Minutes: October 5th, 2004

ACADEMIC

SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

for

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2004

    

Meeting

Attendance:

CALL TO ORDER: 2:24 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Colvin announced that discontinuance

documents were available at the senate office, along with supplemental

materials.

State

Senator Monteiro pointed out to

senators the printed announcement about the community and diversity reception

the following Wednesday from 4-6pm in the University Club, and invited senators

to attend and enjoy themselves.

Vice chair Williams gave an update on Asilomar and

encouraged wide participation, and indicated the Asilomar website was open for

registration.

 

AGENDA ITEM

#1—APPROVAL of the AGENDA for OCTOBER 5, 2004

Approved by general consent.

AGENDA ITEM

#2—APPROVAL of the MINUTES for SEPTEMBER 21, 2004

 

Approved by general consent.

AGENDA ITEM #3— REPORT from NED

FIELDEN, CHAIR, CoC: COMMITTEE on COMMITTEES ANNUAL REPORT, AY 2003-2004

Fielden, Chelberg

m/s/p

Secretary Fielden outlined the background on the

COC report, noting that the COC was a subgroup of the Executive Committee,

chaired by the secretary, which reviewed all the annual reports of the various

senate committees, 29 this year, to compile an annual state of the committees

report. Each senate committee was charged to produce an annual report, which

summarized the work of the committee over the year, and perhaps more importantly,

allowed the Executive Committee to identify issues or problems. He observed

that it was not a sin to mention difficulties in an annual report, which was,

in fact, helpful to the Executive committee. One problem on campus seemed to be

that the right hand often did not know what the left was doing, and the COC

report served as a minor antidote to this. If no annual report were filed (or

signed) then the COC would grow very nervous, and start to wonder if the

committee in question had actually done any work over the year 

Overall,

the committees on campus worked well. Most of the committees, probably three

quarters of them, seemed in good shape. People were addressing issues,

grappling with problems, creating policy, smoothing the academic path. In some

cases committees appeared to be carelessly run and a failure to provide a

report would be a primary but not sole indication of this. If senators chaired

a committee or were part of one of these reporting committees, Fielden urged

them to pay attention to the COC recommendations, ideally addressing them in

subsequent annual reports. He noted that some senators might notice a more

sharply worded report this year, as opposed to previous years. This was meant

as a challenge to the committees, who would have an opportunity to discuss any

issues with the Executive Committee. He declared this the year of the “No

Committee Left Behind” initiative, and suggested that the Senate Executive

Committee might be in a position to help deal with whatever difficulties were

present.

Finally,

Fielden thanked all the committee members, many members of which were not in

the room at the moment, for their work over the year. Some of the committee

work was not easy at all, and all committees, regardless of how efficiently

they were run, required time and energy.

Fielden

provided a correction to the All University Committee on Students, Faculty and

staff with Disabilities executive summary, noting that a signature page had

indeed been provided.

AGENDA ITEM #4—REPORT from LORRAINE DONG, CHAIR,

UPC—UNIVERSITY PROMOTIONS

UPC Chair Dong summarized the main concerns of

UPC, centered on the tardiness of reporting. This issue had been mentioned two

years previously but had become an epidemic by 2003-4. By the first deadline of

the year, on February 12, only three colleges had completely submitted their

files. 17 of 28 of candidate files were late. Files trickled in all semester,

sometimes still in incomplete status. One dean did not sign documents that then

needed to be returned for signatures. UPC needed a special meeting in April to

deal with late submissions, which was not a healthy sign. Noting that this had

a serious impact on how the committee handled their business, she hoped that it

would not be an issue again. She sought campus-wide support and understanding.

She had met with Dean of Faculty Affairs Verhey and Senate Chair Colvin with

one suggestion that emerged - the senate office would issue a reminder to

colleges with tardy files, as a collegial method of improving promptness.

Senator Steier

had not seen the actual report and asked for a statistical summary.

Dong

responded that of 23 candidates for associate level, UPC had recommended 21.

Of 14 to

full professor, 10 were recommended.

Senator Pong thanked UPC for their hard work

and posed two questions. First, he noted the comments in the report about

applicants applying for promotion within 2, 3 or 4 years, and that UPC

suggested standards. But as a faculty member he thought some clarification. Secondly,

when a WPAF arrived late, he asked who was at fault.

 

Dong responded that the UPC did not use

the word “early” with respect to promotion, but rather looked at a candidate’s

work during that rank. One year was certainly not enough to provide evidence of

achievement. As for the second question, when files arrived late, it meant

meetings were delayed, but this did not mean that faculty were penalized.

Senator Bernard-Powers asked to have repeated

the percentage of files late and how many of the colleges were tardy.

Dong responded that UPC did not name

colleges, noting only that on Feb. 12 only three colleges were complete. After

the first week only 17 of 23 were complete. Of particular concern was the fact

that as late as March two faculty members were continuing to put material into

their files - an unacceptable situation. Files should not be forwarded to UPC

at this state of preparation; rather earlier levels of review should catch

these problems.

State

Senator Yee thanked Dong for this

work, and echoed her concerns about lateness. She thought it imperative to look

at the quantity of files, and that there are only five members on the

community, and they must pay attention to the quality of review. She urged

careful attention and mindful reviews of files. It seemed essential that files

be handled promptly, and that the committees make the right decisions. She

suggested recognizing deans and committees who were timely.

Senator Pong said FAC was addressing these

concerns, including revised eligibility standards for promotion, and had had a

discussion about naming delinquent colleges.

Dong responded that UPC would not

penalize faculty for late submissions but would appreciate being informed of

delays.

Senator Nichols sought to come back to the issue

of “early” promotion, noting that there was no such thing, but that the wording

of current policy might be outdated. The policy discussed timing of promotion

as related to salary increases, which no longer occurred in the manner

described by the policy. The timing issue was ambiguous and it was probably

time to update the promotions policy.

Dong responded that this was one of

UPC’s recommendations.

Senator Pong reminded senators that FAC was

reviewing the policy and updating to correspond to the CFA collective

bargaining agreement. He sought not to discourage people from seeking promotion

early, and was pleased to see the elevation and accomplishments of our faculty.

AGENDA ITEM #5—

ELECTIONS

Yu Charn Chen, Professor, Design & Industry

was elected by acclamation to the Segment II Committee on Life Long Development

AGENDA ITEM #6—STUDENT AFFAIRS

COMMITTEE: RESOLUTION ON VOTER REGISTRATION

Avila, Monteiro m/s/p

SAC Chair Avila

indicated that the Senate had approved similar resolutions in previous years.

Also in past years CFA had taken the lead in registering new voters but more of

the campus was now involved. She supported this resolution and was pleased to

have administrative support.

CFA chapter

president Turitz expressed pleasure

and amazement at the number of university groups who had come together with CFA

on this initiative. He noted that CSEA had been a partner, and wondered if

their name could be included in the resolution.

State

Senator Gregory indicated that the

Urban Institute had undertaken to try to coordinate campus efforts. Second, she

noted that there had been some confusion about appropriate lobbying for

registration. Federal and state legislation urged state institutions to

participate in voter registration and that there was nothing wrong with any

effort in this direction.

Meredith moved to second reading, Steier seconded.

Senator Chelberg moved an amendment that added

the CSEA organizations name to the fifth paragraph, Gregory seconded.

As amended, the proposal was unanimously accepted.

AGENDA ITEM #7—RECOMMENDATION from

the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: VOCATIONAL EDUCATION BVE DISCONTINUANCE

PROPOSAL

The item

arrived to the senate floor well before its scheduled slot and there was

discussion about the wisdom of addressing the item at this time.

Senator Steier

asked whether everyone associated with the proposal was present

Chair Colvin

answered in the affirmative

Meredith, Yee m/s/p

EPC chair Meredith deferred

an introduction of the proposal to its creators.

 

Jane Veeder, Acting chair of DAI, stated that

the discontinuance of the BE degree had been included in past departmental

self-assessment plans, but had not come forward earlier due to time

constraints. She pointed to statistical data that indicated that enrollment had

been low, and that no unique or unusual courses were attached to program. Other

campuses had these programs, which were not so focused on design, so the SFSU

stance had been narrower than most others. The goal of the BE along with

legislation was vocational training, and it added presentation, organization,

and teaching skills to students in order for them to be able to become

instructors in that field in community college or certificate programs.

Senator Chen disagreed, suggesting that the BVE

degree was not about preparing to be firefighter. The Swanson bill had been

aimed at young students who had gone to war, and then the government provided

career training. He saw no cost to do the BVE at all.

Senator Velez asked for clarification on the

phrase concerning advisors at Long

Beach, and asked what would be the impacts on

students. Regarding the advising, she wanted to know the impact of

discontinuance on faculty and students.

Veeder responded that one of the things to

note in the URLs included indicated that much of the program had been ported to

distance learning, so that the program could be done by remote means. Perhaps

what should have been done was to have students switch to the BAIA degree in

their field, as no one had indicated that only the BVE would work for them.

Senator Smith asked that if students had said

that, whether that meant that they would have to do this through Long Beach.

Veeder responded that current students had

come with interests in design that relate to other programs, so many students

would likely shift over. She observed that this was only a small number of

students altogether.

Senator Smith asked that if the program were

discontinued whether students still would have the right to complete the

program here.

Veeder noted that the discontinuance was

slated for fall 2006, and that until that time, students would go through

program normally.

Senator Chelberg

moved to second reading, Nichols

seconded.

Senator Bernard-Powers asked whether the

discontinuance is tied to budget issues, or whether it was done for other

reasons. She was still asking for criteria on the basis of the quality of

program, and asked how the campus making the decision.

Veeder responded that the decision was a

part of the last program review, and the draft CUSP report in 2003, and the

self-assessment document from the same year, with the conclusion that there

were a small number of students, and the program was not central to the mission

of the college.

Senator Chen noted that currently in California there were

only five major undergraduate degree programs. He thought it advisable to talk

to the College of

Education to see if it

were possible to move the program to them.

State

Senator Yee observed that

discontinuance was a serious matter, and that this discussion had occurred in

the interdisciplinary council and in committee here, and that the argument for

discontinuance was fourfold - coming from the department on results from their

program review; that there was no rebuttal to discontinuing the program; that

there was low student demand; and there was no impact on faculty. The

department themselves acknowledged misalignment with campus mission; she asked

what would be the argument for suspending or keeping the program.

Senator Steier spoke as a member of APRC and

noted that when review was done, that APRC agreed with the recommendations.

That particular review suggested a somewhat fractured department.

Senator Abella

called the question, Nichols seconded.

Senator Heiman

noted that a two-thirds majority was necessary to close debate.

Motion to close debate approved with dissent.

The proposal to discontinue the BE in Vocational Education

was approved with dissent.

AGENDA ITEM #8—RECOMMENDATION from

the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY BS DISCONTINUANCE

PROPOSAL

Palmer McKeon m/s/p to address the agenda item fifteen

minutes earlier than the time certain.

Some discussion of parliamentary procedure took place.

Senator Meredith observed that someone had

distributed an opposite viewpoint to the senate and asked if that person was

present.

Chair Colvin

answered in the affirmative.

Chair Colvin asked senators if they knew

whether more representatives would be coming to the senate with the purpose of

discussing this agenda item.

Senator Chen

indicated that some of his students would be coming.

Senator Steier

thought the senate should stay with their time certain.

Senator Noble

echoed these sentiments.

Chair Colvin indicated that the motion

required a two-thirds vote, and that the amendment meant a change of some

thirteen minutes.

A hand vote was taken and the motion was approved.

Senator Axler discussed time certain, noting

that in past the time certain meant “no later than,” so that items could come

up earlier, but not later.

Senator Bartscher noted that past practice had

always been “no later than” represented time certain.

The senate assumed a break for ten minutes.

The meeting resumed at 3:40.

EPC chair Meredith moved acceptance of the

proposal to discontinue the BS in Industrial Technology, Nichols seconded.

Meredith spoke to documents in front of

senators, noting that incorrect pages had been included. Secondly, he noted

that another document was opposing proposal, and was unsure who was responsible.

Veeder indicated that due to budget

pressures, the need emerged last semester to focus department and college

programs more flexibly and efficiently, to make them stronger and of higher

quality. The department decided to streamline by discontinuing the BSIT program

and reorganize around the lines of a restructured BAIA degree and incorporating

present BAIA elements into a new design degree.

Senator Chen indicated that he was the author

of the rebutting statement, and was still the program coordinator since the

previous year. DAI provided a program unique to the whole country, the only department

of design and industry, with a name change not very long ago. He mentioned the

three degrees, BAIA, BSIT, and BVE. He posed seven questions: one about the

mission having changed, and observed that every time the department had a new

chair, a new mission resulted. The BA degree has fewer units, whereas there

were 64 in BS. With budget cuts, he questioned how to determine the weaker one.

He thought the BA was the better degree; with one measure of success the annual

salaries of graduates. He noted that industry prefers graduates with higher

levels of knowledge and skill and that this discontinuance was not a consent

item from the department but had been foisted on them by the college. He denied

that the impetus had come from the department.

Turitz asked if there were no savings by

discontinuing.

Veeder suggested that as laid out in many

meetings, across campus, that there were different levels of savings, both

short term and long term, and that discontinuance did not save in the short

term, but only in long term. The college would tune their budget internally

based on this discontinuance. This would have a large impact on resource

allocation, and the efficiency of handling curriculum and advising. 

Veeder

pointed out that recently the average was 20 students per year. Attachment two

was for the BA in industrial arts and industrial arts and design development

with similar numbers, with some data on the department and university. The BSIT

accounted for an average of ten percent of the department’s programs. She was

not sure what the notion of the “weaker” program meant. The realignment was

based on shifting student demographics and faculty positions.

State

Senator Gregory noted that this

discussion was making things clearer. She observed a possible abuse of the

personal pronoun “we” as it seemed that the view in DAI was not unanimous.

Value judgments seemed to create some data disarray. Process had been

approached in piecemeal fashion, and we should back away from smaller program

issues and look at larger picture. She urged more imagination, more rigor,

better design.

Senator Palmer as an EPC, CRAC member found it

hard to evaluate criteria. Program seemed to be moving in a certain direction, but

course requirements were not made clear. Resources were limited and asked if

the department had looked at other departments. The department might want to

consider other options.

Veeder responded that BSIT students

already take 14 units outside the department, also including business management

courses, and the goal was to make people who could interface between design and

industry, and the degree had feet in both areas. She agreed with Gregory that

it was not good to do value judgments, and commented that the document from

Chen prompted some questions. She pointed to the better job market, but noted

the data was incomplete. Our process was not who had the best program and deserved

support, but was more a factor of rethinking in the program. Industry was not a

monolithic entity, and the program covered a lot of ground. Our graduates go to

different sections of industry.

Senator Abella opposed the motion, noting that

he had voted against this in committee. This proposal was significantly

different from previous discontinuances. With ten percent of degrees it

demonstrated that there was still student interest, and he had not heard of any

significant erosion of quality. Page 2 addressed the mission of the university,

but this was open to interpretation. He thought there still should be a place

at the University for this Program, and that perhaps it needed to shift to

different college. In contrast with previous proposals he did not see the same

facets here.

Senator McKeon expressed concern that one department

leaving meant the college would have two of three degree programs, and one was

already voted on. She could not understand why in one college that one department

should suffer twice. She asked Senator Chen if this was a consent item, and what

was the vote breakdown. In the attached external reviewers comments, the item

6, a team report, indicated that DAI faculty had decided to discontinue the

BSIT. The external review did not mention this, and it appears in fact that

they totally ignored this. It looked like pressure from the chair and

administration, not anything resembling faculty consent. She asked what the

department opinions were.

Senator Palmer

moved to extend discussion 20 minutes, Carrington seconded.

Discussion was extended for twenty minutes.

Senator Chen mentioned the varying opinions

between assistant and higher level faculty members in the department.

Veeder responded with a report on voting

in DAI, that it had not been unanimous initially, but neither was it the chair

vs. the faculty. There were two abstentions, one of which was the regular chair

who was on sabbatical and did not think he possessed the context to vote, and

Wan Lee Chan the Associate Dean was the other abstention. The voting also

included lecturers on a pro-rated basis.

Senator Monteiro noted the difficulties of the

process. The proposal was now in first reading, and was coming to second later.

Three last bullets plus last sentence suggested that we need to know more. He

asked if there were other more creative ways to think here. Did 10 percent of

students mean a lot or a little; the senate needed some context. He questioned

the relationship to accreditation issues. In considering groups outside the

university - who did not want it, who did? He thought the senate needed clarity

and needed to hear more.

Veeder replied that budget issues were

severe the past semester. The department was asked by the university and

college to consider discontinuing the program and the majority of faculty voted

to discontinue.

Senator Liu observed that for a comprehensive

university to discontinue a program was a serious matter. The preamble

indicated a shift from the past, and as a matter of serving our constituency, he

asked if any one of our groups were consulted. He understood that this was not

a consensus item, and asked if a secret ballot had taken place. Had dissenting

faculty been given a chance to issue a rebuttal?

Senator Abella

indicates that rebuttal documents have been available.

Veeder commented on the voting, indicating

that it was not secret.

Senator Nichols wanted to refocus deliberations

at EPC, who took this proposal seriously, deliberating for an hour and a half

over it. EPC had brought up faculty issues, consent, and why was this one chosen,

why was this done, why was engineering not consulted. A pivotal piece was where

the faculty wanted to go with their department in the college. While this was not

in writing, not in the proposal, the proposal still reflected where faculty

wanted to go. The department wanted to grow it in a different area. Despite

dissent, it seemed clear that the department had arrived at a decision, which

was not an easy decision.

Senator Ulasewicz also had been on EPC and

commended Veeder from DAI. She noted that the process for discontinuance was similar

to the process for creating new programs, and needed to say who was involved. She

asked if perhaps this was an opportunity for suspension.

Senator Chen noted that the proposal meant a

switch direction in degrees for students, and the discontinuance was not fair

to students. If we had to close a door, we needed to open a window. He

commented on merging programs such as had happened at San Jose. He spoke to the external review,

the highlights of that report and viewed it positively.

The proposal would return to second reading at the next senate

meeting.

AGENDA ITEM #9—RECOMMENDATION from

the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: SOCIAL SCIENCES BA DISCONTINUANCE PROPOSAL—1st

reading

Meredith, Abella m/s

EPC chair Meredith

indicated dean Kassiola, Dean of BSS, would speak to the proposal.

Kassiola thanked EPC for their work. Best

way he thought to begin was to offer some details of their process, and how the

college had gone about making cuts. In the past he had been involved in this

sort of activity and knew the difficulties and emotional toll. He indicated

that he had emphasized process, that faculty had been involved in the process. In

2002-3 the provost had indicated to deans the nature and extent of budget cuts.

In his college an ad hoc group evaluated all the programs, all the budget

issues, dollars in and out. He scheduled in Spring 2003 an all day retreat

through the college council, to review recommendations of strategic planning

committee. By vote the group assessed every program in the college. The social

science program was considered unhealthy- 490 thousand dollars given back, from

educational funds, in that year. He reconvened the planning committee, and the

majority vote was reflected in this proposal. In 2004 had to find another large

number, 723 thousand dollars, which included this discontinuance, and made for

a sad day. The college would save a significant amount by discontinuing and

this proposal had become a part of the college’s whole budget reduction plan.

Senator Axler remarked on some comments from the

“open mike” period of discussion before the senate session. Interdisciplinary

programs did seem unfairly affected by this discontinuance process. However, he

thought explicitly interdisciplinary programs were less needed presently, and

many programs had expanded over time. Grants emphasized interdisciplinary

contact, and he noted that just because this program was interdisciplinary, he

still supported the proposal. The campus supported interdisciplinarity otherwise.

Meredith asked Kassiola how the proposal

would affect faculty in BSS.

Kassiola responded that it directly affected

one tenured member, and a number of lecturers. The outcome was conditional. If

accepted and the BA was discontinued, the MA would be under suspension, not

formally, but as a result of the strategic planning group’s recommendation to

reconfigure by May 2005, but the college would come back with a proposal for MA

discontinuance. The proposal affected classes SOC 300 and 301, which were taken

by all liberal studies students and some other students. This was still being

considered by the planning committee. He felt committed to find a home for the

tenured faculty member, but was not sure about lecturers.

Senator Williams mentioned the quality of the process

vs. the quality of the program. He requested amplification on the strategic

planning group.

Kassiola felt proud to explain the process

which had operated with a lot of emotion. He thought it wise to have emotion

and pain and conflict in the beginning, and the college had undertaken long

meetings to hash out issues. These were public meetings for all faculty, and

the entire college council had voted by secret ballot to accept strategic

planning recommendations. He thought it a full disclosure, and was fully

transparent.

State Senator

Gregory noted that within two

semesters this campus would err in some ways in our decisions. She thought it

possible to learn from prior experience, so campus would not have to repeat the

mistakes of the past. In the past such discontinuances meant homeless tenured

faculty member. She sought written guarantees of a plan for housing homeless faculty

members.

Senator Steier asked if there were still other

programs that were interdisciplinary in the college of BSS.

Kassiola responded such programs included Urban

Studies, Child and Adolescent Development, that there were lots of

interdisciplinary programs.

Senator Bernstein found it refreshing to see a

real process in place, and was not always sure that that had occurred. She mentioned

the impact on GE programs and liberal studies students, and that some sort of

substitute needed to be found, and whether there were any resource options.

Kassiola indicated that there might be some

mechanisms. Appropriate courses might exist for teacher credentialing and the

like. Some courses might have to be created. The actual dollar amount was hard

to calculate at the present.

Senator Steier asked whether the Liberal

Studies representative might have some insight into the course question.

Associate

Dean of Undergraduate Studies Goldsmith

indicated that she had met with the Liberal Studies program and had had discussion

with the BSS strategic plan group. The issue was more a liberal studies than a teacher

credential problem, and concerned whether a given substitute would qualify. She

saw this as a chance for re-visioning courses and missions and might even be a good

development.

Senator Chen asked about the history of program

and was not sure what the word “reassigned” meant on line three. He asked who

would be reassign the faculty member, whether the dean or the president.

Kassiola responded that the question of the

tenured faculty member was a delicate one and demanded consultation between the

dean and faculty member. He was committed to these discussions.

AGENDA ITEM # 10: ADJOURNMENT—5:00

p.m.