Academic Senate Meeting

Minutes for May 12, 1998, Part I

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

Senate Members Present:

Aaron, Eunice; Barnes, Paul; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Cancino,

Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn; Cherny, Robert; Collier, James; Consoli, Andres; Craig,

JoAnn; Duke, Jerry; Eisman, Gerald; Fehrman, Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte; Flowers,

Will; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Gillotte, Helen; Graham, Michael; Graham, Minnie;

Hammerstrom, Gary; Hammett, Jennifer; Harnly, Caroline; Haw, Mary Ann; Hom,

Marlon; Homan, Bonnie; Houlberg, Rick; Hu, Sung; Johnson, Dane; Kelley, James;

La Belle, Thomas; Lee, Wanda; Mallare, Marie; Monteiro, Ken; Nicholson, Joel;

Oñate, Abdiel; Phillips, Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Rivas, Mario; Schweitzer,

Newby; Scoble, Don; Smith, Nina Jo; Swanson, Deborah; Tarakji, Ghassan; Thomson,

Lana; Turitz, Mitch; Verhey, Marilyn; Wade, Patricia; Warren, Mary Ann; Warren,

Penelope; Wong, Alfred; Wong, Yim Yu; Woo, George; Yee, Darlene.

Senate Members Absent: Zoloth-Dorfman, Laurie; Goldsmith, Helen(exc.);

Choo, Freddie; Blank, Mark; Lyles, Lois; Leitao, David(exc.); Corrigan, Robert(exc.);

Chang, Paul(exc.).

Senate Interns Present: Regina Sarafino

Guests: S. Taylor, H. Matson, D. Molberg, J. Kassiola, B. Goldstein,

G. Whitaker, K. Johnson, M. Penders, G. West, P. Saffold

Announcements and Report

Chair’s Report

  • In a written communication, President Corrigan advised that the Federal

    Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) will give SFSU the money to replace

    Verducci Hall. The current structure will be torn down and a low-rise

    state of the art student housing complex will be built on the site.

  • Phillips congratulated and acknowledged the appointment of Ken Monteiro

    as Dean of Human Relations.

  • Provost Tom La Belle expressed his appreciation for the collegial

    work of Chair Phillips, APC, and the entire Academic Senate this year.

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for Meeting of May 12, 1998

The Executive Committee corrected agenda item #12 to read "Time certain

to immediately follow Item #11" and inserted item #3b, a report from the Statewide

Academic Senators.

M/S/P (Gillotte, M.A. Warren) to approve the agenda as amended.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting of April 28, 1998

As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as


Agenda Item #3 - Resolution Honoring Faculty Trustee Bernard Goldstein

Phillips read the resolution honoring Faculty Trustee Bernard Goldstein.

M/S/P (Hammerstrom, M.A. Warren) to approve the resolution by acclamation.

Phillips also announced that Dr. Goldstein had been appointed the Acting Provost/Vice

President for Academic Affairs at Sonoma State University. Goldstein thanked

the Senate for the honor.

Phillips announced another omission from the agenda. He read a Resolution

Honoring Lana Thomson, Administrative Assistant to the SFSU Academic Senate.

M/S/P (Hammerstrom, Gillotte) to approve the resolution by acclamation.

Agenda Item #3b - Report from Statewide Academic Senators

Robert Cherny reported that the Academic Senators had received e-mail

concerning the agenda from the Statewide Academic Senate. He said that Chancellor

Reed spoke at the meeting and answered questions. Reed was asked his position

on the size of the BA major, whether he was committed to reducing the number

of units from 124 to 120, and what the implications were. Reed only responded

that he thought it was a good idea. He also thought that General Education should

take up about 1/3 of a 120 unit major and that there should be a seamless connection

between the CSU, community colleges, General Education, and the whole BA major.

Gary Hammerstrom reported that 14 items were considered at the meeting

and all but one passed unanimously. He offered to take questions about the items.

Hammerstrom also announced that the CSU Institute for Teaching and Learning

is seeking a new faculty director for a 2-3 year term. The current director,

Harold Goldwhite, is leaving in June. The position is open to any tenured faculty

member with experience in educational technology and curriculum development.

Anyone interested should contact Dr. Hammerstrom as Chair of the Search Committee.

Agenda Item #4 - Revision to the BS in Computer Science

CRAC Chair Darlene Yee introduced this item which sought two changes

in the degree. The proposed revision would address changes in the Computer Science

Accreditation Board requirements and changes in the community college mathematics

course sequence. In order to accomplish this, the units of calculus would be

reduced from 9 to 8 and a two-unit laboratory course would be added to the Data

Structures course. This would increase to 67 the total number of units for the

BS in Computer Science. Yee introduced Gerald Eisman, Chair of Computer

Science, as a resource.

M/S/P (Hammerstrom, Gillotte) to move to second reading.

M/S/P (Gillotte, Hom) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #5 - Revision to the Minor in Computer Science

CRAC Chair Darlene Yee introduced this item which sought to make the

minor consistent with the BS program. A two-unit laboratory course to accompany

the Data Structures course would be added and one three-unit upper division

elective course requirement would be reduced. This would decrease to 21 the

total units for the Minor in Computer Science. Yee introduced Gerald Eisman,

Chair of Computer Science, as a resource.

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

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

The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #6 - Revision to the BA in Dance

CRAC Chair Darlene Yee introduced this item which seeks to allow students

more electives and greater flexibility in course selection. Dance 433 would

be deleted and Music 120, which is comparable in course content, would replace

it. Dance 310 would be deleted from the core but retained as an elective course.

Yee introduced Jerry Duke, Chair of Dance, as a resource.

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

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

The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #7 - Revision to the Dance Minor

CRAC Chair Darlene Yee introduced this item to make the minor consistent

with the BA program. This proposal would replace Dance 433 with Music 120. Yee

introduced Jerry Duke, Chair of Dance, as a resource.

Helen Gillotte asked what happens to Dance 433? Duke responded the music

course is basically the same as the dance course it replaces. The Music faculty

will teach the theory part of the course and the Dance faculty will teach the

studio work for dance students. Gillotte asked if it makes a difference that

a 100 level course would replace a 400 level course. Duke responded no.

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

M/S/P (Houlberg, Gillotte) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #8 - Policy on Timely Declaration of Major

Sung Hu, APC member, introduced this new policy. The policy would require

a student who enters the university as a freshman or lower division transfer

student to declare a major after completing 70 units. A student who enters the

university as an upper division transfer student would be required to declare

a major by the end of the second semester at SFSU. The intent of the policy

is to put some pressure on students to have a well-planned curriculum in order

to proceed towards graduation in a timely manner. This would also give departments

a more realistic identification of majors so they could advise students as early

as possible, as well as facilitate department planning. APC surveyed department

chairs by e-mail. Of the 31 department chairs who responded, 29 were strongly

in favor of the policy. Hu introduced Mike Penders, Registrar, as a resource.

Rick Houlberg asked about students who do not have a declared major

but are trying to access the major by taking the prerequisites. He was concerned

that these students would lose their registration priority and asked if consideration

had been given to them. Hu responded that the rationale for the proposed policy

states that some students cannot declare a major until they have completed certain

department prerequisites. These students can appeal to the Dean of Undergraduate

Studies through the appeals process. Houlberg replied that if students did not

know to appeal ahead of time, they would lose their registration time. Until

that issue was addressed, he would have to vote no on the policy. Hu replied

that all affected students would receive a warning letter from the Registrar's

Office and could initiate an appeal before they lose their registration priority.

Phillips asked that when there is a cluster of students who do not fit

this requirement, could the program submit an appeal for that group of students

rather than having each student submit an individual appeal. He felt that requiring

each student to submit an appeal would essentially penalize the student for

a programmatic system that has a programmatic exception to the policy.

Penny Warren asked how complicated the appeal process would be and could

another approach be taken.

Mario Rivas felt that it was a good policy and the university does want

to move students along towards declaring a major. However, he felt that there

needs to be a process to support faculty in assisting students to make a choice

that has been thought through rather than simply to keep their registration

priority. He questioned whether it should be included in the policy that a student

who has received a warning letter would be required to seek advising prior to

declaring a major. A faculty advisor in the appropriate department should review

with the student and ensure the student's choice has been carefully considered.

Rivas suggested that the implementation of the policy be deferred until Fall

1999 so that the information could be included in the Bulletin, Advising Day

materials, admissions materials, and communications with feeder colleges. He

also suggested, and was willing to work on, developing something for the Web

to assist faculty and students in making appropriate choices in this area.

Houlberg said that the policy as written makes no provision for the 100-200

students in his department that will have to go through another piece of paperwork.

He recommended voting against the policy unless there is a provision to deal

with those students.

George Woo said that he was against the proposal since he failed to

see how taking away the student's registration priority would help accomplish

the stated purposes in the policy rationale. He felt that the way to help students

accomplish those items was to make sure the student talks to somebody in the

department. He asked if APC could describe the committee discussion about how

the punishment addresses the problem.

Cherny said that he thought this was a good policy even though it only

affects 515 students out of 25,000. He felt that students need advising on a

regular basis from their major department and that they need to declare a major

in order to know which department to see. Since the form for declaring a major

must be signed by the Department Chair, each department can establish an appropriate

advising policy before the Chair signs the form. He felt this would address

Rivas' issues about advising. He also felt that Houlberg's issues should be

addressed within that department. Cherny felt that the policy benefits the University

as a whole and that he would vote for it.

La Belle endorsed Cherny's comments. He said that advising was one of

a few recommendations from CUSP that all committee members felt was a high priority

for implementation. Since SFSU places a great value on access and is known for

giving students second chances, the University waits until the students figure

out what classes they want to take and then attempts to provide access. He felt

that was related to advising. He further observed that since student outcomes

assessment is so important, departments need to find out who their students

are early in the process so they can design experiences for those students in

order to prepare them. La Belle felt that these three reasons suggested that

relationships between students and faculty need to be enhanced, communication

needs to increase, and students need advice on the steps to complete their degree.

He recognized the problem that Houlberg described but didn't know whether those

students should be given a blanket exception or whether that particular curriculum

should be evaluated in terms of accepting students into the program. La Belle

felt that the general thrust was to build closer relationships, give students

more attention, be more user-friendly, utilize resources better, and plan the

experiences needed in order for students to be successful in achieving the departmental

goals and their own goals.

Will Flowers said that the Career Center has been looking at undeclared

majors and is developing a comprehensive program looking at undeclared major

students. This would be a support system for the students and he felt that it

could also support the proposed policy. Flowers supported the proposed policy

but did not like the disciplinary action with the appeals.

Marie Mallare felt that early declaration of a major has advantages

but that the policy needs to be looked at closely. She asked why newcomers should

be penalized for not declaring a major. She suggested that academic advising

should be addressed in the policy since that is in the forefront of how students

find direction in their education. Mallare also felt that losing registration

priority was a penalty and did not fit in with the rest of the policy. Since

this is a commuter university, students lose timelines and deadlines. She felt

that giving students multiple chances is what separates SFSU from Ivy League


Wanda Lee said that, as a former college counselor, she really liked

the idea of connecting students to majors more quickly and getting them into

the advising process. She responded negatively to the sanctions of losing registration

priority. She suggested that students who fail to comply with this policy or

fail to see an advisor lose their registration priority. Lee felt this would

get students talking to advisors.

Houlberg explained that in his department the issue is not that students don't

have a major and are wandering around without guidance. Because of demand, the

department was forced to be impacted at the University level and forced to implement

prerequisites. The students know their major and receive advising but simply

do not have the major status. He felt that those people will get caught by the

policy. Additionally, this policy deals with registration, not advising.

Paul Barnes asked if it was possible to defer the policy until the next

academic year so that the rough spots could be worked out. He suggested that

Houlberg and Susan Taylor might be involved in that process.

Hu said that clearly the policy was intended for students who were wandering

around not knowing what they want to do, not for the students Houlberg described.

He said that, personally, he did not have any objection to a department having

a wholesale list of waivers approved for those students that, for all practical

purposes, do have a major and are receiving advising.

Jennifer Hammett reiterated that she thought there was a peculiar mismatch

between the goals that everyone agreed are laudable and the means by which the

policy would achieve those goals. She also wondered about the cost of implementing

the policy, to send out warnings, screen for compliance, and process appeals.

She said that her department, Cinema, has a large number of students who have

not been able to declare a major because they have not met the prerequisites.

Those students would have to be treated outside the policy and would produce

further costs and paperwork. She questioned if the policy was worth it given

the poor fit between goals and means and the costs involved.

Susan Taylor said that the process does provide for an appeal and that

she would be the appealee. She assured the Senate that she would be happy to

work with BECA, Cinema, and any other departments or programs. With the kind

of assurances that Senator Houlberg provided, she felt it would be easy to set

up a process to deal with departments in that situation. Nevertheless, she felt

it would be useful and appropriate to get students who have not declared a major

into an advising situation. Taylor said they were moving forward with the Senate

policy concerning the pivotal points of advising and one of those points is

choosing a major. Taylor said she would be happy to work with those students

and make sure they were directed to an appropriate department.

Marian Bernstein felt that the section concerning appeals could be strengthened

if it stated that in special cases, students or faculty may appeal to the Dean

of Undergraduate Studies. That would make it easy for a Department Chair or

faculty member to group a particular number of students together. APC thought

hard about the misfit between changing the student's registration level and

declaring a major, and this was one way to let students know that it is a serious


Penders said that the policy would be tricky to implement, but the Registrar's

Office could do it. If certain groups of students were identified, they could

be exempted from the policy. He felt that might address some of Houlberg's concerns.

While Penders appreciated the senators' comments about expense, he still felt

it was doable.

Cherny asked if the policy was passed at this meeting, when would it be effective?

Hu responded that it is to be effective in Fall 1999. Cherny then asked if the

policy did not pass until the Fall semester, would it present any problems still

going into effect Fall 1999? Gail Whitaker replied that there would be

no problem.

M/S/P (Hammerstrom, Houlberg) to refer the policy to committee.

Phillips said that he felt there was no reason a revised policy couldn't be

back before the Senate in September or early October.

Agenda Item #9 - Status Report from the Office of Community Service Learning

Gerald Eisman, member of the Community Service Learning Steering Committee,

began by introducing Kathy Johnson, Director of the Office of Community

Service Learning (OCSL). He said that involvement in CSL has been the most personally

satisfying activity for him and many other faculty members. What CSL has been

and continues to be is a movement from the bottom up - an initiative by faculty,

students, and staff dedicated to the marriage of theory to the practice of classroom

to the community. The goal of CSL is to create a series of incentives and supports

for faculty to incorporate CSL into the undergraduate curriculum so that over

a five-year period almost all undergraduates would have the opportunity to take

a CSL course.

For that purpose, CSL received a multi-year award from the Chancellor's Office

for $100,000 each year for three years to fund faculty development of new CSL

courses. On April 1, CSL awarded 25 additional developmental grants to faculty

for next year. Combined with the previous 38 awards, they have now made 63 awards

overall. These awards support a total of 76 faculty representing 40 departments

across all eight colleges. 93 CSL courses are now in place. 15 courses are within

the GE program, 25 are within majors, and a few meet U.S. History or Government

requirements. Eisman offered examples of CSL participation in the Departments

of Psychology, Accounting, Dance, La Raza Studies, Nursing, English, and Chemistry.

So far, $312,000 has been allocated and 5500 students have opportunities to

take CSL courses each year. Eisman offered kudos to Kathy, the OCSL staff, the

17 faculty members on the Steering Committee, and all faculty involved in the

project. Beyond developing curriculum, OCSL has created a series of reference

materials including a student handbook on CSL, readings and resources for student

assistants and faculty, and tools for effective volunteer management.

Next year, the third round of funding will kick off new courses in every college.

OCSL will launch the Community Connections Database - an on-line resource of

placement opportunities for students. The Database will be part of a website

highlighting courses, concepts, best practices, and linkages to other universities.

The OCSL will also be integrating CSL into other ongoing campus activities to

give it a central place at SFSU.

Eisman spoke about three CSL-related issues that might percolate up to the

Senate floor for policy consideration. First is a proposal to General Education

to get CSL courses into the Segment III program. Currently, there are 15 GE

courses that have CSL components, but they are looking for clusters in which

a CSL course could be a culminating experience for the cluster. They have already

contacted several cluster coordinators about this possibility. Second, they

are working on a common evaluation instrument for students who are placed in

the community. There may be some policy impact on the distribution of such a

form. Third, as part of next year's Celebration of Service, they proposed to

the Faculty Affairs Committee that the RTP guidelines be revised to include

guidelines for evaluating and recognizing faculty service.

Thus, there are issues involving curriculum, students, and faculty that they

hope to bring to the Senate as CSL moves forward. He invited all faculty to

bring ideas on how service activities could be incorporated into the curriculum.

Eisman said that CSL is a movement that matches the mission and character of

SFSU and as with most movements, they are looking for new recruits.

Agenda Item #10 - Report from Academic Program Review Committee Chair Jerry


During the 1997-98 academic year, APRC sent completed reports to the Associate

Vice President of Academic Program Development, Gail Whitaker, for Physical

Therapy, Counseling, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Black Studies, Dance, Nursing,

La Raza Studies, Health Education, and Holistic Health. Duke said that APRC

is charged with synthesizing all levels of program review to clarify and outline

all concerns and recommendations. The APRC report is the primary instrument

used by the Program Review office in developing a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) with the department or program. This MOU becomes the tool of guidance

to the department/program for the next review cycle.

During a review, committee members studied the documents developed in the program

review process and sent to the department chair/program head and Dean a list

of concerns and/or questions as a guide for discussion. Those documents included

the self-study, the external review report, the department and Dean's response

to the external review report, and, in the case of interdisciplinary programs,

the University Interdisciplinary Council's report. If the program was accredited,

APRC only studied the department summary of the most recent accreditation review.

The committee then met with the department chair/program head, the Dean, and

interested faculty. APRC developed a report which was sent to Whitaker. Additionally,

the APRC chair, or an APRC representative, along with Faculty Coordinator for

Program Review, Jim Bebee, attended entrance and exit meetings with the external

reviewers for Health Education, Holistic Health, Geosciences, Ethnic Studies,

Technical and Professional Writing, and Kinesiology. A meeting is scheduled

with Women Studies before the end of the spring semester.

Duke felt that the assistance and guidance of AVP Whitaker and Professor Bebee

as ad hoc members of the committee had been exceptionally helpful. Members of

APRC included Caroline Harnly, Library; David Leitao, Classics; Michael Graham,

Political Science; Marcia Raggio, Communicative Disorders; Deborah Swanson,

English; Marilyn Verhey, Nursing; and Jerry Duke, Dance. Duke felt

that the committee's work was exemplary and that the members deserved applause.

The program review booklet, which has been in use for the last two years, proved

to be an excellent guide, but Duke felt that it should be continually evaluated

by the departments and programs using it. He requested input from senators about

the booklet. Duke reported that APRC's work has intensified during the last

two years with the increasing emphasis Provost La Belle has placed on the importance

of the MOU in long-term planning. With the assignment of AVP Whitaker to the

Program Review last year, that pace increased. During the past year, committee

members spent from one to four hours outside the committee meetings on each

report. APRC is looking for ways to expedite the process.

As guidelines are developing for the upcoming fifth cycle of review, Duke questioned

if there will be enough committee time to do a proper evaluation of the materials.

He said that one solution would be to add another committee or to double the

membership on the current committee and divide it into two parts. He suggested

that a less cumbersome solution might be to more clearly define and detail the

committee's tasks. For example, APRC is aware that it has no business dealing

with requests for new resources such as additional faculty, staff, and space,

but most self-study documents are filled with justifications for more resources.

Duke felt that APRC should be dealing more with how a program is operating with

the resources they have. He also recommended that accredited programs should

be handled differently. Some accreditation reports may also deal with campus

issues and APRC could minimize its involvement in unrelated areas. He welcomed

any and all suggestions.

Phillips acknowledged departing Vice Chair Rick Houlberg as being a

part of Phillips' conscience in addition to his defined role as Vice Chair.

Houlberg was an absolute defender of shared governance and consultation as well

as a voice for student inclusion in the decision-making process. Phillips wished

him well in his new role on the University Promotions Committee. He presented

Houlberg with a SFSU sweat suit and tie. Houlberg thanked Phillips and the Senate.

Phillips also acknowledged departing Secretary Bonnie Homan as being

a major voice for lecturers and a continual voice of common sense on the Executive

Committee. He further described Homan as the indisputable magician and jester

of the Executive Committee, ensuring that things were not taken too seriously.

Phillips presented Homan with flowers and a stunning kaleidoscope. Homan thanked

Phillips and the Senate.

Respectfully submitted,

Bonnie Homan

Secretary to the Faculty