Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting
of March 5, 2002
Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Vaughn at 2:10 p.m.
Boyle, Andrea (exc), Corrigan, Robert A. (exc), OÃ±ate, Abdiel (exc),
Avila, Guadalupe (exc), Ganji, Vijay (exc), Gillotte, Helen (exc), Rob
Strong (exc), AdisaThomas, Karima (abs), Newt-Scott, Ronda (abs), Bishop,
Guests: Mabel Chan, Beverly Voloshin,
Gail Whitaker, Paul Barnes, Dan Buttlaire, Julian Randolph, Lisa Jordan
Turitz, CFA representative announced
that a tentative agreement between the CFA ad the CSU will be put to a vote
of the CSU faculty between March 17th and 21st.
- Chair’s Report
Vaughn reminded all faculty that there
are three important items that the faculty will be voting on in the next few
weeks. First, as indicated by Mitch Turitz, faculty will be voting on the
tentative agreement between the CFA and the CSU. Second, faculty will be voting
on important constitutional changes to the statewide academic senate constitution.
Vaughn reminded senators that last semester we failed to get a quorum when
voting on SFSU constitution revisions. The SFSU constitutional revisions have
been mailed to all faculty. Please vote and encourage your colleagues to vote.
Turitz moved to amend the agenda to
change item 7 from a proposed resolution on Chancellor Reed to a new resolution
on the tentative agreement.
(Turitz, Terrell) to approve the agenda as amended
Agenda Item #2: Approval of Minutes for
Meeting of Minutes for February 19, 2002
m/s/p (Gregory, Oswaldo Garcia) to approve
Agenda Item #3: report from Coordinators
of Office of Academic Honors and Scholarship.
Voloshin and Mabel
Chan provided the senate with a printed copy of their report. Beverly
Voloshin reported that the university has expanded the resources available
to continuing students seeking scholarships, fellowships, and honors. The
office of Academic Honors and Scholarship has been established through the
Financial Aid office. The Office needs and welcomes the assistance of academic
advisors, graduate coordinators, other faculty member, deans, and student
organizations in identifying outstanding students and helping them prepare
for national competitions. A web site has been created and can be found at
Wolfe expressed his appreciation for
the fine work that has been accomplished and asked how students who do not
have Internet access can find information on the honors and scholarship program?
Beverly Voloshin indicated that articles in the campus newspaper were
being worked on and that Student Services has a large notebook with all the
information in hard copy that can be found on the web site. Robert Cherny
indicated that he is pleased at the beginning of getting this important information
on the web site. He recommended that a permanent staff and office for academic
honors and scholarships at SFSU would be very helpful to our students. He
noted that other CSU campuses have such an office and they are very effective.
Pamela Vaughn indicated that several of her students attended the information
meeting and found it very helpful. Provost La Belle acknowledged
the work that Voloshin and Chan have done and indicated the Gail Whitaker,
office of Academic Affairs, has additionally spent many long hours of work
in support of their work. Gail has been involved with the President’s scholarship
program working with and mentoring students. He indicated that this is only
the beginning and that we need to keep moving and developing our outreach
to students in this area. Beverly Voloshin indicated that SFSU student
demographics indicated that our students seem to be in greater need of financial
help than those at other campuses. We need to reach out and identify academically
qualified students and recommend them for academic honors and scholarships.
Jan Gregory proposed that this information be included on the new campus
web site, that a copy of this information is placed in admission packets,
and that an announcement of the availability of academic honors and scholarships
be placed in the class schedule.
Agenda Item #4: Report from Sheldon Axler
and Gail Whitaker.
Axler and Gail Whitaker, Co-Chairs of the Ad Hoc Committee
on Summer Semester Review and Assessment, provided the senate with an extensive
report on their Fall 2001 report to the President. Sheldon Axler reported that after an extensive survey
the committee recommended that the calendar for Summer 2002 be a 10-week semester
that would include one eight-week session and two five-week sessions. The
committee recommended that departments ensure that their classes are offered
in time blocks appropriate for their subjects. He reported that the committee
found that a university task force should be established to study the feasibility
of moving to a trimester system. Additionally, that the touch-tone registration
procedure that was used last summer remains the same for Summer 2001 with
matriculated students having two weeks to exercise their registration priorities
before classes are open to others. The committee also recommends that the
university continue to monitor the need for transportation including the initiation
of shuttle service. Gail Whitaker indicated that we are working on ways
to identify the unmet demands of non-native students and to formalize the
gathering of that information into the data-gathering process. Additionally,
she will be looking at course that are in high demand through touch-tone and
assess the needs early on to add new section of high demand courses. Academic
Senate Chair Pamela
thanked Axler, Whitaker, and the members of the ad hoc committee for their
fine work on this important task.
Agenda Item #5: Proposed
Resolution on the Hiring of Graduate Teaching Associates (GTAs).
m/s (Gregory, Steier) to accept the resolution
Jan Gregory outlined the
importance of the resolution which indicated that it recommends that department
programs implement immediately the criteria and standards for hiring of GTAs
(Graduate Teaching Associates) as specified in the revised CSU Classification
and Qualification Standards issued on February 19, 2002. Copies of the revised
CSU standards were provided to each senator. The resolution also recommends
that departments restrict hiring of GTAs to those students who have completed
9 units of post-graduate study in the discipline with a GPA of 3.0. Additionally,
the GTA must have taken prior to date of hire at least one course that equips
them with pedagogical strategies for offering competent instruction or can
demonstrate professional experience that qualifies them to teach in the post-secondary
classroom. Rick Houlberg objected to the resolution since his department
hires qualified graduate students in their first semester. Many of these hires
have special technical expertise and extensive professional training that
goes beyond what can be found in one academic class on pedagogical strategies.
Susan Higgins voiced several concerns about the requirement of 9 units
in graduate study. Many of their hires have specialized expertise and their
focus is just a single class that they are very well qualified to teach. Midori
McKeon indicated that graduate students typically take 6 units each semester.
A requirement of 9 units completed would not allow graduate students to teach
until the second semester just prior to their graduation. The requirement
of 9 units completed will cause a serious problem and ask that it be reconsidered.
Lutfus Sayeed indicated that in many cases a students work experience
and undergraduate education make them more suitable than 9 units of graduate
study. Robert Cherny pointed out that the resolve clause allows for
either a teaching course or professional experience. There is a concern that
students with only a bachelor degree would be teaching students who are seeking
the same degree. Normally, a bachelor degree is not appropriate for teaching
classes; however, it may be that they have the appropriate qualification.
The resolution is focused to alert departments to appropriate qualification.
Provost La Belle pointed out three concerns and emphasized that our
concern is good teaching. Jan Gregory pointed out that the resolution
uses language developed in the Chancellor’s office. If you use GTAs they are
going to be supervised by appropriate faculty members. She pointed out that
many people can do something very well, however, teaching is another activity
altogether. Bruce Wolfe asked for a clarification between teaching
assistance and graduate teaching assistance. It was pointed out that the two
are very different. A teaching assistant help a faculty member assigned to
a particular class. The graduate teaching assistant is assigned the class
as the responsible teacher with evaluation responsibilities under the supervision
of a faculty member. Midori McKeon asked if an internship could be
used as a way of qualification? Pamela Vaughn pointed out that the
resolution attempts to implement CSU criteria for the hiring of GTA. The resolution
is a recommendation to departments and it is not policy but can lead to the
development of policy. Mary Ann Warren suggested a friendly amendment
of replacing professional experience with experience teaching in the classroom.
Pamela Vaughn indicated that the amendment is acceptable. Jan Gregory
said that a great many of the problems in the second resolve clause are normally
resolved at the department level. Susan Higgins pointed out that if
we only hire GRA with nine units completed then we would be limiting ourselves
to second year graduate students. Higgins has a great concern that this might
be overly restrictive on departments. Dawn Terrell recommended a friendly
amendment that would change the 9-unit requirement. Saul Steier indicated
that he sees the 9-unit requirement as a problem that would restrict the hiring
of GTAs who are otherwise qualified. Jan Gregory indicated that we
must distinguish between teaching assistant sand graduate teaching associates.
The GTA act like faculty while graduate assistance work with a faculty member.
Pamela Vaughn noted that this has been a very healthy discussion. She
wondered that maybe we are so obsessed hire GTA instead of lecturer faculty
because of the ease with which we can hire GTA? Susan Higgins indicated
that some programs use the position of GTA as a recruitment tool to attract
highly qualified professionals. She recommends that we should leave the hiring
of GTAs to our professional judgment and not use a blanket restriction of
completing 9 units. Provost La Belle indicated that CET took the initiative
last year to encourage departments to have GTAs enroll in a CET instruction
preparation course. He was surprised to find that several departments did
not take advantage of this program. Might want to refer this issue to the
faculty affairs committee and have them come back with suggestions. Miriam
Smith recommends that we refer this issue to faculty affairs. Marlon
Hom recommended a friendly amendment to the second resolve clause to read
a GPA of 3.0 and on full semester of graduate studies. Mitch Turitz
indicated that we have a university policy on the hiring and recruitment of
temporary faculty, why not GTAs? Mitch asked if GTAs were being hired because
it is cheaper than hiring a temporary faculty? This may be another way to
reduce the number of both lecturer and tenure-track positions. He recommends
that GTAs should be hired when it is required to do so by their major. Robert
Cherny suggested that we may be misreading the second resolve clause,
and the first resolve clause only encourages the criteria and does not require
them. Susan Higgins noted that the resolution would most likely be
interpreted at the department level as university policy. She recommended
that the word “suggestion” be inserted to clarify the intent of the resolution.
Jan Gregory indicated that she has strong feelings that GTAs are being
used to replace lecturer faculty. Senate Chair Pamela Vaughn asked
for a vote on the resolution if the second resolve clause were removed and
the issue were sent, as indicated in the final resolve clause, to the faculty
(Remains in first reading)
Agenda Item #6: Proposed Resolution on Inclusion
of First-Term Foreign Language Courses for General Education.
McKeon and Christopher Concolino introduced the resolution
to the senate. Midori indicated that the resolution is a response to a CSU
academic senate resolution that is being proposed that would eliminate first-term
foreign language courses in meeting general education requirements. She indicated
that Executive Order 595, General Education-Breadth Requirements (November
20, 1992), states: “Foreign language courses may
be included in this requirement because of their implications for cultures
both in their linguistic structures and in their use in literature, but foreign
language courses which are approved to meet a portion of this requirement
are to contain a cultural component and not be solely skills acquisition courses.”
from the resolution Midori indicated that first-term
foreign language courses have been recognized as having a cultural component
and have met the standards for General Education-Breadth at San Francisco
State University since 1982. Further, that many
students come to San Francisco State University as transfer students, after
studying foreign languages at community colleges; therefore be it. She and
senator Concolino recommend that the Academic Senate, San Francisco
State University, strongly recommend that CSU foreign language departments
work with community college foreign language departments to ensure that first-term
foreign language courses contain a cultural component. That first-term foreign
language courses taken in community colleges continue to be evaluated on a
course-by-course basis to determine if such courses contain a cultural component
and are therefore acceptable as satisfying part of a student's General Education-Breadth
requirements. Dean Kassiola recommended that it might be a better
idea to work with the community colleges to assure that the foreign language
courses meet CSU requirements. Robert Cherny pointed out that many
of the first and second year languages in the CSU are part of the articulation
number system and that many of the community college are equivalent to CSU
courses. On our campus our courses are acceptable and therefore cannot eliminate
the articulated CC courses. Pamela Vaughn restated that the resolution
is addressed to the academic senate of the CSU. Julian Randolph, retired
language professor, recommended that it is important to work with the CC and
that many the CC language courses use the same textbooks that we use. Additionally,
entering freshman are required to have two years of high school foreign language
course work while transfer students from CC are not required to have a language
course. Marlon Hom urged all senators to adopt the resolution.
m/s/p (Terrell, Steier) to second reading
Provost La Belle indicated that
it is worthwhile that we follow up on Dean Kassiola’s recommendation that
we work closely with Community College Foreign Language Department to assure
that their courses have a cultural component.
m/s/p (Steier, Mary Ann Warren) to close
Voting on the resolution as amended -
Agenda Item #7:
Proposed Resolution on Tentative Agreement.
Vaughn introduced the proposed resolution
from the Executive Committee, which recommends its approval.
in the California State University (CSU), have now been working without a
contract for nearly a year. The CFA and the CSU’s bargaining for a successor
contract has been dangerously adversarial even through the final stages of
the fact-finding process. The California Faculty Association (CFA) and the
CSU have now, after these long and arduous discussions, developed a tentative
agreement for a successor contract for teaching faculty, librarians, and counselors
in the CSU. The Academic Senate of San Francisco State University applaud
the Parties for addressing the numerous and complex issues in language that
will produce more equitable and dignified treatment of all faculty. The Academic
Senate of San Francisco State University thanks those individuals who committed
themselves for many months to the cause of faculty in the CSU and to the larger
goals of higher education in general; and further be it.
(Turitz, Gregory) to second reading
Mitch Turitz, academic senator and SFSU CFA President provided
the senate with a summary of the CFA-CSU tentative agreement.
In the areas of compensation: A 2% general salary
increase (GSI) effective on April 1, 2002. A second 2% GSI effective July
1, 2002. A 2.65% salary step increase (SSI) for eligible effective on June
30, 2002. A second SSI of 2.65% for eligible faculty effective June 30, 2002.
A third SSI increase of 2.65% for eligible faculty effective June 30, 2004.
CSU counselor salaries will gain parity with faculty effective on June 30,
2002. Lecturers without health coverage will receive it effective June 30,
2002. However, all lecturers will receive health insurance effective June
30, 2003. Department chairs that are eligible will receive a stipend increase
depending on their assignment effective June 30, 2002.
other areas: Effective July 1, 2003, if the negotiated compensation increase
settlement equals or exceeds three and one-half percent (3.5%), then a joint
committee shall be convened to determine the specific provisions of a merit
pay program with an understanding that 25% of the compensation settlement
costs shall be dedicated to merit pay in any year when the trigger is met.
The parties agree that any merit pay program developed by the committee shall
have binding appeals of final awards to a committee composed of faculty members.
A pool of money shall be set aside for appeals so that the total amount of
awards including appeals does not exceed the 25% of allocated funds. In the
areas of year-round operations, by the end of 2004, compensation and workload
will be the same for summer as for fall and winter. There is also a “family-friendly”
provision that expands the definition of “immediate family,” “stops the tenure
clock” for one year for those taking a year leave of absence for pregnancy/birth
or adoption of child and paid parental leave increased from current 20 to
30 days, while retaining option of using additional 10 days of sick leave
contract also includes important improvements for lecturer faculty. All temporary
faculty with 6 years of service receive a 3-year contract and no up-front
evaluation. At the end of the 3-year contract, there is improved “careful
consideration” for reappointment. The specific contract language notes:
“Temporary faculty (excluding coaches)
holding three-year appointments shall have the expectation of appointment
to subsequent 3-year appointments except in instance of documented unsatisfactory
performance or serious conduct problems. These temporary faculty will be re-appointed
after a three-year appointment unless there is insufficient work for which
the faculty member is qualified. In the event there is insufficient work to
support the re-appointment at the previous time base, the time base of his/her
successor’s three-year appointment may be reduced to reflect available work
for which the temporary faculty member is qualified.”
Mitch Turitz asked that all faculty
review the summary of the agreement. A copy of the summary was handed out
to all senators. Rick Houlberg recommended against voting for the resolution.
He believes that the CSU administration did not bargain in good faith.
Scott Jerris recommended approval of the resolution and asked why this
year’s 2% GSI is not retroactive to the beginning of the year, July 1, 2001?
Mitch Turitz indicated that CFA had many things to negotiate in order
to achieve an overall equitable resolution. We will get a total of 4% GSI
this year, 2% April 1 and 2% on July 1 of this year. He indicated that he
believes that the CFA faculty and student demonstration were very effective.
Bruce Wolfe indicated that there was good work by the CFA and that
students were actively supporting faculty. He urged all to vote for the agreement.
Marlon Hom asked for a clarification on the section that addresses
the chair GSI. Does it mean that chairs get both a 2% and 7% GSI? Margaret
Henry pointed out that many students participated with us in the demonstrations
held downtown at the Marriott.
(Terrell, Mary Ann Warren) to second reading
(Terrell, Gregory) to close to debate
Voting on the resolution, passed
Adjourned at: 3:50
to the Faculty