ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

for

TUESDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2004

Meeting Attendance:

Alvarez, Alvin	Heiman, Bruce
Avila, Guadalupe	Hom, Marlon
Axler, Sheldon	Kim, John
Bartscher, Patricia	Klingenberg, Larry
Bernard-Powers, Jane	Klironomos, Martha
Blando, John	Langbort, Carol
Boyle, Andrea	Midori, McKeon
Carrington, Christopher	Meredith, David
Chelberg, Gene	Morishita, Leroy
Chen, Yu Charn	Nichols, Amy
Colvin, Caran	Noble, Nancy
Contreras, A. Reynaldo	Palmer, Pete
Corrigan, Robert	Ritter, Michael
Fielden, Ned	Scoble, Don
Fung, Robert	Smith, Brett
Garcia, Oswaldo	Steier, Saul
Gemello, John	Ulasewicz, Connie
Gerson, Deborah	Van Cleave, Kendra
Gonzales, Dan	Velez, Pauline
Gregory, Jan	Williams, Robert
Gonzalez, Marty	Yee, Darlene
Absences: Bohannon, Tara(exc); Daley, Yvonne (abs); (exc); Irvine, Patricia (exc), Trujillo, Michael
Abella, David (exc), Stowers, Genie (exc):, Suzuki, Dean (exc) Todorov, Jassen (exc)
Bernstein, Marian (abs), Fehrman, Kenneth, Guerrero, Jaimes, Li, Wen-Chao; Liou, Shy-Shenq
Mak, Brenda, Van Dam, Mary Ann, Yang, Nini
Guests: Geoffrey Green, Marcia Green, Jairo Guillen, Eileen Guillen, Carol Shatard,
Ron Goldthwaite, Mike Chominski, Andrea McKee, Lindsey Friedberg, Monica Jensen, Melissa
Josne, Layne Karafantis, Susan Lea, John Burke, Jose Villaran, Philliph Drummond, Jared Matt
Greenberg, Meredith Jones, Steve Rice, Hanus Jeuner, Deborah Kearns, Herman Haluza,
Ann Pattison, Ryan Olson, Smithy Blackwell, Tracy Dodge, Daniel Elash, George Tsoutis,
Joseph Hershy, Andrew Delcray, Stephen Ujlaki, Patrick Tierney, Jim Murphy
Annette Apigo, Robert Hallsey, Lyn Steing, Gail Whitaker, Daniel Buttlaire, Richard Giardina
Elise Earthman, Helen Goldsmith, Marilyn Verhey, Sandra Luft, Joaqin Alvarado, Don Taylor

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2004

CALL TO ORDER: 2:14 pm

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Colvin noted that the recent UIC report was a good source for information regarding interdisciplinary programs on campus.

She announced the retirement, effective January 31 2004, of James Collier, Vice President for University Advancement. She issued a call for nominations for that position, with a deadline of January 18 and ballots would go out by January 31.

She invited all senators to senate office afterwards for refreshments. She issued recognition for the hard work of all the senators, especially the EPC.

Vice-chair Williams urged senators to get their registrations in for the Asilomar retreat soon, and indicated the retreat would include a poetry slam, a cabaret, nature walks, programs on student plagiarism, disruptive students, and wine tasting.

CHAIR’S REPORT

Chair Colvin shared some information from the CSU senate chairs meeting on December 2. There were some issues that arouse with some background information contained in packets in front of senators. High on the list were the issues of academic freedom, state Senate Bill five, which was a resurrected version of an earlier bill. Graduate education had consumed much discussion, along with assessment, and the notion of “stand-alone” applied doctoral programs to be considered next spring. There was information on advising in the packets, and the third document was a resolution passed by the CSU Student Association that SAC would consider next semester.

AGENDA ITEM #1—APPROVAL of the AGENDA for DECEMBER 14, 2004

Senator Nichols noted that Agenda item eight was coming from both CRAC AND the Graduate Council.

Approved

AGENDA ITEM #2—APPROVAL of the MINUTES for NOVEMBER 30, 2004

Senator McKeon noted some factual errors in the minutes and offered to contact the secretary to make corrections.

Senator Steier requested that the results of the roll call votes be reflected in the in minutes.

With these changes, the minutes were approved.

AGENDA ITEM #3—RECOMMENDATION from the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: DISCONTINUANCE of the BA in LIBERAL STUDIES: CONCENTRATION in NEXA

Senator Boyle stated that as a member of EPC, she felt fortunate to be able to review documents regarding these discontinuances. While EPC had discussed the minor, it had also heard some discussion of continuing selected NEXA courses. EPC would support continuing some NEXA courses, but also supported discontinuance.

Senator Axler noted that Humanities Dean Sherwin was not present due to a family death and sent his regrets. Regarding NEXA courses that might or might not be continued, he indicated willingness hear from anyone with particular interests and thought that courses that deserved to be preserved should be preserved. He had heard about the impact of NEXA on GE, noting that there were two clusters heavily populated with NEXA courses, and that 52 graduates had gone through NEXA-heavy clusters, about 1 percent of graduates. The deans would look most closely at preserving GE courses in NEXA for segment III.

NEXA Director Green sought to make a few points. Firstly, he noted that GEC had only just been consulted about the NEXA discontinuance impact on its program. Two different figures had been mentioned, one set from Undergraduate Dean Buttlaire, and one from the Segment III chair. Normally there was even higher enrollment in Segment III. This was still under consideration by GEC, as the deans had not consulted with them earlier. The relationship of NEXA courses to GE should be considered when before voting.

Senator Smith spoke as a member of GEC, noting that what GEC had decided to do as a body was to look at the clusters, ones predominantly but not exclusively populated by NEXA courses, so that students would still be able to graduate. He spoke to the need to consider how NEXA courses worked in GE, not because the deans did not consider this, but because the role of GEC was to consider all impacts in GE for all clusters.

Green admitted that there was no “true” “NEXA” cluster, but that some clusters were predominantly filled with NEXA courses. This discontinuance would cause severe difficulties. He mentioned figures from the Segment II committee and expressed concern for NEXA’s continuing presence in GE.

Senator Steier asked that if courses were to be continued where they would be housed.

Senator Axler responded that that would probably vary with the specific courses and was not sure. As to voting, the focus was on discontinuing the concentration, which had had only three graduates over the last nine years.

Green mentioned three items: the first time that any mention had been raised of a possible expectation of growth money for NEXA. NEXA courses were cross-listed and individually designated in science or humanities. He reminded senators that they had offered in first reading to work with any agency on campus over budget issues. If courses were cross-listed, they would still be titled NEXA but not actually be NEXA. More than ten fourteen more recent, succeeded in following 2002 MOU recommendations openly acknowledged that the program itself would also be included in part of discontinuance.

State Senator Yee thought that the collaboration facet of the NEXA curriculum was important. With external funding NEXA had been a good example of this, but interdisciplinarity was now a norm and NEXA had not evolved. The staff support could perhaps be better used elsewhere. She supported discontinuance.

Senator Chelberg noted that as with all other discontinuances, this would not affect the employment status of any tenured faculty or permanent staff.

Senator Steier observed that behind this specific discussion was the issue of the complete discontinuance of NEXA. He asked how these decisions would be made.

Senator Meredith stated his understanding of the discontinuance policy, that it only concerned degree programs. Courses themselves had no protection in senate policy, and they depended on departments and colleges for support.

Senator Nichols indicated that courses would go through a different review process.

Senator Axler stated that Green was correct that funding would not be available for administrative costs. He argued that NEXA had been over-funded for a tiny program and addressing this represented part of the intention of the discontinuance proposal.

Green responded that if it was believed that the director and staff were “over-funded” that should have been brought up at the recent MOU and the assessment process of 2002. Instead this was the first time this issue had been surfaced. He thought that NEXA could be run with a director with a reduced release time, perhaps with no summer staffing and that there were perhaps other possibilities. The most important point for senators to consider was that programmatic funding was based on the provost’s office. This decision was being coupled with senate policy. He urged senators to carefully consider the implications of discontinuing one program, when specific matters were not separated out. While the degree program was part of senate policy, the administrative costs came under the provost’s domain.

Senator Axler asked for a roll call vote from the body.

Senator Chelberg offered a point of information, that the proposal was a recommendation to discontinue or not to discontinue this degree concentration in NEXA.

Yes to discontinue 26

No to discontinue 6

Abstentions 8

[See results of roll-call voting in the appendix of the minutes.]

The senate will recommend the discontinuance of the Liberal Studies BA Concentration in NEXA.

AGENDA ITEM #4—RECOMMENDATION from the EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: DISCONTINUANCE of the NEXA MINOR, 2^ND Reading

Senator Steier spoke to what he saw as the main issue. When he had defended the Russian BA it was because the discontinuance would radically affect the central mission of the university. NEXA was more icing on the cake rather than the center. On the other hand, some of his best intellectual moments on campus occurred in the NEXA Thursday night colloquia, when the sociology of science met physics. If this spirit were to leave campus, something very important would be missing. No matter what happens in the current decision he hoped that the university would keep that spirit.

Senator Axler thanked Steier and expressed appreciation for and agreement with his points. Perhaps too much had been spoken of financial matters. It seemed necessary to talk more of intellectual matters, not money. But one academic problem with NEXA was that it did not attract tenure/tenure-track faculty, and courses were no longer team-taught. One of the central aspects of NEXA’s impact involved a general dissatisfaction with quality.

Green repeated several points made earlier. When there was an overall climate of a diminished budget, all activities needed to be scaled back. The fact that NEXA had not been attracting tenure-track faculty was addressed in the rebuttal. Many people had been lined up from different colleges to teach in NEXA but the program had been given only one year to try to hire faculty. Potential candidates had been discouraged from applying. Team-teaching was not relevant to the quality of program. NEXA was committed to addressing what had been brought up in 2002 and found it troublesome to deal with what had been brought up in secret consultations for which NEXA had not been invited.

Senator Bernard-Powers asked about the quality of courses and what the issue was and whether there was any evidence in this area.

Senator Axler responded that there was a lack of innovation and new courses. This year’s offerings were largely the same as over the last 10 years. This was an area where faculty in the colleges did much more development work than was done in NEXA. The university sought an emphasis on tenure-track teaching and tenure-track faculty brought an additional level of scholarship to teaching, some of the best in the country in their area, and this brought something extra to their classes. This had been mentioned in the MOU, before any discontinuance discussions took place. NEXA had not been bringing this level of scholarship from tenure-track faculty done through nation-wide searches.

Green responded that a lack of new course titles was not indicative of a lack of dynamism. The record indicated that courses had had continual renewal. To him it was disturbing to have course titles determine the level of innovation. The level of scholarship of long-term lecturers was equal to tenure-track faculty in the department.

Approve the discontinuance 25

Do not approve 7

Abstain 9

The senate will recommend the discontinuance of the BA Liberal Studies Minor in NEXA.

AGENDA ITEM #5—RECOMMENDATION from the ACADEMIC SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, SFSU: RESOLUTION in RECOGNITION of the SFSU BOOKSTORE’S 50^TH ANNIVERSARY—a consent item—1^st & 2^nd Readings

Yee, Heiman m/s/p

Senator Yee noted the Bookstore’s excellent contributions to the campus community and commended them on the occasion of their 50^th birthday. She felt that honor should go to Rob Strong for outstanding leadership. She noted that Senator Heiman was a member of the Bookstore Board of Directors.

Senator Heiman thought that this was a great resolution, and he observed that the Bookstore had been working hard in a very competitive environment. As a non-profit organization, any surplus went back to the university, associated students and the library. If five or ten percent was taken off textbook sales every year, any chance of profits was lost. Students were now going in droves to Amazon and Cheapesttextbooks.com. Some Board members believed that it might be a good idea to seek new sources of revenue. He urged senators to patronize the campus Bookstore before going to Stonestown.

Senator Chelberg supported the resolution, noting the bookstore did a fabulous job in providing quality services, in particular their commitment to area studies, core sections and general books. He commented that in contrast to the nature of the two previous senate votes, it was a challenge to vote positively on one thing after saying no to something else but that it was still important for us to celebrate ongoing work.

Senator Palmer pointed out a typographical error in the resolution.

Move to second reading.

Approved unanimously.

AGENDA ITEM #6—RECOMMENDATION from the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE: Proposal for new interdisciplinary minor in modern Greek studies—a consent item—1^st & 2^nd Readings

Nichols. Carrington m/s/p

The proposal was reviewed on 22 by CRAC where it was unanimously voted for movement to the senate floor. Senator Klironomos and associate dean Earthman were here to answer any questions.

Senator Klironomos stated that this program was an interdisciplinary minor, whose purpose was to enhance the knowledge of cultural and historical aspects of Modern Greek life and bring that understanding to SFSU. The program was established in 1981 and had served hundreds of students. Since 1996 it has possessed an enriched curriculum, with added courses in anthropology, humanities and upper division literature courses. Enlightenment and post-enlightenment periods were also added, and the program was separate from ancient and Byzantine periods. Under item 7 was a list of core courses involving the cultural and intellectual history of modern Greeks and the Diaspora, and these were not just literature courses. Electives offered an array of courses from anthropology, history, humanities, creative writing, and classics. No additional resources were required.

Senator Steier asked whether all the courses were offered with adequate frequency.

Senator Klironomos responded that many courses were in the GE program and offered regularly.

Senator Yee thanked humanities and Modern Greek studies for a well-written proposal. She noticed that the proposal did not include any mention of library resources.

Senator Klironomos responded that the program was exceedingly fortunate in that Sacramento State University had inherited a six million dollar collection, which was available through interlibrary lending.

Move to second reading.

Approved unanimously

AGENDA ITEM #7— RECOMMENDATION from the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE: PROPOSAL for a NEW DIGITAL MEDIA PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE through CEL—a consent item—1^st & 2^nd Readings

Nichols, Palmer m/s/p

Senator and CRAC chair Nichols stated that this was a new certificate in digital media offered through CEL and this proposal, like the previous one, had also been discussed at the prior CRAC meeting. As to the number of students, the certificate’s impact on other programs, faculty resources – all CRAC’s questions had been answered and CRAC unanimously approved this proposal. Joaquin Alvarado, the Director of Academic Programs in CEL, and Dean Whittaker were present to answer questions.

Senator M. Gonzales asked for clarification on page 3, where the proposal referred to software tools such as Final Cut Pro and Pro Tools. These courses were also taught in BECA, and their inclusion in this new certificate program could compromise the BECA courses.

Director of Academic Programs Alvarado indicated he had been working with the Cinema department to develop this certificate that reflected the professional development needs of the downtown community.

Senator M. Gonzales expressed concern that video production course compromised BECA’s courses, and BECA had not been informed or consulted before this meeting. The courses seemed at cross-purposes, as half of the courses overlapped.

Alvarado felt that there was a good relationship with BECA, which had grown out of the desire of Whittaker to develop partnerships, and provide access to the downtown labs. He expressed willingness to working with BECA.

Dean of CEL Whittaker indicated that there had been an ongoing relationship with BECA and Cinema. While there was some overlap, the courses had a different focus. BECA courses were for BECA students, where they were better suited. She saw the added value of digital media to other students in their other interest areas, and this certificate would help market CEL specializations, the high-end applications, to students who needed them.

Senator M. Gonzalez asked whether these courses could be taken for university credit

Whittaker responded in the affirmative, that that was the whole idea. The courses had all been through the course approval process and that in order to make them work for matriculated students they had to have been vetted. The Course Review committee was the normal process that allowed for input. A communication gap had perhaps existed but the process was in place.

Senator M. Gonzalez stated that this was the first time he and his department chair had seen this proposal.

Senator Carrington stated that all had gone forward in the normal course review process.

Senator Velez spoke to the additional resources issue and asked about the English requirement and JEPET course prerequisites. She wanted to know what kind of impact this would have.

Whittaker responded that matriculated students would be dealing with these issues anyway.

Senator Avila stated that she would have a hard time supporting this without some evidence of consultation with BECA.

Senator Langbort asked how matriculated students would take CEL courses for credit and whether this was a new development.

Whittaker responded that the way CEL made this available was through special sessions, with different circumstances and different pricing, which was not true for the Open University program.

Senator Langbort asked then whether the price was the same.

Whittaker responded negatively stating that this gave an opportunity to matriculated students.

Senator Chelberg wondered if programs were offered off-site, and whether this meant the Downtown Center.

Whittaker responded that the majority of the courses were offered there, and that for several semesters regular courses had also been offered there.

Stephen Ujlaki, chair of Cinema, stated that when the program had first approached CEL they had been in a jam for labs and equipment. CEL had come through for them, and they had been trying to raise the bar for the students. The CEL courses did not have an academic focus like BECA. Rather they were suited for the target students. To his knowledge, this new document had gone through a process asking for impact on other programs.

State Senator Gregory commented on the apparent lack of communication and some flaws in the process. She encouraged senators to pay more attention to the needs of those who were affected. Faculty should have their say over curriculum, something that was a given. She saw no malice in this instance, but suggested that all participants needed to be very careful to observe and protect the needs of other programs.

Senator Meredith asked what kind of relationship Cinema had to this program.

Alvarado responded that there had been a working group with cinema faculty and special courses offered with cinema.

Whittaker responded that more generally faculty appointments were made through the departments.

Senator M. Gonzales stated that while he did not believe that there was any malice at work, there still was communication gap.

Senator Chelberg asked what could be done to align the proposal properly and satisfy the unmet needs that had been brought up.

Alvarado spoke to what had evolved in cinema and the production arts, and to how they had come up with the notion of this certificate for digital media, and had built a bridge with cinema. He thought that there had been a proper relationship with BECA and the digital community.

Carrington Gregory m/s/p to second reading

Senator Carrington moved to return the proposal to committee, Steier as second.

Senator Heiman posed a question to the original proposers as to whether this movement would affect their ability to offer the program in the spring semester.

Whittaker responded that they could offer courses but could not advertise the certificate.

Senator Gregory suggested a move back to committee, citing the overriding value in communication with all affected parties.

Whitaker agreed with this but hoped that if it turned out that someone else had made the error in communication that CEL would get an apology.

Senator Nichols spoke against this movement stating that BECA students would be taking BECA courses not the ones in this proposal. She asked if the appropriate questions had been made, noting that all the requisite signatures were present on the proposal’s routing sheet.

Senator Carrington suggested that the amendment was offered in the spirit of seeking consultation. But he also expressed concern about the convergence of technologies and that perhaps BECA was claiming territory that may not be rightfully theirs. He sought to acknowledge the consultative process.

Senator Chelberg was opposed to sending this back to committee. He supported the senate’s own processes which, according to the CRAC chair, had been followed. CEL maintained that everyone had been consulted and it seemed that the senate process had been handled properly. If individual faculty were not consulted it was perhaps the result of college miscommunication.

Ujlaki indicated that the Associate Dean Wan-Lee Cheng had been apprised of this program and as far as he knew the process had been done honorably. It did not seem a sufficient reason for the program to not go forward.

Senator Heiman stated that he was still not clear on the magnitude and location of the communication problem. He would prefer not to penalize students, and urged the proposal forward.

Senator Gregory stated that if the senate was in error, she would apologize to Whittaker, but she also wondered what affect there would be if the proposal did go back to committee. Courses would be offered, but not certificate, which could be advertised when it was ready.

Alvarado commented that most of the marketing for this sort of program in CEL took place through the catalog, and the summer deadline would be lost if the proposal was delayed.

Senator Chelberg asked if anyone had contacted Curriculum Coordinator Ramona Knowles for information about the routing sheet. Part of how this would be possible for matriculated students would be through the increased revenue of CEL. It might also have an adverse impact on MAT students.

Senator Nichols noted that her impression from the office of Academic Affairs was that Wan Lee Cheng had been notified.

Undergraduate Dean Buttlaire announced that he had just finished talking via phone with Knowles who confirmed the situation of the Associate Dean’s signoff on the proposal.

Ujlaki Associate Dean Wan Lee Cheng would not have signed if BECA had not signed off on it as he was very thorough.

Senator M. Gonzalez stated that the department chair did not know about this.

Senator Carrington wondered if he could repeal his motion.

Chair Colvin responded in the negative.

10 back to committee

24 opposed

3 abstentions

The move to return the proposal back to committee failed.

Senator Chelberg expressed hope for future collaboration

Senator Bernard-Powers saw this as a good move. It was innovative, served good needs and timely. She was not sure what had happened with communication, and sought an answer.

Senator Carrington was in favor of the proposal. It came out of much discussion and many students might find this certificate an interface with the university, which might be good all around.

Senator Steier stated that whatever flaw had happened in the pathway the proposal took he hoped that there would be some consultation.

Alvarado indicated that this incentive happened already with other programs, and should do the same thing here.

Move to close debate.

Nichols, Steier m/s/p

Approved with dissent.

AGENDA ITEM #8— RECOMMENDATION from the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE: REVISION to the MS in RECREATION—1^st reading—proposal to be heard NO LATER THAN 4:05 p.m.

Chair Colvin asked for remaining senators to stay to preserve quorum

Nichols, Ulasewicz m/s/p

Senator Nichols indicated that department chair Tierney was present to answer questions.

The proposal was the result of a year and half of program review, extensive feedback from professionals, faculty and students, and an external review, all of which had been taken into account.

Senator Bernard-Powers had a question about the removal of the course REC 700.

Tierney responded that the course had been removed from the core but moved to an upper division level. The program sought to maintain similar number of units for the whole program without penalizing students. There had been a decline of interest in therapeutic recreation for 10 years.

Move to second reading.

Hom Gonzales m/s/p

Senator Yee thanked the proposers for their carefully constructed proposal that addressed all appropriate concerns.

Unanimously approved

AGENDA ITEM #9 —ADJOURNMENT at 4:05pm

Roll-call voting December 4 2004

Agenda Items #3 and #4

Senator	Agenda Item #3	Agenda Item #4
Abella, David
Alvarez, Alvin	A	N
Avila, Guadalupe	A	A
Axler, Sheldon	Y	Y
Bartscher, Patricia		Y
Bernard-Powers, Jane	A	A
Bernstein, Marian
Blando, John	N	N
Bohannon, Tara
Boyle, Andrea	Y	Y
Carrington, Christopher	Y	Y
Chelberg, Gene	Y	Y
Chen, Yu Charn	Y	Y
Colvin, Caran
Contreras, A. Reynaldo	N	N
Corrigan, Robert
Daley, Yvonne
Fehrman, Kenneth
Fielden, Ned	Y	Y
Fung, Robert	N	N
Garcia, Oswaldo	Y	Y
Gemello, John	Y	Y
Gerson, Deborah	N	N
Gonzales, Dan	Y	Y
Gonzalez Marty	N	N
Gregory, Jan	A	A
Guerrero, Jaimes
Heiman, Bruce	Y	Y
Hom, Marlon	Y	Y
Irvine, Patricia
Kim, John	Y	Y
Klingenberg, Larry	A	A
Klironomos, Martha	A	A
Langbort, Carol	Y	Y
Li, Wen-Chao
Liou, Shy-Shenq
Mak, Brenda
McReynolds, Jai
Meredith, David	Y	Y
Midori, McKeon		A
Monteiro, Ken
Morishita, Leroy	Y	Y
Nichols, Amy	Y	Y
Noble, Nancy	Y	Y
Palmer, Pete	Y	Y
Pong, Wenshen
Ritter, Michael	Y	Y
Scoble, Don	Y	Y
Smith, Brett	Y	A
Steier, Saul	N	N
Stowers, Genie
Suzuki, Dean
Todorov, Jassen
Trujillo, Michael
Ulasewicz, Connie	Y	Y
Van Cleave, Kendra	A	A
Van Dam, Mary Ann
Velez, Pauline	Y	Y
Williams, Robert	A	A
Yang, Nini
Yee, Darlene	Y	Y