November 7th, 2023

Academic Senate

Plenary Meeting Agenda

Tuesday 7 November 2023

Hybrid – Seven Hills and Zoom

2:00 PM

 

 

 

OPEN FLOOR PERIOD:  2:00 - 2:10 PM

The Open Floor Period provides an informal opportunity for campus community members to raise questions or make comments directed to Senators, Senate officers or to university administrators. Please arrive promptly at 2:00 PM. Please limit comments to not more than three minutes per topic. We usually allow 5 minutes total, but extend this time today. Senators may make announcements under Item 3 below.

 

Chair Goldman explained how the Open Floor Period works and gave notice that the meeting will begin at 2:10pm.

 

CALL TO ORDER: 2:10 PM

Chair Goldman called the meeting to order at 2:10pm.

 

1. Approval of the Agenda for 7 November 2023

Sen. Segovia-McGahan moved to approve the agenda. Sen. Brewer seconded the motion. The motion was carried, and the agenda was approved as read at 2:11pm.

 

2. Approval of the Minutes for 24 October 2023

Sen. Collins moved to approve the minutes.  Sen. Hellman seconded the motion. The minutes for 24 October were approved as read at 2:12pm.

 

3. Announcements from the Floor –

No announcements were made.

 

 

4. Reports
   1. Chair’s Report

Chair Goldman gave notice of the present meeting’s long agenda as well as that of the next Plenary Meeting. He acknowledged the difficult conversations being had on campus, including around the topic of the campus’s budget. He provided context to the campus’s budget problems: an approximate 20% drop in student enrollments over the last few years, a 20% drop in tuition revenue, an adjustment of 5% to the state contribution over the next 3 to 4 years, and thus the campus budget will be 20% smaller going forward.  Chair Goldman then gave notice that he is working with President Mahoney and Provost Sueyoshi to schedule a townhall within which to discuss this and other topics with the campus community.

 

1. 2. President’s Report

President Mahoney gave notice that Provost Sueyoshi is presently attending the CSU Board of Trustees meeting at CSU Long Beach. Lynn offered additional context to the present budgetary difficulties the campus is facing, including an observation that this issue is not confined to our campus alone, but many others (indicating a larger systemic and demographic misalignment as well as a funding differential between CSU and UC systems). She then offered appreciation to the Strategic Issues Committee for their work on the Resolution Affirming Shared Governance, Curricular Integrity and Budget Transparency, as well as to the Student Affairs Committee for their work on an anti-doxing resolution.  She then offered thanks to Katie Lynch for her leadership of the Discover SF State event in October (where over 300 family members attended and roughly 75% of prospective students indicated their intention to attend the campus). She then offered remarks about this year’s Alumni Hall of Fame induction event, where SF State alum and current SF State assistant professor Dr. Vincent Matthews was included as an inductee.

 

The floor was opened for questions and comments.  

 

Sen. Drennan emphasized the importance and urgency of holding a townhall with President Mahoney and the campus community. She then commented on the implementation of measures intended to respond to ongoing budget difficulties. She then sought clarification about when the townhall will be scheduled.  

 

President Mahoney asserted that a townhall will be scheduled soon (in collaboration with Chair Goldman) and suggested that structural changes are called for.

 

Discussion was had about the funding disparity between CSU and UC systems. It was observed that our system has some venues in place to vocalize disagreement with this disparity: The Cal State Student Association (CSSA), the Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU), and the California Faculty Association (CFA).

 

Sen. Woo offered his agreement with Sen. Drennan’s points and underscored the urgency of holding a townhall sooner rather than later (where current budgetary problems continue to impact faculty, staff, students, and educational programming).

 

Discussion was had about the planning, format, and goals of the townhall. It was proposed that it would be ideal to identify the issues to be covered at the townhall, where Directive Memo on Academic Affairs Budget Realignment of January 28th, 2021 and MLL’s response, Open Letter in Response to the Provost’s “Directive Memo on Academic Affairs Budget Realignment” of January 28th, 2021 may offer an instructive model. It was also proposed that ExComm take a leadership role in identifying questions.

 

Chair Goldman gave notice that ExComm is currently planning the townhall.

 

1. 3. Standing Committee Reports
      1. Academic Policies Committee

Sen. Chou gave notice that APC has 3 items today: a Resolution in Support of Deepening and Re-Imagining the Senior Capstone (in second reading), a Revision to S02-217 Academic Program Assessment (in first reading), and a Revision to S99-206 Policy on the Academic Program Assessment Committee (in first reading). She summarized each.

 

No questions were raised.

 

1. 1. 2. Campus Curriculum Committee

Sen. D’Alois gave notice that CCC will have many proposals to present at the Nov. 28 and Dec. 5 Plenary meetings. These will include a minor in empowerment self-defense, a graduate certificate in TESOL, and 5 different concentrations proposed by the music department.

 

No questions were raised.

 

1. 1. 3. Faculty Affairs Committee

Sen. Holschuh gave notice that FAC has one item to bring to the floor: a Resolution in Support of the Implementation of the CSU Course Equity Portal by the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CEETL) (first reading). She offered a summary.

 

No questions were raised.

 

1. 1. 4. Strategic Issues Committee

Sen. Trousdale gave notice that SIC had two items to bring to the floor:  a Resolution in Support of International Education Month (a consent item) and a Resolution Affirming Shared Governance, Curricular Integrity and Budget Transparency (returning in first reading). He offered summaries of both.

 

No questions were raised.

 

1. 1. 5. Student Affairs Committee

Sen. Olsher gave notice that SAC has no new items to bring to the floor. However, SAC is working on an anti-doxing resolution condemning cyber-harassment and a resolution reaffirming SF State’s support of multi-lingual students.

 

No questions were raised.

 

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

An informational item is a statement announcing the completion of a process, carried out in accordance with Senate policy, and requiring formal notification of the Senate at its conclusion.

 

5. Report (written) from Faculty Trustee Darlene Yee-Melichar.

Chair Goldman explained that the Faculty Trustee’s report is provided as a written document and thus a permanent part of senate record. The report was provided to senators via Box and iLearn.

 

CONSENT ITEMS

A consent item is one deemed by the Chair to be non-controversial, requiring no debate. Any Senator may call the item to the floor, in which case it is considered as new business in first reading. If no Senator calls it to the floor, it is considered approved. It may be read into the record, or we may move directly to the next agenda items.

 

6. Recommendation from the Strategic Issues Committee: Resolution in Support of International Education Month, consent item.

Chair Goldman summarized this item and noted that, as a Consent Item, it does not need to be voted on or discussed, unless requested.

 

CONTINUING BUSINESS

Continuing (once called Old) Business involves items returning to the Senate, usually in Second Reading, but occasionally still in First Reading. Items in Second Reading belong to the Senate as a whole rather than to an individual or committee. Comments on Second Reading items should be confined to those for or against or proposing specific amendments. We ordinarily limit each speaker to three minutes. Senators may yield their time to non-Senators if needed. Amendments and the final document are passed or not passed by majority vote.

 

7. Recommendation from the Strategic Issues Committee: Resolution Affirming Shared Governance, Curricular Integrity and Budget Transparency, returning in first reading.

Chair Goldman summarized the item, explained that it returns in first reading (as opposed to second) because it has been heavily modified since its last reading. He invited Sen. Trousdale to bring the item to the floor.

 

Sen. Trousdale summarized the history of the item and indicated that the feedback received during prior readings has been integrated into the present document (with particular emphasis placed on transparency, budget literacy, as well as clarification on some phrasing).

 

Ex Chair Albiniak emphasized that one often sees the end-product of a resolution brought to the senate floor, but this item has allowed the senate to observe its development and the labor behind that development. He then recommended the addition of a resolve clause proposing the creation of an academic affairs budget committee on par with the University Budget Committee (UBC).

 

Chair Goldman reminded the senate that this item is in first reading and will not be voted upon.

 

Sen. Trogu offered his support of this resolution and offered examples of budgetary hardship experienced by the School of Design (citing the canceling of classes but the increase of class sizes). He placed a document containing his remarks in the meeting chat.

 

Interim Vice Provost Kim offered remarks about the increased classes sizes, including context around a document referenced in Pino’s remarks, EP&R 76-36 Faculty Workload: Policies and Procedures.  He then offered recommendations for specific edits to the present resolution draft. These include clarification about the ninth resolve clause on line 88, the addition of language to line 94 (add “when possible” given the time constraints for changes outlined in the resolution). He then offered appreciated for the resolve clauses 10 and 11 (lines 94 and 100, respectively).

 

Sen. Wilson offered his agreement with Ex Chair Albiniak’s remarks and commended SIC for their work on the resolution. Echoes Ex Chair Albiniak’s comments about the hard work of drafting a resolution. He commends this body and committee for taking this on. He noted the reference to communication in lines 79-81 and wondered how communication is handled by other units on campus. He offered Sen. Pasion’s communication to CoSE as an instructive model.

 

Chair Goldman Notes Sen. Linton’s comment in the chat. Would she like to speak to this?

 

Sen. Linton offered that, in reference to Pino’s remarks, the 3/3 teaching load assigned 3 WTUs to research, it didn’t increase class size. She placedthe open letter from MLL in the meeting chat: Open Letter in Response to the Provost’s “Directive Memo on Academic Affairs Budget Realignment” of January 28th, 2021

 

Interim Vice Provost Kim offered context about the period in which the move to increase class sizes was made. He noted that awareness of this context is important.

 

Chair Goldman moved to conclude discussion of the item and pause for a 5-minute break.

 

Chair Goldman resumed the meetings and moved to item 8.

 

 

8. Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Resolution in Support of Deepening and Re-Imagining the Senior Capstone, in second reading.

Chair Goldman gave notice that there is time for comments both for and against this item, and that we can then move to a vote on the item. He then opened the floor to Sen. Chou.

 

Sen. Chou Summarized the item. She gave notice that APC updated and revised the language. She explained that Lines 69-77 were revised for clarity. She invited other APC members to make comments.

 

Sen. Hellman offered his support for the resolution and thanks to the committee for including remarks about the library.

 

Sen. Collins offered thanks to the committee for language indicating maximum flexibility.

 

Ex Chair Albiniak spoke in favor of the resolution and thanked the groups that APC consulted with. He noted that the division of Undergraduate Education and Academic Planning (DUEAP), the Chairs Council and CEETL offered important feedback.

 

Sen. Drennan offered thanks for the item and for including language about the library (in particular noting the positive impact on grad students whose master’s theses are cited in other academic works, about which they receive notification – a thrilling experience indeed).

 

Without any recommendations for amendments, Chair Goldman moved to vote on the item. The motion was seconded, and the item put to a vote.

 

The motion was carried, a vote held, and the resolution approved.

 

Chair Goldman offered his thanks to all.

 

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

New Business items are brought by a committee or individual to the Senate in First Reading, during which open discussion and debate may occur. We ordinarily limit each speaker to three minutes. Senators may yield their time to non-Senators if needed. The item is then returned to the Committee for further revision, to be brought back as Continuing Business in Second Reading.

9. Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Revision to S02-217 Academic Program Assessment, in first reading.

Chair Goldman summarized the item and opened the floor to Sen. Chou.

 

Sen. Chou brought the item to the floor and outlined its revisions. She then offered thanks to the Department of Undergraduate Education and Academic Planning for their contribution.

Sen. Collins offered his thanks to APC and then inquired about the extent to which The Undergraduate Advising Center (UAC) was consulted about the changes.

 

Vice Chair Harvey offered his thanks to APC and wondered how the responsibilities for assessment procedures (lines 90 and 98-99) will be determined.

Sen. Grutzik: agreed with the recommendations made about lines 90 and 98-99 (i.e. to ensure the equitable distribution of workloads in a department in an equivalent unit).

Sen. Way responded to Sen. Collins’s question about UAC, indicating that The Undergraduate Advising Center brought the changes to APC. She then offered procedural information about Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) accreditation (following WASC’s recent review, SF State has 8 years to implement changes, but that they will check in with the campus at the 4-year halfway point).

Sen. Collins offered thanks for the clarification.

 

10. Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Revision to S99-206 Policy on the Academic Program Assessment Committee, in first reading.

Chair Goldman summarized the item and opened the floor to Sen. Chou.

Sen. Chou brought the item to the floor and indicated that it is related to the prior item. She gave notice that the revision has been made in consultation with the University Academic Assessment Advisory Committee (UAAAC), now changing to the Academic Program Assessment Committee (APAC).

 

Sen. Collins questioned whether lines 29-30 are necessary.

 

Sen. Way clarified that they did speak to the needed units (Baccalaureate Requirements Committee, BRC) about the line. The edit was to clarify under whose purview these obligations are.

 

Chair Goldman offered thanks to all and gave notice that the item will return for second reading at a later plenary.

 

11. Recommendation from Faculty Affairs Committee: Resolution in Support of the Implementation of the CSU Course Equity Portal by the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CEETL), in first reading.

 

Chair Goldman summarized the item and invited Sen. Holschuh to bring it to the floor.

 

Sen. Holschuh offered FAC’s gratitude for putting this up for first reading. She provided context for the resolution (including the original ASCSU resolution calling for the portal’s assessment, AS-3577-22/JEDI/FA), citing recent presentations of the portal as well as its intended use by CEETL (initial pilot period in Sp `24).

 

Chair Goldman opened the floor for comments and questions.

 

Vice Chair Harvey agreed that CEETL is a relevant unit to pilot the portal. He then recommended caution against the use the word ‘gap.’ He proposed ‘differential’ as a possible replacement word and one without the same negative connotations.

 

Sen. Collins Thanks to the committee. He then offered procedural recommendations for SF State’s adoption of this resolution. This includes language in the present document that assumes ownership of the resolution from ASCSU, as well as a statement of SF State’s values.

 

Sen. Erickson offered his thanks to the committee and appreciation for the limitation of the portal’s use in RTP decisions.

 

Discussion was had about the application of the word ‘gap’ in the document.

 

No other comments were made about the resolution.

 

Chair Goldman proposed that the resolution now be moved to second reading. Sen. Collins moved to approve the resolution’s advancement to second reading. Sen. Hellman seconded.

 

Chair Goldman explained the procedure for moving this resolution to second reading. He then indicated CEETL’s preliminary piloting of the portal with an aim to adopt permanent policies around its use following the pilot period.

 

The resolution’s move to second reading was put to a vote. The vote to approve was adopted and the item moved to second reading.

 

 

Sen. Holschuh offered gratitude for the affirmative vote and indicated that this is a preliminary decision and that needed changes can be made. She then addressed the concern over the use of the word ‘gap.’ Sen. Holschuh proposed adding another resolve clause to put the word into clearer context.

 

Vice Chair Harvey offered his agreement with the recommendation.

 

Chair Goldman noted that any editorial changes made here must then be put to another vote for adoption into the document.

 

Sen. Collins offered language for adoption into the document (“Amendment: That the Academic Senate of SF State University Adopt AS-3577- 22/JEDI/FA; and be it further…”), and moved to vote on the editorial change’s adoption. Ex Chair Albiniak seconded the motion.

 

The inclusion of additional language was put to a vote. The vote to approve was adopted.

 

 

 

Chair Goldman gave notice that the amendment will be read into the record.

 

 

Sen. Collins additionally proposed an amendment to line 40 of the resolution: “Amendment: …that the Academic Senate of SF State University urge CEETL to coordinate…”

 

Chair Goldman moved to put This put to a vote. Sen. Hellman seconded the motion.

 

The inclusion of additional language was put to a vote. The vote to approve was adopted.

 

 

Discussion was had about additional language being written into the resolution (e.g. “SF State consider positive framings when discussing analysis…”). But it was decided that CEETL can grapple with this when they begin to work with the portal.

 

 

Chair Goldman moved to then put the adoption of the resolution to a vote.

 

The motion was carried. The resolution was adopted.

 

 

Chair Goldman offered thanks and congratulations to the committee and senators. He then noted that the next plenary will be on Dec 5 and this will be our last one of the semester (note that as of November 17, the Plenary scheduled for 5 December will not be held if the planned strike on our campus takes place on that day). Thus, Sept 28 standing committee meetings will be used for one or two presentations. We must do this because we don’t have enough time for these in the remainder of the semester. The Nov 28 standing committee meeting we might intersect with two presentations as though it were a plenary. This marks the last Plenary before thanksgiving. Wishing all a great holiday.

 

PRESENTATION

 

There are no presentations scheduled for today.

 

Adjournment: Time definite 4:30 PM

Ryan Gurney

Secretary

 

Attendance

 

Absent

 

Guests

 

 

 

POST-PLENARY FLOOR PERIOD

This is ordinarily an informal opportunity for senators and guests to meet, exchange information, or follow up on items or questions emerging from the meeting. It will ordinarily run for thirty minutes from the end of formal business, but not beyond 5:00 PM, if people remain online or in the room.