Minutes: March 19th, 2002

Minutes of the

Academic Senate Meeting


Tuesday, March

19, 2002


Academic Senate was called to order by Academic Senate Chair Pamela Vaughn

at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present: 









Blomberg, Judith












Robert A.




































Belle, Thomas












Wen Shen






















Mary Anne







Senate Members Absent:  Strong, Rob (exc); Adisa-Thomas,

Karima (abs); Ganji, Vijay (exc); Boyle, Andrea (exc); Gillotte, Helen

(exc); Moallem, Minoo (exc); Luft, Sandra (exc); Newt-Scott, Ronda (abs);

Bishop, Anna (abs).

Guests:  Bonnie Homan, R. Nickerson,

Dan Buttlaire, Gail Whitaker, J. Gemello, M. Verhey, G. Eisman, Sung

Hu, Paul Barnes, D. Tsuruta


Vaughn encourages all senators to vote

and to remind their colleagues to vote on the changes to the SFSU constitution,

the CSU constitution and the new bargaining agreement.

Agenda Item #1:  Approval of Agenda for Meeting of March 19, 2002

m/s/P (Turitz, Steier) to amend the agenda to include the

COB curriculum proposal as agenda item 4 and move item 4 to the end of the


Agenda Item #2:  Approval of Minutes for Meeting of March 5, 2002


(Houlberg, Steier) to approve the minutes as corrected

Agenda Item #3: Report from Vice President La Belle


Provost outlined the historical development that has brought us to the present

development of the core items for the development of a university-wide teacher

evaluation instrument. He pointed to two important areas in the assessment

of effective teaching. First, is in the area of professional development and

the second is in the area of student evaluation of teaching effectiveness.

The Provost encouraged all faculty to play an active role in contributing

to their own teacher evaluation and not to limit that evaluation to students’

feedback only, but to include syllabus, curriculum development, and documentation

of instructional development.


Houlberg asked if the individual instructor

could select what goes in the evaluation. Tom La Belle indicated that,

yes, the instructor and the department can add items to the evaluation instrument.

Rick Houlberg if there is a system to implement the instrument. Tom

Labelle indicated that there would be a senate policy developed to guide

in the implementation of the teaching effectiveness instrument. Susan Higgins

asked why there was not a question about students being graded fairly. Tom

La Belle indicated that his area had been studied extensively and Marilyn

Verhey would be covering that area. Josh Levine asked if additional

items are added what will be the feedback for the instructor and what is the

role that the evaluation will play in retention, tenure, and promotion process.

Tom La Belle indicated that it is up to the faculty member to provide

evidence of teaching effectiveness. If the faculty member believes that an

evaluation from a third party should be added, then that information should

be included.  Josh Levine asked if additional items could be added

to the evaluation instrument. Tom La Belle indicated that if a faculty

member comes up with their own unique items, or set of core items, then it

is the responsibility of the faculty member to establish the reliability and

validity of those items.

Agenda Item #4: Proposed Revision to the Bachelor of Science in business:

Multiple Concentrations


Vaughn, Chair of the Academic Senate,

introduced the item.  This item is returning to the senate from the February

5 senate meeting and remains in first reading.


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 Business’s (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 senate’s web site. The College

of Business interim Dean Gerald Platt and the Associate Dean were present

to answer any questions.


(Duke, Terrell) to second reading


(Terrell Steier) to close debate


on the item - Passed   (26 yea, 11 nay, 5 abstentions, 42 voting)

Agenda Item #5: Proposed Resolutions

on the hiring of Graduate Students as Teaching Associates and Graduate Assistants.

A proposed

resolution on the hiring of graduate teaching associates and graduate assistants

was first presented to the Academic Senate during the March 2, 2002 meeting.

A copy of the proposed resolution was provided to all senators. Pamela

Vaughn, Chair of the Academic Senate, introduced the resolution to the

senate and reminded senators that the proposed resolution is a reflection

of CSU policy.


(Duke, Houlberg) to second reading


(Houlberg, Duke) to close debate

Voting on the resolution - Passed

Agenda Item #6: Report from Coordinator of Academic Assessment Marilyn Verhey


Verhey provided

to all senators a report on the development and testing of a core set of university-wide

teaching effectiveness items. The Faculty Affairs Committee and the Academic

Senate Executive Committee have accepted the report. It is before the senate

for approval. Marilyn thanked Pamela Vaughn, Penny Warren and

Caran Colvin and all the members of those committees who worked on

these items. She also acknowledged the 400 faculty and 4, 000 students who

participated in this process. Marilyn provided a summary of the report. A

copy of the summary was provided to each member of the senate and the full

report can be found on the Senate web site.


Vaughn reminded senators that the present

report is part of a process agreed to by the senate and that once the report

is approved by the senate; the final policy on a university wide assessment

instrument will be developed by the senate’s Faculty Affairs committee. Josh

Levine asked what was the actual scoring for each item when testing for

reliability and validity. Marilyn Verhey indicated that each item had

different percentages of faculty who agreed or disagreed. Overall, the average

for each item that was accepted is about 2/3 approval. John Levine

indicated that the form should include an indication of the faculty members’

discipline or subject matter taught. Caran

Colvin, chair

of the senate’s Faculty Affairs committee, indicated that her committee would

take up the nature of the testing instrument and the procedure for implementation

when they develop the university policy. Pamela Vaughn reminded senators

that we are accepting a report on the validity and reliability of the core

items. The report must now go to both the Faculty Affairs Committee and the

Academic Policy Committee for the final drafting of university policy. That

policy, once proposed, will come before the senate for final approval.


(Duke, Terrell) to accept the report with congratulation for a job well done

to Marilyn Verhey



Mary Ann Warren asked if there could be some discussion

on why item 6 was not validated. Marilyn

Verhey indicated

that the item dealt with whether a faculty member showed respect toward a

student. It was found, through extensive reviews of the literature, that there

are often incidences were a student does not deserve respect. So the item

was rejected on that basis. Abdiel Onate thanked the Provost for providing

leadership in the development of the assessment items. He felt that a university-wide

assessment would provide a valuable tool for comparing teaching across the

university. Susan Higgins asked that now that we have accepted the

report on the reliability and validity of these items, are they now mandated

to be used in a university wide assessment of teaching effectiveness? Pamela

Vaughn indicated that it would be up to FAC and APC to develop the policy

and to select or reject these items. She thanked all who participated in the

development of these items and looked forward to the development of the final

policy and instrument.

Agenda Item #7: Proposed revision

to the Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science and the Minor program

in Computer Science


Nichols, chair of the Curriculum Review

and Approval committee, introduced the item to the senate. The Department

of Computer Science is proposing the following changes to the Bachelor of

Science Degree and Minor Program: 1) Replace a one unit course, CSc 311 Assembly

Language Programming Lab, by a new one unit course, CSc 305 Social and Ethical

Implications of Computing. The new course has been approved by the Course

Review Committee; 2) Add a four-unit biological sciences requirement to the

major. This increases the unit count of the major by four but will not increase

the total count for the degree as the new requirement can be satisfied by

General Education Segment II courses. Note, CSc 311 will also be removed from

the Computer Science Minor Program. Before you for your review are

the proposed revisions to the Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science

and the Minor Program in Computer Science.  This is a consent item from CRAC. 

The Department of Computer Science is proposing changes to the degree and

minor program.  The catalyst for the proposed changes stem from the recent

accreditation review by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. 

The recommendations were to strengthen the ethics and science components of

the program. If these changes are not implemented, the program risks losing

their accreditation status.  The first proposed changes substitute a 1-unit

course, CSc 305 Social and Ethical Implications of Computing, and dropping

the CSc 311 Assembly Language Programming laboratory currently required for

the degree.  This course will also be dropped from the minor. The second proposed

change is to require that all Computer Science BS students be required to

complete an additional 4 units of science coursework.  These courses consist

of GE segment II physical and biological sciences category B biological sciences

requirements: bio 100/101, bio 210/211 and bio 230.  Students will be advised

to select their GE segment II category B coursework from this list, which

keeps the total number of units for the degree at 120. Also there are subsequent

changes to the bulletin copy because of these changes and those are listed

on page 4 of the proposal. Jozo Dujmovic, Chair of Computer Science,

and Sung Hu, Associate Dean, College of Science, were in attendance

to answer any questions.


Cherny asked about the limited number

of units that are dedicated to the topic of ethics. Jozo Dujmovic indicated

that the one-unit ethic course was added to meet the accreditation recommendation.

He also indicated that ethics is an important unit of instruction in many

of the courses in the curriculum. Rick Houlberg indicated that he supports

the proposal and cautioned us not to allow accreditation agencies to play

the dominant role in curriculum changes. Our curriculum should reflect faculty

decisions and expertise. 

M/s/p (Duke, Houlberg) to second reading


Terrell suggested that it is not an option

not to respond to accreditation recommendations.

M/s/p (Duke Houlberg) to close debate

Voting on the proposal. Passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #8: Proposed Policy on Academic Assessment


Vaughn introduced the proposed policy

and indicated that it is coming as a consent item from APC. Following consultation

with the University Academic Assessment Advisory Committee, the Academic Policies

Committee submits for consideration the proposed policy on Academic Assessment.

Marlon Hom, chair of APC, indicated that the proposed policy comes

to us from the university advisory committee. The policy, after a review,

was forwarded to APC for further review and action. The current proposal before

the senate is the result of a semester-long review by APC and UUAC. Marilyn

Verhey, Chair of the UUAC, is available to answer questions from the senate

floor. Rick Houlberg indicated that the proposal would require CRAC

to assess curriculum proposals to assure that they meet the university assessment

criteria. However, he pointed out that there is nothing in the report that

indicated what CRAC is supposed to evaluate or look for. It’s not clear to

him what CRAC is supposed to do. Marilyn Verhey indicated that it is

assumed that assessment is a faculty-driven process. That when new curriculum

proposals move forward that the faculty member will include the assessment

procedure in good faith. It is not necessarily a judgment call for CRAC but

an evaluation as to the importance of including the assessment procedure in

the new curriculum proposal. Tom La Belle indicated that it might make

good sense to include someone from the office of assessment as a member of

the committee. Susan Higgins was concerned that we might be building

too much into the curriculum proposal process. It might pamper the development

of new proposals and put an unnecessary burden on faculty. Pamela Vaughn

indicated that any new BA or BS degree program would be required to include

an assessment plan so it only follows that they should be included as part

of CRAC evaluation criteria


(Terrell, Duke) to second reading


passed unanimously

Agenda Item #9: Report from Statewide Senators


Cherny spoke about the summary of the

meeting of the Academic Senate, CSU, a copy of which was provided to all senators.

Jan Gregory provided the following summary of the statewide senate

plenary session by email to all senators: Faculty Affairs Committee of the

ASCSU on March 6-7.  Spoke at length with both Jackie McClain and Susan

Meisenhelder about the (then-new) Tentative Agreement between CSU and

CFA and their hopes for greater collegiality in discussing implementation

should the faculty ratify the TA. Discussed spiritedly and revised several

resolutions for discussion by the full Senate on: Faculty role in the search,

selection, and review of system wide administrators; Faculty role in

the search, selection, and review of campus administrators; Development

or updating of campus policies on Teaching Associates and teaching Assistants

to bring campus practice into conformity with new CSU language (Standards

and Classification of graduate students employed in a variety of roles), passed

at the March 8 plenary; success of the Parties in finally reaching a Tentative

Agreement, also passed at the March 8 plenary. Heard reports from subcommittee studying compliance of campuses

with the ASCSU resolution on implementation process for YRO department

chair task force workload task force -- the report on CSU T/TT and lecturer

workload is now posted on the web for your edification and reading pleasure,

and the survey of comparison institutions in the US is under way, with results

to be prepared by fall Academic Affairs liaison

Lorie Roth.

Senate adjourned at 3:20






to the Faculty

Meeting Date (Archive)