Dam, Mary Ann
Alvarez, Alvin; Avila, Guadalupe (excused); Batista, Natalie; Bernstein,
Marian (excused); Cherny, Robert (excused); Colvin, Caran (excused); Guerrero,
Jaimes; Otero, Aina J. (excused); Suzuki, Dean
Ann Hallum, Ce Ce Iandoli, Jim Orenberg, Johnetta Richards, Jonathan Rood,
Jack Tse, Mitch Turitz, Marilyn Verhey, Jo Volkert, My Yarabinec, Darlene
TO ORDER: 2:10 p.m.
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
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.
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.
note: the Summit on Race and
Culture program date has been moved from Friday, November 21st to Friday,
AGENDA ITEM #1
- APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 21, 2003
AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
McKeon asked for two revisions regarding statements made by her, that
“UC campuses” be specified regarding deadlines on p 3, 5th line
from the bottom, and on page 4 on the last line, two sentences need to be
added for clarity.
copy to be given to Secretary Fielden.]
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
Chen noted he was listed as absent but should be listed as present.
Stowers wanted her absence listed as “excused.”
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
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,
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
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 email@example.com, 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
Senator Houlberg still gets messages falsely blocked.
Rood commented that the filter has no human
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.
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.”
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
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
AGENDA ITEM #5 -REPORT - DARLENE YEE
AND JO VOLKERT - Enrollment Management Committee-2002-2003—2 ndReading—Time Certain
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: "â¦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
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
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.
Approved with 2 opposing votes, and 3 abstentions.
AGENDA ITEM #6 - REPORT - Statewide Academic
Chair Edwards noted that state senator Cherny
was testifying at Sacramento.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
surmised that the charge was transitional, and asked whether it had a term
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.
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
Orenberg responded that a 4 point scale was
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.
said the report would go to APC and then on to the Senate as a whole.
noted that in the second session, the food section was closed
asked about the number of respondents.
Orenberg said 40% of the faculty responded.
will have the recommendation from APC in two weeks.
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: 1st
and 2ndReadings—Time Certain
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
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
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
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.
Palmer, Carrington to second reading.
AGENDA ITEM #9 - ADJOURNMENT