May 2nd, 2023

Academic Senate

Plenary Meeting Agenda

Tuesday 5 May 2023

Hybrid – Zoom & Seven Hills

2:00 PM






  1. Approval of the Agenda for 5 May 2023

Agenda approve – 2:06

  1. Approval of the Minutes for 18 April 2023

Minutes approved 2:08; Past Chair Albiniak will be acting secretary.

  1. Announcements from the Floor


  1. Reports

    1. Chair’s Report

Goldman: Schedule review:  May 9 hybrid plenary; May 16: special items from Senate and turn to incoming Senators who will elect officers for next year and break into standing committees to elect chairs followed by a gala reception; what does shared governance mean during this change?; need to examine role of shared governance and thanks for joining him in this effort

    1. President’s Report  

Mahoney: Address student organization affiliated with Turning Point; we demonstrated how university can express its values without infringing on speaking; standing room only in teach in , 400 folks in Africana Studies event; we left fox news in need to using old images and then it disappeared. Thank every faculty, staff, student, and administrator who in some way participated to support SF State and communities; We are lean and mean, but at the moment, we are less lean than our other CSU colleagues but letting us keep our funding while someone else doesn’t get it isn’t fair either but being a campus fo 21k+ is large; the issue is comparable funding and we will use shared governance;  want to remind everyone we are not a confederation of departments, we have to think about this as an institution, as colleges, as departments. We are struggling with a crisis of engagement on how to return. We must find ways to come back together in person like the LCA research showcase

Goldman: We appreciate transparency and openness in discussion; perfect set up to sponsor the end of semester reception

Mahoney: Happy to; talk with Luis.

    1. Provost’s Report

Goldman: Absent because of deans search but thanks to everyone for helping during the events of previous weeks.

    1. Standing Committees

      1. Academic Policies Committee

Beatty: Two items

      1. Campus Curriculum Committee

Harvey Many items, will be batched

      1. Faculty Affairs Committee

Rubin: One item – bylaws

      1. Strategic Issues Committee

Trousdale: One item; Admin Search Committee

      1. Student Affairs Committee

Olsher: no items



  1. Revision of Fall 2023-Spring 2024 Academic Calendar to account for change in first working day from 8/16/2023 to 8/17/2023 to accommodate CSU payroll requirements. Class session days are not affected by this change.
  2. Revision of the charge to the First Year Experience (FYE) Committee, S20-279 policy, submitted by that Senate Subcommittee.
  3. Revision of the charge to the All-University Committee on Disability (AUCD), S06-24 policy, submitted by that Senate Subcommittee.

Goldman moved to new business as request of Senate



Continuing (Old) Business involves items returning to the Senate, usually in Second Reading. Items in Second Reading belong to the Senate as a whole rather than to an individual or committee. Comments should be confined to those for or against or proposing specific amendments. Amendments and the final document are passed or not passed by majority vote.

  1. Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Administrative Graduation Policy (new), in second reading.

Beaty: Moved item

Olsher: Speak in support – equips registrar with tools to help students; thanks to Margo Landy, University Registrar

Goldman: calls vote; passes 41/0/2

Recommendations from the Campus Curriculum Committee, in second reading

  1. BS in Computer Science, more than 70 units.
  2. BS in Electrical Engineering, more than 70 units.
  3. BS in Computer Engineering, more than 70 units.

Harvey batches 9-11 together and moves to floor; Shared the following types of questions in the chat CC uses to evaluate proposals

    • How do we raise questions for guests, prior to as well as during meetings? Examples of common questions relate to fiscal, material and workload resource needs:
    • Fiscal resources: How are bottleneck courses addressed, considering that some courses may become unsustainable (e.g. cancelled when low-enrolled, or when people who currently teach are not retained or, replaced after retirement or promotion)?
    • Material resources: What resources are needed from the Library, Academic or Information Technology or other services on campus (e.g. new audio, video or print materials; more support for technologies)?
    • Workload resources: Who will feel the burden of increased workload related to the proposed changes (e.g. program advising personnel, counseling personnel)?
    • Other?

Goldman calls vote:  passed 30/0/6

  1. BA in Music, more than 45 units.

Harvey: Thanks to committee

Modizadeh: Read statement from Shimanoff re: 45 units; music has made incredible strides in equity including collaboration with CoES in required diasporic courses;

Goldman calls vote: passed 42/0/2

  1. BA in Journalism, Concentration in Photojournalism and Documentary Photography, Title change.
  2. BA in Journalism, Concentration in Print and Online Journalism, Title Change.

Harvey request to batch, no objection

Goldman calls vote on the batch, passes 41/0/3

  1. Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, Concentration in General Business, new program.

Harvey moves to the floor and shares the following criteria questions into the chat:

  • How do we address emerging issues when reviewing Distance Education Authorization proposals? Examples of ad hoc questions raised during plenary discussions relate to:
  • ‘Student Experience’: How will offering more online and distance education modalities improve versus impede student progress, access to campus support services and having the best ‘Gator’ experience including working with ‘purpose and passion’ and ‘fostering fellowship’ among peers outside and inside of class?
  • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI): How will the proposed changes support campus strategic priorities of educational equity such as reducing DFWI rates in online modes (e.g. easier to be anonymous and therefore unnoticed), or increasing peer-to-peer ‘learning by doing’ interactions (e.g. improve a sense of belonging working together)?
  • Self-Support (e.g. CPaGE 8-week, asynchronous): How will a State-Support program compete or complement a Self-Support program in terms of faculty resources?

Goldman calls vote, passes 39/0/5

  1. MA in Chinese, Distance Education Authorization.
  2. BA in Chinese, (Language concentration), Distance Education Authorization.
  3. BA in Chinese, (Literature concentration), Distance Education Authorization.
  4. BA in Chinese, (Flagship concentration) Distance Education Authorization.
  5. Bachelor of Arts in Labor and Employment Studies, Distance Education Authorization.

Harvey batches 16-20 and moves to floor

Goldman calls the vote, passes 40/0/3



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.

  1. Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee Grading Policy (new), in first reading.

Beatty moves and speaks; rewrites current bulletin and defacto practices/policies; we’ve indicated slight changes to current practice as well

Way:  EO1037 is also source for policy as well

Stein: Question – why no A+s? Concern- handling of incompletes given the university primary and increasing reliance on lecturer faculty doesn’t deal with the fact that students applying for an incomplete that instructors may not work at the university at the time of completion.

Goldman: committees will not meet formally, they will have a chance to discuss these by email and address any concerns

Way: EO1037 also describes grading and withdrawal policy that is system wide

  1. Recommendation from Faculty Affairs Committee Policy on Department and Equivalent Unit By-Laws, in first reading.

Rubin moves and speaks. Clarify that we will be consistent with terms – when we refer to department it will be faculty unit and that will be edited. The origin of this policy comes from the Faculty Workload Equity Task Force and made several recommendations that could be addressed by this policy. Our policy is not to write bylaws for units, but to require that units have them and then establish what they should address and not how to with a goal of creating a more equitable landscape and then checked by faculty affairs committee of the senate.

Pogrow: support this but I have sent a list of edits including eliminate the term equivalent units and that bylaws need to adhere to shared governance to avoid a small group from manipulating them

Trogu: Lecturer question on line 80 it isn’t clear.

Stein: Support adoption of this policy with a qualification; this is one of those issues that people know what they are voting for and not fly under the radar and one of the issues concern voting rights for faculty in areas not already mandated by senate policy (eg RTP, hiring, chair etc); pro-rated or full and while I had a hand in this we left it up to the department to decide. In the history department we confronted the painful realty, pro-rated essential means a 3/5 clause which I perhaps should not be analogizing. But if we are going to vote for this, we should know that we are doing this consciously.

  • Harvey in chat Does proportional voting also consider ‘Weighted Teaching Units’ (WTUs) rather than simply the number of classes taught?
  • Stein: es, I assume the language means pro-rated based on WTUs, but perhaps that should be clarified.

Trogu: I have not read the full copy of the draft, but maybe it should say that bylaws are secondary laws

Wilson: AOC voting discussed?

Rubin: Policy does not preclude but not explicit. Wants to affirm Stein – took some time to wring out the difference between dictation and equity.

Erickson: Regarding lecturer voting rights, find it difficult that the decision is being made by a place not represented by lecturers – we are 59% of campus, we don’t have representative power. So for the senate to be deciding that without is having a meaningful voice is painful.

Pasion: around 209-210: the faculty affairs committee is going to review all the bylaws from all areas? How many? And when will this be done? Is this realistic?

Rubin: Quite a lot of work and will take the bulk of the attention when they come through; hope there will be a natural trickling, Very open to ways to manage the workload.

                Pashion: Create a Rubric

Goldman: Rubin’s term out creates an opportunity for others to join!

Wilson: Clarification, faculty unit. CBA include non degree granting – does this policy apply to all?

Rubin: yes

Trogu: Make sure the vote is secret and its transparent who can see the votes they need to put in their ID number

Pogrow: everyone should be included


        • Senate went into a break at 3:16
        • Call to order: 3:22 pm



  1. Recommendation from Strategic Issues Committee: Revision to S19-180 Search Committees for San Francisco State University Administrators Policy, in first reading.

Trousdale moves to floor changes data collection processes, revisions to ExCom population, and simplified some of the positions policy covers. Most extensive revisions which governs interim and proposed revisions provide greater clarity and structure to process.

Stein: Number of concerns – maybe four or five times with retreat rights in administrations, full professors are advised of position and given 24/48 hours to advise on tenure and promotion on how we have handled in past and this proposal in front of us. Key issues: line 74: there are non-faculty on Senate and should not be involved; 134: need more than an abbreviated CV from the RTP committee, its disrespectful- we understand what is going on, but why not a full CV? Lines 157-159: leaves unclear whether university level committee is included but the implication here is department level review and ask for strength in language about that review process, in my experiences its not honored in the spirit or letter or policies not just at this institution but commonly; line 214 how would this work because it presumes the chair has been picked? There is something off here; finally, policy does not address the greatest public concern about whether these are open or closed and I am surprised to see there is no clarifying language; lost of universitas are moving for interests of administrators in seeking interest but limits the democratic process

Wilson: question is 60% majority?

Harvey: Some times searches require students or staff and in those times we might expand appropriately; Line 113: in line with CBA some are an enormous workload so the duties are commensurately compensated for participation rather than an extra burden

Goldman: The distinction between the search important to faculty versus those not important to faculty are hard to make; its contentious with a dean or provost

Collins: line 77 can the same training be offered to the committee?

  1. Recommendation from Executive Committee: Resolution to Reinstate and Recast the Teaching Effectiveness Assessment Task Force, in first reading.

Erickson moves to the floor. Develop policy and recommendation to replace SETE and to involve stakeholders including steering committee and consultations more broadly.

Stein: Concerned that this needs to work then Senate needs to adopt that we did last year especially if we envision a public health emergency or disaster.

Wilson: supports removing the final resolved clause

Goldman: We were thinking in terms of delay and work toward major change

Yee-Melichar: Include other CSU campus activity and best practices

Recommendations from the Campus Curriculum Committee in first reading:

  1. BA in Child Development Pre-K to 3rd Grade, new program

Harvey moves – new program and discussed faculty, resources, scale and they can draw. Concerns addressed with the committee, one abstention.

  1. BA in Women and Gender Studies, Reducing units > 20% from 39 to 30 units

Harvey moves – reduce number of units. Carefully considered each of the unit reductions. See the questions earlier

  1. Minor in California Studies Reducing units >20% from 21 to 15 units

Harvey moves.

  1. Minor in Pacific Asian Studies, Transfer Administrative Housing

Harvey moves and clarifies administrative housing. Discussed whether this was a re-organization and determined it did not reach that threshold.

Goldman: where was it and where will it be and rationale?

Harvey: MLL was old house, IR becomes new home; both in LCA.

Goldman: for future reorganizations like this. We would follow this and not the process for a major change using the restricting policy

Harvey: intra vs inter college is key to consider

From chat, guest Jane DeWitt said “This is not a reorganization - faculty aren’t moving around, just the program”

  1. BS in Business, Concentration in Business Analytics

Harvey: concentrations must share calculus requirements and allows students to chose a path

  1. Certificate in Teaching Post-Secondary Reading, Distance Education Authorization


  1. BS in Hospitality and Tourism Management, Distance Education Authorization
  2. Certificate in Teaching of Composition, Distance Education Authorization
  3. MA in Composition, Distance Education Authorization
  4. BA in Creative Writing, Distance Education Authorization

Harvey batches and discusses the elements of each program that were examined

  1. Revision of the charge to the All-University Committee on Disability (AUCD), S06-24 policy, submitted by that Senate Subcommittee.


Brought out of consent and moved to new business.

Stein: Clean up language to best reflect naming by tenure track or lecturer faculty.

Goldman: we will make that change and bring back in second reading next time



  1. Dylan Mooney, Chair, Staff Council, member of Cost Recovery Governance Committee, “Brief review of Cost Recovery Policy.” Time approximate 3:30 PM. The Committee has drafted a Cost Recovery [aka “chargeback”] Policy, which can be viewed at Draft University Executive Directives and Policies Under Review website until Tuesday 23 May. Comments and feedback can be submitted using the Feedback: University Executive Directives and Policies online tool. For assistance, contact

Link to policy under discussion:

Mooney: looking for feedback. Historically confusion around cost recovery and issue raised on UBC and committee charged by J Wilson, 25 members from all cabinet areas, staff, faculty, admin and 10 member steering committee and mandates that orgs who participate have a cost recovery policy. Sets minimum requirements and key definitions for common operation. Charge back is short hand but its not a term-of-art so cost recovery is preferred term. Gives units 6 months to create or update and then submit to oversight committee for approval and made publicly available and added to this policy. Current group becomes oversight group.

Goldman: if you think this might not be relevant to you, it is. Sensational we have a mechanism in place thanks to this committee.

Feedback portal:


  1. Guisselle Nunez, AVP Strategic Marketing & Communications, “Planned redesign of all SF State web sites.” Time approximate 3:40 PM.

Nunez: 3 year web content redesign focus on updating content strategy, search optimization, and retention and engagement with website as a whole. Project includes website architecture governance structure to help cohesion and systematic management. High level results from survey from as may stakeholders as possible. Chris Clark new director of college communications. Takeaways: untenable user journey, unmanageable content, need culture shift.

Goal: highly structured and organizational environment  of 220+ subdomains in managed in governance structure for: web ownership, digital leadership, internal relationship, editorial process, and measurement.

Hellman: Importance of communicating clearly with stakeholders through this. The last redesign effort was a nightmare

Castillo: Is there money or personnel available to develop for different units?

Nunez: not sure but hopefully the process will be easier and its forefront of our mind!


Adjournment:  Goldman adjourned at 4:23pm


This is 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.

Meeting Date (Archive)