March 9, 2004

Senate Members Present:












































Yu Charn
















Dam, Mary Ann




























Batista, Natalie; Carrington, Christopher; Cherny, Robert (excused);

Contreras, A. Reynaldo(excused); Corrigan, Robert (excused); Fung, Robert

(excused); Garcia, Oswaldo (excused); Gonzales, Dan (excused); Kassiola,

Joel (excused); Langbort, Carol (excused); Otero, Aina J.; Scoble, Don (excused);

Suzuki, Dean


Buttlaire, Dan; Earthman, Elise; Giardina, Richard; Gutkin, Terry; Hallum, Ann; Knox, Liz; Monteiro, Ken; Mullins,

Willie; Sung, Susan; Turitz, Mitch; Verhey, Marilyn; Viveros, Elvira; Whitaker, Gail; Yorker, Beatrice


Senator Chelberg

announced that there was an endeavor to collect funds in order to support

students going to Sacramento on March 15 for lobbying purposes on behalf of higher

education. An envelope was circulated around the senate floor, and senators

were encouraged to fill out checks made out to the SFSU Foundation, with the

note field including the phrase “March on March II.”

CFA Chapter President Mitch Turitz added to Senator Chelberg’s comments

and encouraged faculty as well as students to go to Sacramento on the 15 of March. He also noted that March 19

and 26 would be lobbying days, where faculty and students would visit local

legislators, requesting no additional cuts to higher education. Turitz observed that legislators are impressed

when people come to their office, particularly students.  Finally, he announced that on April 26 CFA will

hold a town hall meeting on the budget.

Senate Chair Assistant Sposito announced that shortly

there would be a second Asilomar planning meeting

to discuss potential themes, and other planning issues.  The campus community is invited

and encourage to participate in the planning of the Faculty and Staff

retreat for 2005 held at Asilomar. 


Chair Edwards

spoke to the urgency of the budget crisis, noting previous senate meetings,

and the permanent nature of the reductions. He commented that in the past

there have been three procedures that Universities have used to address the

downsizing of academic programs, the first of which, spreading the cuts broadly

across the campus, has some serious drawbacks. The second is to make deep

cuts in some areas while protecting others. The difficulty here is deciding

what programs will be protected, what programs must go, what criteria are

used to make such choices, and who will do the choosing. The third procedure

is a combination of the first two.

Now and in the upcoming months the University is

confronting an emergency situation involving some very tough choices. The

University has several processes in place to deal with this emergency and

all of these processes include significant faculty input.

These consist of: The University Budget Committee,

which includes faculty in equal numbers with administrators; a joint Senate

and Academic Affairs Workload Taskforce, which will report to the Senate in

May; as well as CUSP II, which is focusing on a five-year strategic plan for

the University

SFSU will need to think about the short term, thus

considering budget requirements that need to be met by July 1, as well as

longer-term issues, while keeping in mind how to redefine our University for

the sake of its future and level of quality.

The Academic Senate Executive Committee has reviewed

all relevant policy in regards to downsizing or reorganizing our academic

programs, and these include:


Academic Program Discontinuance


Academic Senate Principles Regarding Academic Reorganization


Temporary Suspension of Academic Programs

All of these have been approved by the Senate and

the President, and are thus University policy. The parties that should be

involved in the decision making process are faculty, colleges, the Academic

Senate and the President, and a review of all these polices by all members

of the academic community is as good a place to start as any.

Third, Chair Edwards stressed the need for open communication

and that faculty plays a strong role in decision-making. He commended that

the deans are meeting regularly with their staff and faculty for discussion.

He noted that the Academic

Senate workload may increase and that this may require additional and or longer


Secretary Fielden

asked that senators take care when using their microphones, as deciphering

the previous meeting’s tape had required extra effort. He requested senators

to restrict their extracurricular comments, water pouring and the like to

areas outside the range of the microphones.


Chair Edwards noted that one correction, agenda Item 6 the second line should

read consent item in first and second reading.

Houlberg, Palmer m/s/p



24, 2004

Gregory, McKeon m/s/p

Senator Steier insisted that his absence at the

previous meeting be listed as “excused.”

Senator Chelberg

indicated that he would make some small corrections to the minutes and forward

them on to the senate office.



The statewide senators

had no report to give at this time.




Provost Gemello mentioned

the recent town hall meeting devoted to the budget and hoped that by now everyone

realized the severity of the situation and its permanent status. Today he

wanted to talk about the process that the campus would adopt. He indicated

that he had met with a variety of campus members at the town hall meeting,

with deans and a range of campus members in an attempt to discuss the budget

scene. Two weeks ago the colleges received their planning budgets, but these

were issued with only preliminary knowledge and without knowing the results

of election developments. He tried to give some idea of the magnitude of the

crisis by noting that we have 1,000 full-time faculty positions, and we are

probably going to need to reduce 170 positions, roughly 17 percent. He listed

some examples of the kinds of comments he was hearing: one dean had asserted

that the planning budget would not be possible, as the only way to reach the

target would be to double or triple class sizes, going against a long held

principle of the college. Another dean said that he had a series of short

term solutions but that they would not prove sustainable over time. Senior

faculty would be teaching other classes than what they currently teach; there

would be less research and no new equipment purchases. When the Provost asked

whether this approach could this be sustained, the answer was negative. He

said that wherever short terms solutions were possible they had been employed,

but now the campus is faced with serious long term issues. Discussion has

started to consider alternative strategies, including deep, strategic cuts.

The campus administration

wanted to hear from the community, with the understanding that solutions be

regarded as permanent strategies. Now there is a much clearer idea of what

the real budget looks like, but of course we do not know exactly what will

happen. No one expects the budget to improve any time soon. Now is the time

to face up to the crisis and deal with it in a sound, strategic way.

He mentioned meeting with

the deans over college-wide strategies, requesting proposals from them to

arrive by early April. His message to the deans was to engage with the faculty

in extensive discussions. He planned to keep CUSP II, the Senate Executive

Committee and the University Budget committee informed of developments and

had met with previous senate chairs for input. He hoped to develop an overall

plan by the middle of April. The budget will be $8 to 10 million less than

last year but SFSU still has to accommodate 95% of the student total from

this year, and we will need to restructure to be as strong as possible in

the future.

Some of the things being considered

are looking at how many colleges to have, the structure within the colleges,

and the reduction of departments and programs, including credential programs.

It is now March and with a budget needed by April the campus may not be able

to adopt a permanent plan immediately.

Provost Gemello suggested April 2004 as the time

to identify programs slotted for discontinuance. In 2004-05 the campus will

begin the process of discontinuance, which will involve reducing course offerings,

not admitting new students, and taking the time to work out mitigation mechanisms

for those affected. In 2006-07 those programs to be eliminated will have completed

the discontinuance process. This would constitute a three year plan, with

the goal of identifying programs in April.

Senator Williams asked for clarification about

determining the “number” of colleges.

Provost Gemello indicated that he had no magic

number. He suggested that the campus needed to think hard and determine the

optimal number. If the number of colleges was reduced from 8 to 6, for example,

this would be a savings. If that did not happen then that would be money that

would need to be found elsewhere.

Turitz asked how it was

possible to save money by combining colleges.

Gemello indicated the

major feature was through salary savings - if two colleges combined you would

have one less dean and associate dean, and eliminate duplicate staff positions.

It constituted in essence a reduction in personnel.

Senator Gregory asked if the deans had been advised

explicitly to have open meetings. She thought it a good idea to communicate

fully with faculty.

Gemello said he had not

made an explicit request for open meetings, only that deans communicate often

and fully with the departments and faculty. He felt it important to try to

follow the best practices available.

Senator Steier expressed some confusion and requested

criteria on how programs would be discontinued. In past discontinuances were

done to unsuccessful programs but now we have perfectly sound programs that

would be discontinued, and how would that be done.

Gemello indicated that

Steier had zeroed right in on the problem.

Currently SFSU has no weak programs. We are looking at discontinuing solid

programs, which would not be small programs, but likely some larger ones that

could mean real savings. The whole process was going to be driven by money

issues. He would not use the term “fired faculty,” but rather focus on easing

and mitigating the ramp down for faculty affected. The reasoning for the three

year plan is that he thought that the Senate has a sound discontinuance policy

which we will follow. As for the affected students, the three year plan would

give the campus a chance to get students through there programs and ease their


Senator Williams encouraged his colleagues to

speak up. He wanted to return to the topic of colleges, as it seemed easier

to consider program discontinuance, but when considering college reduction,

he found it difficult to visualize, and asked for clarification.

Gemello said that across

the nation there were a wide variety of different college structures. In the

previous budget crisis the campus had generated several interesting solutions

that involved mergers and the like. He did not want to speculate, but a major

goal was to try to treat people equitably. The campus needed to keep targets

and make decisions equitably, and make decisions on a university level. Another

part of question involved high and low Faculty Student Ratios that are often

program dependent.

Senator Stowers noted that the college of BSS had been talking about budget issues, and wondered what would happen

to FERP money.

Gemello was not sure of

the answer.

Senator Heiman indicated that the College of Business has had discussions about making some graduate programs self-supporting.

To him it seemed like a better approach to take this path rather than to discontinue

a program entirely.

Gemello thanked Heiman for his insight, noting that the

campus would have less general fund money, but if there were ways to increase

revenue or do without general fund money that might prove to be a good approach.

MBA programs would be a likely target for this sort of thing, perhaps even

at the system level. He thought it a good time for creativity and flexibility.

Senator Ulasewicz had two questions, the first

regarding the notion of the “golden handshake” option.

Gemello replied that this

proposal was on the Governor’s desk, with the Chancellor’s blessing, but still

needed to be signed.

Dean Verhey indicated that the decision should be made in a week or two.

Gemello said that in response

to this issue the deadline for filling for a FERP had been extended, from

the end of February to the end of April.

Senator Ulasewicz wanted to know about the open

dean position in HHS.

Gemello did not really

want to fill a position without knowledge of what was going to happen.

Senator Guerrero wanted some clarification about

faculty being transferred to other departments or programs as well as being

let go, and asked about potential mergers of programs to share resources.

Gemello indicated that

there was no plan for that now, but both would be options. Colleges need to

decide this at their own level, keeping in mind any savings that may be realized.

If a program were discontinued, faculty would not remain in that program.

There was more time for mitigation should the campus go into layoff mode,

with some further mitigations perhaps possible. He thought a key principle

was to do everything possible to help faculty and students directly affected

by these decisions.

Senator McKeon wanted more clarification regarding

the timeline for program discontinuance. If there was an April list, did that

mean targeted programs would only have a couple weeks for appeal? What time

would there be between the first list and final decision? Another question

she posed was that when a program or department got on that list and its admissions

halted, the fate of those departments would be sealed, regardless of any mitigations.

Gemello disagreed that

identifying programs for consideration would seal their fate. Perhaps there

might be no new majors admitted for a time, but the program would still be

able to continue.

Senator McKeon asked at what point a program would

start halting admissions.

Gemello said that the

purpose of stopping admission for any potentially cancelled programs was to

avoid the problem of having admitted students who would then need to make

their way through. How soon students go and come was up for consideration.

Senator McKeon asked again the first part of her

question, about the timing for the preliminary list and final list.

Gemello was not sure there

would ever be a “final” list. He regarded this as a work in progress, with

the deans conferring openly and often, and that would result in a continual

review. Packages would have input from several areas. It is, however, a zero

sum game. The savings have to be made and the university needs to consider

carefully which programs it could live without.

Senator Daniels asked about interdisciplinary

programs, in GE and the like, where discontinuance conducted in a college

by college basis might pose some problems.

Gemello repeated that

the college deans would make their proposals, but that he and the President

would be asking questions about the whole picture, which he regarded as his


Senator Noble asked how cuts would be made when

discontinuance takes so long to do.

Gemello responded that

the first year would be a hybrid between broad and narrow cuts and that the

first year might mean reductions all across the board. The campus might elect

to make some short term reductions in the book budget and the infrastructure

funds to gain some breathing room to implement longer term solutions.

Chair Edwards noted that policies relating to program discontinuance were

put together in the Spring of 1994 and were put together

to senate administrative collaboration take a look.



Chair Edwards brought Agenda Item 6 forward as a time certain.

Senator and Chair of CRAC

Nichols noted that in the senators’ packets

was a proposal for an off campus degree program at Cañada

college. This would be a satellite BA in nursing from SFSU’s

Department of Nursing to be held at Cañada College in San


The Chair of Nursing Beatrice

Yorker and Dean Gail Whitaker were introduced for comments

and questions.

Yorker began by noting

that last fall the Sequoia Health Care hospital and HMO made an offer to SFSU

to offer a satellite nursing program. She had several initial reservations

which included the recognition of the difficulty of raising enrollment, which

they had done on campus and then realized how it created problems that could

also be present at Cañada. When first proposed the

President expressed concern about the shortage of nurses, increased funding

and enrollment, now stretched to the maximum, and faculty learned that it

took more than a few faculty positions to make this happen. Sequoia had asked

us to think hard about the proposal, and the nursing department indicated

that they would need more money for students, as well as space, as current

room is insufficient. Clinical placement sites are also limited. Even if students

were admitted, it would still be hard to do this.

This is an “outside the box”

proposal, with the understanding that Sequoia would fully fund it. They would

also handle the clinical placement for the students, and she reported that

the nursing faculty were supportive. As long as Tenure/Tenure-track

faculty did the program theory and supervised the courses, they were willing

to make the commitment to make this possible. The funding would be a minimum

of $7.5 million for six years, with a chance to go to ten or more years.

In exchange for this, Sequoia

wanted to insure that graduates would work in their own health care facilities

and in the community. Because nursing is an impacted program, it is able to

have supplemental criteria for student admissions. In this case it would include

criteria that would favor students who live and work in county, and to graduates

of the Community College district. All senior capstone students would also

be placed into their system.

Yorker expressed pleasure

at being approached, and noted that there are no BA nursing programs in San

Mateo county. The medical journal JAMA had released a

study just before negotiations suggesting that patient outcomes improve with

a higher level of nursing education. Seventy percent of the nurses in California have associate degrees, while SFSU offers Bachelor’s

and Master’s degrees. UCSF no longer offers the Master’s, and City College only offers the associate. We add value with our degree program.

Senator Chelberg offered

congratulations for creative solutions to the school of nursing, and asked

Whitaker to explain how accommodations

for the program would be handled for people with disabilities.

Dean Whitaker said

that this would be a clone of their existing program, with all the normal

assurances we have here but just handled elsewhere. CEL adds some interesting

features that cannot be done on the general fund. Cañada

has built a university center, where SFSU offers other courses. This structure,

the center, had to address all logistical issues - library, security issues

etc. including disabled access. The remote distance may pose some problems,

but Whitaker expressed willingness to engage

in discussions to resolve them.

Senator Williams spoke

in favor of the proposal but had some reservations. What implications would

this relationship have for the autonomy of the nursing program, and what safeguards

would be in place in case Sequoia went away or was otherwise unable to meet

its commitment?

Yorker said from the beginning that the nursing program

had insisted that there could be no influence over the curriculum. What Sequoia

could influence were supplemental criteria - i.e. San Mateo county residents get preferential treatment, etc,

and SFSU wrote another piece into the agreement that positions us well for

the future. The SFSU Foundation did a lot of research on Sequoia, and expressed

confidence in their strength as a healthy, economically sound organization.

Senator Steier asked

if the religious basis of funding would have any affect on health care, including

such items as abortions etc.

Yorker responded that that was impossible and that adequate

safeguards were in place.

Jerris, Chelberg moved to second reading.






Dean Monteiro wanted

to thank the senate for two resolutions encouraging deans to talk about the

summit on faculty development days but also commending  on the work of the people who handled

the summit. He noted that this afternoon we heard about the threats of the

budget on our work. The Summit

discussion was part of an ongoing value we have - one of the university values.

The desire was to put the

summit into issues that the campus can deal with and make the process ongoing,

and to talk about summit issues and how people are working with them.

Monteiro wanted to respond

to the misconception that the summit was about the “watermelon incident” a

racially charged incident from last fall. He stated that almost every incident

that provokes a major response usually has at its core material that can catch

fire. But, with no fuel, there can be no fire. A reasonable second response

is to remove the fuel underneath the sparks. As for the incident, this proved

to be a lie, more talking has revealed the underlying context of issues.

There was a summit on race

and culture in 1990, when the new President was approached by some asking

for the University to address these issues. We have done several assessments,

and a series of strategic planning since. These are tools not only for addressing

a particular flashpoint but also to address deeper issues.

Referring to the handout,

Monteiro noted that the first Students’

issues were ones that were longstanding and echoed in CUSP. An obvious observation

might be that we make proposals but do not do anything but he likened the

development of a university to that of a person. It remains important to take

steps and identify goals, even when the goals are not always achieved.

Referring to the data with

respect to faculty employment, he observed that we don’t always know how well

we have done. Our hiring in minorities has been fairly flat of late, and it

is not clear how good this is.

So an open question is where

we are after the summit.  The summit

committee, who did planning, also became the implementation group and has

written a road map, included in the handout. Each recommendation has been


He mentioned that the apparent

lopsidedness of the black responses had came from floor of the summit, and

meant only that more black students were voicing their concerns. Different

groups did not always have the same needs, and it is important to address

needs that come to you and are voiced.

In response to the question

of whether other issues have surfaced, he responded affirmatively. College

discussions have been productive and taken up in a University wide task force.

Further information comes

from the Pulse surveys, where students answer various questions and provide

answers to some of the things we want to know. It is a laundry list, and a

university wide endeavor.

He suggested that the road

map would allow various constituencies and committees to turn their attentions

appropriately. He finished by noting that one of the greatest challenges remains


Chair Edwards wanted to move to time certain agenda items and entertained

a motion to switch agenda items 7 and 8.

Meredith, Steier m/s/p




AND 2ND readings—a consent item

Senator Gregory

noted that last week our students voted deliberately to increase fees to support

their educational lives. This resolution was offered in recognition of the

students, and in response to Brian Murphy’s

powerful speech at the previous meeting.

Gregory, Jerris m/s/p


resolution was passed unanimously.



PROCEDURES—1st reading

Meredith, McKeon m/s

Senator Meredith indicated that the proposed policy

was developed from the 1981 document, which had never been officially adopted

as a campus policy as it had never been signed by the President at that time.

The proposal had been discussed in APC, Faculty affairs, Student Affairs,

and the Executive Committee. The committees were unable to provide unanimous

support. The goal was to create a campus policy to work across all colleges

that was fair. There had been some discussion about who would have the final

say. Chairs would attempt to mediate, students could produce a formal appeal,

and the instructor must respond within 10 days, then it would go on to the

college office. All appeals would go forward, a new development, and a committee

of three appointed members (one member appointed by the faculty member, one

by the student involved, and one by the dean.) University Counsel Bartscher did not recommend a student

member for reasons of confidentiality. The policy then called for holding

a hearing to decide whether the grade would be raised or not.

Senator Houlberg questioned

item five on page two regarding the department chair designee. Who would serve

as mediator? Would that mediator be present at the meeting between the student

and faculty? He advocated having a student representative.

Senator Meredith indicated

that there had been only two formal grade appeals across campus the last year.

Senator Houlberg pointed out a clarity error on

page 8 of the document.

Senator Meredith indicated

that it would be corrected in the next draft.

Senator Jerris, also

Chair of Faculty Affairs, representing both the Faculty affairs Committee

and himself, recommend this proposal and mentioned that it had been discussed

at length with the conclusion that grading is a responsibility of faculty

and the faculty alone. Students may plead their case, but the final grading

decision resides with faculty. His committee supported this unanimously.

Senator Gerson, Chair

of Student Affairs, wanted to clarify two things. This proposal was the result

of three committees’ work, and that what was once a three-step process had

been reduced to two, so at least that much progress had been made. The Student

Affairs Committee dissented with the notion of student involvement. She thought

confidentially could be maintained by training, signing forms, and the like.

Associate Humanities Dean

Earthman represented the deans’ perspective and a number of Humanities

faculty, and asked that if colleges were unable to amend this policy, that

they be able to set responsible deadlines for appeal. Eight weeks would be

good for the College of Humanities. With web grades students now know quickly if they

have an issue with the grade received. She also recommended student participation.

Senator Meredith understood

the request for deadlines and some already specified in the proposal.

Senator Bernard-Powers

questioned the processes on page two: if the grade is assigned correct, normally

this would be resolved informally. The goal seemed to be to get students to

resolve the issue with faculty. Students could feel disadvantaged, and it

was not clear when the department chair would step in.

Senator McKeon noted

on page 4, line number 13 that each party might bring someone in support.

Does this mean each party could bring different persons at different stages?

Chair Edwards indicated

that the answer would arrive at the next meeting when the proposal would return

in second reading.

AGENDA ITEM #9—Adjournment— 4:00 p.m.