Minutes: November 2nd, 2004

ACADEMIC

SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

for

TUESDAY, 2 NOVEMBER 2004

    

Meeting Attendance:

CALL TO ORDER: 2:16 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Vice-chair Williams

noted that the Asilomar planning committee had been suddenly overwhelmed with

proposals, with some still coming in, and would compile a list of events for

the campus to review. He found the whole process of planning the retreat very

encouraging, noting that at Asilomar for example, CUSP would be will be rolled

out, and all manner of excitement was in the works.

APC chair Meredith

gave an update on EPC activities. The BSIT program, discussed at previous

senate meetings with considerable concern about balloting process, was being

handled at the department. There would be a secret ballot with proportional

votes to lecturers. The Clinical laboratory science program, also introduced at

a previous meeting, had been asked to rewrite their proposal.

CHAIR’S REPORT

Chair Colvin noted that she had met with the research

council at their inaugural meeting, a group that included Grace Yoo, Rob

Williams, Sheldon Axler, Ann Hallum, Kenneth Paap, and others. She stated that

she had invited Associated Vice President Paap to speak today about ORSP and

that following the present meeting there would be a welcome reception for him

in the Seven Hills lobby.

AGENDA ITEM #1—APPROVAL of the

AGENDA for NOVEMBER 2, 2004

The Agenda

was approved.

AGENDA ITEM #2—APPROVAL of the MINUTES for

OCTOBER 19, 2004

The minutes were approved.

AGENDA ITEM #3— REPORT from OSWALDO

GARCIA, CHAIR of the TASK FORCE on GRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW

Senator Garcia, the chair of the Graduate

Program Review (GPR) task force, furnished senators with some background on the

task force. SFSU had had a program for review for many years, beginning in the

1970’s that included self-studies, external reviews, and finally evolving into

a formal APRC process, which was now finishing its fifth cycle of review.

Normally this was now time to prepare for the sixth cycle.

In taking

stock of where we were, several things had pointed towards the importance of

graduate programs. The last accreditation review had included one major

recommendation regarding graduate programs: that they receive greater

attention. The CSU-wide graduate education report and the campus strategic

planning group CUSP had also both mentioned graduate programs. GC also had a

lot to say about program review, as well as the Assessment Advisory

committee.  The group convened on

September 21, with the task charged with five tasks. The first was to set guidelines

for review in sixth cycle, which should make for a more thorough review. There

needed to be a means by which the reviews could focus on graduate programs

while still giving proper attention to undergraduate programs. Their report to

senate should serve as a blueprint for the sixth cycle of review that would supersede

the previous policy S99-161. Campus should give more focus to graduate

education. The committee’s timeline for their recommendations was early in the

spring semester. He urged senators to contact him or committee members for

input.

AGENDA ITEM #4— REPORT from KENNETH

PAAP, AVP, OFFICE OF RESEARCH & SPONSORED PROGRAMS—no later than 2:45 p.m.

Paap indicated he would cover a wide range of topics. By way of

history, he noted that he came to campus by way of two “battleground states”

with his educational degrees from Wisconsin

and his position as director of the Arts and SciencesResearchCenter

in New Mexico.

He sought to identify the goals and vision he brought to campus.

One of his

goals had emerged that very morning, via Dean Axler, which held that SFSU

should be the best institution in the CSU system. He thought it best to

continue to provide the best teaching in the system, the best scholarship, and

strive to have the greatest impact on the community and region. Scholarship was

obviously his main focus, and he also thought that as we continue to do better

research that the results would contribute to success in other areas.

He listed

some good strategies to facilitate this movement:

• Take
  
  advantage of existing strengths. Faculty members in the Edelman institute
  
  and other institutes sought change and improvements in multiple areas.
  
  Institutions should be able to take advantage of their location, something
  
  he suspected the senators already knew. He thought the Urban Institute unlike
  
  any other in that it has such a large impact on the local community. He
  
  observed that the Tiburon center benefited from its own fabulous location
  

• Take
  
  advantage of applied research. There was much opportunity here to compete
  
  for applied research endeavors, not so much basic research. A “computation
  
  in life sciences” proposal had come from computer science, biology, and
  
  physics - a good example of research that would have basic elements but
  
  could be funded nicely.
  

• Research
  
  should be interdisciplinary. All examples fit this model.
  

• Be
  
  user friendly. He thought his office should in two years time become a
  
  model of good, friendly, efficient service to the community.
  

Paap then

listed some challenges, which included: Growth He noted that in the last five

years R & D expenditures had risen from 24 to 54 million - a huge movement

forwards. He thought a good movement would be for his office to organize the

three working groups. The pre-award and post-award groups were both directly

stressed by the increase in the amount of research expenditures. Personnel was

the third part, with most expenses going for salaries. There had been a great

increase in workload without any increase in bodies. The second major challenge

was the ongoing software conversion process that had developed difficulties

with people getting paid and getting balances accurately recorded. All these

issues would need time and patience to fix. The third problem was a lack of

leadership. An assistant position had been eliminated, as well as some other

positions. There had been a search on to hire a director of ORSP to help

administer program, but that search had been discontinued. Many of these had to

be dealt with. He was proposing to reorganize and slightly expand the office.

Currently

ORSP had 20 employees, half of whom reported to him, which was too many. Better

delivery would occur with a pre-award, post-award and personnel manager. These

groups needed additional personnel, but he was impressed with the present

staff. Jackie White was great in the pre-award stage, also funding specialist

Paul Barrows. The office had a good way to sign up for grant information by

choosing categories but the admittedly broad categories needed refining. He

wanted to see more frequent workshops both from his office and from external

experts. He mentioned that Barbara Ustanko, the proposal editor, got high marks

form users.

Another of

the challenges was connected with doubling the $54 million figure, which ought

to be doable over some number of years. He could outline some strategies to do

this, but also needed to put this into perspective. Doubling SFSU’s funding

would put the campus into the same category as some of the land grant

universities, as well as Tulane, one of the premier private universities, an

ambitious goal.

Paap made some

comments about the relationship between research and teaching. While often

viewed as competing directions, he felt that there really was a cooperative

relationship. Firstly, especially at SFSU, a substantial amount of external

funding could support teaching innovation and could directly improve the

teaching mission. Secondly, many students needed research experience -

experience in modern laboratories, with current research methods. This sparked

a lot of currency and creativity in classroom, but the fourth point was perhaps

more debatable. On average, he thought that great researchers make great

teachers, and that many faculty members do both of these well. He expressed

pleasure at the convening of the research council and looked forward to working

with senate and faculty.

State Senator

Yee sought to formally welcome Paap to university. She encouraged his

office to work with associated students, graduate studies and the research

council to look for new funding streams for graduate students. She thought this

an investment in the future professorate.

Paap agreed and shared her sentiments. He mentioned that

president Corrigan had suggested having a graduate student on the research

council.

Senator Bernard-Powers

welcomed Paap, and asked if he had any ideas about introducing research issues

into areas of the university that had not done a lot of research.

Paap responded that the first step in assessing areas with

limited research was to ask the question “why?” He had met with a large number

o faculty already, mostly those with active research agendas. He needed to meet

with each college and even departments to talk about the role of research and

how ORSP might help.

He thought

collaborative work a good idea, partnering perhaps promising, but needed to

know more about faculty and what their areas of expertise are. At his previous

institution each college had an associate dean who was also director of that

college’s research arm. This arrangement helped the process, and as for each

associate dean, this was a major component of their responsibility. He asked if

colleges could invest more in support of research and development.

Senator Palmer

appreciated Paap’s candor in speaking about limited resources. He asked about

the possibility of negotiating indirect costs when a project was truly an “off

campus” affair.

Paap responded that PIs were always free

to make creative proposals. He would need to see a compelling case to waive all

or part of the indirect costs.

He spoke to

indirect cost calculations, which were developed by the federal government.

There were actual costs that went into indirect support. Building space, police

and utilities - all cost something. Indirect cost rate was about fifty percent

and something not in our control. What constituted an off campus project was

not easy to calculate. It is important to keep one’s part of the bargain. He

was in favor of seeing SFSU getting to a place where all indirect costs went

back into supporting research. He talked about indirect costs and how they have

been used in the past. Most faculty members would be surprised at how much

dollars were reinvested. One way to have that money increase was to grow the

pie.

Senator McKeon appreciated Paap’s

forward-looking initial report. She said that when considering academic units

where there was not much research, it was important to ask why, and one basic

fact might help answer - there were still units and departments carrying a

12-unit load. Two thirds of the campus had already moved to a nine-unit load. Before

any argument about the amount of research money was posed, she wanted to remind

senators that a transition to 9 units from 12 was vital for solid research

efforts.

Paap responded that these were important issues and he had some

relevant experience. At New

MexicoStateUniversity, the arts and sciences had

widely different programs. As a land grant institution it was strong in

agriculture, sciences, and engineering. Most other programs existed only at the

master’s level. It required a delicate balance in policies, particularly tenure

and promotion policies. One side of the situation was that every department

needed a criteria statement that specified minimum requirements, which needed

to be fine-tuned to meet the discrepancies of each department. Another side was

the question of balance; that it should not come exclusively from the bottom

up, but would need to work with deans to create contracts within department so

that R & D could be expanded, leading to a more level playing field. Science

and humanities might never been equal but they could be closer together.

Pursing external funding could help reduce the teaching role. Additional

revenue was possible, and there were incentives to look for grants.

State Senator

Yee indicated that instrumental to the research program was the IRB or

human subjects committee, both affected by workload, and she asked if some

indirect costs could help support that committee.

Paap responded that it already did.

Chair Colvin

thought this would be a good agenda item for the research council.

Paap mentioned that the exhaustive history of research at SFSU

had been revealed to him, and he sought ways to support it more.

AGENDA ITEM #5—REPORT from JOHN M.

GEMELLO, PROVOST, & LEROY MORISHITA, VP ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE:

UNIVERSITY BUDGET UPDATE

Morishita mentioned that the document

distributed had perhaps already been shared with senate. Five columns were

arrayed, with the current 2004-5 years reduction of 14 million dollars listed

as the central column. Campus was in a “phase-in” process. The permanent

reductions began in 2003-4 with a list of “one time” reductions. Second column

detailed further reductions, and he drew senators’ attention to the different

areas of reductions. The end of the budget cycle gave campus some extra balance

budget

Gemello noted that he had reported to the

senate and campus community continually the previous year and wanted an

opportunity to review. There was a three-part plan from academic affairs in

place before any budget restorations were proposed, and he had assigned a

budget split in three ways. Non-college budgets had had $2.6 million cut in

fall 2004 and campus had also had $7.5 million in programmatic reductions:

faculty salaries, discontinuances, all from previously discussed items. $1.2

million had not been included. He mentioned the $800 thousand hole and that one

possibility that had been raised was to consolidate colleges. Some restoration

had occurred to the eventual budget. One million plus dollars had been

allocated to teach additional sections, which also was intended to teach

additional students. A second decision was made about the $800 thousand to

academic affairs, which ended the discussion of college reduction. Third, an

item that did not appear on the senate’s budget sheet, was that academic

affairs had received $350 thousand to fund several initiatives coming out of a

high priority list which included: an increased library book budget, increases

in instructional equipment, and the operating expenses of college.

In the

short run he indicated that this year campus had received over one million

dollars in early august and had consequently increased the number of classes.

He commented that adding sections was not always easy at the last minute.

Almost half a million dollars went to faculty salaries and hiring. He noted

that campus had augmented the faculty budget more than what had been given

back. He indicated that there had been a reduction of 19 sections, about the

same as in past years, perhaps even more than the previous year. Although there

had been some restoration, which was good, still the university had to make

cuts, as there was still a need to carve 8.6% out of academic budget. The plan

for non-faculty reductions was done. Some programmatic reductions might be

implemented by fall 2005 but many would not be done until 2006.

Gemello

mentioned the concerns of the plan: not to cut services, but to transfer

revenue by changing the method of delivering. He mentioned the change of some

masters’ programs to self-support.  By

doing business in alternative ways the campus could reduce the need to use the

general fund. Similar movements were afoot in the College of Business.

If campus were unable to do these kinds of things, then savings from there

would have to come from somewhere else. Everyone’s interest was to work

together on this.

Senator Trujillo

asked administration to explain instructional fees, and how shuffling would

affect student athletics.

Gemello responded that instructional

activities fees were directly affected by one time funding - such as the

Library and extra classes. These fees cannot directly affect salaries, but

allowed for more sections.

Morishita indicated that athletics would

still get some funding.

Senator Abella commented on the move to

self-support as way of saving programs. Part of the student concern was that

moving programs to self-support would price students out of college. There was

a battle for the budget, with the state budget changing. He wanted to see some

analysis of how many students would drop out when prices rose. Many students

would not qualify for loans.

Gemello responded that any proposal for

self-support required the need to address these concerns coming before senate.

Pricing was an issue, but had to look at the big picture. If campus did not move

the MBA program to self-support, then cuts would need to come from somewhere

else, which would also affect students negatively. Only very few programs were

picked to go for self-support, and graduate levels were not quite as serious as

undergraduate.

Senator Meredith

indicated that the BOT had passed a preliminary budget. He wondered if Gemello

could make comments on what that could mean for SFSU.

Morishita talked about process, that the

budget that we received had followed the compact with governor allowing for a

2.5% enrollment increase. Student fees would go up and SFSU would get a 3.5

percent compensation increase, which was enrollment dollars only.

President Corrigan

responded that most money went to compensation and fixed costs.

Senator Liou thanked Gemello and Morishita for

their report, stating he realized how serious the budget was. He had read in

the minutes from the previous senate meeting about the eventual return to a

more normal budget in 2006.

Morishita responded that the minutes probably

referred to enrollment funding dollars, which was not a total restoration, that

perhaps campus might be getting same dollars back, but not in the same way.

Campus had never really recovered from the last set of reductions.

President Corrigan indicated that campus might

end up with the same amount of dollars, but there would still be a large salary

lag for faculty and staff.

Senator Abella

looked at permanent directions, management reductions what would this impact

have on campus.

Gemello spoke to the nature of the

permanent reductions. Paap earlier had alluded to fewer staff. There were many

places where people would not get replaced, and as for management reductions,

these just meant that campus had to learn to live with them.

Senator Bernard-Powers

asked about program suspensions. She had a hard time understanding the

relationship between these and the budget.

Gemello responded that sometimes

discontinuances would save money, but not always a lot. There were many reasons

to discontinue, and these should even be done in good budget times. There was a

constant need to review curriculum and sometimes just restructuring helped

matters.

AGENDA ITEM #6—RECOMMENDATION from

the FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE—PROPOSED

REVISIONS to the UNIVERSITY PROMOTIONS POLICY, #S94-028

Senator Pong, chair of FAC, noted that FAC had

reacted to comments made in first reading and had made minor revisions to the

proposal by switching the third and second paragraphs. He pointed out several

other wording changes.

Senator Axler made a motion to amend a

paragraph beginning “in some circumstances…” To make this more consistent, he

suggested deleting the words “professor or library equivalent.”

Senator Pong accepted this change as a friendly

amendment.

Senator Van Cleave asked for clarification on

the phrase “or librarian equivalent.”

Turitz mentioned that this had an earlier

discussion, and that the contract had a series of terms that explained the

situation, which was not necessarily needed in this policy.

Unanimously

approved.

AGENDA ITEM #7—RECOMMENDATION from

the STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE—RESOLUTION in SUPPORT of

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION WEEK, 2004

Senator Avila

chair of SAC was not present to move this agenda item

Chelberg, Garcia m/s/p

Senator Chelberg noted that senators would

recall the announcement at earlier senate meetings that this resolution would

express the senate position on encouraging international education week

beginning November 15.

Senator McKeon asked for an amendment to the

last resolved clause, to include other organizations that had traditionally

supported international education week.

Chair Colvin asked for specific inclusions.

Senator McKeon responded with some possible

language “Programs, departments, and other units of SFSU that have actively

contributed to the success of international education week.”

Senator Chelberg noted that similar language

might have been present in past resolutions.

Senator McKeon noted she had made this request

last year as well.

Wissink

from the office

of International Programs offered thanks to the campus and gave an update on

festivities for the coming week. She thanked the senate and SAC. As Coordinator

of the event, she indicated that she had introduced new creative ways of

improving outreach and promotions, and that there were at least thirty five

different activities, all discrete events, some occurring every day, which

included films and lectures, and that faculty were planning a lot in their

classrooms. There would be a full variety of programs, all of which could be

found at the international programs website. Thursday of that week would have a

student culture-fest. The Monday open-house would be held from 10-12pm and the campus

could find out more about what International Programs has scheduled. She

offered thanks to the president’s office for the opening reception.

The

resolution was approved.

AGENDA ITEM #8 —ADJOURNMENT 4:08

p.m.