Minutes: October 19th, 2004



19, 2004


2:00 - 4:30 p.m.









Kim, John



Klingenberg, Larry




Todorov, Jassen


Langbort, Carol



Li, Wen-Chao


Chen, Yu

Liou, Shy-Shenq

Cleave, Kendra



Van Dam,
Mary Ann

A. Reynaldo






Fehrman, Kenneth






Morishta, Leroy











Absences: Abella,
David (exc); Alvarez, Alvin (exc); Bernstein,
Marian (exc); Blando, John

(exc); Bohannon, Tara (exc); Fung,
Robert (exc); Daley, Yvonne; Gerson, Deborah (exc); Irvine,

(exc); Scoble, Don (exc);
Suzuki, Dean (exc); Velez, Pauline (exc);

Guests: Josef Anolin,
Dan Buttlaire, Wan-Lee Cheng, Lorraine Dong, Richard Giardina,

Gomes, Ann Hallum, Joel Kassiola, Tse Kah Po, Adrian Ramos, Dawn Terrell,

Goldsmith, Ray Miller, Gail Whitaker, Jane Veeder,
Marilyn Verhey

ORDER: 2:10 p.m.



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.

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


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.

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


#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.]



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.

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.

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 2nd
baccalaureates last year, they would in the current year. Guidance had come
from the chancellor’s office, and 2nd 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 2nd baccalaureates
in all programs. No. 5 concerned unclassified grad students.

Hallum stated that the Graduate Council viewed
at 2nd  baccalaureates and
unclassified graduate students, and asked campus coordinators to review data on
the first category, as it was not clear what 2nd 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.

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 2nd 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 2nd
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 2nd 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.



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.”


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

Chair Colvin requested that he first state his

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

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.

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.

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


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.

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

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.

& 2nd 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.

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.

1st reading

Chair Colvin referred senators to the new

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.


Meeting Date (Archive)