February 6th, 2024

Academic Senate

Plenary Meeting Minutes

Tuesday 6 February 2024

Hybrid – Seven Hills & Zoom

2:00 PM

 

 

 

 

 

OPEN FLOOR PERIOD:  2:00 - 2:05 PM

The Open Floor Period provides an informal opportunity for campus community members to raise questions or make comments directed to Senators, Senate officers or to university administrators. Please arrive promptly at 2:00 PM. Please limit comments to not more than three minutes per topic. Senators may make announcements under Item 3 below.

 

Vice Chair Harvey offered a few celebratory words for Mina Hernandez and Karen Boyce of the Health Promotion & Wellness Shout for their work on the Three-Year Impact Report. The report can be found here: https://wellness.sfsu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Impact%20Report…

 

HPW Director Karen Boyce: provided information about HPW and the context for the report. In short, “HPW’s programs are funded by the Student Health Service Feel the report serves as documentation of how these funds have been leveraged to support students’ overall health and academic potential.”  Director Boyce then announced the National College Health Assessment Survey, inviting senators and guests to help promote the survey.

 

Sen. Erickson gave notice that he will be co-hosting a townhall with Dr. Stephen Filling, the Political Action Chair of the CFA board of directors. This is scheduled for this Thursday and will cover the recent Tentative Agreement. There will be time for discussion and Q&A.

 

CALL TO ORDER: 2:10 PM Called to order at 2:08PM

1. Approval of the Agenda for 2 February 2024

 

Chair Goldman gave notice that today’s agenda will have a speaker whose speaking time will be approximate. He then gave notice that Provost Sueyoshi will not attend today’s meeting. Furthermore, the day’s last scheduled speaker, Carleen Mandolfo, Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs, will need to reschedule due to travel. Chair Goldman then noted that the day’s agenda is quite full (and the meeting will run long).

 

Agenda approved as read.

 

2. Approval of the Minutes for 7 November 2023

Minutes approved as read.

 

3. Announcements from the Floor

No announcements from the floor were made.

 

4. Reports
   1. Chair’s Report 

Chair Goldman welcomed everyone to the first plenary meeting of the spring semester and wished all a happy Lunar New Year. Chair Goldman then opened the floor to Grace Yoo, Dean of the College of Ethnic Studies.

 

Dean Yoo: introduced herself and announced that Catrióna Esquibel, Associate Dean of the College of Ethnic Studies, was quite ill. Dean Yoo then asked for a moment of silence.

 

Silence was observed.  

 

Chair Goldman offered his appreciation to collogues on the academic senate. He said a few words about the difficult times the campus faces and offered remarks about the good that the senate does as a locus for cooperation and the exchange of information, furthering social justice, equity, and diversity.

 

1. 2. President’s Report

President Mahoney offered words of support for Associate Dean Esquibel and her family. President Mahoney wished everyone a happy new year and then gave notice that she attended the Board of Trustees in Long Beach last week. She compared the present moment to the 2008 recession, stating that the current budget downturn is more challenging (as the present problems are structural). President Mahoney recommended that everyone watch the recording of the Board of Trustees meeting here: https://www.calstate.edu/csu-system/board-of-trustees/past-meetings/Pages/January-29-31-2024.aspx

 

President Mahoney then summarized the depth of the CSU budget deficit. This included an update on the Governor’s 2024-25 CSU compact funding commitment of approximately $240 million: this will be deferred by one year—until fiscal year 2025-26.  However, the legislative analyst is not optimistic that the funds will exist to pay the deferred compact (i.e. No new funding for the system). This will make the CSU budget situation worse. Much of this depends upon the tax revenues the state collects. We won’t know anything for sure until May. She then moved to summarize the discussion around changes to CSU general education requirements. The central question concerns the reduction of undergrad GE requirements from 39 units to 34 units. If passed, this reduction will become state law. Other comments were made about the 5% re-allocation being reduced to 3%, and that the best case scenario may be a $37 mill reduction over 3 years for SFSU. Changes must be made without diminishing student confidence. The floor was then opened for questions.

 

Discussion was had about the effectiveness of preserving student confidence as well as whether or not there are reserve funds that the campus can access. Comments were also made about finding ways to support students in greatest need during his time.

 

 

Chair Goldman noted that Provost Sueyoshi will not be joining today and that we have a long agenda. He then prompted a move to committee reports.

 

1. 3. Provost’s Report
   4. Standing Committee Reports
      1. Academic Policies Committee

Sen. Chou gave notice that APC will present 3 items. These will include a Revision to S02-217 Academic Program Assessment (in second reading), a Revision to S02-217 Academic Program Assessment (in second reading); and a Revision to S99-206 Policy on the Academic Program Assessment Committee (in second reading).

 

 

1. 1. 2. Campus Curriculum Committee

Sen. D’Alois gave notice that CCC has several items in first reading today. These will be program change requests and will include a BA in Biology, a BMus Conc. in Composition, a BMus Conc. in Vocal Performance, a BMus Conc. in Music Education, a BMus Conc. in Jazz/Ethnomusicology, a BMus Conc. in Instrumental Performance, a BA in Music Production, and a Graduate Certificate in Teaching (GCT) English to Speakers of Other Languages. Each item will be introduced by their respective sponsors.

 

1. 1. 3. Faculty Affairs Committee

Sen. Holschuh: gave notice that FAC has one item in first reading, a Revision to F22-241 Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Policy.

Note that this item was postponed for lack of time.

 

1. 1. 4. Strategic Issues Committee

Sen. Trousdale gave notice that SIC brings one item in second reading: a Resolution Affirming Shared Governance, Curricular Integrity and Budget Transparency.  

 

1. 1. 5. Student Affairs Committee

Sen. Olsher gave notice that SAC has one item on the agenda, an Anti-Doxxing Resolution (in first reading).

 

Note that this item was postponed for lack of time.

 

 

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

An informational item is a statement announcing the completion of a process, carried out in accordance with Senate policy, and requiring formal notification of the Senate at its conclusion.

 

5. Report 3 (written) from Faculty Trustee Darlene Yee-Melichar.
6. Academic Calendar for Summer 2024 and AY 2024-2025.
7. SF State Academic Senate Executive Committee Support of ASCSU Resolutions Supporting Strike and Bargaining.

 

CONSENT ITEMS

A consent item is one deemed by the Chair to be non-controversial, requiring no debate. Any Senator may call the item to the floor, in which case it is considered as new business in first reading. If no Senator calls it to the floor, it is considered approved. It may be read into the record, or we may move directly to the next agenda items.

        No Consent Items

 

CONTINUING BUSINESS

Continuing (once called Old) Business involves items returning to the Senate, usually in Second Reading, but occasionally still in First Reading. Items in Second Reading belong to the Senate as a whole rather than to an individual or committee. Comments on Second Reading items should be confined to those for or against or proposing specific amendments. We ordinarily limit each speaker to three minutes. Senators may yield their time to non-Senators if needed. Amendments and the final document are passed or not passed by majority vote.

 

8. Recommendation from the Strategic Issues Committee: Resolution Affirming Shared Governance, Curricular Integrity and Budget Transparency, returning in second reading.

 

Sen. Trousdale moved the resolution to the floor. He offered a reminder that the item was meant to be brought in December, but collective bargaining strikes preempted that day’s plenary meeting.

 

Chair Goldman offered guidelines for speaking on the item (i.e. confine comments to statements either for or against the item). He then opened the floor statements and recommendations for change?

 

Sen. Collins offered that the transparency exhibited by the SF State University Committee is a model for the rest of the system. He encouraged everyone to vote in favor of the resolution.

 

Sen. Grutzik offered overall support for the resolution but noted edits. These include changes to language on lines 93, 95, and 105. She explained that the work of the senate and that of collective bargaining units are two distinct types of work. In an effort to clarify this distinction, she prosed removing references to CFA and CSUEU from the resolution.

 

Chair Goldman moved to open discussion on this point. Sen. Collins seconded the motion.

 

Discussion was had about whether to keep or remove references to CFA, CSUEU or other references to collective bargaining units. Differing opinions included removal of the language so that the work and speaking position of representatives from senate or unions is made clear. Comments supporting inclusion of the language included recognition of the value of the bargaining unit’s perspective and necessity in preserving this as a venue for hearing that perspective. It was noted that robust conversation was had about this topic during committee deliberations.

 

 

Sen. Collins offered his support of the amended language. He explained that unions have no purview over curriculum (the Academic Senate does) and that included references to unions may lend an incorrect assumption about that purview.

 

Vice Chair Harveyoffered his support of the amendment citing other policy structures within senatorial procedures that already preserve the right of unions to speak.

 

Sen. Hellman offered disagreement with the proposed amendment, citing the resolution’s opening statement (including the language, “Solicit and consider information and perspectives.”). This suggests that references to bargaining units is merely to serve the purpose of considering information and perspectives.

 

Jackson: also offered disagreement with the proposed amendment, citing the need to preserve the ability for different units to inform one another (via shared discussion, etc.).

 

The amendment was then put to a vote. Shall we delete the language referring to collective bargaining and unions?

 

17 yes

21 no

9 abstain

 

The amendment did not carry. We will keep the language as it is.

 

John Kim: offered edits to lines 96-100. The specific edit would be to remove language after the clause, “in advance of implementation […]” (“to allow for a full process of information-sharing and discussion in Senate, subsequent information-sharing and consultation with campus stakeholders, and follow-up discussion in Senate; and be it further”) John Kim cited the need for quick movement on large or complicated budget problems, and so the timetable suggested by the language would limit that quick movement. 

 

Chair Goldman moved to open discussion on this point. Sen. Collins seconded the motion.

 

Discussion was then had about whether to keep or remove this language. Various viewpoints were expressed. Disagreements with the amendment included preserving the need for stakeholder consultation in advance of large budgetary decisions (particularly those that impact many people). Others agreed that there indeed may be times where action must be taken before consultation can be made, but there must be language that stipulates what factors must exist for that unilateral action to be made. It was also observed that this is a resolution, not a policy (and thus open for later discussion and flexibility).

 

 

The amendment was then put to a vote. Shall we delete the language following “in advance of implementation […]”

 

17 yes

25 no

4 abstain

 

 

The amendment did not carry. We will keep the language as it is.

 

Chair Goldman moved to then bring the resolution itself to a vote.

 

25 yes

10 no

9 abstain

 

The motion carried and the resolution was passed.

 

9. Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Revision to S02-217 Academic Program Assessment, in second reading.

Sen. Chou provided an explanation of the revisions in the document made to lines 98-99. The floor was then opened for questions.

Discussion was then had about how any changes here might impact the By Laws template being worked on by FAC.

The revision was then held to a vote.

 

29 yes

0 no

7 abstain

 

The motion carried and the revision was passed.

 

10. Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Revision to S99-206 Policy on the Academic Program Assessment Committee, in second reading.

 

Sen. Chou offered context for the revision and gave notice that it was approved during first reading. There have been no subsequent changes.

 

The revision was then held to a vote.

32 yes

0 no

4 abstain

 

The motion carried and the revision was passed.

 

NEW BUSINESS

New Business items are brought by a committee or individual to the Senate in First Reading, during which open discussion and debate may occur. We ordinarily limit each speaker to three minutes. Senators may yield their time to non-Senators if needed. The item is then returned to the Committee for further revision, to be brought back as Continuing Business in Second Reading.

Recommendations from the Campus Curriculum Committee: program change requests, in first reading (Time approximate 2:55 PM):

11. BA in Biology

Sen. D’Alois brought the item to the floor. She then deferred her time to Associate Professor Sally Pasion to provide a brief introduction.

Sen. Pasion: gave notice that this is a revision to the BA in Biology. It increases the program from 57 to 58 units. This is to align the program with changes made to the BS in Biology in 2021.

 

Sen. Collins spoke in favor of this proposal.

Sen. D’Alois gave notice that the consultations that were done were amazing and choices of electives are outstanding. She offered her support.

Chair Goldman gave notice that this will then return to us in second reading next time.

 

12. BMus Conc. in Composition
13. BMus Conc. in Vocal Performance
14. BMus Conc. in Music Education
15. BMus Conc. in Jazz/Ethnomusicology
16. BMus Conc. in Instrumental Performance
17. BA in Music Production

 

Chair Goldman gave notice that items 12-17 will be discussed together.

 

Sen. D’Alois explained that these are changes to the music department that have been happening de facto. This is to codify what has already been happening in the department. These are all performance-related. Sen. D’Alois then introduced Cyrus Ginwala, Director of the School of Music.

 

Dir. Ginwala: first confirmed that they are not offering a BA in music education. He then explained that the School of Music is looking to offer a BM in a manner more reflective of modern educational and sociocultural trends in a cost-effective manner. They want to open the degree to a larger cohort of students with varied musical backgrounds.

Discussion was then had about the items, including whether BECA and the Graduate College of Education were consulted about some of the courses included in the curriculum as well as the overall changes. Dir. Ginwala will reach out to BECA and the Graduate College of Education later about these points. Other discussion was had about other mechanisms in the other programs ensure equity, diversity, and inclusion. Classical music is no longer the assumed discipline for incoming students as they enter this degree. Thus, other genres and media of music are written into the curricula (reflective of the students’ educational background and tool usage). There was widespread support for these revisions and the sentiment that motivates them.

 

Chair Goldman gave notice that this will come back to us in second reading. He then announced that we will move on to our first presentation (item 22).

 

18. Graduate Certificate in Teaching (GCT) English to Speakers of Other Languages  https://nextbulletin.sfsu.edu/courseleaf/courseleaf.cgi?page=/programadmin/487/index.html&step=showfullrecord

Sen. D’Alois brought the item to the floor and then deferred her time to Associate Professor David Olsher and TESOL Program and CMS Coordinator Priyanvada Abeywickrama.

 

Dr. Abeywickrama: explained the context around this certificate. In short, matriculated graduate students have expressed a desire for such a certificate. This certificate would both serve the professional outcomes for grad students as well as the learning outcomes of their own students. This certificate will not require additional resources. The floor was opened for questions.

 

Discussion was had about the positive qualities and support for this certificate.

Chair Goldman gave notice that this item will return next time in second reading. He offered his thanks to Sen. D’Alois for her work on these items. Chair Goldman then announced that we have dropped below quorum and only have a few minutes left, so he will not push anything further into first reading. He directed everyone to look at everything in first reading for next time.

Chair Goldman moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:55pm. The remaining items (19-22)will be resumed next plenary.

 

19. Recommendation from the Executive Committee: Supporting Academic Senate of the California State University Resolution on AB 928, and Campus Autonomy in General Education Requirements, in first reading.
20. Recommendation from the Student Affairs Committee: Anti-Doxxing Resolution, in first reading.
21. Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Revision to S14-236 Academic Program Review Policy, in first reading.
22. Recommendation from the Faculty Affairs Committee: Revision to F22-241 Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Policy, in first reading.

 

PRESENTATION(s)

 

23. Jeff Jackanicz, Vice President of University Advancement, “Report on University Advancement.” Time approximate 3:10 PM. 

Vice President Jackanicz: explained that he will cover who University Advancement is, how advancement is structured, what they focus on, their progress, how they compare to their peers on other campuses, and what they plan to do in the future. He then presented slides that outlined the mentioned topics, including that Advancement’s base budget FY 23-24 is $6.4 million or 1.4% of SF State’s Budget; they have a new Customer Relationship Management (CRM) database; the SF State The Foundation’s board increased its subsidy for FY 2023 – 2024; its endowment size as of June 30, 2023 was $165.7 million; financial markets are doing well (i.e. future fund-raising prospects seem positive); Advancement’s goal is to be able to raise $22.5m annually (they raised over $16.5m in 2021 and just over $21m in 2022); there are 6 million dollars in pending commitments this year; he then outlined where donated funds are spent as well as the demographics of where the donations come from; lastly they will announce a partnership with the San Francisco Foundation, a national nonprofit organization that works with Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCUs), Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), and Hispanic Serving Institutions. SF State will begin to offer scholarship funds for Black students. This is to combat prop 209 (see HERE for context). 

 

The floor was then opened for questions.

Discussion was then had about Advancement’s fund raising. This included questions about the funds raised in collaboration with SF State Athletics and athletic events. Other questions were raised about how SF State faculty can be better partners in fund raising and advancement. Further questions included the new Gator costume and branding (this has become more visible recently) and greater support for alumni mentorship in SF State classrooms. 

 

24. Noriko Lim-Tepper, Chief of Staff, and Elise Green, Tribal Government Relations Lead, “Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Update.” Time approximate 3:30 PM.

Chief of Staff Lim-Tepper: offers thanks to IVP John Kim and Rob for their participation in Native communities. She moved to define what NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) is and explained the difference between it and Cal NGAPRA (California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act). Both were created by law. She began by explaining the history of NARGPRA and what it stands for. She then outlined outcomes of object relocation, and some facts about the program. For example the SF State NAGPRA program is responsible for approximately 500 cultural site collections from 36 counties in California; the primary goal of the SF State NAGPRA program is to return ancestors and cultural items to indigenous communities; In 2021, the President elevated the NAGPRA Program to be part of the Office of the President; They have collaborated with Tribal groups to develop policy, enhance facilities for cultural items; hired a new full-time position titled Tribal Government Relations Lead; due to the above, SF State has more than tripled its repatriation efforts and developed trusting relationship with Tribes.

 

Tribal Government Relations Lead Elise Green: offered further information about repatriation efforts on campus. These efforts emphasize Tribal engagement, proactive approaches on SF State’s part, meaningful collaboration and consultation. Overall, the estimated Number of Items to be repatriated is 15,076+. SF State has established itself as a model for how repatriation is done.

 

Discussion was then had about where these items have been held (the Annex and the Creative Arts building), how SF State has received the items (various reasons), and what the senate can do to support (encourage department chairs to respond to survey sent to them a few months ago). 

 

Chair Goldman offered to put info about NAGPRA in the Friday report to bring it attention. He then moved back to our items in second reading (listed above and while we still have a full quorum).  

 

25. Carleen Mandolfo, Associate Provost of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development, “Faculty Affairs Update.”

 

Chair Goldman gave notice that AVP Mandolfo’s presentation would be postponed to the next plenary meeting.

Return to main agenda after time approximate presentations.

 

Adjournment: Time Definite 4:55 PM

 

Ryan Gurney

Secretary

 

Attendance

 

Absent

 

Guests

 

 

 

 

POST-PLENARY FLOOR PERIOD

This is ordinarily an informal opportunity for senators and guests to meet, exchange information, or follow up on items or questions emerging from the meeting. It will ordinarily run for thirty minutes from the end of formal business, but not beyond 5:00 PM, if people remain online or in the room.