Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting
of October 9, 2001
The Academic Senate was called
to order by Chair Vaughn at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Aaron, Eunice Alvarez, Alvin Avila, Guadalupe Bartscher, Patricia Bishop, Anna Blomberg, Judith Boyle, Andrea Cherny, Robert Collier, James Colvin, Caran Concolino, Christopher Consoli, Andres Corrigan, Robert |
Cullers, Susan Daniels, Robert Duke, Jerry Edwards, James Fung, Robert Gerson, Deborah Gregory, Jan Harnly, Caroline Henry, Margaret Higgins, Susan Hom, Marlon |
Houlberg, Rick Hubler, Barbara Jerris, Scott Kassiola, Joel La Belle, Thomas Langbort, Carol Levine, Josh Luft, Sandra McKeon, Midori Moallem, Minoo Nichols, Amy Raggio, Marcia |
Sayeed, Lutfus Scoble, Don Shrivastava, Vinay Smith, Miriam Steier, Saul Su, Yuli Terrell, Dawn Turitz, Mitch Vaughn, Pamela Warren, Mary Anne Warren, Penelope Yip, Yewmun |
Senate Members Absent: Oswaldo Garcia (exc.); Abdiel Oñate (exc.); Rob Strong (exc.); Thomas LaBelle (exc.); Karima Adisa-Thomas (abs) Ronda Newt (abs) James Collier (abs); Marv Friedman (abs); Velia Garcia (abs), Bruce Wolfe (abs). |
Guests: Debbie Masters, LaVonne Jacobsen, Paul Barnes, Gail Whitaker,
Jerry Combs, Ron Compesi, Shannon Perry
Announcements and Reports
·
Chair Vaughn, reminded all senators to speak clearly into the microphone. Additionally, if
a senator wishes to be recognized please raise your nameplate high so the
Vice Chair can easily see it. Once the Vice Chair sees your nameplate then
your name will be placed on the speakers list.
Vaughn reminded the campus community that during
this stressful time to keep in mind maintaining open communication, protection
of freedom speech and maintain respect for one another. If that means giving
one another a little space now and then we will need to do that too. Professor
Davis, current director of Inter Arts Center, is out of the country at a conference
and he has requested that the discussion of discontinue of IAC be moved to
the senate meeting of the 23rd. There were no objections.
Chair’s Report
- There was no Chair’s Report, as the
Chair wanted to launch into business as quickly as possible.
Agenda Item #1 - approval
of the Agenda for October 9, 2001
Professor Marsha Melnick, immediate
past Chair of the University Sabbatical Committee, was called away to a conference
and will not be here today to present the committees’ report. The agenda amended
to remove item 5. .
M/S/P (Duke, Shrivastava) to
amend the agenda
Agenda Item
#2 - Approval of Minutes for September 25, 20001
Mary Anne Warren
requested that when senators have duplicate last names that their first name
initial be used to distinguished between the two.
The minutes were approved and the suggestion accepted.
Agenda Item
#3 - Report from Debbie Masters, University Librarian, and LaVonne Jacobsen,
Acting Head of Collection Management Services
Debbie Masters spoke from and provided each senate member
a two-page summary of the space and collection management issues at the J.
Paul Leonard Library. Masters addressed the three issues of (1) library
renovation project, (2) library collection strategies, and (3) faculty role
in collection development policy. Masters announced that there is a
plan to expand and renovate the library building, which will allow for 50%
more space, add an advanced Automated Retrieval System (ARS), and provide
additional space to bring on campus the Sutro Library and the Labor Archives
and Research Center. Masters outlined that the present library does
not have sufficient space for the growing collections, which means the need
to relocate or remove 30,000 to 34,000 volumes annually, or the equivalent
number of volumes to what we add. She announced that contingent on the successful
passing of a bond measure to fund the project, a library addition should
be completed by July 2006 and renovation of the existing building by September
2007. Masters indicated that the big problem facing the library is
the need to manage existing space for the next five to six years while still
improving and updating the collection. Masters announced that in the
past the library has added more stacks to accommodate the increases in our
collection; however, we have run out of load-bearing space without further
diminishing the already inadequate space for students to study. Masters
discussed the increased use of selected electronic format for many publications,
which provides simultaneous, remote, 24x7 delivery of full text without requiring
on-site shelf space. The library staff is also pruning our collection, to
eliminate materials that are obsolete, outdated or materials that may be misleading.
She outlined two other options, use of off-site storage and off-site shelving.
Masters indicated that the library is storing bound volumes of periodicals
that are available in electronic format or through Document Delivery Services.
A new project is off site shelving, not storage. There is excess capacity
in the ARS at the new library facility at Sonoma State University. SFSU can
use this space as off-site shelving using the electronic retrieval process
called “Link +”. With this electronic retrieval system a person can request
a book from off-site collections and have it delivered within a couple of
days. A library faculty member is assigned to each department. The library
has been and will continue to work very closely with the Academic Senate Library
Advisory Committee. The committee meets monthly and is chaired by James Smith
from the department of Mathematics. Lastly, senators Mitch Turitz and Caroline
Harnly represent the library on the Senate. Masters ended her presentation
and asked faculty to stay in touch with their library liaisons, and keep informed
by reading the library Web site.
LaVonne Jacobsen, acting Head of Collection Management Services,
reported on the anticipated schedule for the library building expansion and
renovation; the collection management projects and strategies to enable management
of collections within the current building until we have additional space;
and the role of faculty in collaboration with library faculty liaisons in
reviewing and updating collection development policies that will guide selection
of collections for these projects. Jacobsen spoke from and provided
each senate member a two-page summary titled: the J. Paul Leonard Library,
Moving Beyond the Walls: Your Library Collections. Her report included information
about materials in electronic format or the “The Digital Library”. Jacobsen
emphasized that the library still considers subscriptions to new print journals.
She reported that document delivery requests or materials not owned at JPLL
are very fast now; most requests for documents are delivered in just a couple
of days. Jacobsen and library faculty liaisons will involve faculty
in the selection of materials that will be transferred to Sonoma State. She
has begun discussion of pruning and off-site transfer of the collection with
faculty liaisons in a few departments and will continue to add departments
until all have been consulted. The underlying principle in the selection process
is to determine what the curriculum requires, and what materials provide information
that is necessary for students, including graduate students. Jacobsen
also noted that the prediction for future direction of the curriculum and
the establishment of new curriculum all require new library acquisitions and
these needs must be communicated to the library. In this regard Jacobsen
has initiated closer library work with those departments who are in the process
of program review. She outlined that when the library prunes its collection,
criteria include materials that might be obsolete, little used, and in poor
condition. No one factor has priority, and some criteria vary by discipline.
Jacobsen outlined that in the process of pruning, that the library
will rely heavily on the library liaison to faculty and the faculty in particular
departments and disciplines. She outlined that the process will take 3-5 years
and not all departments will be participating at the same time. There will
be several stages to this process.
Helen Gillotte thanked Masters and Jacobsen for taking
the time to provide us with information on this process. Gillotte asked
if any items had been moved to Sonoma this past summer and if items were moved
were departments informed about the transfer? Masters indicated that
the library looked at a pilot project this summer to test how well it would
work to send volumes to Sonoma. They identified a group of older MA theses
that had not circulated in ten years to use in the pilot to send to Sonoma.
However, we were not able to send these because of technical difficulties.
Masters assured all senators that anything that goes to Sonoma is retrievable
in a couple of days. Masters asserted that SFSU retains ownership of
everything we send to Sonoma and can bring it back when we want. Jacobsen
added that if a department requested that a particular MA theses remain on
the shelf then we will do that. Anna Bishop asked how is the library
going to control the use of digital journals and will students be included
in the library review of the collection? Masters indicated that our
electronic journals are governed by contracts signed between the library or
the CSU and the journal or provider. Students are part of the SFSU community
and authenticated to access the electronic journals under the contract. What
individual users choose to abstract and use is up to the individual students
and faculty members. Jacobsen reported that the library has access
in electronic form to over 4000 journals. Masters responded that while
the library relies on faculty for review of the collection, she sees a much
larger role for students in the development of plans in the expanded and renovated
library. Masters stated that the library planning process is open to
students’ ideas and the she looks forward to working with the Academic Senate’s
Student Affairs Committee. Midori McKeon indicated that from her experience
there has not been enough consultation between faculty and the library. McKeon
asked how the selection process for pruning the library collection is targeted?
Masters encouraged all faculty to work more closely with their library
liaisons. She stated that the library does not target a number of items to
be removed, but looks at each department and the totality of the volumes in
relations to the curriculum needs. The library has a responsibility to remove
obsolete titles that can give inaccurate or even dangerous information. We
have many approaches to keep collections current. Master stated that
the library faculty are pruning the collection in a continuous and systematic
way. McKeon restated her concern that faculty who are specialists in
their field need to be consulted on any change in the library collection.
Masters responded and outlined the important role that the library
department liaisons play in the development and maintenance of the library
collection and encouraged faculty to develop a close relationship with their
library liaison. Rick Houlberg asked if the library was adding more
faculty/staff to help students who need assistance with electronic retrieval.
Masters indicated that the library faculty and staff welcome any suggestions
from faculty and students on how we can serve them better. The library’s reference
desk is staffed whenever the library is open; there is a search help laboratory
on the fourth floor, and the library sponsors drop in workshops on electronic
resources for students and faculty. Masters reported that all library
faculty have office hours that are open to students and faculty. Mitch
Turitz reported that there is also email reference available to faculty
and students. Masters indicated that during this time period it is
especially important that all members of the academic community share their
ideas with the library faculty and staff.
Agenda Item #4 - Report from the University Promotions
Committee
Ron Compesi, Chair of the 2001-2002 University Promotions
Committee presented the report from last year’s committee. A copy of the report
was provided to all senators. Compesi was standing in for Larry
Medcalf who was chair of last years UPC but could not make the report
due to a class conflict. Compesi speaking from the report indicated
that of the 51 files received by UPC, 20 of 24 were recommended for promotion
to associate professor and 17 of 27 were recommend for promotion to Professor.
UPC and the Provost were in agreement on with 46 out of 51. Compesi
reported that the departments and deans supported not all the cases that came
up. He reported that UPC is concerned with the large size of the promotion
files received, and that candidates should be encourage to focus on relevant
materials and work to weed out documents that do not add support to the promotion
profile. Compesi indicated that UPC was pleased to find that all levels
of the review were using the language, as found in the promotion policy. Compesi
reported that UPC has several areas of concern. First, the data that was
reported under student evaluation of teaching often is not put into context,
and balanced with other measures such as peer review. Second, peer review
of faculty teaching, especially those candidates for the rank of professor,
is often not being documented in the years leading up to the year of promotion.
Third, there appears to be less rigor in the peer review process for associate
to professor than for assistant to associate. Compesi recommend that
this third item needs some discussion. Fourth, UPC is concerned that department
evaluation of research and creative is not being put into context that describes,
interprets, and evaluates the work that is being done. Fifth, electronic media,
(World Wide Web, internet activities), and electronic publications need to
be explained and evaluated by the department. Compesi reported that
the members of UPC were very impressed with the quality of work that is being
done here at SFSU.
Rick Houlberg asks how many of those who were eligible
for promotion actually applied? Compesi stated that the data was not
available to the committee. Mitch Turitz said about twenty five percent
were not promoted and asked how that percentage compared to previous years?
Compesi reported that he did not know if that number was high in comparison
with previous years and indicated that not all candidates came to UPC with
a positive recommendation from their department and deans. Houlberg
offered that the high percentage might have to do with the larger number that
went up for promotion this year in comparison with previous years. Scott
Jerris asked why faculty who were denied promotion did not receive information
on why they were denied beyond statements of insufficient evidence to support
promotion? Compesi indicated that UPC recognizes the diversity on the
campus and the differences between colleges and within a college. It is up
to the departments to include an argument on what they expect from promotion
to that rank. Beyond that there needs to be a convergence between the argument
and the data that supports it. The arguments that a candidate is superior
in teaching and then little evidence is provided to support that judgment
makes it difficulty for a higher level of review to agree with the department
committee. Caroline Harnly ask that if the language in the UPC report
that states “experts in the field” is the committee asking for off campus
people to get involved in the evaluation? Compesi responded that off
campus experts in the field are used by some departments to the extent that
their evaluation is helpful and their credible and reliable source is also
helpful in the promotion process. Jan Gregory suggested that information
that might be helpful is for departments to include peer evaluations or observations
into some sort of university wide conceptualization and thus adding greater
clarity for department committee on how to use evaluations, external reviews,
and how they are done. Compesi recommended more discussion on the most
effective way or ways of systematically collection and evaluating evaluations.
Robert Cherny asked what was the final outcome at the president level?
Compesi reported that he did not have that data. Alvin Alvarez
asked if UPC had different criteria for evaluation than that which was established
by the department committees. Compesi reported that in the majority
of the cases UPC was consistent with departments’ evaluations. The UPC evaluation
process starts with the working personnel action file (WPAF). He reminded
the senate that there is a great range between departments in explaining each
category. UPC weights all the information and looks at things in the context
of the entire campus. Alvarez recommended that a discussion that outlines
the level of specificity that UPC want to see from departments needs to take
place. Compesi indicated that campus discussion on the promotion process
is worth having. Houlberg recommends that UPC does not have the time
to promote and organize campus wide discussion. Vinay Shrivastava asked
how many applicants were not supported by UPC and supported by all other levels.
Compesi responded that he did not know. Shrivastava asked if
we have a uniform policy that requires pier review? Compesi recommend
that the promotion policy is well defined in the faculty handbook. Chair
Vaughn interjected that peer review is one of the ways to evaluate effective
teaching but not required. Dawn Terrell is concerned that peer review
needs to be put into context to meet college and department concerns and that
maybe UPC and Faculty Affairs should look at getting the information out.
Compesi indicated that he knew of many promotion workshops planned
by Faculty Affairs and recommends them for any one who is up for promotion.
Agenda Item #5 - Proposed
Resolution on Responding to the Tragic Events of September 11,2001
Chair Vaughn brought to the senate a revised resolution
title: Responding to the Tragic Events of September 11, 2001. This
resolution was revised from the previous one sent to all senators as part
of the senate agenda. The resolution was formulated by the Executive Committee
and is brought to the senate for discussion and action.
M/S/P (Vaughn, P Warren) resolution
in first reading
Chair Vaughn spoke from the resolution pointing out
that it acknowledges the consultation between the federal officials and institution
of higher education regarding a proposed moratorium on the grating of international
student visas. The resolution urges federal and state officials not to propose
any moratorium on internationals students’ visas. Mary Anne Warren
suggested that in the sixth paragraph after the word federal that the words
“and state” be added. This would include both levels of government in the
resolution. M Warren continued and acknowledged that the resolution
was well written and appropriate. Vaughn, on behalf of the Executive
Committee, accepted the addition of the two-word addition in the sixth paragraph.
Sandra Luft asked if the resolution had been discussed previous to
this reading. Vaughn indicated that the resolution is in first reading.
Luft indicated that she would like to see a stronger statement than
the one presented in the resolution. Jan Gregory indicated that the
resolution as presented speaks softly but makes our point very well. Vaughn
indicated that it’s not the intent to single out any individuals, but to reserve
the last paragraph of the resolution for a list of those individuals who should
receive a copy of the resolution. Eunice Aaron pointed out that the
fourth paragraph outlines the central intent of the resolution. The resolution
states that the Academic Senate joins with the university administration in
a strong statement that harassment or intimidation of any one from our campus
community shall not be tolerated.
M/S/P (Houlberg, Aaron) to
second reading
Saul Steier suggested that in the sixth paragraph that
the word “encourage” in the first sentence be replaced with the word “urge”
to make the statement stronger. The suggestion was accepted. Robert Cherny
pointed out that the chair of the state wide academic senate sent a comprehensive
letter to Senator Feinstein outlining the extensive problems that would occur
if a moratorium is imposed on international student visas.
M/S/P (Houlberg, Steier) the
resolution was accepted unanimously
Agenda Item #6 - Proposed change to the Bachelor of
Arts in Child and Adolescent Development
Amy Nichols, Chair Curriculum Review and Approval committee
presented minor changes to the Child and Adolescent Development (CAD) Program
as a consent item. Nichols indicated that the faculty of the department
is recommending two changes to the Bachelor of Arts Degree based on their
experience, formal course evaluations at the end of each semester, informal
student feedback, and consultation with several departments. Nichols
reported that the minor changes are: adding JS 340 American Jewish Identity
and Family, and changing the courses meeting the requirements for Fieldwork
from a variety of selections from several departments to CAD 600 Child and
Adolescent Development Internship.
M/S/P (Duke, Houlberg) to second
reading
M/S/P (Duke, Steier) proposed
changes accepted unanimously
Agenda Item #7 - Report
from Statewide Senators
Robert Cherny reported
on the September meeting of the State-Wide Academic Senate. Richard West,
Chief Fiscal Officer, indicated that reports coming out of Sacramento are
that the state budget does not look good and that most state agencies being
asked draw to draw up budgeting projection for a 3, 5, and 10 percent cut
in funding. West announced that, at that time, the CSU was not planning
to do these reduction exercises. West also reported that the CSU ended
up with more lottery money than expected, and that it will be used to replace
some of the funds for restoring CSU library collections that were cut out
of the Trustees' budget. David Spence, the CSU Chief Academic Officer,
reported that major changes would be taking place in credential programs.
The State Wide Academic Senate has created a task force to keep close tabs
on the work of the Joint Committee that is creating a master plan for kindergarten
through university. A preliminary report from the joint committee addresses
mostly K-12 issues and says little about higher education. Cherny
summarized the resolutions introduced at the September meeting. The Senate
unanimously approved the report, The CSU at the Beginning of the 21st Century,
on which Cherny reported to the senate during the previous academic
year. The senate heard, on first reading, a proposal to amend its constitution
and bylaws. Finally, the senate resolved to develop a policy on review of
CSU administrators. Cherny also summarized significant changes to the
state K-12 teacher credential program resulting from assembly bill 2042. Cherny
reported that the changes to subject matter preparation programs are so extensive
and significant that a special system wide conference is being proposed by
the senate's committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations. The conference
would include faculty and administrators from every campus to learn what is
new and what is needed in regards to teacher preparation on our campuses.
Chair Vaughn indicated that former senate vice chair
Helen Goldsmith has been actively involved in the hearing and the process
regarding 2042 and teacher credentialing. She is working with Dean Jacob Perea
and faculty of College of Education on the implication of 2042. Helen and
Dean Perea will be making a report to the Executive Committee and the Academic
Senate in the near future. Jan Gregory reported that the faculty affairs
committee of the state wide academic senate met and is proposing two new resolutions.
The first is a proposal for the training of new campus senate chairs. The
second proposal if for CSU academic senates to articulate to the department
chairs the evaluation procedures for temporary faculty. Midori McKeon
asked about information on the single subject teaching credential. Cherny
indicated that guidelines are being prepared.
The Academic Senate was adjourned
at 3:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Edwards
Secretary to the Faculty