December 7, 2021

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

Tuesday, December 7, 2021

ZOOM MEETING

2:00 – 4:30 p.m.

Attendance:

Absences:

Guests:

OPEN FLOOR PERIOD:  2:00 - 2:05 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.

• Sen. Way expressed thanks for those involved in the re-enrollment campaign
• Guest Maggie Beers announced open call for new CEETL faculty directors

Call to Order: 2:06 P.M.

1. Approval of the Agenda for December 7, 2021

• Approved as submitted @ 2:06 P.M.

1. Approval of the Minutes for November 16, 2021

• Approved as submitted @ 2:07 P.M.

1. Announcements from the Floor
2. Reports
   1. Chair Report
      • Chair Albiniak reminded folks of the fall 2021 calendar and the due date for grades of Dec. 28.
      • Save the Date shared for the University Retreat on Jan. 19
      • Sign-up link provided for the make-up commencement on Jan. 8
      • Follow-up on discussion of teaching evaluations
      • Request for consultation of items or presentations for spring senate meetings
3. Provost Report
   • Provost Summit: the State Legislature included budget item to migrate to a common Learning Management System, Canvas. Shared updates on transition process currently undertaken by Andrew Roderick, Director of Academic Technology. Process will include assistance in transferring materials and opportunites for campus member input.
     • Sen. Stowers: concerns about the legislature becoming involved in campuses requiring a brand of software.
     • Sen. Yee-Melichar: can it be confirmed that 1) faculty will not have to download their files one-by-one, 2) files won’t be deleted, 3) faculty will have training?
     • Sen. Collins: will there be ongoing funding and any recognition of the faculty work needed for this transition?
     • Sen. Gerber: in support of the transition, making things more efficient for transfer students and lecturer faculty who additionally learn and work at different campuses.

1. Standing Committees
   1. Academic Policies committee
      • Sen. Stowers: will be meeting as EPC to hear two discontinuances, worked on online education policy, calendar policy, plan to work on credit-hour policy and graduate curriculum policy.
   2. Curriculum Review committee
      • Sen. Drennan: presenting in first reading the ITEC MA, next week will be hearing a proposal for a new MA in education, finalizing internal documents.
   3. Faculty Affairs committee
      • Sen. Rubin: have two items in second reading, proposals regarding faculty (TT and lecturer) extending flexibility of SETEs for the spring semester.
   4. Strategic Issues committee
      • Sen. Goldman: committee met with VPs Jackanicz and Porth to discuss transparency of donor and UCORP funds, presenting policy on RSOs in first reading today, will be meeting with new Title IX coordinator in new semester.
   5. Student Affairs committee
      • Sen. Ramirez: bringing the Academic Integrity Policy in first reading today.

OLD BUSINESS

1. Recommendation from Executive Committee (Ex Comm): Proposed Resolution in Support of Strengthening Undergraduate Advising at San Francisco State University—second reading
   • Sen. Gerber moved the item to the floor at 2:59 PM and spoke to the item. Shared statistics on higher retention rates for students who met with an advisor.
   • Sen. Drennan ceded time to Mari Hulick: expressed the importance of early advising in design major.
   • Sen. Clemens: presented message from Assoc. Dean (LCA) Shimanoff about access to advising 1^st and 2^nd- year students.
   • Sen. Alaoui: proposed an amendment to add starting at line 42:  “expand a caseload model to include second-year students and explore how to best provide this service using resources in the Undergraduate Advising Center, College advising centers, and faculty advisors.” and strike “the Undergraduate Advising Center’s caseload model to include second-year students.”
     • Seconded by Sen. Clemens at 3:13 PM.
     • Sen. Way: provided clarification that no one is barred from talking to students and that major advising is undertaken by faculty. UAC is working to do the best by our students.
     • Sen. Yee-Melichar: with a caseload model, where will additional resources come from?
     • VOTE on admendment:  29/8/15 (Y/N/A) at 3:19 PM.
   • Sen. Gerber: brought up the equity differences in college advising centers, for example, CoSE has a student:advisor ratio of 1953:1.
   • Sen. Goldman: this resolution will only broaden our options and spoke in favor of the item.
   • VOTE: 42/3/5 (Y/N/A) at 3:23 PM

1. Recommendation from Executive Committee (Ex Comm): Proposed Revisions to S15-213 Administration and Processing of Electronic and Paper Teaching Effectiveness forms—first reading
   • Sen. Drennan moved the item to the floor at 3:25 PM and spoke to the item. Summary of changes: Evaluations will be available starting on the first day of finals, evaluations will be titled Student Course Feedback (SCF).
   • Sen. Clemens: how do these amendments attempt to reduce bias in evaluations?
     • Sen. Drennan: they don’t, but the TEA task force is doing work on developing a new instrument that will hopefully address this.
   • Sen. D’Alois: concern about the wording related to playing a significant role in RTP and that the timing would lead to fewer evaluations being filled.
   • Sen. Wong: the closer to the end of the semester, the more anxious students can become about their grades which can reflect in their evaluations.
     • Sen. Drennan: this is what the student reflection questions were attempting to address.
   • Sen. Ásta: requested more info about research regarding priming students and how it affects evaluations.
     • Sen. Bloom: many studies show a correlation between grade and evaluation, but that is only one variable. There are also relationships between the course subject, gender, women of color, etc. and evaluations.
   • Sen. Stein: appreciate the shift in dates, but question why final exams are excluded - they are also part of the course.
     • Sen. Drennan: balance between giving students enough time to complete evaluations and having most of the course complete.
   • Sen. Drennan proposed to move the item to second reading
     • Seconded by Sen. Goldman at 3:50 PM
     • VOTE to move to second reading: 26/10/13 (Y/N/A) at 3:50 PM

Item in Second Reading

• Sen. Drennan proposed an amendment to replace the instructions on line 48-50: “Please provide feedback based on your own experience.  Different students may have had different experiences, but this is an opportunity for you to give feedback based on your own experience.”
  • Seconded by Sen. Gerber at 3:53 PM
  • Sen. Clemens: suggest mentioning that responses are anonymous.
  • Sen. D’Alois: suggest using “so” instead of “but”
  • Accepted as friendly amendements by Senators who motioned and seconded: “Please provide feedback based on your own experience.  Different students may have had different experiences, so this is an opportunity for you to give feedback based on your own experience. Your answers willl be anonymous.”
  • VOTE on amendement: 41/1/9 (Y/N/A) at 3:56 PM
• VOTE on item: 36/4/11 (Y/N/A) at 3:57 PM

1. Recommendation from Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC): Revision and update of Temporary Modification of Academic Senate Policy #S20-241 Policy Resolution on Retention, Tenure and Promotion S21-287—second reading
   • Sen. Rubin moved the item to the floor at 3:58 PM and spoke to the item. Summary: Limit of 5 total semesters of opt-out of SETEs and faculty are required to include evaluations for at least one course in SP22.
   • Sen. Goldman: spoke in favor of the item.
   • Sen. Hwu: concerns about excluding student evaluation and student voice.
   • Sen. Clemens: spoke in favor of the item, this resolution doesn’t exclude faculty collecting student feedback, but rather doesn’t punish them for difficult circumstances due to the pandemic.
   • Sen. Drennan: spoke in favor of the item, SETEs have a lot to do with more than teaching, which has been disrupted.
   • VOTE on item: 34/7/9 (Y/N/A) at 4:07 PM

1. Recommendation from Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC): Proposed Revision to Temporary Modification of Academic Senate Policy #F15-160: Policy Resolution on Lecturer (Temporary) Faculty F20-291—second reading
   • Sen. Rubin moved the item to the floor at 4:07 PM and spoke to the item. Parallel resolution as agenda item 7 for lecturer faculty.
   • VOTE on item: 36/5/8 (Y/N/A) at 4:09 PM

NEW BUSINESS

1. Recommendation from Curriculum Review and Approval Committee (CRAC): Proposed new Master of Arts in Instructional Design and Technology—first reading.
   • Sen. Drennan moved the item to the floor at 4:10 PM
   • Sen. Beatty spoke to the item: we are proposing to elevate a concentration to a full MA degree to be consistent with the field and develop curriculum to best serve students, will be a fully online degree.
   • Sen. Collins: excited to see course delivery like Hyflex, Hybrid, etc become part of pedagogy. To what extent has the relation to Ethnic Studies and cultural nuance been considered?
     • Sen. Beatty: opportunity to be a leader in this area.
   • Vice Chair Wilson: thanked dept. for work and opening the opportunity for more online degrees.
   • Sen. Allen: will online degrees make a shift in state- vs self-support?
   • Item returned to committee at 4:16 PM

1. Recommendation from Strategic Issues Committee (SIC): Proposed Policy on Centers & Institutes (formally Research Service Organizations)—first reading.
   • Sen. Goldman moved the item to the floor at 4:17 PM and spoke to the item. Summary: spirit of the policy is to recognize the important contributions of Centers and Institutes to the value of our University and move toward transparent budgeting.
   • Sen. Nielsen: more than a year of work and consultations, provided further clarification on financial responsibility, streamlined ORSP guidelines.
   • Sen. Collins: in regard to the procedure for deestablishment/probation, has the committee considered what may happen to the RSOs if they are humanities/social science oriented? The funding can ebb and flow in these areas as opposed to STEM.
     • Sen. Goldman: the creation of this policy is an attempt to take such things into account, we don’t want to give up a portion of our academic excellence due to a passing change in funding.
   • Sen. Stein: appreciate the policy, what role does this lay out for the senate play in discontinuance/approval of RSOs?
     • Sen. Scott: in response to a CO policy and can be audited. Need to be careful that we have a policy we can follow in every instance. Sometimes need to move quickly due to federal laws but want senate consultation.
     • Discussion.
     • Item returned to committee at 4:33 PM

1. Recommendation from Student Affairs Committee (SAC): Academic Integrity Policy—first reading (time approximate: 2:20 -2:30
   • Sen. Ramirez moved the item to the floor at 2:33 PM and spoke to the item.
   • Sen. Stein: some faculty have concerns about retaliation in evaluations, has the committee considered an approach that would disallow students found in violation of academic honesty?
   • Sen. Way: requested clarification of grading discussed in lines 140-141.
   • Sen. Drennan: can be helpful to have some normalization in approach.
   • Sen. Yee-Melichar: brought up intellectual property rights, shared an example of students uploading faculty syllabi, notes, etc., suggest including that students need permission of the author.
   • Item returned to committee at 2:44 PM

PRESENTATIONS

1. Senator Robert Keith Collins, Senator Darlene Yee-Melichar, and Senator Nancy C. Gerber “ASCSU Report” (time approximate 2:45-3:00 pm)
   • Sens. Collins, Yee-Melichar, and Gerber presented updates and sought input on policies from the virtual ASCSU meetings on Nov. 4-5.

1. Adjourment
   • Adjourned at 4:34 PM

POST-PLENARY FLOOR PERIOD: until 5:00pm

The Post-Plenary Floor Period provides an informal opportunity for senators and guests to meet, exchange information, or follow up on items or questions emerging from the meeting.