SFSU Academic Senate
Minutes of February 8, 2000
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Terrell at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Aaron, Eunice; Alvarez, Alvin; Avila, Guadalupe; Bernstein, Marian; Boyle,
Andrea; Collier, James; Concolino, Christopher; Consoli, Andres; Corrigan, Robert;
Cullers, Susan; Duke, Jerry; Fehrman, Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte; Fox-Wolfgramm,
Susan; Gillotte, Helen; Goldsmith, Helen; Gonzales, Angela; Graham, Michael;
Gregory, Jan; Harnly, Caroline; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung; Hubler, Barbara; Jerris,
Scott; Johnson, Dane; Johnson, Sharon; La Belle, Thomas; Langbort, Carol; McKeon,
Midori; Moallem, Minoo; OÃ±ate, Abdiel; Raggio, Marcia; Smith, Miriam;
Strong, Rob; Swanson, Deborah; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Vaughn, Pamela;
Wick, Jeanne; Wolfe, Bruce; Wong, Alfred; Yee, Darlene.
Senate Members Absent: Craig, JoAnn; Edwards, James; Cancino,
Herlinda; Elia, John(exc.); Eisman, Gerald; Bartscher, Patricia(exc.); Kelley,
James(exc.); Scoble, Don(exc.); Sagisi, Jaymee.
Guests: J. Kassiola, G. West.
Announcements and Report
- Terrell will be going to Long Beach for a meeting of CSU campus Academic
Senate Chairs; she will report on this at our next meeting.
- Terrell also announced future Senate forums on lecturers and on engagement.
Agenda Item #1 -- Approval of the Agenda for February 8, 2000
M/S/P (Vaughn, Duke) to change Agenda Item #6 from an action item to
a discussion item.
Sung Hu asked for further explanation. Terrell explained that there
were questions about the policy that came to the attention of the Executive
Committee over the past days, and some changes need to be made; for example,
the SSI language is not consistent with the FMI language. We also anticipated
that additional questions and points of clarification might come up with discussion
The agenda was approved as amended.
Agenda Item #2 -- Approval of Minutes for December 7, 1999
The minutes were approved as printed.
Agenda Item #3 -- Report from Statewide Senators
Eunice Aaron reminded Senators that minutes from the most recent Statewide
Senate meetings have been emailed and highlighted some items from the plenary
session. The Senate saw for the first time a Trustee document with the number
of units for an undergraduate degree; this document caused palpable tension;
the Senate agreed on a resolution asking the Trustees to refrain from action
until campuses and Statewide Senate can have some discussion. Aaron summarized
one other item of particular interest: the Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee
will be discussing campus/senate relationships and governmental affairs; this
is interesting now because of the effect term limits have now on the knowledge
level of the people elected to do the people's business.
Aaron also recounted Chancellor Reed's response to a question on what he meant
by "common calendars." Reed answered that common calendars does not mean that
all campuses will have the same starting and ending period, and he offered no
further response. But the Chancellor's Office is pretty far along in eliminating
the campuses that are on the quarter system.
Darlene Yee reported on work completed by the Academic Affairs Committee,
which reviewed nine items of business. Four resolutions were presented by the
Academic Affairs Committee. The Statewide Academic Senate passed the Proposed
Revision of Title 5 Regulations on Undergraduate Degrees (mentioned by Aaron
above), which recommends postponing action on the revision of Title 5 Regulations
until after the CSU Academic Senate's May plenary. The Academic Affairs Committee
discussed the recommended change on lowering the CSU graduation requirement
from 124 to 120 semester units, noting the Cornerstones and Governor's budget
recommendation to shorten time to graduate and that most universities across
the nation use 120 units as a minimum unit requirement.
Yee also reported that the Statewide Academic Senate moved, as first reading
items, the following three resolutions: Enrollment Management Policy (urging
the CSU Board of Trustees to adhere to some specific principles when considering
a policy for managing enrollment on the campuses); Impaction Policy (urging
the Board to adopt certain specific principles for campuses and programs when
implementing enrollment management and impaction); Proposed Title 5 Revisions
to Admission Criteria (endorses proposed revisions and makes modifications to
the trustee policy on grade point average calculation used to determine freshman
Yee summarized the following updates discussed by the Academic Affairs Committee:
Proposed Community Service Graduation Requirement (campus feedback will be posted
to a website at http://www.co.calstate.edu/aa/cls/csreq.html.; CSU Community
Service Learning Coordinator Erica Freihage feels that there has been some noticeable
softening of the Governor's position on a mandatory requirement and a possibility
of funding for community service learning); Council of Library Directors (COLD)
Draft Library Strategic Plan (input should be submitted ASAP); Common Articulation
Numbering System (CANS) Retreat; Stockton Multiple-Campus Regional Center (original
plan does not hold much hope; there is a feasibility study in progress); CSU-Channel
Islands (the plan is currently being worked on).
Jan Gregory summarized the work of the CSU Academic Senate Faculty Affairs
Committee, much of which will focus on Year-Round-Operations, specifically common
calendars. On the number of units for an academic degree, there has been a call
for campus review of major and GE programs. The reduction is ostensibly not
a way of reducing the number of breadth units. They will also be addressing
the intellectual property issue.
Gregory also summarized the AAHE meeting, where this campus was well represented.
There was a focus on matters like having not only a university mission statement
but also college and department mission statements for RTP purposes to which
the reward system would be tied. There was a lot of discussion on intellectual
property and the role of part-time faculty.
Gregory added that the Statewide Senate appointed three faculty representatives--including
Gregory--to a committee to discuss workload, which was formerly comprised only
of Provosts and Vice Presidents.
Terrell commented on Yee's mention of the community service learning
update, adding that locally our President is Chair of the CSU advisory committee
on this issue, which has prepared a draft statement, "Engaged Campuses, Engaged
System," and the Director of our Office of Community Service Learning, Gerald
Eisman, has prepared a response to that. Both are available at the Senate office.
Agenda Item #4 -- Report from Pamela Vaughn, Chair of Programs for AsiloCampus
Pamela Vaughn summarized the work of AsiloCampus 2000 while encouraging
feedback on future retreats. 205 attended, and the primary goal was to offer
a diverse program at a low cost, which was possible with the assistance of Conference
Programs, the President and the Provost, the academic deans, and the Bookstore.
The Committee is now evaluating the assessment forms, and anyone with ideas
about whether we should have a campus retreat and what that kind of retreat
should have should contact the Committee.
Vaughn finished by thanking all the members of the planning committee: Bonnie
Homan, Alvin Alvarez, Paul Barnes, Jerry Duke, Marlon Hom, Donna Ryan, Dawn
Terrell, Susan Taylor, Mitch Turitz, Penny Warren, and, especially, Bernadette
Pichay and Susan Cullers of the Academic Senate office.
Agenda Item #5 -- Proposed Revisions to the Bachelor of Arts in Comparative
Literature and the Minor in Comparative Literature
Curriculum Review and Approval Committee Chair Alfred Wong introduced
this consent item. The College of Humanities and the Department of World and
Comparative Literature are proposing changes to the major and minor in Comparative
Literature. These changes are the result of extensive research into current
comparable undergraduate programs throughout the United States, an evaluation
of curriculum and staffing issues, and more importantly our desire to provide
a curriculum which is the best possible and which meets current expectations
within the discipline.
M/S/P (Fehrman, Goldsmith) to second reading.
Terrell called the question.
The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #6 -- Proposed Policy on Service Salary Step Increase
Terrell introduced the discussion of the proposed policy on Service
Salary Step Increase (SSI), first outlining the changes anticipated by the Senate
Executive Committee: 1) have language that is consistent with the Faculty Merit
Increase (FMI) policy, indicating that reviews for SSIs will occur in departments
or equivalent units; 2) indicate that the review procedure that the department
settles on for FMI will be the same for SSI.
Mitch Turitz commented that on FMIs, the administration line was that
FMIs are not a personnel or HRT matter, and it seems to him that SSIs are a
personnel matter, but we are trying to make the two identical. Terrell replied
that it is a misconception to say that we are trying to make FMIs and SSIs "identical,"
but we are trying to join the two processes. Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC)
Chair Marlon Hom added that Turitz has brought up a built-in conflict that
comes from the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which cannot be removed.
FMI is not a personnel process and SSI is; this might be reconciled by looking
at the criteria for awarding the increases. For SSI, the main concern is the
24 Weighted Teaching Units with, as Terrell clarified, "satisfactory" performance.
Hom also added another problem that came up: the FAR has to be part of it, and
the FAR is an "annual" report; however, for part-time faculty, an annual report
is not sufficient.
Vaughn suggested caution in making FMI and SSI committees the same if
one is a personnel process and the other is not. Hom echoed how difficult it
is to resolve this issue. Terrell concurred that this is a major issue, for
the FMI policy says that all faculty can sit on those committees but typically
only tenured faculty can serve on personnel committees.
Gregory replied to a couple of items, first taking up what defines a
personnel matter while also calling on the help of Gerald West: her understanding
is that personnel matters include hiring, evaluation, retention, and tenure.
31.38 in the CBA reads "Such a determination shall be after consideration of
material in the employee's Personnel Action File."
Gerald West added that Article 15 of the CBA spells out what is meant
by faculty evaluation: "The term 'evaluation' as used in this Article shall
refer to either a Periodic Evaluation or a Performance Review." He added, reading
from 15.18, "A periodic evaluation of a faculty unit employee shall normally
be required for the following purposes: evaluation of temporary faculty unit
employees; evaluation of probationary faculty unit employees who are not subject
to a performance review; and evaluation of tenured faculty unit employees who
are not subject to a performance review for promotion." Terrell suggested that
this means review for SSI would not fall into this category, and she added that
we have consulted with University Counsel in drafting the SSI policy and will
do so again in clarifying this issue.
Marian Bernstein commented that there is a dichotomy in terms of how
lecturers are evaluated. Lecturers are only expected to teach and are only supposed
to be evaluated on teaching.
Andres Consoli raised the following question: his understanding was
that with SSIs pretty much everyone was eligible who was not at the top of their
classification, but that with the current CBA more became ineligible. Turitz
responded that the Step increases used to be automatic; there were four steps
and now there are eight half steps. The concept is still the same in that you
can move up those steps, but in order to do so you must fill out a FAR. President
Corrigan answered that there was not a single person who was ineligible
under those terms in the last cycle. He added that the Board of Trustees is
somewhat confused: they got hold of MSAs a few years ago but then found out
that the MSA was really automatic; the Board and the new Chancellor came in
and said that these are not supposed to be automatic, but with the new CBA,
the SSI has a lower threshold than FMI, even if the Board is still seeing SSI
as a kind of merit thing.
Vaughn suggested that with lecturers all that is expected is to have a FAR
on file. She raised a question about the 24 accumulated units: the practice
has been 24 accumulated units, but the CBA states "in the same department."
Gregory responded that this also says "or equivalent unit," which means if she
teaches English in the English Department and also in the College of Business,
all of those units count. Gregory also encouraged discussion with University
Counsel about 31.38, which seems to indicate different framing for the SSI than
for the FMI.
Sung Hu followed up on Consoli's question: in the olden days, there
were five steps in each rank with no overlap; this has been restructured with
overlap between ranks and more steps.
Dane Johnson addressed Bernstein's concern, suggesting there is no hindrance
for lecturers given the language that SSIs are given "commensurate with rank
and work assignment."
Carol Langbort raised a concern about faculty hired through grants,
given the new ORSP rule that lecturers must be hired by the project and not
the department. She was assured that all would count as university credit. This
could affect the ability of lecturers to get an SSI. Hom replied that when lecturers
are hired for a project, when the money runs out, the employment is terminated
with no entitlement. In terms of the SSI, there better be built-in SSI money
in to the project budget. Langbort followed up suggesting that the grant is
the "equivalent unit"; this confusion could cause some serious problems.
Provost Thomas La Belle responded to various parts of the discussion:
first, he suggested that it might be better to use different language than "department
or equivalent unit." On lecturers, the immediate answer is to make sure work
assignment is specified as best as one can. Addressing Langbort's question about
the source of dollars, La Belle suggested that if the source does not contain
sufficient dollars to pay the individual raises, there is a problem, but it
is not a new issue. La Belle also commented that there has been some confusion
on question of FMI and SSI procedures and processes in parallel; some people
think that this will also include criteria.
Jeanne Wick raised a question about the combination of FMI and SSI monies
for an individual's salaries. Turitz replied that the contract states that one
might fall between steps and that a step increase is 2.5%. Terrell added that
a person can receive the step increase for which they are eligible and on top
of that receive a full FMI, and that FMI will not affect their subsequent eligibility
for an SSI. Hom suggested no longer thinking of steps as a fixed amount but
as a percentage. Terrell also remarked that it is my understanding that you
are eligible for 8 step increases regardless of what you receive in FMIs.
Consoli asked again about how the new contract has impacted the eligibility
pool for SSIs. Corrigan answered that the pool has not been affected--the individuals
who would have been eligible for a SSI are still eligible for a SSI--but there
is a risk in that the SSI is no longer automatic.
Jerry Duke made a couple suggestions: we need to clarify the relationship
between FMIs and moving up in steps; if we make a statement that we use the
same procedure of determining how a department is going to award the SSI, this
could be confusing; it would be better to say that the department can choose
their method, leaving FMI out of the sentence.
Gregory first suggested extracting the major queries from the minutes today
and putting them in a letter for Susan Meisenhelder and Jackie McClain so that
they have some of the flavor of what has arisen as they prepare for bargaining.
Adding another tidbit on SSIs, evaluation, and part-time faculty, Gregory pointed
to language in article 12.2 of the CBA: "Each new faculty unit employee shall
also be provided no later than fourteen (14) days after the start of the quarter/semester
with written notification of the evaluation criteria and procedures in effect
at the time of his/her initial appointment." Absent that written information,
recommendations about "satisfactory performance" might be detached from verifiable
Turitz commented further on steps, quoting from article 31.1: "Employees may
be paid salaries at any step on the schedule for their rank/classification in
Appendix C, and may also be paid salaries between the rates for each step."
Hom added that FAC tried to get away from the old impression of dollar amounts
and steps. FMI awards might be a three or four step increase in the old language,
but those are not step awards.
Caroline Harnly asked about timelines. Terrell responded that the SSI
review is due the second Friday in March; we had hoped for a policy today, but
we want a clean policy. Terrell also commented on La Belle's point that many
departments are going beyond simply alerting their faculty to the process but
are also suggesting criteria, so we need to be clear that for the SSI we are
only talking about who does the review, not the criteria. La Belle asked if
it might be conceivable that a department or unit specify what is "satisfactory"
for the unit. Terrell replied that that is where Gregory's comment becomes pertinent.
The Senate was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
Secretary to the Faculty