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.