SFSU Academic Senate Meeting
Minutes for September 22, 1998
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Cancino, Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn;
Cherny, Robert; Consoli, Andres; Contreras, Rey; Craig, JoAnn; Cullers, Susan;
Duke, Jerry; Elia, John; Fehrman, Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte; Fielden, Ned; Flowers,
Will; Ganji, Vijay; Goldsmith, Helen; Graham, Michael; Graham, Minnie; Hammett,
Jennifer; Harnly, Caroline; Haro, Roberto; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung; Jenkins, Lee;
Jerris, Scott; Johnson, Dane; Kelley, James; Montenegro, Ricardo; OÃ±ate,
Abdiel; Phillips, Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Scoble, Don; Shapiro, Jerald; Strong,
Rob; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Valledares, Juan; Vega, Sandra; Vaughn, Pamela;
Verhey, Marilyn; Wade, Patricia; Warren, Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope; Wong,
Alfred; Zieff, Susan.
Senate Members Absent: Aaron, Eunice; Barnes, Paul(exc.); Blank,
Mark(exc.); Choo, Freddie(exc.); Collier, James(exc.); Corrigan, Robert(exc.);
Eisman, Gerald; La Belle, Thomas(exc.); Moss, Joanna; Nicholson, Joel; Shrivastava,
Vinay(exc.); Swanson, Deborah(exc.); Tarakji, Ghassan; Zoloth-Dorfman, Laurie.
Senate Interns Present: Marvin Dumon, Happy Dayleg.
Guests: D. Schafer, L. Berry, T. Sampson, T. Jones, G. West,
G. Whitaker, M. Kasdan, A. Barnes, J. Sagisi, G. Dalpe.
Announcements and Report
- Chair Phillips announced that there will be a New Senator Orientation
immediately following today's meeting and a reception for Gary Hammerstrom
following the October 6 Academic Senate Meeting.
- Jan Gregory (English) has been elected Statewide Senator,
joining Eunice Aaron (Black Studies) and Robert Cherny (History) as SFSU representatives
to the CSU Academic Senate.
- There will be a joint meeting of the Academic Senate Executive Committee
and the CFA Executive Committee on September 29, 1998, to discuss collective
bargaining, update contract negotiations, and maintain a united faculty.
- Phillips introduced the two new Senate interns for Fall 1998 -- Happy
Dayleg and Marvin Dumon.
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for Meeting of September 22, 1998
M/S/P (Warren, Duke) to amend the agenda to change Agenda Item #5 to
#5a and add Agenda Item #5b, Resolution on Collective Bargaining.
The agenda was approved as amended.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting of September 8, 1998
As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as
Agenda Item #3 - Report from Statewide Senators
Robert Cherny reported on the work of the Statewide Senate and our SFSU
Statewide Senate representatives. He provided background on the Statewide Senate,
which has 1-3 senators from each campus and deals at the state level with concerns
like those in the SFSU Academic Senate, including curriculum and criteria and
standards on faculty hiring and tenure.
Eunice Aaron is on the Fiscal and Governmental Affairs committee, which
develops faculty recommendations on the budget and on legislation. There are
two committees for which we have no representative from our campus - Teacher
Education and Faculty Affairs. The newly elected SFSU Statewide Senator will
probably serve on one of these. Cherny is on the Academic Affairs committee,
which is responsible for admissions requirements, general education requirements,
and curriculum in general. Each Senator is on other committees as well. Cherny
sits on the following, among others: the Admissions Advisory committee, the
Academic Advisory committee on the California Virtual University, and the Board
of Trustees sub-commitee on Honorary Degrees.
Cherny reported that the Statewide Senate passed two resolutions during their
first meeting of the year on September 9-11. The first is a resolution of
support for the report from the task force on library collections and restoration
of funding for library collections. This resolution recommended that the
$10 million one time supplemental funds included in the CSU budget actually
be used for that purpose. It also recommended that this money be added to future
baselines for libraries. The second resolution concerned the program the
CSU has contracted with the British Open University to develop a system for
speeding up the credentialing process for teachers on emergency waivers.
The resolution specified that the Academic Senate adhere to traditional principles
of faculty control of curriculum and campus responsibility for recommending
students for credentials.
The Statewide Senate heard from Chancellor Reed, Executive Chancellor Spence,
and the team at work on a new technology initiative in the wake of CETI.
There is now a plan to use state funds to accomplish the purpose of renewing
technology infrastructure of the university.
Reed reported to the Statewide Senate that negotiations are underway for a
Compact II to guarantee a stable level of funding for CSU over the next couple
The Chancellor made a commitment that CSU will produce 3,000 more teachers
(from 12,000 to 15,000) by the end of the year 2000 and do a better job of it.
The Chancellor raised questions about the baccalaureate curriculum. Cherny suggested
that it is likely we will see a strong push to reduce the total number of units
from 124 to 120 for a BA.
Cherny reported on the push to find ways to make the higher education process
in California more "seamless". This will involve having a general education
curriculum that makes it very easy for students to move from any community college
to any CSU campus and having lower division classes for majors that will meet
requirements at more than one campus.
The Chancellor assured the Statewide Academic Senate that our Board of Trustees
is not interested in the document on the Association of Governing Board's web
site that is critical of faculty governance.
Agenda Item #4 - Report from the University Promotions Committee
1997-1998 University Promotions Committee Chair Lilly Berry presented
an oral report on the deliberations of the promotions committee, highlighting
items from the 1997-98 annual report. The UPC is a five member, university-wide,
peer review committee that provides a level of review independent of the Vice-President
of Academic Affairs with recommendations made directly to the President.
UPC processed 40 applications for promotion, recommending 10 of 11 for promotion
to associate professor and 20 of 29 for promotion to full professor. The President
promoted 8 of 11 candidates for associate professor and 20 for full professor.
The UPC met 2-4 hours in committee each week during the spring semester plus
homework to review the candidates. The initial review was exchanged with the
Vice President, followed by a meeting to discuss cases where there was disagreement.
A meeting then followed with the President and the Vice President in which the
President took cases where disagreement remained and made the final decisions.
The UPC and the Vice President agreed on 29 of 40 cases initially and 34 of
40 after their meeting. The President followed 33 of the 34 cases where agreement
had been reached. Of the 6 unresolved cases, he followed the UPC's recommendation
on 3 and the Vice President's recommendation on 3.
Berry summarized the UPC's recommendations about the various bodies involved
in the promotions process. The UPC recommended that the Senate address the
following items: 1) normal eligibility (the policy has language for
normal eligibility that mentions MSA's, which we no longer have; UPC has considered
normal eligibility as 4 years in rank and asks that the Senate take into account
what has happened since the policy was passed); 2) the terms "significance"
and "superior" (the policy says that it is the responsibility of the departments
to define the terms "significance" and "superior," but not all departments have
been able to do this. The Senate could provide some assistance in helping departments
define what these terms mean for the discipline, addressing, for example, what
average and minimally satisfactory performance have to do with significance);
3) student evaluation of teaching effectiveness system (there has been
improvement in moving toward a more unified grading scale with more departments
using the same instrument, at least in a single college. The Senate could address
narrowing the variety of quantitative analysis); and 4) confidentiality
(this report did not include detailed tables because this could violate confidentiality
UPC recommended that people at all different levels of review make an effort
to locate, study, and understand the policy and then apply it. It is in the
faculty manual as an appendix.
UPC saw some improvement last year in the review letters, but there is still
need for more improvement. Departments and Colleges need to understand the promotional
profiles as described in the policy and make better attempts to use the evaluation
terminology. Close attention needs to be paid to standards (these are higher
for full professor than associate) and candidates should be evaluated against
others within rank, not by length of time served. Review should be restricted
to in-rank activities. Berry also stressed that the candidate must be actively
involved in the promotions process.
Mitch Turitz asked about the original reasoning for 4 MSA's versus 4
years. Berry replied that it was a carryover from the earlier promotion policy.
Turitz added that Patricia Bartscher told him that the MSA language is in the
collective bargaining agreement and wondered if we can change the faculty manual
if it's not in the CBA. Gerald West said that the practice of the university
has been to consider it as 4 years.
Robert Cherny suggested that we owe a great debt to the UPC, which put
in enormous amounts of time and makes sure that the faculty role in the process
is maintained. Cherny commented on the summary of results, noting that of 95
faculty members who were automatically eligible, only 25 requested performance
review, which means 74% did not request promotion. He added that we know little
about why they did not seek promotion, but it should be clear from this that
anyone who says that promotion is automatic at SFSU is absolutely wrong, as
that is a very large number of people not seeking promotion.
Cherny emphasized another point from the report - the importance of departments
specifying the expectations of the discipline. He explained that one of most
basic assumptions of faculty governance is that it is the specialized knowledge
of the faculty that allows them to undertake the writing of curriculum and the
determination of the qualifications of those teaching that curriculum. Departments
are closest to the expectations of the discipline, and departments are best
qualified to determine what the expectations of the discipline are for promotion;
therefore, it is important that departments take that responsibility seriously
and that administrators respect what departments have said.
Cherny asked about a couple of ambiguous sentences from the section of the
report on recommendations for all levels of review: "personally disagreeing
with the policy is not a good reason for failing to apply it" and "it is only
right and fair to the candidates that all who are involved in the decisions
commit themselves to the standards defined in the policy." He wondered if the
committee was trying to say that someone who disagrees with the policy is not
applying the policy but other standards. Berry replied that the committee felt
that was true to some extent. Some candidates were being held to some standard
that was not what was defined in the policy itself, which might be a way of
discounting the policy. Berry stressed that what we really need to do is make
sure that everyone involved in the review process be very clear what the policy
requires of us, which does not give us leeway to make up our own standards.
Jim Kelley commented on the 70 who did not apply: it is a cumulative
70, and some have declined for twenty years, so it has to be compared to the
800 or so tenure-track faculty and not the 95. Berry added that one of the reasons
that people don't ask for consideration is that some think they might not meet
the standards. Another disturbing thing is that some people decline because
of the amount of work to put the dossier together.
Jerry Duke commented that in the promotions process at the department
level, it was not always clear what the responsibilities of candidates are with
regard to the committee. Duke suggested that this be spelled out somewhere.
West explained that departments have the option or responsibility of meeting
with faculty who will be considered for RTP in the spring semester preceding
the semester in which they will be evaluated, but faculty constantly call to
say no one has spoken to them. West added that it is the responsibility of the
department to meet with that faculty member and inform them of the procedure,
allowing them ample time to assemble materials for RTP. It is also the responsibility
of the department to gather those pertinent materials to include in the working
personnel action file. West concluded that most departments do a very good job;
there are a handful of departments that do a very poor job, which must be addressed
by the colleges. Berry added that the UPC conducts a series of meetings with
colleges and also does its own informational meetings for the benefit of candidates,
which were fairly well attended.
Phillips seconded Cherny's comment on the importance of UPC. He commented on
the image that has been created that the volume of the file has some influence
on the outcome in promotions. He stressed the important role of the committee
in dialogues with the President and Vice President in terms of policy interpretation.
Phillips suggested two areas that could use further research: 1) faculty who
could but do not apply for promotion; and 2) what takes place in the dialogues
among the President, Vice President, and UPC. He added that knowing where the
areas of tension exist between this interpretation of the policy and that interpretation
tells us a lot about some of the issues in terms of the award system of campus.
He concluded that it speaks well to the process that there is ultimately 90%
Phillips also addressed the question of how much has to do with revisions needed
in the policy and how much has to do with procedure. Too specific a policy can
be rigid with harmful side effects; if too vague, it is very easy for people
all along the line to have different interpretations. FAC is wrestling with
the question of how much of the policy needs to be changed. Last time it took
almost 4 years from opening up to rewriting the policy. Phillips added that
our leaning has been to address clear problems without revising the whole policy.
Turitz raised a question about RTP committee membership where, according to
the faculty manual, faculty being considered for promotion are ineligible to
serve on tenure committees. He asked about changes for departments where HRT
committee and promotion committee are separate such as the library. Phillips
responded that an ad hoc committee is dealing with the library aspect and that
the larger question will be referred back to FAC.
Agenda Item #5A - Report from California Faculty Association Chapter President
SFSU CFA Chapter President Margo Kasdan introduced Terry Jones, President
of the CFA. Terry Jones urged faculty to come together in the spirit of
unity and work through this moment of impasse to bargain for a fair contract.
Tim Sampson, CFA Statewide Contract Campaign Chair, reported on the
current bargaining situation. He provided historical background on Chancellor
Reed's actions prior to impasse. Reed sought a 1% augmentation in compensation
funds from the Governor without asking for CFA consultation. He then asked for
CFA support but said that he would tell the governor that CFA accepted this
money for the merit pay pool, which was not the case. Sampson added that Reed
met with key legislators and said that he would find an extra 1% to make 6%
total to settle contract, but Reed never made that proposal at the table. The
chief management bargainer gave a take it or leave it offer of 5%, which has
persisted to this day.
Sampson stated that management maintains the position that since there was
no contract on July 1, they will not pay retroactively. The union will fight
Sampson addressed current non-financial issues of the bargaining. On workload,
management wishes to remove even limited restraints and standards. Management
continues to wish to remove department chairs from the unit and the bargaining
agreement. On lecturers, CFA is seeking progress on step increases, multi-year
contracts, and benefits for more lecturers, and management has not been willing
to move on those issues. Sampson added that CFA maintains that counselors be
treated as faculty. On family leave and domestic partner benefits, the university
has been intransigent, but there has been some informal progress on a decent
maternity and paternity leave. On the Faculty Early Retirement Program, the
management wishes to cut it from 5 years to 2.
Sampson also explained the current merit pay situation. In extending the current
contract, parties agreed that the current PSSI program was dead and would not
be implemented, and that merit pay will have to be agreed upon in bargaining
for this year; however, management's present proposal is that everyone would
have to be considered with no constraint or appeal process and then the president
would decide with double the money for these awards.
Sampson outlined the current proposals on salary. The CFA has a 6% package
on the table, which is very reasonable given CSU's financial situation. This
would amount to 3.9% across the board. The management offer is 2.5% for a general
increase. The CFA is pushing for at least a 1 step increase for all eligible
for SSI, a 2.4% step. The management offer is a little more than half a step.
The balance of the money, after some addition to chair stipends and bringing
counselors to parity, would go to merit pay with management insisting on 40%
of the package to merit pay. This is the pattern that CSU is pressing on all
employees. The CFA proposal breaks new ground in linking merit pay to the RTP
process with its protections of due process and with expectations that the president
will ordinarily follow faculty in these decisions. The CFA proposal also has
the feature of "shares" where all of those judged worthy of merit increase would
be divided into the money available for merit increases, which would spread
merit pay more fairly among more people. The Chancellor's counter is to spread
it to more by increasing the money to merit pay, 40% versus the CFA's 22% of
the total package, and management has not agreed to linkage with RTP.
Sampson concluded with some reminders on the impasse process. It is a statutory
process, working with a mediator, and bargaining continues. Details cannot be
disclosed unless specifically agreed upon. If mediation fails, the mediator
certifies the impasse to fact-finding, where a recommendation is made, but the
management can impose their last formal offer, which seems to be their current
goal. Sampson asked the Senate to consider and pass the resolution, write the
Chancellor, pass around petitions, and get involved with politics.
Agenda Item #5B - Resolution on Collective Bargaining
Dawn Terrell introduced this consent item from the Senate Executive
Committee, which was developed in part in response to several Senates bringing
forth similar resolutions. Phillips commented that there were four from CFA
and the Executive Committee was involved in coming up with a resolution that
was not personalized, not accusatory, but that could help in the process of
representing us as a unified faculty. There is an impression in Long Beach that
the low number of faculty in CFA reflects a significant schism in the faculty,
and that image of a split faculty is part of what drives the power of the administration
in the collective bargaining process. This resolution is introduced not as a
CFA resolution but as an effort to represent a unified faculty on issues that
we think are critically important.
Scott Jerris asked for clarification in the second resolve of the clause
"including a guarantee of the maximum increase." Margo Kasdan replied
that this refers back to the promise of 6%.
M/S/P (Cherny, Fehrman) to move to second reading.
M/S/P (Cherny, Duke) to amend the resolution as follows:
Add a first whereas that reads as follows: "Whereas the quality of education
available in the CSU rests in major part on the ability to attract and retain
high quality faculty members and to maintain a positive sense of morale among
the faculty" and change the third whereas clause to read as follows: "Whereas
the existence of this salary gap has a negative impact on the hiring and retention
of a high quality faculty and on faculty morale more generally, therefore be
it ". Strike the next four whereas clauses and go directly to the resolved clause:
"Resolved that the San Francisco State University Academic Senate call on CSU
management and CFA to 1) commit in writing to the faculty a plan to fully address
the faculty salary gap over the next three years; 2) provide at least one full
step (2.4%) for an SSI for all eligible faculty," striking the old #1 and #3
and striking the entire second resolved clause.
Cherny explained that he is trying to clarify with his amendments why we as
an Academic Senate are involved in this. As our bargaining agent, it's up to
CFA to determine what the faculty position is in bargaining. Our Senate role
is protection of the curriculum and protection of the quality of faculty, and
salary is related to that. However, to make clear why we as a Senate are involved
in the collective bargaining process, we have to tie it to our role as a Senate,
which the first amended whereas's are meant to accomplish. We leave the details
to the CFA. It is appropriate for us as a Senate to endorse both sides that
they get together and do something. Kasdan asked if adding to the first resolved
that Senate calls on CSU management and CFA to commit in writing to a salary
gap plan and to provide a step increase doesn't ask of CFA things that are not
part of its role.
Sampson saluted Cherny's additions in the initial whereas's but spoke against
taking out the details in the whereas clauses and against the position that
the Senate does not have business entering this fray. He added that it must
be made clear that faculty speaks in one voice on these matters, that we insist
on 6%, and that we will not put up with putting it all in merit pay. The CFA
needs the support of this and other Senates, and Cherny goes too far in his
separation of roles.
Phillips urged a vote against the amendment, but suggested that someone
reintroduce the amendment with regard to the whereas clauses. He added that
there is an on-going dialogue about the Senate and CFA roles, but this is one
of those cases where it is important to send a message of unity.
Penelope Warren concurred with Phillips and stressed the importance
that this resolution make it clear that we understand the position that CFA
is taking and our endorsing that because the initial motivation on this is to
counter the notion that the faculty is somehow significantly divided on these
issues. Warren added that she wanted this to be a resolution that comes down
strongly that we are together on these issues, and she hoped that Cherny would
reintroduce his amendments on the whereas's and that we would defeat this as
M/S/P (Ferhman, M. A. Warren) to close debate.
The amendment was defeated.
M/S/P (P. Warren, Terrell) to amend the resolution with the additions
suggested by Cherny in the whereas clauses.
M/S/P to close debate.
The amendment passed.
M/S/P (OÃ±ate, Craig) to amend the resolution as follows:
Change the first clause of the first resolved to read as follows: "Resolved
that the Academic Senate of the SFSU endorses the CFA proposal and calls on
management . . . [the rest as written]."
Marlon Hom asked how this affects the second resolved.
Patricia Bartscher commented that this kind of action by the SFSU Academic
Senate, which includes students and administrators as members, puts us in a
Cherny agreed with Bartscher on this point. He added that Phillips and others
have said that there is a widespread perception that the faculty is divided
and we need to show unity. Cherny has heard the message wondering why the Senate
and CFA always speak with the same voice, which suggests that the closer the
Senate is to CFA, the more likely we are to be ignored. Cherny underscored different
responsibilities for the Senate and the CFA roles. He endorsed faculty unity
and support but questioned whether a Senate resolution was the best form.
Phillips commented that the amendment is unnecessary and may divide us; he
asked that we vote against the amendment.
M/S/P (P. Warren, Duke) to close debate on second amendment.
The amendment was defeated.
M/S/P (P. Warren, Vaughn) to close debate on the resolution.
The resolution on collective bargaining passed without dissent. (To
view this resolution, click here.)
Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Revisions to Academic Senate Policy #S93-184 - University
Development Priorities Committee Statement of Responsibilities
Deferred to October 6, 1998, meeting.
Agenda Item #7 - Report from the Student Center Governing Board
AimeÃ© Barnes, chair of the Cesar Chavez Student Center Governing
Board, Jaymee Sagisi, Renovations chair for the Student Center, and Guy Dalpe
updated the Senate on plans to renovate and expand the Cesar Chavez Student
Barnes reported that the Board of Trustees approved the project and that it
is moving forward even though bids came in over the estimate. She sought support,
advice, and input about how to better communicate with students during the next
18 months of construction. She added that the contract will be signed in early
November with construction beginning in early January. The building will be
open, but it will not be open like it is now.
Sagisi emphasized the need for cooperation and added that the expansion committee
is now addressing concerns that the campus will have during the next 18 months.
Guy Dalpe outlined the work that would be going on, which will definitely impact
the campus: putting a new story on the building, and renovating interior areas
for safety to meet ADA requirements and general earthquake upgrades. The staging
will be primarily on the north side of the building with some done in Lot 4
between the Library and the Franciscan building with a new road to connect these
areas. The goal is to have maximum access with the center open. Dalpe added
that any suggestions would be appreciated.
The Senate was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Secretary to the Faculty