ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

TUESDAY, October 18,
2011

SEVEN HILLS
CONFERENCE CENTER, NOB HILL ROOM

2:00 - 5:00 p.m.

 

OPEN FLOOR PERIOD:  2:00 -
2:10 p.m.

The Open Floor Period
provides an informal opportunity for faculty members to raise questions or make
comments directed to Senate officers or to university administrators.  Please arrive promptly at 2:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER: 2:10 p.m.

ATTENDANCE:

 

 

 

Anderson, David

Getz, Trevor

Rothman, Barry

 

Alvarenga,
Gabriela

Ginwala, Cyrus

Rourke, David

 

Barranco, Joseph

Girouard, Shirley

Runquist, Beth

 

Bartscher,
Patricia

Hanley, Lawrence

Sherwin, Paul

 

Beatty, Brian

Hayes, Nancy

Sigmon, Mark

 

Bolter, Nicole

Hellman, David

Steier, Saul

 

Boyle, Andrea

Henderson,
Barbara

Stowers, Genie

 

Chernoff, Maxine

Holzman, Barbara

Strong, Rob

 

Cholette, Susan

Hyun, Helen

Taylor, Don 

 

Cleary, John

Lau, Jenny

Trautman, Ray

 

Collins, Robert

Linder, Martin

Usowicz, Thaddeus

 

Dariotis, Wei
Ming

Lopez, Eurania

Vredenburg, Vance

 

Drennan, Marie

McCracken,
Bridget

Wagner, Venise 

 

Ferreira, Jason

Ozluk, Ozgur

Wang, Lihua

 

Gamboa, Yolanda

Privé, Alice

Wanek, Linda

 

Garcia, Oswaldo

Rosser, Sue V

Yee-Melichar,
Darlene

 

 

Absences: Azadpur, Mohammad (on leave F11);
Corrigan, Robert (exc); Davis, Harvey “Skip” (exc); Hood, Pamela (abs);
Salama, Mohammad (exc); Vaughn,
Pamela (exc)

 

Guests:  Derek Aitken, Shawn Whalen, Gene Chelberg,
Gail Evans, Helen Goldsmith, Linda Buckley, Sacha Bunge, Andrew Gutierrez
III, Agnes Wong Nickerson, Graziella Danieli, Wendy Shepard

 

With a quorum being
present, then meeting was called to order.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Announcements were made.

AGENDA ITEM #1—Approval of the Minutes for October 4, 2011

The Item was discussed. The
Minutes were approved as Amended.

 

AGENDA ITEM #2—Approval of the Agenda for October 18, 2011

The Item was discussed. The Agenda was Approved.

 

AGENDA ITEM #3—Chair’s Report

The Academic Senate will hear
the Chair’s Report at a future meeting.

 

AGENDA ITEM #4—Report from Gayle Orr-Smith and Chief
Wasley—Active Shooter Training—Time Certain 2:15p.m.

The Academic Senate heard
a report from Gayle Orr-Smith and Chief Wasley on Active Shooter Training.

 

AGENDA ITEM #5—Report
from Robert Nava, Vice President, University Advancement
—Time
Certain 2:30p.m.

The Academic Senate heard a report from Robert Nava, Vice
President, University Advancement. The full Power
Point presentation is available on the Academic Senate iLearn page. The
following are few topics that were covered:

 

  1. Foundation board meetings
    are open.
  2. It is important to
    communicate university values through the SF State brand (i.e., commitment
    to social justice, equity, community, and the high quality of education
    offered).
  3. Development spends
    approximately twelve cents for every dollar raised. 

 

The following concerns and questions were raised:

 

  1. How is overlap in support
    addressed?
  2. Where do funds go?
  3. How are the foundation
    investments going and what implications might the current economy hold for their performance?

 

  1. How does your unit define
    the SF State brand?
  2. What is the overall
    operational budget for development?
  3. To what extent did the
    endowment perform in manner consistent with Wall Street?

 

AGENDA ITEM #6—Discussion Item:  Task Force Report on the College of
Extended Learning—No later than 3:00p.m.

The Item was discussed. The following concerns and
questions were raised:

 

  1. The Task Force Reports are
    not Academic Senate Reports.
  2. The Academic Senate is
    providing a forum for their discussion.
  3. Why were specific figures
    not included in the Task For Report on the College of Extended Learning?
  4. It is important to pay
    attention to the cost rate paid by departments to CEL and the minimal
    service received.
  5. What was the motivation
    behind the comment that the rents were too low?
  6. It is important to revive
    Winter Session as a useful tool for certain classes.
  7. Are there members of the
    Task Force that can speak to the next steps for this report?
  8. To what extent were
    details used in the presentation of the report?
  9. What matrices are being
    used to determine program success?
  10. To what extent is there a
    misunderstanding between the campus academic community and the function of
    CEL?
  11. What were the motivations
    behind Recommendation #3 and statements on underperforming personnel?

 

AGENDA ITEM #7—Recommendation from the Executive
Committee:  Proposed Resolution in
Support of Principles of Shared Governance in Reorganization, 1st
Reading—No later than 3:30p.m.

The Item was discussed.
The Item will return at a future meeting. The following concerns and questions
were raised:

 

1.  It is important to expedite the
Resolution.

2.  It is important to explain the rationale
behind the Resolution.

3.  It is important to understand the
policies associated with the resolution.

 

AGENDA ITEM #8—Recommendation from the Academic Policies
Committee:  Proposed Principles
Regarding College Naming, 1st Reading—No later than 4:00p.m.

Senator Hanley moved and
discussed the Item. The Item was discussed. The Item will return at a future
meeting.

 

AGENDA ITEM #9—Adjournment—no later than 5:00p.m.

The Academic Senate
adjourned at 4:00 p.m.