OPEN FLOOR PERIOD: 2:00 - 2:10 p.m.
The Open Floor Period provides an informal opportunity for campus community members to raise questions or make comments directed to Senate officers or to university administrators. Please arrive promptly at 2:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: 2:10 p.m.
 
ATTENDANCE:

 

Albiniak, Theodor

Amjadi, Taghi

Barrera, Ana Maria

Bloom, Gilda

Brown, Elizabeth

Carcieri, Martin

Cheng, Chen

Collins, Robert

Damangir, Sina

Dariotis, Wei Ming

De Barro, Jose A

Denetclaw, Wilfred

Foley, Jacqueline

Gen, Sheldon

Gerber, Nancy

Harris, Andrew

Harris-Boundy, Jason

Hines, Ellen

 

 

Johnson, Dane

Kakar, Venoo

Kuchins, Noah

Leech, Mary

Lisy-Wagner, Laura

Lopez, Janet

Mooney, Dylan

Okhremtchouk, Irina

Olsher, David

Pasion, Sally

Pido, Eric

Platas, Linda

Roehrman, Todd

Rubin, Jasper

Sanders, Alison

Scott, Michael

Shapiro, Jerry

Sinha, Dipendra

 

 

Small, Rachel

Soorapanth, Sada

Spencer, Dee

Steier, Saul

Stowers, Genie

Summit, Jennifer

Tanner, Kimberly

Teh, Kwok-Siong

Thomas, Tom

Turitz, Mitch

Van Velsor, Patricia

Walls, Andrew

Way, Lori Beth

Wilczek, Cindy

Wilhite, Lightfoot

Williams, Aimee

Wong, President

Wong, Yutian

Yee-Melichar, Darlene

 

 

Absences: Bloom, Gilda (abs); Damangir, Sina (abs); Dariotis, Wei Ming (exc); De Barro, Jose A (exc); Kuchins, Noah (exc); Pido, Eric (abs); Shapiro, Jerry (exc); Tanner, Kimberly (exc);

Visitors: Chris Trudell, Sophie Clavier, Claude Bartholomew, Yim-Yu Wong, Grace Yoo, Noah Price, Mi-Sook Kim, Connie Ulabwigz, Leti M-Magana, Pavlina Latkova

 

1.       Approval of the Agenda for April 17, 2018

·                  Senate approved the agenda as submitted.

2.       Approval of the Minutes for April 3, 2018

·                  Senate approved the minutes as submitted.

3.       Announcements from the Floor

·                  Sen. Yee-Melichar announced a call for nominations for the CSU Faculty Innovation and Leadership Award, nominations due 6/9.

·                  Sen. Roehrman announced the upcoming performance of Hair, which opens next week.

·                  Sen. Foley updated Senate about the AS elections.

·                  Sen. Brown ceded her time to Dean Kim, who announced the Graduate Research Showcase on Thursday from 3 – 5 in the Main Gym and the SF State Scholar 4 + 1 programs, which will begin next semester.

·                  Sen. Collins announced that he will be attending the ICAS and meeting with legislators and other state officials and asked for feedback from anyone who has issues that they would like brought forward. 

4.       Reports

4.1.    Chair

·                  Chair Gerber announced that this is the penultimate plenary meeting and described the process for returning senators for committee assignments for next year.

4.2.    Standing Committees

4.2.1. Strategic Issues Committee

·                  Sen. Gen reported that SIC will be facing a high turnover and recommended that returning senators consider serving on SIC next year. They will be continuing discussions on staff recruitment, retention, and recognition.

4.2.2. Academic Policies Committee

·                  Sen. Wilson reported that APC has a number of items on the agenda for today, and noted that they continue to work on the schedule.

4.2.3. Curriculum Review and Approval Committee

·                  Sen. Stowers reported that CRAC has a number of items on the agenda for today, and highlighted the policy on Undergraduate Student Instruction.

4.2.4. Faculty Affairs Committee

·                  Sen. Roehrman reported that FAC continues to work on the GTA tuition remission policy.

4.2.5. Student Affairs Committee

·                  Sen. Williams reported that SAC has a policy about SHAC on the agenda today and is working on revising the anti-bullying policy.

5.       Report from Trevor Getz, Manual Perez and Leti Marquez-Magana – Equity and Inclusion Educational Opportunities Working Group Concept Paper (time approximate 4:30)

·                  Profs. Marquez-Magana and Getz and Interim AVP for Equity and Community Inclusion Perez spoke about the work of the Equity and Inclusion Educational Opportunities Working Group and outlined their concept paper. They discussed the lack of an inclusive climate on campus, the effects of that climate on students, and how we might make steps toward creating a more inclusive climate.

·                  Sen. Way asked whether Faculty Affairs is guided by this issue when hiring faculty. Prof. Getz expressed a need for various campus constituencies to come together. AVP Perez spoke about the need for an advisory board.

·                  Sen. Sinha asked about the concept of a “new majority”, whether it has evolved gradually and how other campuses are working through these issues. Prof. Marquez-Magana noted that this idea addressed national trends, and talked about a conference she attended dealing with questions of how the professoriate does not represent the same identities in the same proportions as the students. AVP Perez talked about his upcoming participation in the Young Males of Color Forum, and noted concerns about the low number of young males of color among entering first-years and among students graduating in four years. He expressed concerns with the equity gap.

·                  Sen. Denetclaw asked why the org chart does not include support for Native Americans. AVP Perez supported his concerns.

·                  Sen. Wilczek pointed out that there are several identity groups not represented on that org chart and asked how the division plans to support these various groups while still keeping coherent messages and practices across the division. AVP Perez talked about being informed by the community and proceeding based on theoretical and empirical underpinnings.

·                  Vice-Chair Albiniak brought up concerns about housing and food insecurity.

·                  Sen. Sinha expressed concerns about “native white people” and whether they will feel excluded. Prof. Marquez-Magana deconstructed the idea of “native” as applied to descendants of European colonizers. Prof. Getz noted that these units are addressing measurable and measured gaps in achievement in specific communities. The process is data-driven. He talked about the role that Senate will need to play in advancing these initiatives.

OLD BUSINESS

6.       Recommendation from the Executive Committee: Resolution in Support of a Campus Academic Master Planning Process (first reading)

·                  Vice-Chair Albiniak moved the item and spoke in its favor.

·                  Sen. Sinha commented on the importance and rationale for the item.

·                  Sen. Wilson moved the item into second reading, seconded by Sen. Stowers. The motion passed unanimously.  

·                  Chair Gerber called the vote, and the motion passed unanimously.

7.       Recommendation from the Executive Committee: Resolution in Support of the Black Unity (second reading)

·                  Vice-Chair Albiniak moved the item and read the resolution into the record.

·                  Sen. Mooney ceded his time to Dr. Serie McDougal, Director of the Black Unity Center. Dr. McDougal spoke about the need for a Black Unity Center on campus and the goals and programs of the Center.

·                  Chair Gerber called the vote, and the motion passed unanimously.

8.       Recommendation from the Faculty Affairs Committee: Proposed Policy on Graduate Teaching Associate Tuition Waivers (first reading)

·                  Sen. Roehrman moved the item and spoke in its favor. He added that a number of comments have come to the committee since their most recent meeting, and suggested that the policy was not ready to move to second reading.

·                  Sen. Yee-Melichar thanked FAC for their hard work on this proposed policy and asked about the wording of the abstract.

·                  Sen. Roehrman outlined some of the most recent changes to the draft policy.

·                  Sen. Leech asked about the number of hours of training for GTA’s. Sen. Roehrman discussed some possibilities, either through departments or through CEETL.

·                  Chair Gerber sent the policy back to FAC for further consideration.

9.       Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Proposed Revision of #F10-256, Policy on Declaration of an Undergraduate Major (first reading)

·                  Sen. Wilson moved the item and spoke in its favor.

·                  Sen. Small moved the item to second reading, seconded by Sen. Platas. The motion passed unanimously.

·                  Chair Gerber called the vote, and the motion passed unanimously.

10.   Recommendation from the Educational Policies Council: Proposed Discontinuance of the MBA, Concentration in Sustainable Business (second reading)

·                  Chair Gerber opened discussion of the item under second reading. Sen. Thomas spoke in favor of the item, explaining that the reasons for the discontinuance are administrative. Once it is discontinued, the department will be proposing a certificate that will cover the same material. The program has support from the department, but it needs to be reconstituted in another way because of EO 1071.

·                  Chair Gerber explained why some items are being introduced in second reading, while others come back in first reading.

·                  Chair Gerber called the vote, and the motion passed unanimously.

11.   Recommendation from the Educational Policies Council: Proposed Temporary Suspension of the Master of Arts in Education, Concentration in Language and Literacy Education (second reading)

·                  Chair Gerber opened discussion of the item under second reading.

·                  Chair Gerber called the vote, and the motion passed unanimously.

12.   Recommendation from the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee: Proposed Minor in Art History (second reading)

·                  Chair Gerber opened discussion of the item under second reading. Sen. Sinha expressed support for the program and proposed an amendment on line 36 to reduce the total number of units for the new minor from 18 to 15 units. The motion received no second.

·                  Sen. Sinha proposed an amendment on line 76 to include “and participating in the events of professional societies.” The motion received no second.

·                  Sen. Way pointed out that minors can only be pursued by matriculated students, so that many of these amendments do not apply.

·                  Sen. Sinha proposed an amendment to line 298, but Chair Gerber pointed out that the Senate called the amendment out of order because it called for a change in the program learning outcomes for the minor.

·                  Sen. Sinha proposed an amendment to line 402, calling for more courses on-line. Chair Gerber declared this amendment out of order.

·                  Sen. Spencer noted that this item was passed unanimously by CRAC.

·                  Chair Gerber called the vote, and the motion passed unanimously.

13.   Recommendation from the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee: Proposed new concentration: BS in Nutrition and Dietetics, Concentration in Dietetics and Nutrition Science (second reading)

·                  Chair Gerber opened discussion of the item under second reading.

·                  Chair Gerber called the vote, and the motion passed unanimously.

14.   Recommendation from the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee: Proposed new concentration: BS in Nutrition and Dietetics, Concentration in Foods and Community Nutrition (second reading)

·                  Chair Gerber opened discussion of the item under second reading.

·                  Chair Gerber called the vote, and the motion passed unanimously.

15.   Recommendation from the Student Affairs Committee: Proposed Creation of a Student Health Advisory Committee (first reading)

·                  Sen. Williams moved the item and spoke in its favor. Sen. Yee-Melichar congratulated SAC on its work and asked whether the advisory committee will address both physical and mental/emotional health. Sen. Williams answered that it will. Sen. Chekuri ceded his time to AVP Shelburg, who explained the importance and the rationale for this policy.

·                  Sen. Wilhite moved the item to second reading, seconded by Sen. Foley. The motion passed unanimously.

·                  Sen. Yee-Melichar noted a typo in the policy as posted on ilearn.

·                  Sen. Foley asked whether the SHAC committee has the authority to mandate that the university comply with the Academic Senate policy that was passed last year about counseling services. Sen. Williams pointed out that they are an advisory body, but that they can make it a focus of their advisement.

·                  Chair Gerber called the vote, and it passed unanimously.

16.   Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Proposed Revision to #S04-230, Grade Appeals Policy (first reading)

·                  Sen. Wilson moved the item and spoke in its favor. He outlined some of the major changes made to the policy.

·                  Sen. Wilczek asked about the process of postponement of the hearing if a faculty member is not available. Sen. Wilson clarified the timeline and the student’s role in the process. Sen. Wilczek suggested that there should not be a postponement, but instead only alternatives.

·                  Sen. Stowers asked about the process if a faculty member is not returning to campus, for example, if they retire or move to another job. Sen. Wilson outlined some options under the policy.

·                  Sen. Platas explained that postponement is when the student requests it, rather than the faculty member.

·                  Sen. Small moved the item to second reading, seconded by Sen. Mooney. The motion passed unanimously.

·                  Sen. Platas proposed an amendment to line 60, adding “at the request of the student”, sp that the phrase reads “for the purpose of grade appeals, at the request of the student…” Vice-Chair Albiniak seconded the motion.

o         Sen. Wilczek recommended that the insertion instead be made in line 58.

o         Chair Gerber called the vote, and the amendment was defeated.

·                  Sen. Wilczek proposed an amendment to line 58, inserting “with the agreement of the student”, so that the phrase reads “the appeal may be postponed until the instructor returns to campus, with the agreement of the student.” Vice-Chair Albiniak seconded the motion.

o         Chair Gerber called the vote, and the amendment was passed unanimously.

·                  Sen. Platas proposed an amendment to strike the previous amendment and reinstate it earlier in the sentence to read “the appeal may be postponed, with the agreement of the student, until the instructor returns to campus.” Sen. Small seconded the motion.

o         Sen. Yee-Melichar proposed that the word “written” be inserted before “agreement”. Sen. Small seconded the motion.

o         Chair Gerber called the vote, and the amendment was passed with one abstention (Sen. Castillo).

·                  Chair Gerber called the vote, and the amendment was passed unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS

17.   Recommendation from the Educational Policies Council: Proposed Discontinuance of the Bachelor of Arts in Art: Concentration in Art Education (first reading)

·                  Sen. Wilson moved the item and spoke about it, noting that the vote was split. He noted that he has received large feedback from administrators, faculty, students, and alumni about the issue. He outlined some of the concerns that the committee had, including questions about how much control a department has over what it offers, the large number of students affected by this discontinuance, and the process by which this arrived at the Senate.

·                  Sen. Harris ceded his time to Prof. Gwen Allen, chair of the Curriculum Committee in the School of Art. She read a statement that addressed the rationale behind why the School of Art brought forward this discontinuance, including the role that curriculum review played in reaccreditation and in compliance with EO 1071. She argued that students interested in teaching art should take Studio Art and the Education minor.

·                  Chair Gerber sent the item back to EPC.

18.   Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Proposed Revision to #S17-255, Requirements for Baccalaureate Degrees, Majors, Concentrations, Minors and Certificates (first reading)

·                  Chair Gerber passed the gavel to Vice-Chair Albiniak so that she could participate in the discussion. Sen. Wilson moved the item. Chair Gerber outlined the revisions to #S17-255, including the changes made because of EO 1100 and EO 1110. She also discussed that there is a policy that we will need to approve and a series of appendices that we do not need to approve, but will come to Senate from BRC as an information item.

·                  Sen. Johnson asked about amendments that had been suggested by CWEP. Sen. Wilson answered that they have been received and that APC will be considering them at the next meeting. Sen. Johnson asked whether he could read the changes that CWEP has recommended. Sen. Wilson acceded. Sen. Johnson noted that in table 1 the title of the course should read “Written Communication I/First-Year Experience I” and “Lifelong Learning and Self-Development/Written Communciation II/First-Year Experience II”.

·                  Sen. Way thanked the campus community for their work and cooperation on this issue. She also noted that EO 1110 no longer requires algebra readiness for quantitative reasoning courses. She described how various campus committees have been working together to find a compromise and that clarification has come out of the Chancellor’s Office that Area E cannot be Written Communication II.

·                  Sen. Summit agreed with Sen. Way.

·                  Chair Gerber spoke against the idea of making Written Communication II a stand-alone graduation requirement, advocating for students in high-unit majors like Engineering and B.S. in Chemistry/Biochemistry. She spoke in favor of making the Area E course a writing-intensive course, but not a Written Communication II course.

·                  Sen. Harris ceded his time to Prof. Sugie Goen-Salter, Chair of the English Department. Prof. Goen-Salter expressed surprise that there is an FAQ from the Chancellor’s Office that prohibits Area E as a Written Communication requirement. She emphasized the importance of written communication as a skill for college students and expressed concerns about the loss of Area A4. She called for senators to consider these concerns before the next reading of this policy. She pointed out that we would be requiring less writing instruction for our first-time freshman entering students than we do of our community college transfers. She talked about the difference between courses that are “writing-intensive” and courses that meet the learning outcomes for Written Communication II. She advocated for senators to consider this difference explicitly, and asked Sen. Way about the existence of the FAQ.

·                  Sen. Way noted that we just got the FAQ from the Chancellor’s Office at 2:46 PM today. She clarified that the prohibition isn’t against writing, but against a second writing composition course. They need to encompass the learning outcomes for Area E.

·                  Sen. Johnson clarified the message from CWEP, not that they were advocating for a stand-alone course, but that courses that satisfy Area E need to also meet WEC II (Written English Communication II).

·                  Vice-Chair Albiniak recommended that feedback be sent to Sen. Wilson and sent the policy back to APC.

19.   Recommendation from the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee: Policy on Undergraduate Student Instruction (first reading)

·                  Sen. Stowers moved the item and spoke in its favor. She explained the rationale for the policy and emphasized its accountability and governance structures and the call for training. She described some feedback that she has already received from faculty involved in Supplemental Instruction and the Experimental College, which CRAC will be looking at during their next meeting.

·                  Sen. Turitz thanked Sen. Stowers and CRAC for taking on the policy and expressed concerns about past experiences where practices like this were abused. He advocated for language in the policy mandating that students not be used to replace faculty, at any rank, or to replace faculty on sabbatical. He also called for language to expressly say that it was for students whose future career plans were in education, rather than students just trying to make some money. He expressed his main concern is the use of student employees to violate union rules.

·                  Sen. Yee-Melichar asked whether the policy only applies to undergraduate, but could actually also apply to graduate students and if it focuses only on undergraduates, how would the undergraduate instructors differ.

·                  Sen. Wilson expressed support for lines 107 – 108, that the faculty of record is responsible for the course. He asked about how SETE evaluations would function.

·                  Sen. Way spoke about Sen. Turitz’s concerns about not replacing faculty. She agreed that it is important not to abuse these programs, but spoke against limiting it to students who plan to become educators. Teaching is a high-impact learning practice and useful for everyone.

·                  Vice-Chair Albiniak spoke about personal experiences as a student and the importance of student-led learning.

·                  Sen. Denetclaw asked about the responsibilities of the faculty of record for students teaching science courses. He asked whether faculty are responsible for monitoring their teaching and expressed concerns about the accuracy of information given by student instructors.

·                  Sen. Sinha noted that students are more likely to ask questions of student instructors than faculty, so that may help them. He expressed concerns about the logistics of student instructors.

·                  Sen. Hines asked for stronger language appear around line 110 about the responsibilities of reviewing students by faculty or departments.

·                  Sen. Stowers noted that the Experimental College has worked closely with the union to make sure that they were not violating union rules. She also noted that the policy deals explicitly with undergraduate instruction and it would take additional time to consider graduate instruction in the policy.

·                  Chair Gerber sent the item back to CRAC for further consideration.

20.   Recommendation from the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee: Proposed Bachelor of Arts in Art, Concentration in Art History (first reading)

·                  Sen. Stowers moved the item and spoke in its favor. She pointed out that the proposal is not to have it as a concentration, but to have it as its own B.A. program.

·                  Sen. Soorapanth moved the item to second reading, seconded by Sen. Platas. The motion passed unanimously.

·                  Chair Gerber called the vote, and the motion passed unanimously.

21.   Recommendation from the Executive Committee: Proposed Revision to #S17-243, Charge for the Center for Equity and Excellence in Teaching and Learning (first reading)

·                  Vice-Chair Albiniak moved the item and spoke in its favor. He solicited feedback from the Senate.

·                  Chair Gerber sent the item back to the Executive Committee for further consideration.

22.   Recommendation from the Executive Committee: Proposed Revision to #F15-271, Policy on Assigned Time for Exceptional Levels of Service to Students (first reading)

·                  Vice-Chair Albiniak moved the item and spoke in its favor. Chair Gerber noted that she had already received feedback on the item, and that the Executive Committee will be working on it at their next meeting.

·                  Chair Gerber sent the item back to the Executive Committee for further consideration.

23.   Recommendation from the Executive Committee: Proposed Revision to #S12-265, Graduate Council Policy (first reading)

·                  Sen. Hines moved the item and spoke in its favor. She noted the consonance of work that FAC does and Grad Council, so argued in favor of a member of FAC being included on Grad Council.

·                  Sen. Gen asked about line 32 “elected appointed” and pointed out the challenges of finding people in all categories in lines 32 – 39.

·                  Sen. Harris asked about the various groupings of disciplines in different parts of the policy. Sen. Hines said that Grad Council would look at the wording accordingly.

24.   Adjournment

·                  The meeting was adjourned at 4:54 PM.