Arts & Letters -- Boddy, Chaffin, Cunniff, Donahue, Edson, Genovese, Kornfeld, Little, Rodriguez, Rose, Rosenstein, Schulze, Whitney,

Transcription

1 Minutes SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SENATE February 15, 1994 HH 221 2:00 p.m. Members present: Arts & Letters -- Boddy, Chaffin, Cunniff, Donahue, Edson, Genovese, Kornfeld, Little, Rodriguez, Rose, Rosenstein, Schulze, Whitney, Business Administration -- Bost, Butler, Easton, Grudnitzki, Penrose Education -- Chamley, Strom, Evans for Treadway Engineering -- Abut, Hussain, Plotkin Health and Human Services -- Fitzsimmons, Loveridge, Morris, Senn Professional Studies and Fine Arts -- P. Andersen, H. Anderson, Balkwell, Carlson, Lamke, Larlham, Orth, Pugh, Verity Sciences -- Barnett, Girty, Hanan, Hanscom, Hornbeck, Papin, Roeder, Ross, Schulte, Short, Templin, Zyskind Library -- Perkins Counseling -- Nesvig Imperial Valley Campus: -- Dunn Academic Senate -- Carmichael, DuFault, Harris, Stites Temporary Faculty -- Miller Emeritus Faculty -- Janssen Administrators -- Day, Hopkins, Emerich for Nowak, Cobb for Locke, Cobble, Scott Staff -- Coffey, Kohler, Cademy for Rahiotis Associated Students -- C. Padilla for Nuñez (in part), G. Nuñez (in part), H. Feldbaum for Giberson, T. Tatum, D. Carillo

2 California Faculty Association -- Schulze Members absent: Arts & Letters -- Griffin Education -- Cornejo Health and Human Services -- Kramer Temporary Faculty -- Nagel 1. Agenda (Carmichael) MS Approve Agenda for February 15, MSP Roeder, Whitney: Hear Item 10 prior to Committee Reports. Passed. MSP Stites, Genovese: Hear Item 8e (3), the Constitution and Bylaws report on the issue related to Item 10, prior to that item. Passed. It was clarified that the supplemental material from Constitution and Bylaws did not require waiver of the four-day rule, as it was an information item. MSP Agenda as amended passed. 2. Minutes (Carmichael) MSP Approve minutes of December 7, 1993, with the corrections and additions read. Passed as follows: (1) (remarks of Senator P. Andersen). P. 4, para. 5, line 12, delete "not" at the end of the line (2) (remarks of Senator Kornfeld). P. 6, para. 1, line 6, place colon after "Andersen", and delete "but." In line 9, delete "and" after "clause," place a period after "statements" in the same line. Strike "then," and start a new sentence with "But," strike "are," and replace it with "seem to be" to read as follows: "But what we seem to be saying is that we want no paper trail,..." (3) (remarks of Senator Janssen). P. 7, para. 7, line 4, change "Goebbels" to "Goedel" and "Lichtenstein" to "Wittgenstein." (4) p. 8, correct a statement of error in fact: (This is not a correction of the minutes.) Senator Rosenstein stated that the College of Arts and Letters Academic Planning Committee had not discussed the M.A.Program in Russian. His statement was incorrect.

3 According to the minutes of the April 15, 1993, meeting of that committee, the issue was discussed, and the committee moved to delete the MA in Russian program. Edson: Please correct the report of the Committee on Committees (Attachment 8d): IDMS Committee, replace Larry Frase with Fred Saba. Harris: In reading the minutes of the December meeting, I was particularly struck with the tone of elitism and intolerance in the discussion related to the competency requirements. With few exceptions, the ancestors of almost everyone in this room came from someplace else, and were hardly part of high society in the country from which they came. They were poor, they were oppressed, they were misfits, they were indentured servants, and they were slaves and criminals. They came here not knowing the rules, and not knowing the language. They had to struggle to find their place in our society. Their struggle and achievements made it possible for us to be where we are today. We have no right to exult in our own success unless we are helping somebody else. Unless there is somebody here who was brought up in a cave by wolves, there was somebody else who helped them along. We need to remember where we came from and what we're here for. 3. Announcements (Boddy) The newly revised Policy File is available and has been distributed to senators, deans, department chairs, and most administrators. Please let us know if you need a copy. Earthquake at CSU Northridge. The deans and others are working on relief projects, and offers of assistance may be routed through them. I would urge that you respond. The Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society and the SDSU Retirement Association will present the fifth annual emeritus lecture by Emeritus Professor of Psychology Oscar Kaplan on "Political Polling -- Good or Bad for Democracy" on Wednesday, February 16, 3:00 p.m., Aztec Center. The handouts include a memorandum dated February 9, 1994, regarding meetings of the Expanded Senate Executive Committee. The enabling groups will initiate the discussions with the Expanded SEC. The Values and Visions Group, chaired by Senator Hanscom, will lead off on February 22; the Communications and Technology group, chaired by Senator and Dean Don Short will present its report on March 8; and the Student Initiatives, chaired by Nancy Sprotte will present its report on March 15. Meetings will be in the Faculty-Staff Centre at 2:00 p.m. 4. University Administration President Day Two weeks ago I met with the Senate Executive Committee to give them my best estimate of the governor's budget. I took them through what the governor had asked for CSU, what monies were lacking, and what that might mean for SDSU.

4 The governor's budget proposal to the legislature would add about $57.6 million to the CSU's net General Fund budget of $1.49 billion, an increase of about 3.87 percent. No new student fee increases are built into the governor's budget, but the system and the trustees are expected to address that. I received a memo from the chancellor's office yesterday, containing their current evaluation of the budget, and asking presidents to respond by March 7 with their preliminary estimates of how they will cope with the budget as proposed, i.e., without any fee increases. The trustees are requesting a 23 percent fee increase, and that will require a change in the law which caps annual fee increases at 10 percent. I have asked the Cabinet Budget Committee for their recommendations and advice, and have requested that they include the Associated Students president, the CARP chair, and the Senate chair in their discussions. It is important that the committee meet soon in order for me to consider their recommendations and to reply by March 7. Although the governor has proposed a $57.6 million increase in CSU budget allocations, mandatory cost increases remain. Among the increased costs are maintenance of new buildings throughout the system (about $2.7 million) and the salary increases that have been approved for March 1 or April 1, roughly the last quarter of the year. There is enough (about $17 million) in this year's budget for one-fourth of a year's compensation increases. That means next year we will have enough money for one quarter, but we will need about $51 million more for the other three quarters in order to keep everyone's pay at the same level. In addition, increased payments for the bonds which provided funding for several buildings over the past few years will cost about $22 million. Increased costs of various benefits amount to another $17.4 million. The San Marcos campus is scheduled to admit freshmen in September, at an anticipated cost of $2.3 million. And since I met with the SEC, there is a set-aside of $10 million for the earthquake damage at Northridge. The sum of these mandatory costs is about $106 million. So while it is proposed that CSU received an additional $57.6 million, our mandatory expenses will exceed that amount by about $48 million. Once again we have the anomaly of facing increased cuts despite an increased budget. We are roughly down about 20 percent from three years ago in FTEF (full time equivalent faculty), in FTES (full time equivalent students), in the number of sections offered, and in the number of majors that we have. We are no longer over-enrolled, and are in better balance. Instead of the numbers which have to do with net, the state's money to the CSU without student fees, it is easier at the campus level to talk about the gross budget, which is a measure of the total activity and includes student fees. Thus, our net budget is $116 million; our gross budget is $162 million, when you add the total collected in student fees. Of $162 million, which is a measure of our activity level, about two-thirds of the budget, or $106 million is in Academic Affairs, $16.7 million, or 10 percent, is in Business Affairs, $15.6 million is in Student Affairs, 3+ percent is in University Relations, and 11 percent is lumped together for institutional expenses such as utilities,

5 student financial aid, and work study. Even after the last couple of years, the budget is still mostly people-dominated, in salaries and benefits. It remains to be seen in discussions in the CBC augmented by the three additional members, whether the cut that has been allocated to us can be handled in a straightforward way. The memorandum doesn't just state the governor's budget, but allocates specific amounts to campuses with new buildings. When that is put together with the benefit costs, etc., SDSU's cut from the budget without the student fees is about $3.7 million out of a total $162 million gross or $116 million net (without fees). The trustees' goal is for students to pay one-third and the state to pay two-thirds of the cost for a higher education. They hope to achieve that in about three more years. It is a hotly contested policy; it includes monies to be set aside for financial aid for those who already cannot pay the fees and for those who will not be able to pay because of the increase. It is a very difficult political problem, and we are again in an election year. Assuming the trustee-recommended increase is approved, the fee increase would generate about $100 million for the system. About one third of that would be set aside for additional financial aid, leaving $66 million available for instructional improvement and other expenses, and the system would have a little extra money. By comparison, if the current law obtains, and the governor and legislature approve a 10 percent increase in fees, it would generate roughly half of that, or $50 million less one third for student aid, about $33 million. So the fee is a major unknown. The governor's budget includes a request for several billion dollars from the federal government to reimburse the state for money spent on immigrants, documented or otherwise. Since Congress has just passed an increase in the national deficit for earthquake relief, my impression is that they may be less inclined to help the state of California than they might have been a couple of weeks ago. So it's a total political problem. If the federal government does not come through with a significant fraction of that money, there is talk about rolling it over or funding it over several years; I can't help but feel that would affect all the state agencies, so we may again face a further cutback in April or May. Court cases are also pending, and the decisions may affect the state adversely. I have asked the Cabinet Budget Committee to consider how to handle this $3.7 million cut in a temporary way. At this time, my judgement is that this is not the same as it was in the past two or three years where the whole state operation had been downsized. Even so, after coming down this much, $3.7 million is a lot of money. It will be difficult to find the money in a temporary way, and we have little time. We are still committed to trying to keep enrollment and staffing in line. One of the most difficult things in the past three years has been to go from a situation of overenrollment of 7 percent at the same time we were coping with budget cuts, and to try to get our enrollment and our faculty back in balance. We have that balance in a reasonable way now. But enrollment is a very significant public policy issue. If the legislature said that

6 "SDSU will take that amount of money, and still take 1,000 more students," we would have to do it. We have worked very hard to get into balance, and we have been facing the problem of the collision between access and cost with the master plan. Harris: When you talked about student fee increases going to where students will pay for one third of their education cost, has there been talk of a cap on the amount that students would ultimately pay? Day: There has been some discussion in quarters such as CPEC, but not by the trustees. Those who oppose fee increases argue that there is no check-andbalance. Politically speaking, it is always true that how much it costs per student is subject to repeated audits. I do visualize new kinds of costs, such as technology. It would be very difficult to argue on the principles and facts of every kind of expenditure. Thompson: What about the costs for the Monterey Bay campus? Day: That is not included in the memo I received yesterday. A figure that has been mentioned is roughly $15 million. This is all part of the defense conversion. A month ago the presidents met at the old Fort Ord location. Part of that land will go to the UC, the local community college, the local private college, and a local performing arts group. The defense appropriation bill passed and signed by the President had included about $15 million for the CSU against what we propose would be $150 million over five years as the cost of cleanup and conversion of buildings. There are also environmental problems such as unexploded ordnance. As a system, however, we are committed to that campus. There is a bill in the legislature to amend the education code and technically authorize the campus. It's not on the list in the latest memo, but it will happen. Carmichael: What about San Marcos? Is that campus getting extra money in order to admit freshmen in fall of 1995? Day: It is my impression they will admit freshmen in fall of Barnett: Can you speak to articles in the news about three-year degrees, video conferencing, and distance learning? Day: As to distance learning, it looks like Walter Massey may be carrying the ball on that before the UC regents. It was raised in the weekly meeting with faculty, and we have also discussed it in conjunction with Project DELTA. Distance learning is being studied, but there are up-front capital money costs, and there are questions of pedagogy. I don't think we are going to eliminate faculty. Technology can enhance the leverage of faculty, and can enhance the learning of students, but I don't think it comes to grips with the fundamental costs of education. The chancellor has talked about "time to degree." Various presidents take turns trying to explain that if you ask our students how many credits they want to take, it will usually be about 12 units, because mostof them work. Last spring the student credit load went up significantly, but it still was only about 13 units. Questions about quality control have been set aside, and we have encouraged community colleges to take over part of the load. Five or six years ago we were so heavily overenrolled that students did not have control of their lives, and could not take full loads. I do not follow the arguments on three-year degrees, and I think philosophically it's false savings. The outcome is sending out citizens educated for the moment, not educated for the future. I think you'll spend more money in

7 problems of dissatisfaction or changing jobs, or retooling, than if you took another year or two years to truly educate. Vice President Hopkins Enrollment. With one week until census, our head count is down by about Our FTES will probably be on target. With the probable reduction in the number of students, our revenue from fees may be down by about $500 thousand. Applications for first-time freshmen are up 20 percent from last year at this time. Other campuses also report a similar percentage increase in first-time freshman applications, so we may be seeing duplicate applications. 5. Academic Senate Harris: I attended the CPEC meetings last week. The Senate needs to be aware of a couple of items discussed. One had to do with specialty degree program fees. The only one of those that would affect us would be Business. The discussion would have ended, but a member of our Board of Trustees said that he thought that Architecture and Engineering should be on the list of specialty degrees, which means that the fees for students in those programs in our system would be increased. Also he wanted CPEC to revisit the notion of differential fees for graduate students, despite the fact that CPEC voted last year not to support that idea His rationale is that it would be unseemly for CPEC to be in opposition to a policy of the CSU trustees. The commission took no action on that suggestion. Congress has created a state postsecondary review entity (SPRE) to reduce defaults on federal loans by students in proprietary institutions. It has now been extended to all postsecondary institutions, and each state must have a review entity. The governor assigned the responsibility to CPEC. The act provides a triggering mechanism that would require a review of the institution, and it is estimated that two-thirds of all post-secondary institutions would need to be reviewed. The mechanism for doing this is still unresolved, and there is potential for the involvement of WASC. Since WASC review is voluntary and the review teams are volunteers, whereas the SPRE review would not be, who would conduct this new review is not resolved. It is unclear how soon a review would be required after an institution is fingered, and what should be done to prepare for the review. The SPRE review has fifteen standards that cover all aspects of an institution's function, despite the fact that the triggering mechanism is the number of students who default on federal loans. There is an advisory committee which includes representatives of all the systems, WASC, student associations, and the union. That committee will propose standards at the next CPEC meeting. I suspect the cost will be far more than anticipated, because different standards will be required for different institutions. You also need to be aware of CPEC's involvement in micromanagement of individual campuses. Although CPEC has statutory authority to oversee program development, they do not have authority to be involved in program dissolution or discontinuance. However, they are proposing to insert themselves into that process from the beginning. I question

8 the degree to which this usurps faculty responsibility, prerogatives, and campus autonomy. I will report to you as these things develop. 6. Associated Students (Padilla) This week we will conduct interviews for boards and committees. I ask the faculty to encourage students to become involved in these boards. According to A.S. President Giberson, Associated Students of CSU have pledged to donate $1,000 per campus to the AS of CSU Northridge. You are encouraged to donate food, clothing, and money; you may call for more information. Finally, Marsha Brady of the Brady Bunch, will be coming to Montezuma Hall to speak on birth control and abstinence. DuFault: In re the Northridge disaster, is the Senate involved in any organized campaign to raise money for our colleagues at Northridge? Boddy: I have had some discussion with administrators, and my understanding is that specific requests will be made through the deans. DuFault: Some of the CFA chapters are giving money to the Northridge campus and the money is being given to families who were dispossessed by the earthquake. Harris: I have received two messages with addresses where people can send checks. 7. California Faculty Association (Schulze) The CFA chapter at SDSU has made a donation, and is appealing to faculty at large to give to a special fund for Northridge. The money will be distributed to faculty for professional and personal needs. We have been exploring whether the Foundation could help us set up a special fund, and will send you notice of an appeal soon. The ratification vote for the new MOU on the salary and benefits package will occur next week. The two year service incentive has finally been fully approved and information should be distributed shortly. 8. Committee Reports a. Senate Executive Committee -- No report b. Academic Policy and Planning (Hanscom) (1) Dissolution of the Department and Discontinuation of the Degree Program in Industrial Technology (2) Deletion of Industrial Technology Single Subject Teaching Credential and Minor

9 MS Hanscom for Committee: Approve the dissolution of the department and discontinuation of the degree program in Industrial Technology per agenda attachment 8b(1), and approve the deletion of the Industrial Technology Single Subject Teaching Credential and Minor per agenda attachment 8b(2). Thompson: The AR&P memo regarding the Industrial Technology Single Subject Teaching Credential is attached to the agenda (attachment 8c). MSP Whitney, Roeder: Postpone 8a(1) and 8a(2) until the next Senate meeting. Passed. Bost: I would prefer a motion to postpone until the personnel matter is resolved. Plotkin: What is the status of the personnel issue? Hopkins: One of the faculty has accepted an assignment to another department. The other is considering an offer of permanent reassignment. DuFault: How is the issue of tenure being treated? Hopkins: It is not appropriate to comment on that here. (3) Deletion of M.A. in Russian MS Hanscom for Committee: Approve the deletion of the M.A. in Russian, per agenda attachment 8b(3). MS Genovese, DuFault: Amend as follows: suspend the program, rather than delete it, to a time uncertain. Genovese: There is strong support for maintaining language programs at various levels in the College of Arts and Letters, although we have lost a number of faculty in these areas. It is clear that the dean has determined that the program in Russian will not be supported for the present. It doesn't mean that the M.A. in Russian cannot be resumed in the future. Cobble: The program has already been suspended for several years, and to continue a program in indefinite suspension is not logical. We haven't had enough faculty for a long time and the program is not in the catalog, so what would suspension mean? I believe it's contrary to CSU policy as well. If we are not to lose other programs, the college must make a commitment to supporting undergraduate programs in the languages. I don't see how we can continue offering the hope to students and faculty that such programs might be available. I have looked for ways to keep the program alive, and it's just dead. Rose: What would be involved in putting the program back in place? Cobble: Someone would have to show that we have a critical number of faculty to mount a proper program and demonstrate sufficient student demand. Whitney: I thought programs stayed in the catalog until taken out by the Senate. Why can't we place a statement in the catalog, "Master's Degree in Russian is not accepting students at this time." Edson: The department is in the position it is in for budget-driven reasons, not value-driven reasons. Russia will attract more and more attention, and lack of student interest is not likely to continue. Also, when the program deletion issue first

10 came to the College AP&P Committee, they voted not to delete it. So I would support the motion to suspend. Cobble: It would be a mistake to believe the program is in this shape because of events of May Student applications were consistently down well before then. The fact is that the college has not come to grips with what to do with programs in modern language, and there are changing interests. Before we suspended the program some years ago, the dean and department asked us to do so. The program was removed from the catalog because of liability; students could sue for false advertising. The only way we can suspend the program would be to direct the college to change its resource direction and reintroduce the program. Lamke: Is there a bachelor's degree in Russian? Hanscom: Yes. Edson: I would like to point out that this is more than a language program; it is also culture, theory, and politics. MSF Amendment failed. MSP Committee motion passed. (4) Inventory of Academic Programs (Information) AP&P Committee members discussed the contents of the inventory in great detail, including issues of cooperation and planning within and between colleges, and comparisons of the visions of the deans with those expressed in the various departmental statements. The committee agreed with the Vice President that we have landed on our feet despite the cuts. He does not see the necessity of significant movement of resources across college lines. AP&P concluded that the inventories generally expressed a positive attitude about the future and the ability to recover from the past few years. * A copy of the inventory is attached. c. Academic Resources and Planning (Thompson) (1) Industrial Technology Single Subject Teaching Credential The Academic Resources and Planning memo of October 18, 1993, regarding the Industrial Technology Single Subject Teaching Credential was attached to the agenda for information. (2) Deletion of Master of Arts Degree in Russian The Academic Resources and Planning Committee found no adverse impacts on resources to the request of the Department of German and Russian to delete the Master of Arts degree in Russian. d. Committee on Committees and Elections (Edson)

11 MSP Edson for Committee: Approve the appointment of Michael Peddecord, Health and Human Services, to the Graduate Council (replacing Donna Thal), with a term ending in May e. Constitution and Bylaws (Bost) (1) Policy File Amendments - Recall of Senators and Removal of Senate Officers (Second Reading) MSP Bost for Committee: Approve amendment to Policy File I-A-4, Elections, per agenda attachment 8e(1). * Approved unanimously (attached). (2) University Information Systems Committee MSP Bost for Committee: Approve the amendment to Policy File I-A-3, 3.0, Composition and Selection of Committees and Councils, and Policy File I-A-3, 4.0, Functions of Committees and Councils, per agenda attachment 8e(2), with changes read. Whitney: Why is there a Graduate Division representative, but none from MTS on the committee? Bost: The Graduate Division is in the process of acquiring computing technology to allow them to process graduate applications as well as enhance their ability to communicate with the rest of the university. C&BL tried to be as inclusive as possible while maintaining a functional committee. I am open to discussing the wisdom of adding someone from MTS. Whitney: How do the needs of the Graduate Division differ from Admissions and Records, and would they have the same kind of computing technology? Cobble: The Graduate Division plays most of the roles of Admissions and Records for graduate students, including their evaluations, working transcripts, and award of degrees. The division requires a communication network with graduate advisors and graduate students, as well as the institutions with whom we offer joint doctoral degrees. MS Short, Papin: Amend as follows: unstrike the words "staff/administrators." Short: We have all suffered from the lack of coordination of computerization, the current difficulties with as an example. This committee may alleviate that situation To limit college representation to faculty might limit the committee's ability to bring some sanity to computing services on this campus. Tatum: I was concerned when I saw staff had been removed. The staff have valuable expertise. DuFault: As I look at it, there is ample opportunity for many staff to serve on that committee; there are representatives from Associated Students, Business and Financial Affairs, Student Affairs, etc. Carlson: I agree with the intent of the amendment, but if the college appointments are staff, the committee could end up with no faculty. Cademy: To strike the staff/administrators from the college appointments, limits the flexibility of the college deans. Bost: The issue is how and where to get the faculty input;

12 selection by the CC&E in consultation with the college deans seemed to respond to that concern. Templin: The committee seems to be too large to be effective, but the best possible people should serve on it. Cobble: The Committee on Committees is ultimately responsible, but the college deans should have the flexibility to choose faculty or other staff. The committee membership should comprise major users who can influence major decision-making, whether faculty or staff. Stites: I am stressed that you are talking about either faculty or staff. It's not "who" in the ordinary constituent sense serves on the committee, but who best serves the unit. Whitney: I am persuaded by both sides. I wonder if the makers of the amendment would accept striking "administration" only. The amendment was accepted as editorial. MS Hussain, Nuñez: Close debate. Passed. MSP Short amendment as amended passed. MSP DuFault, Cobble: Close debate. Passed. MSP * Committee motion as amended passed (attached). (3) Interpretation of Constitution and Bylaws Committee regarding presidential approval or veto of changes to the Senate's Constitution and Bylaws In his response to the Senate meeting of December 7, 1993, the president asked the Senate's advice regarding his appropriate role with respect to constitutional amendments, with specific reference to the faculty-approved item, I-A-1, 12.0, Referendums. Policy File I-A-2, states, "Questions concerning interpretations of the text of any document approved by the Senate shall be referred to the Constitution and Bylaws Committee of the Senate." Policy File I-A-2, states, "Interpretations made by the Committee shall be reported in writing to the Senate and shall be considered binding unless reversed or altered by action of the Senate." The parliamentarian advised that questions should be primarily for clarification. The item was not presented as an action item. The parliamentarian noted that the president had asked two questions: (1) when do changes to the Senate's Constitution and Bylaws require the approval of the President of the University? and (2) on what grounds might the President veto proposed amendments to the Constitution or the Bylaws? The answer to question (1) is in the first full paragraph on page 2 of the committee response, as follows: "It is the committee's position that amendments to the Constitution and changes to the Bylaws have no direct effect on the operations of the University and therefore do not require approval by the President. The answer to question (2), also in the first full paragraph on page 2, reads: "There are important constraints on the power of the Senate and faculty to amend its Constitution or for the Senate to change its Bylaws. The faculty cannot amend the Constitution nor can the Senate adopt Bylaws that would negate the Senate's role in University governance or

13 would place the body in direct conflict with the MOU, rules and regulations of the CSU Board of Trustees, state law, or federal law." Bost: The committee deliberated carefully, but tried to bring you a report quickly. We reviewed the Constitution and the Bylaws. Article 10 of the Constitution states: "The Senate shall be responsible for constructing its own rules of operating procedure, known as the Senate Bylaws." In the Bylaws, I-A-2, 6.1, states: "All permanent policies and regulations adopted by the Senate and approved by the President shall be compiled for inclusion in the Policy File. The first part of the Policy File shall be the Senate Constitution and Bylaws; the remainder shall consist of special codes adopted, and other regulations and procedural matters of concern to the faculty at large." When these two are read together, although it says that the Policy File includes the Constitution and Bylaws, and it also says that we as a Senate are responsible for our own bylaws, the reference to matters approved would be those matters which fall outside these two documents. It is unfortunate that the entire set of governing documents is labeled as "Policy File." Given that the Bylaws are subservient to the Constitution, and nowhere in the Constitution is there any statement that the Constitution need be approved by the president, we have interpreted this to mean that changing the Constitution or changing the Bylaws are things that we as a Senate do, are matters internal to the Senate. Hopkins: I am still troubled by the circularity. On page 4 of the committee's report, the chair referred to I-A-2, about the binding nature of these interpretations. Yet, I-G-6, goes on to say that such interpretations are considered binding upon the university only after they have been approved by the President. So how does the committee interpret the implications of the Senate not acting on this report, but accepting it, thereby making it binding on the Senate? Where does that leave the president? Does he still have to approve this interpretation? Bost: I would refer to I-A-2, 1.522, which states that questions concerning the interpretation of the text of any document approved by the Senate shall be referred to C&BL. C&BL thinks that statement clearly refers to policies that have been adopted but that are outside the Bylaws or Constitution. DuFault: It seems to me that the wording of I-G-6 is not particularly clear. Stites: The last sentence in I-G-6 talks about interpretations that would be considered binding on the University, and Senate Bylaws would not be considered binding upon the University. Rosenstein: It refers to a Senate action, not necessarily one related to the Bylaws. Whitney: I would add that the interpretation is only before the Senate because the president has asked for advice. We could argue here that C&BL is not providing an interpretation at all, but a rationale for its advice to the Senate regarding the meaning of "Senate document," and that is quite different from an interpretation of Senate action. Cobble: I have been around long enough to remember these same arguments when these documents were written. They were perfectly clear to the Senate and the president then. They are not perfectly clear to the Senate and the president in this day and age. The solution to those problems is by our normally established procedures, but those changed through the years. What C&BL has done is raise ambiguities, ambiguities on a specific

14 point that people feel very passionate about. The president didn't say he had made up his mind, but he asked for an interpretation, and he's got it. However, the interpretation is clouded, and will remain clouded until we look at what has caused the ambiguities. Some have been raised here, some have existed for a long time. Our usual parliamentary procedure for handling ambiguity is to propose changes. In the long run it's not going to make any difference whether this part of the constitution is subject to presidential approval or not. Eventually the Senate and the president, by some mechanism, have to come to some agreement, just as they've done over the years. We may have to agree to disagree, but we ought to do so by the time-honored process of doing that collegially. Bost: We will work on our agenda rapidly, but we also want to do it thoroughly. The committee thinks that part of the confusion is caused by referring to all of these documents as "Policy File," and it intends to address that confusion. In the interim, we think that this particular interpretation is not only sound and reasonable, but it is also something that needs to be done now. The Constitution and Bylaws are our governing documents, and the president has often, in responding to actions of this body, said that some items do not need his approval because they are internal. I believe that also ratifies our position. Whitney: In support of the interpretation that C&BL has made, it seems clear, upon reading I-A-2, 6.0, that the president approves things adopted by the Senate. The constitutional amendments were not adopted by the Senate; constitutional amendments are adopted by the faculty. There is no proviso that I can find that indicates that the president ever has to or is expected to pass on anything that is adopted by the faculty, such as 11.0 and So that is a distinction that probably was intended and separated the two. Cobble: That's not quite true. When President Golding came, he met with the Senate and faculty and tried to reach an agreement. Looking at faculty governance in relation to the president, it doesn't make much difference whether we're referring to the faculty or the Senate, there's got to be some fundamental agreement if the institution is to move forward. Also, it may be circular, but there are reasons for having some things circular. Let's assume a Senate wants to do its own thing, and doesn't like what the president is doing. It could "do its thing" by calling all its actions constitutional changes, thereby taking them out of the president's hands. That really doesn't make for a collegial environment. Bost: We did discuss that. On page 2 of the report, we state that the Senate may not adopt Bylaws that would negate the Senate's role in University governance or would place the body in direct conflict with the MOU, rules of the Board of Trustees, state law, or federal law. Rosenstein: If there is no motion on the floor, we should move on. Hopkins: I am concerned that this has come to us just before the meeting, and am concerned about accepting it as a binding report. Boddy: As Senator Bost has said, it was important to be thorough and lay out the arguments of the interpretation. The president had asked us to proceed. It appears that several matters may remain to be cleared up by the Senate. But, the committee acted responsibly in placing its report before you today. To wait would have delayed our response until late March. If the Senate is comfortable

15 with this interpretation, it does not preclude it from looking at the question again. It is simply the interpretation that will hold until the Senate chooses to address it again. Hopkins: I had the luxury of seeing this report in advance and appreciate that. But my statement was an expression of concern about how we have been doing business. P. Andersen: Unless we vote to receive the report, it is merely a report of the committee and has nothing to do with policy of the Senate unless we have given the committee the right to proceed on our behalf. Boddy: The president has asked for an interpretation. I-A-2, states that questions concerning interpretation shall be referred to C&BL. I-A-2, states that their interpretation, after having been reported to the Senate in writing, shall be considered binding unless reversed or altered by action of the Senate. P. Andersen: It would be nice if future interpretations could meet the four-day rule. Bost: Please recognize that the question was asked by the president in a letter dated December 30, 1993, and this is the first Senate meeting since that date. No action was taken on the Committee's report. f. Curriculum (Papin) (1) Extended Studies Certificate Program Courses MSP Papin for Committee: Approve the amendment to Policy File III-F-11, Extended Studies, per agenda attachment 8f(1). Passed. (2) Courses and Program Changes The University Curriculum Committee's Fifth Information Report, General Catalog, is attached to the agenda (attachment 8f, agenda pages 20-22). g. Personnel (Hanan) MSP * Hanan for Committee: That the new RTP (Reappointment, Tenure, Promotions) time line not be implemented, and that the present RTP time line be retained, per agenda attachment 8g. Passed (attached). The background and rationale for the motion are included in agenda attachment 8g. h. General Education (Boe) MS * Genovese for Committee: Approve the addition of Anthropology 349, Roots of Civilizations (3) to IV. Explorations, C. Humanities, 3. History, per agenda attachment 8h. Passed (attached). i. Faculty Honors and Awards (Rea)

16 On behalf of the Senate, the Faculty Honors and Awards Committee named Professor Susan Cayleff, Department of Women's Studies, as San Diego State University's nominee for the Trustees' Outstanding Professor Award. * The committee's letter of nomination is attached. i. Staff Affairs Committee (Coffey) The Staff Affairs Committee selected Kathryn Wullner, EOP, and Lawrence Piper, Facilities Planning, to represent the staff on the search committee for Vice President for Business and Financial Affairs. The Staff Affairs Committee selected Phillip J. Henault, Physical Plant, to serve on the Staff Affairs Committee (replacing Annetta Koehler). Pat Coffey has been named chair of the Staff Affairs Committee. 9.0 Old Business The description for Vice President for Business and Financial Affairs is included in the agenda (attachment 9) New Business Faculty Poll MS Whitney, Hanscom: Move the resolution in Agenda Attachment 10a. Whitney: This resolution responds to a petition signed by 300 faculty, and asks the Senate office to conduct a ballot based on the second Resolved clause. Plotkin: Isn't this moot on the basis of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee interpretation? Boddy: As a point of information, it is not moot; you have heard the C&BL interpretation, which now represents the Senate's interpretation. I believe it would be procedurally incorrect to proceed as if 12.0 is now formally part of the Constitution. The C&BL interpretation addresses the general constitutional question of whether the president needs to sign off on Constitution and Bylaws issues. The specific question has yet to be resolved. Bost: I think it has been resolved, and I think that this resolution confirms that interpretation. I wouldn't want another month to pass before this matter is closed. Hopkins: As a member of the Senate, I do believe that the intended spirit of trying to separate the constitutional issue from the procedural issue is good. I would like to speak against the resolution for two reasons. First, since it does not refer to a petition by the faculty, it puts the Senate in the position of initiating a vote on the quoted words, and I think that's not a good idea. Second, I would argue that having a referendum on the idea

17 of the president's retirement is not good for the University, because it perpetuates a lot of bad feeling toward each other that needs to be healed rather than prolonged. I fear that it makes the university look foolish in the eyes of some, and it does not serve the future of the University in the best way. Cobble: I assume that whether by means of a general faculty meeting or by this petition, the faculty will have a chance to express their will as to whether they want the president to retire. Regardless of where you stand on this question, I would hate to see us take a stand on this every six months. I don't think it's going to make much difference, unless you just want to make the president feel bad. The faculty have already spoken on this issue once, and the response from the Board of Trustees was to ask the president and the faculty to try to make the process work. In my opinion, you have seen some attempts on the part of the president to do that. He's expanded the campus budget committee; he's asked for further clarification before saying he doesn't approve something; he's asked for more collaboration in terms of personnel questions. Today, he told us we are facing a budget crisis, and doesn't see any reason now to try to precipitate personnel questions. I would prefer us using our energy to see if we can make things work. We must come together with the president on the constitutional issues. Do we really think a spirit of cooperation with the president can work at the same time we say please get out. I would vote against this. MSP Strom, Short: Close debate. Passed. MSP Motion passed Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Approved by: Dorothy Romano Nancy M. Carmichael Secretary Senate Secretary (These minutes were summarized from audiotape)