ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2004

Senate Members Present:

Absent:

Visitors:

CALL TO ORDER: 2:10 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Edwards directed all returning senators to fill out preference forms for standing committee membership and return them to the Senate office by May 3.

Edwards noted that the Senate meets next May 11, the year’s final meeting when new senate officers are elected. There are customarily two meetings, the first included the present senate, and a second, when retiring senators step aside and the new senators take their place. At this meeting there will be elections for senate officers plus two at-large senators. Those running for the senate offices of Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary traditionally offer position statements, although this ought not to be considered mandatory.

Edwards addressed the move to online voting, noting that traditionally the senate had used paper ballots, but for several reasons was moving to an online system, which will go live April 27. He observed that it was similar to online grading, employing for login purposes a faculty member’s social security number plus a PIN.  He reminded senators that, as the year comes to a close, all senate committees are required to submit to the senate an annual report, preferably before June 1.

CHAIR’S REPORT

Chair Edwards noted that in previous Senate meetings the President and Provost have indicated that the cuts to Academic Affairs means the discontinuance of some academic programs, and that this would include some good, solid quality programs.

All these good programs include colleagues, tenured faculty, tenure track faculty, lecturers and staff, who have dedicated themselves to these programs. Edwards urged senators to reflect on the commitment and energy of these individuals. He felt it is a time for caring, compassion, and empathy for those who feel loss and in many cases betrayal, and also a time to make sure that discontinuance is the “right” thing to do. The discontinuance process, belongs to the Senate’s responsibility, and will begin early in the fall semester. He urged senators to ensure that the process is open, fair, and just.

AGENDA ITEM #1 - APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR April 27, 2004

Meredith moved a change to the agenda by swapping items 11 and 12, thereby discussing the calendar proposal before the appeals policy.

Carrington, Shrivastava, m/s/p

AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR April 13, 2004

Houlberg, Palmer m/s/p

AGENDA ITEM #3 –REPORT—PRESIDENT CORRIGAN & PROVOST & VICE PRESIDENT for ACADEMIC AFFAIRS JOHN M. GEMELLO –MEETING THE BUDGET DEFICIT

Chair Edwards introduced President Corrigan and Provost Gemello who had come to the senate to talk about the campus budget situation.

President Corrigan indicated that he wanted to speak only briefly to the senate, solely with regard to changes since his last communication, and sought input and commentary from the senators.

Over a two year period the campus has had to handle $30 million worth of cuts; $22 million in this year alone, of which $10 million came from Academic Affairs. He observed that the permanent cuts would need some time to take effect, and did not foresee the budget rebounding

President Corrigan recognized that the campus community would likely have strong feelings and pose arguments about the proposal, but he reminded senators and visitors that the problem was $10 million in size, and that the situation was a zero sum game. Whatever programs that might be “saved” meant that money would need to be found from replacements.

President Corrigan noted that the $4 million did not translate into the actual programs, and might be offset by the fee increases but it was still unclear what they would be. The plan still had a $400,000 hole that needed to be filled. A fairly sizable piece of the plan involved college consolidation, and while no decision has yet been made, it still represented an anticipated savings. With respect to the $2.9 million that the students had approved in fees during their referendum, it was still not clear whether the Chancellor would approve them, although signs were more optimistic than earlier. He hoped for more news shortly.

Provost Gemello assumed that everyone has seen the proposed list of programs, so he preferred, rather than reading through the proposed list, to receive feedback from the senators. He acknowledged the hard times the proposal brought and expressed thanks to the senators and faculty for working with the Deans to come up with the reduction plan. He thought this whole process very difficult, as it meant going right to heart of the university mission. However, he felt that this was a situation over which we had no control and it was necessary for us to make the best of it.

Senator Heiman asked if there was any more news about the “May revise” budget.

President Corrigan responded that there was no recent news to his knowledge. Tax revenues might be a little better than expected.

Vice President of Administration and Finance Morishita commented briefly on the revenues.

Senator Ulasewicz asked if there was any more news about consolidating the Colleges.

Provost Gemello indicated that no plan existed yet, and while he had met with CUSP, the Deans, etc. no clear consensus had yet emerged. If it was to occur, it would be a long term discussion, which would provide input opportunities for the entire campus.

Senator Bernard-Powers asked about relations with the outside community. While the campus itself had been democratic and had involved its members, she indicated that outside the community there were people with vested interests and suggested that they may have something to offer on the matter.

President Corrigan responded that himself, Provost Gemello, and Morishita had met with the SF Chronicle editorial board to discuss the campus situation and that they were now furnished with a clearer idea of the nature of our difficulties. Secondly, while urging discretion to the senators, he suggested using a research study on the impact of the university decline on the local business community to urge for greater funds for SFSU. He thought that possibly a high powered group of business leaders might have a more significant impact. He noted, however, that the overreaction to initial proposed Engineering discontinuance made for difficulties with the outside community. He thought that this might mean several years of work to correct the misinformation generated. He could not speak to why a given program, Gerontology for example, was listed rather than another program, but observed that the proposals had come from the Deans. One of the worst things to have happen would be the perception that lobbying is what saved Engineering, when in fact that was not the case. So now it seemed that every endangered program was working on its own lobbying strategy, and this might result in chaos. The course the Deans had taken was the most open and wisest available.

President Corrigan stated that the $10 million shortfall severely limited our choices, and characterized the budget problem as a “tragedy” and that this was the important message to send to the rest of the state. He commented on a letter from a resident of Belmont similarly describing what the CSU and higher education has had to do in California as a tragedy, that we are not considering cuts to anything of a fraudulent, frivolous nature, and that the entire community was affected with serious repercussions.

Senator Chen noted that students were still asking about the BSIT program, and that if we closed a door, we needed to open a window. He recommend reconsidering this proposal.

President Corrigan indicated that there should be no doubt that the College recommended discontinuance, but that the final decision rested with the Senate. It does no good for students to believe this is not serious business. He mentioned a discussion with the Executive Committee on not admitting students, and that if a program’s foundation was shaky, it was not a service to continue as normal, but these are very serious decisions.

Senator Daniels observed that when he examined the proposed list of programs, the total savings did not appear to add up to $10 million. Was there any assurance that the other shoe would not also drop?

Provost Gemello responded that the programs indeed did not add up to $10 million, but elements of the plan that combined with these discontinuances did result in a $10 million total. For example, other parts of the proposal did away with remedial courses, there have been staff reductions the office of Academic Affairs, and these types of additional savings added to the program.

President Corrigan indicated that 79% of our budget is in people, salaries, and benefits, and that 15% was non-discretionary. What was left was 6.5% as discretionary and of that 63% of that was in academic programs. If “the other shoe drops” (which could mean an unfavorable “May revise,” no student fees, and/or another bond issue problem,) there would not be much else to do except cut programs. Unless we could change our own revenue or get other administrative changes, worse situations were possible. California was in difficult times.

Senator Suzuki had two questions. What was being done to leverage this situation in Sacramento? Second he observed that programs were not going to acquiesce in their own demise. What would be the nature of the coming dialog?

Provost Gemello indicated that some programs were small or perhaps “inefficient” but it was still necessary to look for money wherever it could be found.

President Corrigan responded to the question on political “leveraging,” noting that the CSU was “between a rock and a hard place” due to the current standoff between the political parties. Traditionally our best friends tended to be Democratic, but currently Democratic leadership was looking after social programs more than education, while the Republicans steadfastly refused to increase taxes. All the while a minority still kept the budget from getting passed. He had been hearing from our representatives that they would do what they could for us, but reminded us that we still needed to recognize the political realities. We are one of 23 campuses, and so are part of a collective decision.

State Senator Gregory wanted to speak to the situations on other campuses. Those of us in communication with these colleagues know that other processes are just as devastating but suffer from defects that we have not experienced here. She thought that ours was the most open, most faculty friendly situation in the CSU system. She expressed a wish that all our Deans could have done as well as the President and Provost.

Chair Edwards noted that EPC, headed by the chair of APC, would deal with these proposals. This would involve a combined senate review, with recommendations that would come to the senate.

AGENDA ITEM #4 –– REPORT—AMY HITTNER – DIRECTOR, HEALTH PATH, DAWN TERRELL – FACULTY DIRECTOR JUMPSTART, Faculty Rights Panel of CFA; WILLIE MULLINS – CLINICAL DIRECTOR – COUNSELING CENTER, Counseling & Psychological Services, Human Resources and the Career Center – COMPREHENSIVE CAMPUS TRANSITIONS PROGRAM

Dean of Faculty Affairs Verhey asked for recognition to introduce the program.

At the present challenging time, the community has realized that it cared about its members and wanted to address the needs of the community. The offices of Human Resources, the Career Center, CFA’s Faculty Rights Panel – all of these collaborated on this program. Three members were to speak to a transition program, Willie Mullins, Amy Hittner and Dawn Terrell.

Mullins indicated that he would not be able to explain the whole program but noted that one of the most stressful adjustments for anyone was a sudden alteration in work status, and that the stress is heightened among the highly educated. He had received many calls from colleagues about the current issue, and had been trying to figure out an appropriate, effective response. The result is this campus-wide, comprehensive and holistic plan. Counseling and Psychological Services and the Career Center were the most important, along with Human Resources, which dealt with many questions about retirement, benefits etc.

Mullins also spoke to the implementation of the plan. He had met with the University President and his Cabinet, all of whom were concerned and solicitous, and realized the magnitude of the changes. He expressed readiness to continue and observed that much was being done already. The plan would continue through summer and into the fall.

Hittner thanked senators for their time and energy. She observed that SFSU is not just the “city’s” university but a community of employees and students. This collaborative and cooperative program would work on some very stressful issues. Faculty Rights panel members herself and Terrell had felt similarly, and realized the need to work with counseling services.

The plan required the provision of a space in collaboration with administration, and existed not just to serve employees under stress of salary reduction or non-appointment. With luck perhaps the university would avoid a “survivor situation” where one person would be saved at the expense of another.

Academic resources, CFA, and, CSEA all have created an in-progress program, and had been given a space within which to operate on campus. The plan’s services were spelled out in the handout provided to the senate and included job related career changes, and other personal services for the entire campus community. During the summer Hittner indicated there would be services for any individuals who may be affected, and that the full campus transition program would be in place by the fall.

AGENDA ITEM #5 – REPORT – MARK SEKELICK – ASSOCIATE PRESIDENT, NORTH; OFFICER on the CFA BOARD OF DIRECTORS; and CFA CHAPTER PRESIDENT, MARITIME ACADEMY – “CFA COALITION TO SAVE THE CSU”

Sekelick indicated that he was in the Marine Protection Program at the CSU Maritime Academy as well as being a statewide CFA representative, and had come to speak as a faculty member.  He expressed thanks to the Executive Committee and the Senate for an invitation to speak and noted that the budget had already been discussed.  He sought to look at the budget, and attempt to put it in context, and see what could be done about it.

Sekelick mentioned two caveats: while this was a CFA coalition and lead by CFA, it also included other members. Also, speaking as a CFA officer, he sometimes disagreed with local campus issues and statewide issues, but sought common ground to work with administration.

The Governor’s budget made many cuts to social services, and local governments stood to lose a lot. With no new taxes, mostly it called for new fees for specific projects, and severe restrictions to financial aid. He noted in his overview that the net effect was over $191 million to CSU – the details mattered.

He expressed dismay at the reduction to instruction and libraries, noting that student fees had increased for the third time in 2 years.

He saw not just a $191 million hit but a cumulative effect on the system. This was equivalent to closing the three largest campuses or closing half of the system.  He found the trend troubling, and noted that the general fund had been declining for years, a long term decline.  Students would be paying more and getting less, with fewer and larger classes, etc.

He saw consequences beyond campus – an impact the on the macro level. He observed that for every dollar spent in the CSU, there was a return of five. As for contributions to the local economy, the 23 campuses put $15 billion into the state economy.

He commented on the impact of the reductions on business, with contracts cut back or curtailed, and general decline of student service. The businesses which relied on the campus or the CSU would likely take longer to recover. There would be a reduction in the number of graduates heading to the workplace. Up to 20,0000 students had been denied admission, and the CSU supplied a majority of teachers in the educational system.

As for the proposed budget, he stated that if we did not do anything about it things might get worse. He thought that we could change the eventual outcome and we should try to influence the people who influence the policy makers, and do this through the coalition.

He mentioned a capstone course that simulated a bridge, and that students acted as a team and encountered difficulties. The sum of the total was greater than members separately. All individual groups do not have same impact as the sum of these individual groups.

To save the CSU meant in the short term to influence the budget this summer.

He noted that every 10 years the CSU was back in the same boat. It was time to rebuild the master plan. As for whom this message was directed, he noted the Republicans, the Democrats and the Governor.

In the coalition were business leaders, alumni, civic organizations as well as students, faculty and staff – a thousand coalition members that included some elected officials.

He urged senators to educate the campus about the budget, organize for political action, and reach out for new members. Radio interviews, op ed pieces, letters, rallies, etc. all were appropriate activities. He urged joining the coalition today and to help organize membership and make calls to community leaders.

AGENDA ITEM #7 – ELECTIONS

[This agenda item took place concurrently over the next series of senate agenda items.]

Election results were as follows:

AUCIP                   Midori McKeon

AUTEC                  Carol Langbort

BOAR                    William Mullins and Andres Consoli

CET                        Amy Love

Franciscan Shops   Bruce Heiman

Graduate Council Patricia Irvine

AGENDA ITEM #6 – RECOMMENDATION from the CFA – PROPOSED RESOLUTION in SUPPORT OF “CFA COALITION to SAVE the CSU”

Gregory, Williams m/s/p

State Senator Gregory anticipated a friendly amendment, but added some punctuation changes in a preemptive strike. She urged colleagues and their professional and community organizations to become involved in this endeavor.

State Academic Chair Cherny suggested some clarifying language in a friendly amendment spirit, which was accepted.

The resolution was approved by general consent.

AGENDA ITEM #8 - RECOMMENDATION from the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE—REVISIONS to the PROPOSAL to OFFER the CERTIFICATE in TEACHING POST-SECONDARY READING PROGRAM THROUGH the COLLEGE OF EXTENDED LEARNING at CAÑADA COLLEGE, a consent item, 1^st and 2^nd reading.

Nichols, Gregory m/s/p

CRAC Chair Nichols stated that this proposal came as a consent item from a joint CRAC/ Graduate Council meeting where we reviewed the proposal to offer the Certificate in Teaching Post-Secondary Reading through the College of Extended Learning at Cañada College. Currently the certificate has been a viable certificate on campus since 1988 and was designed to assist prospective and already practicing post-secondary teachers in meeting specific individual and professional needs in the areas of basic literacy and reading instruction, thus meeting the requirements for teaching reading in the community colleges.

A need was identified to provide the 12 unit certificate off-site for those teachers living and/or working in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties.  The certificate consists of four courses Eng 701, Eng 702, Eng 715, Eng 705 course. Nichols indicated that Helen Gillotte-Tropp was to speak for proposal.

Gillotte-Tropp stated that the program proposed for Cañada was self contained, self supported, and would not impact the program at SFSU. The program was being brought to a geographic area that was difficult for many students to attend. There was full support of the English Department as well as the Dean of the College.

State Senator Gregory suggested that if senators had encountered any students who had reading comprehension issues, they would support this item.

Houlberg Jerris m/s/p to second reading.

The proposed revision was approved by general consent.

AGENDA ITEM #9 – RECOMMENDATION from the ACADEMIC POLICIES COMMITTEE – REVISION to the UNIVERSITY’S GRADE APPEAL PRACTICES and PROCEDURES – a consent item – 2nd reading

Senator Avila supports having students on the Grade Appeal Committee.

Senator Jerris moved to postpone discussion to May 11, Chelberg second.

Senator Jerris noted that the proposal had some legal issues and required University Counsel and suggested seeking such from University Counsel Bartscher.

Senator Vaughn supports amendment, but realized the need for counsel.

Postponement of the item to May 11 was approved with one dissent.

AGENDA ITEM #10 –– RECOMMENDATION from the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE – PROPOSED RESOLUTION on BLOCKING SPAM – a consent item – 2nd reading

Chair Edwards noted that Vice President, Division of Information Technology Jonathan Rood was here with us to answer any questions.

State Senator Gregory called attention to new language on lines 27 and 40, which included a specific role for the ETAC committee.

The resolution passed with one dissent.

AGENDA ITEM #12 – RECOMMENDATION from the ACADEMIC POLICIES COMMITTEE – PROPOSED UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC CALENDAR 2005-2006 – a consent item – 1st & 2nd reading

Meredith Ulasewicz m/s

APC Chair Meredith indicated that the calendar was similar to previous years, with the following salient points: December 16 was the end of the Fall semester; the Spring semester included two days of faculty development; and spring break came after Cesar Chavez day.

Senator Vaughn asked why spring break came in the 10th week.

Senator Gerson asked for the reason for making Advising Day a Thursday rather than a Wednesday which potentially disadvantaged the Tuesday/Thursday classes.

Meredith responded that this was the traditional pattern.

Jerris, Houlberg m/s/p to second reading.

Senator Bernstein indicated that there were two different ways to find spring recess; fix it to one side of Easter or the other, or square in middle.

Meredith indicated there were many complaints last year about taking spring break and coming back to Chavez day in the middle of the week, which created incongruity. Easter comes at an awkward time but the committee supported taking spring break after Chavez Day, although it was not ideal.

Senator Stowers suggested that the more important issue involved children, and this meant the necessity of finding childcare during public school break.

Senator Vaughn thought that this would continue to remain a problem and the difficulty of having breaks which would please everyone.

Senator Hom responded that the committee had discussed public schools and spring break with the impossibility of satisfying everyone.

State Senator Cherny asked if the committee had considered scheduling break during the week that included Cesar Chavez Day.

Senator Ulasewicz considered every possible combination.

Cherny, Steier move to consider moving spring break to the week that included the Chavez holiday.

Meredith proposed an additional amendment, to having break begin the Friday before Chavez Day (making 10 days total.)

Senator Langbort asked about the history of swapping President’s Day for Chavez Day.

Senator Ulasewicz asked how this is saving a Friday.

State Senator Cherny suggested voting down the amendment then recommending a change to President’s Day.

Senator Morishita noted that Presidents’ Day had been moved to Christmas break.

Amended amendment not approved.

State Senator Cherny returned to original amendment.

Senator Chelberg noted that a great number of staff, who do not get Spring break off, would appreciate getting Friday off.

Senator Terrell did not think we should be giving up holidays and did not support this.

Senator Carrington proposed a friendly amendment to restore Presidents’ Day holiday by placing Chavez Day during Spring Break.

Chair Edwards ruled the amendment out of order.

Senator Avila did not like the idea of giving up holidays, and did not support folding in the Chavez holiday into spring break.

Senator Steier reasoned that as he was already overworked and underpaid, he did not support anything that would make him more so.

Amendment not approved.

The proposed original Calendar from APC was approved with two dissents.

AGENDA ITEM #11 — RECOMMENDATION from the ACADEMIC POLICIES COMMITTEE – PROPOSED POLICY on PRINCIPLES and PROCEDURES REGARDING the GRADUATE ADMISSION of STUDENTS with THREE-YEAR BACHELOR’S DEGREES – a consent item – 1st & 2nd reading

Meredith Steier m/s

APC Chair Meredith noted that a small number of international students come to us with three years rather than four years of baccalaureate study. Some have three years of college but after 5 years of high school, the British model, which are covered under clause one; others have three years of university study, but not 12 years of previous education, the Indian model was given as an example.  

In the past these students have been denied admission without an additional year of undergraduate study.

Beginning with clause 6 in the proposal was a new idea that some colleges might propose programs with cohorts for students with 3-year BAs. An alternative was to have a bridge program and students admitted individually. These procedures have been used in the past and this was an attempt to regularize them.

Senator McKeon offered an example of a graduate student from Germany who experienced difficulty here since their undergraduate university study was only for three years. She thought it wise to make the process easier, and expressed thanks to the committee for their work.

Senator Daniels had concerns over the role of faculty in curriculum design, in particular with respect to clause 6, the formal bridge program. He noted that the College of Business was considering a proposal to recruit two cohorts of 80 students as a self support program and that this might not be going through curriculum review committee and CRAC and that faculty might be giving up their voice in these movements.

Dean Whitaker responded that the program would in fact have to go through curriculum committee as it would be a credential program.

Senator Daniels asked for some language clarification in paragraph 6.

Senator Meredith responded that the phrasing was just a literary device and had no ulterior meaning.

Jerris, Steier m/s/p with one dissent to second reading.

The policy was approved with one dissent.

AGENDA ITEM #13 – RECOMMENDATION from the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE – PROPOSED ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING SCHEDULE FOR Fall 2004 – a consent item – 1st & 2nd reading

Garcia, Meredith m/s/p

The schedule passed by general consent.

AGENDA ITEM #14 – RECOMMENDATION from the STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE – PROPOSED RESOLUTION on the BAN on SMOKING on SFSU CAMPUS – a consent item – 1st & 2nd reading

Gerson, Vaughn m/s/p    

Senator Gerson noted the resolution came to the senate after lengthy discussion in committee, which had spent a great deal of time looking at all possibilities. The thirty foot rule was not being respected, and there was no way to avoid smokers – the only solution was to confine them.

Senator Houlberg proposed a series of friendly amendments changing five words: in “whereas” clause line 10 replace “cigarette companies” with “tobacco companies”, change “advertising to addict” “advertising to entice,” line 11 change “smoking” to “smoke” and on line 15 eliminate “and addict.”

Senator Steier asked how far away the “confinement areas” would be from the main campus buildings.

Senator Morishita expressed concern about a confinement area. The center of the quad had a small spot near the Humanities building, but otherwise they were far flung.

Senator Chelberg thought that an accommodation could be arranged.

Senator Ulasewicz indicated that while not a smoker, she understand issue but was uncomfortable with potential ostracization of campus members and the potential that more students would be late to class etc.

Senator Houlberg noted the extreme health issues that endangered non-smokers. The proposed restriction was a good idea, and would make life better all around. This is an expensive and difficult habit.

Senator Gerson stated that smoking research suggested that raising the behavioral cost and diminishing the opportunity window meant a decline in the behavior.

Senator Jerris indicated that he would support a complete ban, but was in favor of the present resolution.

Senator Bernard-Powers was in favor, but also noted staff and faculty near buildings who do not currently adhere to the thirty foot rule.

Senator Heiman is not a smoker but recognized the danger and respected the ideas of the committee, and related a story from another campus that built a structure for smokers and the solution was ineffective. Students still smoked everywhere. This would be a transitional measure but would not have perfect results.

Senator Ulasewicz asked how this would be enforced and who will take responsibility.

Jerris Meredith m/s/p second reading

Senator McKeon desired to make a preemptive strike, that no smoking containment area be created near the Humanities building.

Senator Vaughn noted that this was a resolution and not policy.

The resolution passed with 2 abstentions and with dissent.

AGENDA ITEM #15 – RECOMMENDATION from the STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE – PROPOSED RESOLUTION on the HIGH COST of TEXTBOOKS – a consent item – 1st & 2nd reading

Gerson, Vaughn m/s/p

Gerson indicated that some of the data listed came from Associated Students, public research groups, and activity in the legislature. She commented on the high price of textbooks, and that this was an attempt to control textbook prices, by limiting ancillary but unneeded extras to the books.

Resolution passed by general consent.

AGENDA ITEM #16 – ADJOURNMENT – 4:45 p.m.