Minutes of the Academic
Vaughn called the Academic Senate to order at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
CORRIGAN, ROBERT A.
LA BELLE, THOMAS
WARREN, MARY ANNE
Senate Members Absent:
Bartscher, Patricia (exc.), Friedman, Marv (exc.), Gillotte Helen (exc.),
Gerson, Deborah (exc.), McKeon, Midori (exc.), Newt- Scott, Ronda (abs.),
Smith, Miriam (exc.).
Guests: Marsha Melnick, Willie Mullins, Helen
Goldsmith, Jerry Combs, Wan-Lee Cheng, Jan Millsapps, Penny Saffold, Kevin
Bowman, Yembo Wu, Kim Wible, Shelia McClear, Paul Barnes.
Chair Academic Senate announced that there would be a Lecturer Council meeting
on November 27th, from 3-4 p.m., in ADM 455. Notice will be sent
to Senate lecturer representatives about the meeting. As an informational
item for all senators there is a copy of the memorandum from the Senate Executive
Committee to Keith Morrison, Dean College of Creative Arts with recommendation
regarding interdisciplinary arts in the College attached to the agenda following
There was no chair report.
However, Chair Vaughn requested that in place of her report that Bob
Cherny, CSU Academic Senator, report on a recent special session of the CSU
Academic Senate. A copy of his report was provided to each senator.
Robert Cherny Reported Concerning CSU
Academic Senate Special Session
spoke from the 6-page report. He stated that on October 31, the Academic Senate
CSU met with Chancellor Reed, who was accompanied by Laurence Gould, the Chair
of the Board of Trustees (BOT), and both CSU Executive Vice Chancellors, David
Spence (chief academic officer) and Richard West (chief fiscal office). Reed
presented a briefing on the current and likely future budget situation and
then took questions. Cherny’s impression is that the future California
State budget picture goes from grim to grimmer. The California Department
of Finance has asked the CSU for scenarios of 3-5-10-15% cuts. Additionally
they have asked the CSU to return $25 million effective immediately. There
are 1,000 t/tt searches underway in the CSU this year and the chancellor is
committed to protecting these funds. At the meeting, Chancellor Reed stated
that the CSU would not lay off tenured and tenure-track faculty and that we
will continue to hire t/tt faculty in large numbers.
There will be a system wide
conference December 6 & 7 on the impact of changes required by SB 2042
to the teacher credential requirements in California. Each campus will be
sending a representative to that conference.
AGENDA ITEM #1 APPROVAL
OF THE AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 6, 2001
M/S/P (Shrivastava, Duke)
to approve the agenda
Bishop) to approve the minutes
M/S/P (Duke, Houlberg) to
approve as corrected
You may have seen in yesterday’s edition of First Monday, an article
that made reference to the new faculty positions available on campus—new tenure
track hires. I would like to explain a bit the background of those new positions
that will become available soon, effective next fall and over the next couple
of years. As you know summer session used to be funded on a self-support bases
through extended learning. There was an effort last year on a number of campuses
to fund those programs sometimes referred to as year- round operations or
“YRO” programs, which are basically summer sessions through the general fund.
As a result, we put in an application/ proposal, to have the chancellor’s
office fund our summer program through the general fund. As a result, 4.2
million dollars came to the campus for the funding of summer programs. Along
with the funding came an increased student target, a FTES target. So, the
question becomes: How do we expend those instructional dollars to support
the new FTES growth, which is added to our enrollment target for the year?
You will have noted in the First Monday article that 78 new faculty
searches. We hope in the neighborhood of 75 to 80 new faculty appointments
can be made over the next couple of years. I think, collectively, we believe
that this may be in many of our lifetimes our last opportunity to make a real
infusion of new faculty positions, new tenure track faculty positions at San
Francisco State (at least of that size). This is also an area where we tend
to all agree the Senate, the CFA, the Administration, and faculty, that we
need to increase tenure track faculty both in absolute terms and in the ratio
of tenure track faculty to lecturer faculty. You may have heard some of this
through deans or from your own chairs that this is now available to us. We
have given the deans December 3rd as a date in making proposal
for new faculty positions under this program. So these should be separate
from any other tenure track faculty positions that you may be considering.
These are not replacements for resignations; they are in fact new positions
that have become available. So the source I have explained. The proposed
number I have explained. We would like to limit these, for the most part,
to the assistant professor level as we have recognize the demographics of
our faculty on the campus which still hovers somewhere in that 63% to 64%
of our faculty are at the top step or the old top step level of the full professor
level, or the very senior full professor. We have not for a number of years
tried to counter balance that by hiring at the assistant professor level to
recognize the turnover which will come over the next 5 to 10 years in the
professorial. It has actually had some devastating effects on a couple of
departments. Mathematics went through a political upheaval. Political Science
just recently lost a large number of full professors through retirement and
the leadership and the critical mass of faculty was no longer there. What
we are trying to do is to infuse more faculty at the assistant professor level
to counter balance that. Will there be opportunities to hire at higher levels?
Yes. As there are now, all you have to do is to make the argument
that the available of faculty at the assistant professor level is limited,
the critical mass of our faculty at the present time is already at the assistant
professor level, the leadership, chairs of department would obviously come
in a different levels. So what you would have to do is to make the argument
for a higher position, but in general there is consensus that hiring at the
assistant professor level is in our collective best interest and whether we
are ready to leave here or are going to leave here in the near future I think
it is in our best interest to make sure that the balance of our faculty critical
mass is in place.
Now, there are four possible goals as we have outlined them at the present
time for these positions:
I have indicated
that the purpose of the dollars originally was to meet the FTES target that
arrived along with these dollars. So the majority (and I don’t know whether
that is 60% or 70% or 52%) is going to have to be allocated/distributed to
meet FTES targets. Because we are still formula driven in that sense and we’ll
have to be able to have the instructional resources to cover the FTES.
We hope that a portion
of these (and again I don’t know whether that is 20, 30 or 40%) will come
purposely to enhance the quality of programs. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t
have anything to do with meeting FTES targets. Their principle purpose is
to add a new dimension, to add something of a critical mass, to add value,
to increase visibility, and/or to broaden or deepen the faculty resource base.
Again that is an argument that you would have to make. These would not be
of quality and enhancement in sense of trying to save a program that is struggling.
But quality and enhancement as a position in the institution, already is recognize
for having a solid program and then the question would be - well how do you
strengthen that program how do you build it, make it an even better, more
visible, higher prestige, higher status, round it out in effect if you had
A third might be
opportunity appointments. The kind of thing that various institutions over
of time have referred to when you find someone out there that you would like
to bring to campus sometimes they appear in a search that is on going, sometimes
they appear because they approach a faculty member or a chair, or a dean.
So that we would like to make room for those accidental, happenstance kinds
of things. Or on the other hand you might just sit back as a group and say,
“you know who’s out there that we would really like to have join us.” Who
out there is somebody who we think would really contribute to the breath,
depth, visibility, and status of our effort.
The fourth may be
one might call visiting tenure track lines. These might be reserved for tenure
track equivalent faculty who would come in (some of us call it the Minnesota
sort of stream - these are the people who live in Minnesota but can stand
to be there during the winter term and they like to come) to San Francisco
from about January to May or June. These people often can bring attention,
can enhance a program but they are not part of our tenure track faculty. On
the other hand we might watch them as visiting faculty members and in subsequent
years decide that is somebody we would like to have join us. So in a sense
it is an opportunity for us to get exposure, it is an opportunity for us to
bring people to campus that would enhance, strengthen our programs, and so
on. Now we have a couple of these already in Creative Arts and we have one
in Business that are visiting faculty members they occupy a line for a particular
period of time. They can be rotating in one sense or visiting depending on
the term you would like to use.
Now what kind of criteria are we going to try to apply to these various
4 categories? And the 4 categories are:
Other permanent faculty
lines or visiting faculty lines
First, if you are
going to make an argument to achieve FTES targets then we want performance
data. We want to know what the rationale is in terms of the course demand,
course offering, how you are deploying your instructional resources What the
future looks like for meeting those. I just came from an accreditation review
of computing science and clearly one of the programs that has grown dramatically
over the half dozen or seven years is computing science. The enrollment has
gone from 450 students from a 100 students but our faculty resources have
only grown 11%. So there is a case were it is pretty clear that computing
science could come in and make an argument for a faculty position on FTES
basis. That also gives you a sense of the competition.
Second - you might
argue would be in the quality enhancement area that this person would really
add to research, the knowledge base in our field. This person is at the cutting
edge and would come in and add strong research role model scholarship base
for our faculty and our students.
Another one might
be teaching and the quality enhancement. Someone you would argue in fact bring
a teaching enhancement dimension to the program another might be service dimension
enhancement to the program.
The quality added
or the value added through reputation, through quality, and another might
be shared appointments.
So as you think of criteria then for how might you argue or how might we
look at these when the proposals are in we would look at performance data
or the FTES base, research, teaching, service, quality and reputation or value
added and shared appointments.
Now this is not exhaustive, this is our thinking up to the present time
so if you got some other thoughts that you want to use as a rationale for
making a proposal along these lines please proceed. This gives you some sense
of were we are headed we are trying to rush at least a portion of these, again
I do not know what number that is, if we could make 10 to 15 appointment next
fall, 15 to 20 appointments next fall out of these 75 to 80 faculty positions.
Those are the ones we would consider after December 3rd of this
year. Then in subsequent years we hope that no later than the fall of 2005
in fact we would try to rush them, as quickly as possible we would then try
to do the remainder.
Does anyone have questions or issues?
Rick Houlberg, Provost, when the new positions are
in place, since they are based on and are being generated by what is now a
semester, will we have a trimester here?
La Belle, right now no, technically. To some
extent it depends on how the contract is negotiated. There is some belief
that down the road, if we get a change in calendar and in fact there are three
terms and due to three equal terms it’s possible that faculty be able to choose
say winter/summer, or the summer/fall, but there is a paper out from the chancellor’s
office to campuses that we would be expected to put into our CUSP II planning process a plan that outlines
that outlines some of the trimesters variables. But at this point on this
campus we are treating it more as a summer session not a third equal semester.
Lutfus Sayeed, I have two questions. Maybe you have
answered the first one already. The first question is in terms of existing
searches that are taking place can we just expand them?
La Belle, that is interesting, the president
may have a view different than mine in the early 90s I guess they had a program
here called “twofers” and while that is good in some sense because you are
spending resources for searches you are getting your pool together and you
say gash we have these two people that we really like to hire we can provide
a rationale to do that in one of these special things so lets go for it. On
the other hand one could say that at time that second person was not in fact
our first choice. And in you are choosing your second choice. I say yes it
is certainly possible. But I also say be careful and not to say just because
you got a search going can take their top two, so I think you are going to
have to argue that case. At lot of this is very subjective so I don’t have
a really concrete answer, but he answer is yes it is possible but as campus
policy it is not included here as a bona fide way to secure a second appointment.
Sayeed, if we come to that situation what you
are saying is that check with the administration.
La Belle, check with the administration, make
sure that you really want that person that badly right now because next year
you have a whole other crop and what is the justification for pushing this
year as waiting for another year? One would be the expenditure of resources
to conduct the search but if you are rally only taking your second choice
maybe it’s not the best move. Sometime what we have found that restricting
searches to assistant professors levels creates somewhat of a disadvantages
because there will be people who deserve and have experience justifying a
higher appointment of associate or full professor, sometimes we turn those
people away inadvertently or purposely and you will find sometimes a full
professor, associate professor out there who inquires about the positions
and you will say no its just for an assistant professor and turn them away.
Those instances might end up to be opportunity appointment were you want to
push some one forward.
Susan Higgins, you had mentioned fall hires, does
that mean we could begin a new search in spring semester?
La Belle, that right, as you know we are not
right in cycle with this. We hope to give responses by December 10th,
which only enables us to get the work out before people leave for the holidays.
That means that department would probably have something in place by January
in order to get some announcement at least into the media and then their going
to be behind on the normal searches. That is the reason I am predicting that
we are probably not going to fill more than 15 or 20 because were are not
going to be insigne with a number of the markets.
Higgins, the implication then is that the following
year for summer session would be that department or programs would have to
plan for funding summer session with their existing personnel because there
would be no additional pay, let’s say, for your existing faculty who want
teach during the summer, so that would become harder to do?
La Belle, there would still be funding for faculty
for fall and spring, the college would meet the teaching loads with the new
hires. Higgins, so that means that your current faculty would very likely
not earn additional income over the summer? La Belle, remember too, you still
have a large cadre of lecturers on the campus and these are new dollars to
the campus but they would be devoted to tenure track so lecturer could still
teach in the summer and the other two terms. The new FTES targets would be
folded into the department and college targets on an annualized basis.
Higgins, there is not additional money for the
summer because are additional monies are being used for tenure track hires?
La Belle, that right.
Caran Colvin, I was wondering that if it is possible
for a department, after consultation with the college to fast track requests
for new hires, you speak about the December 3rd deadline, but if
a department wanted to get the request in sooner than that in order to meet
deadlines for advertising the position in December would you consider an early
La Belle, we are going to hold to the December
3rd and look at all the proposal that come in and that is the plan
at the present time.
Robert Cherny, I am very pleased at the idea that
we are increasing the number of tenure track faculty. That this is over and
above replacement. I think that is excellent and that it is something that
we need to be doing and I am pleased that we are using the summer FTE for
that purpose, because it wasn’t clear up until now that was going to happen.
I am a little concerned about your 4th category - the visiting
faculty because they would not be tenure-track appointments and I am wondering
if you could maybe expand a little bit on how that would be defined. These
wouldn’t be tenure track appointment but yet they would come out of the total
of new hires?
La Belle, we are creating this there is nothing
in concrete, we are floating what we think is in our best collective interest.
Let’s say that we put aside a dozen tenure track positions funded at a level
higher than a lecture. Right now we are judging these new position at about
$58,000. Let’s say we just froze those 10 to 12 faculty position and they
in fact were for rotating or visiting faculty. At a time in the future when
we in fact may not have that kind of flexibility we might be convinced to
peal off and actually hire the visiting person. So we would loose a visiting
spot and put it into a permanent spot. The idea is to keep some flexibility
some fluidity in a portion of these and not lock them all in the next two
years. The number that is kind of thought about is a dozen or so. We do have
some experience with this, we have an artist in residence in Creative Arts,
one could imagine a similar person in creative writing, we have one in Marketing,
and we have a diplomat in residence in International Relations. We have these
individuals and they have in fact in general been important resources, they
are not the same people, the longest period of appointment is 4 or 5 years
- that is the Business one, in others they are a couple of years. That is
were the thinking is.
Sandra Luft, all of the examples that you gave have
to do with the quality of the candidate, often research enhancement and so
on. I am asking about the quality of the curriculum can one mount as strong
argument on that basis?
La Belle, sure
Luft, for department that are already conducting a search this
semester if we meet the December 3rd deadline make another request?
La Belle, sure
Marlon Hom, if we use the general resources for
the summer fully into tenure track hires, which would be teaching during fall
and spring and there is not additional resources for summer session, than
who is going to teach the summer session?
La Belle, we have received a new FTES target
we have received new dollars to cover that target, the period of the summer
was covered on its own bottom and now we have general fund dollars on campus.
Think about the broader question what should the campus do with the resources
that have come to meet the new FTES target? Should we in fact leave it open
for everyone to hire the individuals they deem most appropriate for the summer?
I guess that would be one way to go. Should we do it for funding existing
faculty who wish to teach the summer? Should we do it as proposed to put it
into permanent faculty?
Hom, so if the FTES target is annualized, including the summer,
if the department can meet that target fall and spring semester then they
don’t have to have a summer session?
La Belle, I guess that is the case now, although,
the idea of course is for us to serve the students not just serve our own
needs. The distribution of our courses over the calendar year would be an
important goal we would like to achieve in order to attract the students.
We remain with an enrollment problem in the sense of meeting our target, so
the more flexibility we can have in attracting students I think the better
off we are.
Hom, is summer 2002 under these guidelines (different from
La Belle, every summer we will follow the same
guidelines. Last summer was different because it was funded through these
dollars. We did know about this strategy until late last spring.
Dawn Terrell, if I understand what you are saying
is that full time faculty would not be paid extra to teach in the summer -
in moving to this new hiring of tenure track faculty the idea is that they
would be covering the extra FTES that we have received because we are moving
to year round operation (YRO)?
La Belle, I guess that assumes that we would
fill all 80 positions before this summer and that’s not the case. I am not
anticipating filling any of them until the fall. This summer will be similar
to last summer. As we annualize the FTES targets and add in the tenure track
faculty members over a period of time that cohort would be expected to pick
up the FTES targets associated. These are good questions because it makes
us think about them as well. To some extent if we don’t allocate all of them
based on FTES arguments, but the colleges have received new FTES targets,
then the colleges will have to find ways to achieve the FTES targets by placing
a faculty member in a position, which might not draw the FTES. There is going
to have to be some negotiation and coordination and discussion college wide
assuming the same FTES target base remains. On the other hand, there maybe
some slippage that we would be able to fund say some opportunity appointments
or appointments not directly attached to FTES targets and not pass on a target
to a college. That is also done at times, but, we would obviously you are
going to have to meet targets campus wide so there would be some negotiation
for that. We would have to work that out. Part of a college’s argument for
one that is not argued on the bases of FTES is how you are going to cover
FTES if this is not associated with an FTES argument, say it is based on a
contribution to research, quality, or an opportunity appointment.
Mitch Turitz, I am concerned about this concept of
a new type of faculty member, neither tenure track nor lecturer, but seems
to be a combination of both. The idea is that you are hiring somebody as a
type of lecturer with the option of becoming tenure track. But the same opportunity
would not exist for current lecturer. This is without bargaining during contact.
La Belle, The system only allows us one pay code
outside of the tenure track and that is called a lecturer. There is nothing
to prevent us from putting titles on top of lectures on top of their salary
code. For example, we can use terms like clinical, visiting, adjutant, research,
all the time, but it doesn’t mean that they are paid differently, they are
paid as a lecture, that is the way the system recognizes them but we can differentiate
them by the kind of roles and responsibilities. Most lecturers on this campus
in fact teach, we can agree that most lecturers that hold that title that
their responsibility are teaching. We also have lecturers whose principle
responsibility in some areas is more research than teaching. We have some
that are more administrative than teaching. We have some, two lecturers for
example, I can think of one who has full time as assign time and very little
in the classroom. There are lots of differentiations going on but they’re
all salaried under the lecturer title but then we have an overlay of titles
to put on top of them.
Turitz, it’s my feeling that the intent of
this position is to sort of test out a person to see if you really want them
as a tenure track person or not and you sort of test them out as a lecturer
first and I really don’t think that is appropriate at least not under the
La Belle, That was one example I used and you
have keyed on one example. I said we would have visiting faculty and try to
hold up to a dozen a side for visiting faculty members out of the pool of
dollars. Some of those who were in fact visiting might be of interest to faculty
after a period of time and they might want recruit them as part of a national
recruitment pool to hire on a tenure track. Others would simply return to
wherever they came from, it might be private practice, it might be another
institution, but they would be on a visiting appointment. The idea is to keep
a group of appointment as visiting appointments. In effect those individuals,
my guess, would be paid under the lecture code.
Saul Steier, I have needed to teach during the summer
for extra money for the last 15 years in order to be able to survive in that
I live. I am hearing rumors on campus that since we didn’t hit are enrollment
targets that summers session courses are going to be restricted to the introductory
courses that generate greater FTE. Course that I don’t teach. We are moving
toward a position, four or five years down the line, when essentially we are
going to be told that we have to teach summer since all of the summer money
has been rolled into tenure track hires.
La Belle, first your motivation to teach summer
is not matched by every other faculty member. In fact sometimes we get tenure
track faculty who loathe to teach in the summer. Some who loathe to tech and
take their course with them and won’t let anyone else teach them. Sometime
full professor get first crack at teaching summer and they don’t want or allow
assistant professor to teach, and so on. The motivation to teach summer is
not necessarily universal one-way or the other. We do know that we have a
summer session that is generally funded and we are going to have to staff
those courses. At the present time, lecturers carry 40 to 50% of courses on
campus. These new dollars would probably not change that much that ratio.
If we are at 45% right now and the addition of another 75 to 80 tenure track
faculty moves us close to 40% great. But we are still going to have a large
lecture pool and there are still going to be opportunities for people to teach
in the summer using those lecturer dollars. So it not necessarily so that
we are not funds to pay faculty members. Some of these new faculty members
will limit the current options for everyone to teach who wants to teach in
the summer. If that in fact is the tradition in the department. If we are
talking about 4 or 5 years down the road then you get into contract, what
is the contract going to say? Are we going to be in a trimester system? Is
the summer going to be treated similar to fall and spring? Are faculty going
to be able to spread workload over three semester, and so? Any signs that
you see that this proposal is wrong headed we also want to know. We don’t
want to get into a situation of implementing something and not anticipating
the consequences. Your questions are good. We have a goal that we all share,
we want to increase tenure track faculty. We have dollars on the campus, maybe
the last infusion of money at that level in our careers. So the questions
is how do we best utilize those dollars to achieve that without locking out
or changing our people’s opportunities as well.
Jan Gregory, We are talking about a new group of
faculty and we are talking about how department would make cases for hiring.
What I notice in the list of criteria (they may not intent rank) is that teaching
is third on the list. That seems to me to raise some question that the senate
may want to think about very carefully since if we are talking about tenure
track faculty teaching should be much closer to the top of the list as a factor.
So I would raise this as a question.
La Belle, there was not intent to list them in
any particular order. If the FTES target is the principle rationale then I
believe teaching is implied. The question her about curriculum I had included
it under the question of teaching, in other words how would an individual
who is coming to a program to cover a principle part of the curriculum, how
we might broadened it in a way. All of the criteria would not be relevant
for all of the proposals that might come. Some in fact might only be used
for meeting the FTES, might only use research as a criterion.
Gregory, there are implication in this list
for promotion and tenure and that is why I raise the question.
La Belle, I think there are lot implications
and there are space implications. We have 78 searches going on right now,
just how many searches can we have? How many faculty do we have to serve on
the search committees? There are a lot of questions here, but we also have
an opportunity and the opportunity is with us now and we are looking at a
scenario of a budget that is going down hill were the Chancellor has said
that tenure track faculty hires will not be frozen so I think the president
and other would like to get these out and working while we have the opportunity
and that is part of the motivation.
The Former Chair of the University
Sabbatical Committee, Marsha Melnick spoke from a report supplied to
all senators on the committee activities for 2000-2001. This was the second
year that the committee has been in existence. Melnick reported that a sub-group
revised the ranking scores to more clearly define the materials allowing for
greater scope to a wide variety of faculty scholarship. The five main criteria
that were evaluated on a 5-point scale were: (1) college ranking; (2) intellectual/creative
significance of the proposed project; (3) significance of project to the faculty
member’s professional development:(4) applicant’s professional background
relevant to determining his/her ability to carry out proposed project; and
(5) project’s benefits to the university and students. Melnick reported
that the committee had reviewed 49 proposals and recommended 30 to the Provost
to be awarded sabbatical leaves. Melnick indicated that there was significant
consensus amongst the committee for the candidates recommended for leave with
Rick Houlberg, asked about
the representation on the committee and what she felt is the purpose of the
committee now that it has completed two years of deliberations and is it any
different from its stated purpose? Melnick, there are differences between college committee and deans on what constitute
an acceptable sabbatical leave and the university committee helps to resolve
theses differences and provide additional information and resolution in our
recommendations to the Provost. Houlberg, did the committee disagree or do you know the percentage of disagreement
between the committee and the colleges? Melnick, there may have been one or two instances were the
ranking differed however, there were not that many. Robert Cherny, does the number 30 result from some prior agreement
that we would award 30, is there a limit of 30 or why not award all 49? Melnick,
I think it dictated by resources and we try to get an idea form the Provost
as to how may be able to be funded. Tom La Belle
indicated that he believes there is an agreement between the CSU and CFA that
a minimum of 27 would be funded. Bruce Wolfe,
how was the evaluation formula derived and approved? Melnick,
we had a lot of help from the members on the committee who have expertise
in statistical analysis and added expertise in the history of the number of
sabbaticals approved between colleges and attempted to bring balance in our
awards this year through the applications of the 5-point scale. The 5-point
scale that was used work very well.
Agenda Item #6 - Changes to Interdisciplinary Digital
Arts Certificate Program:
Amy Nichols, chair CRAC, provided
the senate with the proposal, summary, revision to delete courses that are
not longer included and added one course. There are no new courses, one other
change; alternative way to full fill the portfolio is the additions of DAI
470 to the certificate program requirements.
M/S/P (Terrell, Steier) to second reading
M/S/P (Steier, Boyle) to close debate
Voting, passed unanimously
The Senate Executive Committee, moves for acceptance of the membership changes
on the University Committee on Written English Proficiency. Jan Gregory second. The changes would
include stakeholders who should be present as ex-official member. The changes
were discussed with current holders and they see this as beneficial.
M/S/P (Moallem, Houlberg) to second reading
M/S/P (Steier, Houlberg) to close debate
Voting, passed unanimously
Willy Mullins, Director/Clinical
Director, Counseling Center/Counseling and Psychological Service, reported
on the significant increases in the use of the psychological service by students
since 9/11. He reported significant increases in males using emergency psychiatric
services, substance abuse and other kinds of trauma. Mullins cautioned that the result of trauma such as 9/11, and other,
does not have it greatest impact until 4 to 6 weeks after the event. Several
faculty reported changes in their classroom climates both positive and negative.
Wu, Director of International Program, reported on his office
efforts to reach out to the many international students on campus and to assure
them of their welcome and that SFSU is a safe place for them. A special outreach
is underway to contact all 30 international students form the Middle East
area. Letters were sent, emails were sent, meeting with students are ongoing,
and special receptions for all international students is planned. Kim Wible, Chief/Director,
University Police reported a decrease in crime with only 5 incidence of vandalism
since 9/11. She reported that it has been very peaceful. Bruce Wolfe asked if we had
seen any results from the different events that were taking place on campus?
Penny Saffold, Vice President
for Student Affairs/Dean of Students reported that the open mike at the plaza
was going very well and proving to be very helpful for students to speak freely
about how they feel. She indicated that no racial incidence had been reported
but if any hears of any incidence of discrimination it should be reported
to her office immediately. Two senators who are Muslin expressed that they
felt reassured by the campus climate of and especially the President messages
to the faculty and the campus community. Minoo Moallem asked what was being
done to address the political event in a critical way and are we protecting
our international students from intrusion. President Corrigan responded that
there has been only one FBI inquiry. Other suggested from faculty were to
maintain an email list of faculty to keep in touch; checking on new faculty
to see how they a coping; and the development of an on campus colloquium to
address the issue. Chair Vaughn announced that a campus wide colloquium
on the issues was in the creation stage and that input from faculty, students,
and staff is needed. Ken Montero, University Dean/Professor Human Relations, recommend that
all keep strive to keep a balance between what we have to do and what we can
do to assist others when seeing anxiety and depression. He advised that we
not keep our self out of the formula. Watch yourself too. Suggestion for how
to handle your class during this period can be found on the SFSU web site.
Chair Vaughn ended the open forum
by thanking all for coming and sharing. Vaughn reminded us all the stressful
events are not likely to be over soon and we must strive to keep the lines
of communication open.
Adjourned at 3:59 p.m.