ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
SEVEN HILLS CONFERENCE CENTER
NOB HILL ROOM
2:00 – 5:00 p.m.
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.
De Barros, Jose Acacio
Van Dam, Mary Ann
Absences: Gen, Sheldon (abs); Hasheminia, Hamed (abs); Hill, Lorna (exc); Hoxter, Julian (abs); Le, Mai Nhung (exc); Lebuhn, Gretchen (abs); Mays, Chris (exc); Shapiro, Jerry (abs); Weinberger, Christopher (abs); Wong, Les (abs);
Visitors: Brian Beatty, Shirly Menon, Ann Hallum, Robert Ramirez
AGENDA ITEM #1—Approval of the Minutes for March 8, 2016
- Approved as submitted.
AGENDA ITEM #2—Approval of the Agenda for April 5, 2016
- Amend to strike Items #11,13 and 15. Remaining Items renumbered. Approved as amended.
AGENDA ITEM #3—Chair’s Report
- Reminder that College elections have been completed. University elections are now open.
- Reminder that there are two standing committee meetings remaining. The final plenary is on May 10. On May 10 we complete business for this academic year and proceed to the seating of new senators and the election of officers for AY16-17.
- On Thursday SFSU is hosting Academic Senate chairs statewide.
AGENDA ITEM #4— Budget Report from VP of Finance and Administration, Ron Cortez (Time Certain: 2:20)
- Ron Cortez and Jay Orendorf present budget report for Fiscal Year 16-17. Presentation is on ILearn. Related data pertaining to questions from the floor will also be posted on ILearn.
AGENDA ITEM #5—Report on Golden 4 from Jennifer Summit, Dean of Undergraduate Education and Academic Planning (Time Certain: 2:55)
- Jennifer Summit presents on a new Curriculum Management System, not on The Golden 4. The presentation is posted on ILearn.
AGENDA ITEM #6— Recommendation from the Executive Committee: Proposed 2016-2017 Senate Meeting Schedule (first reading)
- Senator Hackenberg: moves Item and speaks to item.
- Senator Lewis moves to second reading. Passed.
- Senator Gerber: Proposes amendment that Ex-Comm meeting time be from 12:00 to 1:50. Amendment passes.
- Senator Hackenberg: Proposes amendment that Plenary meeting time be from 2:00-5:00. Amendment passes.
- Amended Senate Meeting Schedule passes.
AGENDA ITEM #7—Recommendation from Senator Hanley: Proposed Resolution in Support of Budget Transparency (first reading)
- Senator Hanley moves item. Seconded. Senator Hanley speaks to item. Refers item to Executive committee and relinquishes ownership to the Executive Committee.
- Senator Hackenberg: Speaks to item.
- Senator Robertson: General support but why specify a solution rather than a proposal?
- Senator Yee- Melichar: Lines 23-29 endorse transparency. Note that the SIC idea will parallel the statewide structure.
- Senator Hanley: Generally in favor. In the Senate constitution responsibilities include business and fiscal matters. Concern that SIC committee might be over burdened. Legislative advocacy planning might be removed.
- Senator Mooney: In support of budget transparency. Concern that SIC does not meet over the summer. SIC effectively will be turned into a budget committee.
- Senator Hackenberg: There are several meetings of SIC until the end of the semester. Each committee needs to prioritize and balance their tasks.
- Senator Robertson: Moves to second reading. Seconded. Motion passes.
- Senator Lewis: In favor. Can always modify it.
- Resolution in Support of Budget Transparency passes.
AGENDA ITEM #8— Recommendation from Curriculum Review and Approval Committee: Proposed revision to the Paired Courses policy (first reading) (Time certain: 3:15)
- Senator Rosegard moves item and speaks to item.
- Senator Hammer: Lines 109-110: Why expect graduate enrollment to exceed undergraduate enrollment? Senator Rosegard: in the Word version the lines are 106-107. Language is “should” exceed undergraduate enrollment. Senator Gerber: wants clarity for Word version lines 104-105: paired courses and cross listing. Agrees with Senator Hammer’s point regarding language. Senator Rosegard: paired course is an umbrella term. Likes the idea to change “should” to “encourage”. Senator Yee—Melichar: Many points of agreement with this proposal. If moves to second reading will propose to build in assessment.
- Guest Associate Dean Shimanoff, LCA: Encourage possibility that undergraduates should be seniors. Recommend to eliminate the prohibition against cross listing. Recommend that the proportion of graduates to undergraduates be dropped while keeping the emphasis on quality. Will send suggestions for maintaining quality to Senator Rosegard.
- Senator Collins: Move to second reading. Motion was not passed.
- Chair Carleton: Will keep in first reading and refer back to committee.
AGENDA ITEM #9— Recommendation from Curriculum Review and Approval Committee: Proposed Variable Topic and Experimental Courses policy (second reading)
- Senator Rosegard moves item. Speaks to item.
- No discussion.
- Proposed Variable Topic and Experimental Courses policy passes.
AGENDA ITEM #10— Information update on San Francisco State University’s Gerontology Program (information item)
- Senator Yee-Melichar speaks to item. The Gerontology program has successfully completed its program review. The Concluding Action memo contains the primary recommendation that the Gerontology program will move from the School of Social Work to the School of Public Affairs and Civic Engagement.
AGENDA ITEM #11—Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Proposed Revisions to the On-Line Education policy (first reading)
- Senator Hammer moves item. Speaks to item.
- Senator Gerber: Recommend that the boilerplate be updated. Supports the proposed changes.
- Senator Collins: in favor of changes.
- Senator Lewis: Moves to second reading. Approved.
- No discussion.
- The Proposed Revisions to the On-Line Educations policy passes.
AGENDA ITEM #12—Recommendation from the Faculty Affairs Committee: Proposed revisions to Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Policy
- Senator Trogu moves item. Speaks to item.
- Senator Yee-Melichar: In Lines 134-135 insert “if needed” after “every six years”.
- Senator Hanley: Has questions: lines 245-248: CBA meaning of external review is not the same as in University policy. What does “expectation” mean? Is there a process for eternal review? Need clarification. Lines 550-551: Departments should develop peer review- is this level of detail appropriate?
- Senator Trogu: Agree that wording on external review should be clarified. Specifying what peer review is for departments could be very helpful.
- Senator Howard: Agrees with Senator Hanley’s comments. Don’t like having “expectation” as a word in a policy.
- Senator Hanley: External review and external letters are two separate processes. In LCA only two departments mention external letters; may be better not to add to the confusion. To specify peer review in this policy takes away autonomy of the department.
- Senator Hammer: Lines 528-529: peer review versus peer evaluation. It is onerous to require classroom peer review once per year. Senate members pointed out that this is a CBA requirement.
- Senator Collins: Look for consistency between CBA and University review.
- Senator Sabee: The two sections referred to by Senator Hanley were specifically included to protect autonomy and empower departments.
- Senator Steier: Peer review requirement is vague and confusing.
- Chair Carleton: Refer this item back to FAC; bring back to next plenary.
AGENDA ITEM #13— Adjournment—no later than 5:00pm
- Adjourned at 4:27pm.