Minutes: December 14th 2004

ACADEMIC

SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

for

TUESDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2004

    

Meeting

Attendance:

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

TUESDAY,

DECEMBER 14, 2004

CALL

TO ORDER: 2:14 pm

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Colvin noted that the recent UIC report

was a good source for information regarding interdisciplinary programs on

campus.

She announced

the retirement, effective January 31 2004, of James Collier, Vice President for

University Advancement. She issued a call for nominations for that position,

with a deadline of January 18 and ballots would go out by January 31.

She invited

all senators to senate office afterwards for refreshments. She issued

recognition for the hard work of all the senators, especially the EPC.

Vice-chair Williams urged senators to get their

registrations in for the Asilomar retreat soon, and indicated the retreat would

include a poetry slam, a cabaret, nature walks, programs

on student plagiarism, disruptive students, and wine tasting.

CHAIR’S

REPORT

Chair Colvin shared some information from the

CSU senate chairs meeting on December 2. There were some issues that arouse

with some background information contained in packets in front of senators.

High on the list were the issues of academic freedom, state Senate Bill five,

which was a resurrected version of an earlier bill. Graduate education had

consumed much discussion, along with assessment, and the notion of

“stand-alone” applied doctoral programs to be considered next spring. There was

information on advising in the packets, and the third document was a resolution

passed by the CSU Student Association that SAC would consider next semester.

AGENDA ITEM #1—APPROVAL of the

AGENDA for DECEMBER 14, 2004

Senator Nichols noted that Agenda item eight

was coming from both CRAC AND the Graduate Council.

Approved

AGENDA ITEM #2—APPROVAL of the MINUTES for NOVEMBER 30, 2004

Senator McKeon noted some factual errors in

the minutes and offered to contact the secretary to make corrections.

 

Senator Steier requested that the results of

the roll call votes be reflected in the in minutes.

With these

changes, the minutes were approved.

AGENDA ITEM #3—RECOMMENDATION from

the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: DISCONTINUANCE of the BA in LIBERAL STUDIES: CONCENTRATION in NEXA

Senator Boyle stated that as a member of EPC,

she felt fortunate to be able to review documents regarding these

discontinuances. While EPC had discussed the minor, it had also heard some

discussion of continuing selected NEXA courses. EPC would support continuing

some NEXA courses, but also supported discontinuance.

Senator Axler noted that Humanities Dean

Sherwin was not present due to a family death and sent his regrets. Regarding

NEXA courses that might or might not be continued, he indicated willingness

hear from anyone with particular interests and thought that courses that

deserved to be preserved should be preserved. He had heard about the impact of

NEXA on GE, noting that there were two clusters heavily populated with NEXA

courses, and that 52 graduates had gone through NEXA-heavy clusters, about 1

percent of graduates. The deans would look most closely at preserving GE

courses in NEXA for segment III.

NEXA

Director Green sought to make a few

points. Firstly, he noted that GEC had only just been consulted about the NEXA

discontinuance impact on its program. Two different figures had been mentioned,

one set from Undergraduate Dean Buttlaire, and one

from the Segment III chair. Normally there was even higher enrollment in

Segment III. This was still under consideration by GEC, as the deans had not

consulted with them earlier. The relationship of NEXA courses to GE should be

considered when before voting.

Senator Smith spoke as a member of GEC, noting

that what GEC had decided to do as a body was to look at the clusters, ones

predominantly but not exclusively populated by NEXA courses, so that students

would still be able to graduate. He spoke to the need to consider how NEXA

courses worked in GE, not because the deans did not consider this, but because

the role of GEC was to consider all impacts in GE for all clusters.

Green admitted that there was no “true”

“NEXA” cluster, but that some clusters were predominantly filled with NEXA

courses. This discontinuance would cause severe difficulties. He mentioned

figures from the Segment II committee and expressed concern for NEXA’s

continuing presence in GE.

Senator Steier asked that if courses were to

be continued where they would be housed.

Senator Axler responded that that would probably

vary with the specific courses and was not sure. As to voting, the focus was on

discontinuing the concentration, which had had only three graduates over the

last nine years.

Green mentioned three items: the first

time that any mention had been raised of a possible expectation of growth money

for NEXA. NEXA courses were cross-listed and individually designated in science

or humanities. He reminded senators that they had offered in first reading to

work with any agency on campus over budget issues. If courses were

cross-listed, they would still be titled NEXA but not actually be NEXA. More

than ten fourteen more recent, succeeded in following 2002 MOU recommendations openly

acknowledged that the program itself would also be included in part of

discontinuance.

State

Senator Yee thought that the

collaboration facet of the NEXA curriculum was important. With external funding

NEXA had been a good example of this, but interdisciplinarity was now a norm

and NEXA had not evolved. The staff support could perhaps be better used

elsewhere. She supported discontinuance.

Senator Chelberg noted that as with all other

discontinuances, this would not affect the employment status of any tenured

faculty or permanent staff.

Senator Steier observed that behind this specific

discussion was the issue of the complete discontinuance of NEXA. He asked how

these decisions would be made.

Senator Meredith stated his understanding of

the discontinuance policy, that it only concerned degree programs. Courses

themselves had no protection in senate policy, and they depended on departments

and colleges for support.

Senator Nichols indicated that courses would

go through a different review process.

Senator Axler stated that Green was correct

that funding would not be available for administrative costs. He argued that

NEXA had been over-funded for a tiny program and addressing this represented

part of the intention of the discontinuance proposal.

Green responded that if it was believed

that the director and staff were “over-funded” that should have been brought up

at the recent MOU and the assessment process of 2002. Instead this was the

first time this issue had been surfaced. He thought that NEXA could be run with

a director with a reduced release time, perhaps with no summer staffing and

that there were perhaps other possibilities. The most important point for

senators to consider was that programmatic funding was based on the provost’s

office. This decision was being coupled with senate policy. He urged senators

to carefully consider the implications of discontinuing one program, when

specific matters were not separated out. While the degree program was part of

senate policy, the administrative costs came under the provost’s domain.

Senator Axler asked for a roll call vote from

the body.

Senator Chelberg offered a point of

information, that the proposal was a recommendation to discontinue or not to

discontinue this degree concentration in NEXA.

Yes to

discontinue 26

No to

discontinue 6

Abstentions

8

[See

results of roll-call voting in the appendix of the minutes.]

The senate

will recommend the discontinuance of the Liberal Studies BA Concentration in

NEXA.

AGENDA ITEM #4—RECOMMENDATION from

the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: DISCONTINUANCE of the

NEXA MINOR, 2^NDReading

Senator Steier spoke to what he saw as the main

issue. When he had defended the Russian BA it was because the discontinuance

would radically affect the central mission of the university. NEXA was more

icing on the cake rather than the center. On the other hand, some of his best

intellectual moments on campus occurred in the NEXA Thursday night colloquia,

when the sociology of science met physics. If this spirit were to leave campus,

something very important would be missing. No matter what happens in the

current decision he hoped that the university would keep that spirit.

Senator Axler thanked Steier and expressed

appreciation for and agreement with his points. Perhaps too much had been

spoken of financial matters. It seemed necessary to talk more of intellectual

matters, not money. But one academic problem with NEXA was that it did not

attract tenure/tenure-track faculty, and courses were no longer team-taught.

One of the central aspects of NEXA’s impact involved a general dissatisfaction

with quality.

Green repeated several points made

earlier. When there was an overall climate of a diminished budget, all

activities needed to be scaled back. The fact that NEXA had not been attracting

tenure-track faculty was addressed in the rebuttal. Many people had been lined

up from different colleges to teach in NEXA but the program had been given only

one year to try to hire faculty. Potential candidates had been discouraged from

applying. Team-teaching was not relevant to the quality of program. NEXA was committed

to addressing what had been brought up in 2002 and found it troublesome to deal

with what had been brought up in secret consultations for which NEXA had not been

invited.

Senator Bernard-Powers asked about the quality

of courses and what the issue was and whether there was any evidence in this

area.

Senator Axler responded that there was a lack

of innovation and new courses. This year’s offerings were largely the same as

over the last 10 years. This was an area where faculty in the colleges did much

more development work than was done in NEXA. The university sought an emphasis

on tenure-track teaching and tenure-track faculty brought an additional level

of scholarship to teaching, some of the best in the country in their area, and

this brought something extra to their classes. This had been mentioned in the

MOU, before any discontinuance discussions took place. NEXA had not been

bringing this level of scholarship from tenure-track faculty done through nation-wide

searches.

Green responded that a lack of new course

titles was not indicative of a lack of dynamism. The record indicated that

courses had had continual renewal. To him it was disturbing to have course

titles determine the level of innovation. The level of scholarship of long-term

lecturers was equal to tenure-track faculty in the department.

Approve the

discontinuance 25

Do not

approve 7

Abstain 9

The senate

will recommend the discontinuance of the BA Liberal Studies Minor in NEXA.

AGENDA ITEM #5—RECOMMENDATION from

the ACADEMIC SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, SFSU: RESOLUTION

in RECOGNITION of the SFSU BOOKSTORE’S 50^TH ANNIVERSARY—a

consent item—1^st & 2^ndReadings

Yee, Heiman m/s/p

Senator Yee noted the Bookstore’s excellent

contributions to the campus community and commended them on the occasion of

their 50^th birthday. She felt that honor should go to Rob Strong for

outstanding leadership. She noted that Senator Heiman was a member of the

Bookstore Board of Directors.

Senator Heiman thought that this was a great

resolution, and he observed that the Bookstore had been working hard in a very

competitive environment. As a non-profit organization, any surplus went back to

the university, associated students and the library. If five or ten percent was

taken off textbook sales every year, any chance of profits was lost. Students

were now going in droves to Amazon and Cheapesttextbooks.com. Some Board

members believed that it might be a good idea to seek new sources of revenue.

He urged senators to patronize the campus Bookstore before going to Stonestown.

Senator Chelberg supported the resolution,

noting the bookstore did a fabulous job in providing quality services, in

particular their commitment to area studies, core sections and general books.

He commented that in contrast to the nature of the two previous senate votes,

it was a challenge to vote positively on one thing after saying no to something

else but that it was still important for us to celebrate ongoing work.

Senator Palmer pointed out a typographical

error in the resolution.

Move to

second reading.

Approved unanimously.

AGENDA ITEM #6—RECOMMENDATION from

the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE: Proposal for new interdisciplinary

minor in modern Greek

studies—a consent item—1^st &

2^ndReadings

Nichols. Carrington m/s/p

The

proposal was reviewed on 22 by CRAC where it was unanimously voted for movement

to the senate floor. Senator Klironomos and associate dean Earthman were here

to answer any questions.

Senator Klironomos stated that this program was

an interdisciplinary minor, whose purpose was to enhance the knowledge of

cultural and historical aspects of Modern Greek life and bring that

understanding to SFSU. The program was established in 1981 and had served

hundreds of students. Since 1996 it has possessed an enriched curriculum, with

added courses in anthropology, humanities and upper division literature

courses. Enlightenment and post-enlightenment periods were also added, and the

program was separate from ancient and Byzantine periods. Under item 7 was a

list of core courses involving the cultural and intellectual history of modern

Greeks and the Diaspora, and these were not just literature courses. Electives

offered an array of courses from anthropology, history, humanities, creative

writing, and classics. No additional resources were required.

Senator Steier asked whether all the courses

were offered with adequate frequency.

Senator Klironomos responded that many courses

were in the GE program and offered regularly.

Senator Yee thanked humanities and Modern Greek

studies for a well-written proposal. She noticed that the proposal did not

include any mention of library resources.

Senator Klironomos responded that the program

was exceedingly fortunate in that SacramentoStateUniversity

had inherited a six million dollar collection, which was available through

interlibrary lending.

Move to

second reading.

Approved

unanimously

AGENDA ITEM #7— RECOMMENDATION from

the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE: PROPOSAL

for a NEW DIGITAL MEDIA PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE through CEL—a consent

item—1^st & 2^ndReadings

Nichols, Palmer m/s/p

Senator and

CRAC chair Nichols stated that this

was a new certificate in digital media offered through CEL and this proposal,

like the previous one, had also been discussed at the prior CRAC meeting. As to

the number of students, the certificate’s impact on other programs, faculty

resources - all CRAC’s questions had been answered and CRAC unanimously

approved this proposal. Joaquin Alvarado, the Director of Academic Programs in

CEL, and Dean Whittaker were present to answer questions.

Senator M. Gonzales asked for clarification on

page 3, where the proposal referred to software tools such as Final Cut Pro and

Pro Tools. These courses were also taught in BECA, and their inclusion in this

new certificate program could compromise the BECA courses.

Director of

Academic Programs Alvarado indicated

he had been working with the Cinema department to develop this certificate that

reflected the professional development needs of the downtown community.

Senator M. Gonzales expressed concern that

video production course compromised BECA’s courses, and BECA had not been

informed or consulted before this meeting. The courses seemed at

cross-purposes, as half of the courses overlapped.

Alvarado felt that there was a good

relationship with BECA, which had grown out of the desire of Whittaker to

develop partnerships, and provide access to the downtown labs. He expressed

willingness to working with BECA.

Dean of CEL

Whittaker indicated that there had

been an ongoing relationship with BECA and Cinema. While there was some

overlap, the courses had a different focus. BECA courses were for BECA

students, where they were better suited. She saw the added value of digital

media to other students in their other interest areas, and this certificate

would help market CEL specializations, the high-end applications, to students

who needed them.

Senator M. Gonzalez asked whether these courses

could be taken for university credit

Whittaker responded in the affirmative, that

that was the whole idea. The courses had all been through the course approval

process and that in order to make them work for matriculated students they had

to have been vetted. The Course Review committee was the normal process that

allowed for input. A communication gap had perhaps existed but the process was

in place.

Senator M. Gonzalez stated that this was the

first time he and his department chair had seen this proposal.

Senator Carrington stated that all had gone

forward in the normal course review process.

Senator Velez spoke to the additional resources

issue and asked about the English requirement and JEPET course prerequisites.

She wanted to know what kind of impact this would have.

Whittaker responded that matriculated

students would be dealing with these issues anyway.

Senator Avila stated that she would have a hard

time supporting this without some evidence of consultation with BECA.

Senator Langbort asked

how matriculated students would take CEL courses for credit and whether this

was a new development.

Whittaker responded that the way CEL made

this available was through special sessions, with different circumstances and

different pricing, which was not true for the Open University program.

Senator Langbort asked

then whether the price was the same.

Whittaker responded negatively stating that

this gave an opportunity to matriculated students.

Senator Chelberg wondered if programs were

offered off-site, and whether this meant the DowntownCenter.

Whittaker responded that the majority of the

courses were offered there, and that for several semesters regular courses had

also been offered there.

Stephen Ujlaki, chair of Cinema, stated that when the program had first approached CEL

they had been in a jam for labs and equipment. CEL had come through for them,

and they had been trying to raise the bar for the students. The CEL courses did

not have an academic focus like BECA. Rather they were suited for the target

students. To his knowledge, this new document had gone through a process asking

for impact on other programs.

State

Senator Gregory commented on the

apparent lack of communication and some flaws in the process. She encouraged

senators to pay more attention to the needs of those who were affected.  Faculty should have their say over

curriculum, something that was a given. She saw no malice in this instance, but

suggested that all participants needed to be very careful to observe and

protect the needs of other programs.

Senator Meredith asked what kind of

relationship Cinema had to this program.

Alvarado responded that there had been a

working group with cinema faculty and special courses offered with cinema.

Whittaker responded that more generally

faculty appointments were made through the departments.

Senator M. Gonzales stated that while he did

not believe that there was any malice at work, there still was communication

gap.

Senator Chelberg asked what could be done to

align the proposal properly and satisfy the unmet needs that had been brought

up.

Alvarado spoke to what had evolved in cinema

and the production arts, and to how they had come up with the notion of this

certificate for digital media, and had built a bridge with cinema. He thought

that there had been a proper relationship with BECA and the digital community.

Carrington Gregory m/s/p to second reading

Senator Carrington moved to return the

proposal to committee, Steier as second.

Senator Heiman posed a question to the original

proposers as to whether this movement would affect

their ability to offer the program in the spring semester.

Whittaker responded that they could offer

courses but could not advertise the certificate.

Senator Gregory suggested a move back to

committee, citing the overriding value in communication with all affected

parties.

Whitaker agreed with this but hoped that if

it turned out that someone else had made the error in communication that CEL

would get an apology.

Senator Nichols spoke against this movement

stating that BECA students would be taking BECA courses not the ones in this

proposal. She asked if the appropriate questions had been made, noting that all

the requisite signatures were present on the proposal’s routing sheet.

Senator Carrington suggested that the amendment

was offered in the spirit of seeking consultation. But he also expressed

concern about the convergence of technologies and that perhaps BECA was

claiming territory that may not be rightfully theirs. He sought to acknowledge

the consultative process.

Senator Chelberg was opposed to sending this

back to committee. He supported the senate’s own processes which, according to

the CRAC chair, had been followed. CEL maintained that everyone had been

consulted and it seemed that the senate process had been handled properly. If

individual faculty were not consulted it was perhaps the result of college

miscommunication.

Ujlaki indicated that the

Associate Dean Wan-Lee Cheng had been apprised of this program and as far as he knew the process

had been done honorably. It did not seem a sufficient reason for the program to

not go forward.

Senator Heiman stated that he was still not

clear on the magnitude and location of the communication problem. He would

prefer not to penalize students, and urged the proposal forward.

Senator Gregory stated that if the senate was

in error, she would apologize to Whittaker, but she also wondered what affect

there would be if the proposal did go back to committee. Courses would be

offered, but not certificate, which could be advertised when it was ready.

Alvarado commented that most of the

marketing for this sort of program in CEL took place through the catalog, and

the summer deadline would be lost if the proposal was delayed.

Senator Chelberg asked if anyone had contacted Curriculum

Coordinator Ramona Knowles for information about the routing sheet. Part of how

this would be possible for matriculated students would be through the increased

revenue of CEL. It might also have an adverse impact on MAT students.

Senator Nichols noted that her impression from

the office of Academic Affairs was that Wan Lee Cheng had been notified.

Undergraduate

Dean Buttlaire

announced that he had just finished talking via phone with Knowles who

confirmed the situation of the Associate Dean’s signoff on the proposal.

Ujlaki Associate

Dean Wan Lee Cheng would not have signed if BECA had not signed off on it as he

was very thorough.

Senator M. Gonzalez stated that the department

chair did not know about this.

Senator Carrington wondered if he could repeal

his motion.

Chair Colvin responded in the negative.

10 back to

committee

24 opposed

3

abstentions

The move to

return the proposal back to committee failed.

Senator Chelberg expressed hope for future

collaboration

Senator Bernard-Powers saw this as a good move.

It was innovative, served good needs and timely. She was not sure what had happened

with communication, and sought an answer.

Senator Carrington was in favor of the

proposal. It came out of much discussion and many students might find this

certificate an interface with the university, which might be good all around.

Senator Steier stated that whatever flaw had happened

in the pathway the proposal took he hoped that there would be some

consultation.

Alvarado indicated that this incentive

happened already with other programs, and should do the same thing here.

Move to

close debate.

Nichols, Steier m/s/p

Approved with dissent.

AGENDA ITEM #8— RECOMMENDATION from

the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE: REVISION to the MS in RECREATION—1^st

reading—proposal to be heard NO LATER THAN 4:05 p.m.

Chair Colvin

asked for remaining senators to stay to preserve quorum

Nichols, Ulasewicz m/s/p

Senator Nichols indicated that department chair

Tierney was present to answer questions.

The

proposal was the result of a year and half of program review, extensive

feedback from professionals, faculty and students, and an external review, all

of which had been taken into account.

Senator Bernard-Powers had a question about the

removal of the course REC 700.

Tierney responded that the course had been

removed from the core but moved to an upper division level. The program sought to

maintain similar number of units for the whole program without penalizing students.

There had been a decline of interest in therapeutic recreation for 10 years.

Move to

second reading.

Hom Gonzales m/s/p

Senator Yee thanked the proposers

for their carefully constructed proposal that addressed all appropriate

concerns.

Unanimously

approved

AGENDA ITEM #9 —ADJOURNMENT at 4:05pm

Roll-call voting

December 4 2004

Agenda Items #3 and #4