Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting
of February 6, 2001
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair

Vaughn at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present:
Aaron, Eunice
Consoli, Andres
Gregory, Jan
Raggio, Marcia
Alvarez, Alvin
Contreras, Rey
Harnly, Caroline
Sayeed, Lutfus
Avila, Guadalupe
Cullers, Susan
Hu, Sung
Scoble, Don
Bartscher, Patricia
de Vries, Brian
Hubler, Barbara
Smith, Miriam
Bernstein, Marian
Duke, Jerry
Jerris, Scott
Strong, Rob
Blomberg, Judith
Edwards, James
Johnson, Dane
Turitz, Mitch
Cherny, Robert
Ferretti, Charlotte
Johnson, Sharon
Vaughn, Pamela
Collier, James
Garcia, Oswaldo
La Belle, Thomas
Warren, Mary Anne
Colvin, Caran
Garcia, Velia
Loomis, Barbara
Warren, Penelope
Concolino, Christopher
Goldsmith, Helen
McKeon, Midori
Wong, Alfred
Yip, Yewmun
Senate Members Absent: Blomberg, Judith;

Nichols, Amy(exc.); Shrivastava, Vinay(exc.); Chan, Jeffery; Boyle, Andrea(exc.);

Elia, John(exc.); Gillotte, Helen (exc); Kelley, James(exc.); Corrigan,

Robert(exc.); Sagisi, Jaymee; Pasaporte, Erin.

Guests: J. Combs, M. Verhey, G.Whitaker,

B. Blosser, R. Olesky, J. Kassiola, A. Hallum

Announcements and Report

Chair Vaughn reached back into her commonplace

book for a passel of passages with a single message: Vote!

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for Meeting of November 7,

2000

The agenda was approved as printed.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting

of October 24, 2000

The minutes were approved as printed.
Agenda Item #3 - Report from Vice President La Belle

Vice President La Belle

brought the senate up to date on the accountability process from the Chancellor's

office, which began with Cornerstones. He first addressed the information

in the

"CSU Accountability Process" handout in the senate

agenda, first noting system accountability variables, then noting the first

nine institutional performance areas (page 4), which must be reported annually,

and areas ten through thirteen (page 5), which are reported periodically.

He then discussed the 27 September 2000 memo from Richard Giardina, "CSU

Accountability Report: Institutional Comparisons," which is an attempt

to see how well we did. La Belle summarized the results as fine on

all the indicators, except, perhaps, teacher credentialing. The point

is for us to set out campus goals.

La Belle then addressed the "CSU Accountability

Process: Setting Campus Goals" document, which states that campus presidents

will propose goals for the performance areas. La Belle offered the

example of time-to-degree. Our dilemma is to decide what our goals

should be in each area, and he solicited input from all. He mentioned

remediation and retention as goals.

La Belle provided background on performance

area eleven, "Faculty Scholarship and Creative Achievement." This

requires a report on what the campus is doing to support faculty scholarship

and creative achievement, like mini-grants. It might include forms

of extramural support. The third element is how to report faculty

achievement. CSU-Long Beach is doing it through the Senate with a

survey aggregated to department level. There are other models, too,

and we can expect a numerical report from the Chancellor's office on each

campus.

La Belle invited consultation on how best

to do respond to this indicator.

Chair Vaughn mentioned that we have this

on the agenda for later discussion today as well as at the next senate

meeting.

Vice President Collier reported on the recent accomplishments

of the Office of University Advancement. Collier first offered a

brief history of university advancement at San Francisco State University,

which goes back to just 1996. The office has been developing a broad-based

program in advancement: alumni relations, development, public affairs,

government relations, community relations, special events, and other activities

like overseeing the University Foundation. The advancement mission

is to foster greater understanding of and support of the institution.

Collier then went into a more detailed discussion

of advancement activities, focusing on development. There has been

significant growth in this area in recent years with components such as

major gifts, corporate relations, planned or estate giving, and the annual

fund. Collier praised the work of Carol Hayashino, applauded the first

million dollar endowed chair, and noted an award given to the development

office, summarizing the trend as one of consistent upward growth.

There has been increased participation among alumni, friends, and faculty/staff

in the annual fund, significant major gifts, and a significant increase

in the university endowment from $6.3 million when he arrived to $20.6

million.

Collier concluded by turning our attention

to the handouts, which included highlights of recent major gifts and charts

on giving. He ended by thanking all for their support.

Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Revisions to A.S.

Policy #F87-32 Graduate Student Award for Distinguished Achievement

Academic Policies Committee (APC) Chair Sung

Hu introduced this consent item from APC who noted two changes from

the version that was discussed two weeks ago: 1) 4th paragraph, c item

is slightly modified with summer graduates eligible either for this or

following calendar year; 2) 5th paragraph: the composition of the college-wide

committee is more specific than before.

Caroline Harnly asked about the 7% who graduated,

wondering if this was undergraduate or graduate. Hu said that it refers

to graduates only.

M/S/P (Edwards, Duke) to second reading.
Robert Cherny suggested the following series

of friendly amendments, which were accepted by Hu on behalf of APC and

Betsy

Blosser on behalf of the Graduate Council: 1) first full paragraph,

substitute "that" for "which"; 2) second paragraph, last line, substitute

"received graduate degrees" for "graduated"; 3) third paragraph, first

sentence, delete "at the time the students are" and insert "to be"; after

the comma delete "it must be assumed that they" and substitute "shall"

in order to read "to be selected the students shall have already distinguished

themselves . . . "; 4) third paragraph, second line, delete "in keeping

with" and substitute "as specified in," and then reverse order of "criteria"

and "established"; 5) third paragraph, second sentence, following "a),"

insert "the candidate has" before "a minimum grade point average"; 6) final

paragraph, delete "given"; delete "nominate" and substitute "forward nominations

of"; at the end of the next line following "each" insert "of the colleges";

in the next line, after "unit," delete "in the college" and substitute

"that offers a graduate program." That sentence will read as follows:

"Faculty from the various graduate programs in a college will forward nominations

of candidates for the award to a college-wide faculty committee consisting

of one representative from each of the college's department/school or equivalent

unit that offers a graduate program."

M/S/P (Edwards, Smith) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the policy was approved.
Agenda Item #6 -Proposed Revisions to A.S.

Policy #S87149 Policy for Articulation of Upper-Division and Lower-Division

Courses

Sung Hu introduced this APC consent item

who noted the rewriting of the policy in legislative language, the similarity

in substance with what was before the senate two weeks ago, and the fact

that only item 1.c is new.

Jan Gregory suggested deleting the use of

the word "enough" in section C as a friendly amendment. Hu accepted that

as a friendly amendment on behalf of APC

Robert Cherny commented that this would mean

removing "enough" from line six of the rationale, a suggestion that was

also accepted.

M/S/P (Gregory, M.A. Warren) to second reading.
Mary Ann Warren complimented APC for their

revision, finding this version considerably clearer.

M/S/P (Bernstein, Hu) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the policy was approved

unanimously.

Agenda Item #7 - Proposed Certificate Program in Meteorology

for Broadcasters

Alfred Wong, Chair of the Curriculum Review and

Approval Committee (CRAC), introduced this CRAC consent item, which

provides certification that students interested in making weathercasting

a career have competed the academic courses mandated by the American Meteorological

Society (AMS).

M/S/P (Duke, M.A. Warren) to second reading.
Miriam Smith asked about the number of potential

students. Oswaldo García commented upon the intent

of the program, summarized the set of courses--a meteorology boot camp--and

replied that there have been eight to ten students in the past but they

are hoping that the official certificate might lead to increased enrollment.

M/S/P (Duke, M.A. Warren) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the certificate program

was

approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #8 - Proposed Resolution on

Core Items for a University-Wide Assessment of Student Opinions on Teaching

Effectiveness

M/S/P (P. Warren, McKinney-Aaron) to approve

this resolution.

Penelope Warren, Chair of the Faculty Affairs

Committee (FAC), introduced this FAC consent item, alluding first to

the written introduction in the agenda and reiterating that this is a resolution

that outlines a process by which a core of items might become part of the

university's approach to gathering and using student opinions of teaching

effectiveness. She pointed out that the agenda provides the latest

proposed set of items, including revised instructions. This document

has been informed by the 1994 senate task force report. The resolution

allows for the possibility of further revisions with additional input and

item-testing. The resolution is concerned with the process by which

any proposed university-wide core might come into use. She added

a correction in the rationale section: please strike the word "the office

of" and "planning and", so that the third line reads: "interim coordinator

of academic assessment."

M/S/P (Edwards, Duke) to second reading.
Midori McKeon raised a concern about the

core questions, suggesting two items that are in the college evaluation

form but not in this one: 1) instructor's expertise or knowledge of the

subject matter; 2) instructor's enthusiasm. Warren reiterated that

FAC is not endorsing this particular set of core items; the process that

they have outlined will include the reception of just this sort of feedback.

Vaughn clarified that we are not setting these particular questions

as the university-wide teaching effectiveness instrument; we are setting

a process whereby other or new questions might form the basis for such

a form. Marilyn Verhey acknowledged that she would receive

comments from faculty. Vaughn commented that it would be important

in the testing process to compare these questions against what colleges

are using.

Robert Cherny shares the concerns of those

particular items but went on to ask about the fourth resolve clause, wondering

about the committee's sense of the sequence of events, which he believe

would be done before being used. Warren said that that is her understanding.

Mitch Turitz echoed the assent and added that the committee would

not be saying how the testing should be done.

Andres Consoli raised a concern about the

lack of a timeline. He also commented that the keys to the scale

should be 1-5 rather than a-e.

Christopher Concolino wanted to clarify that

we are not voting on the form that is here. Vaughn assured him this

was indeed the case.

M/S/P (duke, M.A. Warren) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the resolution was approved

unanimously

Agenda Item #9 - Accountability Indicator #11
Provost La Belle reintroduced this item referring

to his earlier, broader report. The indicator on faculty productivity,

specifically honors, awards, publications, and creative activity, has to

be reported next spring and the question is how does the SFSU faculty want

to be represented in this report. Vaughn

pointed senators

to p. 9, #11 of the CSU Accountability Process document, "Faculty scholarship

and creative achievement." She also pointed to the executive committee's

original response, bringing up as well a couple of examples from other

campuses. This is an opportunity for raising questions and making

suggestions about the nature of the campus's response.

Gregory recalled and lamented the Provost's

allusion to comparative data: the Chancellor swears there should be no

comparative data; the Provost says it should not have happened but it did.

Speaking specifically of item #11, Gregory called attention to the structuring

of the items: the indicators are "campus support" and "outcomes of campus

support," which is not necessarily every laundry list or jotted down paragraph.

This does seem to refer very specifically to campus funding for specific

kinds of faculty scholarship and creative achievement, and we should keep

our focus there.

Cherny first recalled the recently unanimously

passed statewide senate resolution on the accountability process:

"resolved that the academic senate CSU urge the Chancellor to ensure that

campus senates are involved actively in the process of forming and setting

goals and preparing and submitting reports as part of the CSU accountability

process; and be it further resolved that the academic senate CSU urge the

Chancellor to ensure that the accountability report of each campus be signed

by the academic senate chair on behalf of the campus senate or to accept

a separate report from the campus senate; and be it further resolved that

the academic senate CSU urge the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees to

ensure, in keeping with cornerstones Principle 10, that the process not

be used to compare individual campuses or to compare similar programs among

CSU campuses." The Chancellor responded that the only comparison

that interested him was in individual campuses over time, which also alerts

us to a larger process: not just reporting but also goal-setting.

Cherny suggested that the document on setting goals sounds like the president

does it all by himself.

On item #11, Cherny shares Gregory's concerns completely,

and added the additional context of the promise of funding in Title V for

research and creative work as appropriate to the mission. The change

in Title V has never really been funded, and the large share of research

and creative activity takes place without direct support. Cherny

strongly urged that there be a direct relationship shown between the campus

support provided and the research and creative activity that results from

it.

Turitz noted that though the FAR is required

by the collective bargaining agreement, there is no requirement for faculty

to fill out this accountability process. Gregory commented upon the

"setting campus goals" document, especially the notion of "continuous improvement,"

which seems a bit foolish. She added that the values embedded in

such language are things about which we must think.

Helen Goldsmith suggested that part of the

problem is the label for #11. What is should be called is "support

for faculty scholarship and creative achievement"

La Belle picked up from several comments,

first addressing comparability. When campuses first went into this,

each really thought that they were going into it on their own, but when

those lengthy reports were boiled down to two pages and provided to the

trustees in matrix form, comparability was inherent. No one consulted

with anyone with what those were going to look like. We are down

to a data-driven, truncated process. As to #11 specifically, this

campus is in good shape to report the kinds of opportunities available

to faculty, the amount and kind of funding, the number of applications,

awards, etc. When you try to put output with that it becomes very

confounded. It is very difficult to disentangle what the actual source

and its relationship to outcome might be.

Gregory raised a process question with two

questions: who is "us" in "setting campus goals" in the second sentence?

Her next point was that she no longer understands "consultation" since

she believes that it means more than informing faculty. Putting it

more directly, she asked what is the calendarical difficulty that makes

it so hard to bring matters to faculty at the point when consultation might

be productive.

Brian de Vries raised a question of how CSU-support

is defined, wondering especially about the".2" that is not teaching responsibility,

or support things that are in addition. La Belle agreed that this

is a muddy slope. He noted changes over time of how research has

been funded from the Chancellor's office, using sabbaticals as an example,

where the Chancellor's office has no idea what the campus is doing with

sabbaticals. The Chancellor's office role in this category is unclear.

Consoli commented upon La Belle's comment,

commenting that that would make the report a moot point since there is

nothing to account for.

Cherny remarked that time is one of the most

important things for this sort of activity, and one of the things that

CSU needs to aim at is a definition of appropriate teaching load being

9-units rather than 12. We would like to see that standardized and

funded, and we don't want to undermine this goal by suggesting that there

is already an appropriate level of support. One way is to go to the

legislature and say that they have committed themselves to do this in code,

and they now need to fund it. There is a lot of work that goes on

for which there is absolutely minimal campus support if any at all.

Vaughn commented on the "CSU Accountability

Process, Setting Campus Goals" document that this just came to the president.

Given short turnaround, she requested that the executive committee review

anything forthcoming from the president's office. She also requested

that the presidential and provost groups use whatever opportunities they

have to educate the Chancellor, Trustees and the Legislature on what exactly

the world of the CSU is like, and if that means someone other than senates

saying "no" on occasion, maybe that should happen. For senators here,

Vaughn charged them to go back to their constituents and focus their attention

on indicator #11, present the framework of that, make sure that constituents

know what the initial response of the executive committee was, which was

to limit the report to existing support and direct outcomes, and be prepared

to provide further input and information at the next senate meeting.

The Senate was adjourned at 3:40.
Respectfully submitted,
Dane Johnson
Secretary to the Faculty