San Francisco State University Academic Senate
Minutes of September 7, 1999
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Terrell at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present
Alvarez, Alvin; Avila, Guadalupe; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Boyle, Andrea; Concolino, Christopher; Consoli, Andres; Corrigan, Robert; Craig, JoAnn; Cullers, Susan; Duke, Jerry; Edwards, James; Eisman, Gerald; Fehrman, Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Ganji, Vijay; Gillotte, Helen; Goldsmith, Helen; Gonzales, Angela; Graham, Michael; Gregory, Jan; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung; Johnson, Dane; Johnson, Sharon; Kelley, James; La Belle, Thomas; Langbort, Carol; McKeon, Midori; Moallem, Minoo; OÃ±ate, Abdiel; Raggio, Marcia; Scoble, Don; Smith, Miriam; Strong, Rob; Swanson, Deborah; Tarakji, Ghassan; Terrell, M. Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Vaughn, Pamela; Wick, Jeanne; Wolfe, Bruce; Wong, Alfred; Yee, Darlene; Zoloth, Laurie.
Senate Members Absent
: Elia, John(exc.); Shapiro, Jerald(exc.); Harnly, Caroline(exc.); Aaron, Eunice(exc.); Jerris, Scott(exc.); Cancino, Herlinda; Hubler, Barbara; Collier, James.
Senate Interns Present
: G. West, D. Cunningham, D. Schafer, J. Kassiola
Announcements and Report
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for September 7, 1999
As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as printed.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for May 11, 1999
Two sets of minutes were considered (one for the "old" Senate and one for the "new" Senate). Both sets of minutes were approved after the correction of one typographical error pointed out by Darlene Yee.
Agenda Item #3 - Report from Vice President La Belle
La Belle updated the Senate on the relationship between the campus and the system in terms of reporting, summarizing how all of our jobs are affected by the issues of accountability and assessment. He explained the details of a chart that outlined the SFSU reporting agenda for
1999-2004. This agenda includes accountability reporting processes in the following areas: 1) quality of baccalaureate; 2) access; 3) progress to degree; 4) graduation; 5) areas of special state need (e.g., teacher credentials); 6) relations with K-12; 7) remediation; 8) facilities utilization;
9) university advancement; 10) quality of post-baccalaureate programs; 11) contributions to community and society; 12) institutional effectiveness; 13) campus-defined performance areas and indicators. The reporting agenda also includes several additional projects, each of which was explained in more detail by La Belle: 1) year round operations; 2) regional articulation; 3) enrollment planning and reporting; 4) outreach advisory committee; 5) WASC/CUSP.
La Belle concluded that we are entering a new era that changes all of our roles. The data will come from the kinds of work faculty do in classrooms and research and labs. It is important that
we take the high road, learning how to invest in these reporting processes to enhance professional development and student teaching.
Agenda Item #4 - Report from Pamela Vaughn, Chair, Programs for AsiloCampus 2000 Retreat
Vaughn reported on the plans for the upcoming Staff, Faculty, and Administrative Campus Retreat, scheduled for January 24-26, 1999, which are still in process. She encouraged Senators to fill out their surveys and to encourage others in their constituencies to do so, too. Vaughn summarized that this is to be a conference that is responsive to the interests and concerns of the faculty with a combination of workshops, plenary sessions, and an actual room for "chat" that is not of the cyber variety. There will also be time on the final day for various types of convocations, which is part of the primary goal of reinforcing community and shared purpose.
Agenda Item #5 - Report from Gerald Eisman, Director, Office of Community Service Learning
Eisman reported on Community Service Learning at SFSU and CSU more broadly, first going over some attached correspondence between the governor and the chancellor on a possible community service requirement for CSU students. He then summarized the April 1999 resolution on Service-Learning and Community Service, emphasizing the clause that reads, "the supporters of this resolution urge the Governor and Legislature of California to lend their full support to the creation of service-learning opportunities on each campus of the CSU." This makes an important distinction between creating opportunities and making obligations, and between community service learning versus just doing service.
Eisman also summarized the work of service learning on our campus, which is a leader in service learning within CSU and beyond. With President Corrigan's leadership, we have brought several
leaders in this field to our campus: Marsha Adler, the executive director of the America Reads Challenge; Elson Nash, director of the California Campus Compact; Tom Ehrlich, service-learning innovator. We have over 80 courses in 41 departments that utilize the pedagogy of
service-learning. Eisman listed three new activities this year: 1) the community collaborators project; 2) the mini-grant in international community service learning with students going
abroad to do service; 3) a citywide tutorial program. And he highlighted two critical issues: 1) ways to expand service learning to see how best it fits into the curriculum of the university; 2)
recognizing faculty who do service learning.
commented that there was no differentiation of student level in the chancellor's response nor in the resolution. She hopes that we as a faculty will be inclusive of both baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate students for community service learning initiatives.
asked about opportunities for students to do international work while staying in San Francisco, which is something Eisman is looking into.
added that students are not in favor of making service or service learning mandatory but are in favor of increasing opportunities.
Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Revision to Educational Policies Council Charge
Helen Goldsmith, chair of the Educational Policies Council (EPC),
consent item from the Executive Committee. She first reminded us that EPC consists of the combined membership of the Academic Policies Committee (APC) and the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee (CRAC). She explained that EPC has found itself in a dilemma over the past few years: additions to its charge were never incorporated into the formal charge of the committee, EPC did not always need to meet as often as required, and EPC members were not always able to provide the formal committee liaisons required by the EPC and other committees'
charges. The proposal today addresses all of these issues: EPC will be required to meet on an "as-needed" basis rather than once a semester; the proposed revised charge provides for
representation on the two councils that deal regularly and directly with undergraduate or graduate issues of immediate concern to EPC, APC, and CRAC: the General Education Council and the
Graduate Council. For the other committees, rather than providing for a permanent EPC representative, the proposed charge requires frequent and regular communication and consultation. The proposed charge also incorporates the charge given to EPC in AS Policy #S93-177 concerning program discontinuance. The prior EPC charge made no reference to
this responsibility because it was approved prior to the discontinuance policy.
M/S/P (Kelley, Gillotte)
to second reading.
M/S/P (Fehrman, Smith)
to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #7 - The Academic Senate - Orientation and Review
Terrell began the Academic Senate Orientation and Review by summarizing that the overall goal is to make the Senate less mysterious and more inclusive. She added that she feels very strongly about shared governance, and, while the Senate has functioned effectively as a vehicle for shared governance it can be more effective. This is especially important with so many initiatives coming from Long Beach and so many other important issues--FMI, temporary faculty, post tenure review, the academic calendar--that require careful deliberation and wide participation.
Academic Senate Secretary Dane Johnson
described the role of the Executive Committee, introducing its members, summarizing its processes, and emphasizing its varied role, especially its gatekeeping functions.
outlined the work of the Statewide Senate, emphasizing that it takes up the same kinds of issues as the SFSU Senate but at a system-wide level, adding as an example of a key question the following: when the chancellor speaks for CSU, who does he speak for?
addressed communicating with constituencies, reminding Senators to know who you represent, encouraging all to explore ways of reaching those various constituencies.
Terrell reminded us of both the responsibilities and benefits of being a senator, and introduced the Senate Standing Committee Chairs, each of whom described the work of their respective committees.
, chair of the Academic Policies Committee, summarized their work as involving a variety of academic policies like the following: timely declaration of major, College of Extended Learning degrees. APC will be looking at the timing of Spring Break as well as how one might put teeth into the JEPET policy.
Jerry Duke, chair of the Academic Program Review Committee (APRC),
outlined the work of reviewing each program every five to ten years.
Alfred Wong, chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee (CRAC),
summarized their primary responsibility as ensuring that university programs follow the criteria and procedures developed by APC.
Terrell added that many committees have additional members who are not part of the Senate.
Marlon Hom, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC),
summarized their work as dealing with faculty employment and status after employment is granted, which covers practically everything. He added that he wishes to make sure that whatever policy issues are handled are done with the widest contact and consultation with the faculty at large. He also underscored that many FAC issues are tied to the CBA.
Terrell added that FAC will be taking up the FMI policy with the Senate putting on a forum in order to have widespread input.
JoAnn Craig, chair of the Student Affairs Committee (SAC),
summarized their work as looking after the health and welfare of students, including issues around student life, advising and counseling, testing, and financial aid.
Terrell outlined how the Senate itself works, encouraging all Senators to become involved in Senate debate.
Susan Cullers, Assistant to the Senate Chair and Senate parliamentary consultant,
provided a primer on the most important parliamentary procedures. She also summarized some of the other resources at the Senate office and encouraged all to check out the Senate website.
Gregory raised two big issues tied to the ways in which the face of the professoriate is changing: representation of lecturers and faculty workload. Terrell reminded Senators that while participation can feel like a burden, the willingness to serve is appreciated.
The Senate was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Secretary to the Faculty