Minutes of September 10, 1996 Senate Meeting
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Hollis Matson at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present: Sanjoy Banerjee, Patricia Bartscher,
Sally Berlowitz, Marian Bernstein, Mark Blank, Yu-Charn Chen, Michelle Cheng,
Robert Cherny, Jerry Duke, Ken Fehrman, Helen Gillotte, Helen Goldsmith, Peter
Haikalis, Ann Hallum, Eric Hammer, Jennifer Hammett, Caroline Harnly, David
Hemphill, Marlon Hom, Bonnie Homan, William Hopkins, Rick Houlberg, Todd Imahori,
Dane Johnson, James Kelley, Thomas La Belle, Wanda Lee, Lois Lyles, Hollis Matson,
Eunice McKinney-Aaron, Eugene Michaels, Ken Monteiro, Mark Phillips, Elisabeth
Prinz, Mario Rivas, Anita Silvers, Peggy Smith, Lee Sprague, Dawn Terrell, Lana
Thomson, Thaddeus Usowicz, Marilyn Verhey, Patricia Wade, Mary Ann Warren, Penelope
Warren, Nancy Wilkinson, Alfred Wong, George Woo, Darlene Yee.
Senate Members Absent: Mohsen Naser-Tavakolian, Roberto Rivera,
Mary Ann Haw(exc.), Hamid Shahnasser, Will Flowers, Gary Hammerstrom(exc.),
Don Scoble(exc.), Robert Corrigan(exc.).
Senate Interns Present: J. Sagisi
Interim Parliamentarian: Hollis Matson.
Guests: K. Lilliston, R. Natkin, G. West, G. Whitaker, C. Langbort,
J. Van Kuelen, E. Seibel, S. Bhat, Lois Meyers, Laurie Dorfman, V. Thompson,
P. Armstrong, J. Randolph, P. McGee, M. Kasdan, S. Taylor.
Announcements and Report
- Chair Phillips reiterated several of the comments he made in his
opening speech to the faculty: "We need the Senate to focus on what is
most important... to be clear on its priorities... and not waste weeks and
weeks of time debating the trivial aspects of meaningless policies or trying
to control the uncontrollable. I will do everything within my limited power
to ensure this. I will do my best to function as a leader/facilitator at meetings...
but I expect to be outspoken on my own priorities and pass the gavel when
necessary to do so."
- The Fall 1996 meeting schedule of Senate and Standing Committee meetings,
attached to today's agenda, was identified.
- The coffee/tea envelope was passed for contributions.
- The Academic Senate address list was passed for corrections/additions/deletions.
- Chair Phillips briefly referred Senators to the thank-you note from Bernice
Biggs, President of Friends of the Library.
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for Meeting of September 10, 1996
Bernstein/Matson moved approval of the agenda and it was approved
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting of May 14, 1996
McKinney-Aaron/Gillotte moved to approve the minutes as printed. The
minutes were approved as printed.
Agenda Item #3 - Report from Vice President La Belle
La Belle reviewed some of the highlights of his nine weeks on campus.
He shared his perspective of the campus and its constituencies, identified a
number of faculty grants, program accreditation visits,
and recent favorable newspaper articles regarding the campus and higher
education in general. He also provided his perspective of where the campus was
at this point regarding the CUSP activities, reports, and plans for
the Fall semester.
Finally, he reported that the current FTE is in excess of 20,000 with
the largest out-of-state enrollment in some time of 1300 international students,
and a projection of an enrollment of 20,400 to 20,500 FTE by census date.
Agenda Item #4 - Elections
Parking Allocations Committee -
Nominees for election were: Jack Hodges/Computer Science, Bonnie Homan/BACS,
David Ellis/Mathematics, George Frankel/Accounting, Susan Stark/CFS/D, Ken Danko/Accounting,
and James Bebee/Design and Industry. The votes were taken and Bebee was elected.
Associated Students Legislature
One nominee: Edward J. Burnam, Jr/Ethnic Studies. Burnam was elected by
Board of Appeals and Review
Nominees for election were: Karen Johnson-Carroll/CFS/D and Willie Mullins/Counseling
& Psychological Services. Johnson-Carroll and Mullins were elected by
Joint Transportation Committee
Nominees for election were: James Bebee/Design & Industry and Thad Usowicz/BACS.
The votes were taken and Bebee was elected.
Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Revision to Academic Senate Policy #F95-194
Performance Salary Step Increases
Chair Phillips amplified the background materials. A sub-committee
of the Senate Executive Committee (Phillips, Houlberg and McKinney-Aaron with
advisement from Faculty Affairs Dean Gerald West) drafted a revision to this
interim policy over the summer based on extensive faculty feedback including
the results of a faculty survey. Their goal was to strengthen the policy and
to minimize its damage within the constraints of the CBA and a very short timeline.
Phillips said that all nominations/recommendations from the faculty committees
must be on the President's desk by December 2. Backing up from this date,
the Executive Committee arrived at September 24 as the latest date the Senate
could approve a revised policy. If the Executive Committee is unable to pass
an amended policy by that date, it will have to revert to last year's policy
or risk violation of the CBA. This will still leave only slightly more than
two months for the full nomination and selection process. This timeline also
has mitigated against our making certain changes which were perceived as highly
controversial and thus likely to take considerable Senate time and/or as likely
to add significant time to the review and selection process. One example is
the addition of a departmental faculty and/or Chair role. If this were approved,
it would add a significant new step to this process which would consume considerable
time. Thus, the Executive Committee is recommending that consideration of this
issue be deferred to the next round.
Implicit in this is the Executive Committee's view that this will still be
an interim policy. The Executive Committee did not believe that there could
be a good policy within the constraints of the present CBA. The Executive Committee
feels that although this policy is not the best it could be, it is far superior
to what preceded it.
Phillips then walked the Senate through the major changes in the proposal
and provided background and rationale for changes.
In the discussion which followed, a number of Senators had concerns and comments.
These principally focused on standards and criteria, process and desired outcome,
composition of review committees, a perceived weighting differential between
tenured faculty applicants and lecturer applicants, the role of academic deans
in the review process, and other PSSI review procedures.
Cherny had some editorial suggestions which he will provide to the
Senate Office prior to second reading.
Kelley/Yee moved to amend by removing the last phrase in Section III:
"or the time since the last PSSI application/nomination which resulted
in the awarding of a PSSI." After a brief discussion, the amendment was
Cherny/Imahori then moved two changes in the first paragraph
of Section IV, Composition of PSSI Review Committees. The first change was
to undelete the sentence: "A faculty member submitting... application/nomination."
The second change was to delete the sentence: "A committee member
... Performance Salary Step Increase."
After a brief discussion Kelley/Gillotte moved to close debate. This
was approved and the motion to delete was approved by a vote of 22/17/6.
Yee/Woo then moved that the one-year period of review be one year preceding
the deadline for submission in the year of application. In the ensuing debate
Terrell/Fehrman moved to close debate. This passed and the motion was
defeated by a vote of 9/30/5.
Finally Michaels/Chen moved to delete Section VI in its entirety. Discussion
focused on whether it is preferable for the deans to have an explicit or implicit
role in the process. Others commented that adding a dean review violated the
principle of peer review. Others cited the RTP processes in which the dean has
an explicit role.
This matter was not resolved by the time the Senate adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Secretary to the Faculty