Minutes: October 4th, 2005

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING
MINUTES for OCTOBER 4, 2005

CALLED TO ORDER:
2:15 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Colvin
announced:

·
A joint meeting of the
CSU Academic Senate Chairs and Campus Provosts will be held on October 5^th

·
Distribution of a memo
regarding GE policy revision to Senators

·
The availability of Resident
Director opportunities For more information contact the OIP

·
The Writing Taskforce
report online and available for review and comment by October 14, 2005

AGENDA ITEM
1-APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR October 4, 2005

Approved by general
consent.

AGENDA ITEM
2-APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE MEETING ON September 20, 2005

Approved by general
consent.

AGENDA ITEM
3-REPORT FROM YENBO WU and JENNIFER WISSINK, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS: INTERNATIONAL
EDUCATION WEEK

Chair Colvin
introduced Yenbo Wu and Jennifer Wissink from the Office of International
Programs (OIP) who reported on SFSU’s observance of International Education
Week, November 14-18.  Senators are invited to submit event proposals. 
Proposal forms are available online at the OIP Web site.  Proposals will be
reviewed starting October 7.

AGENDA ITEM
4-CSU FACULTY TRUSTEE CRAIG SMITH

Chair Colvin
introduced CSU Faculty Trustee Smith, welcoming him to the Senate.  Faculty
Trustee Smith addressed the body on a variety of issues before the CSU Board of
Trustees.

AGENDA ITEM
5-RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE-

RESOLUTION
COMMENDING THE AGREEMENT ON A GSI (GENERAL SALARY INCREASE)—1st and 2nd
Readings

Gregory, Velez m/s/p

Senator Gregory
introduced the resolution.  The resolution was passed without dissent. 

AGENDA ITEM
6-RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CURRICULUM REVIEW and APPROVAL COMMITTEE-PROPOSED
MINOR IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING—1st and 2nd Readings

Nichols, Ritter m/s/p

CRAC Chair Nichols provided
an overview of the four proposed minors in engineering.  She also introduced Director
Shy-Shenq Liou and Associate Dean Sung Hu to comment and take questions on the
proposals.

Senator Pong moved
the proposal to second reading.  The motion was seconded by Senator Gregory. 
The proposal moved to second reading without objection.

Senator Gregory
moved to close debate.  Senator Yee seconded the motion.  Debate was closed
without objection.

The proposal was
approved without dissent. 

AGENDA ITEM 7-RECOMMENDATION
FROM THE CURRICULUM REVIEW and APPROVAL COMMITTEE-PROPOSED MINOR IN ELECTRICAL
ENGINEERING—-1st and 2nd Readings

Nichols, Velez m/s/p

CRAC Chair Nichols
introduced the proposal.  Senators Kohn and Gregory pointed out a few minor
errors in the proposal.  Chair Colvin indicated that the corrections would be
made. 

Senator Pong moved
to close debate.  Senator Daley seconded the motion.  Debate was closed without
objection.

The proposal was
approved without dissent.

AGENDA ITEM
8-RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CURRICULUM REVIEW and APPROVAL COMMITTEE-PROPOSED
MINOR IN CIVIL ENGINEERING—1st and 2nd Readings

Nichols, Velez m/s/p

CRAC Chair Nichols
introduced the proposal. 

The proposal was
approved without dissent.

AGENDA ITEM
9-RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CURRICULUM REVIEW and APPROVAL COMMITTEE-PROPOSED
MINOR IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING—1st and 2nd Readings

Nichols, Steier m/s/p

CRAC Chair Nichols
introduced the proposal.  Senator Axler noted the addition of two new faculty
that could be added to the list of faculty in the proposal. 

The proposal was
approved without dissent.

AGENDA ITEM
10-RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE-PROPOSED
GUIDELINES FOR THE 6th CYCLE OF ACADEMIC ROGRAM REVIEW—1st READING

Stowers, Steier m/s

Chair Colvin
suggested a structure to guide the discussion.  

APRC Chair Stowers
introduced the recommendation.   

Following is a
summary of the issues discussed:

Section 1 - Section C does not seem to include the
language regarding “special circumstances”; the meaning of differential funding
needs to be clarified; graduate faculty, how are they identified and rewarded;
who determines the funding formula; how does the focus on graduate studies
impact the proposed focus on the teaching of writing; concern about balancing
the helping role and the policing role of the APRC;  why graduate studies--
previous review cycles short changed graduate studies, most of the programs
considered for discontinuance were graduate programs, and WASC review panel only
wanted to discuss graduate studies in their final meeting with SFSU.

Section 2 - The University Research Council asked
about the amount of attention paid to research in the proposed guidelines; The
significant interconnectedness of research and graduate studies was noted; need
to have language focus on the program head; desire to include student and alumni
input in the review process; need to define research broadly—professional
development and or creative activities; concern about the guidelines
recognizing service/practice oriented programs; the need for the Academic Senate
to play more of a monitoring role in regards to the external review process

Section 3 - Page 5, lines 1 and 2: delete the word appended;
concern was expressed on the level of expectations by external accrediting
bodies with regard to faculty workload; what happens if/when a program loses accreditation.

Section 4 - No comments from the floor.

Section 5 - It was clarified that a manual will be
drafted by Academic Affairs in consultation with APRC. 

AGENDA ITEM
11-ADJOURNED—4:30 p.m.

BACK

HOME

SFSU