Response to SFSU Dept & Degree Programs Dissolution

Dear President Corrigan--

I just want to say how deeply disturbed I am at your actions of dissolving whole degree programs, departments and important courses considering there was such a push to promote and campaign for a Campus Fee Referendum using campus funds, taxpayer money for the seemingly unlawful Academic Affairs Fee to SAVE courses as outlined in Voter Booklet and the mass email from Student Affairs just prior to the referendum (See attachment #2). It has been long held that Chancellor Reed has held a moratorium on any NEW fees or use of campus funds for referenda for such. Plus, he is well known for being consistent and upfront with students, and the community, in upholding the policies and promises he makes. (Referenda information & Voter Booklet found at http://www.sfsu.edu/~puboff/referendum/ )

I am sad to say that students were mislead completely that this NEW Academic Affairs Fee would or could ever restore their 575 courses, as promoted in the Voter Booklet, for now you are dissolving whole degree programs, in addition to, the fee increases by the Trustees, Governor and Legislature. The Voter Booklet and Referendum campaign by your administration mislead students into thinking this was a “Student” Fee Referendum rather than a “Campus” Fee Referendum. Student Fee Referendums are reserved for those that students create for themselves and not for faculty, curriculum, administrative services, or facilities that are mandated by law to be covered by taxpayer money other than those categorized in Executive Order 740 (http://www.calstate.edu/EO/EO-740.pdf ). Also, there was no recognition of who(m) wrote the Pro, Con and Rebuttal arguments thus violating the mere ethics of any election in any municipality, at bare minimum, and disrespecting the intelligence of the voters. Furthermore, the descriptions of the “NEW Fees” stated they were “Fee INCREASES” (which they are not) despite the sample ballot on the very last page that was not included in the first distribution of the document. It is a well-known fact that a last page printed on the even-numbered side is not frequently read. I have copies of both.

Above all, there was no recognition of who was implementing and/or sponsoring the Referendum. The only elections that students know about on the SFSU campus are Associated Students (student government) and Cesar Chavez Student Center board of directors’ elections of which their referenda are always included. Without any statement or claim of who was administering this recent Referendum, many students were under the impression that Associated Students was holding this election. To this end, may place an unfair characterization on Associated Students and/or the Student Center.

Plus, to announce to the public that students are willing to “tax” themselves is completely bogus. Students only know that they are paying fees, NOT TAXES. Not even the State Legislature, Governor, or CSU has ever referred to fees as taxes. In my opinion, to characterize fees as taxes, after the fact, is completely insulting to the acumen of all people. It was only to your advantage to use such an event and result.

Furthermore, nearly all the fee proposals in the recent Referendum did not show the appropriation or specific purpose of the fees thus leaving it wide-open for any use without oversight but only yourself. This is unheard of in any democratic political arena. There aren't any more open checkbooks in most areas of government and this Referendum must not set a precedent to cause any further wildfires across the state than has already destroyed thousands of acres of trust.

Since there is NO Shared Governance at the Administration level, one can only surmise there is no oversight except the occasional audit from the Chancellor's office, at best. This fee must not move forward unless there is full disclosure to students and their parents who are paying it as to how and what it is going to be spent in an itemized budget. After all, besides these fees in question that in history were collected as supplemental, our taxes go to pay for the primary costs of Administration, Faculty, Staff, Services and Facilities which all culminate into Academic Affairs.

Your strategy of crying poverty to the Governor and Legislature is not working by making these threats. If you go ahead and enact the dissolution, the repercussions could be deafening and devastating politically. There have been concerns in Sacramento over the years that people who want the money rarely care to visit to amass support. They want to hear from the stakeholders themselves. Having partaken in student lobby days and countless testimony for the past 7 years, this is what legislators and staff say. That is why other government agencies and departments are being protected and getting OUR funding. There is not enough critical mass to effect a change in educational funding because there is no support from the top down. We as students cannot do it ourselves while taking classes, working our jobs, and taking care of our families. We don't get paid enough to do it. We are the consumers!

Instead, we are destined to deal with the decimation of all that we have built. It is not a consolation or resolution or even an appropriate response, whatsoever, to dissolve degree programs and courses without stakeholders’ participation in the decisionmaking. It is truly an unacceptable reaction.

There is some predictability to this. There aren’t many choices but alternatives that might save the college are not even being considered, at least, in the public arena. All we are getting is your mandate. It isn’t even sanctioned by Chancellor Reed and his staff. I am concerned that you are moving to shut down the college completely or downsize it to a "manageable" level thus depriving students in the City & County of San Francisco (and the Bay Area) of a much needed “affordable” education in order to survive in these hard times. To lose access to a San Francisco public college would be devastating to residents and taxpayers who do not have the means or time to travel to other locations. Community College is not an alternative to a 4-year degree. It has always been a waiting station to the waiting list for a 4-year degree. We all know that, at least, a baccalaureate degree is what it takes to get a job these days. Let's not kid ourselves.

To dissolve bachelor and graduate programs in the most important fields of work in our state's history at this time is somehow confusing but not amazing. It seems whenever there is a budget crunch social services are the first ones to get the boot. Many experienced historical accounts of hard financial times make it clear that in times of hardship, social services and education must be increased to ease social disorder due to unemployment, poverty and inflation (Regulating the Poor, Cloward & Piven). These programs must be the gateways to our future's success; not the gatekeeping for only those who can afford to attend or force students to take degrees in areas they are not interested in. Students have made plans long in advance or competed stiffly in scholarship opportunities to take degree programs that you are going to dissolve. Their parents have saved a lifetime in college saving accounts for this moment to send their kids to school. If this is not an integrity buster for SFSU, I don’t know what more is.

I am urging you not to take these actions without first revealing a full disclosure of the situation with participation of the campus community and public in a complete democratic process. This is not the first time I have experienced poor decisionmaking on this campus without stakeholder oversight.

If you want to take risks and gain any recognition, then pick up from where CA Community College Chancellor Tom Nussbaum left off, challenge the system with all stakeholders participating, march to the Capitol and put a full, relentless pressure of our numbers on the policymakers and Governor.

Tom took to task; he harnessed the courage and started it off in legislative committee by revealing the truth. Now, it is your turn to finish it.

Don’t, and your done for. We all are.
God save us all.


Respectfully,

Bruce Wolfe

SFSU Student in Social Work, BASW & MSW
Past SFSU Associated Students President, VP of External Affairs and Board member
Past CSSA Legislative Affairs Officer & Committee Chair
Nat’l Assn. of Social Workers’ Social Action/Social Justice Council, Education Coordinator
National Disabled Student Union, Finance Chair
Learning Support Services Advocates of SF, Board member
SF Community Land Trust, Board member


ATTACHMENTS: President Corrigan campuswide email – April 22, 2004
VP of Student Affairs campuswide email – February 19, 2004



======================================================


ATTACHMENT #1 (From an April 22, 2004 campuswide email)

Dear SFSU Students:

You are no doubt already aware of the proposals in the newly-released Academic Affairs budget reduction plan to discontinue some of our degree programs. We write to provide you with fuller information and to reassure you about your academic future at San Francisco State.

As a result of the multi-million dollar reductions in San Francisco State's 2003/04 budget and the proposed Governor's budget for 2004/05, the colleges and other units within Academic Affairs have had to reduce their budgets by a total of $10.3 million. This is less than Academic Affairs would be taking if we simply pro-rated their share (63%) of the $22 million budget gap we must bridge. Still, the grim task of identifying that magnitude of budget cuts is agonizing. After weeks of meetings and broad-based consultation, the plan is ready. What follows is a description of the key aspects of the plan generated by the deans in collaboration with the Provost's Office.

We would like to emphasize several points before laying out the plan:

• Every effort has been made to preserve academic programs. The plan includes a variety of strategies: moving some programs to self-support; downsizing others; phasing out general fund support for remediation; proposing consolidation of some colleges -- moving from eight to six, for example; could save an estimated $800,000 in administrative costs, while preserving departments; and achieving economies by consolidating some elements of the GE curriculum, among others.
• Students who are currently majoring in any of the programs proposed for discontinuance will be protected. While we will not admit new majors in those areas, we will continue to offer the courses you need to earn your degree.
• And you will be working with the same professors you know so well. We are tremendously relieved to be able to report that the current plan preserves all tenured and tenure-track faculty jobs, as well as those of all Academic Affairs staff with permanent status, although some faculty would be moved to other programs or departments, as might some staff. We will see a significant loss of lecturer positions in fall 2006, as we certainly will next year.
• In keeping with University policy, recommendations for program discontinuance must go to the Academic Senate for deliberation. (That policy can be found at http://www.sfsu.edu/~senate/rrpolicies/.) Changes can be made, but the reductions must total $10.3 million. Any deletions from the plan must be matched by an alternative source of equal savings.
• Some of the elements in the plan can be implemented immediately in the new fiscal year, but much of the plan comprises long-term strategies. We are expecting the savings from discontinuance, for example, to take full effect in fall 2006. For a time, the budget will be a combination of short-term and permanent strategies.
• A final note: This budget reduction target is based on the Governor's January budget proposal. If the University receives any further cuts, as is likely, we will have to go back to the units within Academic Affairs to seek further reductions.

Here, then, are the proposed reductions, by category:

Discontinue Bachelor's Degree Programs: The B.A. in Social Science, B.A. in Dance, B.S. in Industrial Technology, B.A. in Social Work, B.A. in Russian.

Discontinue Master's Degree Programs: The M.A. in Family and Consumer Sciences, M.A. in Gerontology, M.A. in Kinesiology, M.S. in Recreation, M.A. in Russian.

Discontinue Concentration and/or Minor: NEXA program, Minor in California Studies.

Move Program to Self-Support: Child Study Center; masters degree programs in the College of Business; Holistic Health and Physical Activity Courses (partial movement); M.S. in Engineering; Clinical Laboratory Scientist Internship.

Downsize programs: B.S. in Engineering (retains all current degree programs; meets accreditation requirements), General Education programs within the College of Health and Human Services and the College of Humanities.

Other programmatic impacts: Elimination of General Fund support for remedial courses in English and Mathematics (effective fall 2006); budget reductions in non-college units and administrative units reporting directly to the provost (more than $1.1 million); reduction in the Step to College program.

Other Actions: The plan includes other actions that will be taken within the individual colleges. Some of these actions (but not all) are: elimination of some vacant faculty and staff positions, a significant change in the structure of supervision of student teachers and changes in departmental structure.

The great fear across campus has been program discontinuance. Any program discontinuance strikes at the heart of the University and is terribly painful. We recognize that seeing one's program eliminated will deeply affect faculty, staff and students. All of us who have worked on the plan have done our very best to keep such actions to a minimum. As we have said repeatedly, making these cuts would be easy if we had $10 million of weak academic programs. But we don't.

This has been a lengthy message, but you deserve full information, and we will continue to provide it. This message will be posted online at the University's "Budget Update" site (click on that link on the SFSU home page). The Academic Senate is beginning its preparation to consider specific discontinuance proposals in the fall. In the meantime, please know that your thoughts and comments are always welcome.

--Robert A. Corrigan, President -- John M. Gemello, Provost, and Vice President for
Academic Affairs




=====================================================


ATTACHMENT #2 (From a February 19, 2004 campuswide email.)

SFSU STUDENT FEE REFERENDUM 2004

On March 2 & 3, 2004, a SFSU student fee referendum will be held, asking you to vote on a proposed $138 per semester increase in your campus fees. Academic Affairs, Department of Athletics and Recreation, Career Center, and Student Health Services are requesting the following fees:

UNIVERSITY UNIT PROPOSED FEE

Academic Affairs Instructional $75/semester, $35 Summer
Athletics and Recreation $33/semester
Career Center $14/semester
Student Health Services $16/semester

Total $138/semester

The Academic Affairs Instructional fee will restore 575 canceled course sections and funding for library materials, instructional equipment, classroom renovation, and classroom audio-visual enhancement that would otherwise be cut from the SFSU budget because of the state's current fiscal crisis. The Athletics, Career Center, and Student Health Services fees will restore services and programs also eliminated from the budget. For more detailed information, please go online to http://www.sfsu.edu/~puboff/referendum/

You will be voting separately on each of the 4 above fees, and the fees will appear on the ballot as follows:


NEW FEES

Academic Affairs Instructional

Should a campus-based student fee for academic instruction and services be established, at $75.00 per semester (prorated to $35.00 for the summer semester) effective Fall 2004?

Career Center

Should a campus based student fee to fund the Career Center services be established at $14.00 per semester, effective Fall 2004? (This fee would be increased by $1.00 per semester in 2005-06, and an additional $1.00 per semester in 2007-08; capping at $16.00 in 2008-09.)


INCREASES TO EXISTING FEES

Athletics and Recreation

Should the campus-based Instructional Related Activities (IRA) fee be increased by $33.00 per semester, effective Fall 2004 to support Athletic and Recreation Programs? (This increase would be adjusted annually by $2.00 per semester from 2005-06 thru 2007-08 and by $1.00 in 2008-09; capping at $40.00 in 2008-09.)

Student Health Services

Should the campus-based Student Health Services fee be increased by $16.00 per semester, effective Fall 2004 to support Counseling and Psychological Services? (This increase would be adjusted annually by $3.00 per semester, with prorated summer semester increases of approximately $1.75, from 2005-06 through 2008-09; capping at $28.00 in 2008-09.)


THE FOLLOWING POLLING SITES WILL BE AVAILABLE:

1) Corner of 19th & Holloway (tent)
2) HSS Area (tent)
3) Cesar Chavez Student Center
4) Cantina in Mary Ward Hall
5) Centennial Walk (tent)
6) Triangle in Science/Gym Area (tent)

J.E. (Penny) Saffold, Ph.D.
Vice President for Student Affairs / Dean of Students