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.