MINUTES OF MAY 11, 1999 (PART 1)

The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present:

Aaron, Eunice; Alvarez, Alvin; Barnes, Paul; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein,

Marian; Bhat, Subodh; Cancino, Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn; Cherny, Robert; Collier,

James; Consoli, Andrés; Contreras, Rey; Craig, JoAnn; Cullers, Susan;

Duke, Jerry; Eisman, Gerald; Elia, John; Fehrman, Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte;

Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Goldsmith, Helen; Graham, Michael; Graham, Minnie; Gregory,

Jan; Harnly, Caroline; Haw, Mary Ann; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung; Jenkins, Lee; Jerris,

Scott; Johnson, Dane; Kelley, James; La Belle, Thomas; Moss, Joanna; Phillips,

Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Scoble, Don; Shapiro, Jerald; Shrivastava, Vinay; Simeon,

Roblyn; Smith, Miriam; Strong, Rob; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Vaughn, Pamela;

Verhey, Marilyn; Wade, Patricia; Warren, Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope; Wong,

Alfred; Yee, Darlene.

Senate Members Absent: Swanson, Deborah(exc.); Oñate,

Abdiel(exc.); Choo, Freddie; Gonzales, Angela; Tarakji, Ghassan; Flowers, Will;

Corrigan, Robert(exc.); Montenegro, Ricardo; Valledares, Juan; Vega, Sandra.

Senate Interns Present:

Guests: N. Fielden, D. Schafer, G. West, J. Bebee, R. On, S.

Taylor, P. McGee, G. Whitaker, A. Anton, S. Shimanoff, D. Harris, D. Tong, L.

Head, C. Colvin, P. Saffold, D. Cunningham, J. Ekstrand, K. Monteiro.

Announcements and Report

Chair's Report

  • Phillips announced the results of the election for representatives to the

    Search Committee for the Associate Vice President for Computing Services:

    Betty Blecha, Vladimir Sakovich, Sanjit Sengupta, Judy Ganson, Sheldon Axler,

    and Angela Gonzales.

  • The CSU Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor will be on campus for a dinner with

    the following representative group of faculty on May 13, 1999: Eunice Aaron,

    Robert Cherny, Jerry Combs, Ron Compesi, Gerald Eisman, Jan Gregory, Diane

    Harris, Marlon Hom, Dane Johnson, Margo Kasdan, James Kelley, Jake Perea,

    Mark Phillips, Dawn Terrell, Pamela Vaughn, Julien Wade, and Darlene Yee.

  • Phillips reported on his three years as Chair of the Academic Senate. He

    summarized that he has found this role challenging and also immensely nourishing

    but that he is very ready to leave after three years. He went on to remark

    that the most difficult thing was the awareness of all the things that still

    need to be done, and he outlined some of those items on which a consensus

    should be reached: a more meaningful post-tenure review process; a campus-

    wide tenure committee that is parallel to the promotion committee; better

    communication between Senate and CFA leadership, and between Senate and administrative

    leadership; work on the relationship between CEL and regular programs. He

    also remarked on the natural and healthy tensions that will be part of developing

    the necessary new paradigms in higher education, cautioning that how we handle

    these tensions and how we treat each other in the process is of the utmost

    importance. Phillips thanked the Senate for the support he has had, stating

    that it is a reminder how at times an environment that can be dysfunctional

    can have so many wonderful people.

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for April 27, 1999

The agenda was approved as printed.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for April 13, 1999

The minutes were approved as printed.

Agenda Item #3 - Report from Statewide Senators

Robert Cherny remarked that a summary of the very long report had been

circulated on e-mail, and he entertained any questions. Eunice Aaron

briefed the Senate on the new CSU headquarters.

Chair Phillips thanked Cherny, Aaron, and Jan Gregory for representing

us; he reminded us that Cherny will be on leave next year with Darlene Yee

replacing him in the interim.

Agenda Item #4 - Report from Academic Program Review Committee Chair Jerry


Jerry Duke, Chair of the Academic Program Review Committee (a Standing Committee

of the Academic Senate), presented an abbreviated version of the committee's

annual report. During the 1998-99 academic year, the APRC completed reports

on the following programs: Geosciences, Technical/Professional Writing, Kinesiology,

Physics and Astronomy, Cinema, Labor Studies, and Consumer/Family Studies. Journalism

is expected to be completed before the end of the semester. Duke summarized

the review process and explained one change that will reduce the workload of

the committee: separating accredited programs from APRC review. He added that

cutting down the time of review remains an issue that needs to be addressed.


thanked Gail Whitaker and Jim Bebee for their support and asked

for a round of applause for the members of the committee: Caroline Harnly

(Library), Michael Graham (Political Science), Joanna Moss (Economics), Marcia

Raggio (Communicative Disorders), Vinay Shrivastava (BECA), Miriam Smith (BECA),

Deborah Swanson (English), Marilyn Verhey (Nursing). The Senate applauded.

Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Revision to A.S. Policy #S81-18 Leaves with Pay

Marlon Hom, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, introduced a proposed

revision to A.S. policy #S81-18 on leaves with pay, which came as a consent

item from the committee. Hom summarized that the current policy has become dysfunctional

because the policy has not been followed at all levels. This proposal establishes

a university committee to review the applications modeled on the University

Promotions Committee. This will provide faculty oversight beyond the college

level and safeguard the professional interests of colleagues who

have joint appointments. Hom added that sabbatical leave distribution has been

quite fair thanks to the President's office.

Provost Thomas La Belle passed out data on the most recent distribution

of sabbatical awards.

M/S/P (Kelley, Barnes) to amend the proposal.

James Kelley summarized that the attempt is to streamline the process

and avoid one more meeting with the recommendations of the committee forwarded

to the President by the Provost along with his own.

Pamela Vaughn sympathizes with streamlining but voiced a concern about

the elimination of the wording dealing with consultations and the resolution

of differences. Mitch Turitz explained that the intent of having the

University Sabbatical Committee parallel to the Provost was so that this would

follow the same procedure as the promotions policy.

Kelley commented that the difference between this and the promotion policy

is that there are no college committees in the promotion policy.

Hom said that the philosophy behind these changes was to resurrect a feeling

of faculty participation at large.

Dawn Terrell echoed Hom and added that the issue of joint appointments

is not well handled in the current policy.

Gerald West, Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development, spoke

to how the old sabbatical leave committee and policy worked, which he saw as

ineffective. The Senate chose to

change that practice with the university, and he does not see why we would

want a new policy parallel to RTP.

La Belle recalled that what started the discussion was the issue of equity

and distribution across the units. The data shows that there has been an equitable

distribution. The current practice is for the colleges to recommend to my office

with the Provost and President working on the final awards. The new policy introduces

an important step: a faculty committee at the university level making judgements

about the quality of the various applications, looking to both merit and equity.

La Belle added that making the committee parallel to the Provost is cumbersome

in terms of letters and meetings. Kelley's amendment streamlines the process

without losing faculty consultation.

Jan Gregory supported the notion that the more faculty participate in

decisions like this the more secure they can be in the results, but she wondered

whether we required completion today or could return to it in the Fall.

M/S/P (Vaughn, Fehrman) to close debate on the amendment.

The vote was taken and the amendment was defeated 29 to 17.

M/S/P (Vaughn, Goldsmith) to second reading.

M/S/P (Fehrman, Duke) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal passed.

Hom emphasized the long consultation process that went into this proposal.

Phillips commended Marlon and the committee for their work on this difficult


Agenda Item #6 - Proposal for Revisions to the School Psychology Graduate


Alfred Wong, Chair of the Curriculum and Approval Committee, introduced

this consent item. On April 27, 1999, the Senate voted to send the proposal

for revisions to the School Psychology Graduate Program back to committee for

further review, clarification, and action.

The joint CRAC/Graduate Council committee reviewed the proposed changes to

the Master of Science Degree and passed them unanimously. The Graduate Council

met independently and voted unanimously to approve the offering of the Pupil

Personnel Services Credential through CEL. The Psychology department plans to

continue to offer the Pupil Personnel Services credential through the general

fund as a third year option for matriculated School Psychology Masters students.

Cherny asked if the program will be offered both ways to two different

groups of students.

Diane Harris answered yes.

M/S/P (Kelley, Fehrman) to second reading.

M/S/P (Fehrman, Kelley) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #7 - Proposed Policy on the Information Competence Requirement

Helen Goldsmith, Chair of the Academic Policies Committee, introduced

the proposed policy on the Basic Information Competence Requirement, which the

Academic Senate Library Advisory Committee has recommended to replace the existing

Library Requirement. This

policy will bring SFSU up to date, especially in light of the CSU system-wide

policy on basic information competence and recommendations coming from CUSP.

The library faculty takes

primary responsibility for introducing students to the basic information competencies

in this policy and relies on instructional faculty to enhance information competence

within the student's discipline. Goldsmith added that APC commends the hard

work of ASLAC and appreciates

their willingness to respond to APC's concerns by substantially revising the

proposal that you see now before you.

Turitz asked why the implementation date was Fall 2000. Goldsmith answered

that putting teeth in the deadline for completion requires that students be

notified while the shift in subject matter can begin sooner.

Caroline Harnly suggested a friendly amendment linking the date to the

work already going on with library faculty.

Sung Hu asked about bulletin rights. Goldsmith reiterated that library

faculty are already incorporating information competence into the current library

requirement, but it would not be until Fall 2000 that the new deadline for completion

would take effect.

Cherny suggested some language and legal interpretation, suggesting

that the sentence be modified to read "this policy will go into effect no later

than Fall 2000." Students always have the right to graduate according to the

bulletin as they enter or at the time they graduate.

Goldsmith accepted Cherny's language as a friendly amendment.

Marilyn Verhey added perspective on phrasing, suggesting that the library

faculty could shift the language to "information competence formerly known as

the library requirement."

Aaron asked for clarification on who would be responsible for disseminating

the new policy and on the process of evaluation. Goldsmith replied that the

Senate office would inform the campus and that the evaluation requirement was

there simply to make sure that the enforcement mechanism was effective.

M/S/P (Vaughn, M.A. Warren) to second reading.

JoAnn Craig asked if there is anything preventing us from requiring

this for our students now. Goldsmith replied that this is encouraged.

M/S/P (Vaughn, Fehrman) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #8 - Proposed Revisions to A.S. Policy #F80-64 A General Education

Program at San Francisco State University

Goldsmith, Chair of the Educational Policies Council, introduced these

revisions, which come out of the work of the General Education Council (GEC).

When the current General Education program was first approved in 1980, no specific

learning objectives for Segment I were included, and Segment I has never been

carefully reviewed until now. The proposed policy also ensures that this campus

would be in compliance with EO 595. EPC consulted with past and present chairs

of GEC as well as the former chair of the Segment I committee. These committees

put a

great deal of time and research into developing this proposal.

M/S/P (Vaughn, Kelley) to second reading.

Kelley asked if the committee discussed the level of these competencies,

suggesting that you might be able to satisfy those competencies with arithmetic

rather than mathematics. Judith

Ekstrand, chair of GEC, replied that the course objectives are designed

for the existing quantitative reasoning courses, and the courses that we have

in place have gone through scrutiny as to whether they are college level or


Gregory suggested that we notice in the written communication section

that language specifically states that students who complete Segment I should

attain writing skills suitable to upper division.

M/S/P (Bernstein, M.A. Warren) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #9 - Proposed Revisions to A.S. Policy #F84-124 Academic Affirmative

Action Policy Statement

Phillips introduced these revisions, which modify two sections of the

existing Academic Affirmative Action Policy Statement: "Responsibilities of

the Academic Affirmative Action Committee" and "The Procedures for and Implementation

of Academic Affirmative Action."

Helen Gillotte spoke as Chair of the Academic Affirmative Action Committee,

explaining that they wanted to change the section of the mandate that asks the

committee to investigate since the committee does not have the experience to

investigate and there are bodies on campus with the appropriate experience and

charge. We will accept complaints and send them to the appropriate body.

Phillips added that Executive Committee response was positive and unanimous.

Gregory asked whether the Affirmative Action Coordinator was the description

of a job held by either Joe Torres or Ken Monteiro, suggesting that this may

not be the correct title. Gillotte answered that the AA Coordinator is Joe Torres

and that the language will be cleared up.

Hom added that if the policy is being changed the job titles need to

be changed accordingly.

Cherny asked if the final two paragraphs, the committee justification,

were to be part of the policy. Phillips answered that it is not part of the


M/S/P (Kelley, Barnes) to second reading.

M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal passed unanimously.

Penelope Warren took a point of personal privilege to speak to Chair

Phillips on behalf of her Senate colleagues. You have generously served

the university community through many years on the Senate. You have done that

with insight, with hard work, with devotion to the principle of shared governance,

with wit, with true respect for collegiality, and with great good humor. And

so, as an expression of our appreciation for all you have done during your years

on the Senate

and especially in your three years as Senate chair, we present to you this

token of our appreciation.

The Senate applauded enthusiastically. Chair Phillips was presented with parting

gifts. He thanked the Senate.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty