USC Annual Report 2015-2016

San Francisco State University

University Sabbatical Committee (USC)

Annual Report [AY15-16]

Submitted to the Academic Senate Committee on Committees [May 5, 2016]

 

 

I. Executive Summary for the Academic Year:

  • The USC was charged with the task of reviewing and ranking sabbatical applications.
  • Leaves With Pay Policy (Reference Number: S13-18) was used as a guiding principle.

II. Committee Information and Review of Activities for the Academic Year:

                  A.  Roster

  • Philip G. King, Business
  • Tomoko Komada, Chemistry & Biochemistry/RTC (chair)
  • David Landy, Liberal and Creative Arts
  • Belinda I. Reyes, Ethnic Studies
  • Mitch L. Turitz, Library
  • Darlene Yee-Melichar, Health and Social Sciences

                  B. Regular Meeting Schedule and Committee Meetings:

  • The USC did not have a regular meeting schedule.
  • Dates the Committee met, and the members present:
    • Oct 21, 2015 at 2 pm; teleconference; Komada, Landy, Reyes, Yee
    • Nov 18, 2015 at 11 am; in-person meeting; King, Komada, Landy, Reyes, Turitz

                  C. Action Items

  • Review and rank 58 semester sabbatical applications (completed)
  • Review and rank (yes/no) 10 academic year sabbatical applications (completed)

III. Committee Recommendations for the upcoming Academic Year:

                  A. Re: Committee Charge:

  • None

                  B. Re: Committee Membership:

  • Not all Colleges elected their USC member in a timely fashion, and this greatly affected the scheduling of the review process.  In the future, all colleges should nominate a USC member by a specific deadline.
  • All 7 Colleges and the Library should be represented.  In AY15-16, College of Extended Learning was not represented.

                  C.  To the Senate:

  • Ranked lists from the college committee and the Dean need improvement.  Item 5a in policy #S13-18 states: “The college/library committee and the college dean/director shall prepare rationales for each ranking. These rationales shall be preserved as information for the candidates, as evidence of the basis on which the college awards leaves with pay, and for purposes of appeals, adjudication, and grievances.” 
  • The college committee and the Dean need to work out their differences.  Item 5b in policy #S13-18 states: “If the college/library committee and the college/library dean/director disagree in their rankings, they will attempt to work out their differences. The college/library committee and the dean/director must initially meet to discuss their rankings before submitting the recommendations to the next level of review. If agreement is not reached, the matter will go to adjudicative review by the University Sabbatical Committee.”
  • The 1000 word limit is not always adhered to.  Consider enforcing this using a metric that is more easily verified, e.g., limit the number of pages, font size and margin width.  This should be checked at the time of application, and not during the review process.
  • Switch to online submission.

                  D.  To next year’s Committee:

  • None

IV. Endorsement by the Committee

  • State that the report has been endorsed by the Committee and its members.