The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present:

Aaron, Eunice; Alvarez, Alvin; Barnes, Paul; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Bhat, Subodh; Cancino, Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn; Cherny, Robert; Collier, James; Consoli, Andrés; Contreras, Rey; Craig, JoAnn; Cullers, Susan; Duke, Jerry; Eisman, Gerald; Elia, John; Fehrman, Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Goldsmith, Helen; Graham, Michael; Graham, Minnie; Gregory, Jan; Harnly, Caroline; Haw, Mary Ann; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung; Jenkins, Lee; Jerris, Scott; Johnson, Dane; Kelley, James; La Belle, Thomas; Moss, Joanna; Phillips, Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Scoble, Don; Shapiro, Jerald; Shrivastava, Vinay; Simeon, Roblyn; Smith, Miriam; Strong, Rob; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Vaughn, Pamela; Verhey, Marilyn; Wade, Patricia; Warren, Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope; Wong, Alfred; Yee, Darlene.

Senate Members Absent: Swanson, Deborah(exc.); Oñate, Abdiel(exc.); Choo, Freddie; Gonzales, Angela; Tarakji, Ghassan; Flowers, Will; Corrigan, Robert(exc.); Montenegro, Ricardo; Valledares, Juan; Vega, Sandra.

Senate Interns Present:

Guests: N. Fielden, D. Schafer, G. West, J. Bebee, R. On, S. Taylor, P. McGee, G. Whitaker, A. Anton, S. Shimanoff, D. Harris, D. Tong, L. Head, C. Colvin, P. Saffold, D. Cunningham, J. Ekstrand, K. Monteiro.

Announcements and Report

Chair's Report

• Phillips announced the results of the election for representatives to the Search Committee for the Associate Vice President for Computing Services: Betty Blecha, Vladimir Sakovich, Sanjit Sengupta, Judy Ganson, Sheldon Axler, and Angela Gonzales.
• The CSU Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor will be on campus for a dinner with the following representative group of faculty on May 13, 1999: Eunice Aaron, Robert Cherny, Jerry Combs, Ron Compesi, Gerald Eisman, Jan Gregory, Diane Harris, Marlon Hom, Dane Johnson, Margo Kasdan, James Kelley, Jake Perea, Mark Phillips, Dawn Terrell, Pamela Vaughn, Julien Wade, and Darlene Yee.
• Phillips reported on his three years as Chair of the Academic Senate. He summarized that he has found this role challenging and also immensely nourishing but that he is very ready to leave after three years. He went on to remark that the most difficult thing was the awareness of all the things that still need to be done, and he outlined some of those items on which a consensus should be reached: a more meaningful post-tenure review process; a campus- wide tenure committee that is parallel to the promotion committee; better communication between Senate and CFA leadership, and between Senate and administrative leadership; work on the relationship between CEL and regular programs. He also remarked on the natural and healthy tensions that will be part of developing the necessary new paradigms in higher education, cautioning that how we handle these tensions and how we treat each other in the process is of the utmost importance. Phillips thanked the Senate for the support he has had, stating that it is a reminder how at times an environment that can be dysfunctional can have so many wonderful people.

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for April 27, 1999

The agenda was approved as printed.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for April 13, 1999

The minutes were approved as printed.

Agenda Item #3 - Report from Statewide Senators

Robert Cherny remarked that a summary of the very long report had been circulated on e-mail, and he entertained any questions. Eunice Aaron briefed the Senate on the new CSU headquarters.

Chair Phillips thanked Cherny, Aaron, and Jan Gregory for representing us; he reminded us that Cherny will be on leave next year with Darlene Yee replacing him in the interim.

Agenda Item #4 - Report from Academic Program Review Committee Chair Jerry Duke

Jerry Duke, Chair of the Academic Program Review Committee (a Standing Committee of the Academic Senate), presented an abbreviated version of the committee's annual report. During the 1998-99 academic year, the APRC completed reports on the following programs: Geosciences, Technical/Professional Writing, Kinesiology, Physics and Astronomy, Cinema, Labor Studies, and Consumer/Family Studies. Journalism is expected to be completed before the end of the semester. Duke summarized the review process and explained one change that will reduce the workload of the committee: separating accredited programs from APRC review. He added that cutting down the time of review remains an issue that needs to be addressed. Duke

thanked Gail Whitaker and Jim Bebee for their support and asked for a round of applause for the members of the committee: Caroline Harnly (Library), Michael Graham (Political Science), Joanna Moss (Economics), Marcia Raggio (Communicative Disorders), Vinay Shrivastava (BECA), Miriam Smith (BECA), Deborah Swanson (English), Marilyn Verhey (Nursing). The Senate applauded.

Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Revision to A.S. Policy #S81-18 Leaves with Pay

Marlon Hom, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, introduced a proposed revision to A.S. policy #S81-18 on leaves with pay, which came as a consent item from the committee. Hom summarized that the current policy has become dysfunctional because the policy has not been followed at all levels. This proposal establishes a university committee to review the applications modeled on the University Promotions Committee. This will provide faculty oversight beyond the college level and safeguard the professional interests of colleagues who

have joint appointments. Hom added that sabbatical leave distribution has been quite fair thanks to the President's office.

Provost Thomas La Belle passed out data on the most recent distribution of sabbatical awards.

M/S/P (Kelley, Barnes) to amend the proposal.

James Kelley summarized that the attempt is to streamline the process and avoid one more meeting with the recommendations of the committee forwarded to the President by the Provost along with his own.

Pamela Vaughn sympathizes with streamlining but voiced a concern about the elimination of the wording dealing with consultations and the resolution of differences. Mitch Turitz explained that the intent of having the University Sabbatical Committee parallel to the Provost was so that this would follow the same procedure as the promotions policy.

Kelley commented that the difference between this and the promotion policy is that there are no college committees in the promotion policy.

Hom said that the philosophy behind these changes was to resurrect a feeling of faculty participation at large.

Dawn Terrell echoed Hom and added that the issue of joint appointments is not well handled in the current policy.

Gerald West, Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development, spoke to how the old sabbatical leave committee and policy worked, which he saw as ineffective. The Senate chose to

change that practice with the university, and he does not see why we would want a new policy parallel to RTP.

La Belle recalled that what started the discussion was the issue of equity and distribution across the units. The data shows that there has been an equitable distribution. The current practice is for the colleges to recommend to my office with the Provost and President working on the final awards. The new policy introduces an important step: a faculty committee at the university level making judgements about the quality of the various applications, looking to both merit and equity. La Belle added that making the committee parallel to the Provost is cumbersome in terms of letters and meetings. Kelley's amendment streamlines the process without losing faculty consultation.

Jan Gregory supported the notion that the more faculty participate in decisions like this the more secure they can be in the results, but she wondered whether we required completion today or could return to it in the Fall.

M/S/P (Vaughn, Fehrman) to close debate on the amendment.

The vote was taken and the amendment was defeated 29 to 17.

M/S/P (Vaughn, Goldsmith) to second reading.

M/S/P (Fehrman, Duke) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal passed.

Hom emphasized the long consultation process that went into this proposal. Phillips commended Marlon and the committee for their work on this difficult policy.

Agenda Item #6 - Proposal for Revisions to the School Psychology Graduate Program

Alfred Wong, Chair of the Curriculum and Approval Committee, introduced this consent item. On April 27, 1999, the Senate voted to send the proposal for revisions to the School Psychology Graduate Program back to committee for further review, clarification, and action.

The joint CRAC/Graduate Council committee reviewed the proposed changes to the Master of Science Degree and passed them unanimously. The Graduate Council met independently and voted unanimously to approve the offering of the Pupil Personnel Services Credential through CEL. The Psychology department plans to continue to offer the Pupil Personnel Services credential through the general fund as a third year option for matriculated School Psychology Masters students.

Cherny asked if the program will be offered both ways to two different groups of students.

Diane Harris answered yes.

M/S/P (Kelley, Fehrman) to second reading.

M/S/P (Fehrman, Kelley) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #7 - Proposed Policy on the Information Competence Requirement

Helen Goldsmith, Chair of the Academic Policies Committee, introduced the proposed policy on the Basic Information Competence Requirement, which the Academic Senate Library Advisory Committee has recommended to replace the existing Library Requirement. This

policy will bring SFSU up to date, especially in light of the CSU system-wide policy on basic information competence and recommendations coming from CUSP. The library faculty takes

primary responsibility for introducing students to the basic information competencies in this policy and relies on instructional faculty to enhance information competence within the student's discipline. Goldsmith added that APC commends the hard work of ASLAC and appreciates

their willingness to respond to APC's concerns by substantially revising the proposal that you see now before you.

Turitz asked why the implementation date was Fall 2000. Goldsmith answered that putting teeth in the deadline for completion requires that students be notified while the shift in subject matter can begin sooner.

Caroline Harnly suggested a friendly amendment linking the date to the work already going on with library faculty.

Sung Hu asked about bulletin rights. Goldsmith reiterated that library faculty are already incorporating information competence into the current library requirement, but it would not be until Fall 2000 that the new deadline for completion would take effect.

Cherny suggested some language and legal interpretation, suggesting that the sentence be modified to read "this policy will go into effect no later than Fall 2000." Students always have the right to graduate according to the bulletin as they enter or at the time they graduate.

Goldsmith accepted Cherny's language as a friendly amendment.

Marilyn Verhey added perspective on phrasing, suggesting that the library faculty could shift the language to "information competence formerly known as the library requirement."

Aaron asked for clarification on who would be responsible for disseminating the new policy and on the process of evaluation. Goldsmith replied that the Senate office would inform the campus and that the evaluation requirement was there simply to make sure that the enforcement mechanism was effective.

M/S/P (Vaughn, M.A. Warren) to second reading.

JoAnn Craig asked if there is anything preventing us from requiring this for our students now. Goldsmith replied that this is encouraged.

M/S/P (Vaughn, Fehrman) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #8 - Proposed Revisions to A.S. Policy #F80-64 A General Education Program at San Francisco State University

Goldsmith, Chair of the Educational Policies Council, introduced these revisions, which come out of the work of the General Education Council (GEC). When the current General Education program was first approved in 1980, no specific learning objectives for Segment I were included, and Segment I has never been carefully reviewed until now. The proposed policy also ensures that this campus would be in compliance with EO 595. EPC consulted with past and present chairs of GEC as well as the former chair of the Segment I committee. These committees put a

great deal of time and research into developing this proposal.

M/S/P (Vaughn, Kelley) to second reading.

Kelley asked if the committee discussed the level of these competencies, suggesting that you might be able to satisfy those competencies with arithmetic rather than mathematics. Judith

Ekstrand, chair of GEC, replied that the course objectives are designed for the existing quantitative reasoning courses, and the courses that we have in place have gone through scrutiny as to whether they are college level or not.

Gregory suggested that we notice in the written communication section that language specifically states that students who complete Segment I should attain writing skills suitable to upper division.

M/S/P (Bernstein, M.A. Warren) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #9 - Proposed Revisions to A.S. Policy #F84-124 Academic Affirmative Action Policy Statement

Phillips introduced these revisions, which modify two sections of the existing Academic Affirmative Action Policy Statement: "Responsibilities of the Academic Affirmative Action Committee" and "The Procedures for and Implementation of Academic Affirmative Action."

Helen Gillotte spoke as Chair of the Academic Affirmative Action Committee, explaining that they wanted to change the section of the mandate that asks the committee to investigate since the committee does not have the experience to investigate and there are bodies on campus with the appropriate experience and charge. We will accept complaints and send them to the appropriate body.

Phillips added that Executive Committee response was positive and unanimous.

Gregory asked whether the Affirmative Action Coordinator was the description of a job held by either Joe Torres or Ken Monteiro, suggesting that this may not be the correct title. Gillotte answered that the AA Coordinator is Joe Torres and that the language will be cleared up.

Hom added that if the policy is being changed the job titles need to be changed accordingly.

Cherny asked if the final two paragraphs, the committee justification, were to be part of the policy. Phillips answered that it is not part of the policy.

M/S/P (Kelley, Barnes) to second reading.

M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal passed unanimously.

Penelope Warren took a point of personal privilege to speak to Chair Phillips on behalf of her Senate colleagues. You have generously served the university community through many years on the Senate. You have done that with insight, with hard work, with devotion to the principle of shared governance, with wit, with true respect for collegiality, and with great good humor. And so, as an expression of our appreciation for all you have done during your years on the Senate

and especially in your three years as Senate chair, we present to you this token of our appreciation.

The Senate applauded enthusiastically. Chair Phillips was presented with parting gifts. He thanked the Senate.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty