February 10, 2004
Seven Hills Conference
2:00 - 4:00 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Dam, Mary Ann
Absent: Aaron, Eunice (excused); Batista, Natalie; Cherny,
Robert (excused); Gemello, John (excused); Klironomos, Martha (excused) Otero,
Aina J.; Pong, Wenshen (excused)
Guests: Buttlaire, Dan; Collier, James; Ferretti, Charlotte; Hallum, Ann; Michalik, Suzanne; Monteiro,
Ken; Mullins, Willie; Murphy, Jim; Schafle, Marie; Seashore, Marjorie; Verhey,
CALL TO ORDER: 2:10 p.m.
Chair Edwards began by noting that he has been to a number gloomy
budget meetings lately and that he was having a difficult time finding the
silver linings in dark clouds, however
he thought that he has found one bright spot. He mentioned the current senate
budget that precludes traditional student assistant help. He noted that currently that all the “legwork”
was done by Angela Sposito and Leigh Magness, whom he described as “angels” and that they
had also managed to work with a budget does not include senate travel money.
He further noted, with appreciation, that the
senate was no longer sending hard copies of documents and that all agendas
and attachments will be distributed electronically and also will be accessible
on the senate website. He declared
them the senate office’s silver lining.
AGENDA ITEM #1 - APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY
Chair Edwards added an additional item, Agenda Item #9, the Annual Reapportionment of Senate Seats,
a consent item from the Executive Committee in 1st and 2nd
m/s/p Houlberg, Steier
AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 2, 2004
Senator Williams noted on page 5 that he had moved
a motion, not a resolution, a fact that needed clarification in the following
paragraph as well.
meeting Senator Langbort noted
that she was listed as absent at the last meeting but that her term had not
yet officially begun.]
#3 -REPORT—VICE PRESIDENT LEROY MORISHITA—STATE BUDGET SITUATION
Morishita wished to address Bond
Measure #55, a $12.3 million capital outlay bond, which has the potential
to do a lot for SFSU. This would include
minor and major capital outlays, including $4 million to the Library for furniture
and other items connected to the renovation project, and $2.5 million for
capital renewal, including the heating/venting/air conditioning systems on
campus. Additionally, there would be
money for minor outlays of around $1 million per year. He noted that there are always changes, but expressed
hope for the best, and urged general support for this bond.
Morishita also noted
the presence of Bond Measures 57 and 58, the first being the Governor’s $15
billion bond to help balance this year’s budget. The data that presented by Morishita is based on passage of Bond
a handout which explains the Governor’s budget and the CSU response. Proposed
is a $2.4 million reduction to the CSU general fund, which if enacted would
bring the CSU budget figure down to $2.4 billion, compared to a $2.6 billion
budget from the previous year.
The CSU is
looking at this as the best possible case. If the budget is changed, it would likely be
worse for us. Health and human services programs and K-12
are likely to have greater priority items
than higher education.
the essential aspects of the budget handout, the official output of the Chancellor’s
Office. The CSU has responded with their own budget plan, seeking more control
and flexibility over funds. He noted
various solutions proposed by the Governor which include increasing the student/faculty
ratio by one, and increasing the tuition of students carrying more than 132-units.
Regarding the notion of the proposed
transfer of 10% of freshman to community colleges, Morishita noted that he had no idea how this would be funded. Another proposal was a 7.5% reduction in academic
and institutional support, mostly in salaries; deferring money for the CMS
project; and elimination of EOP programs. The proposed fee increases would be 10% for undergraduate
students, 40% for graduate students and 20% increases for non-resident students.
This increase would affect financial aid negatively.
The CSU had
their own response that includes cutting re-enrollment by 5 percent. The rationale is that if the CSU cannot do their
job of education correctly, it would reduce enrollment by 5%, roughly 20,000
students. Our own target is going from
23,700 FTES to 21,800, a reduction of about 1150 FTES. There would be a $6.4 million deduction to the
Chancellor’s Office. With an enrollment
reduction obviously, the system would then also take in less in fees, effectively
adding further cuts to the system.
to us, if the proposed fees go through, as a $10.6 million reduction. At
present, we hope for referendum support, but may have a $13.5 million problem
for next year.
would be restructuring the fees so that undergraduate fees would go up more,
in an attempt to lower the steep 40% increase in graduate fees. We are looking for differential fees for credential
students, and have had meetings with Chancellor’s Office about regarding this
Senator Jerris asked about fee increases, noting
that the 10% increase for undergraduate fees was too small, and perhaps ought
to be greater.
Morishita said that
the Board of Trustees was holding off discussion of fee increases to their
Corrigan observed that when the Board
of Trustees raised fees the last time, there was a great deal of emotional
reaction to this option. He thought
that it would be a hard sell beyond 10%, even with new appointments, which
is why we have gone beyond that to see what we could do with the student referendum
Senator Houlberg asked about the status of summer.
that campuses could switch units back to CEL, a discussion taking place right
now. He thought we might have trouble
making our target next year if we do this.
Senator Stowers asked what percentage of SFSU’s budget is the
$2.5 million for next year and what has been cut so far.
that the current budget was $215 million. Depending on how you reckon it all, the cut is
about $14 million.
Corrigan said the reduction started out
at $30 million but by the time fee increases and the like were factored in,
the reduction was lowered to $14 million. We
found some short-term solutions, but there is no money for enrollment growth
allocated for next year, and so the Governor has anticipated the Board of
Trustees action by factoring in fee increases, which leaves us little flexibility.
Morishita added that
health benefits are not being covered. PERS
is okay, but not health benefits, so that is an extra cost for us.
asked when the departments would find out about their budgets and summer session.
Morishita noted that
Provost Gemello has given the Deans
a reduction of $6 mil dollars. If the
student fee referendum is passed by the student body the cut would be reduced
to $4.1 million. However, we will still
need to deal with the $10.5 million deficit. The Deans have been given a preliminary
Senator Bernard-Powers asked that if the 40% increase goes through for graduate
students, if anyone had any thoughts about how this would affect our graduate
programs, which is likely to have a devastating effect.
that no elasticity studies have been done, but observed that a 10% increase
would not damage undergraduates, but 40% would certainly damage graduate degrees.
Corrigan reminded that this is a system
wide set of reductions. The Governor has consulted with no one, and no real
thought has been given to this issue. Because we have the largest number and
highest percentage of graduate students in the system, we will be hit harder
than any other campus by this action.
Morishita said that
he has done some serious lobbying to preserve some money by looking at how
all of the calculations are being done.
AGENDA ITEM #4 - REPORT—ACTING DEAN OF
FACULTY AFFAIRS, MARILYN VERHEY—NEW ONLINE FACULTY MANUAL
Dean Verhey began by observing that when she became
acting dean, she quickly discovered that the faculty manual needed extensive
revision. As a current member of the Faculty Affairs Committee, she offered
the credit for the manual’s revision to this committee, as chaired by Colvin and now Jerris. Some conceptual ideas emerged from discussion in the committee,
including the notion that the manual, rather than being someone’s idea of
what a manual should be, ought rather to be grounded in policy, contract language,
and previous practice. One goal was to make it up to date and be able to take
advantage of the large amounts of information available. This current draft
was reviewed by the Faculty Affairs Committee, other faculty the DPRC office,
to review it for accessibility, and the faculty rights panel, all of whom
Verhey gave a quick
demo of the online manual, noting that there would be a yearly “back up” in
hardcopy. The manual is organized into ten general areas of interest, which
can be searched directly, or be browsed by subject headings. One example she
offered was connected to hiring practices.
The manual has sections on how to constitute a hiring committee, the
tenure/track faculty, links to senate policies, hiring handbooks, and listings
of qualifications for tenure/track hires - all of which are original source
documents. She noted that the search feature was tied to the university search
Verhey asked for
input with respect to additions, corrections, new links, etc. and expressed
a desire to have the final product be as useful and user friendly as possible.
questioned as to whom would be monitoring the manual, and expressed some concern
about student “hacking.”
that everyone would be monitors of the manual’s accuracy and integrity but
that the keeper would be the office of Faculty Affairs and the Faculty Affairs
Committee, with office staff. The current print manual has been online for
some time and has not been compromised.
AGENDA ITEM #5 - REPORT—ACTING DEAN OF
GRADUATE STUDIES, ANN HALLUM—NEW ONLINE GRADUATE PROCEDURES
Hallum of Graduate Studies, noted that the
senator’s handouts had sections. One
provides information on the graduate office and the other on human subjects.
The online procedures were the result of interviews with a large number of
users, and the office hoped that looking at this data would help solve problems.
The new process means that students can now find information much more easily.
Admission categories, CSU mentor program,
SFSU admission status are included on the new site. Approval of culminating
experience proposals, human subjects, GAP and other forms are now accessible,
and applications for graduation now can be done automatically.
A main goal
was to make it easier and simpler to find information, complete forms, etc.
The online preprinted documents saves time, helps
students, and even makes reading the forms easier. The Graduate guide gives lot of information,
with a section for faculty who act as graduate advisors. She noted that the Graduate Advising office has
been improved and currently student assistants have taken some burden off
of faculty for general advice. The
new process has started to make life easier for students, but also has improved
life for faculty as well. A number
of useful reports can be easily generated through the web site. She observed that every obstacle has an opportunity
attached to it, and demonstrated a way of using the system to help manage
the “take” rate of graduate admissions for a given department. The system can answer how many students need
to be selected in order to reach your department goals. This will help make
decisions around graduate admissions and will also help “sweep” tracking,
to figure out which students have been in a graduate program for an extended
period of time without showing suitable progress towards a degree.
posed an indirect question as he was trying to make sense of the “take” rate.
He requested advice about dealing with the proposed 40% increase in fees for
Hallum thought she
could not provide a satisfactory answer, but noted that there will be meetings
to determine what can be made of this. It was noted that it is possible to be hooked
into financial aid information much more aggressively than before. She saw similar patters of applications as from
the previous year, and commented that if you compared fees around the country,
even a 40% increase could be considered reasonable.
AGENDA ITEM #6—RECOMMENDATION from the
CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE—REVISIONS to the UNDERGRADUATE
MAJOR & MINOR in RECREATION & LEISURE STUDIES, 2ND
Revisions were approved by general consent.
AGENDA ITEM #7 - RECOMMENDATION
from the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE—REVISION to the BA
in CHILD and ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT, 2nd reading.
Revisions were approved unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #8—RECOMMENDATION from the
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE—RESOLUTION in SUPPORT of the FINAL REPORT
ON THE SUMMIT on RACE
and CULTURE at SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY
read the resolution. Moved
to 2nd reading.
by general consent.
AGENDA ITEM #9—RECOMMENDATION from the
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - a consent item - on
REAPPORTIONMENT of SENATE SEATS
Chair Edwards began by noting the need for the
senate to adjust its numbers annually, due to growth in a college or other
changes at the university.
m/s/p Colvin, Chelberg
Colvin briefly outlined the nature of the annual reapportionment of
the senate, noting the need to rebalance senate positions based on a formula
of FTEF faculty for each college. She
stated that the Executive Committee was recommending a number of 25 as the
preferred additional number for the senate.
In order to
prepare senate ballots, the senate office needs to know the accurate number
for apportionment. The constitution
specifies a range of 60 to 65 senators, which includes a base number of 40
senators with an additional representation to complete the senate body. The
Executive Committee of the senate recommends an additional 25 senators, which
provides the best representation and distribution for senate.
noted that the Executive Committee is recommending the framework represented
by column 9 on the distributed document.
sought clarification on the determination of at-large members.
Senator Meredith pointed out some corrections
in the document, and responded that the process allowed adding 25 senators
to the base of 40 in order to have the maximum number of representatives.
pointed out corrections: Business in column 4 has three additional representatives,
Humanities currently has 4 additional representatives, and offered further
commented that since the current membership is 65 we would be preserving that
number. The Executive Committee recommends
keeping that formula. Also, the abbreviation
FTEF means full time equivalent faculty.
urged adoption, maintaining that the number of 25 gives the greatest base
across campus and minimizes the number of at-large members.
Moved to 2nd
AGENDA ITEM #10—ADJOURNMENT—3:40 p.m.