ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING
MINUTES
TUESDAY, November
15, 2011
SEVEN HILLS
CONFERENCE CENTER, NOB HILL ROOM
2:00 - 5:00 p.m.
OPEN FLOOR PERIOD: 2:00 -
2:10 p.m.
|
ATTENDANCE: |
|
|
|
|
Anderson, David |
Ginwala, Cyrus |
Salama, Mohammad |
|
|
Alvarenga, Gabriela |
Gutierrez III, Andrew |
Sherwin, Paul |
|
|
Barranco, Joseph |
Hanley, Lawrence |
Steier, Saul |
|
|
Bartscher, Patricia |
Hellman, David |
Stowers, Genie |
|
|
Beatty, Brian |
Henderson, Barbara |
Strong, Rob |
|
|
Bolter, Nicole |
Holzman, Barbara |
Taylor, Don |
|
|
Boyle, Andrea |
Hyun, Helen |
Trautman, Ray |
|
|
Chernoff, Maxine |
Lau, Jenny |
Usowicz, Thaddeus |
|
|
Cholette, Susan |
Linder, Martin |
Vaughn, Pamela |
|
|
Cleary, John |
Lopez, Eurania |
Vredenburg, Vance |
|
|
Collins, Robert |
McCracken, Bridget |
Wagner, Venise |
|
|
Corrigan, Robert |
Privé, Alice |
Wang, Lihua |
|
|
Dariotis, Wei Ming |
Rosser, Sue V |
Wanek, Linda |
|
|
Ferreira, Jason |
Rothman, Barry |
Yee-Melichar, |
|
|
Gamboa, Yolanda |
Rourke, David |
|
|
|
Girouard, Shirley |
Runquist, Beth |
|
|
|
Absences: Azadpur, |
|||
|
Guests: Helen |
The Open Floor Period
provides an informal opportunity for faculty members to raise questions or make
comments directed to Senate officers or to university administrators. Please arrive promptly at 2:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: 2:10 p.m.
With a quorum being present, the meeting was
called to order.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Announcements were made.
AGENDA ITEM #1—Approval of the Minutes for November 1, 2011
The Minutes were Approved.
AGENDA ITEM #2—Approval of the Agenda for November 15, 2011
The Agenda was Approved.
AGENDA ITEM #3—Chair’s Report
The Academic Senate heard a
brief Chair’s Report from Chair Vaughn on gratitude and getting the job done.
AGENDA ITEM #4—Report from Statewide Senators (Boyle, Linder,
Yee-Melichar)
The Academic Senate heard a
comprehensive report from Statewide Academic Senators Boyle, Linder, and Yee-Melichar. A copy of the Power Point presentation can be
found on the Academic Senate website.
AGENDA ITEM #5—Recommendation from the Executive
Committee: Proposed Revised
Standing Committee Assignments, 1st Reading - No later than
2:45 p.m.
Chair Vaughn explained
the Item. The Item was discussed.
The motion was made to move the Item to Second Reading. The motion carried. The
vote was called to Approve the Item. The motion
carried.
AGENDA ITEM #6—Recommendation from the Curriculum Review &
Approval Committee: Proposed
Revisions to the BS in Nursing, Special Sessions BS Degree for Advanced
Placement Option (SS-APO) Program at SF General Hospital, 1st Reading—No later than 3:00 p.m.
Senator Stowers moved and explained the Item. The Item was
discussed. Senator McCracken motioned to move the Item to Second Reading. The
motion carried. The vote was called to Approve the
Item. The motion carried.
AGENDA ITEM #7—Recommendation from the Strategic Issues
Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Faculty Constitution of San Francisco
State University, Article IV, 1st Reading
Senator Garcia moved and
explained the Item. The Item was discussed and suggestions for revision were
given. The Item will return at a future meeting. The following a few of the
concerns and questions were raised:
1. Do
we disadvantage colleges from smaller colleges by increasing the number of
At-Large senators?
2. Does
Line 17 refer to Lecturer seats?
3. What
problems might arise from specifying two At-Large seats for Lecturers, given
that it is currently difficult to fill Lecture seats on the Academic Senate?
4. Is
it possible to compare FTEF to current seat allocation?
5. Might
the committee consider a re-election to a certain maximum (see E line 23)? Line
52 may need to change in accordance as well.
6. Having
open lecturer seats can be a mechanism for encouraging Deans and the larger
campus community to recognize the importance of shared governance.
AGENDA ITEM #8—Recommendation from the Strategic Issues
Committee: Proposed Revision to
By-Laws of the Academic Senate of San Francisco State University, Article V, 1st
Reading
Senator Garcia moved and
explained the Item. The Item was discussed. Senator Hanley motioned to move the
Item to Second Reading. The motion carried. The vote was called to Approve the Item. A two-thirds vote was required. The motion
carried by a two-thirds vote.
AGENDA ITEM #9—Recommendation from the Faculty Affairs
Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Chairs Selection & Review Policy, 1st
Reading
Senator Salama moved the Item. Senator Chernoff
explained the revisions to the Item. The Item was discussed and suggestions for
revision were given. The Item will return at a future meeting. The following
concerns and questions were raised:
1. Is
it possible to clarify the timelines for the votes?
2. It
is the right and privilege of faculty to elect the department chair.
3. How
effective will this policy be? What are the goals of this policy? What
opportunities will the department chair have to be self-reflexive on
performance?
4. It
is possible to add an assessment component to the policy?
5. It
is possible to examine the function of the electoral body as discussed within
the policy?
6. Is
it possible to ensure anonymity in the evaluation process?
7. Is
it possible to have more input from department chairs serving on the Academic
Senate?
8. Feedback
for a chair in the middle of their service can be useful.
9. It
is important to respect the unique culture that each department practices in
the policy.
AGENDA ITEM #10—Recommendation from the Academic Policies
Committee: Proposed Revisions to
the Definition of Schools & Departments Policy, #S94-190
, 1st Reading
Senator Hanley moved and
explained the Item. The Item was discussed and suggestions for revision were
given. The Item will return at a future meeting. The following concerns and
questions were raised:
1. What
does a “stand-alone unit” mean?
2. Is
it possible to clarify why a program should exist or be designated?
3. Is
it possible to explain the conditions that will determine designations?
4. Like
reorganization, a lack of clarity in policy language can leave faculty
unprotected.
5. To
what extent might the policy in the current form preclude units from being
named from donations?
6. To
what extent is interdisciplinary collaboration enabled by this policy? Is it
possible to enable the faculty to initiate such collaborations between units
with this policy?
AGENDA ITEM #11—Recommendation from the Student Affairs
Committee—Proposed Policy on Student and Applicant Complaints Against San
Francisco State University and/or Its Employees, 1st Reading
Senator Rourke moved and explained the Item. The Item was discussed
and suggestions for revision were given. The Item will return at a future
meeting. The following concerns and questions were raised:
1. Is
it possible to explain the formal procedure?
AGENDA ITEM #12—Discussion Item: Task Force Report on Tutoring
Services—No later than 4:15 p.m.
The Item was discussed.
AGENDA ITEM #13—Adjournment—no later than 5:00p.m.
The Academic Senate
Adjourned at 3:55 p.m.