SFSU Academic Senate
Minutes of November 7, 2000
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; Bernstein, Marian; Blomberg, Judith; Cancino, Herlinda; Cherny, Robert;
Collier, James; Colvin, Caran; Concolino, Christopher; Consoli, Andres; Contreras,
Rey; Cullers, Susan; de Vries, Brian; Duke, Jerry; Edwards, James; Ferretti,
Charlotte; Garcia, Oswaldo; Garcia, Velia; Goldsmith, Helen; Gregory, Jan; Harnly,
Caroline; Hu, Sung; Hubler, Barbara; Jerris, Scott; Johnson, Dane; Johnson,
Sharon; La Belle, Thomas; Langbort, Carol; Loomis, Barbara; McKeon, Midori;
Raggio, Marcia; Sayeed, Lutfus; Scoble, Don; Smith, Miriam; Strong, Rob; Turitz,
Mitch; Vaughn, Pamela; Warren, Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope; Wong, Alfred; Yip,
Senate Members Absent: Flowers, Will;
Nichols, Amy(exc.); Shrivastava, Vinay(exc.); Chan, Jeffery; Boyle, Andrea(exc.);
Elia, John(exc.); Gillotte, Helen (exc); Kelley, James(exc.); Corrigan, Robert(exc.);
Sagisi, Jaymee; Pasaporte, Erin.
Guests: J. Combs, M. Verhey, G.Whitaker, B.
Blosser, R. Olesky, J. Kassiola, A. Hallum
Announcements and Report
- Chair Vaughn reached back into her commonplace
book for a passel of passages with a single message: Vote!
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for Meeting of November
The agenda was approved as printed.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting of October
The minutes were approved as printed.
Agenda Item #3 - Report from Vice President La Belle
Vice President La Belle brought the senate up to
date on the accountability process from the Chancellor's office, which began
with Cornerstones. He first addressed the information in the
"CSU Accountability Process" handout in the senate agenda,
first noting system accountability variables, then noting the first nine institutional
performance areas (page 4), which must be reported annually, and areas ten through
thirteen (page 5), which are reported periodically. He then discussed the 27
September 2000 memo from Richard Giardina, "CSU Accountability Report: Institutional
Comparisons," which is an attempt to see how well we did. La Belle summarized
the results as fine on all the indicators, except, perhaps, teacher credentialing.
The point is for us to set out campus goals.
La Belle then addressed the "CSU Accountability Process:
Setting Campus Goals" document, which states that campus presidents will propose
goals for the performance areas. La Belle offered the example of time-to-degree.
Our dilemma is to decide what our goals should be in each area, and he solicited
input from all. He mentioned remediation and retention as goals.
La Belle provided background on performance area eleven,
"Faculty Scholarship and Creative Achievement." This requires a report on what
the campus is doing to support faculty scholarship and creative achievement,
like mini-grants. It might include forms of extramural support. The third element
is how to report faculty achievement. CSU-Long Beach is doing it through the
Senate with a survey aggregated to department level. There are other models,
too, and we can expect a numerical report from the Chancellor's office on each
campus. La Belle invited consultation on how best to do respond to this indicator.
Chair Vaughn mentioned that we have this on the agenda
for later discussion today as well as at the next senate meeting
Agenda Item #4 - Report from Vice President Collier
Vice President Collier reported on the recent accomplishments
of the Office of University Advancement. Collier first offered a brief history
of university advancement at San Francisco State University, which goes back
to just 1996. The office has been developing a broad-based program in advancement:
alumni relations, development, public affairs, government relations, community
relations, special events, and other activities like overseeing the University
Foundation. The advancement mission is to foster greater understanding of and
support of the institution.
Collier then went into a more detailed discussion of advancement
activities, focusing on development. There has been significant growth in this
area in recent years with components such as major gifts, corporate relations,
planned or estate giving, and the annual fund. Collier praised the work of Carol
Hayashino, applauded the first million dollar endowed chair, and noted an award
given to the development office, summarizing the trend as one of consistent
upward growth. There has been increased participation among alumni, friends,
and faculty/staff in the annual fund, significant major gifts, and a significant
increase in the university endowment from $6.3 million when he arrived to $20.6
Collier concluded by turning our attention to the handouts,
which included highlights of recent major gifts and charts on giving. He ended
by thanking all for their support.
Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Revisions to A.S. Policy #F87-32
Graduate Student Award for Distinguished Achievement
Academic Policies Committee (APC) Chair Sung Hu introduced
this consent item from APC who noted two changes from the version that was discussed
two weeks ago: 1) 4th paragraph, c item is slightly modified with summer graduates
eligible either for this or following calendar year; 2) 5th paragraph: the composition
of the college-wide committee is more specific than before.
Caroline Harnly asked about the 7% who graduated,
wondering if this was undergraduate or graduate. Hu said that it refers to graduates
M/S/P (Edwards, Duke) to second reading.
Robert Cherny suggested the following series of friendly
amendments, which were accepted by Hu on behalf of APC and Betsy Blosser
on behalf of the Graduate Council: 1) first full paragraph, substitute "that"
for "which"; 2) second paragraph, last line, substitute "received graduate degrees"
for "graduated"; 3) third paragraph, first sentence, delete "at the time the
students are" and insert "to be"; after the comma delete "it must be assumed
that they" and substitute "shall" in order to read "to be selected the students
shall have already distinguished themselves . . . "; 4) third paragraph, second
line, delete "in keeping with" and substitute "as specified in," and then reverse
order of "criteria" and "established"; 5) third paragraph, second sentence,
following "a)," insert "the candidate has" before "a minimum grade point average";
6) final paragraph, delete "given"; delete "nominate" and substitute "forward
nominations of"; at the end of the next line following "each" insert "of the
colleges"; in the next line, after "unit," delete "in the college" and substitute
"that offers a graduate program." That sentence will read as follows: "Faculty
from the various graduate programs in a college will forward nominations of
candidates for the award to a college-wide faculty committee consisting of one
representative from each of the college's department/school or equivalent unit
that offers a graduate program."
M/S/P (Edwards, Smith) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the policy was approved.
Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Revisions to
A.S. Policy #S87-149 Policy for Articulation of Upper-Division and Lower-Division
Sung Hu introduced this APC consent item who noted
the rewriting of the policy in legislative language, the similarity in substance
with what was before the senate two weeks ago, and the fact that only item 1.c
Jan Gregory suggested deleting the use of the word
"enough" in section C as a friendly amendment. Hu accepted that as a friendly
amendment on behalf of APC.
Robert Cherny commented that this would mean removing
"enough" from line six of the rationale, a suggestion that was also accepted.
M/S/P (Gregory, M.A. Warren) to second reading.
Mary Ann Warren complimented APC for their revision,
finding this version considerably clearer.
M/S/P (Bernstein, Hu) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the policy was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #7 - Proposed Certificate Program in Meteorology
Alfred Wong, Chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval
Committee (CRAC), introduced this CRAC consent item, which provides certification
that students interested in making weathercasting a career have competed the
academic courses mandated by the American Meteorological Society (AMS).
M/S/P (Duke, M.A. Warren) to second reading.
Miriam Smith asked about the number of potential
students. Oswaldo GarcÃa commented upon the intent of the program,
summarized the set of courses--a meteorology boot camp--and replied that there
have been eight to ten students in the past but they are hoping that the official
certificate might lead to increased enrollment.
M/S/P (Duke, M.A. Warren) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the certificate program was approved
Agenda Item #8 - Proposed Resolution on Core Items for
a University-Wide Assessment of Student Opinions on Teaching Effectiveness
M/S/P (P. Warren, McKinney-Aaron) to approve this resolution.
Penelope Warren, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee
(FAC), introduced this FAC consent item, alluding first to the written introduction
in the agenda and reiterating that this is a resolution that outlines a process
by which a core of items might become part of the university's approach to gathering
and using student opinions of teaching effectiveness. She pointed out that the
agenda provides the latest proposed set of items, including revised instructions.
This document has been informed by the 1994 senate task force report. The resolution
allows for the possibility of further revisions with additional input and item-testing.
The resolution is concerned with the process by which any proposed university-wide
core might come into use. She added a correction in the rationale section: please
strike the word "the office of" and "planning and", so that the third line reads:
"interim coordinator of academic assessment."
M/S/P (Edwards, Duke) to second reading.
Midori McKeon raised a concern about the core questions,
suggesting two items that are in the college evaluation form but not in this
one: 1) instructor's expertise or knowledge of the subject matter; 2) instructor's
enthusiasm. Warren reiterated that FAC is not endorsing this particular set
of core items; the process that they have outlined will include the reception
of just this sort of feedback. Vaughn clarified that we are not setting
these particular questions as the university-wide teaching effectiveness instrument;
we are setting a process whereby other or new questions might form the basis
for such a form. Marilyn Verhey acknowledged that she would receive comments
from faculty. Vaughn commented that it would be important in the testing process
to compare these questions against what colleges are using.
Robert Cherny shares the concerns of those particular
items but went on to ask about the fourth resolve clause, wondering about the
committee's sense of the sequence of events, which he believe would be done
before being used. Warren said that that is her understanding. Mitch Turitz
echoed the assent and added that the committee would not be saying how the testing
should be done.
Andres Consoli raised a concern about the lack of
a timeline. He also commented that the keys to the scale should be 1-5 rather
Christopher Concolino wanted to clarify that we are
not voting on the form that is here. Vaughn assured him this was indeed the
M/S/P (duke, M.A. Warren) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the resolution was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #9 - Accountability Indicator #11
Provost La Belle reintroduced this item referring
to his earlier, broader report. The indicator on faculty productivity, specifically
honors, awards, publications, and creative activity, has to be reported next
spring and the question is how does the SFSU faculty want to be represented
in this report. Vaughn pointed senators to p. 9, #11 of the CSU Accountability
Process document, "Faculty scholarship and creative achievement." She also pointed
to the executive committee's original response, bringing up as well a couple
of examples from other campuses. This is an opportunity for raising questions
and making suggestions about the nature of the campus's response.
Gregory recalled and lamented the Provost's allusion
to comparative data: the Chancellor swears there should be no comparative data;
the Provost says it should not have happened but it did. Speaking specifically
of item #11, Gregory called attention to the structuring of the items: the indicators
are "campus support" and "outcomes of campus support," which is not necessarily
every laundry list or jotted down paragraph. This does seem to refer very specifically
to campus funding for specific kinds of faculty scholarship and creative achievement,
and we should keep our focus there.
Cherny first recalled the recently unanimously passed
statewide senate resolution on the accountability process: "resolved that the
academic senate CSU urge the Chancellor to ensure that campus senates are involved
actively in the process of forming and setting goals and preparing and submitting
reports as part of the CSU accountability process; and be it further resolved
that the academic senate CSU urge the Chancellor to ensure that the accountability
report of each campus be signed by the academic senate chair on behalf of the
campus senate or to accept a separate report from the campus senate; and be
it further resolved that the academic senate CSU urge the Chancellor and the
Board of Trustees to ensure, in keeping with cornerstones Principle 10, that
the process not be used to compare individual campuses or to compare similar
programs among CSU campuses." The Chancellor responded that the only comparison
that interested him was in individual campuses over time, which also alerts
us to a larger process: not just reporting but also goal-setting. Cherny suggested
that the document on setting goals sounds like the president does it all by
On item #11, Cherny shares Gregory's concerns completely,
and added the additional context of the promise of funding in Title V for research
and creative work as appropriate to the mission. The change in Title V has never
really been funded, and the large share of research and creative activity takes
place without direct support. Cherny strongly urged that there be a direct relationship
shown between the campus support provided and the research and creative activity
that results from it.
Turitz noted that though the FAR is required by the
collective bargaining agreement, there is no requirement for faculty to fill
out this accountability process. Gregory commented upon the "setting campus
goals" document, especially the notion of "continuous improvement," which seems
a bit foolish. She added that the values embedded in such language are things
about which we must think.
Helen Goldsmith suggested that part of the problem
is the label for #11. What is should be called is "support for faculty scholarship
and creative achievement"
La Belle picked up from several comments, first addressing
comparability. When campuses first went into this, each really thought that
they were going into it on their own, but when those lengthy reports were boiled
down to two pages and provided to the trustees in matrix form, comparability
was inherent. No one consulted with anyone with what those were going to look
like. We are down to a data-driven, truncated process. As to #11 specifically,
this campus is in good shape to report the kinds of opportunities available
to faculty, the amount and kind of funding, the number of applications, awards,
etc. When you try to put output with that it becomes very confounded. It is
very difficult to disentangle what the actual source and its relationship to
outcome might be.
Gregory raised a process question with two questions:
who is "us" in "setting campus goals" in the second sentence? Her next point
was that she no longer understands "consultation" since she believes that it
means more than informing faculty. Putting it more directly, she asked what
is the calendrical difficulty that makes it so hard to bring matters to faculty
at the point when consultation might be productive.
Brian de Vries raised a question of how CSU-support
is defined, wondering especially about the ".2" that is not teaching responsibility,
or support things that are in addition. La Belle agreed that this is a muddy
slope. He noted changes over time of how research has been funded from the Chancellor's
office, using sabbaticals as an example, where the Chancellor's office has no
idea what the campus is doing with sabbaticals. The Chancellor's office role
in this category is unclear.
Consoli commented upon La Belle's comment, commenting
that that would make the report a moot point since there is nothing to account
Cherny remarked that time is one of the most important things
for this sort of activity, and one of the things that CSU needs to aim at is
a definition of appropriate teaching load being 9-units rather than 12. We would
like to see that standardized and funded, and we don't want to undermine this
goal by suggesting that there is already an appropriate level of support. One
way is to go to the legislature and say that they have committed themselves
to do this in code, and they now need to fund it. There is a lot of work that
goes on for which there is absolutely minimal campus support if any at all.
Vaughn commented on the "CSU Accountability Process,
Setting Campus Goals" document that this just came to the president. Given short
turnaround, she requested that the executive committee review anything forthcoming
from the president's office. She also requested that the presidential and provost
groups use whatever opportunities they have to educate the Chancellor, Trustees
and the Legislature on what exactly the world of the CSU is like, and if that
means someone other than senates saying "no" on occasion, maybe that should
happen. For senators here, Vaughn charged them to go back to their constituents
and focus their attention on indicator #11, present the framework of that, make
sure that constituents know what the initial response of the executive committee
was, which was to limit the report to existing support and direct outcomes,
and be prepared to provide further input and information at the next senate
The Senate was adjourned at 3:40.
Secretary to the Faculty