Academic Senate Meeting
Minutes of April 28, 1998
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Barnes, Paul; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Cancino, Herlinda; Chen,
Yu-Charn; Cherny, Robert; Collier, James; Consoli, Andres; Corrigan, Robert;
Craig, JoAnn; Duke, Jerry; Eisman, Gerald; Fehrman, Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte;
Gillotte, Helen; Graham, Michael; Hammerstrom, Gary; Harnly, Caroline; Haw,
Mary Ann; Hom, Marlon; Homan, Bonnie; Houlberg, Rick; Hu, Sung; Johnson, Dane;
Kelley, James; La Belle, Thomas; Lee, Wanda; Leitao, David; Lyles, Lois; Mallare,
Marie; Monteiro, Ken; Nicholson, Joel; OÃ±ate, Abdiel; Phillips, Mark;
Raggio, Marcia; Schweitzer, Newby; Scoble, Don; Smith, Nina Jo; Swanson, Deborah;
Tarakji, Ghassan; Thomson, Lana; Turitz, Mitch; Wade, Patricia; Warren, Mary
Ann; Warren, Penelope; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Wong, Alfred; Wong, Yim Yu; Woo,
George; Yee, Darlene; Zoloth-Dorfman, Laurie
Senate Members Absent: Goldsmith, Helen(exc.); Rivas, Mario;
Choo, Freddie; Blank, Mark; Hammett, Jennifer; Graham, Minnie; Verhey, Marilyn;
Flowers, Will; Aaron, Eunice(exc.); Chang, Paul(exc.).
Senate Interns Present: Regina Sarafino
Guests: J. Kassiola, G. Whitaker, B. Bonds, S. Taylor, V. Lane,
J. Perea, I. Grewal, M. Moallem, D. Schafer, K. Johnson, J. De Cecco, M. Kasdan,
J. Randolph, B. Daniels, S. McClear, P. Saffold, B. Eby, J. Murphy, J. Wolfson,
L. Arellano, S. Johnson.
Announcements and Report
As publicized by Joe Torres, there will be a Town Hall Meeting on Thursday,
April 30 from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. at Golden Gate University. The event is co-sponsored
by the SFSU Office of Affirmative Action and the Academic Senate, the Bar Association
of San Francisco, the California State Bar, the Commonwealth Club, KQED, Voice
of the Voter, and the Chamber of Commerce. The topic of the meeting is "Racial
Justice in America".
- Chair Phillips reported the following University-wide election results --
Helen Gillotte(English), Academic Affirmative Action Committee;
Rachel Kahn-Hut(Sociology) and Anthony DAgostino(History),
Academic Freedom Committee; Linda Wanek(Physical Therapy), Athletic
Advisory Board; Helen Gillotte(English), Honorary Degree Committee;
Vinay Shrivastava(BECA), Reynaldo A. Contreras(DAIS), Helen
Goldsmith(Advising Center), and Charlotte Ferretti(Nursing), Senators
At-Large; Robert Cherny(History) and Eunice Aaron(Black
Studies), Statewide Academic Senate; Sylvia Walters(Art), University
Development Priorities Committee; Corless Smith(BECA), University
Written English Proficiency Committee; and Rick Houlberg(BECA),
Jules Tygiel(History), and John Stubbs(Biology), University
Promotions Committee. Houlberg and Tygiel will each serve two-year terms
and Stubbs will serve a one-year term.
- The Executive Committee will send a memo to all participants of the January
Leadership Conference, Collegiality '98. As a result of feedback from
the breakout groups, repeated concerns and recommendations were identified.
Academic units will be encouraged to establish a faculty council to represent
their voice, serve as a link to the Academic Senate, and be advisory to the
Dean or Director. The academic units will also be encouraged to establish
a mentoring system for both tenure track faculty and lecturers and examine
all available alternatives to the creation of new committees. The Academic
Senate, in an effort to increase the participatory base of faculty governance,
will set up a caucus for the Senators in each academic unit beginning this
Fall and will convene a meeting to discuss possible changes in the RTP calendar.
The Senate Executive Committee has already assisted in the creation of a list-serve
for Department Chairs and in the planning of the Department Chairs' Retreat
on May 1. Close cooperation between the Executive Committee, the Office of
Faculty Affairs, and the Chairs' Retreat Planning Committee is expected to
- In regards to the Implementation of Multicultural Perspectives
in the Curriculum, the task force should be in place before the end of
the Spring semester to begin work in the Fall.
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for Meeting of April 28, 1998
As there were no objections, the agenda was approved as printed.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting of April 14, 1998
As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as
Agenda Item #3 - Proposed BA and BS in Environmental Studies
CRAC Chair Darlene Yee introduced this item which had been discussed
numerous times and comprehensively considered by UIC, EPC, and CRAC. This free-standing,
interdisciplinary major in Environmental Studies was proposed by faculty in
seven colleges and will be supported equally by the College of BSS and the College
of Science and Engineering with permanent administrative housing in BSS. The
BA and BS will offer courses from 29 different departments or programs. The
total units required for the BA exceed the 45-unit limit and the total units
required for the BS are within limits. APC and CRAC met together as EPC to review
and approved the request for an exemption from the 45-unit limit for the BA
as specified in Academic Senate Policy# F81-82. Initially, one full-time program
director position and one full-time faculty position will be requested for the
major. The Deans of the Colleges of BSS and Science and Engineering have agreed
to provide these positions as well as initial staff and administrative support.
Yee introduced Joel Kassiola, Dean of the College of BSS, and Jim
Kelley, Dean of the College of Science and Engineering, as resources.
Robert Cherny asked why certain concentrations are called BA and others
are called BS particularly since the number of units for a BA is exceeded. Kassiola
replied that the determination by the many faculty who participated in the long
planning process was that the two BS concentrations are scientifically oriented,
have special requirements that emphasize the natural sciences, and their mission
is to have a scientific understanding of the world. In addition, the Natural
Resource Management BS is to plan the sustainable use of our natural resources.
He said that those two degrees are BS degrees because of their specific intellectual
mission. The three BA concentrations are humanities and social science oriented.
All students will have a common core. The unit limit request for a waiver was
necessitated by the wide ranging and upper limit requirements for the common
core. BA students will only be taking 24 units in their concentration. With
the prerequisites for the science courses, the number of units in the common
core exceeded the unit limit. This was carefully reviewed in an EPC meeting
at which it was determined that the major purpose of the unit limit was to prevent
an excessively narrow major denying the student the opportunity to take electives.
He felt that the principle of the exclusion does not apply since students can
take courses across seven colleges. The mission of the three BAs are clearly
social science and humanities and the mission of the two BS degrees are scientific.
Cherny said that the policy that distinguishes BA and BS degrees includes
definitions that do not include whether the degree is a science or art degree
but is based on other considerations. He felt that all these degrees ought to
be BS degrees. Kassiola responded that the Humanities and Social Science
faculty felt very strongly that labeling the BA degrees as BS degrees might
discourage non-science students. For the overall intellectual mission of the
Environmental Studies program, which includes science and values and the arts,
it is important to reach out to constituencies who would not ordinarily look
at a BS degree. Kelley added that the five units by which the degree
exceeds the limit are due to Chemistry 111. Chemistry 111 can be taken as part
of General Education. If it is not included in the degree, all of the degrees
are under the limit. However, some people felt that it would be a hidden prerequisite
if it was not included in the core. Since it could be included in the student's
General Education, he felt that the proposal was in keeping with the spirit
of the BA program.
George Woo said that he was intrigued by how all these colleges could
get together and come up with a major. The listed faculty from Ethnic Studies
includes three people from La Raza Studies, one from Ethnic Studies and one
from Black Studies. The course list includes two courses from La Raza Studies
and two from American Indian Studies. He asked who would teach the American
Indian Studies courses if no faculty are listed. Kassiola replied that
the list of faculty resources is a snap shot in time. He said that he knows
that there are many faculty who would like to teach in the program and if they
list all of the faculty who are currently interested it would be an expanded
list. Woo asked specifically about the American Indian Studies classes.
Kassiola replied that if faculty is unavailable to teach a listed course,
the program will have to adapt to the circumstance. They will work with the
Dean or Department Chair to get the resources to teach the class or they will
stop listing those courses. He felt that it is a curriculum in progress and
new courses will be added as it develops. They will monitor the resource question
very closely so that the courses listed will be offered.
Yee said that Helen Goldsmith, APC and EPC Chair, went over the
criteria in Academic Senate Policy #F81-82 at the EPC meeting. The committee
felt the exemption was justified. Also, the policy is a local campus policy
not a CSU policy.
Ken Fehrman asked if the new degrees would be open for new concentrations
that might be added later on. Kassiola replied absolutely.
Kelley said that all colleges and everyone on campus who was interested
in working on this was invited. He reiterated that this is a work in progress
and it is expected to continue to grow and evolve. This was a student driven
program and environmental studies is a field in which everyone has a stake,
so they want it to be inclusive, not exclusive.
M/S/P (Houlberg, P. Warren) to move to second reading.
M/S/P (Fehrman, Gillotte) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed with two abstentions.
Kassiola expressed great gratitude to the large number of faculty who
worked hard in producing the proposal and the graduate students who came to
almost every meeting and also worked very hard. He thanked the members of CRAC.
He made four appearances before the committee and felt that they were extremely
helpful in identifying where improvements were needed. Kassiola also recognized
the University Interdisciplinary Council as being very helpful
and EPC for granting the waiver. He offered special recognition to Darlene
Yee, CRAC Chair, who worked extremely hard with him in negotiating the many
challenges that were involved in this large project. He felt that the Senate
was extremely well served by CRAC.
Agenda Item #4 - Proposed Minor in Education
CRAC Chair Darlene Yee introduced this item which seeks to address the
need to provide students with an overview of the field of education and provide
opportunities for students to learn more about teaching as a career. Students
who have already chosen teaching as a career may elect to complete the Minor
in Education, thus assisting them in preparing for the credential program. Specific
recommendations from the California Commission of Teacher Credentialing include
that curriculum regarding teaching be incorporated into the undergraduate program
and the proposed minor is one way to meet those needs. Three new courses will
be developed and resources needed to cover the costs will be accommodated by
the existing College of Education budget allocation. CRAC urged the Senate to
approve this critical and timely proposal. Yee introduced Jake Perea,
Dean of the College of Education, and Vera Lane, Associate Dean
of the College of Education, as resources.
Woo thought that this minor was a great idea. He asked how do the various
colleges and departments get involved in this type of undertaking. He asked
why the two specific Asian American Studies courses are included and not others.
He noted that there is only one course in diversity. He also felt that it might
pay for the college that no Asian Americans were included in the faculty list.
Lane replied that they began working on the minor prior to Fall 96 when
the survey was sent to students. When they reviewed courses to be listed in
the diversity section, a memo was sent to all those respective Department Chairs
concerning courses and the suggestions that they received were incorporated
into that section. As to why those two courses in Asian American Studies were
selected, based on the knowledge they had, those two courses were thought to
be most appropriate. Since they received no feedback from the department suggesting
otherwise, they kept those two courses in the minor. CRAC suggested and the
proposal was amended so that the student could select one of those diversity
courses or other diversity courses on advisement. The intent was not to give
all information on diversity, rather to give the student some thought on what
a student in K-12 might be facing if they came from that culture. If the student
does go on for a credential he or she would get more information on diversity.
As far as no Asian American faculty being listed, they looked at who from that
college might be teaching that course. They did not list faculty advisors from
other colleges who did not indicate an interest in the minor. She said that
additional faculty can be added if they express an interest. Woo asked
if there were any Asian American faculty in the College of Education. Lane
replied that of course there were but they only listed faculty who expressed
an interest. The document is not closed and more faculty can be added. She felt
that if there is great interest in the minor there will be a need for more advisors
who will then be added to the list.
M/S/P (Kelley, Fehrman) to move to second reading.
M/S/P (Barnes, Houlberg) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed with three abstentions.
Agenda Item #5 - Master of Arts in Human Sexuality
CRAC Chair Darlene Yee introduced this item. On April 21, 1998, CRAC
re-evaluated and approved this proposed Master Plan Projection. The new degree
program would be housed in the College of BSS and would offer courses from at
least 25 faculty from across the University. The program would consist of three
basic components -- background and foundations; three major subdivisions, including
sexual populations, community health and services, and policy issues in schools;
and learning derived from community participation and service. It was a recommendation
from CRAC rather than a consent item since some CRAC members continued to have
concerns about Section VI on page 5 (Why can't this be offered under another
format such as a Bachelor of Arts degree or concentration?) and Section VII
on page 5 (Who are the potential students for the new degree and what is the
anticipated student demand?). She said that earlier concerns about Sections
IV and V had been addressed through consultation and the recognition that this
is a subject degree not a practice degree focusing on clinical competencies.
Yee introduced Bill Bonds, Acting Director of the Human Sexuality Studies
Program, and John DeCecco, Professor in Human Sexuality Studies, as resources.
Marian Bernstein said that her primary concern was that this is a multidisciplinary
not interdisciplinary degree. She felt that some of the other departments who
are doing work should be listed in the Master Plan Proposal.
Inderpal Grewal expressed some concerns about overlap with Women Studies,
particularly in sexuality and gender issues. The faculty of Women Studies had
agreed with the faculty of Human Sexuality Studies that there would be inclusion
of Women Studies in some areas. While they appreciated the areas in which that
inclusion occurred, she felt that there were other areas that still needed inclusion.
The Women Studies department was concerned that issues of sexuality were discussed
as issues of pathology and problems rather than as social movements that have
emerged around the issues of sexuality. Another concern was the incorporation
of race and ethnicity in the discussion of human sexuality without a systematic
and historical attention to these issues as they participated in the formation
of the gay, lesbian and queer communities. She distributed a memo that further
expressed the concerns of the Women Studies department.
Bonds replied that the Human Sexuality Studies faculty hoped that the
proposal would be approved so that it could go on to the curriculum stage. They
had worked with Grewal to improve the document and to try and reduce the overlap.
He said they anticipate that Women Studies will participate in the development
of the curriculum. They did their best to incorporate changes in a very short
time and felt that it could still be modified. Since this was a Master Plan
Projection, not something published in the Bulletin, he felt that it can be
revised to enhance its approval possibilities at the Chancellor's Office.
Yu-Charn Chen asked why this was not offered as a Bachelor's instead
of a Masters degree? DeCecco responded that the material was too complicated
for a BA. He said that there is a huge Cartesian dualism that runs through the
subject matter. Part of it veers toward treating the body as a science and part
of it dealing with human experience as a subjective dimension. The subject matter
borrows heavily from the humanities and the arts as well as the sciences. He
felt that generally students do not have the kind of preparation that they require
to pursue this curriculum unless they have taken these courses. The students
should be rooted in a specific curriculum in depth then pursue a field of this
complexity at the graduate level. There are enormous amounts of material going
into the sexology field as a whole that can only be introduced at the graduate
level. Because of the arguments about sexual harassment, domestic partnerships,
and the popularity of the impotence pill, he felt that the faculty should not
doubt the relevance of this curriculum to a university that wants to be current
and urbane. He said that he spoke also for the gay/lesbian minority and that
they felt they have the subject matter, the faculty, and the will to make this
a successful program.
(At this point, the discussion was postponed having reached a time certain.
It resumed following the completion of Agenda Item #8.)
Kassiola said that as someone who worked really hard on the Environmental
Studies program, he assured the Senate that he works very easily in the collaborative
mode. If any programs on campus feel that they need to be included in Human
Sexuality Studies proposal, he will work to include them and see what recommendations
they make. He felt that differences in opinion or emphases in the curriculum
proposals will be worked out. Kassiola re-emphasized Yee's point that this is
a Master Plan Projection and he felt that the main thrust of what is proposed
should be approved. He promised to work hard to make sure the curriculum meets
the needs of the entire faculty.
M/S/P (Kelley, Bartscher) to move to second reading.
Grewal said that she was glad to hear what Dean Kassiola said. She said
that she was not sure that the considerable overlap with other departments had
been cleared up and was concerned that those overlaps be worked out in a collegial
fashion before anything goes forward.
Bernstein said that this was an exciting program, however she felt that
something could be added to strengthen the proposal by listing other departments
and programs that would be tangential to and part of the proposal.
Helen Gillotte said that she thought that the proposal has a great deal
to offer but she had concerns about why, given the interaction between other
departments with the people who wrote the proposal, that list was not added
to the proposal.
Bonds said that what the Senate didn't have available, but CRAC did
see, was the appendices which list the faculty and courses currently being offered
that express the breadth of participation. He felt that the appendices would
probably resolve a lot of the concerns that had just been expressed.
Grewal said that she was happy to hear what Bonds said. She was concerned
that in section 6, where some of the programs have been listed, that Women Studies
had not been included even after discussion with the writers of the proposal.
M/S/P (Bartscher, Hammerstrom) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed with 17 in favor, 10 opposed,
and 9 abstentions.
Agenda Item #6 - Status Report from the Office of Community Service Learning
As there was a time certain for Agenda Item #8, this item was not presented.
Agenda Item #7 - Report from Academic Program Review Committee Chair Jerry
As there was a time certain for Agenda Item #8, this item was not presented.
Agenda Item #8 - Up-Date on SIP/CETI
Phillips said that originally there was a forum scheduled for April
29 when the Executive Committee was under the impression that the campus would
have to respond this spring to the latest proposal. The campus had not received
the latest proposal and consultation had been postponed until the Fall. Since
there was nothing urgent, the forum was cancelled and the issue was folded into
the Senate meeting. Although all campus community members are always welcome
to Senate meetings, Phillips had specifically contacted student groups and invited
them. He welcomed the students in attendance and reminded everyone that a speaker's
list would be maintained.
President Corrigan said that an announcement was made on April 16 from
Chancellor Reed that there was a delay in the CETI negotiations and that two
out of four of the potential corporate partners (Hughes and Microsoft) are no
longer part of the deal. That left GTE and Fujitsu to negotiate with. He said
that his understanding was that Fujitsu had taken over as the basic operating
force. He quoted the Chancellor that it may be well into the next academic year
before it is known for certain if a CETI agreement can be reached with GTE and
Fujitsu. There are 18 items under negotiation and all 18 have been signed off
by Fujitsu, but he was not aware if GTE had signed off. He also didn't know
what those 18 items were. There is a two-volume report that goes through the
protocols and the 18 areas of the agreement. Those reports were to be given
to the campus presidents, the senate chairs, and the Associated Students presidents
of all 23 campuses, but none of them had been sent out. They were told that
the negotiations with GTE and Fujitsu will continue.
Corrigan said that Chancellor Reed said publicly that the CSU will seek new
partners if necessary. Chancellor Reed pledged to maintain the 45 day consultation
period with campuses and that no partnership would be signed unless it was in
the best financial and academic interest of the CSU and its faculty, staff,
and students. Reed placed the chances for a successful CETI agreement at 50/50
when he was speaking before the Board of Trustees.
At one executive council meeting, the Chancellor reported that Microsoft and
Hughes were always minor partners and never even sent representatives to the
bargaining table. Microsoft's position was that they already had 90% of our
business, so why take on any of the financial risk since they would continue
to have our business anyway? Corrigan said his understanding was that Hughes
was a political partner, that they would attempt to influence policy in Sacramento
but was never an equity partner. He said that Fujitsu remains strongly committed
to the partnership. GTE remains committed, but is more risk adverse and needs
more time. The American representatives of Fujitsu had an early commitment from
on high to continue the negotiations. GTE sent low level personnel to the negotiations
and never shared significant information with the higher-ups. It was only after
the April Board of Trustees meeting that the GTE upper echelons were brought
in on the discussions and realized the $300 million price tag and their portion
of the risk. He understood that if GTE does back out, a number of other potential
partners have expressed interest in working with the CSU. Originally, there
were 12 corporations that joined in 3 different sets of partners to bid on the
contract. So eight lost out and a significant number of them have expressed
interest in being considered as a partner.
There are key items of concern to the campus, faculty, students, and staff
that the Chancellor and the negotiating team remain firm on. These items are
intellectual property rights, academic freedom, and CSU control over its own
employees. They are non-negotiable.
As Corrigan stated in his April 16 message on the web and in the Campus Memo,
the Board of Trustees have said that before they can sign any agreement it must
be reviewed by outside, independent experts to evaluate the operational, legal
and financial risks to the CSU. One of the nation's best intellectual property
lawyers has been made available to the Trustees on a pro-bono basis.
After the May 6 SIP meeting there will be an update on the next step in negotiations
and a search for possible partners. Don Scoble is one of three campus
representatives on the negotiating team. Corrigan said that Scoble remains committed
to the needs of this campus, but he has signed a confidentiality agreement and
cannot discuss a lot of the specifics.
Corrigan presented some of the stumbling block in terms of the partners and
the issues that have created concerns among the campus presidents. The deal
included $300 million in bonds which would be insured by the four partners on
the basis of their equity interest in the deal, with no risk assumed by the
CSU. As GTE, Hughes, and Microsoft heard that they were to assume all of the
risk, their feet began to get cold. The corporate partners also said that refreshing
the workstations on a three-year basis was no longer acceptable, that it had
to be on a six year basis. Additionally, the loan would have to be $250 million
rather than $300 million. Several campus presidents were tremendously concerned
about going from three to six years on the workstation refreshment and that
the CSU would have to assume roughly 30% of the risk on the $250 million loan.
Corrigan said that the need which CETI addresses remains. The state is unwilling
and unable to provide the $300 million the CSU needs for information technology
as an essential part of the education that we must offer. Corrigan said that
he remains convinced it is inappropriate to ask students to pay a fee to fund
the $300 million infrastructure. If we truly believe, as he does, that we need
to be into information technology at this level and that the state will not
fund it, then some favorable deal with corporate support will be necessary.
He said that we do not exist in an education vacuum. Our students and future
students will be competing with the best and the brightest from the best of
the public and private universities. We have to ask if access to information
technology will be the new definer of the haves and the have-nots. And we must
ask whether our students will graduate without having those resources available
to them and be in competition with students from those other universities for
jobs and progress in their own professional lives.
Bob Daniels, Accounting, said that he had studied these issues and concluded
that CETI is not a very good idea. From his web site (userwww.sfsu.edu/~rdaniels),
one can get to the anti-CETI page. He felt that the $300 million is somewhat
inflated, but something is needed. If the chances of this working are 50/50,
he asked what is plan B? Daniels said that Reed, in a recent interview, said
that there is no plan B. Daniels questioned why there is no back up plan to
something that is crucial to the University.
Mary Anne Warren asked what is it that CETI would afford us that we
cannot afford for ourselves. Since we have lots of computers, Internet access,
e-mail, and the web, what are the potential educational losses? Scoble
responded that CETI will provide the technology infrastructure - all of the
cabling behind the walls, electronics, routers, adequate bandwidth, and connectivity
between campuses. He said that SFSU is fairly well provided for, but not necessarily
well enough to take us into the next century. Other campuses that have made
decisions not to make the same investments are not as well off in terms of the
technology infrastructure. The $300 million was a guess-timate. Extensive studies
were done by outside consultants brought in to each campus to make those estimates.
He felt that the CSU is really 23 city-states. A lot is not known centrally
about each campus and that each campus has made different decisions about what
they are going to do concerning technology planning. The infrastructure is the
wires, cables, fiber, and the connections that go behind the walls essentially
all the stuff up to the jack in the wall that you plug your computer into. M.
A. Warren responded that it works pretty well now. Scoble replied
that it works pretty well this week. As we have more students and more demand
for faster speeds and connectivity between campuses, it may not work as well.
Rick Houlberg said that one of the issues dealing with SFSU and the
system has been how we use our resources in relation to this problem and how
we plan for the future. He felt that a lot of the discussion about CETI has
been about other campuses that have not thought about or invested in computing
needs to bring themselves up to where we currently are. He felt that what we
need to focus on is what we need within this campus. His personal feeling was
that we will go a lot further as a campus by dealing with our own issues. In
response to Warren, one of the issues at SFSU was the modems and how to increase
access to them. One answer was to increase the modem pool and now that process
is much smoother. That was all done on this campus with our resources. He felt
that we have to be somewhat parochial in relationship to our campus, our students,
and our needs.
Phillips said that he hadnt been surprised by the way in which
Microsoft operates because he is always pleasantly surprised by any truly civic-minded
company. But he was brought up to expect more from those who are supposed to
be public servants. He said that California now has a huge budget surplus. The
question used to be guns and butter, now it is schools and prisons that have
become the economic metaphor. He addressed a question to President Corrigan
asking whats our chance of getting the Legislature to give the CSU a significant
piece of that surplus to buy time and look at other creative answers. Corrigan
replied that there was the four-year deal that the CSU and UC cut with the Governor
which entailed a 4% increase each year and the servicing of certain bonds. We
went back in and got the Governor to make up the difference between what would
have been raised in fees they had not gone down. That resulted in roughly a
1% salary increase across the board and $17 million for deferred maintenance.
There is a $1 billion surplus and $750 million in required PERS contribution
reduction. There are entitlement programs that automatically go up as revenue
goes up, so he was not sure how much of that surplus would actually be available.
He said that the Chancellor has gone back on many occasions to raise the possibility
with the leadership of getting more off the top for infrastructure needs or
to service the bonds. About 5% of the budget currently goes to retire bonds,
but if that goes up to 6.5% the state can maintain its AAA status. The question
is whether the Legislature will pass that and whether the Governor will support
it. In response to Daniels, Corrigan said that he is not sure how sound a backup
plan that is, but that is the backup plan. Corrigan said that he has developed
a great deal of respect for Chancellor Reed in a very short time. In the search
process for the Chancellor position, any candidate had to buy into merit pay,
Cornerstones and CETI. He felt that Chancellor Reed came into the Chancellorship
comfortable as a leader in each of these. Reed truly believed that Munitz would
sign off on CETI and it would be a done deal before he started. Reed's job then
would be simply to make it work. He is not the architect of the plan and he
is not responsible for coming up with a back up plan. Corrigan said that his
understanding that behind the wall and out there, there is about $15 million
need for bandwidth, infrastructure, etc. Beyond the machines on the desks, the
software, and the Internet connections, to remain state of the art, the CSU
must find the money.
Laurie Zoloth-Dorfman said that the issue is complicated. She felt like
the deal is getting worse as it goes on, but she thought that we do need something
like this and that some kind of partnership may be necessary. She said that
many of the students dont have computers and this campus is the only place
they have to get connectivity. She said that the impact is much more profound
than faculty suspect. In the next 10 years, the gap between our students and
students from other universities will widen if we dont think this through.
She said that she was not convinced that this is the right way to think this
through, but urged Scoble to take this as the foremost concern since we cant
just opt out of it.
Woo said that he requires students to create web sites since he doesn't
take papers. His students asked Woo to ask President Corrigan if he could release
money to buy more modems for students. Woo said that he personally proposed
to take away faculty modems and give them to students.
Brian Eby, student, addressed the issue of communication between students
and the administration concerning CETI. When CETI first came out, the chief
source of information was a 50 page business plan and students felt that was
unrealistic. Since that time, President Corrigan has established an e-mail site
and there is a SIP web site but he felt that these are substandard since this
is a precedent setting event. The deal has privatization written on it and he
felt that there needs to be some efficient exchange between students and the
administration. He felt that only a small group of students know about this
in detail, but since this affects all students they should be effectively solicited
by the administration. He said that President Corrigan talked about the non-negotiables
and how important those are. In reading through the literature, Eby felt that
there was not enough detail to protect those things. He would like to see whole
sections on those non-negotiables. He said that Mark Phillips talked about the
$1 billion in surplus. He felt that the CSU administration should be addressing
the Legislature and exerting pressure to obtain a piece of those funds and he
didnt think that the Chancellor and the campus presidents were doing enough.
He hadn't seen anything in the media about that pressure existing. He felt that
the Legislature should be the first place to go to, not to corporations. He
also referred to the statement that access to technology could be the divider
between haves and have-nots. He said that the last business plan referred to
the "computer in a box" and felt that it could also create a rift between students
over who could and who could not afford a computer.
Scott Johnson, student and member of the International Socialist Organization,
felt that the main stumbling block is that "we havent let them pass CETI".
He felt that we have to continue to fight so that it will not pass. He felt
that one thing that "they" are willing to budge on is allowing 12 corporations
to bid on the University like the students and faculty are meat to be bought,
like the education is something to be bought by corporations rather that a right
that everyone deserves. He also felt that "they" are willing to budge on allowing
California schools to be among the worst funded in the United States. He said
that among universities and schools in the South, like Arkansas and Mississippi,
funding has brought California down to 48th or 49th. Since Mark Phillips asked
what the Legislature is doing, Johnson said that the Legislature is scapegoating
minorities, passing welfare reform, killing people in Iraq with the sanctions,
bailing out vicious dictators in Southeast Asia and taking money away from education.
Johnson read a quote from the Chronicle that at the newest campus in Florida,
Reed offered attractive salaries but no tenure and felt that the idea might
work in California. Johnson felt that its a part of CETI and its
a part of the same thing. Johnson said that Corrigan did not meet with any students
who were at the meeting and who were the leaders of the anti-CETI movement.
He said that they had been asking for a public forum with President Corrigan
since November. Johnson said that it was President Corrigan's job to make the
state willing to put up the money that is needed, but he didn't think it will
happen. Johnson also said that if faculty want to keep tenure and keep their
salaries they should join the students in a united front to fight for these
things. He also felt that faculty should join CFA since the contract is in negotiation.
He said that faculty should fight or "it will go away real soon".
Cherny said that as he followed the development of all of this he was
persuaded that it was fairly reasonable to set up our own telephone company
and to contract with GTE to provide telephone services to the CSU. That is what
he understood the proposal to be primarily about and it sounded reasonable with
economies of scale and that these companies might be willing to provide funds
in return for a ten-year contract for telephone service. He felt skeptical about
what is left of the proposal. He didn't doubt that there is a need, even on
our campus, for the technology infrastructure. He questioned whether this is
the solution or a much larger problem. If GTE is fading and Hughes is gone from
this, he wondered where the telephone company is since GTE provides telephones
and Hughes provides the satellites. He felt that if Fujitsu is all thats
left, all we have is somebody willing to sell us computers with a ten-year contract.
He felt that if all we are doing is buying equipment, it's a bad deal. He expressed
a different concern about the former Chancellor taking different approaches
to solving problems on a system-wide or campus level. He said that Chancellor
Munitz said that it was not necessary to equalize funding across campuses on
a per student basis. The fact that SFSU was funded the lowest on a per student
basis was not a concern for the former Chancellor. Cherny said that if some
campuses that may be funded better than we are have not kept their technology
up to date, that was less of a concern for him. The former Chancellor felt that
it was necessary to equalize technology, but not per student funding, and Cherny
felt that was troublesome.
Marie Mallare, graduate student, said that she knew there was a lot
of frustration and confusion about CETI. As one of the prior campus student
leaders when this was coming about, the student leaders saw this coming and
fought for what they thought was correct such as educational rights and the
freedom of academic intellect. She felt, after listening to President Corrigan,
that people should stand back and look more at the message and not at the messenger.
She said that we are all on the same page with this issue and that there is
a lot of frustration, but that people should not confuse the issue and put personal
emotion into it. The question is, are we ready for the next century when it
comes to info and technology?
Phillips thanked the students for coming. He would like to have better
communication so that students and faculty have access to information as it
is available. That could be through a hotline, the computer, or by some other
means. He said that the campus will be continuing to deal with the problem in
the Fall whether it is SIP/CETI or not. He thanked the people who attended the
meeting specifically to discuss SIP/CETI and he thanked President Corrigan for
his update on the issues.
The Senate was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Secretary to the Faculty