Sense of the Senate Resolution Concerning Personnel Actions

Resolution Number: RF90-084
September, 1990

SENSE OF THE SENATE RESOLUTION

CONCERNING PERSONNEL ACTIONS

RF90-84

At its meeting of November 27, 1990, the Academic Senate approved the following resolution concerning personnel actions:

WHEREAS

The Academic Senate of The California State University in March l985 approved a statement on "Collegiality in the California State University System," in which the Academic Senate CSU affirms that in faculty affairs, administrators "should decide contrary to faculty recommendations only if there is clear indication of violation of system or campus policies or clear indications that the faculty committee failed to consider relevant information . . .;" and

WHEREAS

The American Association of University Professors in May l990 published a "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities," one of whose provisions states that "the governing board and president should, on questions of faculty status, as in other matters where the faculty has primary responsibility, concur with the faculty judgement except in rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail;" and

WHEREAS

The San Francisco State University faculty, in the recent referendum, affirmed its expectations that the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President will respect the judgement of the faculty in the peer review process; therefore be it

RESOLVED

That it be the sense of the San Francisco State Academic Senate, in all tenure-track faculty hiring, retention, tenure and promotions decisions where there exist positive recommendations by all parties required to make recommendations, except on the part of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, that the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President follow the spirit of the AAUP and the ASCSU by supporting such recommendations; and be it further

RESOLVED

That it be the sense of the San Francisco State Academic Senate that in instances when the Vice President for Academic Affairs or the President do not support unanimous recommendations, then they should detail their compelling reasons in writing and communicate them to all parties to the process.