SFSU Academic Senate
Minutes of December 7, 1999
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Terrell
at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Aaron, Eunice; Alvarez, Alvin; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein,
Marian; Boyle, Andrea; Cancino, Herlinda; Collier, James; Consoli, Andres; Corrigan,
Robert; Craig, JoAnn; Cullers, Susan; Duke, Jerry; Edwards, James; Eisman, Gerald;
Elia, John; Fehrman, Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Ganji,
Vijay; Gillotte, Helen; Goldsmith, Helen; Gregory, Jan; Harnly, Caroline; Hom,
Marlon; Hu, Sung; Hubler, Barbara; Jerris, Scott; Johnson, Dane; Johnson, Sharon;
Kelley, James; La Belle, Thomas; Langbort, Carol; McKeon, Midori; Oñate,
Abdiel; Raggio, Marcia; Sagisi, Jaymee; Scoble, Don; Shapiro, Jerald; Smith,
Miriam; Strong, Rob; Swanson, Deborah; Terrell, M. Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Vaughn,
Pamela; Wick, Jeanne; Wolfe, Bruce; Wong, Alfred; Yee, Darlene; Zoloth, Laurie.
Senate Members Absent: Graham, Michael(exc.);
Gonzales, Angela(exc.); Concolino, Christopher(exc.); Moallem, Minoo(exc.);
Tarakji, Ghassan(exc.); Avila, Guadalupe(exc.).
Guests: J. Kassiola, G. Manning, E. Pasaporte,
J. Eng, G. Whitaker, D. Zingale, M. Kasdan.
Announcements and Report
Chair's Report
- Chair Terrell updated the Senate on planning for AsiloCampus.
The first plenary will feature Alexander Astin on K-12 outreach; the second
plenary will feature CSU faculty trustee Harold Goldwhite on governance issues,
and the third will be a visioning session addressing priorities as we look
to the future.
- Terrell announced the availability on the Senate website
of Gerald Eisman's document on community service learning.
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of the Agenda for December
7, 1999
As there were no additions or corrections, the agenda was
approved as printed.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of the Minutes for November
16 and November 30, 1999
As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were
approved as printed.
Agenda Item #3 - Report from Vice President La Belle
Vice President La Belle updated the Senate on assessment,
pointing to its three different components: the quantitative/demographic component
(e.g., changes over time, progress to degree); 2) student learning and achievement
data; 3) perceptions and expectations. He elaborated on the latter two.
On student learning and achievement data, La Belle noted
that progress is beginning to pick up on GE, data collection on learning outcomes
in academic majors and minors is in place, and reports came in from all colleges.
There is an exciting array of assessment strategies, ranging from comprehensive
exams, to portfolios to senior seminars, with a number of departments also using
surveys, which need to be balanced with other kinds of data. A number of programs
are using grades, but they must have consensus for criteria and use of those
grades. Overall, there is more attention to undergraduate than graduate and
more attention to degree programs than to certificate programs and minors, and
we need to have more of a balance. There has also been a shift in attitudes
from negative to positive in some departments.
On attitudes and perceptions of students, faculty, and staff,
La Belle commented on the "PULSE" and other surveys. He pointed to a few specifics:
40% of students have never seen an advisor; 20% of students have taken a course
involving community service; students are generally satisfied with the quality
of their academic programs but are less satisfied with the way their program
prepares them for the job market; about 50% say they rarely feel welcome on
campus; whereas 72% of faculty and staff respond that SFSU is a welcoming environment;
75% of students said SFSU policies are easy to understand, but only 56% of faculty
said that; 90% of students said they would attend three regular semesters per
year if they were offered. We are also relating the graduate exit surveys to
national norms.
La Belle summarized that all these forms of assessment are
opportunities to learn about ourselves and our programs and how we're doing.
Midori McKeon asked about the size of the student
sample. LaBelle answered that they take 4-5 questions, and ask one sample of
students, and then another group, and ask another 4-5 questions using standard
random sampling techniques.
Agenda Item #4 - Elections
Associated Students Board of Directors
The Senate unanimously confirmed the appointment of Alfred
Wong (Ethnic Studies) as the faculty representative to the Associated
Students Board of Directors.
CSU Academic Council on International Programs
Johnetta Richards (Black Studies) was elected to
be the SFSU representative to the CSU Academic Council on International Programs
by acclamation.
Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Certificate Program in Information
Technology Auditing
Alfred Wong, Chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval
Committee (CRAC), introduced the College of Business's proposed Certificate
Program in Information Technology Auditing. The proposed program will serve
the needs of non-matriculated students who have an appropriate academic background
as well as full-time experience in related fields and wish to gain knowledge
in the area of Information Technology Auditing. This program will have enrollment
through Open University, and is a consent item from CRAC.
Barbara Hubler provided information on the financial
aid possibilities for these kinds of certificate programs.
M/S/P (Duke, Oñate) to second reading.
M/S/P (Duke, Goldsmith) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Revisions to the Bachelor of
Science in Business: Concentration in Computer Information Systems
Wong introduced another consent item from CRAC: revisions
to the Bachelor of Science in Business: Concentration in Computer Information
Systems. The proposed change removes the COBOL track and adds to the list of
electives.
Gerald Eisman asked about the new electives, and
Jamie Eng, chair of the BACS department, read a number of course titles.
M/S/P (Duke, Goldsmith) to second reading.
M/S/P (Goldsmith, Duke) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #7 - Proposed Revisions to the Minor in Business
Computer Information Systems
Wong introduced the following consent item from CRAC:
revisions to the minor in Business Computer Information Systems. The changes
alter the list of electives to reflect the rapidly changing high-tech environment.
M/S/P (Duke, Goldsmith) to second reading.
M/S/P (Goldsmith, McKeon) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #8 - Proposed Revisions to the Bachelor of
Science in Business: Concentration in Office Systems
Wong also introduced the following consent item from
CRAC: changes to the concentration in Office Systems in the Bachelor of Science
in Business Administration. The proposal changes the title of the concentration
to Distributed Office Systems, alters the list of electives to reflect the rapidly
changing high-tech environment, and changes one required course to reflect the
increasing technical nature of Office Systems.
Miriam Smith asked how Computer Information Systems
and Office Systems majors differed. Jamie Eng answered that Office Systems
allows students to not focus entirely on technical skills. Computer Information
Systems has all 8 courses in technical area. Office Systems jobs would be more
in functional departments of a corporation.
M/S/P (Duke, Goldsmith) to second reading.
M/S/P (Duke, McKeon) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #9 - Proposed Revisions to the Bachelor of
Science in Business: Concentration in Business Analysis
Wong introduced this final consent item from CRAC:
revisions to the Business Analysis concentration for the Bachelor of Science
Degree in Business Administration. The changes would allow students to focus
their coursework more on the techniques and tools necessary for a successful
analysis career. There also have been some change in courses.
Bruce Wolfe suggested that the department include
some social component on how these analyses are created and affect people in
general.
M/S/P (Duke, Goldsmith) to second reading.
M/S/P (Duke, Goldsmith) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #10 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Master
of Science in Health Science
Helen Goldsmith, chair of the Educational Policies Council
(EPC), introduced this recommendation from EPC, first thanking the members
of EPC for their thoughtful discussion and deliberation and then making some
general comments about the process of reviewing so many possible discontinuances
this year. She remarked that one outcome of reviewing so many programs was to
ask whether the university is moving in a particular direction. There was some
concern that we as a campus are becoming more of a "professional" school. There
will be a discussion at AsiloCampus, and Goldsmith also asked that the Senate
review program revisions in the larger context of our university mission and
goals.
This first proposed discontinuance is the result of the
Master of Public Health (MPH) that was approved by the Senate a few years ago.
When we approved the MPH, it was with the understanding that the MS would be
discontinued because the department did not feel able to offer both programs
and felt that the MPH was the more important degree for this institution to
offer.
M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to second reading.
Jeanne Wick asked about the kind of work for which
these programs prepare one, voicing a concern about whether the elimination
is only budgetary and whether we might still need to train people to be health
educators.
Laurie Zoloth responded that the MPH is the degree
that health educators need to have; the MPH is both the professional degree
and the relevant academic degree; the MPH is a very important degree with almost
Ph.D. equivalency.
Jerald Shapiro raised a concern that we don't have
a sense of the big picture, a number of forces working at once: for example,
year round operations and increasing enrollments. He added that he is very reluctant
to discontinue this program with its documented stream of interested students.
With a number of the discontinuances, we really don't know where we're heading.
Goldsmith replied that she is convinced in this particular
case that this is the appropriate thing to do. The department brought the MPH
with the intent that they would discontinue the MS.
Wolfe stated that in this case it seems to be based
solely on budgetary restraints. There is a place for health science, too. He
asked how many students enroll in this track every year.
John Elia replied as member of the Health Science
faculty and the graduate coordinator. There were 15-20 students per year previously;
two years ago when the department agreed to give up the MPH for the MS, the
members of the department agreed to look at discontinuance, and it was presented
as a question of this or that. He added that he needed to come clean with his
own conscience, broaching some serious disagreements with this discontinuance,
noting that some people in the department were reconsidering. Last year there
were 106 people with some interest in applying for the MS.
Rob Strong asked about the ramifications for the
quality of offerings for the remaining degrees in the department if this discontinuance
is not accepted. Goldsmith replied that given the proposal for the MPH instead
of the MS, it is hard to say whether there would be money.
Marlon Hom said that curriculum matters are self
determination matters for departments.
Abdiel Oñate agreed that it is for the department
to decide, but they need some framework and criteria to plan the future of their
department. We cannot force faculty to overload.
Helen Gillotte concurred with Marlon Hom generally;
however, there is a faculty member from the program who is questioning the decision.
Does the department really want to do this, or are they doing it because they
are told they have to if they want the MPH?
Gail Whitaker, Associate Vice President for Academic
Program Development, made some general observations about the program review
process and discontinuances, which are for the most part a natural outcome of
program review and program development, sometimes entailing difficult choices.
This is a faculty-controlled curriculum review process that is built in to our
structure, and she is not troubled by the parade of discontinuances.
Wolfe made a quick point: the job market demands that we
teach health science.
Gillotte reiterated that she's wondering why she's hearing
someone from the department saying they are against this. She also noted the
contradiction in the statement that it's fiscally impossible to offer both,
but that field supervision in the MPH will require increased funds. Where's
the savings?
Hom replied, recalling the Graduate Council discussion,
that this discontinuance was the precondition for accepting the development
of the MPH, and we should respect the departmental decision.
La Belle concurred with Hom and Whitaker, recounting the
history of these discussions. SFSU is known for having the largest number of
new programs in the system in the 90s. Change will happen, and the faculty who
are knowledgeable about the basis of their program should make the decision
on what is most appropriate.
Goldsmith asked Dean Zingale to speak to why we should accept
this recommendation to discontinue. Zingale commented that there is a
great misconception that if you do something well, people will drop money; the
reality is that there are finite resources, and it came down to the MS in Health
or the MPH. He added that it is not a question of whether it is viable or good--it
is both--but there are no resources. He also commented that the MPH is a better
value for our graduate students than the MS, but we are not opposed to offering
the MS in Health through CEL.
M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #11 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Concentration
in Individual Major and the Concentration in Physical Science in the Bachelor
of Arts Degree in Science
Goldsmith introduced this recommendation from EPC.
The College of Science and Engineering is requesting the discontinuance of the
BA in Science concentrations in individual major and in physical science. The
program has no faculty assigned to it and essentially no course of its own.
This major had been a good choice for students who wanted to be high school
science teachers; with recent changes in credential subject matter preparation,
this program no longer serves that function. The University Interdisciplinary
Council (UIC) also recommended that the discontinuance be approved, while at
the same time encouraging faculty to pursue other opportunities for interdisciplinarity.
M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to second reading.
Wolfe asked if there is a BS in science. Dean Kelley
answered that every department in the College of Science has a BS degree.
Deborah Swanson asked how people who are preparing
to become teachers are getting their training. Goldsmith responded that students
now have to get a more specific science degree and then round it off with more
science courses. Jeanne Wick raised a similar question.
M/S/P (Fehrman, Duke) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #12 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Master
of Arts Degree in Science
Goldsmith introduced this recommendation from EPC.
The College of Science and Engineering is also requesting the discontinuance
of the MA in Science. There are currently no students enrolled in the program.
M/S/P (Fehrman, Duke) to second reading.
M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #13 - Proposed Resolution on the Governor's
Request for a Community Service Graduation Requirement
Terrell introduced this consent item from the Executive
Committee, reviewing the history of the Governor's request for a community service
graduation requirement. It has been discussed in the Senate and in Senate committees,
as well as other places at this university, and the sentiment is that while
we strongly endorse the idea of students participating in community service
and community service in particular, we do not feel a mandatory requirement
is the way to foster an ethic of civic engagement.
Darlene Yee commented that we have learned that,
one, community service can be differentiated from community service learning;
two, many if not all CSU campuses and programs are already involved with both;
and, three, many if not most faculty and students believe in the opportunity
to apply what is learned in the classroom out in the community. Given these
circumstances, she encouraged senators to vote in favor of this resolution.
Wick proposed adding the following words to the last
"Whereas" after "currently": "as indicated in the recent PULSE survey." It was
accepted as a friendly amendment.
Andres Consoli asked about the numbers.
Laurie Zoloth commented that a number of departments
require community service for graduation, and wondered how many departments
make it mandatory.
Gerald Eisman gave some numbers on courses: over
100 courses in service learning in 41 departments across the university and
in virtually every college. Terrell read from the results of the PULSE survey.
M/S/P (Hom, Duke) to second reading.
McKeon asked about students working for pay to support
themselves, wanting a clear distinction between community service and community
service learning. Terrell commented that the resolution speaks to both. Eisman
added that Campus Compact has a useful definition of community service learning
that includes three things: academic learning, civic learning, and experiential
learning. The intersection of all three is community service learning. Terrell
added that there is a longer document on community service learning prepared
by Eisman.
Jan Gregory spoke in favor of this resolution and
asked if changing the resolved into two parts would be accepted as a friendly
amendment. It will read as follows:
Resolved: That the San Francisco State University Academic
Senate affirm the role of the university in inculcating an ethic of civic responsibility
and ensuring that meaningful service is offered to the communities of California,
and be it further
Resolved: That the San Francisco State University Academic
Senate affirm further its conviction that the appropriate strategy for so doing
is to provide adequate incentives and appropriate resources for the careful
planning and execution of community service learning opportunities for all CSU
students rather than to mandate service as a graduation requirement.
The above was accepted as a friendly amendment.
Wolfe attempted to relieve any anxiety about the
difference between community service and community service learning. He added
that the mandate was on community service for graduation, but what we need to
do is educate people about a system that is already out there and working: community
service learning.
M/S/P (Duke, Wong) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Agenda Item #14 - Proposed Policy on Faculty Merit Increase
Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) Chair Hom introduced
the proposed policy on Faculty Merit Increase, a recommendation from FAC and
the Senate Executive Committee. He first summarized the extensive consultation
predating today's proposal, trying to accommodate everybody with language that
can work for everybody. He asked people to understand that we are restricted
by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) language, and he summarized what
this policy is attempting to do: create a sunshine policy through the tracking
sheet, spell out the process for joint appointments and faculty from small departments
and programs, set in place a process from the faculty point of view. He added
that this policy strikes a good balance between extremes that are already out
there. He ended by urging support for the policy.
Terrell added a couple things on behalf of the Executive
Committee, remarking upon recent changes based on continued feedback. The goal
is to ensure that faculty concerns are reflected in the policy and that the
policy also reflects what is in the CBA.
M/S/P (Bartscher, Kelley) to change the second sentence
in the fourth paragraph to the following: "Deans are encouraged to provide explanations
for disagreements with department recommendations." Patricia Bartscher spoke
to the motion stating that people do things when encouraged rather than told.
Jan Gregory argued against the amendment, wishing
for explanations at all levels of review.
Mitch Turitz also argued against the amendment, commenting
on Bartscher's suggestion that encouragement of explanations would be sufficient:
without a mandatory requirement in the last round, there were no explanations.
Hom added that this really is up to our wisdom since it
is not part of the CBA, but remember that any changes may or may not be followed
up when signed.
Zoloth spoke from her perspective as a member of
FAC: there are inherent substantive justice problems with this type of raise,
but the single most important thing heard again and again was to at least offer
strong procedural justice. The main complaint about the FMI process was its
lack of openness. This is bad even for faculty who believe in merit pay because
faculty do not know what makes them meritorious. It is a confusing reward system.
We need to keep this a mandatory reporting requirement.
Dane Johnson stated that if there is a disagreement,
there should be an explanation--period.
Kelley corrected for the record that in his college he met
with anyone who wanted to meet with him.
M/S/P (Vaughn, Ferhman) to close debate on the
amendment.
The vote was taken and the amendment was defeated.
Gregory spoke in favor of this policy. In twenty minutes,
we will be in a situation where we do or don't have a policy. Those of you with
short memories like mine probably don't want to repeat what happened last summer.
What this policy does do is say that as representatives of the faculty we support
a strong faculty statement, and we hope that that will be heeded.
Yee asked what is meant by a "standard cv." Terrell
said that for Ex Com it means standard for the discipline.
M/S/P (Duke, Wong) to second reading.
McKeon spoke to the cv, saying that her chair and
colleagues believe the appended cv should not be allowed with the award based
solely on the year's accomplishments. She asked for further comment on this
from those who sat on review committees.
Vaughn spoke as a departmental chair, replying that
none of her faculty appended a cv and all were recommended for an FMI, and all
received one. Hom added that it's really at the department's discretion. JoAnn
Craig asked if there is an advantage to having a cv appended. Terrell explained
some of the reasons why this was approved. Some faculty have questioned it but
other faculty felt that a year's snapshot was not the best way to indicate their
professional worth over time. Hom added that there are faculty with long-term
projects.
Vijay Ganji commented on the CBA, which states that
the FMI can be no more than 7.5% of faculty-based salary, but it doesn't tell
the mechanism of distribution; as written, the policy is unfair to junior faculty,
receiving less money for similar performance. Hom responded that we cannot mandate
an across the board equal payment because it is not what the CBA stipulates.
Department faculty can make adjustments.
M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.
Terrell concluded the meeting by thanking us all for the
work during this semester.
The Senate was adjourned at 4:00p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dane Johnson
Secretary to the Faculty