MINUTES of the Academic Senate Meeting 03 09 04

Senate Chair Assistant Sposito announced that shortly there would be a second Asilomar planning meeting to discuss potential themes, and other planning issues. The campus community is invited and encourage to participate in the planning of the Faculty and Staff retreat for 2005 held at Asilomar.

CHAIR’S REPORT

Chair Edwards spoke to the urgency of the budget crisis, noting previous senate meetings, and the permanent nature of the reductions. He commented that in the past there have been three procedures that Universities have used to address the downsizing of academic programs, the first of which, spreading the cuts broadly across the campus, has some serious drawbacks. The second is to make deep cuts in some areas while protecting others. The difficulty here is deciding what programs will be protected, what programs must go, what criteria are used to make such choices, and who will do the choosing. The third procedure is a combination of the first two.

Now and in the upcoming months the University is confronting an emergency situation involving some very tough choices. The University has several processes in place to deal with this emergency and all of these processes include significant faculty input.

These consist of: The University Budget Committee, which includes faculty in equal numbers with administrators; a joint Senate and Academic Affairs Workload Taskforce, which will report to the Senate in May; as well as CUSP II, which is focusing on a five-year strategic plan for the University

SFSU will need to think about the short term, thus considering budget requirements that need to be met by July 1, as well as longer-term issues, while keeping in mind how to redefine our University for the sake of its future and level of quality.

The Academic Senate Executive Committee has reviewed all relevant policy in regards to downsizing or reorganizing our academic programs, and these include:

#S93-177, Academic Program Discontinuance

#S92-178, Academic Senate Principles Regarding Academic Reorganization

#F02-221, Temporary Suspension of Academic Programs

All of these have been approved by the Senate and the President, and are thus University policy. The parties that should be involved in the decision making process are faculty, colleges, the Academic Senate and the President, and a review of all these polices by all members of the academic community is as good a place to start as any.

Third, Chair Edwards stressed the need for open communication and that faculty plays a strong role in decision-making. He commended that the deans are meeting regularly with their staff and faculty for discussion.

He noted that the Academic Senate workload may increase and that this may require additional and or longer meetings.

Secretary Fielden asked that senators take care when using their microphones, as deciphering the previous meeting’s tape had required extra effort. He requested senators to restrict their extracurricular comments, water pouring and the like to areas outside the range of the microphones.

AGENDA ITEM #1 - APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR March 9, 2004

Chair Edwards noted that one correction, agenda Item 6 the second line should read consent item in first and second reading.

Houlberg, Palmer m/s/p

AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 24, 2004

Gregory, McKeon m/s/p

Senator Steier insisted that his absence at the previous meeting be listed as “excused.”

Senator Chelberg indicated that he would make some small corrections to the minutes and forward them on to the senate office.

AGENDA ITEM #3 – REPORT FROM STATEWIDE SENATORS AARON AND GREGORY

The statewide senators had no report to give at this time.

AGENDA ITEM #4 – REPORT— JOHN M. GEMELLO, PROVOST & VICE PRESIDENT for ACADEMIC AFFAIRS—BUDGET SITUATION

Provost Gemello mentioned the recent town hall meeting devoted to the budget and hoped that by now everyone realized the severity of the situation and its permanent status. Today he wanted to talk about the process that the campus would adopt. He indicated that he had met with a variety of campus members at the town hall meeting, with deans and a range of campus members in an attempt to discuss the budget scene. Two weeks ago the colleges received their planning budgets, but these were issued with only preliminary knowledge and without knowing the results of election developments. He tried to give some idea of the magnitude of the crisis by noting that we have 1,000 full-time faculty positions, and we are probably going to need to reduce 170 positions, roughly 17 percent. He listed some examples of the kinds of comments he was hearing: one dean had asserted that the planning budget would not be possible, as the only way to reach the target would be to double or triple class sizes, going against a long held principle of the college. Another dean said that he had a series of short term solutions but that they would not prove sustainable over time. Senior faculty would be teaching other classes than what they currently teach; there would be less research and no new equipment purchases. When the Provost asked whether this approach could this be sustained, the answer was negative. He said that wherever short terms solutions were possible they had been employed, but now the campus is faced with serious long term issues. Discussion has started to consider alternative strategies, including deep, strategic cuts.

The campus administration wanted to hear from the community, with the understanding that solutions be regarded as permanent strategies. Now there is a much clearer idea of what the real budget looks like, but of course we do not know exactly what will happen. No one expects the budget to improve any time soon. Now is the time to face up to the crisis and deal with it in a sound, strategic way.

He mentioned meeting with the deans over college-wide strategies, requesting proposals from them to arrive by early April. His message to the deans was to engage with the faculty in extensive discussions. He planned to keep CUSP II, the Senate Executive Committee and the University Budget committee informed of developments and had met with previous senate chairs for input. He hoped to develop an overall plan by the middle of April. The budget will be $8 to 10 million less than last year but SFSU still has to accommodate 95% of the student total from this year, and we will need to restructure to be as strong as possible in the future.

Some of the things being considered are looking at how many colleges to have, the structure within the colleges, and the reduction of departments and programs, including credential programs. It is now March and with a budget needed by April the campus may not be able to adopt a permanent plan immediately.

Provost Gemello suggested April 2004 as the time to identify programs slotted for discontinuance. In 2004-05 the campus will begin the process of discontinuance, which will involve reducing course offerings, not admitting new students, and taking the time to work out mitigation mechanisms for those affected. In 2006-07 those programs to be eliminated will have completed the discontinuance process. This would constitute a three year plan, with the goal of identifying programs in April.

Senator Williams asked for clarification about determining the “number” of colleges.

Provost Gemello indicated that he had no magic number. He suggested that the campus needed to think hard and determine the optimal number. If the number of colleges was reduced from 8 to 6, for example, this would be a savings. If that did not happen then that would be money that would need to be found elsewhere.

Turitz asked how it was possible to save money by combining colleges.

Gemello indicated the major feature was through salary savings – if two colleges combined you would have one less dean and associate dean, and eliminate duplicate staff positions. It constituted in essence a reduction in personnel.

Senator Gregory asked if the deans had been advised explicitly to have open meetings. She thought it a good idea to communicate fully with faculty.

Gemello said he had not made an explicit request for open meetings, only that deans communicate often and fully with the departments and faculty. He felt it important to try to follow the best practices available.

Senator Steier expressed some confusion and requested criteria on how programs would be discontinued. In past discontinuances were done to unsuccessful programs but now we have perfectly sound programs that would be discontinued, and how would that be done.

Gemello indicated that Steier had zeroed right in on the problem. Currently SFSU has no weak programs. We are looking at discontinuing solid programs, which would not be small programs, but likely some larger ones that could mean real savings. The whole process was going to be driven by money issues. He would not use the term “fired faculty,” but rather focus on easing and mitigating the ramp down for faculty affected. The reasoning for the three year plan is that he thought that the Senate has a sound discontinuance policy which we will follow. As for the affected students, the three year plan would give the campus a chance to get students through there programs and ease their pain.

Senator Williams encouraged his colleagues to speak up. He wanted to return to the topic of colleges, as it seemed easier to consider program discontinuance, but when considering college reduction, he found it difficult to visualize, and asked for clarification.

Gemello said that across the nation there were a wide variety of different college structures. In the previous budget crisis the campus had generated several interesting solutions that involved mergers and the like. He did not want to speculate, but a major goal was to try to treat people equitably. The campus needed to keep targets and make decisions equitably, and make decisions on a university level. Another part of question involved high and low Faculty Student Ratios that are often program dependent.

Senator Stowers noted that the college of BSS had been talking about budget issues, and wondered what would happen to FERP money.

Gemello was not sure of the answer.

Senator Heiman indicated that the College of Business has had discussions about making some graduate programs self-supporting. To him it seemed like a better approach to take this path rather than to discontinue a program entirely.

Gemello thanked Heiman for his insight, noting that the campus would have less general fund money, but if there were ways to increase revenue or do without general fund money that might prove to be a good approach. MBA programs would be a likely target for this sort of thing, perhaps even at the system level. He thought it a good time for creativity and flexibility.

Senator Ulasewicz had two questions, the first regarding the notion of the “golden handshake” option.

Gemello replied that this proposal was on the Governor’s desk, with the Chancellor’s blessing, but still needed to be signed.

Dean Verhey indicated that the decision should be made in a week or two.

Gemello said that in response to this issue the deadline for filling for a FERP had been extended, from the end of February to the end of April.

Senator Ulasewicz wanted to know about the open dean position in HHS.

Gemello did not really want to fill a position without knowledge of what was going to happen.

Senator Guerrero wanted some clarification about faculty being transferred to other departments or programs as well as being let go, and asked about potential mergers of programs to share resources.

Gemello indicated that there was no plan for that now, but both would be options. Colleges need to decide this at their own level, keeping in mind any savings that may be realized. If a program were discontinued, faculty would not remain in that program. There was more time for mitigation should the campus go into layoff mode, with some further mitigations perhaps possible. He thought a key principle was to do everything possible to help faculty and students directly affected by these decisions.

Senator McKeon wanted more clarification regarding the timeline for program discontinuance. If there was an April list, did that mean targeted programs would only have a couple weeks for appeal? What time would there be between the first list and final decision? Another question she posed was that when a program or department got on that list and its admissions halted, the fate of those departments would be sealed, regardless of any mitigations.

Gemello disagreed that identifying programs for consideration would seal their fate. Perhaps there might be no new majors admitted for a time, but the program would still be able to continue.

Senator McKeon asked at what point a program would start halting admissions.

Gemello said that the purpose of stopping admission for any potentially cancelled programs was to avoid the problem of having admitted students who would then need to make their way through. How soon students go and come was up for consideration.

Senator McKeon asked again the first part of her question, about the timing for the preliminary list and final list.

Gemello was not sure there would ever be a “final” list. He regarded this as a work in progress, with the deans conferring openly and often, and that would result in a continual review. Packages would have input from several areas. It is, however, a zero sum game. The savings have to be made and the university needs to consider carefully which programs it could live without.

Senator Daniels asked about interdisciplinary programs, in GE and the like, where discontinuance conducted in a college by college basis might pose some problems.

Gemello repeated that the college deans would make their proposals, but that he and the President would be asking questions about the whole picture, which he regarded as his responsibility.

Senator Noble asked how cuts would be made when discontinuance takes so long to do.

Gemello responded that the first year would be a hybrid between broad and narrow cuts and that the first year might mean reductions all across the board. The campus might elect to make some short term reductions in the book budget and the infrastructure funds to gain some breathing room to implement longer term solutions.

Chair Edwards noted that policies relating to program discontinuance were put together in the Spring of 1994 and were put together to senate administrative collaboration take a look.

AGENDA ITEM #6—RECOMMENDATION from the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE—BACHELOR OF SCIENCE in NURSING DEGREE at CAÑADA—a consent item—1^st and 2^nd reading

Chair Edwards brought Agenda Item 6 forward as a time certain.

Senator and Chair of CRAC Nichols noted that in the senators’ packets was a proposal for an off campus degree program at Cañada college. This would be a satellite BA in nursing from SFSU’s Department of Nursing to be held at Cañada College in San Mateo.

The Chair of Nursing Beatrice Yorker and Dean Gail Whitaker were introduced for comments and questions.

Yorker began by noting that last fall the Sequoia Health Care hospital and HMO made an offer to SFSU to offer a satellite nursing program. She had several initial reservations which included the recognition of the difficulty of raising enrollment, which they had done on campus and then realized how it created problems that could also be present at Cañada. When first proposed the President expressed concern about the shortage of nurses, increased funding and enrollment, now stretched to the maximum, and faculty learned that it took more than a few faculty positions to make this happen. Sequoia had asked us to think hard about the proposal, and the nursing department indicated that they would need more money for students, as well as space, as current room is insufficient. Clinical placement sites are also limited. Even if students were admitted, it would still be hard to do this.

This is an “outside the box” proposal, with the understanding that Sequoia would fully fund it. They would also handle the clinical placement for the students, and she reported that the nursing faculty were supportive. As long as Tenure/Tenure-track faculty did the program theory and supervised the courses, they were willing to make the commitment to make this possible. The funding would be a minimum of $7.5 million for six years, with a chance to go to ten or more years.

In exchange for this, Sequoia wanted to insure that graduates would work in their own health care facilities and in the community. Because nursing is an impacted program, it is able to have supplemental criteria for student admissions. In this case it would include criteria that would favor students who live and work in county, and to graduates of the Community College district. All senior capstone students would also be placed into their system.

Yorker expressed pleasure at being approached, and noted that there are no BA nursing programs in San Mateo county. The medical journal JAMA had released a study just before negotiations suggesting that patient outcomes improve with a higher level of nursing education. Seventy percent of the nurses in California have associate degrees, while SFSU offers Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees. UCSF no longer offers the Master’s, and City College only offers the associate. We add value with our degree program.

Senator Chelberg offered congratulations for creative solutions to the school of nursing, and asked Whitaker to explain how accommodations for the program would be handled for people with disabilities.

Dean Whitaker said that this would be a clone of their existing program, with all the normal assurances we have here but just handled elsewhere. CEL adds some interesting features that cannot be done on the general fund. Cañada has built a university center, where SFSU offers other courses. This structure, the center, had to address all logistical issues – library, security issues etc. including disabled access. The remote distance may pose some problems, but Whitaker expressed willingness to engage in discussions to resolve them.

Senator Williams spoke in favor of the proposal but had some reservations. What implications would this relationship have for the autonomy of the nursing program, and what safeguards would be in place in case Sequoia went away or was otherwise unable to meet its commitment?

Yorker said from the beginning that the nursing program had insisted that there could be no influence over the curriculum. What Sequoia could influence were supplemental criteria – i.e. San Mateo county residents get preferential treatment, etc, and SFSU wrote another piece into the agreement that positions us well for the future. The SFSU Foundation did a lot of research on Sequoia, and expressed confidence in their strength as a healthy, economically sound organization.

Senator Steier asked if the religious basis of funding would have any affect on health care, including such items as abortions etc.

Yorker responded that that was impossible and that adequate safeguards were in place.

Jerris, Chelberg moved to second reading.

Approved unanimously.

AGENDA ITEM #5 – REPORT—KEN MONTEIRO—DEAN, HUMAN RELATIONS—OUTCOMES from the SUMMIT on RACE & CULTURE

Dean Monteiro wanted to thank the senate for two resolutions encouraging deans to talk about the summit on faculty development days but also commending on the work of the people who handled the summit. He noted that this afternoon we heard about the threats of the budget on our work. The Summit discussion was part of an ongoing value we have – one of the university values.

The desire was to put the summit into issues that the campus can deal with and make the process ongoing, and to talk about summit issues and how people are working with them.

Monteiro wanted to respond to the misconception that the summit was about the “watermelon incident” a racially charged incident from last fall. He stated that almost every incident that provokes a major response usually has at its core material that can catch fire. But, with no fuel, there can be no fire. A reasonable second response is to remove the fuel underneath the sparks. As for the incident, this proved to be a lie, more talking has revealed the underlying context of issues.

There was a summit on race and culture in 1990, when the new President was approached by some asking for the University to address these issues. We have done several assessments, and a series of strategic planning since. These are tools not only for addressing a particular flashpoint but also to address deeper issues.

Referring to the handout, Monteiro noted that the first Students’ issues were ones that were longstanding and echoed in CUSP. An obvious observation might be that we make proposals but do not do anything but he likened the development of a university to that of a person. It remains important to take steps and identify goals, even when the goals are not always achieved.

Referring to the data with respect to faculty employment, he observed that we don’t always know how well we have done. Our hiring in minorities has been fairly flat of late, and it is not clear how good this is.

So an open question is where we are after the summit. The summit committee, who did planning, also became the implementation group and has written a road map, included in the handout. Each recommendation has been amplified

He mentioned that the apparent lopsidedness of the black responses had came from floor of the summit, and meant only that more black students were voicing their concerns. Different groups did not always have the same needs, and it is important to address needs that come to you and are voiced.

In response to the question of whether other issues have surfaced, he responded affirmatively. College discussions have been productive and taken up in a University wide task force.

Further information comes from the Pulse surveys, where students answer various questions and provide answers to some of the things we want to know. It is a laundry list, and a university wide endeavor.

He suggested that the road map would allow various constituencies and committees to turn their attentions appropriately. He finished by noting that one of the greatest challenges remains coordination.

Chair Edwards wanted to move to time certain agenda items and entertained a motion to switch agenda items 7 and 8.

Meredith, Steier m/s/p

AGENDA ITEM #7—RECOMMENDATION—from the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE—RESOLUTION in SUPPORT of the MARCH 15^TH EVENTS IN SACRAMENTO—1^ST AND 2^ND readings—a consent item

Senator Gregory noted that last week our students voted deliberately to increase fees to support their educational lives. This resolution was offered in recognition of the students, and in response to Brian Murphy’s powerful speech at the previous meeting.

Gregory, Jerris m/s/p

The resolution was passed unanimously.

AGENDA ITEM #8 – RECOMMENDATION – from the ACADEMIC POLICIES COMMITTEE—REVISION to the UNIVERSITY’S GRADE APPEAL PRACTICES and PROCEDURES—1^st reading

Meredith, McKeon m/s

Senator Meredith indicated that the proposed policy was developed from the 1981 document, which had never been officially adopted as a campus policy as it had never been signed by the President at that time. The proposal had been discussed in APC, Faculty affairs, Student Affairs, and the Executive Committee. The committees were unable to provide unanimous support. The goal was to create a campus policy to work across all colleges that was fair. There had been some discussion about who would have the final say. Chairs would attempt to mediate, students could produce a formal appeal, and the instructor must respond within 10 days, then it would go on to the college office. All appeals would go forward, a new development, and a committee of three appointed members (one member appointed by the faculty member, one by the student involved, and one by the dean.) University Counsel Bartscher did not recommend a student member for reasons of confidentiality. The policy then called for holding a hearing to decide whether the grade would be raised or not.

Senator Houlberg questioned item five on page two regarding the department chair designee. Who would serve as mediator? Would that mediator be present at the meeting between the student and faculty? He advocated having a student representative.

Senator Meredith indicated that there had been only two formal grade appeals across campus the last year.

Senator Houlberg pointed out a clarity error on page 8 of the document.

Senator Meredith indicated that it would be corrected in the next draft.

Senator Jerris, also Chair of Faculty Affairs, representing both the Faculty affairs Committee and himself, recommend this proposal and mentioned that it had been discussed at length with the conclusion that grading is a responsibility of faculty and the faculty alone. Students may plead their case, but the final grading decision resides with faculty. His committee supported this unanimously.

Senator Gerson, Chair of Student Affairs, wanted to clarify two things. This proposal was the result of three committees’ work, and that what was once a three-step process had been reduced to two, so at least that much progress had been made. The Student Affairs Committee dissented with the notion of student involvement. She thought confidentially could be maintained by training, signing forms, and the like.

Associate Humanities Dean Earthman represented the deans’ perspective and a number of Humanities faculty, and asked that if colleges were unable to amend this policy, that they be able to set responsible deadlines for appeal. Eight weeks would be good for the College of Humanities. With web grades students now know quickly if they have an issue with the grade received. She also recommended student participation.

Senator Meredith understood the request for deadlines and some already specified in the proposal.

Senator Bernard-Powers questioned the processes on page two: if the grade is assigned correct, normally this would be resolved informally. The goal seemed to be to get students to resolve the issue with faculty. Students could feel disadvantaged, and it was not clear when the department chair would step in.

Senator McKeon noted on page 4, line number 13 that each party might bring someone in support. Does this mean each party could bring different persons at different stages?

Chair Edwards indicated that the answer would arrive at the next meeting when the proposal would return in second reading.

AGENDA ITEM #9—Adjournment— 4:00 p.m.

Aaron, Eunice	Gregory, Jan	Palmer, Pete
Alvarez, Alvin	Guerrero, Jaimes	Pong, Wenshen
Bartscher, Patricia	Heiman, Bruce	Rocchio, Jean
Bernard-Powers, Jane	Hom, Marlon	Shrivastava, Vinay
Bernstein, Marian	Houlberg, Rick	Smith, Miriam
Bohannon, Tara	Irvine, Patricia	Steier, Saul
Boyle, Andrea	Jerris, Scott	Stowers, Genie
Chen, Yu Charn	Klironomos, Martha	Terrell, Dawn
Cherny, Robert	Liou, Shy-Shenq	Ulasewicz, Connie
Colvin, Caran	Mak, Brenda	Van Dam, Mary Ann
Daniels, Robert	McKeon, Midori	Vaughn, Pamela
Edwards, James	Meredith, David	Williams, Robert
Fielden, Ned	Morishita, Leroy	Yang, Nini
Gemello, John	Nichols, Amy
Gerson, Deborah	Noble, Nancy