MINUTES of the ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING 2-24-2004

CHAIR’S REPORT

Chair Edwards noted the extraordinary times we are in and said that instead of a chair’s report he would turn this time over to the President and the Provost for an informal discussion on the university budget.

President Corrigan expressed thanks to senate Chair Edwards and appreciation for the opportunity to come to the senate floor to talk about what we would like to do. He noted the difficulty in a room such as this to have a conversation, which he said grew out of a discussion with the Executive Committee this morning. He urged senators not to panic, since he did not have a dramatic announcement, but wanted to address the current budget situation, realizing that we would hear later on from Brian Murphy about the state situation. He continued that he and the Provost, along with others, needed to start dealing with some very difficult and challenging issues. The budget situation, he said, is challenging a marvelous partnership, one of the best shared-governance partnerships in the CSU, but we still need to start getting issues out on the table so that they can be discussed and that the decisions made will affect the strength of the institution.

President Corrigan further stated that the general budget situation has not changed since Vice President Morishita last presented at the senate, and if students vote for the fee increase it would be a positive development. If Proposition 57, which he said he would support “while holding my nose,” does not pass it will create an alternative that is not pleasant to consider. Unless the current legislative assembly gets its act together, we will be in for a tough haul.

He offered up some round numbers: if the student fee does not pass, then we will have a $13 million shortfall. If the fees are passed then the deficit would be $10 million. This shortage is after implementing the strategies of picking “low-hanging fruit”, finding every loophole, playing every kind of budget trick, and factoring in all the easy fixes – athletics, counseling etc. We have taken from each vice presidential unit and at the executive level any available funds, for example eliminating any emergency funding. Yet despite this we will still have a $10 million problem that is $4 million to the non-academic side, $10 million toward academics. Non-academic cuts will not be across the board, but will involve big targets in selected areas. We will try to maintain major services. On the academic side, if we face a $6 to 9 million shortfall, the question then is how we go about dealing with it. The usual way is to take shared cuts across the institution, not narrow and deep cuts, in order to maintain the overall strength of institution. But while he does not have a secret list of programs to cut, nor does the Provost, we still need to think carefully about this and what we are going to do.

Provost Gemello tried to portray the magnitude of the situation. He noted that last week he had given the Deans a budget for planning purposes. In this budget he reduced funds evenly across the campus, increasing the student/faculty ratio by the same percentage. So if faculty talk with their Deans, they will have a picture of what Academic Affairs will look like if the cuts are spread evenly. For some perspective on this, we have reduced non-faculty costs by 8%, and the same percentage reduces the faculty budget by $8.9 million, meaning about 170 faculty positions. To look at this another way, all the tenure/tenure-track funds along with the library material funds come to about $65 million. Last year’s academic budget, with its cuts, was about $118 million. If we exempted the tenure/tenure-track faculty and library budget, there is about $53 million left, and we need to take $12 million from that remainder. This is going to be deep and harmful to all of Academic Affairs, and we want to begin discussions. The question is whether we follow the strategy of spreading cuts throughout the academic programs or try to protect overall Academic Affairs by narrow but deep cuts.

Senator Daniels asked if the numbers were posted anywhere where they might be reviewed and digested more thoroughly.

Provost Gemello responded that they were not yet available but could be made so shortly. He reminded senators that this was the second planning budget of the year already.

Senator Carrington asked if there was any sense of how the Chancellor might respond to the fee increases.

President Corrigan indicated that if the student newspaper the Gator was at all an indication, the suggestion was that yes, the Chancellor would support this. Whether there was any kind of ironclad agreement was a different matter. He speculated that if the students showed support for the fees, the Chancellor would likely do the same.

Senator Bernard-Powers asked about past relationships between the senate and the budget formulation. She suggested that perhaps looking across the CSU system might provide some suggestions.

Chair Edwards responded that half of budget committee came from the senate, either as senators or appointed by the Senate Executive Committee.

President Corrigan suggested for arguments sake that if we discontinued a program it was not clear whether we could work out an arrangement (trade degrees or programs) with other campuses. It might be a contract an issue but is perhaps worth thinking about.

Senator Williams asked what criteria would be used to decide to keep programs or not and what time frame would be used.

Provost Gemello suggested that action needed to happen soon. These actions take time but it is now February, and we do not have a real budget yet. This is the beginning of discussions with the Executive Committee. We will try to get as much feedback as possible but will need to establish criteria for whatever process is developed.

Senator Williams asked whether the decision to make deep or broad cuts would be made soon. If input is taken, we will still need to know what way cuts will go.

Provost Gemello said that we will need a lot of input, and will need to hear from as many as possible, as to how the university would survive, not just with mediocrity but with strength.

Senator Palmer asked whether the administration was worried about a student backlash if the referendum passes and yet no real change takes place.

Provost Gemello responded that he had been very clear about this in student meetings, and that if they passed the referendum on fees and no other cuts took place, there would be the opportunity to save classes. He explained that he had told students that the fee increase, if approved, would simply provide five-hundred some classes more than would otherwise be offered, not that it would permit the campus to provide the same complement of classes it did in 2003.

President Corrigan remarked that this was the best student leadership he had seen in his 15 years on campus. There have been monthly meetings and so Associated Students had been processing this all along. The awkward situation Senator Palmer posed had already been faced. What they get is less of a budget cut, not a reprieve. Senators are asking good questions but not getting to the nub of the issue, which is if the referendum passes and we make cuts across the board, we will be laying off extraordinary numbers of lecturers, which will affect students across campus. We need to ask what we can do to make the studies of 90% of the students better, because cuts are coming to programs.

Senator Stowers expressed appreciation for the administrative request for input, but wondered what strategies the administration is currently considering, and what direction was being contemplated.

President Corrigan responded that even if he had a list for cuts, posting it would not be appropriate. On the non-academic side the administration was looking at sizable blocks of programs. On the academic side, he acknowledged after 16 years that he had his own instincts about what to do but said that no decision would be made until more input was gathered.

Senator Ulasewicz asked if there was a timeframe in place for these cuts and how long they may be in place.

Provost Gemello responded that the scenario was different from the early 90s crunch and that he regarded these current cuts as permanent; we are being cut without being funded. We are having less money and still must do more teaching. We have no choice about class sizes. As to when these changes would take place, he noted that we would have less money come fall and said that we would be unable to make the long-term decisions that fast, but should still try to prepare for next year, with a combination of short and long-term strategies. We need to work together, hard and seriously.

Senator Ulasewicz asked if we had fewer lecturers but are offering the same number of classes, what would this mean? Would there be students graduating, say, with 100 units rather than 120 units?

Provost Gemello indicated students would still need 120 units.

Senator Ulasewicz responded that students would be then leaving in six years.

Provost Gemello responded it would take longer for students to complete their degrees, a primary reason for asking students for the fee increase. If unable to proceed to degree at the same pace, students would pay an extra $800 in fees – exactly the administration’s point.

President Corrigan suggested that the senate could do something and look at how we advise students in order to move them along more easily. The CSU system is also looking at something along the line of the Wisconsin model, from the Governor’s directive, where there is a penalty for not graduating in timely fashion. We will need to consider things we can do to get students through faster. Already the system is not admitting qualified students. Long Beach and San Diego are turning down qualified students. Because of the budget situation we are denying access to more students and this is a problem.

Senator Ulasewicz asked about the feasibility of a “parent referendum” and said that perhaps we should approach parents for help with funding.

President Corrigan related an anecdote about raising money for fees earlier and that he had dismissed this sort of thing before. For many families that extra $100 is immense, and not all families are in that kind of position, but that is the model at places like Humboldt, Sonoma, Long Beach, etc. The state may not have the will for a surcharge on high income individuals.

Senator Daniels asked about the implications for new tenure-track searches.

Provost Gemello said that the university was proceeding with searches, with the understanding that Deans understand the funding situation. If a candidate is strong, and looks to be a good long-term asset, then proceed with the hire. If the pool of candidates is weak, however, then perhaps it is not a good idea to make an offer. He trusted to the Deans and Department Chairs to use sound judgment.

Senator Suzuki expressed a desire to follow up on Senator Williams’ questions, noting that it was hard to imagine some department or program saying that they would volunteer to be cut.

Provost Gemello stated that the dialogue was not about who would raise their hand, but more how to determine what constitutes a good program. From the present forward, anything that gets reduced would be a good program. We have been careful but we are not rich to begin with. What we have left are all good programs. There will be hard choices among good programs, and while all of them are good, it will be necessary to establish what is more valuable. Another consideration is that a program might be good but expensive or good but not so expensive. Perhaps there might be chances for external funding.

President Corrigan urged some attention to damage control. He suspected that rumors would soon be flying that administrators know what is going to happen, and that more discussions mean that everyone thinks we know what we are doing and are just stringing things along.

Provost Gemello wanted to dispel one rumor that he had heard and stated that the university will not be reducing from 8 to 4 colleges.

Senator Gregory reflected that if we as a group were having difficulty talking about the issues, then departments were likely to have even more troubles. She suggested using the record of discussion in this meeting as a means of communication with our colleagues. She was not sure we would leave the room with substantive information today for our departmental colleagues.

Provost Gemello stated that one issue that had a response yet, was what major strategy the university should follow – deep or narrow. Once that issue is settled, then it would be clearer where we go next.

Senator Heiman observed that we will be losing lecturers en masse, and asked how much money is allocated to them and how many lecturers we have this year. Regarding our existing recruiting practices, he wondered whether we could take a hit on our reputation, and said that new hires would find it hard.

Provost Gemello remarked that that was a good point, and that it goes right to the heart of whether cuts should be wide or deep. Last year had about $10-12 million for lecturers. The current projection is that if all hires are successful, which will not be the case, and if no faculty retire, there would be $8.5 million left for lecturers.

Professor Emeritus Randolph made two suggestions: the first being a recommendation to take a close look at the history of budget crunches, which for many will seem very familiar. He thought it prudent to consider the history of CAP, CAP+, CAP++. Secondly, he wished to impress on the senators the urgency of the calendar and posed the question of when the legislature actually gives their final budget.

Senator Bernard-Powers said that if the university does not have funding whether it should go ahead with faculty hires. The Channel Islands campus is hiring, which does not make sense to her.

President Corrigan responded that both the Maritime and Channel Island campuses were exempt from any cuts. He saw no reason to believe the system will cut back in this respect, but noted however that the system has grown from 205 thousand to 335 thousand students.

He noted additionally that there was widespread worry about programs, students, and colleges, and the university had started discussions that can be used to proceed, further commenting that presently there is good statewide union leadership. If programs are going to be eliminated, we are then in a position to take care of those we affect.

Chair Edwards noted that on March 9, 2004 the Provost will take some time again for further discussion, and further noted that a campus-wide town meeting was in the planning stages.

AGENDA ITEM #1 - APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 24, 2004

Chair Edwards stated that there were two changes to the agenda: a correction to item 4 where Senator Chelberg should be listed as an ex-officio committee member and not co-chair; and that item 6 and 7 were in 1^st and 2^nd reading.

Meredith, Shrivastava m/s/p

AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2004

Morishita expressed a desire to correct a figure he stated on the second page that should read $225 million.

Heiman, Bernstein m/s/p

AGENDA ITEM #3 –REPORT—STATEWIDE ACADEMIC SENATORS, CSU—EUNICE AARON, JAN GREGORY, ROBERT CHERNY

This item was deferred for Agenda Item 4 since its time certain has been reached.

AGENDA ITEM #4 –REPORT—ALL-UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE for STUDENTS, FACULTY, and STAFF with DISABILITIES—CO-CHAIRS OSWALDO GARCIA, AND PAUL LONGMORE, and DPRC DIRECTOR, GENE CHELBERG

Senator and Co-chair of the committee Garcia presented a report of the committee for students faculty and staff with disabilities, outlining a mission to not only comply with various disability related regulations, but to initiate efforts to improve conditions across campus. This is a diverse committee with wide representation, with subcommittees devoted to outreach, for example to provide input to the CUSP process.

History Professor Longmore indicated he would try to compress his semester-long course on the history of disability into a few minute presentation. Briefly the disability model has moved from a traditional medical model of pathology to one of a minority group that is hindered by socially constructed factors which make it difficult for persons with disabilities to participate in society. A series of federal and state laws have allowed integration, some of which affect higher education. The deeper perspective on disability does not so much involve considering a set of limitations, social or not, but rather collective disability studies can offer unique perspectives on the world that are of value. It offers good values to society in general, including civil rights and diversity elements involved in higher education, and compliance in the laws involved. The advanced learning of the disability studies program and the committee address both compliance in civil rights and a deepening and enriched diversity.

Longmore noted a long tradition at SFSU, beginning in the early 70s when a disabled students’ union formed and actually occupied the student union at its opening in protest of its inaccessible features. In 1975 a disabled students service was established. Reasonable accommodations were undertaken and that tradition reemerged in late 90s with a lawsuit against campus. A settlement in 2001 brought important innovations to how the university addresses accommodations, and how it deals with disabled members. Everything on the administrative side of the issue was brought together into DPRC, a consolidation into one administrative unit. Second, the university hired Gene Chelberg to head DPRC. Longmore indicated he had had the advantage of knowing Chelberg as an undergraduate in Minnesota, where he was a nationally recognized leader. SFSU is fortunate to have him and the results here in the past three years have meant that SFSU has emerged as model to other universities. SFSU is not just complying with regulations but furthers disabled incorporation into the mainstream.

Senator Chelberg noted that as director of DPRC he served under Dean of Human Relations Ken Monteiro and wanted to acknowledge the staff of DPRC, as they are the structure of the program and the ones who make sure stuff happens properly. Last Fall DPRC provided student services to over 686 students – individuals with physical, sensory and mobility impairments, and increasingly many with learning and psychiatric disabilities. DPRC reviews and verifies disabilities of students and works with students to make reasonable accommodations, provide counseling, readers, note takers, lab assistants, whatever is necessary. It arranges for over 1000 test accommodations per semester.

DPRC provides alternative media (Braille, electronic test etc.) sign language interpreting, and has had a 30% increase in expenditures. For employee access, there is a 21% increase from last year. The services are confidential, and provide reasonable accommodations, and employ an interactive process to determine the best fit. DPRC works with human resources for solutions.

Chelberg noted that there is a great deal of work in the area of campus access. Physical access has improved considerably, and a lot has been done. DPRC does plan reviews on new remodels and new construction, also checking that the work comes through as planned. DPRC does barrier remodels with older structures, and has had a role in new buildings such as the library. Chelberg urged senators to take advantage of DPRC’s construction warning website. There is also email notification, the campus shuttle system and arrangements for adequate parking. DPRC also works on information access, utilizing different media, and works with web standards. A new development is doing outreach in training, wherein help and training can come to classes wherever they are held.

Some new trends include moving towards universal design – a philosophy about designing environments for everyone. We seek an equitable, flexible, intuitive environment. The goal is not to put the burden of asking on the individual, but make the environment right where it is handled.

Human resources is developing a “return to work” program, which will intersect with DPRC’s services so that people get the facilities they need.

Chelberg noted an increase in psychiatric disabilities, which nationally now eclipse “normal” disabilities. As a consequence we need to establish good practices (i.e. curb cuts) and try to do whatever we can do to avoid exacerbating the results of disabilities.

The web as an environment is becoming pervasive and is in the early stages of recreating an environment that is inaccessible. We have a university policy on access to information but it needs support and compliance.

Chelberg offered some suggestions on what senators as instructors could do. These include a course syllabi statement and inviting students to self identify to arrange for accommodations. DPRC has a prototype statement for campus events, so that disabled students are made welcome. When handling publications, it is wise to include a statement about how the information could be obtained in alternative format. He expressed willingness to handle any questions and urged senators to contact the DPRC and the committee with issues.

AGENDA ITEM #5–REPORT—BRIAN MURPHY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, San Francisco Urban Institute—STATE BUDGET SITUATION

Murphy announced that he had just returned from Sacramento, where he found a profound contradiction between our campus’ struggle to deal with matters squarely and with integrity, and how the capitol handles issues. He issued a plea for solidarity.

Sacramento is deadlocked in its traditional fashion. There is very little movement on the Republican side to increase taxes even if the bond does not pass. The single most important vote is the one on March 2 and we are encouraging students to vote, and even if the principle is wrong, the math simply demands passage on the bond measure. Propositions 57 and 58 are joined, but we cannot lose 56. Everyone in Sacramento is waiting for March 2, which will then precipitate a second round of politics.

He observed that the state now has a clinically divided Governor, with his wife and family pulling one way, and the conservative party pulling another. The budget is leaning towards the right. He will not move on the budget until massive public displeasure is apparent. The only ally the Democrats have is the Governor and he will only act if there is a lot of public noise. He begged the senate for support – support from students and campus – to join with community college students on March 15. He urged the senate to get faculty to fund transportation for everyone to make common cause with UC and the community colleges on this. Now was the time for higher education to unite.

Any action has to have as its plea increased revenue. It will be irrelevant in a zero sum game, as health and human services will be supported over higher education.

The Sacramento impression is that higher education is absent from the discussion. There is no sense that we are feeling deeply enough hurt for action. We need to think about mobilizing our own faculty to support students in protest, and do this in Sacramento.

AGENDA ITEM #3 –REPORT—STATEWIDE ACADEMIC SENATORS, CSU—EUNICE AARON, JAN GREGORY, ROBERT CHERNY

Statewide Senator Cherny reported that our own internal statewide senate budget will be discussed shortly, and Academic Affairs and the senate will take a hit, enough to make a significant change in their ability to do business. We will receive a report from the graduate education task force, to campus after the March meeting. There are several resolutions on fees, particularly the graduate fee super-increase. Another resolution on graduate education suggests that if we are to increase fees, then we want to make sure that the increase benefits graduate education. There are upcoming resolutions on transfers, improving the information that goes out to community college students planning to transfer, so they will be better informed as to what is needed. As regarding the proposed penalties for excess units, a task force looking into this.

We have met with Board of Trustees member Bill Hauck, who was appointed by Wilson, and reappointed by Davis, and who chairs the business roundtable.

Hauck’s observations include: if California were anything else but state it would be bankrupt and yet as a state we cannot go bankrupt, and that is the nature of our fiscal crisis. For Hauck the Governor’s budget appears to be the best possible situation.

The Governor has a line item veto, which makes him enormously powerful. We need to cultivate him and a poor approach would be to insult him.

Hauck also posed the legislative truism: that since UC and CSU are the only major state agencies that can raise revenue at all, the legislature may be very willing to let us do that, even while they are unwilling to adjust the budget in a responsible manner or make other unpopular choices.

We asked him about the Board of Trustees, which may not actually have a quorum. He responded that there may be appointments from the Governor who could almost appoint a majority. A reappointment with board experience would probably be to the good.

Move to extend session to 4:15.

Gregory, Palmer m/s/p

Senator Gregory indicated that in her committee, Faculty Affairs, that the recent focus had been on a position paper on investing in the faculty, with the assumption that there would be a future. She reminded senators that statewide senators Aaron and Cherny will be stepping down at the end of the semester, and she encouraged nominations from senators here.

AGENDA ITEM #6— RECOMMENDATION from the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE—RESOLUTION in SUPPORT of GETTING OUT THE VOTE for the MARCH 2^ND & 3^RD STUDENT FEE REFERENDUM.

Williams, Meredith m/s/p

Adopted by general consent.

AGENDA ITEM #7 – RECOMMENDATION—from the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE—RESOLUTION in SUPPORT of GETTING OUT THE VOTE for the MARCH 2^ND PRIMARY ELECTION.

Chelberg, Aaron m/s/p

Senator Gregory reminded senators that there is nothing wrong with faculty advocating that students vote in elections.

Gregory, Meredith moved to 2^nd reading.

Approved unanimously.

AGENDA ITEM #8—INFORMATION ITEM—RESOLUTION in SUPPORT for PROPOSITION 55 the KINDERGARTEN-UNIVERSITY PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND ACT of 2002— #RF03-217.

Senator Chelberg commented that this is the second half of a bond measure that funds classroom infrastructure. He encouraged senators to review the resolution and support it, as the bond directly affects the CSU, especially SFSU.

AGENDA ITEM #9 – ADJOURNMENT – 4:05 p.m.

Aaron, Eunice	Fung, Robert	Morishita, Leroy
Avila, Guadalupe	Garcia, Oswaldo	Nichols, Amy
Bartscher, Patricia	Gemello, John	Noble, Nancy
Bernard-Powers, Jane	Gonzales, Dan	Otero, Aina J.
Bernstein, Marian	Gregory, Jan	Palmer, Pete
Bohannon, Tara	Heiman, Bruce	Pong, Wenshen
Carrington, Christopher	Hom, Marlon	Scoble, Don
Chelberg, Gene	Houlberg, Rick	Shrivastava, Vinay
Chen, Yu Charn	Irvine, Patricia	Smith, Brett
Cherny, Robert	Jerris, Scott	Stowers, Genie
Colvin, Caran	Kassiola, Joel	Suzuki, Dean
Contreras, A. Reynaldo	Klironomos, Martha	Ulasewicz, Connie
Corrigan, Robert	Langbort, Carol	Van Dam, Mary Ann
Daniels, Robert	Mak, Brenda	Vaughn, Pamela
Edwards, James	McKeon, Midori	Williams, Robert
Fielden, Ned	Meredith, David	Yang, Nini

MINUTES of the ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

TUESDAY, February 24, 2004

CALL TO ORDER: 2:10 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Meredith, Shrivastava m/s/p