of September 21, 2004

Senate attendance:

Abella, David

Gerson, Deborah

Noble, Nancy

Alvarez, Alvin

Gonzales, Dan

Palmer, Pete

Avila, Guadalupe

Gonzalez, Marty

Pong, Wenshen

Axler, Sheldon

Gregory, Jan

Ritter, Michael

Bartscher, Patricia

Guerrero, Jaimes

Scoble, Don

Bernard-Powers, Jane

Heiman, Bruce

Smith, Brett

Bernstein, Marian

Hom, Marlon

Steier, Saul

Blando, John

Kim, John

Stowers, Genie

Boyle, Andrea

Klingenberg, Larry

Suzuki, Dean

Chelberg, Gene

Klironomos, Martha

Ulasewicz, Connie

Chen, Yu Charn

Li, Wen-Chao

Van Dam, Mary Ann

Colvin, Caran

Liou, Shy-Shenq

Velez, Pauline

Contreras, A. Reynaldo

Mak, Brenda

Williams, Robert

Daley, Yvonne

Midori, McKeon

Yang, Nini

Fehrman, Kenneth

Meredith, David

Yee, Darlene

Fielden, Ned

Monteiro, Ken

Garcia, Oswaldo

Morishita, Leroy

Gemello, John

Nichols, Amy

Absences:  Bohannon, Tara (exc), Carrington, Christopher,
Corrigan, Robert (exc), Edwards, James, Fung, Robert (exc),
Irvine, Patricia (exc), Langbort, Carol (exc), Todorov, Jassen,

Guests: Aimee
Barnes, Paul Breen, Ann Hallum, Brian DeVries, Richard Giardina, Helen
Goldsmith, Jaih McReynolds, Anna Pelhan, Nancy Rabolt, Susan Shimanoff, Bob
Spina, Marilyn Verhey

CALL TO ORDER: 2:14 p.m.



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

September 21, 2004

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

Chelberg, Abella m/s/p

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


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.”


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.

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.


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.



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

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

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
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

Chair Colvin expressed thanks for
thoughtful comments.



Chair Colvin indicated that this item
was returning in second reading from the previous meeting.

Pong m/p

Approved unanimously.


—a consent item: 1st
& 2nd 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

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

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.


The senate Election committee collected nominations
and held elections with the following results:

Elected Jim Kohn and Karen
to the Enrollment Management Committee, Zi Hengstler
to the GE Segment I committee, and Nini Yang and David Meredith
to the University Budget Committee.



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.

Abella m/s/p second reading.

The Kinesiology BA discontinuance was
unanimously approved