Minutes: September 9th, 2008

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

SEVEN HILLS CONFERENCE CENTER, NOB

HILL ROOM

2:00 - 5:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER: 2:12 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

1. Nominations

are being solicited for the Administrative Search Committee Pool, as described

by policy #S08-180. The deadline is Wednesday, September 17, 2008. Following

the deadline, the Academic Senate will conduct an approval vote of the faculty

who have been nominated. All nominees receiving at least 50% plus one of the

votes cast will be elected to the Pool.

2. The new Policy

on Timely Adoption of Textbooks for Students, #S08-249, is being implemented

this semester. October 1, 2008, is the deadline for textbook adoptions for

Spring 2009. This deadline provides the Disability Programs and Resource Center

with sufficient time to convert textbooks, course readers and electronic

reserve materials to accessible formats as needed by students with

disabilities.

3. The 2009 SF State Faculty and Staff Development Retreat

will be held on Thursday, January 22, 2009, at the Downtown Center. The theme

for the retreat is “Sustaining Excellent in the 21st Century: Building and

Refining Proud Traditions.”

4. Bernard Bowler, Commissioner of the Western Association

of Schools and Colleges (WASC), was introduced to the Senate. Mr. Bowler joined

WASC’s Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities in 2005 as

one of its public members, following a career as an executive at IBM for more

than thirty years. He continues his life long commitment to education by

bringing his financial expertise to several boards and charities.

5. The 2008-2009 Executive Committee was introduced to the

Senate: Andrea Boyle, member of the Academic Senate CSU; Wei Ming Dariotis,

chair of the Academic Policies Committee; Eileen Levy, chair of the Faculty

Affairs Committee; Bridget McCracken, chair of the Student Affairs Committee;

Lu Rehling, member at large; Barry Rothman, chair of the Strategic Issues

Committee; Mohammad Salama, member at large; Vinay Shrivastava, chair of the

Curriculum Review and Approval Committee; Jerald Shapiro, member of the

Academic Senate CSU; Dipendra Sinha, Vice-Chair; Ray Trautman, Secretary; Shawn

Whalen, Chair; and Darlene Yee-Melichar, member of the Academic Senate CSU.

6. Eugene

Chelberg, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs and Director of the Disability

Programs & Resource Center, has agreed to serve as parliamentarian of the

Senate. The Parliamentarian shall attend Senate meetings to advise the Chair on

procedural matters.

AGENDA ITEM #1—Approval of the Agenda for September 9,

2008

The agenda was approved by unanimous voice vote.

AGENDA ITEM #2—Approval of the Minutes for the May 13,

2008 Meeting of the 2008-2009 Senate.

The minutes were approved by unanimous voice vote.

AGENDA ITEM #3— Academic Senate Procedures Orientation

Chair Whalen provided an overview of Senate procedures,

including the following items:

• Although most Senate meetings will be called for 2
  
  p.m. to 4 p.m., Senators should keep the hours of 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.
  
  available for meetings, as it may become necessary to schedule some
  
  meetings past 4 p.m.
• A majority of the authorized membership (60 to 65
  
  total members) must be present to constitute a quorum. A quorum must be
  
  present at all times in order for the Academic Senate to conduct business.
  
  Senators are requested to arrive promptly at 2 p.m. and remain in
  
  attendance until adjournment.
• Voting on substantive motions (i.e., those involving
  
  university policy, those in which the Senate takes a position on an issue,
  
  and the like) takes place in two stages: first reading and second reading. This procedure is
  
  described in the Senate’s bylaws; it is not part of Robert’s Rules of
  
  Order.
• During the first reading a motion is still the
  
  property of the originating committee or other mover. Changes can be made,
  
  without the cumbersome process of amendments, etc. The first reading is
  
  thus more like a discussion than the deliberative process defined by Robert’s
  
  Rules of Order. The Chair will rarely rule any discussion out of order
  
  during first reading; broad discussion is both appropriate and encouraged.
  
  Amendments are not appropriate during first reading. It should be the rare
  
  occasion for a motion to be moved from first to second reading at one
  
  meeting, with the exception of motions from CRAC, when there is no
  
  indication that amendments will be proposed and invited guests are
  
  present; when external deadlines require quick action; and symbolic
  
  motions.
• Once an item is in second reading, it becomes the
  
  property of the Senate. Changes can be made only by amendment. “Friendly
  
  amendments” are improper. Whenever possible, amendments should be prepared
  
  in advance of the meeting, and handouts for Senators distributed at the
  
  meeting.
• Because motions become the Senate’s property, it is
  
  necessary to strike a balance between the Senate’s desire to “trust” the
  
  originating committee’s formulation and its responsibility to approve,
  
  amend or reject motions as it deems appropriate.
• All documents distributed in hard copy to Senators
  
  before meetings are available on the Senate’s web site.

AGENDA ITEM #4— Academic Senate Elections

Senators Danner, Hellenga, Ulasewicz, and Van Dam were

nominated for the 2008-2009 Senate Elections Committee. Senator Danner withdrew

his nomination. Senators Hellenga, Ulasewicz, and Van Dam were appointed by

acclamation.

Sudip Chattopadhyay, Associate Professor, Economics; Harvey

(Skip) Davis, Assistant Professor, Nursing; and Genie Stowers, Professor and

Chair, Public Administration, were nominated for the University Budget

Committee, to fill one 1-year and two 3-year terms. A motion to close

nominations passed by unanimous voice vote. Professors Chattopadhyay, Davis,

and Stowers were then appointed by acclamation.

AGENDA ITEM #5— Presentation on Western Association of

Schools and Colleges Accreditation Review (WASC), AVP of Academic Planning and

Educational Effectiveness, Linda Buckley—report to be heard no later than 2:45

p.m.

Dr. Buckley reported to the Senate on San Francisco State

University’s WASC Institutional Proposal; a copy of the proposal was included

as an attachment to the Senate’s agenda. Following her report, Dr. Buckley

responded to questions raised by several Senators.

AGENDA ITEM #6— Recommendation from the Executive

Committee: Proposed Resolution in Support of the WASC Proposal, First Reading

Senator Yee-Melichar, on behalf of the Executive Committee,

moved that the Senate adopt the Resolution in Support of San Francisco State

University’s Proposal to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.

Senator Yee-Melichar then described the resolution and the Executive

Committee’s reasons for supporting the resolution. Senator Rehling moved the

item to second reading. The motion to move to second reading was approved by

unanimous voice vote. The motion to adopt the resolution was then approved by

unanimous voice vote.

AGENDA ITEM#7—Recommendation from the Academic Policies

Committee: Proposed Resolution on Suspension of General Education Curriculum

Revisions, First Reading

Senator Dariotis, on behalf of the Academic Policies

Committee, moved that the Senate adopt the Resolution on Suspension of General

Education Curriculum Revisions. Discussion of this item included the following:

• The resolution needs to include a definition of
  
  “complete proposals.”
• The General Education Council wants more than “an
  
  idea”; they want completed proposals that do not need to be returned for
  
  any revisions.
• Proposals that were returned by the General Education
  
  Council last semester will be entertained, if they are submitted by
  
  October 15.
• The General Education Council will define “complete
  
  proposal”.

The speakers list was exhausted. The Chair urged Senators to

bring issues related to the resolution to APC’s attention before their next

meeting on September 16. The motion will return to the Senate in second reading

on September 23.

AGENDA ITEM#8—Recommendation from the Academic Policies

Committee: Proposed Revision to the Repeat of Courses Policy, First Reading

Senator Dariotis, on behalf of the Academic Policies

Committee, moved that the Senate adopt the Revision to the Repeat of Courses

Policy. Encouraged by the Chair’s solicitation of a broader discussion than the

one policy revision proposed by APC, the discussion of this item included the

following:

• SF State’s policy can be more restrictive than the
  
  CSU Executive Order on course repeats, but not less restrictive. The
  
  policy passed in Spring 2008, #S08-248, needs one revision, to come into
  
  compliance with a revised Executive Order.
• When will the restrictions on repeating a course
  
  begin? How will students, staff, and faculty be informed of the policy?
  
  What is the timeline to inform students when policies are approved, and
  
  what is the timeline to implement policies? (Answer: Normally, policy changes are implemented in
  
  the following academic year. There are ways other than bulletin statements
  
  to inform students.)
• Can department chairs and college deans grant
  
  exceptions, as allowed in the policy, which would be in conflict with the
  
  Executive Order’s restrictions?
• The exception clause in #S08-248 is greatly
  
  appreciated.
• How does the grade cut-off for repeating a course
  
  apply to graduate students, given the different grading policy for
  
  graduate students?
• How does a student’s bulletin year influence the
  
  interpretation of this policy? (Answer: “Bulletin rights” are historically
  
  tied to graduation requirements, not to policies.)
• How are CR/NC grades interpreted in the grade cut-off
  
  for repeating a course?

The speakers list was exhausted. The Chair urged Senators to

bring issues related to the course repeat policy to APC’s attention before

their next meeting on September 16. The motion will return to the Senate in

second reading on September 23.

AGENDA ITEM#9—Recommendation from the Executive

Committee: Proposed 2008- 2009 Standing Committee Assignments, First Reading

Senator Boyle, on behalf of the Executive Committee, moved

that the Senate approve the 2008-2009 Standing Committee Assignments. Several Senators

noted that their unit identifications were incorrect. All Senators were

encouraged to send typographical and identification changes to the Secretary.

Senator Behrooz moved the item to second reading. The motion to move to second

reading was approved by unanimous voice vote. The motion to adopt the standing

committee assignments was then approved by unanimous voice vote.

Chair Whalen declared the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.