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; Oñate, 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’s Report

  • Chair Phillips reported the following University-wide election results --

    Helen Gillotte(English), Academic Affirmative Action Committee;

    Rachel Kahn-Hut(Sociology) and Anthony D’Agostino(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 (,

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 hadn’t 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 what’s 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 can’t

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

didn’t 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 haven’t 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 it’s a part of CETI and it’s

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 that’s

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Bonnie Homan

Secretary to the Faculty