Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting
of February 19, 2002
The
Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Vaughn at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Aaron,
Eunice Alvarez, Alvin Avila, Guadalupe Bishop, Anna Blomberg, Judith Boyle, Andrea Cherny, Robert Collier, James Colvin, Caran Concolino, Christopher Consoli, Andres Corrigan, Robert A. |
Daniels,
Robert Duke, Jerry Edwards, James Fung, Robert Garcia, Oswaldo Garcia, Velia Gerson, Deborah Gregory, Jan Harnly, Caroline Higgins, Susan Hom, Marlon Houlberg, Rick |
Hubler,
Barbara Jerris, Scott Kassiola, Joel La Belle, Thomas Langbort, Carol Luft, Sandra McKeon, Midori Moallem, Minoo Nichols, Amy Oñate, Abdiel Pong, Wen Shen Raggio, Marcia |
Sayeed,
Lutfus Scoble, Don Steier, Saul Strong, Rob Su, Yuli Terrell, Dawn Turitz, Mitch Vaughn, Pamela Warren, Mary Anne Warren, Penelope Wolfe, Bruce Yip, Yewmun |
Senate Members Absent:Ganji, Vijay (exc), Henry,
Margaret (exc), Shrivastava, Vinay (exc), Levine, Josh (exc), Smith, Miriam (exc), Gillotte, Helen (abs), AdisaThomas, Karima (abs), Friedman, Marv (abs), Bartscher, Patricia (abs), Newt-Scott, Ronda (abs). |
Guests:Vanessa Sheared, Dan Buttlaire,
Gail Whitaker, Dave Dempsey, Pat Gallagher, Helen Goldsmith, Richard Wiersba, Edward Ericson, Nancy McDermid, Gerald Platt, Jiunn Huang, Alan Jung, Art Kohn, Nancy Rabolt, Ken Fehrman, Ann Hallum. |
Chairs Report
The
senate chair did not give a report in order for the senate to have more time
for debate.
Caran
Colvin moved that a proposed resolution
in support of amending spring 2002 calendar for filing faculty activity reports
be added to the agenda as item #7.
m/s/p
(Colvin, Terrell) to approve the agenda as amended
Agenda Item #2: Approval of Minutes for Meeting of February 5, 2002
m/s/p
(Terrell, Houlberg) to approve the minutes
Agenda Item #3: report from Subject Matter Studies Coordinator Helen Goldsmith
Helen Goldsmith reported to the senate that the
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) has recently changed
the special education teachers standards for subject matter preparation of
prospective multiple subject (elementary school) teachers. The Liberal Studies
and Child & Adolescent Development major offers subject matter preparation
programs so students do not have to take the Multiple Subjects Assessment
for Teachers (MSAT) exam. Goldsmith reported that she is in the process of
reviewing the current programs to see how much revision needs to be made to
meet the new standards. These
standards are far more specific and extensive than they were in the past,
so some substantial revisions will probably be necessary. The changes to the
standards will impact many departments as most offer courses that satisfy
the current Liberal Studies and CAD programs. In December, a team from SFSU
attended a meeting organized by the CSU Statewide Academic Senate on "Subject
Matter Preparation of Multiple Subject Teachers." The team consisted of Helen
Goldsmith, Dave Dempsey from Geosciences, Richard Hoffman from History, Deans
Jake Perea, Jerald Combs, Dan Buttlaire, Nancy McDermid, and Bob Cherny from
History. Faculty, staff and students with questions about the
new standards can contact Helen, your college dean, a member of the team that
went to the CSU meeting, and/or your college's representative(s) to the Liberal
Studies Council.A copy of the new standards is
available at http://www.ctc.ca.gov/SB2042/SB2042_info.html.
Click on "Standards of Program Quality and Effectiveness for the Subject Matter
Requirement for the Multiple Subject Teaching Credential."
Abdiel
Oñate reported that students found
the process needs to be streamlined. He asked if we would have time to review
the process? Helen Goldsmith indicated everyone who has an interest
could be involved with updating programs and the process. Helen recommends
that concerned faculty should start with a review of their area on the web
site and identify any changes. Then work with their department chair and the
dean to review and rework curriculum. Jan Gregory pointed out that
we must be careful in how our programs respond to external pressure for change.
It is the faculty who determine our curriculum not an outside agency. Helen
Goldsmith indicated that they are watching and making sure that the changes
are in accord with our curriculum standards.Robert Cherny indicated
that we are working with two key concepts. First, academic discipline and
second, academic freedom. Sometimes they conflict. What we are trying to do
is to bring the preparation of our students, who are preparing to be teachers,
in line with what the new standards require to be taught in the schools. We
owe it to our students to provide the best preparation possible, so our students
will be able to better serve the people in the public schools in the state.Dean
McDermid, College of Humanities, reported that her college has been making
great progress in reviewing and reworking programs to bring them in line with
the new standards. She indicated that most of the changes were small and in
only a few cases were they having problems.
Agenda Item #4: Proposed Revision to the Bachelor of Science in business:
Multiple Concentrations
This
item is returning to the senate from the February 5 senate meeting and remains
in first reading.
The
College of Business is proposing 3 changes in its existing undergraduate curricular
program with the goal of reducing the current unit requirement for graduation
from 126 to 120 units.The change is in response to pressure from within the
College (especially among students who cannot graduate within four years despite
best efforts and performance), from the academic administration, and from
the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). The changes
are: Removal of BICS 263, Introduction to Computer Information Systems, from
the core course requirements for all business majors. The course will remain
in the College of Businesss (CoB) curriculum, but will no longer be a required
course in the business core. Change the unit requirements for all undergraduate
concentrations in the College of Business from a fixed level of 24 units (8
upper division courses) to variable units. The default level will be set 21
units (7 upper division courses), but concentrations may require more units
(i.e., for professional certification needs) or fewer units (to encourage
taking elective courses). The approval of the Dean will be required for variations
from the default level.The College of Business provided each senator with
a 17 page Summary of Proposed Change of Requirements for Existing College
of Business Undergraduate Curricular Program. A copy of the summary is also
made available electronically on the senates web site. The College of Business
interim Dean Gerald Platt and the Associate Dean were present to answer any
questions.
College of Business interim Dean Gerald Pratt provided
the senate with an extensive review of the three-year process that resulted
in the proposal before the senate. He outlined that the proposal was not driven
by any required reduction of the bachelor degree to the 120-unit level. Further,
that the COB faculty were central to the process and voted for the proposed
changes.Richard Wiersba, Professor, Business Analysis
and Computing, announced that he did not attend the CRAC meeting when the
proposal was discussed because he did not know that the meeting took place.
Wiersba teaches 12 of the 13 sections of BICS 263 that are proposed to be
replaced by an exam.He indicated that an exam would not assess the true business
systems concepts that he teaches in BICS 263. He asked that the proposal be
returned to COB for further study by the faculty. m/s/p (Cherny,
Steier) to extend debate for 20 minutes to 3:25 PM
Jerry
Duke indicated that the issue just
raised was about appropriate course content and not appropriate for the senate
to consider.Rick Houlberg asked how would Dean Pratt change the proposal
and has the university worked with COB during the 3-year process?Dean Pratt
indicated that he had lots of his own opinions on how curriculum should be,
however, this proposal resulted in faculty deliberation and a faculty vote
and he supports it.Provost Tom La Belle indicated that his office had
worked closely with COB in their development of this proposal. Further, that
the proposal would move the college in the direction of resolving problems
with high demand courses and scheduling. Bruce Wolfe asked if students
had been consulted in this process? Dean Pratt indicated they had not
been consulted regarding the proposal but had been extensively surveyed at
the beginning of the process.Robert Nickerson, Professor, Business
Analysis and Computing System, indicated that he saw the facts about the process
that led to the proposal differently than the Dean. Nickerson indicated that
the reduction of the degree program to 120 units was widely received by the
majority of COB faculty as a chancellor office requirement. That this requirement
was what had driven the development and COB faculty vote on the proposal that
is before the senate. He recommended that the proposal be returned to COB
so that faculty may review it in light that the 120-unit total for a bachelor
degree is not a mandated maximum but only recommended.
m/s/p
(Duke, Terrell) to second reading
Robert Daniels recommended to the senate that there
are many problems in the interpretation that the COB dean had just provided
to the senate and that many of the statements that COB faculty had made the
decisions that led to the proposals are not true. Actually, in the COB faculty
can only make recommendations to the dean and it is the dean that makes the
decision. He asserted that there was no consideration by the undergraduate
committee at the department level.Lutfus Sayeed thanked the dean for
his detailed presentation. However, he disagrees with the deans interpretation
of the process. He knew of one faculty member who served on the COB curriculum
committee who specifically stated that the committee was told that the 120-unit
maximum was mandated by the chancellors office. Sayeed read an email from
this professor.
m/s (Cherny, Gregory) to return the proposal to the
College of Business Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
Robert
Cherny believes that the confusion over
the 120-unit recommended maximum for a degree program makes it necessary that
we return the proposal to COB undergraduate Curriculum Committee for further
review. If we were to pass it now it would be under a cloud. It appears that
significant people in the process were not informed. Send it back and then
they can pass it again. Jan Gregory recommended that the proposal be
returned to COB so that the full benefits of shared governance may follow.
Recommended that the academic senators from the COB consult with the faculty
and dean about the shared governance processes in the college.Provost La
Belle recommends that faculty vote against returning the proposal to the
COB. He believes that the college faculty had the opportunity to vote on the
proposal and they voted approval. He did not know how much more the COB could
do.
M/s/
(Wolfe, Bishop) to amend the motion to include consultation with COB students
Bruce
Wolfe strongly recommended that since
the proposal affects students that students should be involved in the process.Provost
La Belle indicated that he understood from Dean Pratts presentation that
students were consulted in the initial survey early on in the process. Susan
Higgins believes that student input is important but the senate should
not mandate it.Lutfus Sayeed indicated that when the market survey
was conducted that students were part of that and they were consulted.Robert
Cherny suggested that the senate should defeat this motion and that the
COB curriculum committee could consult with students. ms/p (Terrell,
Mary Ann Warren) to close debate on the amendment to the motion
Voting
on the amendment to the motion: Failed
Susan
Higgins indicated that she is in favor
of the motion to return the proposal to COB. She believes that it is clear
from our debate that COB faculty did not know that the 120 units, as a maximum
for a bachelor degree program, was not mandated by the chancellor. It should
go back to COB undergraduate curriculum committee and be voted on by the COB
faculty.Jerry Duke spoke against the motion to return the proposal
to the COB curriculum committee. He believes the process had been followed
and a faculty vote taken. Andres Consoli spoke in support of returning
the proposal to the COB. m/s/p (Terrell, Hom) to closed
debate
Voting on the motion to return the proposal to COB undergraduate
curriculum committee: Passed
Agenda Item #5: Proposed Revision to the Bachelor of
Arts Degree in English: Concentration in Creative Writing.
Amy Nichols, Chair of CRAC, introduced the proposal. Before
you, for review is the proposal for revision in the Bachelor of Arts in English
Creative writing.This proposal comes to senate as a consent item from CRAC.In
summary, the creative writing department would like to change CW 601 from
a selected choice to a required course while keeping the current 39-unit level
by shifting 3 units from literature category to creative process category.
Here to answer any questions are Susan Shimanoff, Associate Dean-College
of Humanities, shimanof@sfsu.edu, and
Nancy McDermid, Dean, College of Humanities, mcdermid@sfsu.edu.
m/s/p (Terrell, Houlberg) to second reading
Bruce
Wolfe asked
if classes were being closed. Dean McDermid indicated that they were
not closing down any classes. m/s/p (Houlberg, Steier)
to close debate
Voting
on the proposal: Passed
Agenda Item #6: Proposed B. S. Degree in Apparel Design and Merchandising
and Proposed B. B. in Interior Design.
Amy
Nichols, Chair of the Curriculum Review
and Approval Committee (CRAC), introduced the item. Before you,
for review are the changes in an already approved proposal from Fall 2000.The
proposal BS in Apparel Design and Merchandising and BS in Interior Design
is being re-reviewed based on comments received from the CSU Chancellors
Office and outside reviewers.The proposal originally was approved as a single
degree Apparel & Interior Design, up to the chancellors office and then
once reviewed, the recommendation was to reconfigure the one degree into two.According
to the Chancellors Office, the Master Plan Projection would encompass these
two new degrees, not requiring the submission of a new Master Plan Projection.The
department needs our approval for this revision to the original proposal.
Here to answer any questions are Nancy Rabolt, Chair CFS/D, Ann
Hallum, Associate Dean, CHHS, and Kenneth Fehrman.
Gail
Whitaker indicated that often the chancellors
office makes a recommendation for some minor changes in a degree program after
it has been submitted and approved by the university. In this case the chancellors
office asked that we separate the single new degree program into two new degree
programs. We felt that the two new programs require senate approval. Whitaker
also requested that the term options in the degree program be changed to
emphasis.
m/s/p
(Houlberg, Duke) to second reading
Bruce
Wolfe asked for an explanation of the
term master plan projection.Whitaker indicated that to develop new
programs in the CSU there are two phases in the process. The first phase is
the development of the concept and its approval by all levels. The second
phase is the development of the degree program and its approval. After the
first phase is complete and approved by the trustees then the proposal for
the new degree program goes on the master plan projection. Once that happens
then the campus can begin the second phase and develop and gain approval for
the actual degree program.
m/s/p
(Terrell, Steier) to close debate
Voting
on the proposal: passed.
Agenda Item #7: Resolution
in Support of Amending Spring 2002 Calendar for Filing Faculty Activity Reports.
distributed at the meeting
Introduced
by Chair Pamela Vaughn as a recommendation from the Executive Committee.
Due to the CSU budget shortfall there is no urgency to have faculty complete
Faculty Activity Reports (FAR) by March 8th. The proposal moves
the FAR due date from March 8th to April 15th.Mitch
Turitz asked why we could not wait until a new contract is signed before
we ask faculty to complete a FAR. Dawn Terrell indicated that providing
the new time line now will allow faculty more time and we could return to
the issue once a contract is signed or not signed.Jan Gregory indicated
that the proposed change in the due date would clarify the situation for many
faculty.
M/S/P (Duke, Terrell) to second reading
In
second reading
m/s/p
(Cherny, Steier) to closed debate
Voting
on the proposed resolution: passed
Adjourned
at 4:00 PM.
Respectfully
submitted,
James
Edwards
Secretary
to the Faculty