Minutes: April 26th, 2005

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2005

Meeting Attendance:

CALL TO ORDER:
2:10 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Colvin indicated that the Senate online voting mechanisms were in place and
urged senators to take advantage of their opportunity to voice their will.

Colvin announced that former statewide and SFSU senate chair Bob Cherny
would be FERPing, and that a tentative date of May 17 was set for a party in
his honor.

Standing committee preference forms were at the senator’s places and the
Executive Committee would appreciate senators’ responses as soon as possible.

Senate elections would be a centerpiece of the next meeting, and Colvin
expressed the desire to have a strong candidate pool for offices and urged a
healthy slate of nominations.

State Senator Gregory announced that the good news was that the legislature, though the Higher
Education committee, had conducted a mercy killing of the Morrow bill this
year, but she thought it highly probable that the bill would self-resurrect the
next year.

Senator Chelberg has undertaken move to make student grievance
documents more visible and available from website for students.

AGENDA ITEM #1—APPROVAL of the
AGENDA for APRIL 26, 2005

Chair Colvin indicated a
minor revision was required for item number 9, the APC calendar, and that the
date should be changed to read 2006-7.

Approved.

AGENDA ITEM #2—APPROVAL of the MINUTES for APRIL 12, 2005

Approved.

AGENDA ITEM #3—REPORT from GENE
CHELBERG: STAFF ELECTIONS PROCEDURES

Senator Chelberg
reported to senators that when the senate bylaws were revised some years ago
one provision called for an elected staff position to the senate. He indicated
that now a process for elections had been established, taking into account
input from staff and the community. The Executive Committee was now soliciting
the names of three staff members to constitute an elections committee to fill
the senate vacancy.

AGENDA ITEM #4—REPORT from OSWALDO
GARCIA, CHAIR, ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE: UPDATE from the TASK FORCE on
GRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW

Senator
and APRC chair Garcia reminded senators of the main themes from the previous senate meeting
about the sixth cycle of review: graduate focus, accreditation reviews, and the
quality indicators to be included in program review, now a discussion item in
committee. He expressed a desire to continue discussion from the previous
meeting.

Chair Colvin read
the speakers’ list from the previous meeting: Meredith, Ulasewicz, Heiman, and Steier.

Senator Meredith expressed
sensitivity to the program review issues, and hoped that reviews would take
into account work that faculty accomplished outside their normal work duties.

Senator Heiman had
received expressions of concern about College of Business
faculty not so worried about quality indicators appearing, but how they were
framed. It was important to explain the criteria, how the indicators would be
used, and that they should not be used either punitively or accusatively. There
may be frequent exceptions in their application.

Garcia
acknowledged this comment as a good point, and indicated that it would be
raised in committee, which would also be coming up with specific numbers, and
would need to provide footnotes explaining why or why not standards should be
applied.

Senator Alvarez spoke as member of APRC, and
had some very practical issues to raise. He asked that if after extensive
external review, APRC found a program wanting, perhaps even vulnerable to
discontinuance, what weight would be given to such statements from the external
committee.

Garcia responded
that if deficiencies were noted, there were two possible courses:
discontinuance at one end of the spectrum and the provision of resources in
order to self-correct on the other. APRC would be in a position to make a
strong recommendation, and could have a positive effect on departments.

Senator Alvarez asked that if a program was found
to be understaffed, for example, what the committee might have to say about
that.

Garcia responded
that if deficiencies were identified, perhaps with recommendations, these would
show up in the MOU. The program in question should then have the rest of the
cycle to correct their course.

Senator Alvarez thought this a good message,
quite different from anything articulated previously, and he commended the good
work of the task force.

Senator Steier responded as
a member, suggesting that he had been brought on as designated troublemaker. He
had several fears that included that this whole business was masking what
underneath looked like, by changing process, an attempt to change policy.
Normally any shift from an undergraduate to graduate emphasis usually involved
resource augmentation, as it is always more expensive to do graduate education,
but he was not seeing any balance here. He did not understand the WASC
criticism and noted that if SFSU concentrated only on graduate programs, the
undergraduate-graduate balance would be neglected. He saw the committee as
having a choice between “cop” or “colleague,” and did not view that as
progress, but rather more a blurring of roles between administration and
faculty. If the campus were to go in this direction, there are the issues of
terminal degrees as important to certification. In research institutions, an MA
usually was interpreted as a PhD failure. The CSU’s main mission should continue
to be undergraduates.

Senator Palmer had some follow-up comments on
balance. When considering learning outcomes and assessment, it was obvious that
WASC was an important factor. As for assessing outcomes, it might take many
years to a MA degree, and one needed to know why. A department might not be
recruiting well and getting good students, or offering enough resources.

Garcia was
pleased to receive these thoughts, and commented that the picture was much
broader than just outcomes. There were a tremendous variety of disciplines
across campus, with different needs. The utility of the MA degree varied
enormously. In his arena, the meteorology MS was a highly useful degree. Each
department should be able to tell its own story.

Senator Stowers asked that when APC met with APRC
whether dean input would be included. She asked how to make external review
more important, as they can often help programs improve themselves. All
programs have strengths and weaknesses, and if they are able to surmount the
threat, they can use the information gained for good.

Garcia
responded
that the role of the dean was a major item for discussion. There were
provisions for deans to comment, but these were not usually availed. It was
perhaps desirable to actively solicit dean input earlier in the process so that
not just the department point of view could be accounted for. The end product
would more useful, and it would move away from traditional approaches. The
report would go to Academic Affairs, joining other documents to create a MOU.
APRC should spend more time on evaluation and consideration and less time on
document preparation. It would be better to deal with issues, not just words.

Senator Lee relayed some of the views
expressed at a Foreign Language department meeting. One main difference in the
proposal was the degree of participation and control each department had over
the ultimate product. Department chair McKeon had suggested two changes on page
6—what happened during the drafting of MOU, and immediately after that. She
urged consultation with the program, with participation of the program. Once
issued, each program would be given a chance to respond.

Chair Colvin urged senators to send suggestions to the committee in
writing.

Garcia expressed
some confusion and was unclear how the comments affected the committee.
Departments needed to articulate their unique situation. Only a few more
meetings remained this year, and he urged senators to send the committee an
email with the basic points.

AGENDA ITEM #5—ELECTIONS

Chair Colvin
drew senators’ attention to the documents in gray in their agendas, regarding
Senate elections. So far no nominations had been received, and rather than
having elections without nominations, she suggested that senators review the
list and submit nominations to committees. Nominations should go to the
elections committee of Senators Palmer and Carrington, who would confirm
acceptance of the nominations, and hold elections next meeting.

Senator Palmer
asked for clarification and whether only senate members were eligible.

Colvin responded that these were university-wide elections.

AGENDA ITEM #6—RECOMMENDATION from
the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: RESOLUTION in SUPPORT of the NEW YORK TIMES PROGRAM

Senator Axler did not support this resolution,
which had nothing to do with the quality of the newspaper. Issues included
costs, at perhaps 30 thousand dollars a year, which was not made clear in the
resolution. The product was available online, so he questioned why the
university should spend this money. The resolution was recommending a
particular product, a rather odd feature of a resolution. Perhaps a private
source of funding should be sought. He did not think this initiative needed the
endorsement of the senate. He found the resolution deceptive, although
unintentionally so.

Senator Ulasewicz asked about the figure of
sixteen thousand dollars per semester, where that money would come from.

Senator Abella responded that the funding
question had been on the table and answers had not yet been found, the reason
this program had not been implemented earlier. He saw the value of this program
to campus, and overall this resolution was asking for a show of faculty
support. Paper copies of the Times would encourage reading, and would include
education materials with more in-depth analysis. The Times was not just coming
to campus but would provide support for other events such as voter registration
and speaker events.

Senator Carrington indicated some confusion
about free online access to the Times. In class he had assigned weekly readings
through online access, yet students had responded that one only got free access
only if one had previously maintained a physical subscription.

Senator Noble asked about where funding might
come from.

Turitz asked
about other quality papers, such as the Wall Street Journal.

Senator Abella responded to the competitive bid
process issue. No call for bids had gone out, but this source was one targeted
for benefit. The question at hand was whether the senate thought this would be
a viable program. A number of potential funding sources had been identified:
Associated Students might subsidize a quarter or a third of the papers. The
question still needed be completely answered, just not yet.

Senator Van Cleave pointed out that library
databases allowed free online access to the Times and many other newspapers.

Senator Daley suggested that this was still
avoiding the question of where the money might come from. Hard copy newspapers
were a different experience.

Senator Abella responded that pilot programs
were free, but campus still had no funds to continue. The resolution would help
provide momentum to push the program forward.

Senator Meredith indicated that anyone
could get free online access, regardless of previous subscription status. He
questioned the donation of newspapers, which would likely go to staff and not
students.

Senator Steier lamented the lack of comics in
the Times.

Senator Gonzalez always liked that news was
getting out to students. He requested more information about the other parts of
the program: the workshops, speakers, etc.

Senator Chelberg called the question.

Chelberg, Steier m/s/p

The resolution was voted down with
three abstentions.

AGENDA ITEM #7—RECOMMENDATION FROM
the ACADEMIC POLICIES COMMITTEE: PROPOSAL for NON-MAJORS’ ACCESS to GE COURSES, 2^ND
Reading

Fehrman,
Ulasewicz, Meredith were on the speakers’ lists for
commentary or questions.

Senator Meredith
indicated that the new handout suggested how many students were affected by
this change. It was not possible to tell how many students did not register due
to online limits. The handout outlined restrictions on GE courses. The number
that stood out was the large percentage of majors in these courses.

Senator Fehrman
thought the item should go back to GEC, to look at the whole GEC program.
Rather than opening GE to everyone popular classes in GE, such as his own,
would be removed from GE. Then only majors would get it. For his program, this
was a limited time restriction. The proposal did not solve the problem, and
students trying to get in would not be able to get in at all.

Senator Ulasewicz thought this issue was very important to students, noting on the
second page of the document that the listed classes had no restrictions.

Senator Bernstein
did think that departments should be able to have it both ways. Many departments
in the past had gone after GE classification for enrollment purposes. If SFSU
were to have a GE program, it needed to be open to everyone. Students needed to
be able to try a lot of different things.

Senator Ulasewicz commented on another sheet in the document listing GE classes,
noting that many of these classes were offered in two semesters. Not looking at
courses offered every third semester; maybe only 25 students were affected. She
thought it advisable to look at the entire GE picture, not just this part.

Senator Carrington
stated that his understanding was that GE courses needed to be offered every
year, and he expressed support for the motion.

Senator Bernstein
stated that the rules for GE stipulated that GE courses be offered on a routine
basis.

Senator Meredith
indicated that the intent in APC was to open more seats to GE. He realized
that classes were impacted, but part of the issue was “truth in advertising,”
and that courses not be listed as GE when they were limited to majors. The
motivation to keep these in GE was that student majors could take these classes
in GE and then not have to take them for major, a more expensive option.

Senator Smith
indicated that he would vote against this with two concerns. He stated he was a
member of GEC member, and there was a philosophical discussion of GE that
needed to be held. It was not clear that non-majors were having a big problem
with this. It would affect native students, not transfers. The new policy
implied all phases of registration, but faculty still wanted to be able to
manipulate wait lists. He could not support this without clarification.

Shimanoff, the GEC chair, responded that the committee supported GE courses that
were open to all students. These were good courses, but if they really were for
majors, they should be taken out of GE. An option would be to have additional
sections open to all students. If there was interest in these courses, when
courses were listed as GE but not available, it was not a problem. She noted
that this proposal had been undertaken upon direction from the senate.

Senator Ulasewicz thanked Shimanoff for her comments, which she found reminiscent of an
earlier discussion at the meeting about resources and graduate education. Many
students wanted these classes, and the reason for restrictions was likely due
to resources.

Senator Fehrman
stated that his department could not afford to run more sections, without
enough funds. He would vote against this as it would not solve the problem.

Senator Heiman
observed that evidence from the document indicated that the system did not
seem all that broken, and the numbers were not alarming. Perhaps there was a
bias towards majors, but it possibly balanced out.

Senator Smith
indicated that it also would not cover students who enrolled in courses but
then dropped the class. Both policies, past and present, would prohibit this.

Senator Abella
stated he would be abstaining from the vote. As a student, who had taken GE
here, he predicted that students would still be confused, and that the policy
did not clarify the situation. Confusion would still reign, as students would
not be able to get straight answers from the faculty.

Senator Axler
noted a difference in the new policy: in the current policy faculty could
not drop students whereas the new policy would correct this.

Move to
close debate.

Steier,
Fehrman m/s/p

26 in favor, 11 opposed, 7
abstentions.

The proposal is approved.

AGENDA ITEM #8—RECOMMENDATION from
the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: PROPOSED ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING SCHEDULE FOR
2005-2006, 1^ST & 2^ND Readings

Chair Colvin directed senators to remove one
page in their packet with errors and replace it with an additional corrected
page.

Gregory, Chelberg m/s

State
Senator Gregory noted that this
proposal was a gift from the Executive Committee - a rare and valuable gift of
time to the university. It recommended having standing committees meet before
the meeting of the full senate, so that the first full senate meeting would
have actual business. She noted that Christmas in 2005 fell on a Sunday, the
first day of classes was August 24, and that there were a fair number of days
off before Christmas. The spring schedule spoke for itself.

Senator Todorov noted the
need to make a correction about May 19 in the text.

Moved to
second reading.

Approved
with some dissent.

AGENDA ITEM #9—RECOMMENDATION from
the ACADEMIC POLICIES COMMITTEE:
PROPOSED ACADEMIC CALENDAR FOR 2005-2006

Chair Colvin
indicated that Meredith would provide an introduction to this item.

Meredith,
Abella m/s/p

Senator Meredith indicated that Barbara
Luzardi, the Academic Scheduling Coordinator, would be available for comments.
He noted that the advising date information was courtesy of Brett Smith, and
that some 13 departments had formal programs on advising day, not just open
hours. The Spring breaks schedules from local institutions were also listed,
most of which were attached to the Easter holiday. He reviewed changes
proposed, noting that APC was recommending substantial changes. The semester
would start on a traditional date, Aug 28 to get a full 15 weeks in the
semester. Traditionally two days before the semester were reserved for planning,
and these were now limited to one. Few Mondays were available, so the calendar
kept that for classes. The entire week at thanksgiving was off, a full week
break, which took some tweaking to accommodate. The proposed calendar
eliminated advising day, and anecdotal evidence suggested that most departments
did not do anything special on that day and that it was perhaps best to spread
out advising over the semester. Spring would come a week earlier, which might
impact three-unit classes in January. The proposed calendar moved spring break
towards the middle of the semester, tied not to Easter, but to the Caesar
Chavez holiday. Spring break then would start Friday allowing ten consecutive
days off.

Senator Daley expressed some confusion over the
dates.

Senator Gregory would happily abandon advising
day, but suggested that the understood list of activities was not the whole
picture.

Senator Velez indicated that a lot of graduate
programs held orientation days on advising day, recognizing that graduate students
did not have much a chance before then, and this often constituted a cohort
orientation and various reviews.

Senator Steier expressed a personal need for
money over the winter session, and wondered if that could that be made
possible.

Senator Suzuki indicated that the music
department had auditions on advising day, and that faculty was hard pressed to
make alternative plans.

Senator Yee spoke to the amount of time
available to the winter session, noting that the impact was not just on funding
but also for students. She asked how the revised recess would correlate with
other institutions, especially for faculty with children.

Senator Meredith responded that the spring
recess proposed would end one week before Easter, so would not match very well.
It was never possible to satisfy more than half the faculty.

Senator Carrington asked if CEL was
consulted.

CEL Dean Whitaker responded that her office had been consulted, and the
changes definitely would have an impact. One response was to have more one- and
two-unit classes.

Senator Gonzalez asked for further
amplification of the winter session issues.

Senator Garcia observed that many reactions
seemed to be concerned with the shorter winter break, but was otherwise well
received. He suggested considering the semesters separately.

Senator Bernstein noted that there always
was a great deal of discussion about spring break, and it was not necessary to
correlate with Easter. Children in different school districts had a wide range
of spring breaks, but from a teaching perspective, it was best to put it in the
middle. It was harder to develop a good pace to the semester if the break was
late.

Senator Bernard-Powers noted
that in her department, many of the elementary education students were tied to
their schools’ schedules. Many members also had children, and however appealing
a mid-point break was, it was not a good fit with students.

Senator Ritter was impressed with the creative
approach to the calendar. He did not see a need to shave the winter session short
for a shorter spring, however.

Senator Alvarez expressed concern over reduced
access and revenues. He wanted to hear more from the committee.

Senator Meredith indicated that there were
strong arguments on all sides. Graduation traditionally occurred on the
Memorial Day weekend, making it a workday. Moving it up one week made this a
family day. Another argument, derived from the survey, was that 60 percent of
faculty did not think 14 days a sufficient period of time to hold a three-unit
course.

Senator Stowers noted the correlation to
school districts, and that most occurred right after Easter. She remained
unconvinced that the alignment was a religious one, but more a practical one.
She noted that many young faculty members had children, and there was a hardship
for childcare when the breaks did not coincide.

Senator Ulasewicz indicated that the
committee had had a long discussion about the various viewpoints on spring
break and Easter in APC, as well as about Caesar Chavez. With the proposed
calendar winter break and summer sessions, with spring break ending earlier,
there was a better chance for a break for the summer session.

Senator Langbort suggested the solution to
the winter term shortening was to extend it to one week later and return
graduation to the Memorial Day weekend.

Senator Steier observed that as for issues
regarding how many days any course might require, this was settled in the
course proposal process. He deduced that the faculty votes in the survey
probably came not from those who taught winter session.

Senator Todorov questioned the chair as to
whether the semester could start a week earlier.

Meredith responded
that the only way to do that would involve one week of spring semester in the
fall, which would not be practical. People had asked about the viability of
winter courses, and he noted that the survey numbers included faculty who had
taught winter courses.

The item would return to the
senate in second reading in next meeting.

AGENDA ITEM #10—RECOMMENDATION
from the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE: PROPOSED REVISION to
the DANCE BA, 1^stReading

Nichols,
Valez m/s

Senator Nichols
indicated that this had been an intensive review, as the program had at one
point been on the discontinuance list, but the reconfigured proposal was before
the senate, which she considered a positive development. The program had been
modified in order to be more flexible for students, and shifted the BA to a
45-unit structure. Susan Whipp, a professor of Dance, was present to make
comments.

Whipp spoke to the value and attributes of the program, including the teaching
and emphasis areas. She found the proposal exciting and flexible, which would
help students achieve their career goals.

Senator Yee made some editorial corrections, including suggestions
on advising day.

Move to
second reading.

Abella,
Fehrman m/s/p

Senator Steier
noted a change in the program regarding the course “dance outside western
world.”

Whipp responded
that there were still such courses offered on a rotating basis in the emphasis
area. There were themes that included the cultural influences in art forms.
Cultural context classes were in two-units, and more in variable topics, with
some structuring still in progress.

Senator Ulasewicz sought to gain a sense of
past students.

Whipp responded
that the program was in a growth phase, with 60 majors, a lot of recruiting, and
many performances. San Francisco
had become a destination city for dance, and she thought the program would
grow, and include freshman as well as transfer students.

Senator Ulasewicz asked with respect to
minors, how students were able to get into classes.

Whipp responded
that only certain classes were in high demand, and in a short time period this
involved moving only a few students to priority registration, then opening to
all.

Approved unanimously.

AGENDA ITEM #11—RECOMMENDATION
from the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE: PROPOSED REVISION TO
THE DANCE MINOR

Nichols,
Steier m/s/p

Senator Nichols indicated that this proposal
mirrored the revisions to the major.

Senator Smith had a minor question, whether the
required course had a prerequisite,

Whipp responded
that it had been removed but the class required sophomore standing.

Move to second reading.

Carrington,
Steier m/s/p

Approved unanimously.

Senator Abella thanked senate chair Colvin and
the senate, as this was his last meeting, and he expressed appreciation for the
experience and the senate’s role on campus and for himself personally.

AGENDA ITEM #12—ADJOURNMENT—4:15 p.m.