Minutes: December 4th, 2001


Senate Meeting December 4, 2001

The Academic Senate

was called to order by Chair Vaughn at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present





Bartscher, Patricia

Bishop, Anna

Blomberg, Judith

Boyle, Andrea

Cherny, Robert

Collier, James

Concolino, Christopher

Consoli, Andres

Corrigan, Robert


Daniels, Robert



Edwards, James

Fung, Robert

Ganji, Vijay

Garcia, Oswaldo

Garcia, Velia

Gerson, Deborah

Gregory, Jan

Harnly, Caroline

Henry, Margaret

Higgins, Susan

Hom, Marlon

Houlberg, Rick



Jerris, Scott

Kassiola, Joel

La Belle, Thomas

Langbort, Carol

Levine, Josh

Luft, Sandra

McKeon, Midori

Nichols, Amy

Oñate, Abdiel

Raggio, Marcia

Sayeed, Lutfus



Smith, Miriam

Steier, Saul

Strong, Rob

Su, Yuli

Turitz, Mitch

Vaughn, Pamela

Warren, Mary


Warren, Penelope

Yip, Yewmun

Senate Members Absent:  Colvin, Caran (exc) Scoble,

Don(exc)  Gillotte, Helen(exc)  Wolfe, Bruce(exc)  Terrell, Dawn(exc) 

Alvarez, Alvin (exc) Moallem, Minoo(exc) Pong, Wen Shen(exc) AdisaThomas,

Karima(abs), Friedman, Marv (abs),

Newt-Scott, Ronda


Guests:  Jackie Kegley, Patricia Taylor,

Hafez Modirzadeh, Jo Ann Aviel Barbara Henderson, Daniel Meier, David

Hemphill, Nicholas Certo, Gail Whitaker, Daniel Meiers, Keith Monteiro,

Paul Barnes, Jerry Combs, David Hemphill, Hafez Modirzadeh, Wan-Lee


Announcements and Report

  • Chair’s Report



wanted to report briefly on the CSU Academic Conference held last week in

San Diego.  Since we have a guest today, Academic Senate CSU chair Jackie

Kegley, I decided to send my report electronically, saving time for her on

our agenda.


theme of the conference was Quality Education Through Diversity, and our campus

presentation was handled by Professor Frank Bayliss of the Biology Department. 

Professor Bayliss delivered a wonderful session entitled "From Intervention

to Honors: Realistic Funding Opportunities to Develop Quality Programs"

and focused on how significant funding is available to support students of

color and low-income students in the behavioral and basic sciences.  These

funds, in turn, support quality programs for all students, aid in recruiting

under-represented students and faculty and support faculty teacher/scholars

and mentoring programs.  In brief:  there is major funding available in these

areas precisely because we are a diverse campus.  We are indebted to Professor

Bayliss for his work on this campus and for his generosity in guiding others,

both on this campus and elsewhere, in this process.


also had a very good Q and A session with state senator Alpert, faculty trustee

Goldwhite and the chancellor.  It was the general opinion of the faculty in

attendance that the contributions by Senator Alpert were the most significant

and constructive in dealing with budget issues, CSU funding, and the like.


is, as you will imagine, general despair over the lack of progress in bargaining

-- that, of course, affects us all.


terms of the state of shared governance on individual campuses, I must report

that SFSU fares much better than many of our sister campuses in terms of communication

between administration and senate.   Shared governance is a process that requires

our continued energy and vigilance, precisely because it represents the best

of what the university does -- creating an opportunity for open examination

and critical discussion of the principles that shape and guide us; for that

to be successful it cannot be static, and it must include all voices.


the same reasons, full participation in strategic planning is crucial -- I

hope you are considering nominating yourself for CUSP II.


look forward to seeing you all at our final meeting of 2001.  I wish us all

a safe, prosperous and productive 2002.

M/S/P (Cherny, Mary

Ann Warren) to approve the agenda

Agenda Item #2:  Approval of Minutes for Meeting of November 20, 2001

M/S/P (Duke, Langbort)

to approve the minutes

Agenda Item #3: Report from Jackie Kegley, Chair, CSU Academic Senate

On behalf of the statewide

CSU Academic Senate Chair Jackie Kegley acknowledged the terrific job

that the SFSU representatives, Bob Cherny, Jan Gregory, and Eunice Aaron are

doing as CSU Academic Senators.  Kegley outlined ideas on shared governance

that were the result of work completed by the CSU Academic Senate ad hoc committee.

A few of these ideas are: orientation for trustees, Faculty, administrator,

and staff on the principles of shared governance; sharing of communications

across the university and the CSU; and accountability in shared governance

with clear expectations and clear rewards. Kegley asserted that shared

governance is a core concept for the CSU and embodies the values of the university.

Shared governance is essential to academic freedom. Shared governance reiterates

faculty responsibility for curriculum and the academic portion of the university.

That more importantly shared governance embodies the values that we try to

tech our students. These values are: reasoned judgment, research judgment,

debate, tolerance of different points of view, and the willingness to hear.

Kegley asserted that academic freedom requires faculty expertise as

a determining factor in institutional decisions. She outlined the importance

for strategic planning and drew the senate’s attention to the information

embodied in the document titled California State University Beginning of the

21st Century. (Available on the CSU web site at "The California

State University at the Beginning of the 21st Century - Meeting the Needs

of the People of California, The Academic Senate of the California State University"

at http://WWW.SEN.CA.GOV/)  

Kegley concluded by outlining the activities of several CSU Academic

Senate task forces on: role and responsibilities of department and program

chairs; post doctorate and graduate education; faculty hiring and retention;

faculty workload; faculty view of their own responsibilities; new standards

for CSU teacher preparation; and intellectual property rights.

Robert Daniels

raised the issue of better communication between trustees, faculty, and the

chancellor. Kegley outlined that part of the problem is that the trustees

want to do the best they can, but do not get an orientation about their job.

The chancellor and his staff for the most part lead the trustees and the trustees

are told what to do. Recently some trustees are changing the situation and

coming out to campuses and requesting communication with students, faculty,

and staff. Some of the new trustees are raising questions, being a little

more independent. There is also a lack of follow through on part of the chancellor’s

staff. They send out a memo to campuses but do not follow up. The CSU needs

to increase the flow of communication both up and down. Susan Higgins,

asked if Kegley could summarize from the report The California State University

at the Beginning of the 21st Century - Meeting the Needs of the People of

California, the top three agendas that we should be lobbying the California

state legislature.  Kegley, one of the key items get across to our

legislators is that the CSU is a valuable asset to the state of California.

The CSU educates the workers, the professionals and the leaders of the state

of California If the legislators don’t want to loose this valuable asset the

you better invest in the CSU. This is the general message that needs to be

carried to California legislators. We are asking for parity that the CSU have

adequate and stable funding and not been seen as the step down in the educational

scheme but equal with the UC.  The legislators need to change their view of

seeing the UC at the top, CSU in the middle and Community Colleges on the

bottom of an education pyramid.  Need to change graduate student differential

fees so that a full-time graduate students is funded at 12 units rather than

15. We need more than marginal cost funding.  Need to have a reasonable student

faculty ratio and the master plan must be changed so that CSU faculty can

do research and be recognized as doing research.  Bob Cherny, indicated

his agreement with her list of important items, however, we need to put what

we want into current context. There will be very little or nothing additional

this year or next year. We have to agree on some long-term goals that can

extend out over 5 or 10 years. We will need to restore funds to those areas

that will be cut this year and next. For the long run, we need to change the

marginal funding formulas that were written in the 1990, to reflect the real

world today. Student-faculty ratios (sfr) and the average salary of the entry

faculty need to reflect 2002 realities. We need to redefine the graduate students

as one who does not carry 15 but 12 semester units.  In addition we need to

persuade the legislature to bring down the sfr to where it was in the 1990

before the last budget crises. We need to reduce the teaching load from 12

to 9.  Lastly, we need to restore the libraries from the cuts made in the

1990s. Midori McKeon requested that the statewide CSU develop and disseminate

information on how we can adjust our curriculum to reflect the new requirements

of for the multi- subject and single subject teaching credentials. Pamela

Vaughn indicated that a SFSU team that has been working for months on

the implications of the new multiple subjects would be attending a statewide

meeting in Long Beach on December 6th and 7th. That

team will report back to the SFSU community with an open meeting for all faculty.

Lutfus Sayeed, the CSU’s requirement for bachelor’s degrees to be 120

units have resulted in many degrees on this campus to be pressured to bring

bachelor degree programs to 120 credits.  Kegley did go through extensive

discussion at statewide level and needs to be repeated again. The 120 units

are not a ceiling it is the bottom. Programs that need to have more than 120

units can. Pamela Vaughn, the provost and others have reinforced that

department’s that are required to have more than 120 units have no reason

to cut their programs down to 120.

Agenda Item #4: Proposed Revisions to the Bachelor of Music in Music-Jazz


Revision of Bachelor of Music

to include a Jazz Emphasis

Before you for review

is the proposal for the revision of bachelor of music to include a jazz emphasis. 

This proposal was reviewed by CRAC two times prior to being placed on the

Senate Agenda.  The Department of Music currently offers 5 emphases within

the Bachelor of Music Degree.  They would like to add a Jazz emphasis to serve

the students who have serious career goals in jazz.  Up until now, faculty

have been assisting students in informally meeting their jazz emphasis goals

due to the expertise of the faculty in Jazz.  Many of the courses within the

proposed emphasis already exist in the Music Department and are being grouped

to create an emphasis. The emphasis requires no new faculty. 1 new 2-unit

course Music 432 Jazz Improvisation II will be added. Current Jazz courses

will be revised are Music 431, Music 440 and Music. Patricia Taylor and Hafez

Modirzadeh are faculty representing the proposal and also here to answer any


Gail Whitaker underscored that this is not

a proposal for a new program but an emphasis, which represents a list of courses

to be used as an advising tool.

M/S/P (Steier, Houlberg)

to second reading

M/S/P (Steier, Mary

Ann Warren) to close debate


Agenda Item #5:Proposed Revisions to the Curricular Requirements

for the major and minor in International Relations

The department of international

relations has two proposals today.  One for revisions to the curricular requirements

for the major and minor in international relations and the second a proposal

for revisions in the Master’s of Arts Program in International Relations. 

Both of the proposals come to senate from CRAC as consent items. First we

will review the proposal for the revisions to the curricular requirements

for the major and minor in International Relations. Revisions of the major

include: Changing IR 300 International Careers to IR 200 International Careers

to implement a second year level course, creating a first core course. Requiring

an upper division survey of the field of international relations, IR 308 as

a required core course. Combining IR 301 and IR 303 to create a course IR

309 International Relations Analysis and Application. Renumbering IR 302 International

Political Economy would be renumbered to IR 312. Sequential renumbering and

the combining of 2 courses into 1 are essentially the changes to this major.

Revisions of the minor:

Eliminating IR

550 which is a culminating course for IR majors and only requiring IR 308,

IR 310 and IR312 and increasing the students choice of electives from 4 to

8. Faculty here representing the proposal are Jo Ann Aviel and Dean Kassiola

to answer any questions.


Duke, as

chair of the Senate Program Review Committee, asked if it were appropriate

to undergo curricula changes prior to completion of program review. Joel

Kassiola, pointed out that the changes are minor revisions and would not

be part of program review process. Joan Ann Aviel asserted that these

changes are the result of our process or completing programs review, which

will be completed this spring. Saul Steier, asked if the present program

review reflect the old curriculum or a new one with these revisions? Kassiola,

if this is approved the reviewers will be looking at the revised curriculum.

Robert Daniels asserted that the changes seem reasonable. Pamela

Vaughn, request to know the status of the program review? Duke,

a self-study has not been turned in. Joel Kassiola, the self-study

from a department’s point of view has been completed and the only thing left

was the assignment of the external reviewers, which has been pushed to the

spring semester. Duke, the self-study is sent to Gail Whitaker’s office

for the assignment of the reviewers. Gail Whitaker, our office has

not received a draft of the self-study and it is eighteen months overdue. 

Rick Houlberg, the external review may recommend curriculum changes

so these changes might be premature to the completion of that process. Susan

Higgins asserted that she believes that faculty have the right to change curriculum

at any time and do not have to wait for a particular time. Robert Cherny

commented that he could not recall that program review limits curriculum changes

to that process. It is his understanding that faculty can change our curriculum

when we feel it is appropriate. Joel Kassiola clarified the colleges

approach to program review completion and asserted that department’s are not

overdue in submission of the self-study. He outlined that the cycle was extended

to allow for departments to complete their self-studies without inflecting

an additional burden on faculty workload.


(Steier, Mary Ann Warren) to second reading


Smith sees

a problem in a department changes it curriculum while under program review. 

Kassiola, this program was last reviewed in 1992 and it is clear that

the circumstance have changed so much.


(Gregory, Mary Ann Warren) to close debate


- passed

Agenda Item #6: Proposed Revisions to the Master of Arts Degree in International


Revisions to the program

include: Requiring

IR 728 International Political Economy for all students. Changes in the academic

emphasis: two options for data analysis courses instead of just one chosen

with advisor consultation, and reducing the number of elective units required

to accommodate the required core course IR 728. Changes in the professional


Reducing the number

of elective units to accommodate the required IR 728 and rewording of the

explanation of the emphasis for clarity.

Faculty here representing

the proposal are Jo

Ann Aviel and Dean


to answer any questions.

Jan Gregory, suggested changes in language

for clarity. Midori McKeon asked why a foreign language is not required

but simply recommended, since this is a degree in international relations.

Jo Ann Aviel, this is not a change there has not been a foreign language

requirement and we have not objection to adding the wording suggested. Vaughn

pointed out that the current bulletin language asserts that a foreign language

is suggested. Vijay Ganji asked if the GPA requirements for admission

were too high.  Jo Ann Aviel outlined that the GPA requirement is not

a change from the past and has been practiced for some time.

M/S/P (Cherny, Steier)

to second reading

M/S/P (Duke, Mary

Ann Warren) to close debate

Voting.  Passed

Agenda Item #7: Proposed Revisions

to Master of Arts Degree in Education: Early Childhood Concentration 


Before you for review

are the proposal for changes to the program Master of Arts in Education: 

concentration in Early Childhood Education.  This program is outdated and

has needed substantial revision.  Due to expertise and initiative of the co-coordinators

of this program, the revision was accomplished. This proposal comes to senate

as a consent item. Changes to the program in summary: Structural changes: 

The program currently exists as a program with core courses and elective choices

and revisions change this to core, specialization, and elective courses. 

In addition reorganizing courses from core to specialization/specialization

to core and elective to core category.  This changes the number of open elective

units from 12 to 9.  These are reflected on page 3 of the proposal. Changing

the bulletin to reflect newly approved course EED 806 (approved change). Changing

course title to reflect content: EED 708 First and Second Language Development

for Diverse Learners to EED 708 First and Second Language Development in ECE

(approved change). Changing the wording under “admission to the program” in

the bulletin to capture as many students into the program as possible.

Faculty here representing

the proposal are Barbara

Henderson, Daniel Meier, and David Hemphill.

Carol Langbort

asserted that these revisions are long overdue and are much needed. Langbort,

this revision is long overdue, these are very much needed.

M/S/P (Cherny, Steier)

to second reading

M/S/P (Jerris, Onate)

to close debate

Voting - passed

Agenda Item #8: Proposed Revisions

to Educational Therapy Certificate Program.

Before you for review

are the proposal for revision of the educational therapy Certificate Program. 

This proposal comes to senate as a consent item from CRAC.   In summary changes

are: Addition of 3 prerequisites SPED 702, 803 and 770. Deletion of prerequisite

SPED 715/716. Move SPED 778 to the core requirements. Addition of a 1 unit

course SPED 710 Interpreting Cognitive Assessments.  Increasing number of

total units for the certificate from 27 to 31 units.  This occurs because

of the addition of the SPED 710 course and the requirement of taking two internships

instead of one.

Faculty here representing

the proposal are Nicholas

Certo and David


Saul Steier asked for clarification on the

removal of the three-unit computer course and the meaning of interpretation

cognitive session. Nicholas Certo, all of the people earn a credential

in special education and are receiving computer information prior to coming

into the program. Mitch Turitz asked for clarification on the internship

requirement. Certo, requirement is for two internships. The first is

hands on administration of running a business the second is learning how to

apply and conduct testing. Robert Cherny asked for clarification between

the certificate, degree program, and the credential program. Is this a separate

program from either the MA or the credential program? Certo, the course

requirements for the certificate are separate from the MA program and separate

from the credential program. Carol Langbort ask for clarification on

what appears to be confusing course numbers. Certo accepted the suggestion

and would clarify the numbering system. Andres Consoli asked how long

is the internship experience for the second internship listed. Certo,

the internship is a semester long experience with varying amount of activities.


M/S/P (Nichols,

Consoli) to second reading

M/SP (Steier, Shrivastava)

to close debate

Voting passed

Senate Chair Pamela

Vaughn reminded senators about the importance of faculty participation

in the second wave of strategic planning or CUSP II. This is the strategic

planning process that will shape the future of our university. It will set

academic priorities and to be effective it must include all. We will need

to enlist the participation of a wide range of faculty, staff, students and

administrators.  Active participation in a process so critical to the future

of our campus should be are number one priority. All faculty are invited to

participate or to nominate someone else to participate in a process that will

help determine the future of San Francisco State University:  the "second

wave" of strategic planning that we will, for now, call "CUSP II." 

Our first step is to establish a steering committee that will begin to develop

a process and priorities for CUSP II.  We have set Friday, December 14th,

as the deadline for nominations; submit them to the Academic Senate, ADM 551

campus mail or e-mail (senate@sfsu.edu).

Adjourned at 3:56 PM

Respectfully submitted,

James Edwards

Secretary to the Faculty

Meeting Date (Archive)