San Francisco State University Academic Senate

Minutes of April 13, 1999

The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present:

Alvarez, Alvin; Barnes, Paul; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Cancino,

Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn; Consoli, Andres; Contreras, Rey; Corrigan, Robert;

Cullers, Susan; Duke, Jerry; Eisman, Gerald; Fehrman, Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte;

Flowers, Will; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Goldsmith, Helen; Graham, Michael; Graham,

Minnie; Gregory, Jan; Harnly, Caroline; Haw, Mary Ann; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung;

Jenkins, Lee; Jerris, Scott; Johnson, Dane; Kelley, James; Moss, Joanna; Phillips,

Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Shrivastava, Vinay; Simeon, Roblyn; Smith, Miriam; Strong,

Rob; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Vaughn, Pamela; Verhey, Marilyn; Warren,

Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope; Wong, Alfred; Yee, Darlene.

Senate Members Absent: Swanson, Deborah(exc.); Wade, Patricia(exc.);

Craig, JoAnn; Oñate, Abdiel; Choo, Freddie; Bhat, Subodh; Gonzales, Angela;

Shapiro, Jerald(exc.); Elia, John(exc.); Tarakji, Ghassan; Aaron, Eunice(exc.);

Cherny, Robert(exc.); La Belle, Thomas; Scoble, Don(exc.); Collier, James; Montenegro,

Ricardo; Valledares, Juan; Vega, Sandra.

Senate Interns Present:

Guests: R. Houlberg, J. Kassiola, J. Randolph, M. Kasdan, G.

West, P. McGee.

Announcements and Report

Chair’s Report

  • Chair Phillips announced that ballots have gone out for the Academic

    Senate university-wide elections.

  • Rick Houlberg reported on improvements for the Centennial Graduation

    ceremony, encouraging all faculty to attend. He asked that any questions or

    comments be directed to him or Darlene Yee, the Senate appointed representatives

    for the graduation ceremony.

  • Phillips reported on the April 8, 1999, meeting of the CSU Academic Senate

    Chairs. A lot of time was spent discussing various responses to the dispute

    going on with the Board of Trustees and different ways that different administrations

    are responding. Several asked faculty trustee Harold Goldwhite his perspective

    on what can be done to heal the breach, build bridges, or effectively pressure

    the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor. Goldwhite said that the Chancellor

    is held in high repute by the Trustees; he has their support and respect,

    and the Board perceives him as successful with regard to Sacramento and other

    aspects of his job. The Chancellor's one year evaluation said that there were

    few dissenting voices in the chorus of praise. If the Board changes in makeup

    and becomes more pro-union there might be a change. The Board perceived the

    CFA "no" vote as confusing and erratic. He also said that the Board of Trustees

    are not sure where faculty are, so if there could be three or four points

    that faculty could agree on across the system that might be effective. Board

    of Trustee members do read responses from individual faculty, and he believes

    that letters--not e-mail--might be effective.

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for April 13, 1999

M/S/P (Vaughn, P. Warren) to insert new item #3a, Report from President

Corrigan and to make current item #3, item #3b.

The agenda was approved as amended.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for March 23, 1999

The minutes were approved as printed.

Agenda Item #3A - Report from President Corrigan

President Corrigan delivered remarks concerning the proposed resolution to

censure Chancellor Reed.

Corrigan thanked the Senate for the courtesy of appearing, commenting on his

respect, which he believes is mutual, for its dedication, integrity, and seriousness

of purpose, even when on opposite sides of an issue. He added that he believed

it inappropriate for him to engage in or in any way inhibit the debate, so he

would leave at the conclusion of his remarks and any questions.

Corrigan urged us to separate out the issues that confront us, stating that

there is much blame to be shared over the frustrating collective bargaining

process and results. He added that this campus has just awarded 150 merit salary

increases, has also processed GSI and SSI awards, and hopes to offer significant

merit increases to another 450 faculty members come July 1st.

Corrigan spoke against the proposed resolution on the Cornerstones implementation

plan, suggesting that we take to heart the comments made in Bob Cherny's email.

He repeated that his personal goal is to see SFSU become the nation's preeminent

public urban university. He spoke to the obligation to demonstrate to the State

that we hold ourselves accountable and that we are prepared to evaluate and

assess the quality of what we do, and reiterated his belief that this campus

has much more to gain than to lose from participating in the implementation

of Cornerstones.

On the proposed censure of Chancellor Reed, Corrigan first addressed the Chancellor's

comments at the San Luis Obispo Q&A. He remarked that as a full-time faculty

member for 14 years before becoming an academic administrator, he understood

the anger at the reported comments, but added that working on practically a

daily basis with the Chancellor, he has grown to understand the man and to appreciate

his value system, and he has never seen or heard the Chancellor display contempt

for faculty or be discourteous in his assessment of their professional commitment.

Corrigan added that what Reed actually said was the following: "I want to serve

more students. I know that there's about 400,000 net additional students that

want a college degree in the next eight to ten years that are coming out of

the 12th grade, but we'll never be able to serve them if we work abut seven

or eight months a year. You know, I guess, from about 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.,

Monday through Thursday." Corrigan read Reed as asserting that We, the university,

need to be in business 12 months a year. We, the university, need to provide

round-the-clock-service--not the individual faculty member. Corrigan added that

Reed wasn't telling you to get of your duffs and work harder, he was telling

me.

Corrigan went on to say that, though he does not believe the widespread negative

interpretation of Reed's off-the-cuff remarks accurately reflects his attitude

about this faculty, the impact of his comments has reverberated throughout the

system. Reed has apologized for the comments; he has been rebuked by the Statewide

Senate; he has been vilified in various CSU campus senates, and he has been

inundated with vicious and repugnant personal email attacks. The motion today

will simply be added to a long list of similar censures and rebukes, and the

point has been made: "We don't like the contract; we are suspicious of Cornerstones;

we are terribly offended by something the Chancellor seems to believe about

us." Corrigan added that SFSU might be more effective than the rest of the CSU

campuses, using this critical moment to our advantage.

Corrigan provided a historical summary on how SFSU went from the flagship of

the new CSU system under Chancellor Dumke to the campus with the lowest number

of State dollars per FTEs and the highest faculty/student ratio, in part due

to a history of assaults on and confrontations with CSU leaders. He asked if

this situation would change as we join in a systemwide censure of the Chancellor.

He added that, though some believe Reed will not survive the onslaught, he does

not share that belief: this is not a man who is about to turn tail and run;

this is not a Board that is about to fire him. From reading the State's press,

Reed also has the strong support of the public. Corrigan suggested that we suspend

our judgement of Reed and that we allow him to demonstrate in the months ahead

that his is a far different person than heated reports would have us believe.

This will achieve a second goal of sharpening the recognition that this campus

and this faculty have a great capacity to help the system to move ahead. Corrigan

reiterated: "I put my reputation on the line with you when I tell you that most

of what is reported is in error; that this is a man who shares more of the values

that characterize our campus than anyone who has ever served as Chancellor."

Corrigan summarized his witnessing Reed as a supporter of faculty, particularly

when it comes to compensation. He added that it is true that Reed wishes us

to offer state-funded courses 12 months a year, to deliver classes on weekends

and at night, to vary both the length of courses and our delivery systems, things

that Corrigan wishes as well. But neither Corrigan nor Reed has ever said that

our faculty is not working hard at the highest level of professionalism. And

the Chancellor understands the onerous impact of a four-course load, the burden

of oversubscribed classes, the extraordinary strains that an often underprepared

student population places upon us, and the stress that faculty bear as a result

of a desire to continue to be scholars on the cutting edge of their disciplines.

Corrigan added, however, that the State will no longer accept a "business as

usual" attitude on the part of those who would administer the CSU and that we

have to respond with a great sense of urgency to the challenge presented by

hundreds of thousands of tidal wave students. Reed has never suggested that

an individual faculty member's workload should be increased, but he has argued

that each campus had to do more--and called for additional resources to aid

us.

Corrigan asked the Senate to table the resolution until such time as we have

the facts to prove that he was wrong in his assessment and that Reed's critics

have been right. He suggested that we invite Reed back to campus. He added that

we have little to lose by being open and thoughtful and much to gain, including

newfound support of Trustees and repair to the damage done by 30 years of bureaucratic

hostility. Corrigan concluded as follows: "Time will show whether I am right

about Chancellor Reed; in the meantime, San Francisco State University will

have demonstrated its leadership by taking a course of action that can only

do us good, both on and beyond the campus. I believe that both Charles Reed

and San Francisco State University deserve this approach."

Susan Fox-Wolfgramm asked how soon Reed would come if we did invite

him. Corrigan responded that he might be here in several weeks, but we would

have to assure him a reasonable environment.

Paul Barnes asked what President Corrigan's intuitive feeling was about

Reed being reasonable. Corrigan answered that the guy is a linebacker; if you

come after him; he comes after you. When he strays from a prepared text, he

tends not to say things in a way that you would like to hear them.

Agenda Item #3B - University Budget Committee Election

Jerry Duke (Dance) was elected to the University Budget Committee.

Agenda Item #4 - Resolution on Chancellor Charles B. Reed

M/S/P (Vaughn, Fehrman) to change language in the first resolve clause

to read "Resolved that the SFSU Academic Senate rebuke Chancellor Charles B.

Reed; and be it further," changing "censure" to "rebuke."

Pamela Vaughn commented that she had heard from a number of people uncomfortable

with the word "censure," thinking it far stronger than the word "rebuke" from

the Statewide Senate, so she proposes this change in hopes of reaching consensus.

Miriam Smith asked whether we are rebuking on our own or joining in

the rebuke. She added that it is unclear why we are rebuking him.

Vaughn suggested that the above observation be addressed by the original makers

of the resolution.

Jan Gregory said that if you look at the second whereas there is reference

to public insult and disparagement of CSU faculty and a specific example, most

recently at Cal-Poly State University. The record of these remarks and the internal

contradictions of the Chancellor's remarks about institutions and values deeply

important to higher education did not need to be included or it might have gone

on interminably. He has said for the record repeatedly such things as we don't

need tenure, let's experiment and then weeks later saying that he values tenure.

There is a consistent, documented record of other similar comments, including

early on in his administration his belief that California State University faculty

do not really work very hard. We don't need all of these in the resolution.

Darlene Yee suggested that we rephrase the resolve clause to read that

the SFSU Academic Senate endorse the action of the CSU Academic Senate in the

above referenced resolution.

Mitch Turitz quoted from Bob Cherny's comments on this matter as reported

in the minutes from the last senate meeting: "Cherny seconded that this is a

very serious motion. He favored censure at that time and still does, but the

reason for this is not primarily with regard to the contract. Cherny suggested

that we not move this to second reading today. Cherny added that he favored

this motion for actions of our Chancellor for over a year where he has disparaged

the work habits of the faculty. Reed told us at our very first meeting that

we can all work harder. When it was explained to him that we had done so in

the state's financial crisis--we had taken on a higher student-faculty ration;

we had gone without pay increases--on top of what was already the highest work

load of any comparable institution, Reed's response was 'I don't know that there

is data for that,' even though other executives in his administration have done

so."

Paul Barnes commented that last time we met he had said that we were

trying to put fire out with gasoline. He added that he does not support censure,

or confirming what other campuses have said; it's like trying to pick a fight

with your father. We should be more creative and be flagship of the system,

and we are not going to do this by alienating the Chancellor. We are all creatures

of the State Legislature, and we should be getting up to Sacramento and lobbying.

He added that a resolution might be toned down to "deeply offended and disappointed."

M/S/P (Kelley, Fehrman) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the amendment passed 17 to 14 with 8 abstentions.

Phillips spoke against the resolution as amended, stating that he opposed it

less on principle than expediency, seeing no benefit from passing this. He added

that with Reed's tough/fragile personality, if you back him into the corner,

you get nothing.

Jerry Duke spoke against the resolution based on his knowledge of Southern

personalities like Reed's, suggesting that passing this resolution would only

hurt us.

Gregory spoke in favor of the resolution, remarking that the issue has nothing

to do with the Chancellor's character structure. She suggested that we consider

a document that most don't know: Principles and Policies: Papers of the Academic

Senate of the California State University. In a section on collegiality,

for example, it says "the state of mind of participants in collegial decision-making

is an important determinant of the success of the process. Participants should

consider one another as colleagues and should respect each other's individual

expertise and contributions." It also says, "Critics sometimes compare the functioning

of a university to that of private enterprise, but such analogies are misleading.

The basic objectives of a business are to maximize profits, to produce a measurable

commodity at a minimal cost, and to increase market share. A university strives

for alternative and often conflicting achievements. Because of these differences

and because of the special role of faculty and students, decision-making in

a university is a more diverse process than that of private industry. A collegial

approach to decision-making is the means whereby the fundamental values of the

university can be preserved. Its conflicting objectives balanced, and its legal

obligations to the state met." Gregory also suggested that we consider the language

of HEERA, which speaks of "harmonious relations between each higher education

employer and its employees as a necessity." Those relations do not obtain when

the person who we may wish symbolically to view as a father-figure or as a person

with serious character flaws, takes the position about the faculty in the system

he leads that the Chancellor has done publicly; thus, this resolution should

be supported. Gregory addressed Miriam's concern by saying that she would take

it as friendly if someone moved to delete the third whereas clause.

Smith reiterated that this resolution as written is unclear; she added that

she will not propose an amendment to this because she is not in favor of it

overall.

Marlon Hom commented that he feels caught in this debate. The rhetoric

is important in order to send a notice about how faculty feel about this whole

situation, but we should keep some distance. We as individual faculty are victims

in the management/union debate. We need to examine the individual faculty welfare

in this process. He added that maybe we should all vote abstention.

Julian Randolph registered his distress and disappointment because the

Senate has decided not to take the high moral ground, remembering the time when

we could have voted against any merit scheme and rolled over and played dead.

He added that the only morally responsible stand, given the Chancellor's history

and given the fact that when he doesn't have a prepared text he is revealing

what he truly feels, is to censure that individual. He is our spokesperson before

the legislature and the business community, and he is supposed to be supporting

and nurturing our values, and he has not done that. Randolph went on to comment

that the delay in moving on this motion for further discussion has been used

only in an attempt to water it down. He added that memory of the history of

what happened to this university in relation to system provisions is radically

different than the President's. It was not the faculty that caused this institution

to become the victim of a redistribution of resources; the administration was

charged with coming up with the devices to provide an improved dollar per FTE,

and the administration did not do it.

Yee stated that common sense tells us that when someone does something that

we don't like, it is smart to let them know so that they don't repeat the behavior,

and the CSU Academic Senate has done this on our behalf. It also makes sense

to let them know what it is that we would like to see them do, which our resolution

does not do, so I would encourage senators to either abstain or vote against

this resolution.

Dane Johnson urged that we vote for this resolution, reiterating the

statements made above by Gregory and those made in the last Senate meeting by

Cherny, reasons based solely on the Chancellor's actions over the past year.

Reed has been a very poor leader of our system, and meetings with him have shown

him to have a value system very different than that shared by our faculty.

James Kelley urged the Senate to vote down this resolution stating that

he doesn't care about the Chancellor's psychology but that it's an ill-conceived

resolution.

Phillips commented that there are some very different perspectives, and he

urged us to respect those differences. He reiterated that his perspective is

less focused on issues of principle than on principles of pragmatism and his

judgment of human politics, looking for expediency and bridges toward moving

forward. He resented the implication that those of us who oppose this oppose

it because of a flawed perspective as opposed to the fact that we all have different

ways of turning the problem. He urged us to vote against this resolution because

it will not do the problem any good to pass this, and it could do us some good

to say that the message has already been sent.

M/S/P (Turitz, M. Warren) to second reading.

Gerald Eisman felt uncomfortable that the President would speak to the Senate

on this issue, but he spoke against the resolution. He first commended those

speaking for it, but added that he sees an opportunity here to invite the Chancellor

to come here and discuss these issues. He suggested an amendment that retained

the whereas clauses, but does not take the same stance of rebuking the Chancellor

in the resolution, resolving instead to request that Reed come to the Senate,

address us on his views, and stand for a period of questions and answers on

faculty workload in the CSU.

Duke ceded his position on the floor to Eisman.

M/S/P (Eisman, Hom) to amend the resolution so that the first resolve

clause reads as follows: "Resolved that the SFSU Academic Senate request that

Chancellor Charles B. Reed address the Senate and stand for a period of questions

and answers on his views on faculty workload, and related issues; and be it

further."

Vaughn commented that she found the amendment interesting and she likes it.

Gregory remarked that she has had this opportunity here, as we all have, as

well as with the Statewide Senate. The Statewide senators were very clear in

commentary and questions, so if we pass this resolution with this new language,

we need to do more careful homework before he arrives than we did for today.

If we prefer Gerry's language, explore the record, ask hard questions, and leave

open the possibility of later action.

Mary Anne Warren spoke in support of Eisman's motion, seeing it as a

good compromise that notes the disapproval over his comments and puts forward

the suggestion that there can be better communication.

Lee Jenkins stated that she supported the original resolution, but is

open to this new amendment because it is an opportunity to talk to him without

barring us from a future resolution.

Barnes stated that we should have a cooling off period. If he were the Chancellor,

it would sound like an invitation to a lynching.

Smith proposed a friendly amendment that was accepted: to include compensation

in addition to faculty workload.

Hom spoke in support of Gerry's amendment, suggesting that we look at this

with a sense of humor since our Chancellor said that we were a mature campus.

M/S/P (Kelley, M. Warren) to close debate on the amendment.

The amendment was passed.

Joanna Moss remembered that when she was a student here, in philosophy they

talked about the problem between the moralists and the pragmatists; the moralists

would say we should vote for this because we have been insulted consistently

and this is no way to have a relationship; the pragmatists seem to be saying

that this is no way to get a better relationship with the big boss. She added

that she needs more time to talk to her colleagues to know which way to go on

this.

Gregory echoed Joanna's comments, adding that a number of people have said

to me this is to much too soon while many have said that censure is inadequate.

If we are going to do this seriously, this needs to be done right.

Penelope Warren spoke in favor of the resolution as amended. She stated

that the things that need to have been said to the Chancellor have been said

and that a stronger stand would not have made it any clearer. She added that

we haven't exhausted all of the possibilities for establishing a relationship

with the Chancellor, and that, though she appreciates the argument that taking

the stronger stance can be the higher moral ground, this resolution can be seen

as taking the higher moral ground by being the person in the right and continuing

to invite the other person to engage in a respectful relationship.

Marian Bernstein proposed an addition that would give it a more positive

spin: "and to establish a better, respectful relationship."

Eisman did not accept this as a friendly amendment.

Mary Anne Warren echoed Penny's statement, adding that it is good politics

and saves us from looking cowardly.

M/S/P (Duke, Smith) to close debate.

The vote was taken on the resolution as amended, and the resolution passed.

(To view this resolution, click here.)

Chair Phillips commented that he does not believe that (meeting with the Chancellor

in) a large arena is necessarily the best way to improve relations. How the

invitation is extended, the context we establish here, the homework that Jan

spoke of--all this will determine whether it is effective. We also have no guarantee

that the Chancellor will accept this.

Agenda Item #5 - Resolution on the Cornerstones Plan

Jan Gregory spoke on behalf of the resolution. She noted that on page

1 of the Senate Agenda it says, Tuesday, April 13, 1999. When the Statewide

Senate voted to delay further action on the Cornerstones implementation plan,

it did so in the belief that this would be one way it could say clearly this

is an appropriate step for an Academic Senate to take in the face of a chancellor

whose behavior has been insulting and wounding to that senate and other faculty

members. I disagree with some of the statements made by Bob in his e-mail. If

we delay work on Cornerstones for the rest of the semester, we will not set

it back very far, but this is a way of saying that we need to take a break from

those things that we have been doing until someone else stops taking a break

from the things that he should be doing. Another argument is that Cornerstones

has language about compensation and work-load but without reference to the only

organization that is legally designated to address those issues. It would be

a very healthy thing to let Cornerstones rest for awhile while we rest a bit,

grade our papers, and go on about the work we are paid to do.

Duke spoke against this resolution, asking that we look at what the

resolution suggests we refuse to participate in formal discussion of or action

on. He read the 10 principles of Cornerstones and asked which one of these we

shall refuse to do. He added that all of these principles are woven into our

campus strategic plan, the members of the Executive Committee are opposed to

this, and Cornerstones is beneficial to faculty and students.

Bernstein commented that Cornerstones was not initially our document,

but it has become our document, so if we withdraw now, we will lose our chance

to continue to mold it.

Barnes agreed with what has been said and stated his opposition to this

resolution.

Dawn Terrell spoke against the resolution, commenting in particular

about last week's State Senate Chairs' meeting. Dave Spence presented a draft

of the accountability issues, members began to raise questions and point out

problems and then realized that they could not comment. This draft will go forward,

and if we pass this resolution, we tie our hands, and some of the state senators

have realized what a difficult bind this places them in.

Jenkins spoke in support of the resolution because it is part of a job

action, and we agreed we would not participate in more assessment.

M/S/P (Vaughn, Fehrman) to second reading.

Yee spoke against the resolution, stating that it will negate much

of the valuable work of the CUSP process.

Carolyn Harnly suggested that we delete the part on "refuse to participate

in formal discussion" and just keep "action on." This would preserve the possibility

of participation while also stating that we are working without a contract and

this is an overload.

M/S/P (Gregory, ) moved the above as a friendly amendment for the second

resolved: delete "participate in formal discussion of" and read "shall not take

any action on . . . "

Duke commented that if we pass this then we have to decide what we won't take

action on.

M/S/P (Vaughn, Bernstein) to close debate.

The vote was taken on the resolution as amended, and the resolution did

not pass (4 for, 26 opposed, 2 abstentions).

Chair Phillips remarked that this has been hard for all of us and we should

remember that the intent in this room is positive even when we disagree. Please

be respectful and caring in this process.

Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Revision to A.S. Policy #S81-18 - Leaves with Pay

Phillips commented that the reason this is on as a discussion item is

that we think this is extremely important, and we want to get at the issues

apart from positionality, so that maybe we can come up with a proposal which

comes as close to a consensus as possible.

Marlon Hom, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, provided some background.

The current policy on sabbatical leave has fallen apart; it's dysfunctional

at the college level and not being followed at the administration level. We

are trying to come up with a revision that will be agreeable to both sides.

These suggestions have come down to three: 1) maintain the policy as is; 2)

give a percentage to the administration to exercise their discretion; 3) revamp

it in such a way that sabbaticals will be granted only on the basis of merit

of the application. The Faculty Affairs committee found the percentage option

not that desirable, so we are asking the Senate to look at the remaining two

options, while also entertaining the suggestion of whether or not there should

be a university committee to oversee, review, and recommend the sabbatical leaves

in such a way that they will be fair for all, perhaps parallel to the University

Promotions committee, which will provide a faculty voice in this process.

The Senate was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty