Minutes of the of April 29, 1997 Academic Senate Meeting

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

Senate Members Present: Eunice Aaron, Sanjoy Banerjee,
Paul Barnes, Patricia Bartscher, Gerrie Baughman, Marian Bernstein,
Rosa Casarez-Levison, Yu-Charn Chen, Jerry Duke, Ken Fehrman,
Newman Fisher, Helen Gillotte, Helen Goldsmith, Peter Haikalis,
Ann Hallum, Gary Hammerstrom, Caroline Harnly, Marlon Hom, Bonnie
Homan, Rick Houlberg, Todd Imahori, Dane Johnson, Herb Kaplan,
James Kelley, Wanda Lee, Lois Lyles, Hollis Matson, Eugene Michaels,
Abdiel Oñate, Raymond Pestrong, Mark Phillips, Mario Rivas,
Peggy Smith, Lee Sprague, Dawn Terrell, Lana Thomson, Thaddeus
Usowicz, Marilyn Verhey, Patricia Wade, Kenneth Walsh, Mary Ann
Warren, Penelope Warren, Nancy Wilkinson, Alfred Wong, Yim Yu
Wong, Darlene Yee.

Senate Members Absent: Sally Berlowitz(exc.), Joel
Nicholson(exc.), Jennifer Hammett, David Hemphill(exc.), Roberto
Rivera(exc.), Mary Ann Haw, Janet Buchholz, Gerald Eisman, Will
Flowers(exc.), Robert Cherny(exc.), Thomas La Belle(exc.), Don
Scoble(exc.), James Collier(exc.), Robert Corrigan(exc.).

Senate Interns Present: Jaymee Sagisi, Hong Yee
Hoang.

Guests: D. Schafer, N. McDermid, K. Danko, J. Kassiola,
G. Whitaker, V. Thompson, B. Murphy, T. Ehrlich, G. West, M. Peña.

Announcements and Report

Chair's Report

Those Senators who will be serving on the Senate next year were
reminded to complete and return the Standing Committee Preference
Sheet and the Summer Address Questionnaire (attached to the agenda)
on or before the May 13 meeting.

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda

M/S/P (Hammerstrom, Aaron) to approve the agenda as printed.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes

As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved
as printed
.

Agenda Item #3 - Election of Faculty Member to the University
Budget Committee

Kenneth Danko/Accounting submitted his name for consideration.
M/S (Matson, M.A. Warren) to nominate Peter Haikalis. M/S/P
(Houlberg, Gillotte) to close nominations. The vote was taken
and Kenneth Danko was elected.

Agenda Item #4 - Resolution in Support of a 4% Increase in
Faculty Salaries

Vice Chair Rick Houlberg introduced this item. This resolution
mirrors a resolution passed by the SDSU Academic Senate and also
mirrors sentiment on several campuses. He said that the purpose
of the resolution is to make our wishes known concerning salaries
and the whittling away of resources that are being allocated towards
salary. Phillips stated that the Executive Committee recognized
that passage of this resolution may not have a direct effect on
the process, but it would be derelict if the Senate did not make
its position known.

M/S/P (Hammerstrom, Smith) to move to second reading. M/S/P(Barnes,
Fehrman) to close debate. The vote was taken and the item passed
unanimously
.

Agenda Item #5 - Certificate in Jewish Community Studies

CRAC Chair Ann Hallum introduced this item and introduced
Humanities Dean McDermid as a resource. The Certificate
was designed for students and professionals in the helping fields
who may need supplemental materials in community services. Funding
is now in place for an additional two faculty members for the
overall Jewish Studies Program. The additional offering of the
Certificate program will be without any additional resources expected.
M/S/P (Fisher, M.A. Warren) to move to second reading. M/S/P (Fehrman,
Gillotte) to close debate. The vote was taken and the item passed
unanimously
.

Agenda Item #6 - Revision to MS in Physical Therapy

CRAC member Paul Barnes introduced this item and introduced
Physical Therapy Chair Ann Hallum as a resource. Hallum
spoke of the external review advice to make this program in parity
with similar programs around the United States. She said that
the program is rigorous enough to support the designation of MS
and the graduates would be better served when moving into research
positions.

M/S/P (Matson, Fehrman) to move to second reading. M/S/P (Fehrman,
Fisher) to move to close debate. The vote was taken and the item
passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #7 - Proposal for a Certificate in Entrepreneurial
Leadership in Health Care

CRAC Chair Hallum introduced this item but no one from
the program was available as a resource. Marilyn Verhey/Nursing
volunteered to attempt to answer questions about the program although
she is not involved in this specific program. Hallum said that
the program addresses the needs of nurses who seek health care
specific training in budgeting and fiscal planning to adapt to
changes in managed care. This program utilizes existing courses
from the MS curriculum but is offered through Open University.
No additional faculty or resources are necessary.

Matson wondered how entrepreneurship and health care go
together since this is a management certificate. Hallum
responded that this is an attempt to address the needs of nurses
who find that they need to radically change the way they view
people's utilization and access to health care. For example, nurse
practitioners may have to open their own offices and they would
need business skills. Yee reported that when this item
came up in the Graduate Council, it was explained that the program
is looking to place nurse management/administrators to work in
home care and adult day care environments. She also said that
the College of Business and the College of Health and Human Services
agreed that this is an appropriate title.

Haikalis felt that it should be sent back to committee
to make sure the purpose is clearly stated so that students would
understand what the program involves. Schafer stated that
in both CRAC and the Graduate Council it was explained that the
reason to put health care in the title was to make it clear that
this program is not offered through the College of Business. Hammerstrom
felt that this is a good example of cooperation between regular
state supported funding and extended learning that needs to be
encouraged. He asked that since the certificate program is through
Open University but utilizes courses in the graduate program,
does this mean that there is sufficient room in the current graduate
program offerings to allow enrollment by Open University students.
Hallum replied that the program had assured CRAC that there
is sufficient room in the classes for expected enrollment.

P. Warren wondered whether there are similar programs in
other universities and specifically ones with this kind of title.
Hallum responded that many programs do offer these types
of courses in administration and management. This program particularly
addresses the changing needs of Nurse Practitioners who can now
practice independently and may have to open their own offices.
Gillotte said that she felt the objective is clearly stated in
the document in terms of it being an administrative/management
certificate. Hallum also said that she felt it is clearly laid
out within the document what the program is and what courses need
to be taken. Matson stated that on page 2, under section
5, second paragraph, it states that the current program is being
revised from administration management to entrepreneurial leadership.
However, the revision includes revising one course and changing
the name of one emphasis. She asked if this document is the entire
revision. Hallum replied that the change in emphasis is not being
requested at this time.

Houlberg stated that it is problematic that no one who
is in the program requesting the change was present. He felt that
representation from the program was essential to clarify the issues
before it is voted on.

M/S/P (Kelley, Fehrman) to move to second reading. M/S (Usowicz,
Lyles) to table the item until a representative of that program
is present. Verhey stated her support of that motion. The
vote was taken and the motion to table the item passed.

Agenda Item #8 - Revision to Academic Senate Policy #F96-194
-- Performance Salary Step Increase (PSSI)

Phillips introduced this item. The policy revision was
developed by an ad hoc committee and reached consent at the Executive
Committee. At a meeting he attended recently, the head of the
collective bargaining team said that Chancellor Munitz had indicated
that he is aware that the current PSSI policy leaves something
to be desired. He said Munitz suggested the possibility of a faculty
task force to come up with another way to deal with Merit Pay.

Hammerstrom added that the Statewide Academic Senate already
established a task force to look into alternate approaches to
incentive pay and the merit pay system. This task force expects
to come up with recommendations no later than mid-summer so that
they would be useful to both CFA and the administration. The call
from the administration to come up with another group to review
this could lead to collaboration between the collective bargaining
team, the CSU administration and the Statewide Senate. Hammerstrom
said that his concern is that the Senate's potential role in that
may be ambiguous since the Senate does not participate in collective
bargaining. Phillips stated that he is very glad there
is a Statewide Senate task force and hopes that there will be
no difficulty having CFA use the results of the task force work.
He stated that the e-mail address for the task force is majordomo@lists.sdsu.edu.
The Executive Committee hoped to have the revised policy in effect
early to give people plenty of time to complete the process. There
are no major changes in controversial areas such as departmental
role and the role of chairs. There is a significant split across
the campus concerning what the role of chairs and departments
should be in the PSSI process. Phillips said that the goal was
a policy that is more equitable and less confusing. He detailed
the changes, some of which came from FAC.

Pestrong stated that he was concerned with including accomplishments
that were made prior to someone's arrival at SFSU. Someone could
come with an outstanding background and accomplish almost nothing
here. He felt that this process is very divisive and that it is
a competition whereas other merit-based increases are not competitive.
Since the criteria are not that clear or explicit and faculty
are competing against each other for limited funds, it becomes
more divisive. He said that the awards should be based on work
done at SFSU.

Verhey stated that she was on one of the teams to review
denials. She felt that many of the items that the panel struggled
with have been incorporated into this document. Also, she felt
that a lot of the questions that the panel had about criteria
would be clarified by this new policy. She voiced support for
the separate ranking of lecturers and tenure/tenure track faculty.
Harnly brought forth a concern about Section III, the "three
years or since the last PSSI application." Since it could
now be longer than three years since the last PSSI application,
she suggested that it should include "whichever comes first."

M/S (Kelley/Michaels) to amend Section IV to remove the
work 'shall' and reinstate 'may.' Kelley stated that the
deans are unanimous that the shall mandate is unworkable.
He felt that it also works against the fair treatment of all faculty.
If all members of a small department apply for a PSSI, there is
no one in the department to serve on the committee. Also, if everyone
in a department is unwilling to serve on the committee, to have
the dean appoint one of those unwilling people or to appoint someone
from a different department is a real imposition on already over-worked
faculty. Aaron agreed with Kelley. She felt that we are
trying to draft an objective document and while dealing with a
totally subjective plan. She also felt that by appointing faculty
to the committee, in small departments it could be difficult for
faculty to get a fair review.

Houlberg stated that it is a major responsibility of the
deans to manage their faculty. Some large departments do not send
representatives and the remaining committee members cannot necessarily
adequately review the work. Not having members from their own
department on the review committee further disenfranchises faculty.

Phillips said that that last year the Senate voted down
a provision that applicants could serve on PSSI committees but
absent themselves from the committee when their own application
was evaluated. He felt that there are a number of double bind
situations in dealing with this document.

Bernstein stated that she felt the issue is not whether
the department is large or small, but that many people do not
serve on committees because of conscience and should not be forced
to.

McDermid urged the Senate to change shall to may.
From her experience, there were a number of departments where
no one would volunteer to be on the committee even though not
everyone had applied for a PSSI. She felt that it was not the
dean's role to force people to serve on these committees.

Michaels felt that if an individual has the right not to
submit an application, then faculty should also have the right
to choose not to serve on a review committee. He felt that one
should have the right to not participate in the process entirely.

Since the time certain for Agenda Item #9 had arrived, discussion
on this item was temporarily suspended.

Agenda Item #9 - Cornerstones Discussion

Phillips invited Hammerstrom, Ehrlich, and Murphy to be
available to explicate when there were questions and to hear from
faculty in order to carry faculty concerns back in the process
of revision. Phillips set the context of the discussion by saying
that the Senate's feedback is due May 20 and he sees that response
as important. He said that the response document will probably
be drafted by Richard Giardina, Phillips, and Provost La Belle.
He asked for input from the Senate, especially concerning the
Principles portion.

Oñate questioned the four Cornerstones Principles, when
they were made and by whom. Particularly, he was concerned with
the second principle which promises to provide for a growing student
population within existing resources. Ehrlich responded
that these are not new commitments. The Trustees and Chancellor
have stated and reaffirmed these principles for a number of years.
This process is to reaffirm the four existing commitments in order
to be sure they can be achieved.

Michaels felt that there is a massive contradiction about
handling a growing student population without increasing resources.
Since this campus is capped in terms of enrollment, he felt that
this seems to be a contradiction. Ehrlich replied that the long
term aim is for the system to meet the educational needs of a
growing population, not with a flat resource base but with a resource
base that is not increasing proportionately. Hammerstrom
replied to Oñate that these commitments are derived from
the State Master Plan that has been in existence for at least
30 years. The early versions of the Cornerstones discussions called
these non-negotiable commitments, but that term is no longer being
used. The Chancellor and Trustees are dealing with the Legislature
on a plan to ensure that average funding on each campus will roll
over from one year to the next and that new students will carry
marginal costs and therefore will carry new funding. He felt that
we need to do everything we can to provide for students that will
be coming to the CSU and the changing demographics of the student
population. Hammerstrom also felt that this would be a bad time
to change our commitment to providing access to these students.

Yee was concerned about the possible enrollment mix in
graduate programs in the CSU if Cornerstones is implemented. Her
concern was that if graduate education and other forms of post
baccalaureate education are offered through extended education
(which costs the student more) how does this impact on the diversity
of students. Murphy responded that the affirmation with
which Task Force 4 begins is that the role of graduate education
is a central and pivotal role to the mission of the CSU. He said
that the key element in Task Force 4 is slightly different, in
that the massive changes in the economy appear to mean that many
Californians will increasingly need higher levels of career and
life-long learning throughout their lives.

Hammerstrom added that it has been very difficult for the
faculty to deal with the differential fees for graduate students.
Part of the compromise that was reached is that money be set aside
from those fees specifically for financial aid for graduate students
and the funds that are generated go to the graduate programs.
If graduate fees are increased, he felt that graduate students
should see the impact of these higher fees through labs that are
aimed at graduate students and other programs. In cases where
programs are aimed at professionals (for example in business or
physical therapy), he felt that perhaps the programs should be
moved into extended education and those increased funds could
be used to support other programs.

Michaels stated that there can be drastic consequences
by excluding students. He said that academia has been the chief
mechanism in the postwar era of allowing social mobility and allowing
us to become less of a class-based society. He added that if the
state moves toward a fee-based system, if higher education is
funded at lower levels than in the past, if affirmative action
is not supported, and if people who are born poor are prevented
from entering a higher professional status through education,
then that social mobility is greatly reduced. Ehrlich responded
that the people he knows in Cornerstones agree with those sentiments
and encouraged Michaels to strengthen the document where those
points are not stated adequately.

Houlberg asked about the assessment of costs in flexible
scheduling, retiring a certain amount of faculty, and the use
of technology while still handling the increasing enrollment.
Since the costs have not been investigated, he questioned whether
we will be able to deal with the results including workload. He
said that the Legislature is dealing with a bill requiring the
UC and CSU to develop outcome tests of all students and questioned
how the CSU could deal with this potential legislative mandate.
He felt that on this campus we should deal with CUSP and he felt
less inclined to put a lot of emphasis on Cornerstones. Hammerstrom
replied that by having four different task forces each task force
looks at its piece and comes up with recommendations for improving
that piece. In almost all cases those solutions require more money.
To deal with these money problems, he felt that we can either
suddenly amass a massive development effort and get money from
the private sector, or we can become very efficient and do more
with the money we have, or we can convince the people of the State,
the Governor and the Legislature of the value of higher education
and the amount of money we should be receiving. He felt that the
CSU needs to convince the Legislature to fund the system in ways
that support the needed programs. Murphy said that the
first section of the principles statement describes the context
that we think we're in. Principle 10 elaborates the balancing
act between the other 9 principles. He said that one way to read
the document is to understand the context, then start at Principle
10 and read backwards. He felt that the document describes what
is the weaponry to go into a political dialogue with the people
and the Legislature.

Phillips responded that the critical dilemma that he sees
is that there are two primary premises in the document. There
is a major social, technological, political and economic change
that we need to respond to. He felt that the cornerstones document
and CUSP are strongest in this area. The second premise is that
to respond effectively requires money and we either have to raise
money or reduce spending in order to convince the Legislature
to give us more money. The Legislature and the public talk about
accountability, report cards, and faculty productivity. He wondered
how do you respond to that dilemma without further undermining
faculty morale. He said that the document states a clear commitment
to access, but it also provides lots of room to heavily undermine
access particularly if post baccalaureate programs are offered
through Extended Education without increasing financial aid to
graduate students.

Kelley felt that there has been a behavior pattern in the
Chancellors Office to penalize initiative. In principle 9 and
9b on page 17, all the money saved through faculty retirement
is saved centrally and reinvested rather than at the campus level.
He felt that if we are going to be challenged to be imaginative
and creative, but if our successes are penalized, there will be
no incentive to participate.

Johnson commented about Principle 1 and the forms of knowledge
on page 10. He felt that these are not necessarily tied to changing
the institution to demonstrated learning. On page 9, the central
proposal is that the degrees be on demonstrated learning rather
than primarily on credits generated by courses. Within the principle
it is explicitly stated what a graduate of the CSU is expected
to know. He questioned what is behind this explicit list and forms
of knowledge. Murphy said that the notion is that we could self-consciously
commit to the state that anyone graduating will have these stated
forms of knowledge. However, he felt that most of those things
by which we wish to be held publicly accountable cannot be demonstrated
in the way described.

Banerjee stated that the only way he can think of to improve
our assessment method would be to follow students after graduation
to evaluate their success in employment, personal satisfaction,
and their contribution to society. If the university could track
graduates better, then he felt that the feed back could be used
to improve the university in the long run. Phillips responded
that CUSP is dealing with that kind of assessment.

As it was 4:00 p.m., Chair Phillips thanked the panel for attending
and the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Bonnie Homan
Secretary to the Faculty