Minutes: December 2nd, 2003

ACADEMIC SENATE

MEETING

TUESDAY,

December 2, 2003

2:00 - 4:00 p.m.

Senate Members Present:

Senate Members Absent:  Aaron,

Eunice (excused); Batista, Natalie; Bernstein, Marian (excused); Cherny, Robert

(excused); Langbort, Carol; Morishita, Leroy (excused); Nichols, Amy (excused);

Palmer, Pete; (excused) Shrivastava, Vinay; Smith, Brett; Stowers, Genie

(excused); Suzuki, Dean (excused)

Visitors:  Kevin

Bowman, Dan Buttlaire, Lila Chavez, Donna Cunningham, Rene F. Dahl, Ann Hallum,

Evelyn Hooker, Kevin Kelly, Philip King, Suzanne Michalik, Ken Monteiro, Jim

Murphy, Erik Rosegard, Penny Saffold, Marie Schafle, Marjorie Seashore, Michael

Simpson, Nina Jo Smith, Carol Stevenson, Susan Sung, Mitch Turitz, Marilyn

Verhey, Ginger Yamamoto

CALL

TO ORDER:

2:10 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS          

Senate

Chair Edwards noted that immediately

following the senate meeting there would be a reception in honor of President Corrigan’s fifteen years of service to

the university.

Kevin Kelly from CET made an announcement

about the winter programs that CET is sponsoring.  These programs provide opportunities for

faculty professional development, and include “winter camps” as well as

workshops and seminars that involve topics such as introducing technology into

teaching.  Also, CET now has “mobile

classroom” technology which be brought into the classroom.  Kelly

noted that postcards with further information would circulate through the

senate meeting room.

CFA

President Mitch Turitz announced that on December

10, 1948

the United Nations signed a “Declaration of Human Rights” that recognized all

workers’ right to organize in the workplace.  Turitz

noted that even today there are still workplace intimidations, firings, and

immigration policies that create fear and limit growth.  This December 10 there will be a working

national day of action to underscore the message on the basic right for workers

to organize.  The work rally and

candlelight program will be held on December 10 at 5 p.m. in

Union Square

in San Francisco.  Many SFSU participants will assemble at 4:30

p.m. to

take the “M” streetcar to

Union Square

to join other unions, and he

invited participation from the group.

Chair Edwards

stated that the Bookstore would be having their annual reception in recognition

of faculty and staff starting at 4 p.m. today, with merchandise discounts,

food and drink.  All staff and faculty

are invited.

Chair Edwards

further noted that senators have received an addendum to the Committee on Committee’s

report, which includes reports on committees not reviewed in the initial COC

report the senate evaluated and approved in September.  The full report would be up on the Senate

website by the end of next week.

Chair Edwards

finally noted that this would be the last senate meeting of the semester, and

offered, on behalf of the Senate Executive Committee, sincere congratulations

and thanks to senators for their hard work over the fall semester.

AGENDA ITEM #1 - APPROVAL OF THE

AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 2, 2003

Chair Edwards noted a correction to the

agenda.  A sentence on Agenda Item 5

needed to be deleted.  He also added as

Agenda Item 7 a report from the Dean of Human Relations on the recent Summit on Race and Culture.

M/S/P Meredith, Gerson

AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER

18, 2003

AGENDA ITEM #3 -REPORT—PROVOST JOHN M. GEMELLO—REFERENDA,

$75 PER SEMESTER INCREASE IN STUDENT FEES

Provost Gemello stated that two weeks ago he

had gone before the Student Affairs Committee to propose a new instructional

fee, of $75 per semester beginning in the fall of 2004.  The committee had a good discussion and voted,

8 to 3, that the increase would come forward in the spring referendum.  He was here to explain what the request was,

and discuss the important issues.  This

was to be a mandatory, category one fee, $75 per semester, $35 per summer

semester, the purpose of which was to act as a fee to handle services otherwise

marked for extinction.  These included

subsidization of course sections, library materials, and classroom renovation.

Provost Gemello took some time to explain the

reason for the fee.  In 2003-04, besides

budget reductions across several categories, there were also mandatory

increases in spending for items such as compensation increases and risk premium

health care costs, totaling about $4.6 million at this campus. Altogether the

2003-04 budget faced a $30.2 million shortfall.  However, some factors served to mitigate this

figure.  The campus had received some

augmentation due to growth, two sets of enrollment growth augmentations, which

totaled $4.1 million.  This still left a

shortfall of $14.1 million, and the student fee was proposed to handle this

deficit.

Gemello further stated that each of the

major Vice Presidential units had been given reductions, for example classroom

renovation, and the CMS system, but that these were mostly temporary.

There

were four items illustrated on the slide labeled “one time revenue sources”

that included an enrollment growth supplement, the lottery reserve, and a prior

year’s carry over and replacing some general fund support with lottery funds.  The permanent reductions in counseling and

psychological services have been shifted to a fee basis.

Since

these 2003-04 reductions were temporary, the 2004-05 cycle of planning meant

coping with long-term shortfalls.  We

started this budget with a shortfall of $9.7 million. Some of mandatory costs

for campus have continued - SSI’s, risk pool premiums and the like, adding up

to a $11.2 million deficit.  The current

plan includes: permanent reductions to the Vice Presidential units, a $3.2

million cut for Academic Affairs and removing the Athletics Program from the

general fund to a fee basis.  Students

may vote to fund the career center with a fee, rather than see it disappear.  Even with these transfers however, the campus

would still have a $2.9 million shortage, hence the proposed solution to

increase student fees.

In 2004-05

two possible scenarios existed.  If

Academic Affairs endures a reduction, the university will have to cut about 700

classes.  However, if the fee increase

goes through, the university will be able to offer more classes.  A possible alternative would be to reduce the

summer program, and have fall/spring remain the same with the fee increase.  He illustrated the average class size of 33.2

students per class with and 36.1 students per class without fees.

Provost Gemello outlined some details on the

proposed fee increase.  There would be

$150 increase per year for all students, with $35 increase for summer students,

thus raising $4.6 million and the ability to restore course sections in 2004-05.

 He observed that after the crisis in the

1990’s, several initiatives had resulted, many of them related to Academic Affairs,

including building the library budget back up to where it had been in 1989.  Due to tremendous inflation in the costs of

library materials, some annual increases were added.  Similar programs took place in instructional

equipment to handle inflationary increases, on the order of 5% per year until

2002 when it ceased.  In 2003-04 the

university not only lost this augmentation, but also lost other funds.  The Audio Visual augmentation increased the

number of smart classrooms, which are now significantly upgraded.  This continued for about 4-5 years, but was

reduced about 50%, slowing down classroom enhancement.  Similar patterns affected Vice President Morishita’s unit with respect to office classroom infrastructure:

chairs, carpets, blackboards etc.   For

the future he noted that the university was already thinking ahead to a planned

restoration at some point in the future, and how best to accomplish that.

Provost Gemello hoped that the fee proposal,

voted by the Student Association, would go forward in March and would be

approved by the Chancellor.  He indicated

that it had been very hard to stand before the student committee and ask for

fee increases, but that the alternatives were unsavory.

Senator Alvarez questioned the permanent

reduction to the Counseling Center and Career Center, and requested an explanation or

rationale for that decision.

Provost Gemello responded that the rationale

involved consideration of the core educational program of the university.  He thought that a university could essentially

exist without career center.  He also

noted that counseling was not cut but rather shifted to a fee basis.  There was no plan to reduce counseling

services.

AGENDA ITEM #4 - RECOMMENDATION from the CURRICULUM

REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE—a consent

item—REVISION OF THE MA DEGREE in ECONOMICS, 1^st and 2^nd

readings

Chair Edwards commented that this agenda item

came as a consent item in 1^st and 2^nd reading from CRAC.

 

M/S/P Houlberg, Vaughn

Senator Houlberg, representing CRAC in the

absence of Chair Nichols, outlined

the basic changes that had been presented to CRAC and the Graduate Council.  The Economics department was proposing minor

changes in the Master’s degree: minor changes in the undergraduate course requirements

for admission, more substantial changes in the Core Requirements to move the

program in a more practical and applied direction, an increase in the number of

electives through pairing graduate with undergraduate courses, and adding a

culminating experience course which would be more applied than previous

practice, although a thesis option would still be available.

The revision passed

unanimously.

AGENDA

ITEM #5 - RECOMMENDATION from the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL

COMMITTEE—REVISION to the BA in CHILD and ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT, 1^st

reading

M/S Houlberg, Otero

Senator Houlberg noted that the proposal had come

to the committee three times.  It came

from both the CAD Council and the BSS Council of Chairs who had approved the

proposed revised curriculum, which included: small changes in the prerequisites

to the major, minor revisions to the core requirements, and minor revisions in

the Young Child and Family concentration.  Major revisions included in the School Age

Child and Family concentration were necessitated by new State of California

requirements for teacher preparation (SB 2042). 

There was a reorganization of thematic categories in the Youth and

Family Services concentration, and a similar category reorganization in the

Research and Public Policy concentration.

Rene Dahl, the coordinator of the program

responded that it had only come to CRAC twice.

Senator Steier asked the reason for multiple

forays through the committee, as it might help senators focus on potentially

controversial areas of the proposal.

Senator Houlberg responded that there had been

requests for clarification but not major objections to the proposal.

Senator Vaughn added as further clarification to

the question to examine the numbered items on the senate’s information sheet,

as they outlined the questions that CRAC had posed.

Senator Turitz noted that with respect to the

effect the revision had on resources that this was the best statement he had

ever seen and urged it to be offered up others as a model.

The proposal will return in second reading on February 10, 2004.

AGENDA ITEM #6—RECOMMENDATION from the CURRICULUM REVIEW

& APPROVAL COMMITTEE—REVISIONS to the UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR  & MINOR in RECREATION & LEISURE

STUDIES, 1^st reading

M/S Houlberg, Otero

Senator Houlberg noted that this proposed revision

consisted of adding REC 260 to the major core, grouping courses into emphases

for the purposes of advising, changing the titles of the minor, and deletion of

several courses from the Outdoor Recreation emphasis.  The regrouping is for advising purposes and does

not change the concentration.

The proposal will return to

senate on Feb.

10, 2004.

AGENDA ITEM #7-REPORT from DEAN OF HUMAN RELATIONS KEN

MONTEIRO on THE SUMMIT FOR RACE AND CULTURE

Dean Monteiro

indicated that the handout circulating around the senate room was the agenda

for the summit and listing of ten recommendations which resulted from the summit.

 He firstly wanted to acknowledge and

thank the Senate Chair Edwards and

Senator Williams for their

leadership. He expressed regret at his inability to verbally describe the

experience of the summit.  He noted that

those who were present would “get it”, but that the experience was hard to articulate.

 He felt that the summit served as a tool

for the campus to hear issues of race and culture, digest them, and provide a

basis for plans for action.  The summit

was sparked into life by some campus incidents, but summit was not just a

response to those incidents - there have been strong persistent issues that are

upwelling underneath.  From his own

office he has seen data that supports the concerns raised at summit.

He expressed a desire to explain three things from the

summit:  what we did, what are the

outcomes, and what are the promises.

Monteiro

explained how the summit was planned. 

The first step was to decide what the summit was going to address, and

then attempt to have the campus conduct a working retreat.  The summit was envisioned as a place for

airing issues and organizing responses - a process that deals consensually with

priorities and the creation of strategies.

At the summit everyone worked to identify the key issues

in the morning.  This pushed the group to

their limits of organizational abilities, and he expressed thanks to the

well-prepared volunteers.  He asked the

senators to imagine two hours of heartfelt comments, both oral and written that

included suggestions for solutions.  He felt

that it was a very moving and powerful experience, and one that did not

generate a defensive stance.  Afterwards,

the group broke into smaller units to examine particular themes.

The summit website will provide a full report and

commentary.  A main objective of the

summit was to serve as a working report.  Several questions remain, among them the issue

of who should be moving the agenda, refining it, and taking it further.

Monteiro noted

what promises the summit offered.  He

suggested that one was to rid the campus community of some “can’t dos.”  Topics deemed too controversial to talk about

were discussed.  There were fears of

chaos and pandemonium, but the outcome was orderly.  There was dialogue on important issues that

could be painful to individuals.  He felt

that as a campus we must continue to have these discussions on a regular basis.

 If one does not recognize one’s own

successes there are difficulties.  This

has been turned this into preliminary plan, and there is a need to develop

process for continuing.

Senator Williams moved a resolution, seconded by

Senator Otero.

Senator Williams read a short resolution urging

the Provost to bring the report from the Summit to the committee of Deans and Department Chairs

in order to introduce the issues to departments for consideration when they are

planning their faculty retreat programs in January.

Senator Williams

noted that while faculty here at SFSU were multiculturally sensitive, it did

not mean that we are perfect and could not strive for even greater progress.  He thought there is a need to consider some

other issues, and that is would be prudent to address the current warning signs.

 He commented that while the racial

incidents that sparked the calling of the summit were immature and disgraceful,

they had also provided an opportunity to make some progress in addressing these

problems.

Senator Meredith

asked that if this resolution were to pass, whether there would be resources

available to do this.

Monteiro

responded that he did know what was to be asked specifically, but would like to

provide whatever resources were possible.

Senator Gerson

commented on the need for faculty and staff to think about the grievances

stated and take them to heart.

Moved to second reading.

M/S/P

Meredith, Steier

Passed unanimously.

AGENDA ITEM #7- RECOMMENDATION from the EXECUTIVE

COMMITTEE—a consent item—RESOLUTION IN HONOR OF PRESIDENT CORRIGAN’S FIFTEEN

YEARS OF SERVICE AT SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY

M/S/P

Williams, Fielden

Chair Edwards

read the resolution honoring President Corrigan

for his 15 years of distinguished service to SFSU.

President Corrigan

responded by observing that he had learned a long time ago from the Irish

politicians he had come to know in Massachusetts that at a situation such as

this, is was important for the honoree to act like a corpse at wake, in other

words to “lie still and be quiet.”  However,

he commented on two things in particular - that faculty and senators had been

partners in accomplishing a great deal of work. 

He congratulated senators on being loyal hardworking members of the

community.  He felt that he had a large

number of friends in the senate, something that has not always the case in

senate/presidential relationships, and he expressed his deep appreciation for these

positive relationships.

President Corrigan

noted that SFSU was the preeminent urban public university in the country, and

that shared governance worked well here.  He also expressed his deep appreciation for the

honor of the resolution, more than most senators might imagine.

AGENDA ITEM #8—RECEPTION IN HONOR OF PRESIDENT CORRIGAN

AGENDA ITEM #9—ADJOURNMENT—5:00 p.m.