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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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