Minutes: October 21st, 2003

Tuesday, October,

21, 2003

Senate Members

Present:

Senate

Members Absent: 

Alvarez, Alvin; Avila, Guadalupe (excused); Batista, Natalie; Bernstein,

Marian (excused); Cherny, Robert (excused); Colvin, Caran (excused); Guerrero,

Jaimes; Otero, Aina J. (excused); Suzuki, Dean

Visitors:

Susan Cholette,

Ann Hallum, Ce Ce Iandoli, Jim Orenberg, Johnetta Richards, Jonathan Rood,

Jack Tse, Mitch Turitz, Marilyn Verhey, Jo Volkert, My Yarabinec, Darlene

Yee

CALL

TO ORDER:

2:10 p.m.
ANNOUNCEMENTS         

Chair

Edwards announced that there are new senators joining today: Brenda

Mak, Assistant Professor in Information Systems, who is replacing Sam

Gill, now chair of his department. Also joining the senate, Patricia

Irvine from Secondary Education replacing Judith Blomberg, and

Jean Rocchio, a lecturer from Special Education

Chair

Edwards also had a sad announcement: faculty colleague Camille Howard,

from Theater Arts, who came to SFSU the same year as himself, in 1985, passed

away this past weekend at age 53. Edwards felt she was a wonderful colleague

and requested the senate observe a moment of silence in her memory.

Chair

Edwards mentioned that the community may be aware of various issues

on race and culture in on-campus housing, and that the Senate and Associated

Students along with the administration is putting together a summit on November

21. VP of Student Affairs Penny Saffold, and Dean of Human Relations Ken Monteiro

will join the senate on November 4 to outline the program. Senator Rob Williams

will also participate.

[Post-meeting

note: the Summit on Race and

Culture program date has been moved from Friday, November 21st to Friday,

November 14.]

AGENDA ITEM #1

- APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 21, 2003

m/s/p McKeon,

Houlberg

AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

FOR October

7, 2003

m/s/p Vaughn,

Houlberg

Senator

McKeon asked for two revisions regarding statements made by her, that

“UC campuses” be specified regarding deadlines on p 3, 5^th line

from the bottom, and on page 4 on the last line, two sentences need to be

added for clarity.

[Exact

copy to be given to Secretary Fielden.]

Senator

Chelberg indicated that the minutes specify that the International

Education week proposals mentioned in the minutes make it clear that the table

held “new” proposal forms; also that Jo Volkert is an Associate Vice

President.

Senator

Chen noted he was listed as absent but should be listed as present.

Senator

Stowers wanted her absence listed as “excused.”

Senator

Chen requested his name be correctly noted as Chen and not “Chin.”

AGENDA ITEM #3 - REPORT - JOHNETTA RICHARDS

- International News: Paris Partnership

Seminar, Wang Stipends, International Partnership with Japan—Time Certain

2:15p.m.

Richards is a CSU representative for International

Programs from CSU Long Beach who directed senators’ attention to the supplemental

documents listing International Partnership Opportunities for Faculty. The

Wang stipend has a deadline of December 1, and there are resident director

positions, and an annual program of international partnerships, which this

year is in Tokyo. Our luck today includes the presence of two people with

information on International programs, My

Yarabinec from International

Programs, and new faculty member,

Susan Cholette,

from the College of Business, with a presentation on her experiences.

Cholette spoke to the partnership seminar. As

a new faculty member, starting in fall 2002, from the Department of Decision

Sciences, she attended the open house on international programs last year,

and browsed their brochure. The programs looked like an attractive opportunity

to meet colleagues and meet other CSU faculty. She feared that as a new faculty

member, with a limited network, that acquiring a spot in the program, which

has only 20 slots, to be a long shot. She applied, developed a topic, and

got a chance to go to Paris in June 2003. There were 19 total candidates

from 16 institutions, with considerable diversity, with nearly half not yet

tenured. Twelve other universities in Paris were represented and we have a special

partnership with one university, where we received an insider tour. One high point of the week was connected to addressing

heightened tension that has developed between the USA and France. The group drafted a manifesto of cooperation

in a way that seemed productive.

Cholette’s presentation concerned comparing two

wine producing regions, France and California. She has written and submitted an article

for publication on this and will give a talk during International Education

Week about the program. She felt very good about having formed lasting friendships

and opportunities for research.

Richards finished by noting that out of all

the 20 candidates who participated in the program, only one institution, ours,

did not fund their candidate

AGENDA ITEM #4 - REPORT - JONATHAN ROOD,

AVP, Division of Information Technology: Handling Email SPAM problem—Time

Certain 2:30p.m.

Chair Edwards commented that the senate office gets

lots of mail about spam and questions on how to deal with it.

Rood began by asking the senators how much

email they thought came to SFSU every day. The total is 200,000 per day, of

which 60,000 per day are spam. Rood noted that this is a very serious problem,

and that the only real solution is national legislation, similar to what has

happened in other nations. We don’t have that yet as a solution, so we have

set up stopgaps at our gateway. If someone is getting really offensive spam,

send a note to abuse@sfsu.edu, but so much spam has fake addresses,

which sometimes makes it hard to stop. DIT tries to identify spam for you,

so that you can tell what is and isn’t spam.

Senator Houlberg maintained that although Rood indicated that the

source of spam would be identified, now there are problems receiving some

email from destinations that SFSU blocks. Houlberg is having trouble getting mail from

some students because of this.

Rood responded that we will be able to remove

that block.

Senator Houlberg still gets messages falsely blocked.

Rood commented that the filter has no human

intervention

State Senator Gregory speculated that some colleagues might

want to consider changing their e-addresses to allow messages through.

Senator Mak commented that some filters don’t work

on some addresses, and that spam addresses are often randomly created.

Rood indicated that his office can work

with faculty to custom design their filter.

Senator McKeon

questioned the number of 30% spam. After

returning from time off-campus, she noted that her email box was 43% spam.

Rood thought that that meant that someone

else on campus was lucky and had less than 30% spam received.

Senator Heiman noted that he did not use the campus’

web mail but instead Yahoo mail, which now has a splendid spam filter, and

he is very happy with the results.

Rood acknowledged improvements, and urged

them to try web mail now, which has improved dramatically. Faculty can now

reach their email from anywhere in world.

Senator Williams felt that the campus was doing a fine

job for a vexing problem and had not had any problems until recently. He asserted

that he was aware that a number of computer savvy people who spend their whole

lives figuring out ways to avoid blocks.

Senator Aaron announced that the spam percentage was 30% and “growing.”

Rood

thought this was an accurate observation.

Morishita felt that Rood was perhaps being

too polite, as he didn’t want to block individuals - but wanted to let campus

members make their own choice. Instructions will occur in Campus Memo to help

educate and help people do their business.

Rood noted that institutions that block

more run the risk of blocking good items.

RETURN TO ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Edwards remembered an announcement that should

have occurred earlier: that longtime Senator Penny Warren,

an at-large member, will be retiring and leaving the senate as of November

1.

Senator Warren announced that the public event regarding

her retirement would occur in a couple of weeks, where there would be an opportunity

to say a little more. She felt that the senate was one of the most satisfying

experiences she has had in her 25 years on campus.

Chair Edwards noted that this meant an opportunity

for another senator to serve on the Executive Committee.

Chair Edwards also reminded senators to use the sign-in

sheet at the front table and to raise their name cards for recognition from

the chair.

AGENDA ITEM #5 -REPORT - DARLENE YEE

AND JO VOLKERT - Enrollment Management Committee-2002-2003—2 ^ndReading—Time Certain

2:45

p.m.

Senator Meredith posed a friendly amendment: to add

an additional sentence at the end of page 5. “The recommended application

deadlines are intended to be advisory and may be adjusted earlier or later

depending on the volume of applications received during the open filing period,

that is the period from October 1 to November 30.”

Yee accepted the friendly amendment

Yee said that she and Jo Volkert

appreciated the senate’s input, and found that senators asked the same kinds

of tough questions that were raised in the committee. The CSU has made it

very clear that local campuses not exceed their student targets. Campuses

exceeding targets will have their budgets adjusted. In our attempt to reach

but not exceed our target of 23,007, we have tried hard to be fair in addressing

the different student populations and the different enrollment management

objectives, not an easy task.

Some additional data to share with the Senate, presented

in an overhead slide, included:

Three sets, the first concerning continuing students with

high units accumulated. Most BA students must have 120-units to graduate,

with BS looking at 132-units. High units students (over 140-units) may need

more advice and direction. In spring 2002 we had 1,298 students classified

as high unit students. In spring 2003 we were able to reduce that number,

working with colleges and departments, to 931. Enrollment management obviously

needs to look at this category.

Volkert indicated that one reason the number

was dramatically less was because the data does not include second BA students.

Morishita sought to add to the friendly amendment,

as the target may be adjusted by the chancellor’s office:  "…and in consideration

of any adjustment made in the university's budgeted enrollment target."

Yee accepted the addition.

Senator Garcia noted that his department was a small

one and that students often come late to major, often as a second BA. He wanted

some clarification on the flexibility possible.

Volkert noted that the way the committee was

approaching second BAs was to identify groups (cohorts) seeking exception,

but not doing a case-by-case process. We will no longer be able to be as flexible

as before.

Senator Garcia asked if his department would be able

to present their case.  30% of their students are second BA candidates.

Volkert thought that this should be examined

in committee.

Senator Palmer pointed out an error in spring 2003

column in the table, that it should be 600-700, not 900,

Volkert acknowledged the typo.

m/s/p

Jerris, Johnson-Brennan

Approved with 2 opposing votes, and 3 abstentions.

AGENDA ITEM #6 - REPORT - Statewide Academic

Senators

Chair Edwards noted that state senator Cherny

was testifying at Sacramento.

State Senator

Gregory noted that at the last statewide meeting,

her committee, Faculty Affairs, spent some time collecting some information

on the notion of “investing” in the faculty. This is one of the items on the

list of “restoration” priorities, in the event that the budget crisis does

come to an end at some point. The committee drew on earlier documents, including

the workload study group, and others. Second item on the list is the December

Academic Conference tentatively titled “Facilitating Transfer and Degree Completion.”

Each campus will send a number of representatives, and we are looking for

campus teams of 6-12 people. The third item is a resolution that will go to

the plenary session endorsing the supplementary report language, crafted by

the state legislature.

AGENDA

ITEM #7 - REPORT - JIM ORENBERG, Chair, Ad Hoc Summer Semester Review Committee: 

Summer 2003 Survey and Summer 2004 Calendar—Time Certain 3:15 p.m.

Jim Orenberg

gave a report on the 2003 summer session at SFSU, the third summer session

of general fund operation. His ad hoc committee surveyed students and

faculty, using the same instrument as the year before, the only difference

being the use of electronic (online) copy rather than print format. The response

numbers were very close to previous years, some 5% less for faculty, while

student response rates went down 19%. He felt that it was a good sample size.

The survey consisted of 9 faculty questions relating to the schedule, length

of class meeting times, staff support, library support, etc. and asked whether

faculty would support making the summer semester longer.

For the most part

faculty were content with the schedule, support structures, and had no desire

to make summer into a full semester. There were some differences by college,

but no large discrepancies. For the most part, the results mirrored the previous

year.

The student surveys

had 15 questions, addressing such questions as 1) whether there was enough

time to learn material, to 15) whether to lengthen summer semester to make

it more like regular semesters. Questions 2-14 asked about services, whether

advising was adequate, library support was sufficient, housing, etc. One specific

issue was to make the shuttle services for transportation more workable for

the summer semester.

The committee noted

the general contentment of students and faculty and recommend continuing summer

session as currently configured, not moving to a longer “more regular” semester.

Senator Houlberg

noted that there was one statement not made, that three colleges have few

tenured/tenure-track teachers over the summer. He asked if there was any indication

of satisfaction with the teachers’ performance.

Orenberg was not sure if anyone has tracked

this. He was aware of overall good student evaluations.

Senator Carrington

expressed some skepticism at how meaningful these measures are. The survey

covered the summer faculty, many of whom are lecturers and assistant professors

who have an investment in summer program - would this survey tell us anything

meaningful? He asked if the curriculum was appropriate, and whether it matched

that of the regular semester. He did not deem it possible to make these conclusions

with this data.

Orenberg responding from the point of view of

the purpose of the survey - not trying to find out whether curriculum matches,

only student/faculty satisfaction. He noted that as Chair of the Department

of Biochemistry, it was his job to make sure curriculum is preserved and presented

properly. For summer session there was the same content, same delivery, same

demands made of students.

Senator Vaughn ruminated

that the original charge to committee was now several years old now, and that

it perhaps was time to review it.

Orenberg restated the charge as for the committee

to monitor and evaluate summer semester.

Senator Vaughn

surmised that the charge was transitional, and asked whether it had a term

limit.

Orenberg responded that perhaps indeed the committee

may have outlived itself.

Senator Vaughn suggested

the committee is not a personnel committee and thus has no right to look at

student evaluations. Also that department chairs may be best way to judge

teaching effectiveness for the summer session.

Senator Chelberg noted

the 19% drop in response from students, and asked whether this was related

to format of survey, or when it was delivered.

Orenberg acknowledged that the format changes

were the likely cause. Previously the “paper and pencil” surveys were done

in class. Headcounts were for R1 (in 2002) 6390, and 5979 in 2003, a 6% drop.

For R2 in 2002 there were 4400, then 4218 in 2003. In the five week session,

there were 1859 in 2002, 1491 in 2003.

Senator Williams

suggested that shuttle service be addressed by food service staff. He also

recommended doing qualitative studies as well.

Senator Carrington asked whether the data was framed on a 5 point Likert scale.

The results did not look that way. He questioned the effectiveness of the

data.

Orenberg responded that a 4 point scale was

used.

Senator Ulasewicz

questioned the purpose of the ad hoc committee and whether we evaluate from

a senate perspective?

Orenberg will make a recommendation to the senate,

that the same calendar will be followed.

Chair Edwards

said the report would go to APC and then on to the Senate as a whole.

Senator Steier

noted that in the second session, the food section was closed

Senator Heiman

asked about the number of respondents.

Orenberg said 40% of the faculty responded.

Senator Meredith

will have the recommendation from APC in two weeks.

Senator Heiman

asked if faculty could vote more than once, i.e. for more than one section.

Orenberg responds in the affirmative.

AGENDA ITEM #8 - RECOMMENDATION from

the CURRICULUM REVIEW AND APPROVAL COMMITTEE—RESTRUCTURING OF THE BS IN BIOCHEMISTRY

AND REDUCTION OF UNITS IN THE DEGREE —a consent item: 1^st

and 2^ndReadings—Time Certain

3:25

p.m.

m/s/p

Nichols, Houlberg

Senator Nichols noted the reduction of units, coming

as consent item. Summary on page 1, committee agrees changes are appropriate,

mostly having to do with decrease of units, increasing number of elective

courses, and removal of lab courses. Committee thought it was good to have

more flexibility.

Orenberg noted that a similar proposal had arrived

at the senate’s door last year, for the BS in Chemistry degree, and that the

department had come around to agreeing that degree could be done in 120 units,

and that more flexibility is good in very structured programs.

Senator Jerris liked the idea of giving students more

electives; also change number 7, which required students to earn a grade of

C- in all their major courses.

Orenberg also indicated that this included Biology

and Physics courses as well, which must be passed at the same level.

Senator Vaughn noted the business proposal the previous

year involved a minimum grade entering the program was a slightly different

issue.

Senator Ulasewicz noted that requiring a grade of C-

or above was a good move all around.

Senator Steier asked about the number of Biochemistry

majors.

Orenberg indicated there were 45 majors.

Senator Steier asked if they are prohibited from taking

major courses as credit/no credit.

Orenberg responded in the affirmative.

Senator Steier raised the issue of the need to think

once again of what a grade of “D” really is - in this scenario it has now

become an F.

m/s/p

Palmer, Carrington to second reading.

Revision

approved

AGENDA ITEM #9 - ADJOURNMENT