SFSU Academic Senate

Minutes of November 21, 2000

The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Vaughn

at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present:

Aaron, Eunice; Alvarez, Alvin; Avila, Guadalupe; Bartscher,

Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Boyle, Andrea; Cancino, Herlinda; Chan, Jeffery;

Cherny, Robert; Colvin, Caran; Consoli, Andres; Contreras, Rey; Cullers, Susan;

Duke, Jerry; Elia, John; Ferretti, Charlotte; Garcia, Oswaldo; Garcia, Velia;

Gillotte, Helen; Goldsmith, Helen; Gregory, Jan; Harnly, Caroline; Hu, Sung;

Johnson, Dane; Johnson, Sharon; Langbort, Carol; Loomis, Barbara; McKeon, Midori;

Nichols, Amy; Pasaporte, Erin; Raggio, Marcia; Sagisi, Jaymee; Strong, Rob;

Su, Yuli; Turitz, Mitch; Vaughn, Pamela; Warren, Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope;

Wong, Alfred; Yip, Yewmun.

Senate Members Absent: Flowers, Will(exc.);

Shrivastava, Vinay; Sayeed, Lutfus; Jerris, Scott(exc.); Smith, Miriam(exc.);

Edwards, James; Blomberg, Judith; de Vries, Brian; Concolino, Christopher; Hubler,

Barbara(exc.); La Belle, Thomas(exc.); Kelley, James(exc.); Scoble, Don(exc.);

Collier, James(exc.); Corrigan, Robert(exc.).

Guests: J. Combs, P. Barnes, J. Kitses, J.

Kassiola, C. Dumont, S. Baltazar, A. Pelham, D. Zingale, K. Fehrman, N. Rabolt

Announcements and Report

  • Chair Vaughn welcomed Yuli Su, a new senator from

    the College of Business. She reminded senators of the Asilomar deadline for

    registration: Monday, December 4. She also announced that the CFA-organized

    volunteers registered 1,450 new voters, the highest on any CSU campus. In

    an unrelated announcement, Vaughn announced that Gladiator has just

    been released in the US in video and DVD.

  • In her Chair's Report Vaughn reported briefly on the

    Senate Executive Committee's continuing pursuit, with the Office of Academic

    Affairs, for more campus involvement in summer semester planning. She also

    previewed the proximate Senate celebration of the work of Hollis Matson and

    Bernadette Pichay, and sent our good thoughts and prayers to Mark Phillips'

    wife Jeannie.

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for November 21,

2000

The agenda was approved as printed.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for November 7,

2000

The minutes were approved as printed.

Agenda Item #3 - Proposed Policy on Observance of Religious

Holidays

This consent item from the Student Affairs Committee (SAC)

and the Academic Policies Committee (APC) was introduced by Rob Strong,

who chaired the subcommittee developing this policy. He provided some background

on the genesis of this policy, noting that SAC and Student Affairs had heard

some grievances on this issue while there was no campus-wide policy in place.

Jan Gregory asked how students will be informed of

their responsibility to notify instructors. Helen Gillotte, SAC chair,

explained that in part #3, Implementation, we have asked that this policy be

included in the University Bulletin and appropriate web sites' statement and

that faculty be encouraged to include the policy statement in their course syllabi.

Gillotte asked Sung Hu, APC chair, to amplify on

the use of the term "exemplar observances" in the implementation section. Hu

explained that the Office of Human Relations cannot provide an exhaustive list

of religious and ethnic holidays, but this list will provide broad examples.

M/S/P (Hu, Duke) to second reading.

M/S/P (Consoli, Duke) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the policy was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #4 - Proposal for Changes to Major and Minor

Programs in La Raza Studies

Alfred Wong, chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval

Committee (CRAC), introduced this consent item.

Eunice Aaron complimented the department for their

work on these revisions, making the point that what we see here is student-focused.

Jeffrey Chan asked whether the second semester English

requirement could be offered under the category of RAZA 214. Velia Garcia

replied that this was a typo.

Robert Cherny asked where the minimum number of upper-division

units are stated, suggesting that if it is not here, it needs to be added. Garcia

replied that we have never specified it, but this could be taken up in the next

round of review.

M/S/P (Consoli, Duke) to second reading.

M/S/P (Duke, Alvarez) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.

Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Revision to the Minor in American

Indian Studies

CRAC Chair Wong introduced this consent item.

M/S/P (Duke, M.A. Warren) to second reading.

M/S/P (P. Warren, M.A. Warren) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.

Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Revisions to the Communicative

Disorders Program

Wong briefly introduced this CRAC consent item.

Helen Goldsmith asked if there is any prerequisite

for CD 300 and whether this change will affect the minor. Marcia Raggio replied

that there is no prerequisite for CD 300 and that it will not change the minor.

M/S/P (Duke, Hu) to second reading.

M/S/P (Duke, Alvarez) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.

Agenda Item #7 - Proposed Revised Curriculum for Cinema

MFA Program

Wong introduced this CRAC consent item briefly.

Mary Anne Warren asked about the concurrent enrollment

in 710, 711, and 721 while taking 701. Cinema Chair Jim Kitses explained

the first semester, summarizing that the first semester does have four concurrent

courses.

M/S/P (P. Warren, Aaron) to second reading.

Jerry Duke asked if 721 should really be 712 under

"specific changes proposed." Kitses concluded that 721 is actually correct.

Gregory wanted to know what AVID editing was, and

Kitses explained that it's a new digital editing system that makes it possible

to edit all material simultaneously; it's also called non-linear editing.

M/S/P (Aaron, Duke) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #8 - Accountability Indicator #11

Vaughn re-introduced this continuing discussion of

Accountability Indicator #11 "Faculty Scholarship and Creative Achievement."

She first read the statement from the Chancellor's Office on this indicator:

"The CSU will provide support for scholarship and creative achievement to enable

faculty to maintain the currency of knowledge and skills that are necessary

to provide students with a 'sophisticated knowledge base' in respective disciplines."

She reminded senators of their charge to review the recommendations from the

Executive Committee and to consult with their constituents. Vaughn asked for

general comments and indicated that these will be followed by straw votes to

get a sense of the body's response to the Executive Committee's recommendation.

Mitch Turitz reported that he had received comments

from two constituents, one of whom thought this was a great idea to make our

faculty look good by emphasizing all the good things that we have done and the

other of whom said that we are overburdened with our five year reviews, our

retention and tenure reviews, and our FARs--and now we're asked for another

accountability review of information that can be obtained from all the other

reviews.

Charlotte Ferretti summarized the response from nursing

faculty with the general comments asking for two different categories in the

initial response: whether the work was supported by university resources or

done independently.

Vaughn added that CSU-Los Angeles produced a 30 question

faculty survey and asked about Senate feelings on that. Turitz asked if the

chair was asking about sending a faculty survey on faculty surveys. Gregory

asked what we would ask people if we sent out a survey. If it were how much

they received from CSU in support of scholarly pursuits, that would be simple;

anything more than that seems immaterial. Duke wondered if the Chair

was suggesting sending out a survey. Vaughn reiterated that she was not advocating

a survey but that that was one model used. The campus has to reply to this indicator.

She added that San Diego State sent a survey to departments asking for a cumulative

count of number of books, articles, etc. These are the extremes: a simple numerical

counting of faculty work product that is not necessarily supported work and

a full-blown, multi-question survey of faculty.

Gregory insisted that we must pay attention to the independent

clauses in the original language, focusing on "support for" rather than "work

by." Penelope Warren suggested that if we go beyond an inventory of the

results of supported work the FAR process might be adapted for this. If the

FARs indicated supported versus unsupported work we would be able to make the

distinctions. Caroline Harnly agreed and spoke in favor of finding a

way to make a distinction between work done out of our own hide and work that

is supported; we also need to make this as simple as possible.

Duke asked if the Academic Senate is the only body responding

to this. Vaughn responded that we have been asked to suggest ways in which the

campus should respond to this.

Andres Consoli returned to Provost La Belle's comment

last time, focusing on the first line of the CSU document on CSU providing support.

The question is, what is the nature of that support, adding that his understanding

is that there is no budget line-item at CSU level for this, which would mean

there is nothing to report. He added that there is a gap between general discussions

of CSU support and the specifics at the campus level. All of the campus awards

have reporting responsibilities, which means that information can be collated

into a different document. Vaughn added that the Executive Committee recommended

exactly that. Turitz reminded everyone that Accountability Indicator #11 is

not required by the contract; therefore, such information might be considered

voluntary.

Midori McKeon suggested listing two sets of numbers:

achievements supported by the CSU system; those not supported by the CSU system.

But if we do well without the system's support, that figure could be read as

suggesting that our faculty do so well without support that support is not necessary.

She concluded that we should strictly limit our response to work with direct

support of the CSU system.

Cherny has been thinking about how meaningless this

is all going to be while thinking about a chapter of his that will appear in

a book this year--thinking back to how he paid for the process of doing this

chapter. There was a little bit of university support but many expenses paid

for out of pocket. Is this with university support or not? What part did the

university support? Is this meaningful? He concluded that he doesn't believe

this is meaningful; it is a catch-22 situation, a no win exercise.

Eunice Aaron spoke cheerfully about making this exercise

meaningful. She suggested looking at the Chancellor's and Board of Trustees'

indicators, which are nonsense, but we can help them with this. They have some

language about cooperation and shared-governance, and we have an obligation

to help them to see that there is a far far greater thing that we do than to

walk into this trap.

Vaughn reminded us all that we have suggested that it would

be useful for the various Statewide Presidents' and Provosts' groups to take

their own opportunities to educate the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees

and the legislature of exactly what is the meaning of these things. As Cherny

mentioned last time, there is statutory obligation on the part of the CSU. She

went on to seek direct response to the various Executive Committee recommendations:

"1) List the campus initiatives which provide financial

and assigned time support for faculty, the dates these initiatives were established,

the total amount of funding for each initiative, and what ranks of faculty are

eligible for each." The Senate voiced support.

"2) For any given classification of support, indicate the

number of faculty eligible for the award, the number of applicants from that

eligible pool, the number of awards granted, and the amount of each award."

The Senate voiced support.

"3) For the 'outcomes portion, refer the Chancellor's Office

to the required faculty reports." Vaughn added that this was considered less

than helpful, but we do have these reports as well as reports faculty are required

to file when they have completed mini-grants, summer stipends, etc.

Duke commented that if we refer them to FAR reports there

will be no indication of whether it is supported or unsupported. P. Warren stood

by that suggestion and added that in cases where the reports are not in, those

who administrate the programs could pursue them, leaving the rest of us to our

work.

Mary Anne Warren suggested it would be useful if

we did have clearly separated categories of work that has been fully supported,

partially supported and work for which there was no support.

Vaughn returned to the Executive Committee recommendations:

"4) For grants and contracts, distinguish between those

grants which are faculty initiated and those which are campus initiated--the

extensive amount of faculty work in these endeavors should be recognized." The

Senate voiced support.

"5) Ensure that the Chancellor's Office understands that

there is far more scholarly productivity than that supported by various campus

funding efforts and, in fact, that the majority of faulty still provide their

own support for professional development." The Senate voiced support.

"6) Recommend to the Chancellor's Office that it commission

a survey of all CSU faculty and that this survey include, at a minimum, the

opportunity for faculty (a) to assess the support they receive from their campus

and the CSU and (b) to comment on the quality and quantity of this support with

respect to the faculty member's own professional and scholarly productivity."

The Senate voiced support.

Harnly returned us to the FAR, suggesting that we could

indicate what kind of support we received.

In addition to the categories of "FS"--full support--"PS"--partial

support--and "NS"--no support, Aaron suggested adding a column, letter to be

designated later for "lot of lip service."

Vaughn noted that none of the Executive Committee recommendations

require further work for faculty, and she asked Aaron if she was proposing a

form. Aaron suggested revising the FARs, amplifying that senior administrators

need to understand that we are not twiddling our thumbs. If we are going to

do this, we want to do it well, and then we can go on to the business at hand,

which is educating our students and doing our research.

Vaughn suggested we can pursue a FAR revision and added

that the other items are basically the responsibility of campus administration,

and it does not imply additional work for the faculty.

Agenda Item #9 - Proposed Revision to Minor in Gerontology

Wong swiftly introduced this additional CRAC consent

item, a change into a Minor in Gerontology: Healthy Aging.

Goldsmith raised two questions, first one about numbers.

Nursing 112 is 1 unit and the Gerontology is variable units, which means the

minor could be from 17-23 units. Her other question was about the effect of

this changed minor on the Segment III cluster Perspectives on Aging. Anabel

Pelham replied that they are currently working with Judy Ott to get the

numbers accurate. It is a variable number in the internship but the numbers

will add up to a 21 unit minor with students being advised on what they will

need to take. Pelham replied to the question on the Segment III cluster stating

that their goal is to make this minor a parallel to that cluster and to supplant

that cluster, but she added that they we need to work with the Segment III committee.

M/S/P (Alvarez, Aaron) to second reading.

Marian Bernstein wondered whether the problems looming

with Segment III ought not to be worked out before this is passed. If this impacts

one of the clusters, it impacts a lot of students.

Gregory concurred with Bernstein's comment that it

is easier to fix things before they get fixed in a University Bulletin.

Cherny asked whether we need to take action on these

today so that they can be in the Bulletin or can we wait and take action in

two weeks when we have answers. Pelham elaborated that some of the Segment III

courses have not been offered, and students have been struggling. It is their

hope to get in the Bulletin.

Vaughn asked about feedback from the cluster coordinator.

Pelham replied that she is the cluster coordinator and that she will be recommending

that it be phased out.

Sharon Johnson asked which courses are in the cluster

and whether they will be changed. Pelham replied that she didn't have that information

with her, and Johnson suggested waiting.

Cherny checked with Dean Jerald Combs who suggested

that we do need to make a decision today if this is going to make it into Bulletin

copy. Cherny suggested passing this minor today if we have no difficulty with

the minor and let Segment III be dealt with in due course.

Duke spoke in favor of going ahead with this minor.

Paul Barnes spoke in favor of this proposal, noting

that he used to teach "Physiology of Aging," but no one is old enough to teach

it anymore, so it won't be offered.

M/S/P (Duke, Alvarez) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.

Agenda Item #10 - Proposed B.S. in Apparel and Interior

Design

Wong concisely introduced this last consent item

from CRAC, a proposed B.S. in Apparel and Interior Design.

Aaron asked Wong if this has yet to go to Long Beach

and whether it can make the 2001 Bulletin. Wong replied that it is already in

the master plan and can indeed make it in.

Cherny was concerned whether this was the final approval

or not because this version has some problems that need to be addressed in a

more thoughtful arena. He raised the following concerns: page 15 says "see Table

I, next page," but there is no Table I on the next page, and this is a fairly

important issue since it deals with the need for additional faculty. Dean

Donald Zingale addressed this first question, explaining that Table I is

a system form that is filed whenever there is a new degree program, and what

one tries to accomplish is to say "zero" at the bottom of the form taking resources

to make new FTE while eliminating old FTE and faculty assignments. On some campuses,

Table I is done by the department seeking the approval of the degree; on this

campus, it is done by the administration. Zingale further explained that students

formerly associated with a general degree program in Consumer and Family Studies

with an option in Interior Design or Apparel will now be moving to their own

degree program. This is a no new resources program.

Cherny raised an additional question on pages 18-19 regarding

discrepancies in numbers of units based on the listing. Nancy Rabolt

thanked Cherny and agreed it should say 61-65 and that the program core is 15

and not 17.

Cherny asked why the "prerequisites" were called "prerequisites"

when they seem to be courses required as part of the major. He suggested calling

them a part of the course requirements or indicating that students must complete

them before being admitted to the major. Rabolt replied that these were prerequisites

to the previous major, explaining that they wanted the students to have a basic

economics and psychology class, for example. These can be taken as part of the

General Education program, but they want the students to take these particular

GE courses. Cherny reiterated his suggestion of folding those into the courses

required for each concentration.

Cherny made one final suggestion: it's clear that a student

could complete this program in 120 units, but he suggested adding a sentence

to that effect, that students will double count up to six units.

Harnly asked about the new classes discussed on pages

4-5. Rabolt explained that this new major takes the concentrations in Clothing

and Textiles, and Interior Design and Housing that are under the BA in Family

Consumer Sciences, reconfigures them, and puts them into a new degree. Since

they have a new core, it looks like there are a lot of new courses. But it's

only 6 new units because they will not be taking the old core. AID 445 "Business

Practices for Interior Design" is a new course for accreditation. AID 469 "Visual

Merchandising and Promotion" is another brand new course, something that was

missing from the old program.

Turitz raised a question about the library resources

listed on page 13-14, wondering why there is no mention of on-line resources.

Harnly explained that this is a continuation of the support she has been giving

all along to CFSD. Turitz rephrased the question, wondering whether there are

on-line resources and suggesting that they be mentioned. Harnly acceded.

Goldsmith returned to the issue of prerequisites,

first stating her understanding of a prerequisite, which is a course that you

have to take before you take something else; whereas, these courses just seem

like courses that have to be taken some time along the way.

Vaughn raised a question about the electives on page

19, specifically MS 730, wondering whether enrollment was restricted to Museum

Studies students or to graduate students. Marian Bernstein answered

that it is not restricted in either way.

P. Warren asked whether the old concentrations will

no longer exist. Rabolt replied that that is the case and that a program to

modify that program will be forthcoming.

M/S/P (Duke, Alvarez) to second reading.

M/S/P (Bernstein, M.A. Warren) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.

The Senate was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty