Minutes: March 29th, 2005

ACADEMIC
SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

for

TUESDAY, 29 MARCH 2005    

Meeting Attendance:

CALL TO ORDER: 2:19 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Chair Colvin announced that memos had been
sent regarding elections.  Further, there
are only three senate meetings left in the semester with the final meeting on
May 10 devoted to elections and the ritual seating of the new senate.

Colvin
reported from the CSU senate chair’s meeting that agenda items had included
reports from the lower division transfer pattern program committee and the
graduation rate task force.

Colvin
also announced that applications for the United States “Professor of the
Year” award were presently available and that applications are made available
both through the website and at the senate meeting near the sign in table.  She encouraged senators who knew potentially
good candidates to email her with the faculty member’s name and that resources
are available to assist with the application process.

Senator
Meredith stated that the DAI program which was originally proposed for
discontinuance had been referred back to committee for further consideration,
and he had heard from chair Gomes that the BSIT was no longer under
consideration for discontinuance.

CHAIR’S REPORT

Chair Colvin drew senators’ attention to a survey on the yellow sheet in
their agenda packet, and stated that concerns had been raised the previous
semester, which prompted the statewide senate chairs to hold a meeting on
faculty health and well being, and they had been working with counseling and psychological
services and the dean of faculty affairs. The initial result was to put
together a website focused on the issue of faculty experiencing difficult
classroom challenges. She expressed hope to have results of the survey up by
end of the semester.

AGENDA
ITEM #1—APPROVAL of the AGENDA for MARCH 29, 2005

Agenda was approved.

AGENDA
ITEM #2—APPROVAL of the MINUTES for
FEBRUARY 22, 2005

State Senator Yee noted that on page 7, paragraph three, that the statement about
membership dues as correlated to faculty salary was inaccurate. In fact there
was a three tiered structure: $7 dollars per month for a salary less than
$30,000; $12 per month for salaries from 30 to 50 thousand dollars, and $15
dollars for salaries in excess of $50,000.

The minutes were approved as
amended.

AGENDA
ITEM #3—REPORT from ALEX TOURK, SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR’S OFFICE: PROJECT HOMELESS CONNECT

Chair Colvin announced that Provost Gemello would introduce the Deputy
chief of staff from the mayor’s office, Alex Tourk.

Provost Gemello outlined a new initiative, titled “Project Homeless Connect.”
Its purpose was to get people in need into appropriate support services. Some
SFSU students had volunteered to help out with this project and the senate had
invited Tourk to speak at this senate meeting.

A short video on the Homeless
project was shown for the senators’ edification.

Tourk
expressed thanks for the invitation, and suggested that as the San Francisco
Mayor Newsom’s Deputy Chief of Staff, he realized that any San Franciscan who
followed city politics knew that homelessness was a primary issue for the
mayor. He related a story about how the mayor had once canceled all his
meetings one day, instructed his staff to do the same, and they all walked
market street together to take in the whole spectrum of the issue in the city. He
indicated that there was a huge need right in the streets of the city which had
been a major city issue for 25 years. San
Francisco currently spends more per capita on
homelessness than any other American city.

This project was the result of a
great deal of discussion. Providing housing for the chronic homeless was a
beginning, and the city had been able to tap into federal money to do so. He
spoke to the need of reaching people, which he described not as out-reach but
“in-reach,” as the most important way to get people the help they needed. The
goal was to get people who really needed help into the right places, the
program known as “Care not cash.” He indicated that San Francisco was the last county to switch
into this kind of new system.

He raised the question of what the
general public was doing other than complaining about the situation. Their
involvement was the missing piece, as the government could not do it all alone,
not just by applying policy, not just by employing any one piece. People needed
to see results and the challenge was how to create an opportunity for people
that would not be overwhelming. The mayor had invited city workers to forgo their
normal activities one day and to come out on to the street, walk the city
during working hours and deal with the issues at hand. Currently the city had a
bad image problem since tourists would see the issue up close. In recruiting
city workers he had experienced a great deal of resistance initially combined
with a great deal of cynicism. 278 people had been trained in groups to engage
the homeless and try to connect them to stations set up to handle services.
Physical health, mental health, legal, and food services were all set up under
one roof. Seventy-eight percent of the homeless were willing to engage on at
least one level, and expressed desire to accept help. Homeless persons do not
want to be on the street, but the city needed to reach homeless people and
treat them with respect.

Tourk indicated that this effort had
been launched every month with 575 community volunteers. The city could not
provide housing for everyone, and there were severe limitations as to what was
possible. Budgets were not getting better, and he thought that republican
politics were not helpful. As the city needed to balance their budget, there
had been layoffs, and a great need to get creative, resulting in a connection
to foundations and the private sector. For a single homeless person, it took over
600 dollars a month for housing, 1100 dollars for other support services. He
thought that this was everyone’s problem, and that the city could not have
everyone sleeping on the streets. April 21 would be the next meeting. He thought
this project would empower the general public, and not just serve as a one-shot
experience.

Tourk related two stories. The city
had received a random call, from a dentist, who was impressed with the project.
While he had no money or time to offer, he asked if he could provide 500
hygiene kits. This was a good example of how to harness some volunteer spirit.

He also mentioned the story of
Kendra S, a transgender person; a former military veteran who had flown
helicopters, but had became hooked on drugs. She had been brought in through
the program and was connected to much needed benefits, and then returned as a
volunteer, a tangible sign of the success of the program.

There were a thousand stories like
this, and a great power to create change. SFSU had been a splendid participant,
and he thought that this project had served as a portal for services, good
energy and power. He invited senators and the university to help volunteer.

Chair Colvin indicated that there was a link on senate website to this
project.

AGENDA
ITEM #4—REPORT from MARILYN VERHEY, DEAN of FACULTY AFFAIRS & PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT AND ENRIQUE RIVEROS-SHAFER, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT of ACADEMIC
RESOURSES: REORGANIZATION of ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

Provost Gemello stated that due to a series of retirements in academic
affairs, which included the director of CET, AV, and two positions in the
office of Academic Planning and Assessment, there was some reason to rethink
the structure of academic affairs, before filling the replacement positions. Administration
had spent a semester planning, and would now present the first part of this
plan. The AVP in charge of Academic Planning and Assessment would have a redesigned
position, which would include the responsibility of data analysis, program
review, etc. Gemello indicated that Dean of Faculty Affairs Verhey and AVP for
Academic Resources Riveros-Schafer had some ideas to present about this reorganization.

Dean of Academic Affairs Verhey announced that there was some
wider progress in rethinking faculty development. Nationally the profession was
being redefined: that faculty members were viewed as teachers, scholars, and as
people as well. A draft document was currently circulating around campus that
included data sources, and selective recommendations.

Among the sources for the report
were several national models and models from around the CSU, and her off ice
had gathered data from various SFSU groups, the academic senate task force
report, COC reports, the CET Advisory board, Asilomar discussions, focus
groups, deans’ retreats, and department chairs.

Selected recommendations, out of 19
total, included a shift of the technical portion of CET to academic resources. CET
would maintain a current level of support in the realms of pedagogy and would
continue to do the new faculty orientation, but would expand in the following
ways: teaching scholarly endeavors develop a process to support the scholarship
of teaching and learning, generate multidisciplinary approaches to teaching,
explore non-teaching roles for faculty, and expand collaboration with other
units. One concept that surfaced from the Asilomar experience was the issue of
how to continue interdisciplinary contact back on campus. There was strong
interest in developing faculty learning communities surrounding common
interests.

Rather than replacing the CET
director position by taking from the SFSU ranks, it seemed prudent to develop
someone who would be an associate dean for faculty development. The office
would plan and implement a program for all faculties, in all life-stages of the
career.

AVP for Academic Resources Riveros-Schafer indicated that the
program had to do deal with a difficult budget. He mentioned the addition of
academic technology, audiovisual and information technology, to support curriculum.
As a transition move from the current CET to a new office, campus would support
the existing learning management system, blackboard, but would move to a new
system, Moodle. Over 600 users were currently employing Moodle and perhaps it
would be ready for full adoption by next year.

He mentioned a second project: the
existing online courses. It was important to ask questions about the need to
increase these programs, and whether the university could support more courses
online.

Senator Heiman provided some commentary. He applauded the movement to
replace Blackboard with Moodle, since the former was a commercial product which
required licensing and all that entailed while Moodle was an open source
application.

Senator Ulasewicz reported using Moodle in two of her classes, and stated
it was a very fine program. Even students who were generally shy in class found
it easy to communicate in Moodle.

Senator Klingenberg asked about what had happened to the application
Turnitin.

Verhey
responded that it had become too expensive, and was hard to support centrally.
In a cost analysis it turned out to be $11 per student. She preferred to use a decentralized
approach, but it was perhaps time to revisit the issue.

Gemello expressed
some surprise that there had not been any faculty squawking about the apparent
increase in the number of administrative positions, but noted there had been
some deliberate cost savings in the consolidation. No new director of AV was
planned, and in fact there was no increase in the number of positions, only a
conscious restructuring effort.

Senator Yee expressed thanks for report, and wondered if time and budget might
allow the committee to consider emeritus or retired faculty with extensive
contact and engagement with campus as candidates.

Verhey replied
that some good models existed.

Vice-Chair Williams asked about the campus needs for online tech support might
be. Online courses often required more work than regular classes, which
dramatically increased the need for tech support.

Riveros-Schafer responded that campus was already deficient in this areas and he was working
hard to replace staff, and hoped soon to have staff dedicated to tech support.

State Senator Gregory observed a general unprepared ness in the CSU to deal with the
issue of access to technology, and asked if this group had given any
consideration to this.

Riveros-Schafer indicated that his office would attempt to deal with this. He intended
to have faculty drive this to fulfill the needs of students.

Senator Steier wanted to know what was being done to assess online teaching
to determine its effectiveness.

Riveros-Schafer responded that campus needed a process to do this properly; and that
while some data was available more was needed. Campus had done some work already,
but needed lots of faculty input.

Verhey suggested
that Chico had
a good model for assessing online learning.

AGENDA ITEM #5—REPORT from OSWALDO GARCIA, CHAIR, ACADEMIC PROGRAM
REVIEW COMMITTEE: UPDATE from the TASK FORCE on GRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW

Senator and APRC Chair Garcia sought to provide an update on
the committee’s latest developments from their March 17  meeting that had generated a lot of input.

The whole focus for the committee
was to make the future review process more useful. Just recently the issue had
emerged that APRC had given Programs good reviews, yet they had become slated
for discontinuation. Issues had surfaced, amongst them the selection of external
reviewers, which mostly were accomplished by invitation from departments
themselves which would lead to some overly supportive reviews. The selection of
external reviewers needed improvement. The role of deans in the process also
needed attention. Deans can currently comment on review, but this had not been
in common practice. It seemed prudent to make a dean’s input required after
external review was completed. Another possibility would be to create a
stronger role for APRC in the sixth cycle of review, with the committee
assuming a role in drafting the MOU, thus taking a more active role in guiding
development.

Garcia reported that one area of continuing
interest was the provision of “quality indicators” for graduate programs, with
no consensus established as of yet. He hoped to have a draft for discussion by the
next senate meeting.

Senator Steier offered a clarification, pointing out that this movement
suggested an entirely new role for APRC.

Senator Alvarez expressed thanks to Garcia for sharing the process with the
senate. He thought that it represented a good collaborative process by including
the senate in the loop. It seemed a hard task to tackle the whole notion of
reviewing graduate programs, and accountability seemed a good theme. However,
he expressed some concern not so much with what had been said, but what had not
been said.

So far the committee had not
indicated anything about program support or rewards. There was significant
information about reviews, evaluation and assessment, but no details on how
programs could be better supported. If APRC had the power to remove or damage
programs, did it then also have the power to support programs.

Garcia expressed
some uncertainty as to how to answer the question. The review process was not a
punitive exercise, but a way to help programs improve. Resources were always in
short supply.

Senator Alvarez noted that this was a critical issue; that to have a useful
external review, a carrot was required in this process; otherwise it would just
serve as a morale buster.

Senator McKeon questioned APRC’s active role in writing the MOU. The degree
or extent of this would need careful clarification. Traditionally MOUs were
written by three parties: the department, the dean, and the administration. She
expressed some apprehension about removing decisions further and further from the
department, using as an example the Russian program that had been powerless in
recent events. She asked what role the department would have in writing the MOU
that would determine its future. What role would APRC have? She expressed
concern about the “active” role of APRC. The department needed to be primary,
not APRC.

Garcia agreed with the stated principles.
No decision had yet been made. The process ultimately would only be as good as
the participants. If APRC took a more active role, it would not mean it could
not be done carefully. No one was more aware of the implications than the
department chairs and deans. He thought McKeon had identified a major
discussion item for the next committee meeting.

AGENDA ITEM #6—RECOMMENDATION from the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COMMITTEE:
DISCONTINUANCE of the MINOR in CALIFORNIA
STUDIES PROGRAM

Chair Colvin had indicated that EPC had received notification from the dean
of the college regarding this issue and invited the dean to speak to it.

BSS Dean Kassiola was pleased to report that as a result of hard work and
discussions, a mutual agreement had been reached to save money without
discontinuing the program. He requested to withdraw the motion to discontinue,
and expressed gratitude to EPC, the senate and college council for their thinking
and discussion.

Meredith Alvarez, m/s/p

Unanimously the motion was
withdrawn.

AGENDA ITEM #7—RECOMMENDATION from the FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: RESOLUTION in SUPPORT of
the UNIVERSITY CLUB

Senator and Chair of FAC Pong spoke on behalf of FAC and was
pleased to make a minor revision to this resolution on the basis of input
received from the previous senate meeting regarding lines 40 and 41.

Unanimously approved.

AGENDA ITEM #8—RECOMMENDATION from the FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE:
PROPOSED POLICY for a FACULTY HONORS & AWARDS COMMITTEE

Senator Pong indicated that FAC had made only one very minor revision in
line 21 in response to comments made at the previous senate meeting.

Approved with dissent and abstentions.

AGENDA ITEM #9—RECOMMENDATION from the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: ANNUAL
SENATE REAPPORTIONMENT

Williams, Chelberg m/s/p

Vice-Chair Williams indicated that every year the senate was reapportioned,
adjusting numbers amongst the colleges, the administrative appointments,
students and staff. The number of college representatives varied, and he noted
that the senators’ packets contained a table to serve as a basis for the decision.
The task was to decide on one of three different scenarios. Each college had
two allocations that did not vary from year to year. Column four suggested
numbers modeled on the US House of Representatives, which varied according to
size. The senate currently had 25 elected faculty members with eight at-large
members. There were three choices: retain the status quo, change to 24 elected
members with one more at-large position, or move to 23 elected positions with
10 at-large positions. The Executive Committee recommended shifting to 23 elected,
increasing the at-large positions to 10.

Column seven outlined the
arrangement with seven at-large positions, with 23 elected, column 8 had 8 at-large
positions with 24 elected, and the final column contained a type and should
read 23 elected members with eight at-large members.

Williams summarized the effect the
redistricting would have on the colleges. A Base 23 would mean BSS would have 3
representatives, and would pick up an extra with the move to 24 or 25. Humanities
would move in the other direction.

Senator Chelberg spoke in support of the Executive Committee
recommendation, with a base of 23 elected, with 10 at-large positions. Some of
the smaller units on campus, the  library, Ethnic Studies, students and student
affairs had small numbers and did not have a big representation, yet their
voices were critical. He would like to think that more at-large positions would
mean more participation from those groups.

Senator Steier also supported greater numbers of at-large members. An at-large
position was a way to get exposure and a voice in the senate, due to variations
in college elections.

Moved to second reading.

Approved unanimously.

AGENDA ITEM #10—RECOMMENDATION from the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: RESOLUTION
in SUPPORT of ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Gregory, Chelberg m/s/p

Senator Gregory sought to place this resolution in context, indicating that
it was a response to State Senator William Morrow’s “academic bill of rights” which
was an attempt of the legislature, not to expand academic discussion but to
restrict it. This bill pretended to endorse academic freedom, but it redefined
academic freedom and put restrictions on it. It would include implications such
as approved reading lists, a provision for balanced viewpoints in the
classroom, that syllabi would be vetted by the administration. It would adopt a
Horowitzian process that would insure that curriculum should be subject to
external review and not under faculty purview.

The Legislature had not yet heard
this bill but would in April. Other CSU senates had passed resolutions, and
SFSU was attempting to make sure that present guidelines to current policy on
academic freedom were accessible.

The University of Michigan
had set up an impressive FAQ on academic freedom. The State Senate had prepared
documents to bring to Sacramento
and would appreciate support from the campus.

Senator Chelberg spoke in support of this resolution, observing that he was
speaking from the student affair’s perspective side of house, and had just had
occasion to be questioned on the buying of the book “Queer Crips,” having that
purchase come under question. He support academic freedom, and always had, but noted
an ever-growing atmosphere of fear around diverse ideas, and found it
disagreeable to run the risk of losing our authority and ability to create
diverse discussion.

Unanimously approved.

AGENDA ITEM #11—ADJOURNMENT— 3:57
p.m.