Minutes of the Academic

Senate Meeting

Chair

Vaughn called the Academic Senate to order at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present:

AARON, EUNICE

ADISA-THOMAS, KARIMAH

ALVAREZ, ALVIN

AVILA, GUADALUPE

BISHOP, ANNA

BLOMBERG, JUDITH

BOYLE, ANDREA

CHERNY, ROBERT

COLLIER, JAMES

COLVIN, CARAN

CONCOLINO, CHRISTOPHER

CONSOLI, ANDRES

CORRIGAN, ROBERT A.

DANIELS, ROBERT

DUKE, JERRY

EDWARDS, JAMES

FUNG, ROBERT

GARCIA, OSWALDO

GARCIA, VELIA

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

MOALLEM, MINOO

NICHOLS, AMY

OŇATE, ABDIEL

RAGGIO, MARCIA

SAYEED, LUTFUS

SCOBLE, DON

SHRIVSTAVA, VINAY

STEIER, SAUL

STRONG, ROB

SU, YULI

TERRELL, DAWN

TURITY, MITCH

WARREN, MARY ANNE

WARREN, PENELOPE

WOLFE, BRUCE

YIP, YEWMUN

VAUGHN, PAMELA

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.

o

Announcements

Pamela Vaughn,

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

the minutes.

o

Chair’s Report

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.

o

Robert Cherny Reported Concerning CSU

Academic Senate Special Session

Robert Cherny

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

M/S/P (Colvin,

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:

(1)

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.

(2)

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

limited resources. 

(3)

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.

(4)

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:

1.

FTES Targets

2.

Quality Enhancement

3.

Opportunity Appointments

4.

Other permanent faculty

lines or visiting faculty lines

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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

request?

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

summer 2001)?

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

current contract. 

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

pay.

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.

Yenbo

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.