MINUTES

for the Academic Senate Meeting on TUESDAY, October 7, 2003

Senate Members Present:

Alvin

Alvarez

John

Gemello

Amy

Nichols

Guadalupe

Avila

Dan

Gonzales

Aina

J. Otero

Marian

Bernstein

Jan

Gregory

Pete

Palmer

John

Blando

Jaimes

Guerrero

Brett

Smith

Christopher

Carrington

Bruce

Heiman

Miriam

Smith

Gene

Chelberg

Marlon

Hom

Saul

Steier

Robert

Cherny

Rick

Houlberg

Dean

Suzuki

Caran

Colvin

Scott

Jerris

Dawn

Terrell

A.

Reynaldo Contreras

Karen

Johnson-Brennan

Connie

Ulasewicz

Robert

Daniels

Martha

Kilronomos

Pamela

Vaughn

James

Edwards

Brenda

Mak

Penelope

Warren

Ned

Fielden

Shy-Shenq

Liou

Robert

Williams

Robert

Fung

Midori

McKeon

Nini

Yang

Oswaldo

Garcia

David

Meredith

Senate

Members Absent: 

Eunice Aaron (excused), Patty Bartscher (excused), Natalie Batista, Tara

Bohannon (excused), Yu Charn Chen, Robert Corrigan (excused), Joel Kassiola

(excused), Wenshen Pong (excused), Don Scoble (excused), Genie Stowers,

Mary Ann Van Dam (excused)

Visitors:  Sam Gill, Ann Hallum, , Leroy

Morishita, Mitch Turitz, Jo Volkert, Yenbo Wu, Darleen Yee

ANNOUNCEMENTS          

CHAIR’S REPORT

Angela

Sposito, executive assistant to the chair, wished chair Edwards

Happy Birthday, as of last Wednesday.

Chair

Edwards reminded senators to remind their colleagues to vote in the

elections for the search committees.

AGENDA ITEM #1 - APPROVAL OF THE

AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 7, 2003

m/s/p Otero, Steier

AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR September

23, 2003

m/s/p Otero, Houlberg

Mitch

Turitz noted on the second page, fourth paragraph, last line, the phrase

“to also” needs to be corrected.

Senator

Garcia noted that Lupe Avila’s name was misspelled.

Minutes

as amended are approved.

AGENDA ITEM #3 -REPORT - YENBO WU, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL

PROGRAMS International Education Week, 2003


Yenbo

Wu, as director of the International programs office, sought to remind

everyone about the upcoming International Education Week, which is a nationwide

celebration. The office has approached many faculty, staff, and students to

form a showcase of our international character, both in the classroom and

beyond. The timing of submitted proposals for the showcase is of some importance,

and Jay Ward, Coordinator, International Student Services is arranging

for this program and will provide more detail.

Jay Ward

issued thanks for the invitation, noting that this is the 4th year

that International Education week has been celebrated across the country.

Unfortunately we don’t have a long tradition here [at SFSU], with this sponsorship

last year had the largest number of activities and events.  In addition, more

departments participated than ever before. International Education week begins

on November 17, and the office will leave the program from last year’s celebration

at the senate table for browsing.  Also at the table will be program proposal

forms, and Ward requested that senators check in with colleagues to

see if there is a topic lecture, or program your unit may want to offer. Cultural

diversity is a very important area right now, and Ward indicated that

October 10 is the submission date.

Senator

Meredith asked about further information, whether there is a website

or other place to check for expanded information.

Ward indicated that so far only last

years program and proposal form are available, both present at the senate

table outside the senate meeting hall.

Senator

Steier asked about what the current international program status is,

in the aftermath of the September 11 crisis.

Ward commented about the initiative

to track foreign students, and that most of the energy that SFSU has expended

has been focused on adapting to the presented guidelines.

The total

number of students is down, but matriculated students have shown no decline.

AGENDA ITEM #4 - REPORT - DARLENE YEE AND JO VOLKERT

- Enrollment Management Committee-2002-2003

Darlene

Yee and Vice President of Enrollment Planning & Management Jo Volkert

from the Enrollment Management Committee described their committee’s formation

and process. The committee met every other week in spring 2003, and every

week this semester to address several important issues for the campus regarding

student enrollment. Yee felt the committee had been very proactive,

thoughtful and productive.

Yee stated the committee has so far

addressed nine items:

1.         

CSU enrollment policies and practices

2 .        

SFSU enrollment policies and practices

3.         

Student enrollment data from Jo Volkert and VP Morishita

4.         

Updated the brochures “From High School to SFSU and “Transferring to SFSU”

5.          Developed and recommended

the fall 2003 undergraduate application deadline plan

6 .         Discussed the dissemination

of enrollment management information using multiple avenues

7.          Discussed the interface

with presidential advisory group consisting of community leaders

8.         

Developed fall 2004 clearance of admission regulations

9 .        

Developed a general plan 2004-2005

Yee mentioned the supplemental documents

to the agenda that included an executive summary, along with a matrix and

5-pages of narrative background. She noted our significant student demand

and enrollment growth. The second page of the document outlined the committee’s

principles and membership, and Yee felt that the committee had been

mindful of these principles in their deliberations. Pages 3-5 outline a plan

to guide students entering SFSU in 2004-5, whose components, when merged,

will allow fall 2004 launch.

Jo Volkert

requested the senators examine a one page sheet summary of the committee’s

work, and the matrix, which she then explained.  The committee took each indicator

(in the far left of the chart) which was a category of student, or objective,

and then linked that to an underlying principle, then filled in action and

impact sectors.

The bulleted

items mentioned are recommendations for the coming year. Freshman applicants

must apply earlier than ever before, March 1, transfer and graduate students

by May 1. We will not be accepting transfer students with fewer than 32-units.

We will be restricting students’ second BA applicants significantly, but this

is not a blanket recommendation, as there are exceptional programs. We will

be considering unclassified graduate students, but there are no firm recommendations

yet while we are still studying the data. We are still studying diversity

issues as we do not want to lose ground in this area of our strength.

There

is also the issue of students who have a high number of units, over 180-units,

who have not graduated, and we will likely defer this issue to the senate. 

We are trying to dovetail with CUSP II to make sure our movement is in alignment

with their thinking.

Yee gave thanks to the senate, administration,

and committee members, and mentioned that the committee is currently looking

for student representatives.

Senator

Houlberg questioned the impact of these restrictions, which seemed

likely to cause more havoc for students, along with departmental restrictions.

He asked if it were possible for programs to get guidance for preparing informational

brochures and the like.  As far as unclassified graduate students, he noted

that some departments, such as his, take all their students as unclassified.

Volkert responded that the recommendations

were not to contradict restrictive departmental policies already in place

but rather to exist as guidelines for other departments. She suggested checking

with Dean of Graduate Programs, Ann Hallum.

Dean

Hallum was concerned about limiting unclassified graduate students, and

is trying to get data. Some 53% of unclassified graduate students come from

underrepresented backgrounds and we don’t want to limit that. She was aware

of special programs, and wanted to make sure they are handled appropriately.

As we look at categories of unclassified students, we might want to develop

a sequence for students with specific degree goals. Another category is the

“love learning” category of students. The data is problematic, and we are

expecting the “data police” to be coming and urged general caution.

Senator

Houlberg asked whether it was time for a department to start planning

changes, and whether it was necessary to conduct business differently, perhaps

bringing students in as classified students.

Dean

Hallum saw no need for that at the moment, but didn’t think it would

hurt to anticipate it for the future.

Senator

Nichols asked for clarification on the May 1 deadline.

Volkert said the recommendation was May

1 for 2004.

Senator

Nichols noted that her department already had published the deadline

dates as May 15.

Volkert said she was in discussion

with Dean Hallum and individual departments. There is a need to further

discuss deadlines with the Graduate Council.

Senator

Jerris noted that the increased enrollment was impressive, and wondered

what assumption was made in establishing these deadlines.

Volkert expected SFSU to grow even if nothing

changed, and so restrictions to enrollment made sense.

Senator

McKeon asked about deadlines. Major campuses often have late notification,

after mid-February, but when a freshman deadline of March 1 at SFSU is set,

it may make for difficulties in the application process for incoming students

Volkert said that the purpose is to close

down some numbers, for us not to take too many people. They want to encourage

students to apply at same time they are applying to UC system, etc.

Senator

McKeon asked if March 15 might be used as opposed to March 1.

Yee stated that we wanted to catch

people at the right time, to try to manage the enrollment and these dates

made the most sense.

Senator

Alvarez asked to provide the senate with a sense of how this plan will

affect us in real numbers, what it will do to the number of students.

Volkert stated that lower division transfers

are the most affected, perhaps as many as 800 fewer new students arriving.

Senator

Cherny asked a question about the policy passed last year that created

this committee, whether this committee reported to both the President and

the senate.

Yee responded that this report goes

to both.

Senator

Cherny moved to accept the report and forward it to the President. 

m/s/p Cherny, Otero

Senator

Carrington speculated that if fees are raised considerably, that this

will affect enrollment more than any policy. He asked what our plan is with

respect to this.

Volkert stated that this year’s increase

did not affect enrollment. This would be a recommendation, once in place,

if reality called for it, we could make alterations. We have tried to build

in flexibility.

Vice

President Moreshita suggested that fee increases won’t be 100%, maybe

more like 10%. He reinforced the notion that fees at this level do not have

significant effect.

Senator

Bernstein asked about bullet item 5, restricting second BA students

and asked who would be examining this category. Would there be a blanket set

of criteria or would departments be giving input?

Volkert said at the undergraduate level

they would restrict, and would not accept second BA’s.

Hallum said that as for unclassified graduates,

restrictions will be discussed in Graduate Council, and we do not wish to

stop the normal conduits of students entering into programs.

Senator

Smith asked about bullet item 4, and whether that would include readmitted

students.

Volkert responded in the affirmative. If

there is broken status, students must complete the lower level status and

then return.

Senator

Vaughn thought we cannot accept the report as written, and noted that

for some programs, lots of applicants are second BAs.

Senator

Williams disagreed with the assertion that fees do not have an impact

on enrollment.

Volkert acknowledged that we cannot know

who did not come due to fees, but noted that grants for many students were

increased and so some fee increases were covered by increased financial aid.

Senator

Cherny noted senator Vaughn’s suggestions about language revisions

and suggested that perhaps the item come back for second reading in two weeks.

Volkert said that they are already taking

notes and can bring the item back in second reading

Moreshita wanted to address Senator Williams

question, and mentioned that as far as the applications to enrollment ratio

went, it remained constant.

Senator

McKeon noted that senator Vaughn mentioned that many teacher

candidates come for a second BA. This item actually is a report not a discussion

item, and it is perhaps not possible to change its status.

Chair

Edwards ruled that the motion was indeed in order.

Senator

Chin noted a typographical error in the supplemental document.

Senator

Ulasewicz referred to item seven, and how we could hold underrepresented

students.

Volkert said the wording was deliberately

vague for flexibility.

Senator

Gregory asked that since the item is coming back anyway, could some

numbers be provided. The “heavy unit” category for example, as perhaps we

do not want to provide disincentives, but maybe look at that group carefully,

and not discourage their presence.

Yee stated she did not have the statistics

handy, but had reviewed them and can provide those kinds of numbers, which

were remarkably large.

Senator

Gregory thought perhaps these can be tied to probation status etc.

Senator

Liou asked about transfer students and which departments and colleges

are affected most by transfer student restrictions.

Volkert said that this was not examined,

but could be looked at for next year.

Senator

Bernstein was sure that APC took the issue of students with a high

number units before.  The number of students with high-unit totals were not

large, and did not affect impacted programs. She thought that it needed to

return to APC, since these are academic issues at hand.

Volkert said that this was the intention.

Yee stated that there was much concern

on the Enrollment Management Committee about second BA and unclassified graduates.

We did not recommend total restriction, we asked for significant restriction.

Senator

Vaughn asked if credential students are unclassified, and if they could

be put into a different classification.

Dean

Hallum said that the category of credential classified, had never been

used but could be.

The item

will return to the Senate in second reading on October 21.

AGENDA ITEM #5 -RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE—COMMITTEE

MEETING SCHEDULE FOR SPRING 2004—a consent item: 1st and

2nd readings

m/s/p Meredith, McKeon

Moved

to second reading. m/s/p Bernstein, SteierApproved by general

consent.

AGENDA ITEM #6 - RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

- APPROVAL of the RESOLUTION ON PROTECTING ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AT SFSU—a consent

item: 1st and 2nd readings

m/s/p Williams, Garcia

Move

to second reading. m/s/p Jerris, GregoryApproved by general consent.

AGENDA ITEM #7 - ADJOURNMENT