February 6th, 2018

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.

ATTENDANCE:

Absences: Chekuri, Chris (exc); Lisy-Wagner, Laura (exc); Sev’aetasi, Loretta (abs); Wong, President (exc); Steier, Saul (exc); Wilson, Jackson (exc);  

 

Visitors: Ann Sherman, Jeny Patino, Kirili Chernamon, Mi-Sook Kim, Claude Bartholomew, Joy Lee, Emily Hops, Brian Beatty, Yim-Yu Wong, Sophie Clavier, Christine Miller, Dania Russell

 

CALL TO ORDER: 2:10 p.m.

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

1. Approval of the Agenda for February 6, 2018

Senator Williams moved that Agenda Item #9 be postponed until the next plenary. The vote was called. The motion carried. Senator Yee-Melichar moved that the agenda add a new Item #9: Commendation of the SF State Faculty Retreat 2018. The vote was called. The motion carried unanimously.

1. Approval of the Minutes for December 5, 2017

The Minutes were Approved as Submitted. 

1. Announcements from the Floor

Senator Williams announced Flu Safety Facts (i.e., get a mask, cough into elbow, get a flu vaccine, etc.). She further announced that two weeks was required for full immunity and students should call the Student Health Center for further information. Ms. Emily Hopps from Student Health announced the 30 people/30-day campaign and the enforcement of EO 1108: Tobacco Free Environment. The campaign will offer training on learning how to talk to people about the usage of tobacco and cannabis on campus. Ms. Hopps encouraged senators to offer extra credit to students. Fliers regarding the campaign can be found on the academic senate iLearn. Senator Foley announced and discussed the email that she sent to the senate. Central in the email is an explanation of a series of experiences as a student leader on campus. Senator Foley discussed the nature of the experiences and the importance of collegial communication within the campus community. She further asserted that when people stand up and get shut down, the administration has proven to be ineffective. She explained the best practices engaged as a student leader and the problems created by those who do not pay attention to transparency, harassment, and slander on campus. Students, faculty, staff, and administrators were represented in the experiences she discussed. It is important for the senate to watch their surroundings and speak up. 

1. Reports
   1. Chair

 

Chair Geber offered a welcome back and introduced the new senators join in spring 2018. She also discussed the ambitious agenda for this semester, the accomplishments that the standardized time blocks lend to efficiency and the potential need for future revision of the policy. Chair Gerber also noted that since many within the campus community do not realize that this this policy passed, it is important senators to report back on the working of the senate. All are welcome to visit the senate website for additional information.

 

1. Standing Committees
   1. Academic Policies Committee

 

Senator Bloom reported on modifications of course equivalent and grade appeal policy.

 

1. Curriculum Review and Approval Committee

 

Chair Stowers reported that the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee would bring two items to the plenary in Second Reading. Feedback was also being received on the final draft of field trip policy. Lastly, Chair Stowers reported that CRAC were in the process of reviewing proposals.  

 

1. Faculty Affairs Committee

 

Chair Roehrman reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee is working on developing policy on graduate student tuition remission and hiring policy.

 

1. Student Affairs Committee

 

Chair Williams reported that the Student Affairs Committee is working on a few new initiatives and will present them at a future meeting.

 

1. Strategic Issues Committee

Chair Gen reported that the Strategic Issues Committee is reviewing version II of the budget book in collaboration with VP Ann Sherman. He also reported that this is the second version of last year’s document produced by VP Cortez as per the campuses commitment to transparency. This version is an improvement upon the last version and incorporates feedback. The following concerns and questions were raised:

1. Will this document be available electronically?

 

1. Ann Sherman, Vice President - Administration and Finance & Jeny Patino, Executive Director - Housing, Dining & Conference Services (time certain 2:30)

VP Sherman and Executive Director Patino reported on housing and presented data. Central in this presentation was the goal of providing accessible and cost effective housing. They discussed a number of proposals for additional student and faculty housing and the senate was encouraged to offer feedback. VP Sherman and Exec. Director Patino also discussed the loss of employee and family housing as a strategic move to student housing. Income from property, deferred maintenance costs, market rates per square foot and dollar amounts in San Francisco were also discussed. Park Merced, West Lake, etc. SF State and SF Rent Control Department policies were compared to illuminate comparable rent control practices over the last few years. VP Sherman and Exec. Director Patino reminded senators that the turnover rates are rather low. This is the result of a lack of comparable housing in the city of San Francisco. Increases in rents are not yielding additional income to the campus due to deferred maintenance. They further discussed how salaries compared to rent increases. Central in this discussion was the percentage of salary devoted to rent as compared nation-wide. Unlike San Francisco residents, rent nationwide is about 30% of income. The campus is able to the meet this, SF is not. Until the past year, the salary increases did not exceed the rental increase. This year, the 5% salary increase exceeded the normal increase in salary. The average rent in SF was also discussed by apartment type and actual rent paid. For example, University Park South rents are closer to the rates in the current markets.

VP Sherman and Exec. Director Patino also discussed and explained how and why SF State was not subject to SF Rent Control Laws. This issue has been a long-standing source of confusion for the campus community; however, the university has bench marked itself against the normal increase occurring in the city. This practice is not viable anymore, as it does not lend to the funds needed to make repairs. Arrangements were made to offer housing to the displaced campus community and the rationale behind these arrangements were based in the need for housing accessibility. The future of rent control and future increases on campus are unclear. Currently, 38 units on campus for faculty and families are below current market. Students do not benefit from this situation and it will be important to consider what our future philosophy for housing for faculty. Financial circumstances and social justices have been considered and renters are allowed with special circumstances. Reserves, aging buildings, allocations for capital improvements, and the campus master plan to provide more housing must all be considered. Lastly,  VP Sherman and Exec. Director Patino discussed the importance of how we communicate with our campus community on housing. Conversations are occurring with the Chancellor’s Office on affordability of housing in the CSU. The following concerns and questions were raised:

1. It seems that deferred maintenance discussions suggested that there were many situations where tenants were exposed to health hazards. To what extent did deferred maintenance impact residents?  It can be argued that deferred maintenance can be considered a lack of social justice. When faculty entered into the rent control agreements, how clear was it made that the property would no longer be under rent control? There seems to be an understanding among faculty that the age of the building suggested that it was under rent control.

A: For residents prior to the purchase, there was not change. The change occurred when people came in after the purchase. We have tried to explain the Rent Board exemption. The CSU system has a method that is set, which is exempt from the Rent Board.

1. Do we have a current campus specialist devoted to off campus housing that can aid students in finding off-campus housing? Are there any negotiations, how-to workshops, etc. happening to allow students greater access to housing? These are huge student concerns. Have governmental leaders been consulted?

A: No. There are no designated individuals; however, there are individuals that can assist in referral. Private developers are not eager to drop their rates. There is a team looking to see how to obtain units in mass. It is important to understand that there is not much availability. Many are not affordable or accessible. New builds are being explored and local and state representation have been consulted.

1. How do you create a balance between the needs of housing for both students and faculty? Students are being pushed out and faculty are struggling too. Students do not have the opportunity to live on campus. Students are unable to continue leasing their apartments, as they are told that they need to move to bed space. It is important to speak with students about their experiences.

A: Students are not being pushed out. Those who graduate are asked to leave. 

1. Looking at the faculty salaries, it that the net or gross salary? Is there a way to get some data on the range of how much faculty pay towards apartments?

A: Gross salary.

1. It is important to lead the way on housing and not get stuck in being a manager.
2. Who is on the advisory council? Are there any students represented? 
3. It is important to consider that we are not prohibited from rent control. How do we move forward? It is important to come up with ways to reach the social justice concerns of the campus community with housing needs. An agreeable progression on the relationship between rent and salary is something that we can create to achieve our social justice goals.
4. Can we not lease our private property and provide accommodations to our students? This will give us a constant supply and short supply. Many universities lease out private property. Is this possible?

A: Such a consultant on this practice is expensive. This is why we are looking into new builds. This may enable us to sustain housing needs.

1.  Is it possible to look at the salaries of faculty and staff that are living in the units to assess their needs? Measuring against market rate must consider change. Justification of market rate should be considered in reverse.

A: We gather data on current residents when they apply. Housing should be at 30% of income. Tenants have to qualify to show that they can afford their rentals. There is a potential 5% increase every year and these will be evaluated annually.

1. It is important for us to work together. What kind of creative ideas do you have for the improvements and is there anything in the master plan that can address needs?

A: We see 13-30% increase in cost. The building boom also makes it expensive to find someone to make the repairs.

1. Several years ago, CSU Chancellor White issued a study on food and housing insecurity. All campuses are trying to do the best that they can. In addition to the programs suggest by senators, it is important to pay attention to the faculty. These individuals are recruited to this campus and we need to retain them. On Slide 6, the cost of housing is going to eventually outpace faculty salary increase. To what extent will the faculty be able to find the money needed to keep pace.

A: EVC Relyea has been consulted on the extent to which the unions have been consulted. California Teaching Association (CTA) is looking to investment for workforce housing. This will be a discussion that will be monitored.

• On the subject of student homelessness, is it possible to have emergency student housing? Cultural conflicts and mental health issues can contribute to student need for such a resource.

A: Demand is greater than what supply can address. Showers are being looked at in the Wellness Center for homeless students and we have a campus food pantry.

1. Faculty at the lower end of the pay scale are upset. It is important to not do thing “across the board.” Some of the incoming rates are comparable to Park Merced. It is important to look at the market around us when we talk about these increases.
2. There are organizations, like Habitat for Humanity, is it possible to contact them? Modular houses can be built also, like those for the U.S. army. Can we use that model? This could be a temporary measure and solution.

A: Home owners have to have equity in the house. We do not have the land for the modular housing.

• Would you be willing to change the policy that displaces students? If so, then why would you? If not, then, why wouldn’t you? How many students sit on this committee? If there are no students, then how can you work on getting more students on this committee? How do student know that you will follow through?

A: Yes. This policy will be examined. The initial understanding was that there would be representation from faculty, staff, and students with families.

1. Time was ceded by Senator Harris-Boundy for visitor Kiril Chernomaz, PhD without objection. His question was as follows: What message will the university be sending to the community about its ability to fulfill its mission?

A: It is important to remember that staff make half of what faculty make. These are the individuals that keeps the grounds, make the food, etc. Some individuals cannot live in housing either. These are tangible and real circumstances for people.

1. Christine Miller, Chair of the Academic Senate of the California State University

ASCSU Chair Miller expressed appreciation for the SF State statewide senators and the invitation to visit with the Academic Senate at SF State University. She reported that SF State is number 21 of her 23-campus visit during her two terms as ASCSU Chair. Chair Miller also reported that the ASCSU passed a resolution on Project Rebound, started at the ASCSU. This resolution passed unanimously. She also reported that the ASCSU Executive Committee has been speaking with Chancellor White and EVC Blanchard regarding EO 1100 and EO 1110. Campuses passed resolutions on the executive orders and their messages were heard and progress is being made in representing faculty shared governance concerns. It is important to contact ASCSU senators to offer feedback. Chair Miller also reported on changes to the Faculty Trustee selection criteria, a resolution on Counseling Support Services to ensure that tenure line full time permanent counselors are being hired at appropriate levels of staffing, and current ASCSU discussion of legislation positions. The goals of the latter are intended to influence legislation before passage. Lastly, Chair Miller reported that two tuition resolutions were being discussed in anticipation of the May revise. The CSSA will also be consulted. Chair Miller encouraged SF State senators to offer the ASCSU senators feedback, particularly on the reports on the Sustainable Financial Model Workgroup. This group will explore strategies for not raising tuition for students, dedicated tax revenue, etc. The following concerns and questions were raised:

1.  Thank you for the proactive and progressive resolutions. On the Project Rebound Resolution, the genesis started with a student who discussed how he could not submit an assignment online. When the student was asked if he had been living under a rock, he stated that he had been incarcerated. Over the next few year, students from the program were invited to talk about their concerns. Mr. Bell also expressed concerns about how formerly incarcerated students could not get access to university, as they could not leave their county. ASCSU senators were encouraged to nudge our sister campuses to adopt the model.
2. It is important to remember that the Project Rebound representatives mobilized sytemwide. It is also on the Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates (ICAS) agenda. Place bound students may have a community college nearby and not a CSU or UC and a California Community College (CCC) may be a more viable option.
3. On micro-credentials and nano-degrees, would the CSU be able to consider this for retraining?
4. On Project Rebound, it is Associated Students Project Rebound. It was once considered a shameful program. They are now 50 years old. At the California State Student Association (CSSA), Project Rebound programs are being encouraged for all campuses.
5. Considering this point, food pantries were also started by Associated Students.

 

OLD BUSINESS

1. Recommendation from the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee: Proposed Changes to the MS in Interdisciplinary Marine and Estuarine Sciences (second reading)

Curriculum Review and Approval Committee Chair Stowers moved the item. The item was discussed. The vote was called. The motion passed unanimously.

1. Recommendation from the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee: Proposed Minor in Computing Applications (second reading)

Curriculum Review and Approval Committee Chair Stowers moved the item. The item was discussed. The vote was called. The motion passed unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS

1. Recommendation from the Student Affairs Committee: Proposed Creation of a Student Health Advisory Committee (first reading) – Removed

New Item 9.: Commendation of the SF State Faculty Retreat 2018

Senator Yee-Melichar moved and read the item into the record. The motion carried by acclamation.

1. Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Proposed Revision to the Withdrawal from Courses Policy (first reading)

On behalf of Academic Policies Committee Chair Wilson, Senator Bloom moved the item. The item was discussed. The following concerns and questions were raised:

1. On line 13, students that do not complete an assignment is of concern. To what extent does this requirement create a higher standard for online students than those that meet face-to-face. Successful completion of the assignment should be dropped. This will allow for students to show mere attendance like those in traditional classes (i.e., forum post, etc.).

1. Adjournment – no later than 5:00 p.m.

The Academic Senate Adjourned at 4:02 p.m.