Minutes: February 22nd, 2005

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2005

2:00 - 4:00 p.m.

Meeting

Attendance:

CALL TO

ORDER: 2:14 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Colvin

announced that there would be a meeting on campus regarding the lower division

transfer issues with campus representatives from other community colleges

around the Bay Area to talk about transfer patterns within the 30 disciplines

under discussion in the CSU. A report would follow at the March 29 senate

meeting.

Colvin also

announced that online voting for the selection committee for the search for a

new VP of Advancement. An email had been circulated the day before announcing

nominations for this search committee.

Colvin urged

senators to be alert to their college elections for university and college

committees.

The March 8

senate meeting would be a town hall meeting with Leroy Morishita to discuss the

revision to the campus’ physical master plan, with a special guest, new member

of the Board of Trustees Jeffery Bleich, in attendance. No agenda will be

distributed.

Secretary Fielden

noted that the campus would be participating in a system-wide large scale

assessment of a test developed in conjunction with the non-profit testing

service ETS, to be called the ICT initiative. Senators had a handout at their

places that outlined the purpose of the initiative and some details regarding

the test, which would be occurring in a ten-day period beginning March 4.

Senators were encouraged to share this information, which would also be

distributed to colleges and departments. Senators were urged to encourage

undergraduate students to sign up to be test-takers. Incentives for the

students included a 25 dollar gift certificate and a chance to win an iPod in a

lottery (50 to 1 odds.) The test was designed to test Information communication

Technology proficiencies, and could potentially be utilized by the campus in

several ways.

CHAIR’S

REPORT

Vice-chair Williams

reported on the senate chairs’ meeting on February 10 with topics that included

the applied doctoral degrees to be jointly offered by the CSU and UC systems.

Academic technology forums were also on the horizon, with the goal to help CSU

leaders learn about issues in academic technology. Williams noted the senators’

concern whether this was an opportunity to use technology to increase class

sizes.

Intersegmental Coordinating Committee (ICC) an arm of

California Education Round Table, whose mission involves preparing students for

the workplace, had concerns that included students transferring from community

colleges to the CSU. One issue for our campus was that this group had the

attention of the legislature, particularly regarding K-12 education. There did

not seem to be enough concern about graduate education, and there was a need to

keep aware of what this group was doing. He mentioned the Institute for

teaching and learning and summer scholarships, and what kind of support faculty

needed to be better teachers. Lastly there was the student grievance process

issue with the most important element being that senators know what process was

present at the department, college and university levels, and that everyone

needed to know that the grievance process existed and was in a position to

serve its purpose.

AGENDA

ITEM #1—APPROVAL of the AGENDA for FEBRUARY 22, 2005

AGENDA

ITEM #2—APPROVAL of the MINUTES for FEBRUARY 8, 2005

Senator Abella asked that on page 3, Agenda item 6, in the first

reading the minutes list the action phrase “m/s/p” when in fact the item had

not actually passed.

Yee, Gregory m/s/p

Statewide

Senator Gregory expressed thanks to Chelberg as last session’s visiting

minute taker.

AGENDA

ITEM #3—REPORT from SUZANNE DMYTRENKO, UNIVERSITY REGISTRAR & DENISE FOX,

AVP, HUMAN RESOURCES, SAFETY & RISK MANAGEMENT: EMPLOYEE STUDENT

INFORMATION PRIVACY (ESIP) WEB TUTORIAL

Fox announced that there was

now a brief, twenty-minute tutorial mandated by the chancellor’s office that

provided education to faculty and staff regarding student privacy and security.

In past campus employees had had to sign confidentiality requirements, and this

tutorial would negate this need. It was on the verge of being launched, and

would be available March 9. All faculty and staff would be required to view the

tutorial, which Dmytrenko would describe. This was a quiz that could be taken

anytime, anywhere.

Dmytrenko indicated that campus already had a

tutorial up on the web that dealt with privacy issues and contained a test, and

this served as a beginning point for this newer product. It would be a one-time

requirement for all employees. If an individual staff member did not have

access to the web, their office could do one-on-one training. There were a

number of key issues that all employees needed to be understood.  New

information would be included at a later date.

Senator Gregory

posed what she surmised was a dumb question, as to whether the use of the word

“PC” excluded Macintosh computers.

Dmytrenko responded that the

tutorial would work on any platform, any browser.

Statewide

Senator Yee thanked for the report, and asked about monitoring

compliance.

Dmytrenko responded that it would be possible

to see who had completed the training. No real deadline was envisioned yet but

that the motivation was that no one would be able to access student records

without doing the tutorial.

Fox indicated that the tutorial was

educational in nature, rather than something just to pass.

Senator Heiman

asked about those dumb enough to have done the earlier version, whether they

would still need to complete this new version.

Dmytrenko responded in the affirmative.

AGENDA

ITEM #4—REPORT from DAVID ABELLA, CO-CHAIR, STUDENT FEE ADVISORY

COMMITTEE: ATHLETICS FEE REFERENDUM

Senator Abella spoke as Co-chair of the Student Advisory Committee

and as a participant for the past two years. He indicated that the Voter

pamphlet in front of senators had been approved by the committee last week, and

concerned the March 14-16 referendum, and provided some background. Last year

the students had voted on four items in a referendum. Athletics had been on the

ticket and had lost by a very narrow margin, unlike the other items which had

been approved. Since then, reductions had taken place with five sports lost.

Based on this and the narrow margin for victory, the president had charged the

committee to review this action, resulting in two town hall sessions, the first

focused on the athletic community, the second with a more general focus. The

response from the community was that athletics should be supported again. The

committee was charged to do a survey, with strong campus support indicated.

Alumni, faculty, and staff were all committed to the program. Realistically it

seemed unlikely that general fund support could be expected in the near future.

The only real source of support would be a student fee increase. To build

stable program, campus would need this.

Currently

students paid $24 to the athletic fund and the proposal would increase the fee

by $17. He mentioned the difference between Intramural and other sports. The

fee would rise in future years, until year 5 when the fee would be pegged to

the CSU fee percentage increase. He spoke to the need for stable funding.

As to process, the proposal had come to the committee over a month ago;

the committee responded with diligence and had to consider its referendum

policy. It was necessary to waive the 60-day notification period, and the

30-day pamphlet notification period. The whole process normally needed a whole

year, but circumstances suggested a change in policy in this particular case.  His

feeling was that support of the athletic department helped make SFSU a

university. If this passed, the whole athletic department would be funded by

student fees, so he expressed some hesitancy in having student fees assume the

entire burden. Second, looking at fee increase, there were also some issues for

the year 2009-10 when fee would hit a phase adjusted to the university budget.

The university would still not be contributing any general fund support. As a

student, he thought it desirable to keep athletics.

Senator Yee

thanked Abella for his efforts and observed that SFSU had a relatively low

athletic fee compared to other campuses, and she questioned an item on the

inner panel of the pamphlet as to what the budget increase meant.

Senator Abella responded that he did not know exactly how that

particular provision would play out. He deduced that it was based on the

general fund support given to campus, the percentage increase allocated for

that.

Senator Velez

asked about what intercollegiate sports had been discontinued

Senator Abella

responded that M/W swimming, M/W outdoor track, Women’s tennis and Women’s

volleyball had been cut, but that volleyball would come back.

Senator Axler

had concerns about the percentage of athletic moneys going to intramural

sports, which seemed rather small.

Director of

Athletics Michael Simpson responded that the actual budget for

intramurals would double with the passage of the measure.

Colvin asked for the information to this

question return back to senate.

Vice-chair Williams

noted that faculty had encouraged the student vote and hoped it continued.

Senator Abella

thought this a good note to end on, as he had a strong belief in student

voting. Students did not always vote in large numbers, yet he had been

encouraged by the large turnout the previous year. Faculty had been

encouraging, and the stakes were high now.

Senator Suzuki asked where the pamphlet would be available and

how it would be distributed.

Senator Abella

responded that distribution places included the student building, the

administration building, the library, all across campus. The Website location

was listed on the front page with more information.

Senator Chelberg

indicated that an email had already gone out to students and would be repeated.

Senator Abella

indicated that this had already happened, and that the committee would employ

as many avenues as possible.

Chair Colvin

indicated that Axler’s question would go to the student committee for a

response.

AGENDA

ITEM #5—REPORT from OSWALDO GARCIA, CHAIR, ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE:

UPDATE from the TASK FORCE on GRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW

Chair Colvin

commented on this update on the committee’s activities, and was hopeful that

the report would serve to engage the campus community in discussion. She urged

senators to regard Garcia as the “messenger” of the committee.

She thought

that this topic needed to be on the senate’s agenda for the rest of the

semester, as it was a difficult issue, and hard to handle in the normal first

and second reading format to reach resolution. Ideas needed to get placed on

the table for discussion, the only way to make good policy.

Senator and

Chair of APRC Garcia began with some background. APRC was about to

finish its fifth cycle of review and each cycle had proceeded according to

senate policy. A ten-member task force had been constituted in the fall, with

the goal of a draft for the senate early in the spring semester. The focus had

been on the most pressing issues first. One priority that emerged in aftermath

of the last WASC accreditation review was some noted deficiencies in graduate

programs at SFSU. The committee had to deal with this without abandoning its

other tasks.

The task

force has developed a draft policy that would have further discussion in

committee later this week. Some careful analysis was required so that the

committee’s evaluation could guide university policy and process. He noted that

the document took a historical view of the cycles of review and included new

items that had not been included in the past. He spoke to the currency of

graduate programs, and the need to set standards for quality, which had only

marginally been done before. Some accrediting bodies handled individual

programs, but there were issues university-wide regarding graduate programs.

The document intended to include specific standards to be considered as a

“floor” and that each department would be able to define their own standards.

Some things to consider were: number of students per program, graduates per

year, administrative requirements, course offerings, most of this detail had

not been present in past. He was not prepared to discuss all the details at

this time, but felt the need to present this to the campus community beginning

with the senate.

Senator Suzuki

asked if there was any chance of coordinating these reviews with reviews

from those units that had outside accreditation reviews, so that two reviews

could be done at the same time, and not do two reviews.

Garcia responded that it seemed to make

sense to coordinate these two different reviews, and that perhaps campus might

ask further questions at the same time.

Senator Suzuki

asked who would be contacting outside reviewers, and who would be doing the

extra work.

Garcia differentiated between the task

force and APRC. The task force would need to develop feasible guidelines.

Senator Stowers

commented about APRC in general. From recent senate experience, it was

apparent that program reviews were not that useful in developing policy for

suspension and discontinuance. She hoped for some notion of quality indexes to

be developed and observed that a lot of program reviews did not do this.

Garcia was aware of this, and commented on

the disconnect between the discontinuance proposals and APRC reviews. Campus

needed better standards, but also needed to recognize that “one size does not

fit all.” Departments need some autonomy, ability to make their own decisions,

yet there were some university issues too.

Senator Velez

asked whether these guidelines would be aligned with assessment activities.

Garcia thought this a good question.

Assessment had not been so important in the past, and had not even had much in

the way of resources. This was addressed in the new policy.

Senator Yee

thanked Garcia, and spoke to the importance of student advising at the graduate

level. She asked if there were any plans to develop roadmaps, visual aids, or

the like for graduate students, to provide guidelines for timely graduation

etc.

Garcia agreed with this suggestion. He

hoped the committee would go beyond this, and consider not only how to make it

easier for graduate students, but also to address admission requirements.

Chair Colvin

noted that a time certain had been reached, and asked permission to extend

discussion.

Senator Heiman

spoke as member of both APRC and task force and thought it appropriate to put

all the cards on the table. He asked if Garcia would address the size of APRC

and the workload issues involved.

Garcia responded that APRC had a

well-defined workload, but faced a very intense task. Normal workload

guidelines were in place, but the job takes a long time to finish. The new

policy might dictate a revision of the guidelines, but if the committee already

were booked, it would not be able to do this. The committee might require more

members from senate to be included in their roster to finish their work.

Garcia

requested senators to contact him if they had any good ideas, and he expressed

hope to have a new draft for the next meeting.

Senator Stowers

suggested that Dean of Graduate Studies Hallum and her office had done some

data collecting and analysis, which had never before been available.

AGENDA

ITEM #6—RECOMMENDATION from the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COMMITTEE:

DISCONTINUANCE of the MINOR in CALIFORNIA STUDIES PROGRAM, 2^ND

reading

Chair Colvin noted that she had received a message from the dean of BSS who

held a preliminary meeting to solve issues regarding the California Studies

program. She asked for further time for the college to reach a balanced

resolution and would entertain a motion to postpone the motion’s second reading

to March 29.

Carrington,

Gerson m/s/p

Unanimously

passed.

AGENDA

ITEM #7—RECOMMENDATION from the FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: RESOLUTION in SUPPORT of a UNIVERSITY CLUB, 1^st reading

Pong, Fehrman 

m/s

Senator and

chair of FAC Pong indicated that the committee had strongly endorsed

this resolution given the urgency of the situation. Finding a permanent home

for the University Club (UC) seemed highly important.

Senator Yee

thanked Pong and the committee. She spoke in favor of the resolution, and

provided an informational update from the Board of Directors (BOD) for the UC.

The BOD was here today to hear advice from the senate. The UC had been in the

Franciscan building since the mid 70s, a building that would close this year to

accommodate the library renovation. A study had been conducted to find another

home, which outlined the advantages and disadvantages of every option. No

viable space options existed. Now there was a plan of action in place. Core

paid membership was low, income was poor, and strong campus interest was

insufficient for support. Despite all efforts, membership and attendance were

down.  Statistics indicated some 462 members in 1997, a number which was now

down to 167 as of today. In 2004 income was $45,000, and expenses were $53,000:

a loss of $8,000. The various issues were listed on the handouts. The BOD had

passed two items of business: payroll deductions would begin to cease and all

operations would terminate by June 3. The UC would still commit to graduation

ceremonies, but could not continue after that. The BOT had tabled a motion to

dissolve corporation. They had also tabled discussion and any move to handle

residual funds, but needed to decide these last two issues soon. She

appreciated the resolution from the senate, but sought guidance on how to

proceed from here.

Senator Heiman

asked about the cost of membership and benefits to the members.

Senator Yee

replied that membership dues were indexed proportionally to salary,

specifically 1 percent of an individual’s salary. Benefits included use of

rooms through reservation, parties, other special activities, receptions, and

campus-wide activities.

Turitz thought that the last “resolved”

clause in the resolution might be superfluous.

Senator Ulasewicz

remembered an earlier survey that had been done and asked what exactly the UC

wanted from the senate.

Senator Yee

indicated that the senate has offered advice in past. Do we want to dissolve,

is there reason to continue.

Senator Meredith

encouraged suspension of the corporation rather than disbanding completely. Any

issues of liability might be handled by a member vote.

Chair Colvin

indicated that this resolution would return at second reading at the next

senate meeting.

AGENDA

ITEM #8—RECOMMENDATION from the FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: PROPOSED

POLICY for a FACULTY HONORS & AWARDS COMMITTEE, 1^ST Reading

Pong,

Meredith m/s

Senator and

chair of FAC Pong indicated that past senate chair Cherny had provided

good guidance in this area. FAC had conducted a broad review of programs at

other CSU campuses, and had developed this current document to help honor our

faculty and recognize their achievements.

Senator Gregory

thought this a good idea, especially in context of the current low morale

situation on campus. She thought it wise that we look at ways to contribute to

the university community in this manner. On line 21, it did not seem clear what

“established procedures” meant. Also, she suggested that some way of making

sure that the process did not follow that of the previous effort, the OPA,

which was flawed, be found.

Pong responded that the intent in line

21 was that the committee would establish the procedure.

Senator Velez

noted that it would be up to the committee to decide what the award looked like

and how it was handled. If a monetary award was included, the committee would

decide that too.

Senator Gregory

would be happy with greater precision in the process description.

Pong responded that there was no intent

to create a competitive award, but rather a distinguished teacher award, that

could be interpreted liberally and in multiple ways.

Senator Smith

asked about the perspective from the staff, and asked whether there was a

parallel structure or committee for staff on campus to do something similar.

Chair Colvin

thought it appropriate to think about staff awards as well.

CEL Dean Whitaker

responded that campus already had the “star of the month” award with a yearly

winner who received a sizable monetary award.

Senator Smith

was aware of this, but thought it a different matter than something coming from

the senate.

Senator Chelberg

indicted that the bylaws had changed some years ago, when there was a staff

seat on senate appointed by staff council, and that currently there was work on

a process by which a staff member could be elected by staff to participate in

the senate.

Senator Van

Cleave thought the concept of recognition a good one, but noted that not

all faculty teach, and encouraged an award that would include faculty who do

not teach as their primary activity.

Pong expressed willingness to consider

this.

Senator Palmer

asked if there was any reason this process could not fall under the purview of

FAC.

Chair Colvin

asked whether FAC considered this.

Pong responded that FAC had thought that

the awards current committee, for the honorary degree, might do this, and

perhaps it would work to expand their charge. After some discussion FAC decided

that the current committee did not take all the different elements of this new

award into account, and thus drafted this new policy.

Senator Palmer

responded that FAC included professional development under their jurisdiction.

Senator Ulasewicz

asked about service learning.

Pong responded that this had been one of

FAC’s concerns. OCSL (Office of Community Service

Learning) has an award, but this new award would have a higher

profile. FAC had given more guidelines to recognize faculty, not just for our

own campus but nationwide.

Pong encouraged colleagues to look at

the document and provide feedback. New faculty members had an opportunity to

help craft this policy to honor faculty. He thanked FAC members for their work,

particularly Senator Velez.

AGENDA

ITEM #9 —ADJOURNMENT— 3:50 p.m.