San Francisco State University Academic Senate
Minutes of April 27, 1999
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Aaron, Eunice; Alvarez, Alvin; Barnes, Paul; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein,
Marian; Bhat, Subodh; Cancino, Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn; Cherny, Robert; Collier,
James; Consoli, Andres; Craig, JoAnn; Cullers, Susan; Duke, Jerry; Eisman, Gerald;
Elia, John; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Goldsmith, Helen; Gonzales, Angela; Graham,
Michael; Graham, Minnie; Harnly, Caroline; Haw, Mary Ann; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung;
Jenkins, Lee; Jerris, Scott; Johnson, Dane; La Belle, Thomas; Moss, Joanna;
OÃ±ate, Abdiel; Phillips, Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Scoble, Don; Shapiro,
Jerald; Shrivastava, Vinay; Simeon, Roblyn; Smith, Miriam; Swanson, Deborah;
Terrell, Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Valledares, Juan; Vaughn, Pamela; Verhey, Marilyn;
Wade, Patricia; Warren, Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope; Wong, Alfred; Yee, Darlene
Senate Members Absent: Kelley, James(exc.); Fehrman, Ken(exc.);
Contreras, Rey; Ferretti, Charlotte; Strong, Rob(exc.); Choo, Freddie; Tarakji,
Ghassan; Flowers, Will; Gregory, Jan(exc.); Corrigan, Robert(exc.); Montenegro,
Ricardo; Vega, Sandra.
Senate Interns Present:
Guests: S. Taylor, G. West, E. Zwillinger, D. Schafer, G. Whitaker,
J. Kassiola, D. Harris, V. Lane, C. Colvin, J. Volkert, G. Stowers, J. van Keulen,
D. Hunt, J. Davis, J. Millsapps.
Announcements and Report
- Chair Phillips announced the results of the Academic Senate University-Wide
elections. Academic Affirmative Action Committee: Yu-Charn Chen (Design and
Industry), M.A. Jaimes*Guerrero (Women Studies), Hafez Modirzadeh (Music).
Academic Freedom Committee: William Hsu (Computer Science). Athletic Advisory
Board: Joshua Habermann (Music). Honorary Degree Committee: Elisabetta Nelsen
(Foreign Languages), Frances McGowan (Records & Registration). Senator
At-large: Midori McKeon (Foreign Languages), Alvin Alvarez (Counseling). University
Advancement Activities Advisory Committee: Darlene Yee (Gerontology), Roberto
Rivera (La Raza Studies), David Hemphill (Administrative & Interdisciplinary
Studies), Maxine Chernoff (Creative Writing). University Promotions Committee:
Larry Medcalf (Speech & Communication Studies), John Stubbs (Biology),
Tommie Sellers (Elementary Education). University Written English Proficiency
Committee: Cliff Berkman (Chemistry & Biochemistry).
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for April 27, 1999
The agenda was approved as printed.
Agenda Item #2 -- Approval of Minutes for April 13, 1999
Robert Cherny commended Secretary Johnson on catching the spirit
of the meeting that he had to miss two weeks ago.
The minutes were approved as printed.
Agenda Item #3 -- Report from Vice President La Belle
Provost La Belle reviewed the many things that we accomplished at SFSU this
year. He commended the Academic Senate for acting on myriad curricular proposals
and revisions, and he noted items that had been approved: guidelines for the
fifth cycle of Academic Program Review; policy for offering existing SFSU degrees
via the College of Extended Learning; timely declaration of major policy; the
new University Advancement Activities Advisory Committee; the restructured Committee
on Multicultural Perspectives in the Curriculum. He added that it is largely
because of the cooperation between Academic Affairs and the Senate that we can
make progress in our academic efforts.
La Belle also summarized developments in advising, including the following:
advising plans for the colleges with outcomes like the Advising and Student
Services Center in the College of Business and an on-line advising course in
the College of Health and Human Services; an electronic planner from Undergraduate
Studies; and a system to implement advising at the five pivotal points.
La Belle summarized accomplishments in remediation, including the following:
every student who needed to be diagnosed through testing was tested, and nearly
every student who needed to enroll in a remedial course did; the pass rate in
these courses is higher than most CSU campuses because of a variety of extra
efforts; Math 60 has been especially successful, utilizing a distance education
course developed under the leadership of Sheldon Axler. The Remediation Task
Force coordinated these efforts.
La Belle outlined initiatives to increase the number of well-prepared new teachers
in the state, including new summer courses, augmentation to eliminate "bottleneck"
courses in Liberal Studies, a four-year integrated program in teacher education,
and a new Teacher Preparation Resource Center.
With regard to International Programs, SFSU broke campus and CSU records for
Study Abroad, 10 grants were made for faculty international curriculum development,
6 faculty and students received Fulbright fellowships, and our international
student enrollment continues to increase.
On multiculturalism, 16 faculty proposals received funding for the development
or revision of courses, workshops, and instruction in multiculturalism.
SFSU has also been extending into the community through off-campus sites with
Weekend College growing, more experiments with year-round operations and a number
of off-campus courses via distance learning. Other initiatives include offering
the Criminal Justice Program at the police academy; offering Ethics in Medicine
in a hospital setting; and teaching Ethnic Studies course at community college
locations. A campus task force is studying implications of a new Downtown Campus.
In other developments, an Academic Assessment Office has been established,
which has sponsored assessment workshops, helped departments develop assessment
plans, funded 18 faculty proposals in this area, and began the PULSE program
to survey the campus on selected issues. Good progress has been made in the
evaluation of teaching. The Center for the Enhancement of Teaching continues
to provide workshops aimed at helping faculty improve their teaching skills
and make better use of technology in teaching while administering the Technology
Enhanced Course Delivery Initiative. In the area of professional development,
faculty travel to professional conferences continues to be supported, the "Refresh"
initiative will provide $750,000 to purchase new computers or upgrades for faculty,
and the importance of lecturers to campus is being reinforced. All candidates
for the Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development have been interviewed.
La Belle added that 33 classrooms have been renovated, as well as some Ethnic
Studies and Social Work faculty offices. A new collaborative computer lab for
three colleges was established, and tutorial space for several related offices
was centralized in the HHS building.
Implementation of the university's strategic plan (CUSP) is underway, and most
of the CUSP priorities are Cornerstones priorities as well.
La Belle also mentioned the SFSU centennial celebrations and this year's Celebration
of Faculty Service. He ended on an ode to Mark Phillips, who has done an amazing
job for three years as Senate Chair, remaining in good humor, in control, and
in reasonably sound mind.
Agenda Item #4 -- Elections
Midori McKeon (Foreign Languages) was elected by acclamation to the
All-University Teacher Education Committee.
Miriam Smith (BECA)was elected to the All-University Committee on
Agenda Item #5 -- Proposed Revision to A.S. Policy #S81-18 Leaves with Pay
Chair Phillips introduced this discussion item from the Faculty Affairs
Committee. It comes as a discussion item rather than an action item because
there are important issues to discuss without a sense of positionality, openly
discussing the issues, which will inform the Faculty Affairs and Executive Committees
to come back to the Senate with something as close to consensus as we can get.
Marlon Hom, chair of Faculty Affairs Committee, provided background
by suggesting that everyone look back at his introduction to the Leaves with
Pay issue on pages 8-9 of the April 13, 1999, Senate Minutes. There are two
options, centered on the issue of principle of distribution: 1) recommend no
changes and make sure that the college committees and administration implement
the current policy in good faith; 2) revise the principles of distribution to
reflect the changes and dysfunctionality of the current policy. There is concern
in terms of faculty with joint appointments. He also asked for consideration
of a university faculty committee, parallel to the promotions committee, so
that applications will be reviewed by a faculty group. He suggested framing
the discussion with the question of whether leaves should be based solely on
Phillips asked first for questions of clarification.
Cherny asked if the proposal for the new committee is part of option
B and asked for further explanation of the difference between A & B.
Hom said, first, that the committee proposal is separate as it focuses on process.
He added that option A is basically the old policy with minor revisions to reflect
the current funding structure. Option B is a revision, removing the college
committees' allocation; there is in longer a set distribution at the college
level with the leaves processed through college recommendations and the final
word on distribution from the President's office.
Phillips added that he understand Option A to be similar to the policy as it
existed before but not reflecting the actual practice in recent years. Option
B is not the same as the practice of recent years but it comes closer to actual
practice of recent years. A university committee on sabbatical leave could be
passed as part of option B or not.
Darlene Yee spoke in favor of Option B, describing it as concise and
easy to understand. She suggested that the chair of a university wide sabbatical
leave committee report to the Senate rather than the President.
Mitch Turitz spoke in response to Darlene's recommendation, suggesting
that since the awarding comes from the President, technically it should come
from the President.
Cherny noted that both options A & B suggest awards on "an ethical and
representative basis"; he asked why this was added and what does it mean. Hom
replied that in 1994 or 1995, the library was not granted a leave, so they tried
to write this to have unit representation in the granting process. Phillips
added that this is the opportunity to make suggestions for change fed in to
Caroline Harnly spoke on behalf of the original option because the people
who know best which are appropriate sabbatical leaves for the department arise
out of the college themselves.
Vice President La Belle remarked that many of us coming from Research
1 universities are used to sabbaticals as an entitlement, which makes it easier
to plan curricular and instructional loads. Where you have a competitive basis
for sabbaticals with 31 allocated now and 55-60 applications per cycle, it is
very difficult for departments and colleges to plan. Given the demand, it is
difficult to know how to allocate them. Option A allocates to units irrespective
of merit. Option B takes the principle of equitable distribution without the
guarantee, also establishing a committee for oversight, which is an important
Hom reminded senators that two decades ago there was a university committee
on sabbatical leave and that the current policy was a new policy twenty years
ago. We have to realize that some colleges are not following the policy, not
using the criteria that are specifically laid out, resulting in the policy being
changed unilaterally, which makes saying the current policy is okay unrealistic.
Sabbatical leave is a major resource issue concerning faculty welfare, so we
need faculty oversight.
Patty Bartscher, University Counsel, provided some history. Originally
the Chancellor gave money especially for sabbatical leave that the university
had to use for that purpose, which was allocated across the colleges. The Chancellor
eliminated the funding, and the money was allocated to each college from the
Vice-President's office with the old policy still applying, which meant that
each college had to give the minimum but could give more than the minimum. Certain
colleges did not want to give their minimum because it was a tax, so a bizarre
situation occurred where other colleges had to pick up the sabbaticals. The
deans agreed that funding for sabbaticals would go back to Academic Affairs,
the policy of equitable distribution would no longer apply, and they would no
longer be taxed.
Phillips offered a perspective from his time as departmental chair. Even though
he did not approve of the way in which the change was made--to essentially not
follow policy anymore--in practice it benefited them more than it hurt. He added
that he leans toward Option B if it includes the university committee. An argument
against it in terms of work load is valid, but the trade-off in terms of protection
and dialogue with those who make the final decision is the payoff. The other
argument against the university-wide committee is that it is difficult to have
faculty from one program making decision on another, but experience with other
university-wide committees suggest otherwise.
Gerald West, Dean of Faculty Affairs, spoke to correct a couple of points.
One is that this policy was brought to the Senate in 1994, and the Senate chose
not to work on it. The second is that there are horrible stories that resulted
from the ways that college and departments interpreted their role. He has heard
from faculty who were discouraged from applying and then heard from deans who
would say that there were no applicants. He concluded that Option B offers the
best solution to this problem.
Pamela Vaughn spoke in favor of Option B as long as it has a university-wide
committee for review. This is far too important an issue for us not to participate.
Phillips added that we can feed additional comments to Marlon as chair of FAC
or to Mark and the Executive Committee. He added that he agreed with Gerry's
comment: enough, let's move to action.
Agenda Item #6 -- Proposal for Revisions to the School Psychology Graduate
Curriculum Review and Approval Committee Chair Alfred Wong introduced
the proposed revisions to the School Psychology Graduate Program and Diane Harris
from the program to answer questions.
Helen Goldsmith said that this proposal appears to be in violation of
the CEL policy concerning existing programs. It sounds like we are discontinuing
the possibility of doing the credential part through the general fund, and the
CEL policy says that if the existing general fund program is to be discontinued
or suspended, the department must follow the Senate policy on program discontinuation
to grant an opportunity for the campus community to assess its full impact.
Is this what is happening?
Vera Lane, Associate Dean of the College of Education, replied that in the
discussions of the CEL policy it was her understanding that it referred to degree
programs and not credentials. Goldsmith answered that the policy refers to all.
Diane Harris responded that we are not discontinuing the credential program
for our students in the master's program but extending the opportunity so that
more than the School Psychology program master's students will be able to enroll
in the credential program.
Yee also responded to Helen's question, providing perspective from last
year's CRAC, and suggesting that this is not a discontinuance but an alternative
mechanism. She added that the Psychology Department is demonstrating good creativity
and financial resourcefulness. While CEL is an alternative mechanism, she has
concerns with issues of academic quality, differential tuition, and faculty
Harris replied that we have taken into consideration all three of the issues.
Although the credential program will be offered through CEL, the School Psychology
program and the Psychology Department will control all decisions that are made.
The School Psychology program is also governed by two external entities.
Vaughn returned to Helen's question, stating that it is her understanding
that there will be no School Psychology Internship Credential Program offered
as a general fund program. Page 7 says that "Due to limited resources the Psychology
Department is not able to continue to offer a 24 unit School Psychology Internship
Credential Program. However, to facilitate the growth of the profession while
minimizing the resource burden on the department, the Credential Internship
Program will be offered through the College of Extended Learning."
Diane Harris said that this is not her understanding of this proposal. You
are reading that correctly, but we are not closing the internship program, but
it will only be offered through CEL.
Jo Volkert, Associate Dean of the College of Extended Learning, added that
we tried to avoid being in violation of the policy because the way we interpreted
it is that since the component going to CEL is the credential only, the policy
did not apply.
Goldsmith read from the first line of the CEL policy to clarify: "Schools/departments/programs
(simply referred to as departments henceforth) may offer existing degrees/credentials/certificate
programs (simply referred to as degree programs henceforth) through the College
of Extended Learning upon approval by the appropriate units as outlined in this
policy." She added that it was always intended to cover all of those items and
not to disallow students to be able to go through general fund programs.
Cherny asked Volkert if there are any credential programs offered solely
through CEL. Volkert responded that there are, but they have partners that are
offered in the general fund program.
Lane added that when we were talking about this last year, the intent was that
our resident students would be able to get the credential through the regular
program, and the intern program is for people who are hired by school districts
to teach. We have a lot of people who have master's degrees in other areas who
could add this credential.
Goldsmith wanted to make sure that a student going through our on-campus program
would be able to go through the entire three year program without going through
CEL. Diane Harris responded that our students would go through the three-year
M/S/P (P. Warren, Vaughn) to return to committee to clarify whether this fits
the CEL policy.
Harris asked Vera Lane to make a statement before it returns to committee.
Lane spoke to the issue of credentials, which must go through the University
Teacher Credential Committee and then the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
Our discontinuance policy might not refer to credentials. The university is
not in a position to approve the credential, and the final approval for discontinuance
is the commission.
Chair Phillips asked for a point of clarification. The Teacher Credential Committee
and the commission have the final word on discontinuance, but the issue here
seems to be the relationship between what is offered through CEL and what is
offered in the regular program. Phillips added that there is a gray area, and
if he's confused there must be one other person. Given that we are operating
in new territory, we need to make sure that we do it as cleanly as possible.
P. Warren spoke to her motion, stating that even if we are able to satisfy
in our minds today that this is not going to be in violation of policy that
we have established for CEL, we are doing something that might be precedent
for later proposals. For that reason, she suggested that we take care that the
wording we propose is consistent with our policy. She added that she did not
want to vote against this proposal just because of the ambiguity.
Dawn Terrell addressed the concern about this level of confusion because she
knows that the School Psychology program will continue to exist; it is a very
popular field and there is a huge need. This proposal is a solution so that
we continue the program through both for general fund students and also offer
this separate piece. Terrell added that this is an important proposal and program,
and she wanted to avoid point where this confusion would make it possible to
not support the proposal.
Marian Bernstein stated that it is very important that this go back
to the committee, and the committee be very aware of the fact that APC spent
a lot of time on this issue of the relationship between a CEL program to an
existing on-campus program; thus, not only the intent but the language needs
to be crystal clear.
Cherny suggested that the committee take up work-load levels. By shifting the
internship course to CEL, the most expensive part of the program has been taken
out of the general fund. He added that he wanted to be certain that by shifting
this course to CEL we would not lose work-load protection.
M/S/P (Turitz, Vaughn) to close debate on the motion.
A vote was taken on the motion to return this proposal to committee, and the
motion passed. The proposal will be returned to committee.
Chair Phillips added the comment that he heard a favorable response about the
proposal but some confusion around what is taking place in the new policy around
CEL. There are concerns with regard to how that policy will be used, how CEL
relates to the regular programs, and this may be the first test case. It needs
to come back to us to help us understand and to make sure that this is clean
relative to the CEL policy.
Agenda Item #7 -- Proposal for Revisions to the Master in Public Administration
Alfred Wong introduced this consent item from CRAC.
M/S/P (Vaughn, Hom) to second reading.
M/S/P (Vaughn, Hom) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #8 -- Proposal for a Certificate Program in Interdisciplinary Digital
Alfred Wong introduced this consent item from CRAC.
Sung Hu commented that this is a much needed program, but he voiced
a concern that it is so exclusive in being limited to students within the College
(of Creative Arts) and to students with a very high gpa. They include a large
number of courses, which will have the effect of making these less available
to other students. He supports the proposal but suggests that the college consider
adding additional sections.
M/S/P (Duke, Barnes) to second reading.
M/S/P (Duke, Barnes) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #9 -- Proposal to Establish the University Academic Assessment
Chair of the Academic Policies Committee Helen Goldsmith introduced
this proposal to establish the University Academic Assessment Advisory Committee.
This proposal comes out of the work of the Ad Hoc Academic Assessment Committee.
M/S/P (Duke, Barnes) to second reading.
M/S/P (Barnes, Shrivastava) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal passed with no dissent. (To view
this policy, click here.)
The Senate was adjourned at 3:40.
Secretary to the Faculty