Minutes: September 7th, 2010



TUESDAY, September 7, 2010


2:00 - 5:00 p.m.



Hanley, Lawrence

Pong, Wenshen

Arnoldy, Tod

Hellman, David

Ozluk, Ozgur

Avani, Nathan


Runquist, Beth

Azadpur, Mohammad

Holzman, Barbara

Rosegard, Erik


Hood, Pamela

Rosser, Sue V.

Beatty, Brian

Hussain, Mahmood

Rothman, Barry

Boyle, Andrea

Hyun, Helen

Rourke, David

Bugayong, Arlene

Flatt, Sylvia

Runquist, Beth

Burke, Adam

Flores, Oscar

Sinha, Dipendra

Chen, Yu-Charn

Jeung, Russell

Sherwin, Paul

Collins, Robert

Jin, Leigh

Steier, Saul

Danner, Don

Lau, Jenny

Stowers, Genie

Dariotis, Wei

Levy, Eileen

Taylor, Don

Davis, Harvey “Skip”

Li, Wen-Chao

Trautman, Ray

Getz, Trevor

Linder, Martin

Vaughn, Pamela

Ginwala, Cyrus

Lopez, Eurania

Wagner, Venise

Girouard, Shirley

Moody, Laura

Whalen, Shawn


Morishita, Leroy

Yee, Darlene

Absences:; Davila, Brigitte (abs); Cheung, Yitwah
(on leave); Corrigan, Robert (exc); Gubeladze, Joseph (exc);McCracken,
Bridget (exc); Nguyen, Flora (abs)

Guests: Jo Volkert, Michelle Wolf, Alex Katz, Gail
Evans, Helen Goldsmith, Jeannie Cheng, Raul Amaya, Ann Hallum, Nancy Hayes,
Wanda Lee, Teresa Carrillo, Judi Strebel, Linda Buckley, Gene Chelberg

2:10 p.m.

The Open Floor Period
provides an informal opportunity for faculty members to raise questions or make
comments directed to Senate officers or to university administrators. Please arrive promptly at 2:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER: 2:10 p.m.


AGENDA ITEM #1—Approval of the Agenda for September 7, 2010

The Agenda was approved
without objection.

AGENDA ITEM #2—Academic Senate Elections for one faculty
representative to serve a three-year term (2010-2013) on the Enrollment
Management Committee

Chair Whalen announced
that Senator Boyle is willing to continue as faculty representative for the
Enrollment Management Committee. Chair Whalen opened floor nominations. Senator
Wagner moved the close nominations, seconded by Senator Lopez. Senator Boyle
was elected as Academic Senate faculty representative to the Enrollment
Management Committee by unanimous consent.

AGENDA ITEM #3—Report from Linda Buckley, AVP of Academic
Planning and Educational Effectiveness: WASC Update

Dr. Buckley and
subcommittee chairs delivered a detailed report on Phase II of the WASC review
and findings. The Power Point and
visit dates will be made available on the WASC website.

AGENDA ITEM #4—Recommendation from the Academic Senate
Executive Committee: Proposed Approval
of the Standing Committee Assignments, 1st Reading

Chair Whalen recognized
Senator Rothman to move the Proposed Standing Committee Assignments. Senator
Rothman moved the Standing Committee Assignments for 2010-2011. Senator Rosegard
motioned to move the item to Second Reading. Senator Stowers motioned for an
Amendment that Senator Beatty be placed on the Curriculum Review and Approval
Committee (CRAC) and Senator Nguyen on SAC (the Student Affairs Committee). The
motion carried on a voice vote.
Standing Committee Assignments were approved.

AGENDA ITEM #5—Recommendation from the Academic Senate
Executive Committee: Proposed Resolution
in Honor of Kim Foreman, in Memoriam, 1st Reading

Chair Whalen recognized
Senator Beatty move the proposed Resolution in Honor of Kim Foreman. Senator
Beatty presented the resolution. The resolution was approved unanimously.

AGENDA ITEM #6—Recommendation from the Academic Senate
Executive Committee: Proposed Resolution
in Honor of Paul Longmore, in Memoriam, 1st Reading

Chair Whalen recognized
Senator Getz to move the proposed Resolution in Honor of Paul Longmore. Senator
Getz presented the resolution. The resolution was approved unanimously.

AGENDA ITEM #7—Recommendation from the Academic Policy
Committee: Proposed Revisions to
the Administrative Review Policy, 1st Reading

Chair Whalen recognized
Senator Getz. The senator motioned for the adoption of a new evaluation scale
in the policy. Senator Burke asked for clarification of the scale. The
speaker’s list was exhausted and the item will return in Second Reading.

AGENDA ITEM #8—Recommendation from the Curriculum Review &
Approval Committee: Proposed Name
Change of the Raza Studies Major and Minor Programs, 1st Reading—Proposal
to be heard no later than 3:30p.m.

Chair Whalen recognized
Senator Stowers. Senator Stowers presented the
proposed name change of RAZA Studies to Latino/a Studies. Senator Stowers
explained that this recommendation reflects a need to change the names of their
major and minor. The new proposed prefix would be LTNS. It was moved and
seconded to send the item to Second Reading. The motion carried and the item
was moved to Second Reading. The main motion was passed unanimously.

AGENDA ITEM #9—Recommendation from the Curriculum Review &
Approval Committee: Proposal to Rescind the Policy #S87-150 Policy for University-wide scholastic
Honorary Societies, consent item

This proposal was brought
forward as a Consent Item. Chair Whalen explained procedure. The proposal was adopted
by Unanimous Consent.

AGENDA ITEM #10—Report from Robert Cherny, Professor/Council
Member: Update on the University
Planning Advisory Council (UPAC)

Chair Whalen recognized
Robert Cherny, Professor of History/UPAC Member. Dr. Cherny explained the UPAC
charge, how the council was created, the origins of the proposals that lent to
the creation of the recently distributed six-college structure proposals, the
cost savings associated with the proposals, and addressed senator concerns.

Sample Questions Raised on the
Senate Floor:

What was the rationale for placing Journalism in
the College of Creative Arts?

To what extent does Academic Senate Policies
address reorganization?

What was the rationale behind placing the
Department of Foreign Languages in the College of Ethnic Studies?

What was the rationale for deciding on a six
college structure? How are the associated suggestions being handled?

Are the models prioritized?

To what extent is this reorganization enhancing
university and missions? To what extent is self-determination a part of this

What is the logic behind the college structures?

Are there best practices for reorganization?

Has there been thought of future assessment and
evaluation of these changes after three to five years?

Had development been consulted over the
potential loss of funds associated with departments being moved?

How do we move from this negative perception of
UPAC towards a more collective and constructive conversation?

How is this reorganization going to affect faculty
understandings of the SF State mission?

What is the time frame for action?

AGENDA ITEM #11—Academic Senate Adjourned—4:35p.m.

Meeting Date (Archive)