December 2, 2003
2:00 - 4:00 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Gemello, John M.
Otero, Aina J.
Chen, Yu Charn
Contreras, A. Reynaldo
Van Dam, Mary Ann
Corrigan, Robert A.
Senate Members Absent: Aaron,
Eunice (excused); Batista, Natalie; Bernstein, Marian (excused); Cherny, Robert
(excused); Langbort, Carol; Morishita, Leroy (excused); Nichols, Amy (excused);
Palmer, Pete; (excused) Shrivastava, Vinay; Smith, Brett; Stowers, Genie
(excused); Suzuki, Dean (excused)
Bowman, Dan Buttlaire, Lila Chavez, Donna Cunningham, Rene F. Dahl, Ann Hallum,
Evelyn Hooker, Kevin Kelly, Philip King, Suzanne Michalik, Ken Monteiro, Jim
Murphy, Erik Rosegard, Penny Saffold, Marie Schafle, Marjorie Seashore, Michael
Simpson, Nina Jo Smith, Carol Stevenson, Susan Sung, Mitch Turitz, Marilyn
Verhey, Ginger Yamamoto
Chair Edwards noted that immediately
following the senate meeting there would be a reception in honor of President Corrigan’s fifteen years of service to
Kevin Kelly from CET made an announcement
about the winter programs that CET is sponsoring. These programs provide opportunities for
faculty professional development, and include “winter camps” as well as
workshops and seminars that involve topics such as introducing technology into
teaching. Also, CET now has “mobile
classroom” technology which be brought into the classroom. Kelly
noted that postcards with further information would circulate through the
senate meeting room.
President Mitch Turitz announced that on December
the United Nations signed a “Declaration of Human Rights” that recognized all
workers’ right to organize in the workplace. Turitz
noted that even today there are still workplace intimidations, firings, and
immigration policies that create fear and limit growth. This December 10 there will be a working
national day of action to underscore the message on the basic right for workers
to organize. The work rally and
candlelight program will be held on December 10 at 5 p.m. in
in San Francisco. Many SFSU participants will assemble at 4:30
take the “M” streetcar to
to join other unions, and he
invited participation from the group.
stated that the Bookstore would be having their annual reception in recognition
of faculty and staff starting at 4 p.m. today, with merchandise discounts,
food and drink. All staff and faculty
further noted that senators have received an addendum to the Committee on Committee’s
report, which includes reports on committees not reviewed in the initial COC
report the senate evaluated and approved in September. The full report would be up on the Senate
website by the end of next week.
finally noted that this would be the last senate meeting of the semester, and
offered, on behalf of the Senate Executive Committee, sincere congratulations
and thanks to senators for their hard work over the fall semester.
AGENDA ITEM #1 - APPROVAL OF THE
AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 2, 2003
Chair Edwards noted a correction to the
agenda. A sentence on Agenda Item 5
needed to be deleted. He also added as
Agenda Item 7 a report from the Dean of Human Relations on the recent Summit on Race and Culture.
M/S/P Meredith, Gerson
AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER
AGENDA ITEM #3 -REPORT—PROVOST JOHN M. GEMELLO—REFERENDA,
$75 PER SEMESTER INCREASE IN STUDENT FEES
Provost Gemello stated that two weeks ago he
had gone before the Student Affairs Committee to propose a new instructional
fee, of $75 per semester beginning in the fall of 2004. The committee had a good discussion and voted,
8 to 3, that the increase would come forward in the spring referendum. He was here to explain what the request was,
and discuss the important issues. This
was to be a mandatory, category one fee, $75 per semester, $35 per summer
semester, the purpose of which was to act as a fee to handle services otherwise
marked for extinction. These included
subsidization of course sections, library materials, and classroom renovation.
Provost Gemello took some time to explain the
reason for the fee. In 2003-04, besides
budget reductions across several categories, there were also mandatory
increases in spending for items such as compensation increases and risk premium
health care costs, totaling about $4.6 million at this campus. Altogether the
2003-04 budget faced a $30.2 million shortfall. However, some factors served to mitigate this
figure. The campus had received some
augmentation due to growth, two sets of enrollment growth augmentations, which
totaled $4.1 million. This still left a
shortfall of $14.1 million, and the student fee was proposed to handle this
Gemello further stated that each of the
major Vice Presidential units had been given reductions, for example classroom
renovation, and the CMS system, but that these were mostly temporary.
were four items illustrated on the slide labeled “one time revenue sources”
that included an enrollment growth supplement, the lottery reserve, and a prior
year’s carry over and replacing some general fund support with lottery funds. The permanent reductions in counseling and
psychological services have been shifted to a fee basis.
these 2003-04 reductions were temporary, the 2004-05 cycle of planning meant
coping with long-term shortfalls. We
started this budget with a shortfall of $9.7 million. Some of mandatory costs
for campus have continued - SSI’s, risk pool premiums and the like, adding up
to a $11.2 million deficit. The current
plan includes: permanent reductions to the Vice Presidential units, a $3.2
million cut for Academic Affairs and removing the Athletics Program from the
general fund to a fee basis. Students
may vote to fund the career center with a fee, rather than see it disappear. Even with these transfers however, the campus
would still have a $2.9 million shortage, hence the proposed solution to
increase student fees.
two possible scenarios existed. If
Academic Affairs endures a reduction, the university will have to cut about 700
classes. However, if the fee increase
goes through, the university will be able to offer more classes. A possible alternative would be to reduce the
summer program, and have fall/spring remain the same with the fee increase. He illustrated the average class size of 33.2
students per class with and 36.1 students per class without fees.
Provost Gemello outlined some details on the
proposed fee increase. There would be
$150 increase per year for all students, with $35 increase for summer students,
thus raising $4.6 million and the ability to restore course sections in 2004-05.
He observed that after the crisis in the
1990’s, several initiatives had resulted, many of them related to Academic Affairs,
including building the library budget back up to where it had been in 1989. Due to tremendous inflation in the costs of
library materials, some annual increases were added. Similar programs took place in instructional
equipment to handle inflationary increases, on the order of 5% per year until
2002 when it ceased. In 2003-04 the
university not only lost this augmentation, but also lost other funds. The Audio Visual augmentation increased the
number of smart classrooms, which are now significantly upgraded. This continued for about 4-5 years, but was
reduced about 50%, slowing down classroom enhancement. Similar patterns affected Vice President Morishita’s unit with respect to office classroom infrastructure:
chairs, carpets, blackboards etc. For
the future he noted that the university was already thinking ahead to a planned
restoration at some point in the future, and how best to accomplish that.
Provost Gemello hoped that the fee proposal,
voted by the Student Association, would go forward in March and would be
approved by the Chancellor. He indicated
that it had been very hard to stand before the student committee and ask for
fee increases, but that the alternatives were unsavory.
Senator Alvarez questioned the permanent
reduction to the Counseling Center and Career Center, and requested an explanation or
rationale for that decision.
Provost Gemello responded that the rationale
involved consideration of the core educational program of the university. He thought that a university could essentially
exist without career center. He also
noted that counseling was not cut but rather shifted to a fee basis. There was no plan to reduce counseling
AGENDA ITEM #4 - RECOMMENDATION from the CURRICULUM
REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE—a consent
item—REVISION OF THE MA DEGREE in ECONOMICS, 1st and 2nd
Chair Edwards commented that this agenda item
came as a consent item in 1st and 2nd reading from CRAC.
M/S/P Houlberg, Vaughn
Senator Houlberg, representing CRAC in the
absence of Chair Nichols, outlined
the basic changes that had been presented to CRAC and the Graduate Council. The Economics department was proposing minor
changes in the Master’s degree: minor changes in the undergraduate course requirements
for admission, more substantial changes in the Core Requirements to move the
program in a more practical and applied direction, an increase in the number of
electives through pairing graduate with undergraduate courses, and adding a
culminating experience course which would be more applied than previous
practice, although a thesis option would still be available.
The revision passed
ITEM #5 - RECOMMENDATION from the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL
COMMITTEE—REVISION to the BA in CHILD and ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT, 1st
M/S Houlberg, Otero
Senator Houlberg noted that the proposal had come
to the committee three times. It came
from both the CAD Council and the BSS Council of Chairs who had approved the
proposed revised curriculum, which included: small changes in the prerequisites
to the major, minor revisions to the core requirements, and minor revisions in
the Young Child and Family concentration. Major revisions included in the School Age
Child and Family concentration were necessitated by new State of California
requirements for teacher preparation (SB 2042).
There was a reorganization of thematic categories in the Youth and
Family Services concentration, and a similar category reorganization in the
Research and Public Policy concentration.
Rene Dahl, the coordinator of the program
responded that it had only come to CRAC twice.
Senator Steier asked the reason for multiple
forays through the committee, as it might help senators focus on potentially
controversial areas of the proposal.
Senator Houlberg responded that there had been
requests for clarification but not major objections to the proposal.
Senator Vaughn added as further clarification to
the question to examine the numbered items on the senate’s information sheet,
as they outlined the questions that CRAC had posed.
Senator Turitz noted that with respect to the
effect the revision had on resources that this was the best statement he had
ever seen and urged it to be offered up others as a model.
The proposal will return in second reading on February 10, 2004.
AGENDA ITEM #6—RECOMMENDATION from the CURRICULUM REVIEW
& APPROVAL COMMITTEE—REVISIONS to the UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR & MINOR in RECREATION & LEISURE
STUDIES, 1st reading
M/S Houlberg, Otero
Senator Houlberg noted that this proposed revision
consisted of adding REC 260 to the major core, grouping courses into emphases
for the purposes of advising, changing the titles of the minor, and deletion of
several courses from the Outdoor Recreation emphasis. The regrouping is for advising purposes and does
not change the concentration.
The proposal will return to
senate on Feb.
AGENDA ITEM #7-REPORT from DEAN OF HUMAN RELATIONS KEN
MONTEIRO on THE SUMMIT FOR RACE AND CULTURE
indicated that the handout circulating around the senate room was the agenda
for the summit and listing of ten recommendations which resulted from the summit.
He firstly wanted to acknowledge and
thank the Senate Chair Edwards and
Senator Williams for their
leadership. He expressed regret at his inability to verbally describe the
experience of the summit. He noted that
those who were present would “get it”, but that the experience was hard to articulate.
He felt that the summit served as a tool
for the campus to hear issues of race and culture, digest them, and provide a
basis for plans for action. The summit
was sparked into life by some campus incidents, but summit was not just a
response to those incidents - there have been strong persistent issues that are
upwelling underneath. From his own
office he has seen data that supports the concerns raised at summit.
He expressed a desire to explain three things from the
summit: what we did, what are the
outcomes, and what are the promises.
explained how the summit was planned.
The first step was to decide what the summit was going to address, and
then attempt to have the campus conduct a working retreat. The summit was envisioned as a place for
airing issues and organizing responses - a process that deals consensually with
priorities and the creation of strategies.
At the summit everyone worked to identify the key issues
in the morning. This pushed the group to
their limits of organizational abilities, and he expressed thanks to the
well-prepared volunteers. He asked the
senators to imagine two hours of heartfelt comments, both oral and written that
included suggestions for solutions. He felt
that it was a very moving and powerful experience, and one that did not
generate a defensive stance. Afterwards,
the group broke into smaller units to examine particular themes.
The summit website will provide a full report and
commentary. A main objective of the
summit was to serve as a working report. Several questions remain, among them the issue
of who should be moving the agenda, refining it, and taking it further.
what promises the summit offered. He
suggested that one was to rid the campus community of some “can’t dos.” Topics deemed too controversial to talk about
were discussed. There were fears of
chaos and pandemonium, but the outcome was orderly. There was dialogue on important issues that
could be painful to individuals. He felt
that as a campus we must continue to have these discussions on a regular basis.
If one does not recognize one’s own
successes there are difficulties. This
has been turned this into preliminary plan, and there is a need to develop
process for continuing.
Senator Williams moved a resolution, seconded by
Senator Williams read a short resolution urging
the Provost to bring the report from the Summit to the committee of Deans and Department Chairs
in order to introduce the issues to departments for consideration when they are
planning their faculty retreat programs in January.
noted that while faculty here at SFSU were multiculturally sensitive, it did
not mean that we are perfect and could not strive for even greater progress. He thought there is a need to consider some
other issues, and that is would be prudent to address the current warning signs.
He commented that while the racial
incidents that sparked the calling of the summit were immature and disgraceful,
they had also provided an opportunity to make some progress in addressing these
asked that if this resolution were to pass, whether there would be resources
available to do this.
responded that he did know what was to be asked specifically, but would like to
provide whatever resources were possible.
commented on the need for faculty and staff to think about the grievances
stated and take them to heart.
Moved to second reading.
AGENDA ITEM #7- RECOMMENDATION from the EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE—a consent item—RESOLUTION IN HONOR OF PRESIDENT CORRIGAN’S FIFTEEN
YEARS OF SERVICE AT SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY
read the resolution honoring President Corrigan
for his 15 years of distinguished service to SFSU.
responded by observing that he had learned a long time ago from the Irish
politicians he had come to know in Massachusetts that at a situation such as
this, is was important for the honoree to act like a corpse at wake, in other
words to “lie still and be quiet.” However,
he commented on two things in particular - that faculty and senators had been
partners in accomplishing a great deal of work.
He congratulated senators on being loyal hardworking members of the
community. He felt that he had a large
number of friends in the senate, something that has not always the case in
senate/presidential relationships, and he expressed his deep appreciation for these
noted that SFSU was the preeminent urban public university in the country, and
that shared governance worked well here. He also expressed his deep appreciation for the
honor of the resolution, more than most senators might imagine.
AGENDA ITEM #8—RECEPTION IN HONOR OF PRESIDENT CORRIGAN
AGENDA ITEM #9—ADJOURNMENT—5:00 p.m.