of May 08, 2001
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Pamela Vaughn at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
de Vries, Brian
La Belle, Thomas
Warren, Mary Anne
Senate Members Absent:
Senate Interns Present:
Guests: Allen Green, Kyle Knoble, Michail Wilson, Christopher
Announcements and Report
Chair Pamela Vaughn summarized some off-the-agenda items of momentary
and local importance for academic senators.
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for May 8, 2001
Vaughn corrected Item #11, noting that it is not a consent item.
Robert Cherny moved an addition to the agenda, adding a resolution thanking
Dean Kelley for all his contributions to the academic senate.
The agenda was approved as corrected and amended.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for April 24, 2001
The minutes were approved as corrected to acknowledge Robert Williams'
presence and with thanks to Jan Gregory for her work as substitute Secretary.
Agenda Item #3 - Elections
Franciscan Shops Board of Directors
Gina Castro (Library) was elected.
University Budget Committee
Robert Daniels (Accounting) was elected by acclamation.
Alumni Association Board
Charles Egan (Foreign Languages & Literatures) was elected by acclamation.
General Education Committee:
GE Segment I - Basic Subjects Committee
Rudolph Busby (Speech and Communication) was elected.
Agenda Item #4 - Proposed Resolution in Support of the May 16-17 Mobilization
to Reverse the Ban on Affirmative Action in the University of California System
Mitch Turitz introduced this proposed resolution. Vaughn added that
there has been a great deal of support for this among students, the legislature,
and more broadly. Jan Gregory noted that CTA has also expressed public
support, and she encouraged us to be on record doing the same.
M/S/P (Gregory, Edwards) to second reading.
The vote was taken and the resolution passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Resolution on New Independent Doctoral Programs
in the CSU
M/S/P (Gregory, Steier) to adopt this resolution.
Gregory first clarified that this has nothing to do with currently existing
or proposed joint-doctoral programs. Gregory summarized the rationales
for opposition to new independent doctoral programs as stated in the resolution.
Robert Cherny spoke in agreement and emphasized the language of the resolve
clauses on the second page of the resolution, noting that these do not
oppose all doctoral programs forever but instead oppose implementing new,
free-standing doctoral programs in the absence of additional programs.
Thomas La Belle also spoke in favor of this resolution but added that there
are some master’s programs where accrediting organizations are suddenly requiring
professional doctorate degrees for entry into the profession.
Vaughn added that the Executive Committee was trying to further contextualize
many of the concerns raised on the floor of the senate during the discussion
of the Ed.D. She assured all that Deans Perea and Hemphill were notified
of this. She added further= that this resolution should not be seen
as lack of support for future Ed.D.’s or for the joint doctoral program, but
that it is our way of going on record as saying that we don’t want one more
thing to do without the necessary funding.
Gregory suggested, with regard to La Belle's comment, that these degrees might
be done as joint degrees.
Marcia Raggio, speaking as a faculty member in audiology, commented that they
have been trying to develop a joint degree with UC for the past decade in
response to pressure from their national accrediting agency to provide the
professional doctoral degree.
M/S/P (Hu, Edwards) to second reading.
The vote was taken and the resolution passed without dissent.
Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Statement of Concern Regarding the Leadership
of Chancellor Charles B. Reed
Chair Vaughn prefaced this discussion item by reviewing other campuses recent
votes of no confidence. In light of these actions and on-going concerns,
the Executive Committee crafted this proposed statement for discussion and
brief comment today, constituent feedback, and then the intent to bring this
to a vote at our meeting next Tuesday. She added that the President
has been advised and that this statement is not a reflection on the leadership
on this campus nor an attempt to create difficulty for SFSU, but rather reflects
the feelings of at least the executive committee that we have made little
progress on working collegially with the chancellor.
La Belle commented generally that this is well-written and raises important
issues, and added additional examples like the quarter- system conversion.
He raised a question of confusion about the wording of the last paragraph
and the bold statement above it: is it a statement of no confidence
Vaughn replied that, while “no confidence" may be the accepted legislative
term, what we were attempting to express is that the chancellor could have
had us but lost us.
Dan Fendel added two things to consider: 1) in recent bargaining the CSU bargaining
team asserted that they have no intention to seek an end to the CPEC salary
gap; 2) last month the PERB board issued a complaint against the trustees
of the CSU who "failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith"
and “this conduct interfered with rights of bargaining with employees.”
He also suggested making this resolution available electronically.
Steier responded to the provost suggesting removing the bold statement and
possibly adding “to which we now add our voice” to the end of the first sentence
of the last paragraph.
Cherny hoped that all take seriously the call to consult with colleagues,
given that there has been criticism of the votes of no confidence on the grounds
that academic senates may not be representative of the faculty. He added
a concern: our chancellor's lack of success in getting money from the legislature;
he has consistently gotten a smaller percentage increase for us than the UC
and a smaller percentage increase than the state budget, so our share of the
state budget has gone down.
Gregory called attention to the emphasis on the inability of the chancellor’s
office to develop consensus and to consult with faculty. The model is
not only top down; it treats faculty as if they were insignificant players
in the academy.
Vaughn urged all again to read, share, discuss, and send suggestions via email,
prior to a vote next Tuesday.
Agenda Item #7 - Proposed Academic Senate Policy on Annual "Faculty
Executive Committee Vice-Chair Helen Goldsmith introduced this consent item
from the Executive Committee, noting, first, that we currently have two policies
regarding faculty development. The Asilomar program committee revisited
these policies and considered how things might be done differently.
The proposal preserves the possibility of future off-campus retreats like
Asilomar while providing flexibility for new faculty development programs
as well as opportunities for colleges and programs to develop their own faculty
M/S/P (Vaughn, Aaron) to approve this policy.
James Edwards has asked if this were "back to the future" where
the Senate did Asilomar and the Colleges did something in off years.
Vaughn replied that this is more or less what is being proposed.
Gail Whitaker recalled moving to the current policy from the proposed model
with the thinking that there were faculty members who can’t afford to go off
campus for a retreat.
Goldsmith responded that this has more flexibility than the previous version.
Vaughn added that the real distinction is that between senate responsibility
in alternate years and college/department based responsibility in the other
M/S/P (Duke, Steier) to second reading.
M/S/P (Steier, Hu) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the policy was approved unanimously.
Vaughn gave special thanks to the Asilomar planning committee and, especially,
Chair Helen Goldsmith.
Agenda Item #8 - Proposal on Intellectual Property Policy and Procedures
for the Development of Online Instructional Materials
Chair of the Academic Policies Committee (APC) Sung Hu introduced this APC
consent item, noting that it originated from the Education Technology Advisory
Committee and was further revised in a joint sub-committee of APC and the
Faculty Affairs Committee.
Mitch Turitz raised concerns, particularly regarding wording like "works
made for hire," "extraordinary." He would like to see
some parts of this re-worded and suggested re-introducing this next week so
that all wording concerns could be addressed.
Vaughn said we could take comments and suggestions from the senate today,
collect them over email and distribute to APC members.
Hu agreed this could work but urged people to restrict their suggestions to
specific language changes rather than just general statements of dislike.
Cherny added that if we do not move it to second reading it comes back next
Gregory supported doing the fine-tuning through suggestions to APC.
James Kelley asked if sabbatical leaves would be considered as "extraordinary".
Hu answered that in the San Diego policy sabbatical leave is professional
development so it is excluded. Vaughn suggested APC consider specific
language excluding sabbaticals from that category.
Turitz made reference to the memorandum from Mark Smith of the AAUP where
he made a large number of specific language suggestions and additions that
Turitz read for the senate.
Sharon Johnson noted that this policy raised many questions since all of her
classes are either on-line or web-enhanced. She offered a number of
examples of types of material that might or might not be copyrightable.
She concluded that she has a lot of confusion about this policy.
Hu responded that all of the materials she mentioned that she developed for
her classes belong to her.
Cherny agreed with Hu unless you and your dean agree that those things
are not yours. Looking at the end of the policy, the notion of "extraordinary
resources" gets translated into a written agreement.
Gregory suggested that, give that this type of question is coming up on the
senate floor, it would be extremely helpful to develop a handout on what is
normally accepted as property of the faculty member.
Vaughn suggested that if you have questions, concerns, or suggestions for
specific language after reading this proposed policy carefully from beginning
to end you send those questions and concerns electronically to Sung Hu no
later than Thursday, 5:00pm.
Marlon Hom suggested that people be aware of the CET copyright clause.
Marian Bernstein urged people to please remember that this policy is only
for online materials--it is not broader than that.
Special Agenda Item in Honor of Dean James Kelley
M/S/P (Cherny, Steier) the following resolution:
Whereas Dean James Kelley has been a longtime and faithful member of the Academic
Senate SFSU and a valued contributor to its discussions; and
Whereas Dean James Kelley is retiring from a long and successful career as
dean of Science and Engineering; therefore, be it
Resolved that the Academic Senate SFSU thank Dean Kelley for his many services
to the senate, wish him well in all his future endeavors, and invite him to
join us time to time in future meetings as our guest.
This resolution was approved by acclamation.
Dean James Kelley recalled an anecdote about the eternal recurrence of plus/minus
grading discussions in academic senates and thanked the senate for its honor.
Vaughn made a general statement prior to the following agenda items related
to program discontinuance. She took this opportunity to remind all assembled
about the importance of following policy. It is the obligation of the
Senate to see that policy is followed in this and all matters of policy.
All approved policies represent a commitment by faculty and administration
to support and uphold the procedures contained in each one. To do otherwise
would be an abrogation of our responsibilities to this campus and to shared
governance. Program discontinuance is a difficult process for all involved.
It is important for those who are here now and for those who may come here
in the future to remember that the review by the Educational Policies Council
and the Academic Senate is not pro forma. Such review is an integral
part of the process, and no steps toward de facto discontinuance should
be taken prior to receiving the approval provided by the appropriate governance
Agenda Item #9 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Master of Science Degree
Hu, Chair of the Education Policies Council (EPC), made a prefatory comment
before introducing the three discontinuance proposals. He noted that
EPC followed the policy with care.
The first discontinuance is a consent item from EPC.
M/S/P (Duke, Alvarez) to second reading.
M/S/P (Edwards, Steier) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the discontinuance was approved without dissent.
Agenda Item #10 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Minor in Positive Health,
Fitness and Leisure
Hu introduced this item briefly, another consent item from EPC.
M/S/P (Duke, Edwards) to second reading.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #11 - Proposed Discontinuance of Master of Arts in Creative
Arts: Concentration in Interdisciplinary Arts and Concentration in Creativity
and Arts Education
Hu introduced this item from EPC—a recommendation but not a consent item.
M/S/P (Duke, Edwards) an amendment to the proposal (handed out at the meeting).
Jerry Duke spoke in favor of and explained the amendment, which relates to
p.4 of the proposal, and which proposes that the College of Creative Arts
continue to offer IAC 300, IAC 301, IAC 380, and IAC 426 after the MA is phased
out and under a “CA” prefix.
Goldsmith expressed several concerns about this proposed discontinuance.
She noted the history of what EPC was told back when they approved the discontinuance
of the BA in Interdisciplinary Arts: that it was a good program but that resources
would be put into the master's degree. The committee reluctantly voting
to discontinue the BA, and now two years later we are being asked to discontinue
the MA. As liberal studies coordinator, she is concerned about guarantees
of continued offerings of courses that are part of the liberal studies program.
Her final concern was that this program offers something unique.
Gregory first spoke in favor of Goldsmith's concerns while adding some additional
ones: the success of the program seems to have contributed to its potential
demise; impact on the lecturer faculty who have been so integral to this program.
Dean Morrison responded that we did say that we would shore up the graduate
program, and we have done so in good faith. Though resources have been
provided for a new tenure-track faculty, the IAC director says that even that
one position is not sufficient. We cannot afford to sustain the program.
On IAC 426 to CA 426, these courses will be administered by committee.
On lecturers, many will teach during the phase out period, and he has met
with the Art department, urging them to give "due consideration"
to these lecturers.
Cherny noted that during his 15 years on the academic senate there has never
been such an outpouring of student sentiment in opposition to discontinuance,
which suggests we need to go beyond our usual consideration. He added
that there is a central ambiguity in university policy: the academic senate
controls curriculum; deans control resources, but resources are crucial to
the curriculum. He suggested at very least that if this vote is to discontinue
this program, the college of creative arts should give very careful consideration
to the concerns expressed by the students today and consider various ways
to carry out interdisciplinary arts programs (some of which he explained in
Eunice Aaron agreed with Cherny and went a little further looking at the "benefit/burden"
analysis and how we know what is valued in a society: looking at where we
put resources is one way to make that determination, or, as Puff Daddy says,
"It’s all about the Benjamins." The CSU system and this campus
have made statements about what is valued: more administrators. But
this campus is about the students, and funds can be found. She strongly
suggested postponing a decision until more information is available and more
careful deliberation has occurred.
Hom asked whether or not a graduate program can be sustained by temporary
faculty according to California educational policy.
Hu replied that there is a requirement that chairs of thesis committees be
tenure track faculty.
Penelope Warren stated that she is not prepared to vote for discontinuance
today, and she went on to outline her reasons: unprecedented number of students
and lecturer faculty speaking in opposition; there are things that are missing
in the materials we are given; there is insufficient evidence that there has
been timely consultation with the parties who are effected by this discontinuance;
consultation seems to have been almost exclusively with the director of the
program with little voice given to the lecturer faculty who appear to have
been the real heart of this program; need to understand more clearly the rationale
for funding priorities within the college of creative arts; not convinced
at real attention to alternative ways to fund this program.
Vaughn noted that we reached a time certain; this item will come back to us
on May 15.
Agenda Item #12 - Seating of the 2001-2002 Academic Senate and Election
of Senate Officers
On behalf of the Executive Committee, Vaughn recognized the following outgoing
Senators and thanked them for their contributions: Rey Contreras, Vinay Shrivastava,
Charlotte Ferretti, Helen Goldsmith, Dane Johnson, James Kelley, Al Wong,
Brian deVries, Anita Leal-Idrogo, Robert Williams, John Elia, Marian Bernstein,
Jaymee Sagisi, and Erin Pasaporte.
Vaughn offered a special thank you to Helen Goldsmith as vice- chair and Dane
Johnson as secretary “extraordinaire.”
Vaughn then welcomed new and returning members of the Academic Senate: Rick
Houlberg (BECA), Rob Strong (Marketing), Scott Jerris (Accounting), Robert
Daniels (Accounting), Mary Anne Warren (Philosophy), Dawn Terrell (Psychology),
Marv Friedman (Accounting), Josh Levine (Music), Karimah Adisa-Thomas (Secondary
Education), Andres Consoli (Counseling), Andrea Boyle (Nursing), Susan Higgins
(Kinesiology), Margaret Henry (Classics), Eunice Aaron (Black Studies), and
Robert Cherny (History).
Helen Goldsmith oversaw the election of the following senators to the Executive
Committee for 2001-2002:
Pamela Vaughn, Chair of the Academic Senate.
Penelope Warren, Vice-Chair.
James Edwards, Secretary.
Dawn Terrell, At-Large.
Rob Strong, At-Large.
Agenda Item #13 - Resolution for a Summer Senate
In order to preserve some continuity in the summer, the Academic Senate has
traditionally passed a resolution delegating some of its power under ideal
circumstances to those members of the Senate available during the summer for
The vote was taken and the resolution was approved.
Agenda Item #14 - Presentation by Statewide Senator Robert Cherny
Statewide Senator Robert Cherny
reported on the CSU under the Master Plan with a powerpoint presentation “The
CSU at the beginning of the 21 st century: meeting the needs of the people
of California.” This is part of a process whereby the statewide academic
senate has been responding to the legislature as part of a revision to the
master plan, and this presentation is a condensed version of a longer report
(contact Robert Cherny for access information on the full, most recent version
of the report). The report illustrated disturbing trends in faculty-student
ratio, per-student funding, and other markers of the state of the CSU system.
There are a number of equally distressing projections if significant changes
are not made.
The Senate was adjourned at 4:10.
Secretary to the Faculty