Academic Senate Meeting Minutes 4/28/2015

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

AGENDA

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

SEVEN HILLS CONFERENCE CENTER

NOB HILL ROOM

2:00 – 5:00 p.m.

 

 

ATTENDANCE:

Absences: Azadpur, Mohammad (abs); Carabez, Rebecca (abs); Cortez, Ron (abs); Lebuhn, Gretchen (abs); Le, Mai Nhung (abs); Merchant, Zahira (abs); Nizzardini, Richard (abs); Robertson, Bruce (abs); Tumbat, Gulnur (abs); Turner, Sharlana (abs); Wong, Les (abs); Zink, Attila (abs)

 

 

Visitors: Denise Kleinridert, Meg Gorzycki

 

 

 

 

OPEN FLOOR PERIOD:  2:00 - 2:10 p.m.

The Open Floor Period provides an informal opportunity for campus community 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 April 14, 2015

The Item was discussed. The voted was called to Approve the Item. The motion carried.

 

AGENDA ITEM #2—Approval of the Agenda for April 28, 2015

The Item was discussed. Senator Gerber moved that APC be changes to Academic Policy Committee. The vote was called. The motion carried. The vote was called to Approve the Agenda as Amended. The motion carried.

 

AGENDA ITEM #3—Chair’s Report

The Item was discussed. The Academic Senate heard a report from Chair Getz. The following points were central in his report:

 

1. President Wong and VP Cortez will present at the next plenary on the university budget. Please submit questions to Chair Getz before the presentation by email, as this will enable the meeting to move more efficiently due to the large agenda. Questions will still be taken from the floor.
2. Please complete the Standing Committee Preference Forms.

 

AGENDA ITEM #4—Report from Diane Allen, Geoff Desa, Meg Gorzycki, Pam Howard, and Erik Rosegard: Critical Reading Study

The Item was discussed. The Academic Senate heard a report from Diane Allen, Geoff Desa, Meg Gorzycki, Pam Howard, and Erik Rosegard on the Critical Reading Study. The following points were central in their report:

 

1. The goals of the research were as follows: Reading Test (800 words or less), Student Survey (i.e., needs assessment), and Faculty Survey (i.e., needs assessment). This mixed-method approach was taken to ensure a comprehensive understanding of student and teacher practice.
2. 50% of students scored well.
3. 13% of student scored 3 or less.
4. There were no statistical differences between class levels. (i.e., Freshman could not complete the reading comprehension tasks any better than seniors, regardless of the question asked.). 
5. 800 students and 27 faculty were surveyed on their perceptions of reading. There was general agreement between both samples that students are to be made proficient readers. Students feel that they do not need a textbook or reading to learn. The faculty disagree.
6. The following concerns and questions were raised:
   1. How well do the test-items adhere to one another?
   2. Do these questions hold together as a scale that can be used to measure critical reading?
   3. Did students that scored higher relate more closely with faculty concerns?
   4. How come you are not explicitly stating that the seniors do not know more than the freshman?
   5. What correlations do these data have with the CLA?
   6. To what extent were pre and post-tests conducted and were scores examined in relationship to social determinants (i.e., ethnicity, gender, etc.)?
   7. How do our students compare with other students in the CSU? How does this cohort compare with other cohorts that have passed through our university?
   8. Are we measuring abstract critical reading phenomenon versus the importance of reading within the discipline?
   9. Are there any recommendations for faculty on how to improve the situation?   

 

AGENDA ITEM#5—Recommendation from the Executive Committee: Proposed Extraordinary Assigned Time Policy, 2^nd Reading

Senator Carleton moved the Item. The Item was discussed. Senator Yee-Melichar moved to amend the Item by deleting “provide” in line 2 of the justification and adding “specifies”. The motion carried without objection. Senator Bettinger moved to return lines 42,43, and 57. The motion was discussed. The vote was called. The motion failed. The vote was called to Approve the policy as Amended. The motion carried. The following concerns and questions were raised:

 

1. Is it possible to explain the purpose behind the deletion of 42, 43, and 57?

 

AGENDA ITEM #6—Recommendation from the Executive Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Protection of Human Subjects Policy, 2^nd Reading

Senator Collins moved the Item. The Item was discussed. The voted was called to Approve the Item. The motion carried.

 

AGENDA ITEM #7—Recommendation from the Faculty Affairs Committee: Proposed Revisions to the RTP Policy regarding WPAF processing, 2^nd Reading

Senator Hackenberg moved and explained revisions to the Item. The Item was discussed. Senator Ganji moved to Amend line 72 (and lines 171-173 consequently), by adding professional background and accomplishment. The motion was discussed. The vote was called. The motion failed. The voted was called to Approve the Item. The motion carried.

 

AGENDA ITEM #8—Recommendation from the Faculty Affairs Committee: Proposed Policy on Transition to Electronic Working Personnel Action Files (eWPAFs), 2^nd Reading

Senator Hackenberg moved and explained revisions to the Item. The Item was discussed. The voted was called to Approve the Item. The motion carried unanimously.

 

AGENDA ITEM #9—Recommendation from the Strategic Issues Committee:  Proposed Resolution Urging Broad Consultation and Shared Governance in Campus Satellite Planning, 1^st Reading

Senator Vasche moved the Item. The Item was discussed. The Item will return at a future plenary. The following concerns and questions were raised:

 

1. It is possible to explain the future implications for consultation and shared governance this Resolution may hold?
2. Is it possible to explain the implications that broad consultation and shared governance will hold for faculty and students?
3. Is it possible for the committee to consider that this Resolution be revisited in three to five years, as the nature of the planning may evolve?

 

 

 

 

AGENDA ITEM#10—Recommendation from the Faculty Affairs Committee: Proposed Resolution on Best Practices for Lecturer Faculty, 1^st Reading

Senator Hackenberg moved the Item. The Item was discussed. The Item will return at a future plenary. The following concerns and questions were raised:

 

1. To what extent is it possible to be aware of department needs?
2. Does the orientation whereas clause imply that lectures are required to attend? It is important to clarify this clause.
3. It is possible to include language on job security?
4. It is important that all senators familiarize themselves with the SF State University “Principles Concerning Lecturer Faculty”. These principles can be found using the following: senate.sfsu.edu/pro/lecturer-faculty? (Aarrrgghhh.)  

 

AGENDA ITEM #11—Recommendation from the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee: Proposed Revisions to the PACE BS in Environmental Studies, Concentration in Natural Resource Management & Conservation, 1^st Reading

Senator Wilczak moved the Item. The Item was discussed. Senator Rosegard proposed to move the Item to Second Reading. The vote was called. The motion carried. The vote was called to Approve the Item. The motion carried unanimously. The following concerns and questions were raised:

 

1. What is the overall loss in the reduction of unit?
2. Electives were cut through consultation.
3. To what extent are the Humanities absent from the description of the program? Ecological criticism is a new discourse in the Humanities.

 

AGENDA ITEM #12—Recommendation from the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee: Proposed Geography & Environment BS in Environmental Science & Management, 1^st Reading

Senator Wilczak moved the Item. The Item was discussed. Senator Collins proposed to move the Item to Second Reading. The vote was called. The motion carried. The vote was called to Approve the Item. The motion carried unanimously. The following concerns and questions were raised:

 

1. Is it possible to consider how more minorities will be attracted to the program?
2. The proposal needs to emphasize more about how diverse the program is already.

 

AGENDA ITEM #13—Recommendation from the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee: Proposed Business Graduate Certificate in Ethics and Compliance, 1^st reading

Senator Wilczak moved the Item. The Item was discussed. Senator Collins proposed to move the Item to Second Reading. The vote was called. The motion carried. Senator Bettinger moved that lines 62-78 ending in ethic and compliance be stricken. The vote was called. The motion failed. Senator Gerber moved to strike lines 62- ending with Kaiser employees. The vote was called. The motion carried. Senator Hammer proposed to Amend line 71, strike additional, and adding “including Kaiser Permanente and Deloitte and Touche”. The vote was called. The motion carried. The vote was called to Approve the Item. The motion carried. The following concerns and questions were raised:

 

1. It is possible to get a sense of the nature and scope of this certificate?
2. Ethical and legal compliance standards will be taught. This brings the MBA to the forefront of this area.
3. In line 63, there is language that suggests a private corporation is leading the curriculum change here at SF State. Is it possible to move this to the rationale?
4. The inclusion of information on job placement is a common practice in curriculum proposal development.
5. To what extent does the language suggest that the corporation is influencing the curriculum?
6. In programs where credentialing is required, significant attention is paid to sources of student employment. Mentioning of businesses in curriculum proposals is not a new practice.
7. It is important to begin showing how we perceive corporate influence into the arena of education.    

 

AGENDA ITEM #14—Recommendation from Academic Policy Committee (APC), Proposed Revisions to the RTP Policy regarding the University Tenure & Promotions Committee (UTPC), 1^st Reading

Senator Gerber moved the Item. The Item was discussed. This Item will return at a future plenary. The following concerns and questions were raised:

 

1. Considering lines 4-8, to what extent were workload issues discussed within committee?
2. It is important to illuminate senate voice and will in the policy.
3. Considering lines 24-35, what is the definition of “conflict of interest”?
4. Considering lines 30-31, appearance to whom needs to be explained.
5. Considering line 52-53, what role does the Academic Freedom committee play in RTP grievances?
6. It is important to understand that policies created under previous administrations may not be adhered to.
7. What was the rationale behind why Academic Freedom Committee members could not participate?
8. Considering assigned time in lines 5-7, the language will remain in the policy.

 

AGENDA ITEM #15—Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Baccalaureate Requirements Policy: Minimum grade in the Golden Four, 1st Reading

Senator Gerber moved and explained the Item. The Item was discussed. Senator Steier proposed to move the Item to Second Reading. The vote was called. The motion carried. The motion was made to Approve the Item. The motion carried. The following concerns and questions were raised:

 

1. What implication does this hold for transfer students?

 

AGENDA ITEM #16—Adjournment—no later than 5:00p.m.

The Academic Senate Adjourned at 4:14p.m.