Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Senate Members Present:
Chen, Yu Charn
Contreras, A. Reynaldo
Van Dam, Mary Ann
Batista, Natalie, Cherny, Robert (excused), Corrigan, Robert (excused),
Otero, Aina J. (excused), Rocchio, Jean (excused), Shrivastava, Vinay, Steier,
Saul (excused), Vaughn, Pamela (excused)
Visitors: David Apelt, Kati Bell,
Suzanne Dmytrenko, Maria Garrido, Richard Giardina, Ann Hallum, David Hellman,
LaVonne Jacobsen, Deborah Masters, Brian Murphy, Sondra Perl, Charles Schuster,
Mitch Turitz, John Van Savage, Marilyn Verhey, Edward White, Gail Whitaker,
Georgianna Wong, Yenbo Wu, Jennifer Yeh
Chair Edwards announced
a “wine and nuts” reception in honor of the Senate’s hard work this semester
immediately following the assembly on the 5th floor of the Administration
building. Senators and their guests are welcome. December 2nd will
be the last meeting of the semester, barring an emergency, in which case December
16th is set aside. The last half hour of the December 2nd
meeting will consist of a reception in the Seven Hills lobby honoring President
Corrigan’s 15 years of service to the University, and will continue
until 5:00 pm.
Chair Edwards indicated
that the Senate is still seeking names for the workload task force.
AGENDA ITEM #1 - APPROVAL OF
THE AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER
Chair Edwards noted that
a correction is needed for agenda items 7 and 8, whose numerical values are
reversed on the printed agenda.
Palmer, Meredith. Agenda is approved as amended.
AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF
MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 4th, 2003
noted that in the section of the minutes on “changes in agenda” there is an
extra “the.” Agenda item 4 should list his title as Director, Disability
Minutes approved as amended.
AGENDA ITEM #3 -REPORT—SUZANNE
DMYTRENKO, SFSU REGISTRAR: STUDENT PRIVACY REGULATIONS
Suzanne Dmytrenko indicated
that Senators have been provided handouts, including SFSU policy on student
privacy, a web tutorial on student privacy as an informative mechanism, and
a postcard listing basic information regarding what kinds of student information
may and may not be distributed or made public.
Senator Meredith asked
whether only the Registrar’s office could distribute this kind of student
information or whether anyone was able to do so.
Dmytrenko responded that as long as a
student’s record is not deemed confidential, and that confidential status
is up to individual students, this is public information. These are guidelines
for faculty as to what can and what cannot be released.
Senator Williams asked
about student names: whether class lists could not be circulated in class,
whether grades could be posted, etc.
Dmytrenko indicated that student names
are directory information, and can be circulate.
However, documents containing social security numbers, or even partial social
security numbers linked to student names, and grade sheets with grades listed
are items that should not be disseminated.
Senator Ulasewicz asked
about partial social security numbers.
Dmytrenko answered that this was not acceptable,
and that the University was moving toward a system by which social security
numbers are no longer being used for identification, but rather an unrelated
Senator Hom asked about
one item on the information card which suggested that no discussion of a student’s
academic performance may take place between faculty. He noted that such discussions
are often necessary, and asked if faculty should disregard the so-called “progress
requests” between faculty.
Dmytrenko responded that for educational
purposes, such discussions regarding students’ academic standing should naturally
occur, even with the inclusion of private information. The postcard is a general
guide, and not comprehensive. That is why the Student Privacy Web Tutorial
is so important; which all faculty should become familiar..
Senator Carrington noted
that since the University was dispensing with social security numbers, whether
an alternative number would appear on class lists.
Dmytrenko noted that only printed class
rosters would be missing social security numbers, and that the web class lists,
available to faculty, would include the social security numbers.
Morishita requested that Dmytrenko
explain the UIN to the senators.
Dmytrenko noted that last year’s senate
had resolved to change the system of social security numbers, and that faculty,
staff, and students would now be given a nine digit number. Number assignments
should begin for faculty and staff in July 2004, with students later in the
fall. This UIN will replace the social security number for privacy purposes.
Williams asked about the practice of
leaving folders containing student papers for pickup, and if student papers
were placed in a separate envelope was that an acceptable practice. He also
expressed some anxiety about the consequences of unintended non-adherence
Dmytrenko said that some small penalties
were possible and fines for non-adherence. For grade sheets, envelopes are
appropriate, even grades written on an inside sheet of a paper would be acceptable.
The caution is that students should not be able to comb through a bin for
this private information. She indicated that having a staff person to monitor
student access would be the best manner in which to handle the distribution
of student papers.
AGENDA ITEM #4 - REPORT—DEBORAH
MASTERS, UNIVERSITY LIBRARIAN, & LAVONNE JACOBSEN, HEAD, COLLECTION ACCESS
& MANAGEMENT SERVICES: REVIEW SERIALS OFFERINGS
Debbie Masters noted that
after consultation with the Academic Senate Library Advisory Committee, an
email regarding serial offerings had been distributed to the faculty.
Masters stated she wished to present an outline of the project to the
senate, which is a result of presentations provided for college Deans and
the Executive Committee.
Masters noted that there were two handouts
provided to the Senators. The first handout outlined trends in scholarly
publishing in higher education, and the second was a printout of the presentation
Masters noted that SFSU library’s collection
is curricular driven, and is not that of a large research library. While this
does not mean that research materials are not chosen, the curricular stance
remains a basic principle. She urged faculty to take advantage of services
like Document Delivery, which enabled access to many esoteric, and sometimes
costly, journals beyond our own collection.
Masters stopped to provide a basic working
definition of “serials.” A serial is anything that is issued in parts, intended
to be continued indefinitely, and is commonly referred to as “magazines, journals
or periodicals” - anything for which we have a continuing obligation to acquire,
is considered a serial. Masters stressed that we need to periodically
review our materials to insure that they meet curricular needs. The
goal of the project is to make sure that the library is providing the SFSU
community with materials that meet these curricular needs.
Masters noted a slide that outlined
the pattern of the library budget over the last ten years, with drastic cutbacks
in the early 1990s, but with support from administration much of the purchasing
power was restored in the late 1990s. Unfortunately, the cost of living augmentation
which had been a factor until recently, has no longer been an option for the
past couple years. This has created a large gap in the maintenance of the
The rise of journal subscription
prices has thus eaten more and more into the library’s budget, creating an
erosion of purchasing power, a situation that is not a sustainable model.
The current project is an attempt to address this erosion and by cutting $500,000
from the current $2,600,000 budget devoted to serials, in an attempt to come
back to a more balanced level of expenditure.
Librarian selectors and liaisons
will be contacting departments, helping to address these journal issues. Departments
may want to rank their most important journals, or look at canceling journals
with the highest inflation rates. Also, departments should consider
that sometimes electronic, instead of print formats, can be more cost effective.
Every department is expected to have to cancel some serials subscriptions.
The project has a final deadline
of April 2004, which will give the library enough time to process the changes.
In conversations with the Library
Advisory Committee, the Deans and the Senate Executive Committee, a number
of questions were on the order of “What are you going to do about this?”
Masters noted that already the CSU system
is able to take advantage of consortia buying to acquire databases and other
resources at deeply discounted prices. There are CSU core collections for
the whole system.
Masters indicated that faculty might
be in the “driver’s seat” for initiating change. Various initiatives, among
them SPARC, have launched in the University world about influencing scholarly
Some things that are being done
Rethinking RTP criteria to encourage
quality vs. quantity.
Valuing electronic publication
as well as print, in order to retain rights of the work to use in teaching.
Universities can choose journals
with open access to materials at no or low cost.
When serving on journal editorial
boards, chose only honorable journals.
Collaborate on new ventures to
provide alternatives to high cost journals.
Faculty can collectively influence
accreditation criteria, which traditionally create rigid and inflexible lists
of mandatory journals. Perhaps the argument that access rather than ownership
Masters stated that working together
over time, it is possible to transform scholarly communication. This year
the library requires your help on the serials project.
Senator Daniels wanted
to know the names of the worst of the journal publishers.
Masters responded that Elseiver was
the worst, and had created, partially through acquisition, a large and aggressive
empire. UC, among others, was in the process of pushing back.
Senator Williams asked
for clarification about accreditation issues. His department had fairly specific
guidelines for journals.
Masters commented that increasingly
there were criteria for learning outcomes, student information literacy and
student lifelong learning. While not saying that there aren't critical journals,
there may be improved ways to consider accreditation criteria.
Senator Chelberg wanted
the other senators to be aware of AB-422 which calls for all publishers who
sell educational materials to public education institutions to provide electronic
formats for maximum accessibility for student use. He also proposed criteria
that favored publishers who honor those ideas and use our leverage.
that market power was a valuable tool.
Senator Heiman asked if
the library had any connection to the public library of science initiatives
and what role we might play there. Referring to the point of article length
and quality, he found that in his discipline, there was a real move towards
shorter articles, which is beyond his control.
Masters was not familiar with this movement
but thought that alternative publishing models might perhaps be useful, especially
if peer review can be preserved. For the first part of the question, she knew
that UC had spoken to the issue and that CSU library directors had been discussing
it as well.
AGENDA ITEM #7—RECOMMENDATION
FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - a consent item - APPROVAL of the RESOLUTION
ON WAYS TO ADDRESS REDUCTION IN WORK AVAILABLE FOR TEMPORARY FACLTY
State Senator Gregory
noted that in response to questions and comments made by senators Vaughn
and McKeon changes for clarity were made to the bullet points of the
resolution, but a “whereas clause” amendment never reached her electronically.
Senator McKeon had a question
for the Chair, as to whether it is appropriate to have procedures mentioned
in resolutions. Traditionally resolutions do not usually contain information
regarding procedures, and she asked if the kinds of procedures outlined in
the resolution are appropriate.
Chair Edwards ruled that
this is appropriate, noting that the constitution explicitly addresses this.
Senator Chelberg noted
that in the fourth paragraph, a spelling error required correction.
McKeon had questions regarding some
potential difficulties with compliance and timing for the first and second
bulleted items. Departments usually begin early in a semester to coordinate
course schedules for the following semester, however the first bullet states
that lecturers should submit work lists and an Application for Subsequent
Temporary Faculty Appointment no later than one month prior to the end of
classes each semester. The second bullet recommends that distribution
of the form should occur during the time of class scheduling, which is at
the very beginning of the preceding semester. She requested some clarification
on this area.
Gregory adopted a suggestion in amending
this section so that scheduling would not take place before the forms were
submitted. She would accept this as a friendly amendment, perhaps striking
everything after the comma on line three of the first bullet point but adding
the words “until budget crisis ends” to bullet point two.
Senator Bernstein thought
the rationale for the resolution was very clear, which is that schedules are
made up quite early, and to have lecturers make declarations about courses
in effect “after the fact” seems unhelpful. In fact moving it earlier
would help lecturers make their case with better timing.
Senator Meredith observed
that his department used electronic communication almost exclusively, and
wondered if this was appropriate. He also noted that he had never seen
the form mentioned in the resolution.
Gregory supported the use of electronic
communication, but noted the understanding that both Faculty Affairs and Academic
Affairs have this form, or at least a reminder that the form goes to department
chairs every semester or every year, depending on lecturers’ contracts.
She wondered how it was possible that Senator Meredith had never become
acquainted with the form in question, and sought the insight of the Dean of
Faculty Affairs, who was present.
Senator Williams reminded
senators of the spirit of the resolution, which is for the institution to
encourage lecturers to make sure they maintain the attention and awareness
of their chairs and departments.
Senator Heiman made a
suggestion for the third bullet, perhaps adding a phrase to the end of the
bullet point “and as necessary.” He commented that in his days as a
lecturer at several institutions, a chair or dean had never called him during
a semester break with a request to teach almost immediately. Much more
common was hearing from them at the beginning or the first third of the semester,
and at that stage, it makes more sense to make sure that lecturer information
this as a friendly amendment, and acknowledged that the time certain had arrived
for agenda item 5, and the Senate would take up this item again when time
AGENDA ITEM #5 - REPORT—MIRIAM
SMITH, CHAIR, ALL-UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE on INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS: INTRODUCTION
OF GLOBAL STARS, the database for faculty international expertise & THE
COMMITTEE’S PROCESS IN COMPILING COLLEGE INVENTORIES OF INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
indicated that besides Miriam Smith,
Advisor, Study Abroad Programs, and Yenbo Wu,
Director of the Office of International Programs were also present to answer
Miriam Smith noted that
the AUCIP has a broad charge to supervise all international programs on campus,
and two of the projects the committee has undertaken have been to identify
faculty and staff who have experience or expertise in international issues,
and to identify all the international activities that take place on campus.
Kati Bell outlined some
of the history of the Global Stars database. She also noted that Global
Stars is a web-based database, accessible to anyone on campus, supported by
CET, and she demonstrated some of the features of the database, for example,
how to search and sort by country or language. Over a hundred faculty and
staff are listed so far, and they represent a wide cross-section across campus.
The database would allow campus members to locate others with similar or desired
experience and knowledge. She encouraged campus members to join and create
records of their own to expand the database to increase its utility.
Smith outlined another project of
the committee, an inventory of international activity business, noting that
two members of the committee were present at the meeting today, visitor John
Van Savage from Business and Senator Oswaldo Garcia from the
college of Science. Individuals can inform the
committee about any internationally focused program or activity, and it will
be collected in one place for the benefit of the campus community.
RETURN TO: AGENDA ITEM #7—RECOMMENDATION
FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - a consent item - APPROVAL of the RESOLUTION
ON WAYS TO ADDRESS REDUCTION IN WORK AVAILABLE FOR TEMPORARY FACLTY
With no speakers on the speakers
list, the resolution was put to vote.
The resolution was unanimously
AGENDA ITEM #6—RECOMMENDATION
FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE - APPROVAL of the RESOLUTION ON INTERNATIONAL
EDUCATION WEEK 2003
Senator Gerson, chair
of the Student Affairs Committee commented that this resolution is similar
to previous resolutions, that International Week has already begun, and she
urged adoption of the resolution.
McKeon spoke to the spirit of the resolution,
and how it was in accord with this campus’ philosophical stance, and urged
Yenbo Wu announced that
there are over 80 events scheduled this week and expressed pleasure that greater
numbers of faculty, including lecturers, had become involved and put much
energy into the week’s activities.
McKeon asked for additional phrases
to be added to the final “resolved” section: after the list of people and
offices who have contributed, adding “various department programs, and faculty
members across the campus.”
Chair Edwards moved the
resolution to second reading.
The resolution was unanimously
approved as amended.
AGENDA ITEM #8- REPORT—BRIAN MURPHY, DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO URBAN INSTITUTE: MAKING SENSE
OUT OF THE CURRENT POLITICAL TURN OF EVENTS
Murphy indicated he would attempt to
provide some sense of the lay of land in Sacramento. The new Governor’s inaugural
address was remarkably positive, and he took a stance that cast his immigrant
status as a plus for the state. One example of the potential value of his
experiences is that he is the first Governor in recent memory who actually
attended community college. Currently many progressive forces in Sacramento rather than simply despairing
the electoral outcome, are building a public awareness campaign on the consequences
of the proposed executive actions. The Governor’s international celebrity
creates new and unusual status for the Governor in a political sense, since
he is not someone who needs more fame for external recognition. He has taken
a populist stance and may well not want to be known for a legacy of savaging
progressive political programs like education. He may not be as beholden to
the right wing as is often the case with Republican executives. But the general
movement seems to be that he will be proposing ways to borrow the state’s
way out of the fiscal mess.
There is currently a $12.5 billion
debt, which is, essentially floated. Ten billion is from a year and a half
ago, which the previous Governor had hoped to reduce with a half cent sales
tax, but the debt has not decreased. Estimates for the current year’s debt
are for about $8 billion now but another $4 billion will be added due to the
auto tax rollback. This adds up to a $24.5 billon debt.
The governor is likely to offer
what is called a “burrito bond” with all the pieces wrapped up in one bond
initiative. This will be a very expensive proposition for the state
as it will require the state to pay a large amount of interest over an extended
period of time.
If the “geo bond” goes through,
it may make it very hard to pass the education bond in March and may even
make it impossible for the state to carry debt at all. A geo bond means
that it is paid for out of general revenues, and the bad news is that this
would terminate all other options, if the Governor honors his pledges of no
new taxes and rolls back the auto taxes.
Even in the hunt to find $4 billion,
we still remain in danger, because we are in the “discretionary” part of the
budget. It is possible that the system may double fees. There are very few
other areas from which to make cuts.
All kinds of programs cannot
receive cuts without endangering federally matched dollars. A long term debt
plan, coupled with a spending ceiling, is a recipe for disaster. The plans
would not address such variables as population changes, demographics, and
other costs, items that cannot be ignored and the result will be a very big
problem. This probably would not explode in the next few years, but would
emerge later. Senator Burton will very likely not jeopardize any social
services and will let the CSU and UC systems take the first hits. Some political
action is potentially useful.
Murphy commented on the celebrated
“audit.” It looked very much not like an audit at all, but a preliminary look
at budget numbers, and it seemed likely that the proposal would involve a
rollback to pervious budget levels.
Finally, Murphy observed
that no one has a very good idea about the Governor’s agenda beyond the next
few days. The Governor is just as worrisome to Republicans as to Democrats,
and represents a potentially very independent stance. Sacramento is doing their usual taking
a mixed view, trying to figure out what the new angles are, where the leverage
State Senator Aaron gave
thanks for the insights and wondered what was likely to happen now as far
as the counties in California are concerned. She asked how
they will be affected.
that there are three complicated dynamics. The signature yesterday had
a large impact on local funding, but it will not be felt immediately. It will
affect poor people first, but at a local level, with no visible stateside
effects. Secondly, even Republican districts are just as affected, and will
have an effect on fire and police services among others, resulting in a lot
of aggravated legislators. A third possibility is to make the state pay back
the money, which makes for a hole, and then possibly the state would
give property tax funds back to the counties. The state, however, would still
have to equalize the effects of this.
Senator Jerris had two
questions. He observed that one cannot just issue bonds, but that someone
has to buy them, and who would do that? Secondly, he wanted to know if there
was any sense of what Washington might do.
Murphy responded that perhaps indeed
no one would buy the bonds, but they might be sold in exchange for fiscal
Murphy further felt that he did not
see how any more than $2 billon could come from federal sources.
AGENDA ITEM #9—DISCUSSION ITEM:
WRITING PROGRAM EXTERNAL REVIEW—GUESTS, EXTERNAL REVIEW TEAM: DRS. SONDRA
PERL, Professor of English, Lehman College, CUNY, CHARLES SCHUSTER,
Associate Dean, Humanities and Communication, and Professor of English, University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, & EDWARD WHITE, Adjunct Professor of English,
University of Arizona, and Professor Emeritus of English, CSU San Bernardino
Charles Schuster from
Wisconsin offered from the review committee
an appreciation at being able to meet with so many administrators and faculty
on their visit to campus. He expressed recognition of the high commitment
to teaching, learning, and writing evident in conversations across campus.
Schuster indicated that the review committee
would be roughing out a report, and sought to present a number of preview
Edward White commented
that he found a heartening aspect of the campus culture in the relative lack
of blame about the issues involved in teaching writing. He thought the campus
was definitely attempting to do the best it could with a difficult situation,
and that faculty were taking responsibility. He noted that the situation is
a permanent one: students always should be writing better.
Senator Heiman drew the
committee’s attention to latest draft of strategic planning, which explicitly
recognizes the need to better address student writing needs.
Sondra Perl stated that
the committee was aware of the strategic planning and its movement, and that
the committee felt that the focus is to identify where the best place on campus
to put energy is, and where the resources can be put to best use.
Edward White noted that
the committee had managed to encounter a veritable mountain of documents for
the campus, including a long history of writing on campus. He noted, for example,
that our own JEPET test has become a model among CSU campuses.
Senator Bernstein asked
what the committee’s thoughts were regarding GE Segment III, and what recommendations
they might have about GE and Segment III in particular, and how to "catch
it admirable that students were writing in upper level GE courses, but questioned
the efficacy of the current “ten page” requirement. She questioned the writing
component in large enrollment courses, and suggested employing capstone courses
or writing intensive courses within disciplines. She observed two distinctions
for writing - learning to write for the discipline and learning to write in
Senator Williams expressed
hope that the review committee would address the extreme disparities of student
background, culture, class etc.
Schuster acknowledged the dedication
to writing across disciplines. He expressed that we all want to do the best
we can with what we have and, find ways to celebrate writing, making the need
to write with high expectation and low risk a positive approach. We have to
acknowledge diversity and realize there is no magic solution - nothing quick,
nothing linear - and that students get better, then regress, but need to be
given many opportunities.
White noted that he had F.E.R.P’d
in the CSU and the University of Arizona, and had taught at both at the
same time. He found himself looking forward to CSU campuses and their extraordinary
variety and excitement on CSU campuses, all of which feeds into writing.
Schuster commented that they have not
seen enough student writing, and that our campus
might well have “more surface error” in student writing, but likely a richer
context for writing. He defined “surface air” as basic mechanics --
punctuation, split infinitives etc., but beneath the writing is often a richer
Senator Gregory asked
if the committee could address the issue of increasing emphasis on writing
without increasing faculty workload.
Perl offered some suggestions. It
might make sense to make distinctions between high stakes and low stakes writing.
Many students don’t write well because they don't read well. One approach
is to use writing to help reading, and to make writing more a practical tool
for learning. It is helpful to give ownership to students for their education.
Content journals and other mechanisms can further learning, along with improved
ways to frame questions to make for more exciting answers to questions. If
higher stakes writing is required, faculty should make sure there is time
for revision. Other structures can also be helpful, and other students can
help edit and proofread each others’ work. She felt that less is often more,
and that it often was useful to look for patterns of errors and not try to
do it all.
Schuster that he often asked students
to reflect, in writing, on their own writing, whether it worked will, whether
they thought they addressed their topics and audience appropriately.
Having this feedback often can be very helpful for instructors in developing
strategies to improve writing skills.
Senator Mak asked about
the effect that the internet had on writing, and how it can be used for creative
White responded that at least one
issue with the internet is as a research source, which is not a new problem.
Now it is very easy to include
other sources and students are not always aware of proper source citation.
We need to educate, stress authority, and take more responsibility to teach
Ulasewicz commented on a recent workshop
on rubrics for assessment, and if the committee was suggesting this route.
Also, were there suggestions for freshman and sophomores, not just upper division
White suggested not using rubrics
so much as scoring guides, but to make criteria visible. Skilled writers do
not consider first drafts to be finished items. Skilled writers revise consistently.
Unskilled writers write the night before, hand it in and pray. They are not
able to evaluate their own work, and need to learn how to revise. Rubrics
help students devise internal criteria, which is very crucial to the process.
Perl wanted to address what faculty
can do to improve student writing. She suggested asking what
are the most important ideas you want students to learn in the course,
and then to have writing in the syllabus which support these areas. Secondly,
faculty might begin to think of their courses as narratives, and ask what
kind of story they are trying to tell, what is the climax, what kind
of pace the course has, and then try to focus writing to match course trajectory.
Senator Terrell found
these to be good suggestions, but remarked that critical issues involved the
notion of professional development and how we will be able to become more
skilled teachers of writing.
Perl had two received contradictory
comments about workshops from the campus. Some questions remain as to what
the value system of the campus is, and how training will proceed. All these
are issues that will return to the campus, faculty and senate.
Schuster noted that much success in this
area is ultimately due to faculty development.
AGENDA ITEM #10—ADJOURNMENT 4:00 pm.