.


Senator Chelberg moved an amendment that added
the CSEA organizations name to the fifth paragraph, Gregory seconded.


As amended, the proposal was unanimously accepted.


AGENDA ITEM #7—RECOMMENDATION from
the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: VOCATIONAL EDUCATION BVE DISCONTINUANCE
PROPOSAL


The item
arrived to the senate floor well before its scheduled slot and there was
discussion about the wisdom of addressing the item at this time.


Senator Steier
asked whether everyone associated with the proposal was present


Chair Colvin
answered in the affirmative


Meredith, Yee m/s/p


EPC chair Meredith deferred
an introduction of the proposal to its creators.

 

Jane Veeder, Acting chair of DAI, stated that
the discontinuance of the BE degree had been included in past departmental
self-assessment plans, but had not come forward earlier due to time
constraints. She pointed to statistical data that indicated that enrollment had
been low, and that no unique or unusual courses were attached to program. Other
campuses had these programs, which were not so focused on design, so the SFSU
stance had been narrower than most others. The goal of the BE along with
legislation was vocational training, and it added presentation, organization,
and teaching skills to students in order for them to be able to become
instructors in that field in community college or certificate programs.


Senator Chen disagreed, suggesting that the BVE
degree was not about preparing to be firefighter. The Swanson bill had been
aimed at young students who had gone to war, and then the government provided
career training. He saw no cost to do the BVE at all.


Senator Velez asked for clarification on the
phrase concerning advisors at Long
Beach, and asked what would be the impacts on
students. Regarding the advising, she wanted to know the impact of
discontinuance on faculty and students.


Veeder responded that one of the things to
note in the URLs included indicated that much of the program had been ported to
distance learning, so that the program could be done by remote means. Perhaps
what should have been done was to have students switch to the BAIA degree in
their field, as no one had indicated that only the BVE would work for them.


Senator Smith asked that if students had said
that, whether that meant that they would have to do this through Long Beach.


Veeder responded that current students had
come with interests in design that relate to other programs, so many students
would likely shift over. She observed that this was only a small number of
students altogether.


Senator Smith asked that if the program were
discontinued whether students still would have the right to complete the
program here.


Veeder noted that the discontinuance was
slated for fall 2006, and that until that time, students would go through
program normally.


Senator Chelberg
moved to second reading, Nichols
seconded.


Senator Bernard-Powers asked whether the
discontinuance is tied to budget issues, or whether it was done for other
reasons. She was still asking for criteria on the basis of the quality of
program, and asked how the campus making the decision.


Veeder responded that the decision was a
part of the last program review, and the draft CUSP report in 2003, and the
self-assessment document from the same year, with the conclusion that there
were a small number of students, and the program was not central to the mission
of the college.


Senator Chen noted that currently in California there were
only five major undergraduate degree programs. He thought it advisable to talk
to the College of
Education to see if it
were possible to move the program to them.


State
Senator Yee observed that
discontinuance was a serious matter, and that this discussion had occurred in
the interdisciplinary council and in committee here, and that the argument for
discontinuance was fourfold - coming from the department on results from their
program review; that there was no rebuttal to discontinuing the program; that
there was low student demand; and there was no impact on faculty. The
department themselves acknowledged misalignment with campus mission; she asked
what would be the argument for suspending or keeping the program.


Senator Steier spoke as a member of APRC and
noted that when review was done, that APRC agreed with the recommendations.
That particular review suggested a somewhat fractured department.


Senator Abella
called the question, Nichols seconded.


Senator Heiman
noted that a two-thirds majority was necessary to close debate.


Motion to close debate approved with dissent.


The proposal to discontinue the BE in Vocational Education
was approved with dissent.


AGENDA ITEM #8—RECOMMENDATION from
the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY BS DISCONTINUANCE
PROPOSAL


Palmer McKeon m/s/p to address the agenda item fifteen
minutes earlier than the time certain.


Some discussion of parliamentary procedure took place.


Senator Meredith observed that someone had
distributed an opposite viewpoint to the senate and asked if that person was
present.


Chair Colvin
answered in the affirmative.


Chair Colvin asked senators if they knew
whether more representatives would be coming to the senate with the purpose of
discussing this agenda item.


Senator Chen
indicated that some of his students would be coming.


Senator Steier
thought the senate should stay with their time certain.


Senator Noble
echoed these sentiments.


Chair Colvin indicated that the motion
required a two-thirds vote, and that the amendment meant a change of some
thirteen minutes.


A hand vote was taken and the motion was approved.


Senator Axler discussed time certain, noting
that in past the time certain meant “no later than,” so that items could come
up earlier, but not later.


Senator Bartscher noted that past practice had
always been “no later than” represented time certain.


The senate assumed a break for ten minutes.


The meeting resumed at 3:40.


EPC chair Meredith moved acceptance of the
proposal to discontinue the BS in Industrial Technology, Nichols seconded.


Meredith spoke to documents in front of
senators, noting that incorrect pages had been included. Secondly, he noted
that another document was opposing proposal, and was unsure who was responsible.


Veeder indicated that due to budget
pressures, the need emerged last semester to focus department and college
programs more flexibly and efficiently, to make them stronger and of higher
quality. The department decided to streamline by discontinuing the BSIT program
and reorganize around the lines of a restructured BAIA degree and incorporating
present BAIA elements into a new design degree.


Senator Chen indicated that he was the author
of the rebutting statement, and was still the program coordinator since the
previous year. DAI provided a program unique to the whole country, the only department
of design and industry, with a name change not very long ago. He mentioned the
three degrees, BAIA, BSIT, and BVE. He posed seven questions: one about the
mission having changed, and observed that every time the department had a new
chair, a new mission resulted. The BA degree has fewer units, whereas there
were 64 in BS. With budget cuts, he questioned how to determine the weaker one.
He thought the BA was the better degree; with one measure of success the annual
salaries of graduates. He noted that industry prefers graduates with higher
levels of knowledge and skill and that this discontinuance was not a consent
item from the department but had been foisted on them by the college. He denied
that the impetus had come from the department.


Turitz asked if there were no savings by
discontinuing.


Veeder suggested that as laid out in many
meetings, across campus, that there were different levels of savings, both
short term and long term, and that discontinuance did not save in the short
term, but only in long term. The college would tune their budget internally
based on this discontinuance. This would have a large impact on resource
allocation, and the efficiency of handling curriculum and advising. 


Veeder
pointed out that recently the average was 20 students per year. Attachment two
was for the BA in industrial arts and industrial arts and design development
with similar numbers, with some data on the department and university. The BSIT
accounted for an average of ten percent of the department’s programs. She was
not sure what the notion of the “weaker” program meant. The realignment was
based on shifting student demographics and faculty positions.


State
Senator Gregory noted that this
discussion was making things clearer. She observed a possible abuse of the
personal pronoun “we” as it seemed that the view in DAI was not unanimous.
Value judgments seemed to create some data disarray. Process had been
approached in piecemeal fashion, and we should back away from smaller program
issues and look at larger picture. She urged more imagination, more rigor,
better design.


Senator Palmer as an EPC, CRAC member found it
hard to evaluate criteria. Program seemed to be moving in a certain direction, but
course requirements were not made clear. Resources were limited and asked if
the department had looked at other departments. The department might want to
consider other options.


Veeder responded that BSIT students
already take 14 units outside the department, also including business management
courses, and the goal was to make people who could interface between design and
industry, and the degree had feet in both areas. She agreed with Gregory that
it was not good to do value judgments, and commented that the document from
Chen prompted some questions. She pointed to the better job market, but noted
the data was incomplete. Our process was not who had the best program and deserved
support, but was more a factor of rethinking in the program. Industry was not a
monolithic entity, and the program covered a lot of ground. Our graduates go to
different sections of industry.


Senator Abella opposed the motion, noting that
he had voted against this in committee. This proposal was significantly
different from previous discontinuances. With ten percent of degrees it
demonstrated that there was still student interest, and he had not heard of any
significant erosion of quality. Page 2 addressed the mission of the university,
but this was open to interpretation. He thought there still should be a place
at the University for this Program, and that perhaps it needed to shift to
different college. In contrast with previous proposals he did not see the same
facets here.


Senator McKeon expressed concern that one department
leaving meant the college would have two of three degree programs, and one was
already voted on. She could not understand why in one college that one department
should suffer twice. She asked Senator Chen if this was a consent item, and what
was the vote breakdown. In the attached external reviewers comments, the item
6, a team report, indicated that DAI faculty had decided to discontinue the
BSIT. The external review did not mention this, and it appears in fact that
they totally ignored this. It looked like pressure from the chair and
administration, not anything resembling faculty consent. She asked what the
department opinions were.


Senator Palmer
moved to extend discussion 20 minutes, Carrington seconded.


Discussion was extended for twenty minutes.


Senator Chen mentioned the varying opinions
between assistant and higher level faculty members in the department.


Veeder responded with a report on voting
in DAI, that it had not been unanimous initially, but neither was it the chair
vs. the faculty. There were two abstentions, one of which was the regular chair
who was on sabbatical and did not think he possessed the context to vote, and
Wan Lee Chan the Associate Dean was the other abstention. The voting also
included lecturers on a pro-rated basis.


Senator Monteiro noted the difficulties of the
process. The proposal was now in first reading, and was coming to second later.
Three last bullets plus last sentence suggested that we need to know more. He
asked if there were other more creative ways to think here. Did 10 percent of
students mean a lot or a little; the senate needed some context. He questioned
the relationship to accreditation issues. In considering groups outside the
university - who did not want it, who did? He thought the senate needed clarity
and needed to hear more.


Veeder replied that budget issues were
severe the past semester. The department was asked by the university and
college to consider discontinuing the program and the majority of faculty voted
to discontinue.


Senator Liu observed that for a comprehensive
university to discontinue a program was a serious matter. The preamble
indicated a shift from the past, and as a matter of serving our constituency, he
asked if any one of our groups were consulted. He understood that this was not
a consensus item, and asked if a secret ballot had taken place. Had dissenting
faculty been given a chance to issue a rebuttal?


Senator Abella
indicates that rebuttal documents have been available.


Veeder commented on the voting, indicating
that it was not secret.


Senator Nichols wanted to refocus deliberations
at EPC, who took this proposal seriously, deliberating for an hour and a half
over it. EPC had brought up faculty issues, consent, and why was this one chosen,
why was this done, why was engineering not consulted. A pivotal piece was where
the faculty wanted to go with their department in the college. While this was not
in writing, not in the proposal, the proposal still reflected where faculty
wanted to go. The department wanted to grow it in a different area. Despite
dissent, it seemed clear that the department had arrived at a decision, which
was not an easy decision.


Senator Ulasewicz also had been on EPC and
commended Veeder from DAI. She noted that the process for discontinuance was similar
to the process for creating new programs, and needed to say who was involved. She
asked if perhaps this was an opportunity for suspension.


Senator Chen noted that the proposal meant a
switch direction in degrees for students, and the discontinuance was not fair
to students. If we had to close a door, we needed to open a window. He
commented on merging programs such as had happened at San Jose. He spoke to the external review,
the highlights of that report and viewed it positively.


The proposal would return to second reading at the next senate
meeting.


AGENDA ITEM #9—RECOMMENDATION from
the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: SOCIAL SCIENCES BA DISCONTINUANCE PROPOSAL—1st
reading

Meredith, Abella m/s


EPC chair Meredith
indicated dean Kassiola, Dean of BSS, would speak to the proposal.


Kassiola thanked EPC for their work. Best
way he thought to begin was to offer some details of their process, and how the
college had gone about making cuts. In the past he had been involved in this
sort of activity and knew the difficulties and emotional toll. He indicated
that he had emphasized process, that faculty had been involved in the process. In
2002-3 the provost had indicated to deans the nature and extent of budget cuts.
In his college an ad hoc group evaluated all the programs, all the budget
issues, dollars in and out. He scheduled in Spring 2003 an all day retreat
through the college council, to review recommendations of strategic planning
committee. By vote the group assessed every program in the college. The social
science program was considered unhealthy- 490 thousand dollars given back, from
educational funds, in that year. He reconvened the planning committee, and the
majority vote was reflected in this proposal. In 2004 had to find another large
number, 723 thousand dollars, which included this discontinuance, and made for
a sad day. The college would save a significant amount by discontinuing and
this proposal had become a part of the college’s whole budget reduction plan.


Senator Axler remarked on some comments from the
“open mike” period of discussion before the senate session. Interdisciplinary
programs did seem unfairly affected by this discontinuance process. However, he
thought explicitly interdisciplinary programs were less needed presently, and
many programs had expanded over time. Grants emphasized interdisciplinary
contact, and he noted that just because this program was interdisciplinary, he
still supported the proposal. The campus supported interdisciplinarity otherwise.


Meredith asked Kassiola how the proposal
would affect faculty in BSS.


Kassiola responded that it directly affected
one tenured member, and a number of lecturers. The outcome was conditional. If
accepted and the BA was discontinued, the MA would be under suspension, not
formally, but as a result of the strategic planning group’s recommendation to
reconfigure by May 2005, but the college would come back with a proposal for MA
discontinuance. The proposal affected classes SOC 300 and 301, which were taken
by all liberal studies students and some other students. This was still being
considered by the planning committee. He felt committed to find a home for the
tenured faculty member, but was not sure about lecturers.


Senator Williams mentioned the quality of the process
vs. the quality of the program. He requested amplification on the strategic
planning group.


Kassiola felt proud to explain the process
which had operated with a lot of emotion. He thought it wise to have emotion
and pain and conflict in the beginning, and the college had undertaken long
meetings to hash out issues. These were public meetings for all faculty, and
the entire college council had voted by secret ballot to accept strategic
planning recommendations. He thought it a full disclosure, and was fully
transparent.


State Senator
Gregory noted that within two
semesters this campus would err in some ways in our decisions. She thought it
possible to learn from prior experience, so campus would not have to repeat the
mistakes of the past. In the past such discontinuances meant homeless tenured
faculty member. She sought written guarantees of a plan for housing homeless faculty
members.


Senator Steier asked if there were still other
programs that were interdisciplinary in the college of BSS.


Kassiola responded such programs included Urban
Studies, Child and Adolescent Development, that there were lots of
interdisciplinary programs.


Senator Bernstein found it refreshing to see a
real process in place, and was not always sure that that had occurred. She mentioned
the impact on GE programs and liberal studies students, and that some sort of
substitute needed to be found, and whether there were any resource options.


Kassiola indicated that there might be some
mechanisms. Appropriate courses might exist for teacher credentialing and the
like. Some courses might have to be created. The actual dollar amount was hard
to calculate at the present.


Senator Steier asked whether the Liberal
Studies representative might have some insight into the course question.


Associate
Dean of Undergraduate Studies Goldsmith
indicated that she had met with the Liberal Studies program and had had discussion
with the BSS strategic plan group. The issue was more a liberal studies than a teacher
credential problem, and concerned whether a given substitute would qualify. She
saw this as a chance for re-visioning courses and missions and might even be a good
development.


Senator Chen asked about the history of program
and was not sure what the word “reassigned” meant on line three. He asked who
would be reassign the faculty member, whether the dean or the president.


Kassiola responded that the question of the
tenured faculty member was a delicate one and demanded consultation between the
dean and faculty member. He was committed to these discussions.


AGENDA ITEM # 10: ADJOURNMENT—5:00
p.m.