Minutes: October 19th, 2004

ACADEMIC SENATE

MEETING

M I N U T E S

TUESDAY, OCTOBER

19, 2004

SEVEN HILLSCONFERENCECENTER, NOB HILL ROOM

2:00 - 4:30 p.m.

Meeting

Attendance:

CALL TO

ORDER: 2:10 p.m.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS      

Dean of

Faculty Affairs Marilyn Verhey

noted that her office had in the past concentrated on the kinds of professional

development needed for tenure-track faculty, and that attention had been long

overdue for tenured and more senior faculty. She reasoned that a start would be

a proper needs assessment, and consequently three focus groups for 1,2,and 4 of November were scheduled in the collaboratory in Burke Hall, with a lunch following in

order to have some data to use in planning programs. She hoped to have some

activities starting at the end of the fall semester and requested senators to

stay tuned for developments.

CFA Chapter

President Turitz

announced a lunch meeting Wednesday 20 October about bargaining, noting that

the present contract would end on 30 June and CFA sought input on the top

contract priorities. The location was the University Club room 1.

Chair Colvin announced Monteiro’s appointment

to interim dean for the college

of Ethnic Studies, a

movement that set off a ripple effect. Vice-chair Williams would then resign

his at-large position to take Monteiro’s position in the state-wide senate and

election runner up for the at-large position Kendra Van Cleave from the

Library, now present, would assume the vacant at-large position in the senate.

Colvin

noted two minor typographical errors in the agenda, and instructed senators to

remove the top sheet from their packet and replace it with the current revised

agenda present at each senator’s place.

Senator Williams made an announcement about

Asilomar, which was gathering energy. As yet unnamed corporate sponsors would

help defray costs, and he urged campus members to keep proposals coming in for

sessions.

CHAIR’S

REPORT

Chair Colvin reported on the Senate Chairs

meeting in Long Beach,

which had two major items. Statewide the LDT (lower division transfer) project

was moving forward, and the senate was preparing lists of representatives. Our

own campus was heavily represented by herself, Bob Cherny, Helen Goldsmith,

Suzanne Dmytrenko, plus Jo Volkert and others, who would be in a position to

discuss the issues raised. One of the issues was our faculty’s concern with

community college engagement. The plan was to meet with community college

representatives in February/March to iron-out issues.

The Senate

Chair’s meeting also addressed the widespread concern about the health and well

being of faculty in CSU. The group had a long talk about issues visible on

campus, and planned to talk more about what to do. She and Vice-chair Williams

met with Lupe Avila, from SAC, Counseling and Psychological Services to discuss

this facet of campus life.

AGENDA ITEM

#1—APPROVAL of the AGENDA for OCTOBER 19, 2004

 Approved.

AGENDA ITEM

#2—APPROVAL of the MINUTES for OCTOBER 5, 2004

State Senator

Yee thanked and acknowledged Secretary

Fielden for his work on the minutes, and asked that on page 3, line three, to

substitute the word “committee” for “community.”

Senator Heiman noted that his words were

inaccurately portrayed on page 5, and that he was explicitly asking the chair

to note abstentions during voting.

Senator McKeon asked for corrections on page 7,

to be communicated to the secretary later. [Last paragraph, first sentence

should read “Senator McKeon expressed concern that within one department, the

college would propose two of three degree programs for discontinuance, and that

one was already voted for discontinuance.” Secretary’s note.]

Approved.

AGENDA ITEM

#3— REPORT from JO VOLKERT & DARLENE YEE, CO-CHAIRS,  ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Yee sought input from senate on the

2005-6 Enrollment Management Plan (EMP.) The state-wide

senate received reports about funding and the compact, which the chancellor

thought would provide 225 million dollars over the next two years. After 2006

the CSU would return to the position it had before cuts in 2003.The 2006-7 year

could still be a difficult one.

Yee

reported that VC West responded to a question about funding, saying that

campuses would need to be close to targets, with some improvement in 2005-6. Yee

thought it imperative that SFSU address enrollment and she noted the campus

plan was within target. EMC was looking to revise the plan for 2005-6 and

sought campus input.

Yee thanked

EMC for their work, including  Lupe Avila, Dan Buttlaire,

Caran Colvin, Ann Hallum, Karen Johnson-Brennan, Jim Kohn, JoVolkert,

as well as John Gemello and Leroy Morishita.

The

executive summary indicated an outline of EMC recommendations and had already

integrated the data into a matrix, which was incorporated into a narrative for

submission to the chancellor’s office.  Yee outlined the details of the plan, noting

recommendations that controlled student enrollments for undergraduates, upper

division transfers, first time freshman and graduate students through

deadlines. Another set of recommendations applied to lower division transfers. Volkert

would speak to recommendation 4, after which Hallum would address item 5 which

dealt with graduate students.

Volkert wanted senators to notice the main

change from last year’s number 4, that while campus did not accept 2^nd

baccalaureates last year, they would in the current year. Guidance had come

from the chancellor’s office, and 2^nd baccalaureates could be

admitted in programs of critical need, such as science, math, and technology. SFSU

recognized the reality of the situation and decided to accept 2^nd baccalaureates

in all programs. No. 5 concerned unclassified grad students.

Hallum stated that the Graduate Council viewed

at 2^nd  baccalaureates and

unclassified graduate students, and asked campus coordinators to review data on

the first category, as it was not clear what 2^nd baccalaureates are

really doing, perhaps taking pre-requisites. SFSU was closed to unclassified

graduate students last year, but this year credential students would get a

special code and would not be blocked. However, students now need an explicit

plan of study and would have to declare a major or move on.

State

Senator Gregory asked for

confirmation, on unclassified graduate students who were involved in

certificate programs.

 

Volkert responded that indeed all certificate

students would not be blocked.

Former State Senator Cherny spoke to the first item: continuing students with high

numbers of units. He sought to broaden concern beyond this issue and suggested

looking at ways to help students get a major in timely fashion, that they meet

with advisors and actually have a plan for graduating. The Governor’s budget

called for charging penalties for excess units and if the students themselves

were not penalized, the university would be. Department of finance was still

interested in this. He encouraged the senate to develop a comprehensive plan to

handle this, as someone was going to be penalized.

Senator Smith had a question from the first

page of the document as to whether all 2^nd baccalaureates would be

accepted in all majors. Some majors with previous restrictions still remained

on the books.

Volkert responded in the affirmative.

Senator Smith had another concern on the 2^nd

baccalaureates issue, for SFSU seemed to treat them with higher level of

priority than “re-admit” students. Many of these left with good reasons but

returned to campus and were placed in the same category as lower division

transfers, while the 2^nd baccalaureates continued to take courses

away from them.

Volkert indicated that her office would

take this into account.

Senator Morishita echoed Cherny’s sentiments

noting that SFSU would be reporting number of units for students, and that

tracking would take place. He suggested that no bar had yet been set for determining

excess units.

Senator Smith had a follow-up question: there

were some initiatives which were looking at some three hundred students with “excess

units” trying to ascertain why they were still on campus. Possibly they were

taking courses they should not take; perhaps campus was not doing the best job it

could. Also there were advising groups on campus looking at the system level of

advising. All of these would eventually come to the senate.

Senator Bernard-Powers asked about unclassified

graduate students and where the decisions that would effect

them would be made. Students often asked if they could just come in to take some

classes, but now it appeared that campus was working under a policy that only

classified students could take courses. She asked how would this be monitored,

and at what levels.

Volkert responded that the Graduate Council

(GC) would address this.

Hallum also ventured that the department

major always had the authority to put restrictive codes on courses. An

unclassified student admitted as unclassified cannot necessarily enroll in any

discipline if that restriction was in place. Our policy back in 1979 was that

unclassified students were unclassified by dept, but  GC was not recommending that now. GC

would be looking into this.

 

AGENDA ITEM

#4—REPORT from SUZANNE DMYTRENKO, REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (UIN) IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

Dmytrenko drew senators’ attention to a

handout with the UIN (University Identification Number) top ten list, about the move from potentially vulnerable social

security numbers as campus identifying numbers to a more secure UIN. SFSU was

now engaged in a technical implementation plan. With the help of  DOIT and CMS and

the superintendent of  records, a survey

had been sent around campus for response with the goal of converting over in

one year or less. She stressed that the main point was that there was “a plan.”

Weekly meetings were underway with department chairs, tech support, faculty,

and anyone involved with student or faculty records. She expressed hope that

the conversion would occur before the fall 2005 semester, with a downtime of

about one week. Unfortunately, there was no perfect time to do this, but campus

would try for August 2005. Communication to campus would include new IDs with

the new UIN imprinted, and should be a smooth transition. SFSU hoped to mimic

SDSU who had a successful and smooth conversion in March, and she expressed

confidence at the ability to learning from their experience.

Senator Noble asked if numbers would be listed

and whether transfers from other campus would keep their old numbers, or

whether numbers were campus specific.

Dmytrenko responded that numbers would be

unique to each campus. SFSU still had to keep social security numbers for use

as reference and for tax purposes.

Senator Noble asked whether social security numbers

would need not be provided.

Dmytrenko responded that they were not needed

for transcripts, but needed only for tax purposes.

Senator Axler observed that the new number was

9 digits long while only 6 were needed, and suggested either an automatic

fill-in, or making the first three digits “999.”

AGENDA ITEM

#5—RECOMMENDATION from the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

BS DISCONTINUANCE PROPOSAL—2ND reading

Chair Colvin indicated that there was a

speaker’s list from the last meeting and senators from that list would be

called on in order for recognition to speak.

Senator Pong noted that after reviewing the

proposal there was still indication of healthy enrollment, that it seemed a

good niche program with the potential to be very good. He suggested

incorporating the program into mechanical engineering in the long term if it

could not be supported at present.

Senator Heiman wanted to mention at the previous

senate meeting that the answer to the question of this discontinuance did not seem

obvious. He thought it was a hard judgment call, whether to keep the program or

not. At the same time, he urged senators to take a step back and look at

trends, which were moving away from BSIT programs and more towards product

design and industrial design.

Senator Garcia offered several comments and a potential

motion.

Chair Colvin requested that he first state his

motion.

Senator Garcia asked the senate body to refer

this item back to committee because of significant procedural problems.

Senator Gregory seconded.

Senator Garcia remarked on comments made in a

document passed out at the last senate meeting which included mention of a

letter from one of the external reviewers from last spring, just prior to APRC

consideration of DAI. One comment was that the review team report was ignored.

One problem the committee had was that the self-study at DAI included a

discrepancy between the written report and comments made at time of their

interview. He observed a shift in focus of the department over a short period

of time. Our report had some questions and expressed some puzzlement, but he

stressed that the external report had been considered. But most disturbing to

him was the chair’s report that the vote taken by the department was not a

secret ballot, which constituted a significant flaw in the process.  Faculty might not feel free to voice their

true thoughts. He urged referring the proposal back to EPC to consider as a priority

item.

Senator Gregory seconded the concern about the form

of the decision making process, observing that lecturers were vulnerable. Senator

Pong had perhaps suggested a good direction that might lead to some resolution,

an alternate solution that would preserve the program.

Senator McKeon noted that there seemed to be a

breakdown in the department. The chair Ricardo Gomes was on record as an

abstention, reasoning that he did not have enough information at the time to

vote, which did not seem right. If Gomes was the prime mover for the proposal,

but lacked sufficient information to participate in the decision process, it

sounded wrong. She noted that the associate dean had also abstained. Both of

these actions signaled that the decision was done hurriedly and without

consensus. She supported Garcia’s motion.

Chair Gomes attempted to clarify the

circumstances of the voting. At time of the vote he had been on sabbatical, in Brazil, and was

not able to take part in the dialog in the department, college, or university.

He did not feel comfortable making a decision from that distance from the proceedings

he had been made aware of. Upon his return in August he met with the faculty

who were responsible for drafting the proposal, those opposing the decision,

the associate dean and dean of the college, to discover what had transpired. As

far as endorsing the proposal, he expressed confidence that the faculty had

expressed their decision in a vote, and he felt he could support that.

Associate

dean Cheng indicated that the vote

he cast was an abstention, and as associate dean of the college he did not feel

comfortable voting and that he followed common practice, to let the department

make their decision without the associate dean’s vote as a swaying influence.

Although one of the votes was last spring, while the chair was away, there had

been another vote in August/September for the final decision.

Senator Nichols opposed the motion in all

fairness to EPC and the reviewers, noting that the committee had deliberated at

great length on all these process issues. EPC asked many questions and were

comfortable with the answers they received.

Senator Chelberg stated there was nothing wrong

with a second look at proposals, observing that lecturers were an issue in vulnerable

voting situations. Tenure and promotion reviews were going on across campus, which

complicated voting processes.

Senator Chen drew senators’ attention to

several students at the back of the room who were holding up a banner

supporting the program, and thought it important to know what students think

about the program, not just the department’s faculty. He hoped that the senate

could support this program.

Senator Ulasewicz supported what Heiman said regarding the concept of

design. Design was not something quantifiable, and looking at the program, it

was very difficult to say where it will go. Also however, she supported Nichols’

position, and as someone sitting on EPC, she saw no advantage for the proposal

to go back to committee.

Senator Pong insisted that discontinuing any

program was serious. The rebuttal arguments were significant for him and he

supported the motion to send the proposal back to committee.

Senator Meredith indicated that if the proposal

came back to committee, EPC would need to look at the decision making process

with respect to the stated guidelines for process.

Vote for

the motion to return to committee: 27 in favor, 11 opposed,

4 abstentions.

The

proposal would return to EPC to consider at their next meeting.

AGENDA ITEM

#6—RECOMMENDATION from the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: SOCIAL SCIENCES BA

DISCONTINUANCE PROPOSAL—2ND reading

Senator Gregory made a general comment, that

she lacked a certain enthusiasm for the proposal, citing terminological issues

as one area of concern. Additionally the document made assertions that did not

make sense. It contained confusion about distinctions drawn between faculty and

lecturers, and she strongly asserted that lecturers WERE faculty. She expressed

concern over the cost of lecturers and the overall line of argument the

document took.

Ray Millar the chair of the Interdisciplinary

Council and professor of International Relations and Social Science, did not

agree with the discontinuance, and suggested suspension instead, which represented

the position of the Interdisciplinary Council. He agreed that there were

problems with personnel in the program, but these could be ironed out in

suspension. The social science curriculum was still a national model and

standard; it was simple and not costly as it included only four courses; part

of what made the program special were its core courses and the program integrated

various disciplines of social science and had multiple sections due to demand

by liberal studies students. He was distressed at the chance to lose synergism

not out of date in function, faculty specialize in interdisciplinary programs.

Not all interdisciplinary programs were the same. He thought there would be

resource saving in suspension while the college and department would try to

find a better solution.

Senator Yee stated that based on the information

that had been heard, as well as what had NOT been heard, and the information currently

in front of senators, she supported the proposal of discontinuance. She

enumerated some facts: the proposal came from the college through discussion

involving all departments; there was no rebuttal from the faculty. While she

was a proponent of interdisciplinary programs she was concerned that there were

no faculty in the program stepping up to defend it. The

program ranked 13 out of 16 in number of majors and

FTES. There was one single tenured faculty in the program, who would not be

left homeless since the college seemed committed to reassignment. She further

noted that the letter from UIC was not a consent item. She did not see support

for program.

Senator Ulasewicz posed a procedural question

regarding hearing rebuttals to proposals of discontinuance. She asked what was the correct procedure. If the senate were presented with

fresh information, she asked how should the body react, and how would EPC handle this.

Senator Meredith responded that EPC hoped that

rebuttals could arrive in timely fashion but also recognized the basic rights

of academic freedom. He asked Millar if these comments reflected faculty input.

Millar responded that UIC tried to fulfill

these obligations to policy, and tried to contribute to the process, but there

had been a communication breakdown. He provided information to senate but

apologized for the communication breakdown.

He

continued speaking as a member of the social science program. He spoke with all

remaining members of the program: Gerson, a member of senate, Busacca who was discouraged and retired, and Keith, who was

also discouraged.

Associate Dean

Terrell from the college of BSS

spoke as the acting director of the Social Science program, the third in recent

history. She noted that over the last ten years the program experienced

problems and had not succeeded in solving them. The associate dean had to step in

and take a leadership role. The college had designated it as a program needing

work. She addressed interdisciplinary issues and did not see a major problem

with discontinuing the program of Social Science.

Senator Carrington indicated his main concern was

that if the proposal did not go forward, perhaps becoming a suspension proposal

instead, it brought up the question of how to make monetary cuts, which would

then have to go back to the college for more consideration. The senate had to

respect the college process.

Senator Steier expressed some uncertainty as to

how he would vote on this, but wanted another issue to come up. The assertion

that now everything in that college was now interdisciplinary, begged the question

about what they had been before. This course accepted a disciplinary model, but

compared and contrasted different disciplinary methodology. As far as he was

concerned, a university ought to be involved in interesting thinking, and now budget

issues raised their heads.

Dean Kassiola responded that if he had said

every program was interdisciplinary then that was wrong. Not all BSS programs

were so, but several were. BSS had more cross-listed classes than any other

college, and maintained a healthy balance between discipline and interdisciplinary

offerings. He noted that he had referred to lecturers as faculty, drawing a

distinction between full and part-time. He expressed regret for any

misstatements, but recognized the stipulations outlined in document about

differences in proposal guidelines. As for Millar’s comments, he noted that BSS

did have other programs that could carry forth the ideals of the social science

program forward. 

Senator Meredith wanted to remind senators that

suspension was not an option at present and that the vote was on discontinuance

only.

Senator Stowers noted that any suspension

proposal would requir a lot of work, and was not sure

who would do that. While discontinuance here was a matter of some regret, she

thought it a fact of reality.

Senator Carrington called the question.

Senator Steier asked a repeat question about what

effect would this have on liberal studies students.

Vote in

favor 25, opposed 8, abstentions 8.

AGENDA ITEM

#7—RECOMMENDATION from the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE—PROPOSED

REVISIONS to the BACHELOR of SCIENCE DEGREE in STATISTICS: a consent item—1st

& 2^nd readings

Nichols, Steier m/s/p

Senator Nichols noted several reasons for

revision: three emphases in business, economics, and mathematics, all three to

be reviewed. There were some issues in relation to courses not offered, faculty

not teaching some courses, and the revision served to address these problems.

Senator Smith asked about the replacement of

the Information systems 263 course with 201-210 courses. One issue was that 263

served as a prerequisite for other courses and he asked if now students would be

exempt from this requirement. It looked like a “hidden” course.

The

representative from the college

of BusinessMohammad Kafai indicated

that 201 or 210 plus 340 would be okay.

Senator Yee commended colleagues in economics,

mathematics and business, in three different colleges, on their successful

collaboration, which helped to leverage the majors in these departments.

Move to

second reading

Steier, Furman m/s/p

Approved without dissent.

AGENDA ITEM

#8—RECOMMENDATION from the FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE—PROPOSED REVISIONS to the

UNIVERSITY PROMOTIONS POLICY, #S94-28: 

1st reading

Chair Colvin referred senators to the new

document.

Pong. Gregory m/s

Senator Pong stated that the document brought

the promotions policy closer to the collective bargaining agreement. and he urged FAC members to speak up, noting that the new

policy would play an important role in recognizing the achievement of

colleagues. The old language was outdated, and needed a current interpretation.

Senator Meredith found the document extremely

hard to read, and asked that the legislative style of revision be resumed for

future such efforts, without the awkward mark-up language.

Senator Gregory expressed extreme pleasure when

campus policy coincided with the collective bargaining agreement.

CFA chapter

president Turitz

did not see a problem with congruence with collective bargaining agreements.

Promotion to full professor or librarian equivalent seemed appropriate, but

there was no mention of coaches or counselors.

Senator Gregory thought that counselors should

be included, but deferred to senators Ritter, Avila, or Bartscher.

Senator Bartscher responded that coaches did

not go up for promotion, and that counselors had a separate process.

Senator Pong indicated that the document format

was not the result of FAC’s work but that it had

perhaps been introduced by the senate office.

Senator Avila stated that counselor faculty had

a parallel process which should come before the senate shortly.

Senator Meredith asked about clarification of

terms for librarian and full professor and wanted to know whether the language

also included promotion to associate rank.

Chair Colvin reminded senators that this was

what first reading was for, to allow for more clarity to be generated for a

second reading presentation.

Senator Palmer commented on the reference to

the old salary schedule, noting that even after nine years on campus he had

never seen one before. The document’s guidelines to as to promotions “when” and

“how” were very helpful.

Senator Pong commented on the promotion policy

in the first paragraph , noting that it mostly

concerned the movement from associate to full, and assumed that probationary faculty

would go forth at the same time tenure was sought.

Turitz said salary schedule is available

at CFA website, as well as the chancellor’s website.

AGENDA ITEM #9 —ADJOURNMENT— NO LATER THAN 4:30 p.m.*