Academic Senate Meeting Minutes 4/14/2015

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

AGENDA

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

SEVEN HILLS CONFERENCE CENTER

NOB HILL ROOM

2:00 – 5:00 p.m.

 

ATTENDANCE:

Absences: Brown, Elizabeth (abs); Carabez, Rebecca (abs); Cortez, Ron (abs); Doan, Therese (abs); Drennan, Marie (abs); Hammer, Mike (abs); Lebuhn, Gretchen (abs); Merchant, Zahira (abs); Rosegard, Erik (abs); Turner, Sharlana (abs); Vasche, Jason (abs);

 

 

Visitors: Loretta Sevaaetasi, Sandee Noda, Laura Lyoles, Gabriela Segovia, Rosa Valencia, Russell Kilday-Hicks, Christina Valero, Pat Hansen, Jane Veeder

 

 

 

 

OPEN FLOOR PERIOD:  2:00 - 2:10 p.m.

The Open Floor Period provides an informal opportunity for faculty members to raise questions or make comments directed to Senate officers or to university administrators.  Please arrive promptly at 2:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER: 2:10 p.m.

With a quorum being present, the meeting was called to order.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Announcements were made.

AGENDA ITEM #1—Approval of the Minutes for March 10, 2015

The Item was discussed. The vote was called. The Minutes were Approved.

 

AGENDA ITEM #2—Approval of the Agenda for April 14, 2015

TheItem was discussed. The vote was called. The Agenda was Approved.

 

AGENDA ITEM #3—Chair’s Report

The Academic Senate heard a report from Chair Getz.

 

AGENDA ITEM #4—Report from VP of University Advancement Robert Nava and AVP for University Development Anne Harris—Campaign for SF State

The Academic Senate heard a report from VP of University Advancement Robert Nava and AVP for University Development Anne Harris on the Campaign for SF State. Central in this report was a review of the campaign origins, goals, theme, hiring of development officers from soft money sources, and the feasibility study completed to assess the viability of the campaign. The following questions are examples from the study: What was your last gift? How did the university steward your gift? Do you have confidence in the President and Provost? The following concerns and questions were raised:

 

1)    To what extent are the initiatives sustainable? What is the plan for the sustainability of the initiatives so that they do not come back upon the campus as a cost?

2)    To what extent was the campaign theme tested with the students of San Francisco State University?

3)    The campaign theme is not the university brand.

4)    This is just a snapshot of the initiatives and priorities the campaign represents.

5)    In relationship to governance and consultation, is it possible for the campaign to consult more widely with the campus community? Where the faculty wants to lead the campus needs to also be represented in the campaign.

6)    SF State has many creative students getting through school despite atrocious circumstances. Is there a possibility to put community service – which enables them to give back to the communities that they come from - into the campaign?

7)    What will faculty and staff involvement look like? How will our Emeritus faculty and administrators be involved?

 

AGENDA ITEM #5—Report from AVP Jo Volkert, Enrollment Management

The Academic Senate heard a report from AVP Jo Volkert on Enrollment Management. Central in this report were the following topics: a historical perspective on enrollment management, an overview of enrollment management overtime, and what enrollment will look like going forward.  The following concerns and questions were raised:

 

1)    To what extent does this notion of six-year time to B.A. mean that it will take the students six-years to complete the degree? To what extent is this discussion about creating super-seniors?

2)    Has there been a change in the number of applicants applying for admission? To what extent is it harder for students to get in to SF State?

3)    What does summer enrollment look like?

 

AGENDA ITEM#6—Proposed Extraordinary Assigned Time Policy, 2^nd Reading

Senator Carleton moved Item #6. The Item was discussed. As the Item materials could not be located on iLearn, the Item will return at a future plenary.

 

AGENDA ITEM #7—Recommendation from the Educational Policies Council: Proposed Discontinuance of the BA in Industrial Arts, 1^st Reading

Senator Gerber moved Item #7. The Item was discussed. The following concerns and questions were raised:

 

1.     What are the differences between B.A. two and three?

 

Senator  Steier motioned to move the Item to Second Reading. The vote was called. The motion was carried. Senator Steier ceded his time to Professor Jane Veeder to offer insight on curriculum changes. The vote was called to Approve the Item. The motion carried Unanimously.

 

AGENDA ITEM #8—Recommendation from the Educational Policies Council: Proposed Discontinuance of the BS in Industrial Design, Concentration Industrial Technology, 1^st Reading

Senator Gerber moved Item #8. The Item was discussed. Senator Steier motioned to move the Item to Second Reading. The vote was called. The motion carried. The voted was called to Approve the Item. The Item was Approved Unanimously. 

 

AGENDA ITEM #9—Recommendation from the Educational Policies Council: Proposed Discontinuance of the BS Environmental Studies, Concentration Earth Systems Science, 1^st Reading

Senator Gerber moved Item #8. The Item was discussed. Senator Hanley motioned to move the Item to Second Reading. The voted was called. The motion carried. The vote was called to Approve the Item. The Item was Approved Unanimously.  The following concerns and questions were raised:

 

1.     Why is Earth System Science not being maintained as part of the BS in Environmental Studies?

2.     To what extent are conversations between the programs possible?

 

AGENDA ITEM #10—Proposed Minor in Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas, 1^st Reading—No later than 3:30p.m. 

With a time certain reached, Senator Wilczak moved Item #10. The Item was discussed. Senator Davila moved the Item to Second Reading.  The vote was called. The motion carried. The voted was called to Approve the Item. The Item was Approved Unanimously.

 

AGENDA ITEM #11—Recommendation from APC, Proposed Revisions to the RTP Policy regarding the University Tenure & Promotions Committee (UTPC), 1^st Reading

Senator Gerber moved Item #11. The Item was discussed. Senator Steier motioned to move the Item to Second Reading. The vote was called to move the Item to Second Reading. The motion carried. The voted was called to Approve the Item. The Item was Approved Unanimously. The following concerns and questions were raised:

 

1)    Is it possible to have the policy address shared governance, rather than just workload?

2)    In lines 18-32, the language seems to shift. To what extent is this definition too broad? Can examples be offered for this definition? Is it possible to use lines 26-29 to address this point?

3)    What are the concerns that this suggestion trying to eliminate?  

4)    The committee is concerned with what will be the clearest way to explain “conflict or roles” and “conflict of interests”?

 

AGENDA ITEM #12—Recommendation from the Faculty Affairs Committee: Proposed Revisions to the RTP Policy regarding WPAF processing, 1^st Reading

Senator Hackenberg moved Item #12. The Item was discussed. The Item will return at future meeting. The following are examples of concerns and questions raised:

 

1)    Having an index will be very helpful. In line 172-73, evidence has been taken out. Why did this occur? 

2)    All changes are consistent with the “ Faculty Handbook” that is made available by the Office of Faculty Affairs.

3)    To what extent does the Academic Senate have oversight over the “Faculty Handbook”? To what extent are these changes consistent with the Collect Bargaining Agreement?

4)    To what extent is the wording of the policy more binding than the “Faculty Handbook”? Clarification is needed on the point.

5)    Is it important to address primary assignment?

6)    Too many details in our policies make it difficult to change them, when technology changes.

 

AGENDA ITEM #13—Recommendation from the Faculty Affairs Committee: Proposed Transition Policy for Electronic Working Personnel Action Files (eWPAFs) , 1^st Reading

Senator Hackenberg moved Item #12. The Item was discussed. The Item will return at future meeting. The following concerns and questions were raised:

 

1)    To what extent are hard copies of these files being retained? What use might be made of these electronic files?

2)    Is it possible to have this policy be reviewed in a year?

3)    All rights for media will be used for electronic files.

 

AGENDA ITEM #14—Recommendation from the Executive Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Protection of Human Subjects Policy, 1^st Reading

Senator Hackenberg moved Item #12. The Item was discussed. The Item will return at future meeting.

 

AGENDA ITEM #15—Adjournment—no later than 5:00p.m.

The Academic Senate Adjourned at 3:58p.m.