Minutes: May 10th, 2005

FINAL MEETING OF THE

2004-2005 ACADEMIC SENATE

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2005

2:00 -
3:30 p.m.

CALL TO
ORDER: 2:15 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Colvin announced that Daphne Stannard from the department of Nursing would be the Faculty Marshal
for graduation, and that Rick Houlberg would serve as her mentor.

State
Senator Yee announced that the
University Club would have a farewell celebration on Thursday May 12 from 4-6pm
with food and gifts. This would be a time to reminisce about good times in the
past, and the final day that the UC would be open was Friday June 3.  A farewell sale would follow.

Senator
Morishita announced that the
Stonestown purchase deal was nearly finished and would be formally announced
soon.

AGENDA ITEM #1—APPROVAL of the
AGENDA for MAY 10, 2005

Chair Colvin indicated there were some minor changes to the agenda; that
item four was coming in both first and second readings, and that item five was
arriving as a consent item from the Executive Committee.

Senator Chelberg pointed out a title change on item number five and that
four was arriving as a consent item from both CRAC and the Graduate Council.

Approved.

AGENDA ITEM #2—APPROVAL of the MINUTES for APRIL 26, 2005

Approved.

AGENDA ITEM #3—RECOMMENDATION from
the ACADEMIC POLICIES COMMITTEE: PROPOSED
ACADEMIC CALENDAR for 2006-2007, 2^ND Reading

Chair Colvin
spoke to the need to divide the question, by parsing the various independent
parts of the question into pieces that could be voted upon individually.

It was
moved to divide the question into four separate, distinct parts.

Meredith, Carrington m/s

Senator Meredith spoke as chair of APC and requested this
division. All four parts were independent, and could be voted up or down
without any impact on the rest of the item.

In
order, the first item involved treating the entire Fall
semester as a unit, with a number of interlinking parts.

The second
item concerned whether to include an advising day at the end of the semester.

The
third part involved the starting dates of the spring semester.

The
fourth part involved the timing of spring break.

There
were two issues, the first of which was making it clear that the motion to
divide was not debatable, but Meredith requested that the chair permit
questions. If any parts of the question were defeated, the item would need to
come back to APC for revision.

Vote to divide.

Unanimously approved.

Part I: Shall the Fall semester proceed as scheduled, with classes beginning
August 29, and containing a week-long Thanksgiving Day, with no advising day in
December?

Carrington, Fehrman m/s

Senator Chelberg confirmed
that the starting date was August 29.

Approved
by a majority of senators.

Part II: Shall spring semester
2007 not include an advising day?

Chelberg,
Fehrman m/s

Senator Gregory clarified
that the advising day at the end of the semester was for the following Spring semester.

Senator Velez noted that the
“sneak preview” documents often advertised advising day in their materials.

Senator Steier wanted to
make sure he knew what a “yes” vote meant.

Meredith responded
that by saying “yes,” advising day would be eliminated.

Approved with some dissent.

Part III: Shall spring semester
start on January 16, classes on the 18^th?

Meredith,
Carrington m/s

Meredith indicated
that starting on January 16^th permitted the semester to end a week
early, thus placing graduation the week before Memorial Day.

Senator Steier indicated
that he was speaking in self-interest, but he sought to keep his objection
principled. This proposal would not make it possible to do a decent short
winter session course. For 15 years now, summer session was three weeks, and
now there has been winnowing of courses. He personally needed the money for a
winter session class. Memorial Day, with the recent war in Iraq, may have
acquired a new meaning, and having graduation then could invest the day with
power, while separating the holiday from graduation might diminish the impact.

Senator M. Gonzalez noted that his department had core classes for their
majors during winter session and that this calendar would seriously impact his
department, preventing students from graduating.

Senator Carrington reminded senators that a campus survey of faculty,
mentioned at previous senate meetings, indicated that more than 60 percent of
the faculty thought that three-week courses could not be taught properly, so
that this proposed calendar was following the will of the faculty.

Senator Gregory deferred to incoming senator and visiting chair of the
English department, Jim Kohn.

Kohn observed
that students who take winter session classes, particularly students from
overseas, would find this a hardship in his department, and perhaps for others.
He urged retaining a viable winter session.

Senator Yee followed up on comments by Kohn and Gonzalez, suggesting that
students needed courses to graduate.

Senator Steier insisted his winter session courses were entirely
respectable.

Fourteen
in favor;

Twenty-six
opposed;

Two abstentions.

Chair Colvin indicated that APC will need to return with another calendar
proposal for the spring semester at the next senate meeting in the fall.

Part IV: Shall spring break be
scheduled for Friday March 23 through March 29 and be followed by Cesar Chavez
Day on Friday March 30?

Ulasewicz,
Fehrman m/s

Senator Ritter noted that
as much as a longer spring break would be welcome, it might diminish a very
important day.

Senator Axler spoke in
favor of the motion for academic reasons, large blocks of time freed up faculty
for research and other academic productivity. Cesar Chavez Day, if left as an
isolated day, might actually diminish its impact. The proposed plan would
permit Cesar Chavez Day to extend spring break.

Senator Smith apologized
for whispering earlier in the meeting when he had been questioning the
appropriateness of visitors speaking as senators. He appreciated Senator
Axler’s point, but both staff and students had indicated that having spring
break in proximity with Cesar Chavez Day would diminish the impact of that
holiday.

Senator Stowers noted that
based on local school spring break data, it made sense to tie the SFSU break to
theirs, beginning the week after Easter. Greater numbers of junior faculty had
children, and this would be better for families. She opposed the proposed
calendar.

Senator Ulasewicz supported
the proposed spring calendar, as the calendar for the upcoming year had already
scheduled spring break week in proximity to Cesar Chavez Day. She thought this
might do something to elevate the image of Cesar Chavez Day. Secondly, while
she understood the value of the day, her own students found ways to extend the
break anyway.

Senator Chelberg echoed the
last speaker’s thoughts. A large number of people took spring break and then
extended the break with Cesar Chavez Day. If the campus wanted to celebrate
this day, there needed to be separate activities. Campus was closed on Cesar
Chavez Day anyway.

Senator Bernard-Powers
thought this looked like an extended break. Campus generally clears out on
Friday and few faculty members teach on Friday anyway. She did not view it as
an extra day, but rather it appeared to be a spring break with Cesar Chavez Day
built in.

Senator Langbort
did not see how this vote could be handled without knowing what dates the
semester had for a beginning and an end.

Colvin indicated
that only the spring break was under discussion.

Senator Smith appreciated
Chelberg’s comments. He observed that there were varied perspectives on the
holiday and that it depended on whom one talked to.

Senator Palmer expressed
opposition, noting that a third of his department had children, making it hard
to reschedule to teach.

Senator Chelberg noted that
there were no campus activities on Cesar Chavez Day.

Senator Chen wanted the
senate to consider another option.

Chair Colvin responded that
that was not possible, but that the motion called for a straight up-or-down
vote on spring break.

Senator Chen opposed the
proposed calendar.

Voting:

Eighteen in favor.

Twenty-three
opposed.

One abstention.

Chair Colvin indicated that APC will need to return with another calendar
proposal for the spring semester at the next senate meeting in the fall.

AGENDA ITEM #4—RECOMMENDATION from
the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE and the GRADUATE COUNCIL:
PROPOSED REVISION to the CLINICAL LAB SCIENCE INTERNSHIP

Nichols, Steier m/s

Senator
and CRAC chair Nichols indicated that this was a consent item from both committees, and was an
outcome of the suspension of the program voted on in the fall. The committee
had reviewed the proposal, and had addressed administrative issues raised. Dean
Hallum, Linda Blackwood, and Linda Wanek were present to answer questions.

Graduate
Dean Hallum noted that the budget had provided the opportunity to reposition the
program and move it to HHS. The program had some skill in moving students
between the regular university and internships, and was also familiar with
licensing requirements, and health arrangements. It was officially designated
as a certificate program. It had raised its standards, specifically in level
one and level two writing, and had the support of various local councils. An
articulation arrangement existed between CityCollege
and our biological program courses. Wanek, in her earlier career, was familiar
with clinical issues.

Senator Yee spoke
in favor of the revisions. Hallum and she had taken time for a conference at Sacramento where they had
heard a presentation form graduate students on the program, and it looked like
they had done a good job realigning the program and getting on track as quickly
as possible.

Senator
and CRAC member Boyle commended the committee on hard work and for revitalizing the
certificate program.

Senator Axler spoke
to the issue of suspension for the program, stating that this proposal did not
clear up this issue, which had surfaced since the director had resigned and
courses could not be offered. This proposal would not help, but was rather a
program for a new curriculum. He hoped it would pass but would abstain. As for
course renumbering, it appeared to be merely a re-labeling, but in fact the
courses were quite different. This might be confusing, but was perhaps not a
big deal. He would abstain, due to questions related to whether this is the
best thing for the campus to be doing.

Nichols
responded that there was no guideline or policy
about bringing programs out of suspension.

Chair Colvin stated
that the senate was not discussing the suspension of the program, only the
proposal at hand.

Moved to
second reading.

Approved
with one abstention.

AGENDA ITEM #5—RECOMMENDATION from
the STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRS: RESOLUTION THANKING & COMMENDING DEPARTING
2004-2005 ACADEMIC SENATORS, SENATE LEADERSHIP AND PROFESSIONAL VALUES

Palmer, Chelberg m/s/p

Senator Stowers had
a question about the names of outgoing senators listed.

Chair Colvin
indicated that the names were of those senators whose terms were ending, but
that some senators would be continuing in a second term.

Senator Chelberg
noted that this item was coming via the standing committee chairs.

Senator Meredith
read the resolution.

Senator Steier
had some difficulty with the word “modeling” which for some reason always
suggested a fashion runway for him, and suggested instead that a word such as
“embody” might be better employed in the document.

Senator Chelberg
asked that certain names be added to the list of departing senators.

Vice-chair
Williams thanked senators for their support this year, during a difficult time. He
indicated that the senate leaders had tried very hard to take a faculty
advocacy role, and appreciated the frank discussion the senate engaged in. 

Secretary
Fielden noted that as “keeper of the words” of the senate, he especially
appreciated the reasoned discussion that characterized the senate sessions in
the past year, a year unusually difficult.

Chair Colvin
expressed her deep thanks to the senate.

Return
in five minutes, 3:25.

AGENDA
ITEM #6—ADJOURNMENT— 3:18 p.m.