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