San Francisco State University -- Academic
Senate Meeting
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 1997
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair
Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Aaron, Eunice; Barnes, Paul; Bartscher, Patricia;
Bernstein, Marian; Cancino, Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn; Cherny, Robert; Choo,
Freddie; Collier, James; Consoli, Andres; Craig, JoAnn; Duke, Jerry; Fehrman,
Ken; Gillotte, Helen; Goldsmith, Helen; Graham, Michael; Hammett, Jennifer;
Haw, Mary Ann; Hom, Marlon; Homan, Bonnie; Houlberg, Rick; Hu, Sung; Lee, Wanda;
Leitao, David; Oñate, Abdiel; Phillips, Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Rivas,
Mario; Shouse, Amy; Smith, Nina Jo; Swanson, Deborah; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz,
Mitch; Verhey, Marilyn; Wade, Patricia; Warren, Mary Ann; Warren, Penelope;
Wilkinson, Nancy; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Wong, Yim Yu; Woo, George; Yee, Darlene;
Zoloth-Dorfman, Laurie.
Senate Members Absent:
Pestrong, Raymond(exc.); Nicholson, Joel; Blank, Mark(exc.); Wong, Alfred; Smith,
Erna; Lyles, Lois(exc.); Tarakji, Ghassan; Eisman, Gerald; Harnly, Caroline(exc.);
Flowers, Will(exc.); Hammerstrom, Gary(exc.); La Belle, Thomas(exc.); Kelley,
James(exc.); Scoble, Don(exc.); Corrigan, Robert(exc.); Chang, Paul(exc.); Mallare,
Marie; Thomson, Lana(exc.).
Senate Interns Present:
Avant, Anna; Childers, Joseph; Leon, Sara.
Guests:
G. West, M. Kasdan, N. McDermid, G. Whitaker, H. Goldwhite, T. Saenger, B. Murphy,
N. Fendel, R. Giardina, P. Vaughn, S. Alunan, S. Shimanoff.
Announcements and Report
Members of the Academic Senate were invited to
visit the new Electronic Class Lab in Library 433. More information is
available via the Web at http://www.sfsu.edu/~compsvcs/ecl/.
Chair's Report
The minutes of the meeting of the Statewide
Senate Executive Committee and Campus Academic Senate Chairs were attached to
the agenda. Chair Phillips pointed out the discussion concerning the selection
of the CSU Chancellor and the minimal faculty and presidential input into the
selection process. Comments about the new Chancellor covered a wide range of
opinions. SIP/CETI was discussed with Maynard Robinson, the CSU coordinator,
and many faculty concerns were raised including intellectual property, what
were we selling in terms of payoffs, concerns about control, and others. In
second draft, a policy on selection of campus presidents was discussed. The
members liked the current policy with one exception, the campus visit. The importance
of the campus visit was discussed and the issue that there is no assurance of
feedback from faculty on the campus. Merit Pay was also discussed. Phillips
felt that the Merit Pay meeting on this campus was one of the more productive
and valuable campus meetings.
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for Meeting
of October 21, 1997
As there were no objections, the agenda was approved
as printed.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting
of October 7, 1997
As there were no additions or corrections, the
minutes were approved as printed.
Agenda Item #3 - Elections
Research and Professional Development Allocation
Committee
There were three vacancies for two-year terms
and one vacancy for a one-year term. Scott Patterson (BECA), Clay Dumont (Sociology),
Laura Head (Black Studies) and Vinay Shrivastava (BECA) agreed to stand for
election. Abdiel OÃate was nominated from the floor (M/S Cherny, Fehrman).
M/S (Houlberg, M.A. Warren)
to close nominations. The vote was taken and Patterson, Dumont,
and Head were elected to two-year terms.
Shrivastava and OÃate remained as nominees
for the one-year term.
M/S/P (Houlberg, Fehrman)
to close debate. The vote was taken and OÃate was elected.
Agenda Item #4 - Resolution on CETI
Houlberg
explained that the Executive Committee felt that it was necessary to bring this
resolution forward to go on record due to the speed with which the CETI process
is proceeding. He said that the Executive Committee recognized that this may
not result in changes to the process. The purpose is to go on the record, as
a senate, affirming the importance of having sufficient time for adequate faculty
input.
Woo
spoke against the resolution. He felt that there have not been enough details
given and that he doesn't know what the plan is. While he felt that the intent
of the resolution is good, he wanted more details.
Yee
felt that CETI has an impressive business plan with impressive products and
services. However, she also felt that we need time to see how this proposal
will fit into the strategic planning activities, specifically CUSP and Cornerstones.
She issued a call for a detailed academic impact plan that will reflect the
CSU and SFSU educational concerns and needs since the business plan does not
address these concerns. She encouraged Senators to vote in favor of this resolution
since the resolution asks for more time to study the pros and cons of this proposal.
Cherny also
spoke in favor of the resolution. He felt that we need time for faculty
to voice its concerns about some of the details. If the resolution passed, he
would bring it to the attention of the Statewide Academic Senate.
Hu
stated that he was for more faculty involvement, but he wondered if passing
this resolution would give the wrong impression that we are endorsing the concept
of CETI when we only wanted more participation. He expressed serious reservations
about having a commercial entity that operates in a public university environment.
CETI would dictate the hardware and software used in the CSU and he felt that
that was not what should happen in a public university.
Phillips
said that the intent of the resolution is to add weight to the resolutions also
coming from other campuses, to give leverage to the Statewide Academic Senate,
and to go on record. He did not want to directly oppose CETI, since he felt
that we don't have enough information to make a decision.
Hom
related that it is important to make our efforts known to the Statewide Academic
Senate to make a faculty voice and be a part of the process.
Zoloth-Dorfman
said that one of the things that we teach our students to do is careful research,
but we are not doing what we teach. One of the things that she wanted to happen
was to take the CETI proposal to the California Intellectual Property Association
to get another read on what the implications might be on professional scholarship.
She felt that faculty leadership should be given more time to evaluate this
type of proposal.
Duke
spoke in favor of the resolution and encouraged Senators to think about the
implications of not passing the resolution.
Gillotte
responded to Zoloth-Dorfman saying that she thought it was possible to
pass the resolution and still do the research. Zoloth-Dorfman agreed.
M/S/P (Houlberg, Gillotte)
to close debate. The vote was taken and the resolution passed with one
negative vote and one abstention.
Cherny
asked Woo if he could present to the Statewide Academic Senate that the
one person who was opposed to the resolution was opposed to CETI not to the
idea of more discussion. Woo agreed.
Phillips
stated that a copy of the resolution will be sent to Cherny and the Statewide
Academic Senate.
Agenda Item #5 - Further Discussion of Cornerstones
Report
Phillips
introduced this item and explained that this is an opportunity for feedback
and to strengthen the campus response (which is a joint response from faculty
and administration).
Yee
shared comments from CRAC which had discussed Cornerstones. CRAC was concerned
with how the CSU system-wide strategic plan will coordinate and integrate with
the campus-specific strategic plan or how Cornerstones will interact with CUSP.
She said that CUSP looks at faculty recommendations in at least six areas -
academic excellence, teaching and learning success, combating discrimination,
creating a user friendly campus, fostering community responsibility, and internationalizing
the university. While there is some overlap, some of these areas are missing
from Cornerstones.
CRAC felt that the SFSU curriculum is under evolution
and reconstruction and that it is timely to re-examine and retrofit the curriculum
with attention to its content information. CRAC was concerned with how and when
is it appropriate to be proactive, active, and reactive to issues contained
in Cornerstones and CUSP. For example, one issue was how will CRAC handle curriculum
proposal issues in terms of quality and accountability on a department basis,
college basis or campus basis. Another concern was how will CRAC handle curriculum
proposals in addressing the issues of access and lifelong education. She referenced
principles 5 and 6 on page 7 of the Cornerstones document concerning distance
education and technology and fee-funded versus state-funded courses. CRAC was
concerned with their impact and effectiveness -- would there be different criteria,
review and evaluation procedures between fee-funded and state-funded courses
and programs.
Phillips
stated that one of the central tensions of the document is that Cornerstones
is both political and substantive. Accountability is used widely and to him
it always has a political tone. He felt that assessment does not always have
a political tone since there is always a need to assess. Phillips felt that
the document raises questions regarding the degree of integrity to the process
that has to do with substance versus politics. One issue is centralization versus
decentralization. Cornerstones has reassured campuses and fought for decentralization,
but on certain critical issues it is centralized (like the allocation of money).
This notion is reinforced by the Institutional Assessment process which directly
and explicitly ties budget to campus performance. He felt that a lot of details
have to be worked out.
Phillips introduced Harold Goldwhite,
former Statewide Academic Senate Chair, and Ted Saenger, former member
of the Board of Trustees. Tom Ehrlich could not be present.
Goldwhite
felt that there have been very significant changes in the current version of
the Cornerstones document. The next full Cornerstones group meeting will be
December 1 to discuss input from campus meetings and to talk about further changes
in the final draft. The final version will go to the Trustees for their information
at the January 1998 meeting. He felt that what will go to the Trustees is a
statement of principles, not a set of executive orders. He believed that the
Trustees will leave to discussion between the administration and campuses all
the implementation and application of the principles.
Phillips
introduced Executive Director of the Urban Institute Brian Murphy as
another resource.
Saenger
said that, in his view, Cornerstones is both an internal and external document.
As an external document, it works with people and leadership of the State of
California to reaffirm a commitment to public higher education. The items on
access and funding are designed to point out to the public and the leadership
what the Cornerstones people feel is important going into the 21st century.
The public has a stake in the willingness to pay taxes to support higher education.
He stated his belief that funding to public higher education will have to increase
percentage-wise if the CSU is to do its job.
He felt that internally the CSU has some responsibilities
in continually asking how to do our jobs better in every respect. The institution
must be willing to look creatively at how to do things better to work more effectively
by using new tools, using facilities differently, and/or using the curriculum
that is offered. The student population also has changed expectations in Cornerstones
as well. All the parties have responsibilities in this process. The last several
pages are the key in his opinion so that together we can meet the challenge.
While the details may be different on different campuses, he felt that the major
thrusts should be the same.
Houlberg
said that when dealing with the overall issues of attitude and perception of
what we do here, people are looking for blame because their lives are not better
than they were before and education is easy to attack. He asked what assurance
do we have that the next chancellor will not go out and publicly insult the
faculty as the current chancellor is doing and to feed into the public that
the problem is that the lifestyles of the faculty is what's holding back change?
How can we as an organization convince the outside that we're doing a good job
when we internally, particularly our high visibility people, insult other parts
of the segment internally? If the Chancellor says that the faculty is not doing
what we should be doing, how can the public support us? Where are we going to
get support and recognition for what we have already done and what we are doing
and what we are attempting to do? We ought to be looking at ourselves regularly,
but how can we do that in a climate that is as political as it is actual and
operational? How do we overcome that?
Saenger
replied that Houlberg hit on an issue that came up early in Cornerstones. The
initial document, in its urgency for change, seemed to be saying you are not
doing a good job. One Cornerstones member, having worked in business for a long
time, said that when trying to work change in a dynamic environment improvement
may only be needed in 20%, and that 80% is ok. He felt that that is an art.
What is ok or even good today is likely not to be good enough tomorrow. He questioned
how do we insure in our academic subjects and in the way we do other things,
how do we continue to emphasize that and get the right balance? Since change
is uncomfortable, one needs to have the urgency and needs to have the balance.
Murphy
echoed one particular part concerning the newest Cornerstones document. The
difference in tone and specific references to the faculty in the newest document
is not a political response, but is a response based on a principled view that
the faculty were the central intellectual and institutional element of this
complex institution. With regards to this particular issue, he felt that the
document itself becomes an orientation and intervention for the new chancellor.
He felt that it would be helpful that if there are further things, in the senators'
judgment, that would clarify the question of the leadership of the faculty or
the role of the faculty, it would be helpful to know that before the final document
is written. He said to think of this as a document to help push the new chancellor.
OÃate
said that as he read the document and saw the evolution that Murphy is pointing
out in the tone and direction of the document, he was very pleased to hear Saenger
refer to the public relations aspect of the public funding of the university
system to be able to provide the services that are expected from the university
in the years to come. In the past discussions, he didn't remember anybody pointing
to the need to deliberately address these concerns to the legislature or to
the governor.
He referred to AB1415 (Long Term Higher Education
Support Legislation) which was vetoed by the Governor on October 10. He explained
that the bill would have stabilized future state funding for the CSU system
and for the UC system. He read a quote from the veto message in which Governor
Wilson stated, "I yield to no one in my appreciation of the value of UC
and the CSU and of their importance to California." The Governor was further
quoted that a better way to fund this institution was needed rather than "statutory
mandated autopilot spending which imposes inflexibility on the state budgetary
process". That funding has and must continue to assure quality, affordability
and accessibility.
OÃate disagreed with the Governor's position
that State funding has assured that and felt that one of the priorities of Cornerstones
should be to act and influence the position of the public and the legislature
in respect to funding. He wanted the guests to bring that message back into
the statewide group.
Goldwhite
thanked OÃate for his support of the Cornerstones position on that matter.
He said that one wish of the Cornerstones group was to get a strong statement
of the importance of maintaining a high level of public support for the CSU
while making sure that the CSU adds to that support from other sectors. He spoke
about the commitment of dedicating large amounts of State money to specific
programs. He felt that Cornerstones will provide a very strong platform for
the Chancellor and other leaders to negotiate vigorously for an increased share
of the State's general fund.
Referring to the previous discussion about CETI,
Hu felt that Cornerstones addresses the importance and the impact of
technology on future higher education. He questioned if Cornerstones is willing
to assess the impact of quality on higher education due to the lack of diversity
in terms of technology that we can use. Murphy stated that there had
been virtually no conversations between CETI and Cornerstones. He viewed Hu's
point as a good one. There are four oblique references to technology in Cornerstones
and where it is introduced as a theme, there are caveats.
Goldwhite
said that there are two exclusions from Cornerstones - technology and the interaction
between CSU and K-12. Cornerstones only focuses on a portion of what the CSU
will be facing in the near future. He said that he heard the Associate Vice
Chancellor for Information Technology speak about an exclusion of instruction
and curriculum from the baseline infrastructure and it's development. Goldwhite
felt that this is a naive exclusion because it cannot be fully separately. He
felt that the initial intent is to try to build the infrastructure around the
State and to provide the access then to let faculty make their own choices about
the use of technology in their own area and courses.
He commented that what is on the table now is
an agreement to negotiate between the CSU and the CETI team to form a partnership.
He hoped that the CSU Senate will have chances to influence that negotiation.
He felt that it will probably be an extremely broad agreement initially and
that details about technology and instruction will not be included. The provision
that the CSU will have the majority voice in the governance in that partnership
is crucial, according to Goldwhite. There is a need to make sure that faculty
voices are sitting in that governance group to make sure that whatever detailed
agreements are worked out concerning curriculum and technology that faculty
decisions will be controlling. He further felt that CETI is a tremendous opportunity
to bridge the technology gap.
Barnes
said that there seems to be some vagueness as to Cornerstones taking CUSP into
account while being drafted. He asked what Cornerstones could do for the role
of advising for students in a way to facilitate the process for both students
and faculty. Murphy replied that in the second and third Principles there
is an explicit acknowledgment of making the institutions more student responsive,
facilitating student learning plans, and the engagement of the student in the
development of their own academic planning.
Swanson
felt that there is conflict between advocating access to education and being
able to account for the productivity of the language learning skills that students
are developing while in the university. She was concerned about a potentially
strong conflict between trying to maintain access and trying to sustain a high
retention rate of students who are coming in with new and evolving linguistic
histories and backgrounds and the standard measure that we have always had to
measure linguistic proficiency. She felt that there should be people who have
a scholarly background and understanding of language development and language
learning advising the people writing these documents.
Hom
was concerned that for the last 20 years, teaching in the CSU has been based
on the principles in the California Master Plan for Education, but Cornerstones
does not mention this Master Plan. Murphy said he did not perceive any
contradiction in the fundamental commitments between Cornerstones and the Master
plan but he invited all who identified any contradictions to articulate them.
Murphy
realized that he had misunderstood Hom's point and added that the last two master
plan reviews were externally driven and were not internally welcome. He felt
that Cornerstones was somewhat animated by a desire to make a preemptive move.
Hom agreed.
Woo
said that the stated reason for CETI is that we will not be able to fund the
technology infrastructure through public funds, so this is the way to fund it.
He wondered if money was not available to fund the technical infrastructure,
he assumed money would not be available to fund any of the infrastructure, and
asked if Cornerstones addresses this.
Referring to section 2C on page 5 of the Cornerstones
document, Goldwhite said that Cornerstones includes the quality gap,
the infrastructure gap, the maintenance gap, the faculty compensation gap, and
other gaps. He felt that the thinking of CSU leadership, probably, was that
if a way can be found to bridge one of those gaps, then public funding could
be used for others.
Cherny
felt that the August draft of Cornerstones was a great improvement over the
previous version. He felt that since Cornerstones can be used to educate the
new chancellor, he felt that that education needs to include that we have suffered
a great deal from the financial crisis. In his own department there are 25%
less full-time faculty with no decrease in students or committee work. This
places faculty under an enormous strain due to the increased work load. Cherny
also felt that embarking on new ways of assessing our students is resource intensive
and the Cornerstones group should be aware of that.
Phillips
said that his current concerns are whether or not Cornerstones deals with SIP
and CETI, and institutional accountability. He felt that the integrity of Cornerstones
could get compromised by events that are moving faster than Cornerstones. Cornerstones
is dealing with issues of centralized versus decentralized and the relationship
between assessment and accountability. But institutional assessment, SIP, and
CETI appear to be on a faster track with "a more powerful locomotive."
Saenger
stated that Cornerstones is not a plan but a set of principles. He was on the
technology committee, but he knows nothing about CETI, so change is happening
very quickly. Cornerstones is calling for strong self-examination, closing the
gap, and other things all in a decentralized mode. There are going to be initiatives
and discussions that need to occur some of which will support the Cornerstones
principles and some will not. He felt that this is healthy activity, but it
can be scary.
Yee
referred to recommendations 5E and 6B on page 7 of the Cornerstones document.
She presented concerns from the Curriculum Review & Approval Committee and
the Graduate Council about fee increases and fee differentials. She said that
the Cornerstones document made a comment about matching fee increases with financial
aid but that was all that was said until Appendix A, pages 18 and 19. She felt
that the appendix contained very good information that could be moved forward
in the document or could be cross referenced to give background information.
She also questioned recommendation 6B about graduate fee differential and other
fee increases piloted at at least three CSU campuses. She asked if this is in
the plans or is it being done already. Murphy replied that the wedding
of financial aid with graduate fee differential was linguistically attempted
at every juncture to symbolize the policy point that they go together. He replied
that the information in Appendix A is not being moved forward as far as he knew.
Regarding the fee increase pilot, Murphy said that the notion is that three
self-nominated campuses would mix and match by their own identification of needs
and that it is an open invitation to pilot.
Phillips
thanked Goldwhite, Saenger, and Murphy for their helpful
discussion.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bonnie Homan
Secretary to the Faculty