Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting
of February 20, 2001
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Vaughn
at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Alvarez, Alvin
Bartscher, Patricia
Bernstein, Marian
Cherny, Robert
Collier, James
Colvin, Caran
Concolino, Christopher
Contreras, Rey
Cullers, Susan
deVries, Brian
Duke, Jerry
Edwards, James
Elia, John
Ferretti, Charlotte
Garcia, Oswaldo
Garcia, Velia
Gerson, Deborah
Goldsmith, Helen
Gregory, Jan
Harnly, Caroline
Hom, Marlon
Hu, Sung
Hubler, Barbara
Jerris, Scott
Johnson, Dane
Johnson, Sharon
Langbort, Carol
Leal-Idrogo, Anita
McKeon, Midori
Moallem, Minoo
Amy Nichols
Onate, Abdiel
Raggio, Marcia
Sayeed, Lutfus
Shrivastava, Vinay
Smith, Miriam
Steier, Saul
Strong, Rob
Turitz, Mitch
Vaughn, Pamela
Warren, Penelope
Williams, Robert
Wong, Alfred
Yip, Yewmun
Senate Members Absent: Su, Yuli (exc); Gillotte,
Helen (exc); Avila, Guadalupe (exc); La Belle, Thomas (exc); Kelley, James (exc);
Scoble, Don (exc); Collier, James (exc); Sagisi, Jaymee; Pasaporte, Erin;
Guests: S. Shimanoff; D. Fendel; J. Combs;
R. Maghroori; J. Monteverdi; G. Whitaker, D. Fox; L. Zoloth; J. Volkert; B.
Perttula
Announcements and Report
Robert Cherny announced a new URL for the
report on the CSU in the 21st century:
http://bss.sfsu.edu/cherny/AAC/draft4.pdf. He also
announced the following URL for a joint committee of the legislature that is
developing a new master plan for K-university; there are interesting and potentially
troubling things with attempts to link testing in K-12 to admission to higher
education standing out: http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/joint/master_plan/
Chair Pamela Vaughn reminded senators to respond
to master plan by the end of month, respond to the hiring manual as soon as
possible.
Vaughn sent out her Chair's report electronically prior
to the senate meeting. In it, she highly recommended the provocative articles
in the special issue of the Hedgehog Review entitled "What's the University
For?" She especially singled out Jackson Lears' article "The Radicalism
of Tradition: Teaching the Liberal Arts in a Managerial
Age," which is worth noting for its comments on tenure and on the "current academic
crisis." With SFSU's state mission of balancing "liberal" education with a career-focus,
these articles are good food for thought.
As additional food for thought, Vaughn added that Vice Chair
Helen Goldsmith is coming to the end of her second senate term and Secretary
Dane Johnson will be on sabbatical next year, which means both positions will
need to be filled. Vaughn intends to run again for Senate Chair.
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for February 20,
2001
The agenda was amended to withdraw Agenda Item #4, Proposed
Change in Membership to the Franciscan Shops Board of Directors, with subsequent
agenda items being renumbered to reflect that deletion.
The agenda was approved as amended.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting of February
6, 2001
The minutes were approved as written.
Agenda Item #3 - Report from Marilyn Verhey, Interim
Coordinator of Academic Asessment
Marilyn Verhey reported on the development of a core
set of university-wide teaching effectiveness items, first recounting recent
Senate action on this issue, then making reference to the strategies that will
be used in 2001 to fulfill selected clauses of the Academic Senate
Resolution under the following title: "Strategies for Continued
Development of University-Wide Core Items to Assess Teaching Effectiveness.
These have been developed with collaboration of Provost Thomas La Belle, Verhey,
Vaughn, and Penelope Warren, Faculty Affairs
Committee Chair. Senator Alvin Alvarez has been designated
as a liaison to work directly with Verhey in order to have a Senate presence
in the testing that will be done. There will be a web page in order to come
up with some consensus on the items and the rating scale. They will also
use different methods to compare items with national instruments.
They will use panels of experts from across campus and colleges are welcome
to submit anonymous aggregate data from their instruments. Verhey also summarized
other types of analysis and the process for sampling.
Verhey added that at Asilomar there was very good attendance
at a workshop on measuring teaching effectiveness, and she was struck by how
qualitative that feedback was. Quantitative measures are important for reliability,
but we should all be using qualitative measures to capture
things that are going on in the classroom that no instrument
can capture.
Agenda Item #4 - Proposed Revisions to the Charge and
Membership Composition of the University Committee on Written English Proficiency
Helen Goldsmith, Vice Chair of the Academic Senate,
introduced this consent item from the Senate Executive Committee by first remarking
that many committees, departments, and entities on campus are concerned with
the written English proficiency skills of our students. Thus, it is
important that a single body on campus serve as a clearinghouse
and expert body for policies regarding written English skills. The committee
charged with literacy issues is the Committee on Written English Proficiency
(CWEP). In consultation with the Senate Executive Committee, CWEP reviewed its
charge and recommended changes, although it is not that different than the old.
It has always been the charge of CWEP to provide guidance on undergraduate and
graduate
writing; the changes stress the advisory and consultative
role, and make sure the representation on it reflects the nature of its involvement.
M/S/P (Goldsmith, Gregory) to accept the proposed revisions.
M/S/P (Duke, Elia) to second reading.
Jan Gregory spoke from the perspective of having
served many years on this committee, noting that it is under-noticed and under-used
by other segments of the campus. She encouraged faculty from other departments
to acquaint themselves with what the Committee can do.
Jerald Combs spoke of the committee's importance,
but also raised the difficulty of CWEP and GEC meeting at the same time, which
makes it impossible for the Undergraduate Dean to go to both meetings. He urged
CWEP and GEC to have meetings at different times in the future.
M/S/P (Hu, Oñate) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Minor
in Meteorology
Educational Policies Committee (EPC) Chair Sung Hu
prefaced the series of five discontinuances by summarizing the discontinuance
policy: the proposed discontinuances were publicized to the campus community,
then the EPC met and approved all five, which will be presented individually.
The Minor in Meteorology is part of the Department of Geosciences'
plan to discontinue an old minor in favor of the new Certificate in Meteorology
for Broadcasters, which has already been approved by the Senate.
Oswaldo Garcia from Geosciences and Meteorology clarified
a couple of items.
M/S/P (Cherny, Duke) to second reading.
M/S/P (Edwards, Steier) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the discontinuance was approved
unanimously.
Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Bachelor
of Science in Business
Administration Logistics Management Concentration
Sung Hu introduced this consent item from EPC, noting
retirement of faculty, low student
interest as reasons. The Department is also considering
a new program with International Business in this area.
M/S/P (Sayeed, Duke) to second reading.
M/S/P (Duke, deVries) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the discontinuance was approved
unanimously.
Agenda Item #7 -- Proposed Discontinuance of the Minor
in Intercultural Skills
Hu explained that this minor in the College of Humanities
had been approved but never implemented.
M/S/P (Steier, Sayeed) to second reading.
M/S/P (Steier, Wong) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the discontinuance was approved.
Agenda Item #8 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Preschool/Daycare/Early
Childhood Education Certificate Program
Hu explained that the university established a new
BA degree in Child & Adolescent
Development that has a Concentration in Young child and
Family. This new degree has decreased interest in the CEL certificate program.
M/S/P (Duke, Wong) to second reading.
M/S/P (Edwards, Shrivastava) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the discontinuance was approved.
Agenda Item #9 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Construction
Practices Certificate Program
Hu explained that CEL has found this certification
program to be no longer economically viable due to decreasing enrollments in
recent years.
M/S/P (Sayeed, Wong) to second reading.
M/S/P (Duke, Shrivastava) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the discontinuance was approved.
Agenda Item #10 - Proposed Revision to the Minor in Jewish
Studies
Alfred Wong , Chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval
Committee
(CRAC), introduced this first of four consent items from
CRAC by noting that the College of Humanities and the Department of Jewish Studies
recommend the addition of JS 633/HIST 633 to the minor in Jewish Studies.
Caroline Harnly asked about whether the total number
of units will remain the same. Susan Shimanoff explained that this course
replaces a course in the core with no change in total units.
M/S/P (Garcia, Edwards) to second reading.
Jerry Duke asked whether the proposal should mention
the deletion of courses. Shimanoff pointed out that the attached documents show
the current Bulletin copy and the proposed change. Duke followed up by asking
whether the course being deleted will be going into the electives.
Laurie Zoloth explained the new course changes the
focus in the core to history as a discipline within Jewish Studies, tied to
a series of courses.
M/S/P (Duke, Steier) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #11 - Proposed Revisions to Bachelor of Science
Degree in Business
administration Distributed Office Systems Concentration
Wong summarized the proposed revisions in the Concentration
in Distributed Office Systems: revisions include changing the concentration
name to Distributed Commerce Systems, and adding and deleting course from the
list of electives to reflect the rapidly changing high-tech environment.
M/S/P (Edwards, Sayeed) to second reading.
M/S/P (Duke, Edwards) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #12 - Proposed Revision to the Bachelor of
Science Degree in Business Administration Concentration in Computer Information
Systems
Wong explained that this revision consists of adding
a JAVA language track option and additional elective courses to the concentration
to reflect the rapidly changing high-tech environment.
M/S/P (Duke, DeVries) to second reading.
Gail Whitaker noted that "option" is problematic
in Bulletin copy, as it is equivalent in the CSU to "concentration." She suggests
changing this to "emphasis" or another appropriate term.
The suggestion to use "emphasis" was accepted as a friendly
amendment by the department and college.
M/S/P (Concolino, Hubler) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #13 - Proposed Revision to the Minor in Computer
Information Systems
Wong noted that the BACS department is proposing
changes to the list of electives in the minor to reflect the rapidly changing
high-tech environment.
M/S/P (Sayeed, Steier) to second reading.
M/S/P (Duke, Hu) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #14 - Proposed Reinstatement of the "U" Grade
Academic Policies Committee (APC) Chair Hu introduced
this proposal to terminate Academic Policy #S83-109. In re-examining our grading
systems, it was found that this policy is in violation of Executive Order (EO)
#268 (from 1977). Thus, it is imperative that SFSU reinstate the "U" grade.
Gregory asked for a reminder on the retreat from
the "U" grade. Penelope Warren remarked that one problem was that students
did not know what it meant to them, and some thought there were no consequences
for their grade point average. Gregory followed up by suggesting that those
are some of the same students who do not "discover" until their second semester
senior year that they are required to take JEPET between 54 and 72 units. Robert
Cherny recalled things a bit differently, noting that some people thought
this was raising our standards to give "F's" instead of "U's," though he found
the "U" to be an appropriate grade. Helen Goldsmith remembered her support
of the "U" grade but emphasized the need for educating everyone on this campus
about its use and abuse.
Harnly asked how dropping students who are not showing
up in the first weeks links up with the "U" grade. Hu replied that faculty can
still drop students using the bubble drop. Vaughn suggested that the
"U" is particularly for those students who have been coming regularly but disappear
all of a sudden. Gregory suggested adding to the policy language that this is
intended to describe the performance of students who "disappear" after the formal
drop period.
Robert Williams asked if this language will be on
the transcript. Hu said that the transcript explains each letter symbol, and
Goldsmith elaborated that it is explained as an unauthorized incomplete. Vaughn
added that there is more expansive language in the Bulletin.
M/S/P (Gregory, Hu) to second reading.
Steier asked what advantage having the U provides
us. Vaughn answered that, first, it puts us in compliance with the Executive
Order and it provides another option. Goldsmith added that another useful use
of the "U" is in providing evidence of extenuating circumstances for late semester
problems that might be different than "F's."
Harnly asked if Gregory's friendly explanatory language
is included in what we are voting on. Steier offered the following language
for Bulletin copy: "The symbol 'U' indicates that an enrolled student did not
drop or withdraw from the course before the published dates to drop or withdraw
without penalty and that the student failed to complete a substantial portion
of the course requirements." The Senate agreed to include clarifying language.
M/S/P (Duke, Steier) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #15 - Resolution Regarding Faculty Merit
Increase Program and CSU-CFA Contract Negotiations
Gregory introduced this consent item from the Senate
Executive Committee by making note of an Executive Committee change in the penultimate
resolve clause: "That any future CSU 'merit pay' program be modeled on the principles
articulated in the final report of the CSU Academic Senate Merit Pay Task Force
of the Academic Senate CSU; and be it further" Gregory explained this change
by first referring to the attached report from the CSU Merit Pay Task Force,
noting the difference between the final recommendations and the principles that
underlay those recommendations. The Executive Committee is not inclined to guide
anyone toward a particular model, but that the principles are ones that we would
want to see adopted.
M/S/P (Cherny, Steier) to approve the resolution.
Cherny spoke to the motion by providing background
on the CSU Academic Senate Merit Pay Task Force. This committee conducted a
great deal of investigation: we talked to faculty members at every CSU campus,
reviewed collective bargaining agreements from across the country, interviewed
experts in the field, interviewed a former member of the Board of Trustees who
is also a CEO. The final report is an effort to bring all the sources together
in a set of recommendations, and the Task Force members have been disappointed
that the recommendations have not been followed. By re-endorsing these principles,
this may have some effect on the negotiations for the successor agreement.
Duke asked if the new language of the penultimate
resolve clause replaces the original penultimate resolve clause. Vaughn
affirmed that this was indeed so.
M/S/P (Duke, Steier) to second reading.
Dan Fendel spoke in favor of the resolution. He noted
that this resolution speaks to future contract negotiations while he has received
news of review for the current process. He would like to see the resolution
say that nothing should proceed until things have been clarified. Vaughn replied
that our intent was to not merge the two issues: contract negotiations for the
future and the local situation. She added that the situation for this spring
is still under review. Harnly asked when such discussion would be appropriate
given the deadline of February 16 for FMI committees to proceed. Vaughn answered
that she is still in conversation with University Counsel and the President
with the goal of making progress on the issues around spring review.
Gregory spoke in favor of retaining the separateness of
the two issues, adding that we should remind ourselves and our colleagues that
the FARs themselves are not due for some time.
Sayeed asked about the possible impact of this recommendation.
Cherny responded by first noting the final resolve clause, which lists who will
receive this resolution. This is advice to the Chancellor and CFA regarding
the process of bargaining that should begin soon. Vaughn added that there are
other campus senates which are considering similar resolutions, and she also
recalled President Corrigan's wish for responses on how to proceed with merit
pay, and this resolution is a response to that request for suggestions.
Mitch Turitz asked if these recommendations can take
place on this campus without negotiations at the Statewide level. Vaughn replied
that this is directed statewide.
Gregory clarified the nature of this resolution: it does
not put us in a position as an Academic Senate of doing anything or negotiating;
what this does is to say to the Chancellor, CFA, and the Board of Trustees that
we want them to pay attention to some carefully thought through principles if
a merit pay program is included in the upcoming round of bargaining. Cherny
added that it is appropriate for an academic senate to do this: HEERA reserves
to Academic Senates decisions about criteria and standards, including criteria
and standards for merit pay. This has nothing to do with whether we on this
campus go through a FMI process this spring.
M/S/P (Edwards, Steier) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the resolution was approved without
dissent.
The Senate was adjourned at 3:35.
Respectfully submitted,
Dane Johnson
Secretary to the Faculty