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.