of February 19, 2002
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Vaughn at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
| Aaron,
Eunice
Alvarez, Alvin Bishop, Anna Boyle, Andrea Cherny, Robert Collier, James Colvin, Caran Concolino, Christopher Consoli, Andres Corrigan, Robert A. |
Daniels,
Robert
Duke, Jerry Edwards, James Fung, Robert Garcia, Oswaldo Garcia, Velia Gerson, Deborah Gregory, Jan Harnly, Caroline Higgins, Susan Hom, Marlon Houlberg, Rick |
Hubler,
Barbara
Jerris, Scott Kassiola, Joel La Belle, Thomas Langbort, Carol Luft, Sandra McKeon, Midori Moallem, Minoo Nichols, Amy Oñate, Abdiel Pong, Wen Shen Raggio, Marcia |
Sayeed,
Lutfus
Scoble, Don Steier, Saul Strong, Rob Su, Yuli Terrell, Dawn Turitz, Mitch Vaughn, Pamela Warren, Mary Anne Warren, Penelope Wolfe, Bruce Yip, Yewmun |
| Senate Members Absent:Ganji, Vijay (exc), Henry,
Margaret (exc), Shrivastava, Vinay (exc), Levine, Josh (exc), Smith,
Miriam (exc), Gillotte, Helen (abs), AdisaThomas, Karima (abs), Friedman,
Marv (abs), Bartscher, Patricia (abs), Newt-Scott, Ronda (abs). |
| Guests:Vanessa Sheared, Dan Buttlaire,
Gail Whitaker, Dave Dempsey, Pat Gallagher, Helen Goldsmith, Richard
Wiersba, Edward Ericson, Nancy McDermid, Gerald Platt, Jiunn Huang,
Alan Jung, Art Kohn, Nancy Rabolt, Ken Fehrman, Ann Hallum. |
Chair’s Report
The senate chair did not give a report in order for the senate to have more time for debate.
Caran Colvin moved that a proposed resolution in support of amending spring 2002 calendar for filing faculty activity reports be added to the agenda as item #7.
m/s/p (Colvin, Terrell) to approve the agenda as amended
m/s/p (Terrell, Houlberg) to approve the minutes
Helen Goldsmith reported to the senate that the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) has recently changed the special education teachers’ standards for subject matter preparation of prospective multiple subject (elementary school) teachers. The Liberal Studies and Child & Adolescent Development major offers subject matter preparation programs so students do not have to take the Multiple Subjects Assessment for Teachers (MSAT) exam. Goldsmith reported that she is in the process of reviewing the current programs to see how much revision needs to be made to meet the new standards. These standards are far more specific and extensive than they were in the past, so some substantial revisions will probably be necessary. The changes to the standards will impact many departments as most offer courses that satisfy the current Liberal Studies and CAD programs. In December, a team from SFSU attended a meeting organized by the CSU Statewide Academic Senate on "Subject Matter Preparation of Multiple Subject Teachers." The team consisted of Helen Goldsmith, Dave Dempsey from Geosciences, Richard Hoffman from History, Deans Jake Perea, Jerald Combs, Dan Buttlaire, Nancy McDermid, and Bob Cherny from History. Faculty, staff and students with questions about the new standards can contact Helen, your college dean, a member of the team that went to the CSU meeting, and/or your college's representative(s) to the Liberal Studies Council.A copy of the new standards is available at http://www.ctc.ca.gov/SB2042/SB2042_info.html. Click on "Standards of Program Quality and Effectiveness for the Subject Matter Requirement for the Multiple Subject Teaching Credential."
Abdiel Oñate reported that students found the process needs to be streamlined. He asked if we would have time to review the process? Helen Goldsmith indicated everyone who has an interest could be involved with updating programs and the process. Helen recommends that concerned faculty should start with a review of their area on the web site and identify any changes. Then work with their department chair and the dean to review and rework curriculum. Jan Gregory pointed out that we must be careful in how our programs respond to external pressure for change. It is the faculty who determine our curriculum not an outside agency. Helen Goldsmith indicated that they are watching and making sure that the changes are in accord with our curriculum standards.Robert Cherny indicated that we are working with two key concepts. First, academic discipline and second, academic freedom. Sometimes they conflict. What we are trying to do is to bring the preparation of our students, who are preparing to be teachers, in line with what the new standards require to be taught in the schools. We owe it to our students to provide the best preparation possible, so our students will be able to better serve the people in the public schools in the state.Dean McDermid, College of Humanities, reported that her college has been making great progress in reviewing and reworking programs to bring them in line with the new standards. She indicated that most of the changes were small and in only a few cases were they having problems.
This item is returning to the senate from the February 5 senate meeting and remains in first reading.
College of Business interim Dean Gerald Pratt provided the senate with an extensive review of the three-year process that resulted in the proposal before the senate. He outlined that the proposal was not driven by any required reduction of the bachelor degree to the 120-unit level. Further, that the COB faculty were central to the process and voted for the proposed changes.Richard Wiersba, Professor, Business Analysis and Computing, announced that he did not attend the CRAC meeting when the proposal was discussed because he did not know that the meeting took place. Wiersba teaches 12 of the 13 sections of BICS 263 that are proposed to be replaced by an exam.He indicated that an exam would not assess the true business systems concepts that he teaches in BICS 263. He asked that the proposal be returned to COB for further study by the faculty. m/s/p (Cherny, Steier) to extend debate for 20 minutes to 3:25 PM
Jerry Duke indicated that the issue just raised was about appropriate course content and not appropriate for the senate to consider.Rick Houlberg asked how would Dean Pratt change the proposal and has the university worked with COB during the 3-year process?Dean Pratt indicated that he had lots of his own opinions on how curriculum should be, however, this proposal resulted in faculty deliberation and a faculty vote and he supports it.Provost Tom La Belle indicated that his office had worked closely with COB in their development of this proposal. Further, that the proposal would move the college in the direction of resolving problems with high demand courses and scheduling. Bruce Wolfe asked if students had been consulted in this process? Dean Pratt indicated they had not been consulted regarding the proposal but had been extensively surveyed at the beginning of the process.Robert Nickerson, Professor, Business Analysis and Computing System, indicated that he saw the facts about the process that led to the proposal differently than the Dean. Nickerson indicated that the reduction of the degree program to 120 units was widely received by the majority of COB faculty as a chancellor office requirement. That this requirement was what had driven the development and COB faculty vote on the proposal that is before the senate. He recommended that the proposal be returned to COB so that faculty may review it in light that the 120-unit total for a bachelor degree is not a mandated maximum but only recommended.
m/s/p (Duke, Terrell) to second reading
Robert Daniels recommended to the senate that there are many problems in the interpretation that the COB dean had just provided to the senate and that many of the statements that COB faculty had made the decisions that led to the proposals are not true. Actually, in the COB faculty can only make recommendations to the dean and it is the dean that makes the decision. He asserted that there was no consideration by the undergraduate committee at the department level.Lutfus Sayeed thanked the dean for his detailed presentation. However, he disagrees with the dean’s interpretation of the process. He knew of one faculty member who served on the COB curriculum committee who specifically stated that the committee was told that the 120-unit maximum was mandated by the chancellor’s office. Sayeed read an email from this professor.
m/s (Cherny, Gregory) to return the proposal to the College of Business Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
Robert Cherny believes that the confusion over the 120-unit recommended maximum for a degree program makes it necessary that we return the proposal to COB undergraduate Curriculum Committee for further review. If we were to pass it now it would be under a cloud. It appears that significant people in the process were not informed. Send it back and then they can pass it again. Jan Gregory recommended that the proposal be returned to COB so that the full benefits of shared governance may follow. Recommended that the academic senators from the COB consult with the faculty and dean about the shared governance processes in the college.Provost La Belle recommends that faculty vote against returning the proposal to the COB. He believes that the college faculty had the opportunity to vote on the proposal and they voted approval. He did not know how much more the COB could do.
M/s/ (Wolfe, Bishop) to amend the motion to include consultation with COB students
Bruce Wolfe strongly recommended that since the proposal affects students that students should be involved in the process.Provost La Belle indicated that he understood from Dean Pratt’s presentation that students were consulted in the initial survey early on in the process. Susan Higgins believes that student input is important but the senate should not mandate it.Lutfus Sayeed indicated that when the market survey was conducted that students were part of that and they were consulted.Robert Cherny suggested that the senate should defeat this motion and that the COB curriculum committee could consult with students. ms/p (Terrell, Mary Ann Warren) to close debate on the amendment to the motion
Susan Higgins indicated that she is in favor of the motion to return the proposal to COB. She believes that it is clear from our debate that COB faculty did not know that the 120 units, as a maximum for a bachelor degree program, was not mandated by the chancellor. It should go back to COB undergraduate curriculum committee and be voted on by the COB faculty.Jerry Duke spoke against the motion to return the proposal to the COB curriculum committee. He believes the process had been followed and a faculty vote taken. Andres Consoli spoke in support of returning the proposal to the COB. m/s/p (Terrell, Hom) to closed debate
Voting on the motion to return the proposal to COB undergraduate curriculum committee: Passed
Amy Nichols, Chair of CRAC, introduced the proposal. Before you, for review is the proposal for revision in the Bachelor of Arts in English Creative writing.This proposal comes to senate as a consent item from CRAC.In summary, the creative writing department would like to change CW 601 from a selected choice to a required course while keeping the current 39-unit level by shifting 3 units from literature category to creative process category. Here to answer any questions are Susan Shimanoff, Associate Dean-College of Humanities, shimanof@sfsu.edu, and Nancy McDermid, Dean, College of Humanities, mcdermid@sfsu.edu. m/s/p (Terrell, Houlberg) to second reading
Amy Nichols, Chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee (CRAC), introduced the item. Before you, for review are the changes in an already approved proposal from Fall 2000.The proposal BS in Apparel Design and Merchandising and BS in Interior Design is being re-reviewed based on comments received from the CSU Chancellor’s Office and outside reviewers.The proposal originally was approved as a single degree Apparel & Interior Design, up to the chancellor’s office and then once reviewed, the recommendation was to reconfigure the one degree into two.According to the Chancellor’s Office, the Master Plan Projection would encompass these two new degrees, not requiring the submission of a new Master Plan Projection.The department needs our approval for this revision to the original proposal. Here to answer any questions are Nancy Rabolt, Chair CFS/D, Ann Hallum, Associate Dean, CHHS, and Kenneth Fehrman.
Gail Whitaker indicated that often the chancellor’s office makes a recommendation for some minor changes in a degree program after it has been submitted and approved by the university. In this case the chancellor’s office asked that we separate the single new degree program into two new degree programs. We felt that the two new programs require senate approval. Whitaker also requested that the term “options” in the degree program be changed to “emphasis.”
m/s/p (Houlberg, Duke) to second reading
Bruce Wolfe asked for an explanation of the term “master plan projection”.Whitaker indicated that to develop new programs in the CSU there are two phases in the process. The first phase is the development of the concept and its approval by all levels. The second phase is the development of the degree program and its approval. After the first phase is complete and approved by the trustees then the proposal for the new degree program goes on the master plan projection. Once that happens then the campus can begin the second phase and develop and gain approval for the actual degree program.
m/s/p (Terrell, Steier) to close debate
Voting on the proposal: passed.
Agenda Item #7: Resolution in Support of Amending Spring 2002 Calendar for Filing Faculty Activity Reports.
Attachment distributed at the meeting
Introduced by Chair Pamela Vaughn as a recommendation from the Executive Committee. Due to the CSU budget shortfall there is no urgency to have faculty complete Faculty Activity Reports (FAR) by March 8th. The proposal moves the FAR due date from March 8th to April 15th.Mitch Turitz asked why we could not wait until a new contract is signed before we ask faculty to complete a FAR. Dawn Terrell indicated that providing the new time line now will allow faculty more time and we could return to the issue once a contract is signed or not signed.Jan Gregory indicated that the proposed change in the due date would clarify the situation for many faculty.
In second reading
m/s/p (Cherny, Steier) to closed debate
Voting on the proposed resolution: passed
Adjourned at 4:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
James Edwards
Secretary to the Faculty