Minutes: September 21st, 2004

Academic

Senate attendance:

CALL TO ORDER: 2:14 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Colvin

announced that the temporary suspension policy has been difficult to access

and so senators are to be furnished with a copy

Immediately following the senate session a

reception in honor of visiting CSU Senate chair McNeil would be held on the

fifth floor of the administration building, co-sponsored by the SFSU History

Department.

AGENDA

ITEM #1—APPROVAL of the  AGENDA for

September 21, 2004

Senator Chelberg

sought to amend item 9 on discontinuance to first reading only.

Chelberg, Abella m/s/p

AGENDA

ITEM #2—APPROVAL of the MINUTES for September 7, 2004

Chair Colvin

indicated to senators that minor corrections made to the minutes (typos,

misspellings and the like) should be handled by communication to the senate

office.

Senators Bernstein,

Gerson, Blando, Valdez,

Wen-Chao Li, all indicated their

presence at the last meeting, yet their names went unrecorded.

Senator Bernard-Powers corrected the

spelling of the wording “canon.”

Senator Axler

indicated that in item 10, he had stated “two or more” not “one to two” when

referring to student work as measured in hours done outside of class. He

asserted that he would never say “one or two.”

AGENDA

ITEM #3— REPORT from DAVID  MCNEIL,

CHAIR, ACADEMIC SENATE, CSU: LOWER DIVISION TRANSFER PATTERNS by MAJOR

PROJECT

Chair Colvin introduced CSU Senate

chair McNeil, who would speak to system-wide issues, specifically the lower

division transfer unit issue.

McNeil indicated his

pleasure at being on campus. The Statewide senate had done a lot of

inter-segmental work, and had worked with the chancellor and board of

trustees. He mentioned that the board had an opening for a faculty trustee,

and so urged senators to forward nominations so that selection could be made.

The final appointment would be made by the governor.

He indicated that the BOT had had spirited

discussion over the student fee increases, with no resolution, and that final

discussion and decisions had been postponed to the next, October meeting. The

senate sought to make student fees handle 25 percent of the actual cost of

education, and the chancellor and BOT now wanted students to shoulder 33

percent of the burden.

McNeil mentioned the long history of policy

regarding transfer units and the efficiency of transfer. Students, from the

legislature’s perspective, should ideally graduate without excessive units,

since that took places away from other students. Several programs and

campuses were now impacted, and this had become a bigger issue. Qualified

students were being turned away, and the problem of access had come to the

attention of the legislature. It seemed important to demonstrate to the

legislature that we are handling the issue ourselves. The problem was for

students starting in community college and then moving on to the CSU. The

current situation began with a program on the topic of lower division

transfers - pilot programs concerned with what classes lower division

students should take for a given major. Some majors obviously were more

complicated than others. Some experimentation had been undertaken at the

urging of Vice Chancellor David Spence to determine what could be done.

Legislation had been introduced to affect transfer practice and the CSU

reacted to the bills. The prospect of a state mandate had moved senate to

pass some principles of transfer, known informally as the 45-15 rule, which

called for 45 units done statewide, with up to 15 units on campus.  One goal was to preserve local campus

decisions, but to provide enough consistency through the system to make life

easier for transferring students. Anecdotal evidence suggested that many

students complete a lot of units at Community Collges that do not move over

to the CSU degree programs.

To preempt the legislative program, the

trustees, with senate consultation, instituted a change in title 5, the

section governing higher education. The highest priority transfer group would

more easily move through the system, and the reforms would facilitate

graduation. Fewer excess units would be done in community colleges. Title

five had indeed been changed, and more information was coming on

implementation. Shortly there would be orientations for faculty leadership

and convened Discipline groups would meet in December/January to formalize

recommendations. This process would likely require some careful work. These

curricula do not change our own local patterns, but overall it would be best

if community college students took as closely as possible what our own

students do. The program being administrated out of academic affairs from long beach, but faculty

would have the major role in overseeing curricular policy. A large faculty

effort would be required to do this, with some disciplines having an easier

time than others, but the need was very present to indicate to observers that

we are doing everything we can to provide smoother, better access.

He invited questions, and senators could

email him with further comments/discussions.

Senator Garcia

asked what process was employed to select the pilot programs, and whether

there were plans for expansion.

McNeil

indicated that expansion was envisioned. After the initial run more programs

would be included. He expressed hope that after bugs were worked out that

other majors could be added easily. Ideally the process should be done for

all majors.

State Senator Yee thanked McNeil for

his statewide senate work. She noted that SFSU

had already begun some of this work. One issue

was the longevity of some units, and how long a given course would still be

useful for transfer credits. She asked if the amount of time placed for

transfer from one campus to another would be taken into account.

McNeil responded that

that was interesting question, probably to be handled by local campus policy.

He commented that inter-campus communication was not always a strong suit of

the CSU. He thought that a positive spin-off of the process would be that we

as faculty would talk among ourselves in our disciplines to perhaps find more

commonality. An evolutionary change might result, something done consciously

as faculty.

Senator Palmer understood the process

and goal, but wondered why perhaps the most efficient process for resolution,

advising, was not mentioned. He asked for McNeil’s thoughts on this.

McNeil responded that he

thought this was one of the most controversial pieces of the puzzle, as

community colleges are often are woefully understaffed with respect to proper

advising. Some assurances have been offered up to provide adequate help, but

these were mostly at the level of web-based information and the like. He did

not envision face-to-face work to be handled by more hiring. Also,

articulation was the other major chore that needed to be addressed.

AGENDA

ITEM #4—REPORT from MARILYN VERHEY, DEAN of FACULTY AFFAIRS &

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT—FACULTY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AWARDS

Verhey sought to speak

to the funding for faculty development. Oct 1 was the deadline for major awards

and was governed by senate policy. She stated that the amount of funding

remained the same as the previous year. These awards were for probationary

faculty award as well as for some other internal grants. Workshops had been

set up to help prepare faculty for doing their proposals. There were some

upcoming initiatives that would help incorporate academic technology into

teaching, with some CET release time to allow faculty to infuse technology

into their teaching. A community learning initiative would benefit faculty

doing community service learning, with Jerry Eisman serving as the CSU

community service scholar. She urged senators to visit the FAC website for

updates and information.

AGENDA

ITEM #5—INFORMATION ITEM from the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: 

GERONTOLOGY MA

PROGRAM SUSPENSION

EPC chair Meredith outlined the

background of the suspension policy. EPC’s role was to insure that all

sections of the policy had been honored and all procedures properly followed.

EPC would forward completed recommendations to all participants and the

senate, who would not be able to actually vote on any suspension. In effect

the suspension document would be an information item. No further

recommendations would come from EPC.

The suspension document would be quite

different from a discontinuance proposal. Discontinuance could be started by

several different people and offices, but suspension must come from the

faculty alone. Gerontology was undertaking a one-year suspension.

Senator Abella spoke from his work

from the statewide senate’s perspective. He observed that heath and human

services, including gerontology, had been identified as one of most needed

programs around the state. Nowhere else could students get this sort of

education. He also spoke to budgetary issues. He asked if no faculty were

actually losing their positions, how the university would be saving money. It

seemed possible that faculty might in fact be even busier than before and

would need to work harder. He did not see how such an increase in faculty

workload would benefit students.

State Senator Gregory indicated that

she had been asked by other senators and guests to speak on their behalf.

Their concerns had also been expressed by Senator Abella. She did not see

this action as a very compelling way to deal with a budget issue. Her other

issue involved process. The first sentence in the suspension document offered

some historical context, but raised important procedural issues. EPC might

not be the problem but could easily be the solution. She urged a rapid

restoration to admissions, and saw this tying in with the missions of both

the CSU and the campus. She finished by observing that if we do not do a

proper job of training students, we would likely be making trouble for the

future.

Senator Steier observed that some

sniping was in order. As far as the notion of “self-originating suspension”

is concerned, he noted that if someone was holding a gun to one’s head, and

one “decided” to undergo a suspension, just how self-originating could this

proposal be? The APRC review of the program had been glowing in the previous

year, and he thought that gerontology was a subject that needed to be done at

a graduate level. The quality of the program ought to determine the program’s

future, and not just be a capitulation to external recommendations.

Senator Ulasewicz

spoke as a representative from EPC and wanted to remind senators that

nothing in the discussion could affect the suspension process. While good

questions were being posed, the senate could not affect the progress of

suspension.

State Senator Monteiro was sensitive

to the previous speaker’s point, but realized that some discussion was

needed. What mattered was what was best for gerontology for the future. In

highlighting the opening line, it revealed a piece outside the policy that

would be helpful in formal process. He asked if the proposal actually

explicitly requested a one-year suspension.

Senator Heiman

recognized that he might not have any actionable points, but it appeared to

him that there was a lack of farsightedness in the proposal. He thought that the

negative reputation of a suspension then has an effect on a program. The

outside world might not see suspension the same way the senate might. He

thought that reason given for suspension in the document was a flimsy one,

and that other departments and programs could engage in planning and review,

but this could be done without suspension. It felt odd to him that the whole

discussion had begun with the goal of discontinuance, with the budget as the

cause, but that no money figures were mentioned in the proposal.

Senator Meredith responded to Senator

Monteiro’s question that the proposal did indicate a time frame of one year,

but that it might take longer.

Senator Noble observed that the name “temporary

suspension” gave a negative view to an outsider, and that the wording needed

to be clarified for readers of the bulletin.

Senator Bernard-Powers stated that

given that the original cause of the proposal was budget-based, and that the

senate planned discussions of discontinuances, but now there had been changes

in budget picture, and yet still we were having a discussion of

discontinuance. She asked what was the relationship between the two. The

initial discussion was due to the budget but suspension was apparently now an

alternative to discontinuance.

Chair Colvin thought that many on

campus would agree to this observation.

Senator Gerson echoed Bernard-Powers,

and suggested that it seemed like the senate was called on to discuss

something that has already happened. It called into question the whole nature

of shared governance.

Senator Stowers shared this concern;

and suggested that perhaps proponents of the proposal could be asked to

address some of these issues.

Professor de Vries from Gerontology

indicated that there had been some ambivalence in the process, and outlined

that due to enrollment issues the program would not be able to accept new

students. The department would make the best of the situation, and would take

advantage of available resources and support to capitalize on this. He

likened it to making lemonade when served lemons. He thought the program had

support from the broader body and college to improve the program.

Vice-chair Williams thanked senators

for their comments. He reminded senators of the IAC program a few years

before that had also been discontinued. He did not think that this situation

could have been predicted, which led to a feeling of disempowerment. The

process was still open to a review of the suspension policy. However,

Gerontology has agreed to this plan on the table, and needed to be able to

move on.

Senator Hom noted that on page three,

section four, was a listing of courses to be cancelled, effectively removing

one FTE. When suspension ended, he asked if there would be resources to

reinstate the FTE.

State Senator Yee thanked senators and

the community for their support. She sought to bring to senators attention

that the department as faculty had proposed “temporary” suspension, section

two, item two, as a means of addressing workload and enrollment. She also

noted legislation that required addressing gerontology curriculum across

campus, and that faculty needed time to do this. Campus needed to report to Sacramento as well as

the chancellor’s office.

Senator Stowers spoke to the

suspension policy. During a suspension, a program admits no new students, but

in this case that implementation had been taken before any approval of

suspension. There were no new students anyway, but admissions should not be

suspended until approval was granted.

Senator Bernstein saw two issues: one

related to the suspension process, and the other that it was disturbing to

her that a program could be crippled before they had an opportunity to deal

with any problems.

Senator Langbort expressed some

questioning, from the committee, why this issue was coming up. As a proposal,

it did not fit in and her understanding was that there would be more

suspensions, perhaps as a way around discontinuances and having the senate

respond in any way.

Senator Wen-Chao

Li did not understand the policy, which suggested that suspended programs

were not slated for discontinuance.

Senator Steier posed one comment,

about the relationship between information noise and content. He thought that

the senate could speak to that. It seemed important to know the people who

might know better. He asked what the senate needed to do handle suspension

policy.

Chair Colvin expressed thanks for

thoughtful comments.

AGENDA

ITEM #6—RECOMMENDATION from the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:  ACADEMIC SENATE

MEETING

SCHEDULE, SPRING 2005

Chair Colvin indicated that this item

was returning in second reading from the previous meeting.

Pong m/p

Approved unanimously.

AGENDA

ITEM #7—RECOMMENDATION from the ACADEMIC POLICIES COMMITTEE:

GENERAL EDUCATION POLICY

CONSOLIDATION—a consent item: 1^st

& 2^nd readings

Meredith, Pong m/s/p

APC chair Meredith indicated that the

attachments on the GEC policy in the senators’ packets were only four pages

of a thirty-page document. The GEC had reviewed GE policy back to 1977, and

no policy changes had been made. This compilation and consolidation should

make GE policy in general much improved.

Senator Axler thought it a good idea

for this consolidation, but noted that item 3, on course registration,

suggested that a course could not both be a GE course and also give

preference to majors. It appeared to him that this meant the policy would not

allow traditional practice to take place.

Senator Abella

asked for a point of clarification, whether this was policy or just practice,

and observed that this was an issue that often came up for students.

Susan Shimanoff, the chair of GEC,

acknowledged that former GEC chair Seibel had been the driving force behind

the consolidation. Any amendments to the policy would need to match general

academic policy. GEC had sought to incorporate everything.

Senator Meredith asked where the full

document could be viewed.

Senate Assistant Sposito responded

that it had come forth initially as an attachment, but was currently also

available on the senate website.

Senator Steier

indicated that he would vote for this, but noted that increasing tinkering

and interpretation of GE policy made it harder and harder to match his own GE

class syllabi to GE policy.

Chelberg msp to

second reading.

Senator Axler proposed an amendment to

item C on page 3. He was aware of Senator Abella’s concerns about replacing

students, but the faculty needed to be able to drop students from their

courses. The discussion had occurred in other forums. 

Senator Axler

stated his proposed rewording as “a course must have enrollment and

registration policies that treat all students equally.”

Shimanoff thought

that this would make a substantial change to current GE policy.

Senator McKeon from the department of

foreign languages commented that her department had an entire range of GE

courses in a category of their own, languages other than English, with

tremendous enrollment, but with a maximum of 25 students per class. She

understood that Axler’s proposal did not differentiate between pre-enrolled

students and those already primed. It seemed important for courses to have

some prioritizing practice. If a course were not offered until a year later,

then majors would have to take it then, otherwise their graduation would be

delayed. When selecting students for a waiting list, it is important to take

into account differing situations. She would have major problems with the

proposed amendment.

State Senator Monteiro spoke in favor of the intent of the proposed changes,

but was against the amendment, and thought it best to discuss this later. It

appeared a substantial enough change to be best taken up later.

Senator Bernard-Powers echoed these

sentiments, and questioned how it would be possible to evaluate the equality

of student treatment.

Senator Axler appreciated the

comments. His intent was not to create more problems. The current policy was

potentially troublesome, and he recommended revision. He withdrew his

amendment.

Shimanoff wanted to

know whether this meant that the entire policy should come back later. [No.]

Senator Meredith wanted some assurance

from the GEC that they would look at this, which was given.

Senator Mak observed that the

registration system would not eliminate students with prerequisite issues.

State Senator Monteiro called the

question.

Senator Chelberg insisted, that as a

point of order, the seconding senator needed to agree to the withdrawal of

the amendment.

Seconding Senator Fehrman, while

sorely tempted to cause trouble, agreed to the withdrawal of the amendment.

State Senator Monteiro called the

question, Steier seconded.

The policy was unanimously approved.

AGENDA

ITEM #8—ELECTIONS

The senate Election committee collected nominations

and held elections with the following results:

Elected Jim Kohn and Karen

Johnson-Brennan to the Enrollment Management Committee, Zi Hengstler

to the GE Segment I committee, and Nini Yang and David Meredith

to the University Budget Committee.

AGENDA ITEM #9—RECOMMENDATION from the

EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL:

KINESIOLOGY BA PROGRAM DISCONTINUANCE

Meredith,

Yee m/s

EPC chair Meredith noted that the EPC was sending this recommendation forth

without dissent, and the Kinesiology department had a representative present

to answer any questions.

State Senator Gregory shared some

thoughts from the executive committee including the notion that none of us

wanted these discussions to be rushed or glossed over. In this case, while it

was widely recognized that the program might well want to proceed speedily,

but it felt best not to rush this.

State Senator Yee noted in reviewing the proposal that kinesiology had three

degrees, a BA, a BS, and an MA. The logic was then to move the degree

progression from a BS to an MS.  Yee

spoke to the central issues, and the need to focus limited resources towards

the future of the discipline, and strengthen the BS degree, eventually moving

the graduate degree from the MA to the MS.

Ulasewicz,

Abella m/s/p second reading.

The Kinesiology BA discontinuance was

unanimously approved

AGENDA ITEM # 10—ADJOURNMENT