San Francisco State University

Academic Senate

Minutes of February 22, 2000

The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Terrell at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present:

Alvarez, Alvin; Avila, Guadalupe; Bernstein, Marian; Boyle, Andrea; Cancino,

Herlinda; Concolino, Christopher; Consoli, Andres; Cullers, Susan; Duke, Jerry;

Edwards, James; Elia, John; 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; Kelley, James; Langbort, Carol; Moallem,

Minoo; Oñate, Abdiel; Pasaporte, Erin Dawn; Raggio, Marcia; Sagisi, Jaymee;

Smith, Miriam; Strong, Rob; Swanson, Deborah; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz, Mitch;

Vaughn, Pamela; Wick, Jeanne; Wong, Alfred; Yee, Darlene.

Senate Members Absent: McKeon, Midori(exc.); Craig, JoAnn(exc.);

Eisman, Gerald; Aaron, Eunice; La Belle, Thomas(exc.); Bartscher, Patricia(exc.);

Scoble, Don(exc.); Corrigan, Robert(exc.); Wolfe, Bruce(exc.); Collier, James(exc).

Guests: P. Barnes, R. Busby, M. Kasdan, G. West, G. Whitaker,

C. Colvin, A. Hallum, N. Rabolt.

Announcements and Report


  • Chair Terrell welcomed Brian DeVries of the College of Health

    and Human Services to the Senate.

  • Latest Senate News includes Frequently Asked Questions on FMIs and SSIs.
  • California Post-Secondary Education Commission has published an update on

    faculty salaries at California showing a modest gain this year but a projection

    of a 9% gap for next year.

  • Margo Kasdan announced a set of hearings at San José State

    on March 14th on "The Future of the CSU."

Chair's Report

Terrell reported on the recent meeting of CSU Academic Senate Chairs. Recruiting

and retaining new faculty was of broad concern. The Chairs met with David Spence,

CSU Vice President of Academic Affairs, who updated them on Year Round Operations

(YRO) and the move to 120 units. Given that the legislature is unlikely to fully

fund YRO, YRO will be confined to campuses and programs where it makes the most

sense. They also met with Sam Strafaci and Cordelia Oltiveres of CSU Human Resources;

they suggested that there will be very little change in the next contract negotiations

on FMIs.

Terrell also notes that there were some statements on the Senate floor in the

last meeting that were inaccurate; these will be clarified today.

Agenda Item #1 -- Approval of the Agenda for February 22, 2000

The agenda was approved as printed.

Agenda Item #2 -- Approval of Minutes for February 8, 2000

Terrell corrected her statement as written in the minutes "that you are eligible

for 8 step increases," noting that she had prefaced that with the qualifier

"it is my understanding."

The minutes were approved as corrected.

Agenda Item #3 -- Proposed Policy on Service Salary Step Increase

Terrell introduced the Proposed Policy on Service Salary Step Increase,

a consent item from the Executive Committee, alerting us to a number of changes.

How SSI recommendations are forwarded has been clarified. Additional changes

have been made based on meetings with University Counsel and information from

Long Beach.

Darlene Yee asked for further clarification on whether the SSI is an

evaluative process. Terrell noted paragraph four to answer that an SSI is not

automatic and is subject to review.

Mitch Turitz asked to see the "FMI/SSI Program Tracking Sheet." Terrell

commented that the Tracking Sheet has been sent out; she added that what goes

forward is recommended amounts at each level. It now becomes a way that people

indicate if they wish to appeal the President's decision. Turitz added that

it should be attached to the policy if mentioned in the policy. Marlon Hom responded

that the tracking sheet is being revised at the discretion of the President.

Terrell added that we cannot attach it to the policy because tracking sheets

are not considered the purview of the Senate and are not part of the policy.

M/S/P (Duke, Hom) to second reading.

Terrell spoke to an important change related to the following sentence in paragraph

2: "SSI eligibility is determined at the time of appointment, or most recent

promotion, and is not affected by the award of a Faculty Merit Increase (FMI)."

Thus, an individual's eligibility for an SSI depends on the salary and step

at which they were appointed, so it will vary across individuals. It is not

the case that an individual is automatically eligible for 8 SSIs.

Jan Gregory asked if that would be true within a single range or if

that would carry over to other ranges. Terrell stated that her understanding

is that with promotion there is a new determination of SSI eligibility. Gregory

asked how that would effect lecturers? Hom answered that according to the policy

on temporary appointment, there is a section on range elevation when they reach

the maximum step. Terrell added that she does not have the specific answer to

Gregory's question; however, the way we have worded the policy is such that

we can pass the policy without having a definitive answer.

Carol Langbort asked for further explanation about what is determined

at the time of appointment. Turitz answered that new appointment letters give

gross amount but not which step you are placed in, although you can find this

out by looking at the salary schedule. Terrell added that if your starting salary

is at the top of the rank, you will not be eligible for an SSI. Hom added that

the chair has to inform the faculty member of the eligibility status. Langbort

also raised a concern about how a chair can check on the accuracy of these designations.

Terrell restated: when a person is appointed, a step designation is made; that

designation is changed by step increases but not FMIs.

Alvin Alvarez asked if it were possible for a faculty member to get

several FMIs and be ineligible for SSIs. Terrell answered that it is not possible.

Andres Consoli went over SSI caps for each range to exemplify the policy.

He added that the Collective Bargaining Agreement, p. 84, 31.10, answers Alvarez's

question: "Beginning with the award of Faculty Merit Increases effective on

July 1, 1998, the award of a Faulty Merit Increase shall not diminish a faculty

member's eligibility for remaining Service Salary Increases."

Gregory pointed to paragraph six, which addresses Alvarez's concern. She also

pointed out that the resistance that lies behind some of these questions is

that what we're talking about is an attempt to deal with the concerted effort

of the Chancellor's office to disentangle rank and salary, which leaves to the

Senates to try and create language that makes sense out of a situation that

in its basic elements makes no sense at all. As to whether individual faculty

can find out where they stand on the salary schedule, consult Faculty Affairs--mistakes

are made.

Turitz echoed Gregory, stating that some people say that the salary schedule

no longer exists--this is an urban myth. It's in the back of the contract. Although

the FMIs allow you to be placed between the steps, that does not do away with

salary steps.

M/S/P (Duke, Gregory) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.

Agenda Item #4 -- Proposed Revisions to A.S. Policy F84-122 Evaluation of

Tenured Faculty

Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) Chair Marlon Hom introduced the proposed

revisions to Evaluation of Tenured Faculty, a consent item from FAC. These revisions

have been extensively discussed in two Senate discussions two years ago in light

of a dysfunctional policy that many tenured faculty were not following. There

were two basic points: there is a group that does not believe in post-tenure

review and there are some who want something that is more accountable. This

debate was caught up in the crisis with the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

We are trying to improve on the policy so that it is not just a paperwork process

but works for professional development and support. This is not a policy following

the national sentiment to abolish tenure; we respect tenure and uphold it with

all the academic freedom rights. Hom also explained that inclusion of faculty

on early retirement has been looked at carefully.

Terrell alerted us to a few changes made by the Executive Committee:

page 2, paragraph 1, "to be commenced" has been deleted, replaced by "which

will take place"; page 2, paragraph 4, "tenure" should be "tenured"; "where

there is" should be "where there are"; "on" rather than "in" the review committee.

Susan Fox-Wolfgramm raised several questions: on page 3 "may meet" makes

it seem like there are not any teeth, which she would like to see. Hom added

that the teeth were deleted because of opposition to the reward/punishment structure.

Fox-Wolfgramm also asked abut clarifying on page 3 the "goals identified":

when were these goals identified? set by whom? are they the same as the review

criteria in section 2? Hom replied that this section addresses when the review

is completed, and the faculty might meet and set up a program for improvement,

which would be sent up to Faculty Affairs. If there is a question of resources

or support, we do not want the department or college having to fight or faculty

fighting with each other.

Carol Langbort asked why the evaluation was in the Spring semester,

which would then make it not a full five years. Hom explained that by Spring

semester Academic Affairs usually has end of the year money. Langbort commented

further that she is involved in it now and faculty had to get it in by March

while Faculty Affairs had until December. Hom responded that that is the old

policy, and he added that the first review may not be a full five years but

subsequent years will be. Paul Barnes, Dean of Faculty Affairs, also

remarked on the calendar, saying that if you're going to have a five year period

you should have the summer.

Yee commented that given that faculty have to submit the Faculty Annual

Report we might be able to build on that rather than duplicate our efforts.

Hom replied that he did not want to mention the FAR because we do not know if

it will be here the next time.

Gregory summarized the agreement on evaluation of tenured faculty: there

is periodic review of tenured faculty in periods of no greater than five years,

which gives departments some flexibility.

M/S/P (Duke, Goldsmith) to second reading.

Gregory commented that we include in the record of this discussion that departments

have some latitude in the documentation that they will use and also that the

periodicity is not quite as rigid as the common phrasing makes it seem. Hom

added for the new Senators that this revision should be looked at in a positive

light; even in the contract there was language like "deficiencies"; we are changing

this to "development and support" rather than acceptable/unacceptable.

Langbort stated that there is just something troubling about the whole thing.

It's just another thing that keeps us very busy rather than doing the work that

we're supposed to be doing. She raised some broad questions like what really

happens as a result of this? Hom replied that this is precisely the current

situation. We're trying to address the crisis that post-tenure review is meaningless.

But there is a requirement for periodic evaluation of tenured faculty in the

CBA. Turitz added that this policy was imposed on us through the contract some

time ago, and it does not have teeth. If somebody has a serious problem with

their performance, hopefully the department chair will deal with it before the

five year review.

Gregory commented that thinking about it in terms we would use with our students,

we would look at this as a formative form of review that is a threat to no one.

The Senate has the job of trying to put forth a policy that we can live with.

M/S/P (Duke, Kelley) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.

Agenda Item #5 -- Response to SJSU "Out of Crisis" White Paper

Terrell introduced this discussion item from the Executive Committee,

first outlining the history of this SJSU White Paper "Out of Crisis." It goes

back to May; the SJSU Senate endorsed it in November, and five other campuses

have endorsed it. The paper focuses on the need to reform both structurally

and culturally the CSU administration and Board of Trustees, given that most

reform efforts have focused on faculty and students. The paper notes significant

differences between academic and system culture and argues that these differences

give rise to conflicts. A basic premise in the paper is that strict lines be

drawn between spheres of influence of the administration and faculty: finance

and coordination for administration; education for faculty. They propose several

solutions: sharply define the role of central administration; redistribute much

of the systemwide budget to campuses; establish a taskforce; localize Board

of Trustees meetings; restructure the Board of Trustees. The Senate is proposing

that we discuss it as a senate. Some of the issues have already been raised

locally. We are also interested to see reactions to the white paper.

Caroline Harnly found the document to be overwhelmingly negative, noting

positive things that the central administration does for us, like the consortium

agreements that have been reached for electronic databases and journals.

Yee agreed with Harnly and shared concerns about the resolution and

white paper: she questions if the sense of the senate might be untimely since

we are not currently in crisis; raised problems about the possibly self-serving

composition of the task force, and suggested that the timeline needs a reality


Gregory offered several broad observations: as an English teacher, it

is dismally written; however, wearing other hats, in its overall scope and intent

it speaks very deeply to the feelings of many faculty. We should ask ourselves

if we see some of the same problems and might it be time to start addressing

them in a collaborative way.

Deborah Swanson pointed to the appendix, which gives evidence of the

kind of top down crisis management mode we have been in as the campuses have

tried to deal with assessment, remediation, merit pay and so on. These are not

minor issues.

Marian Bernstein touched on another issue that has been bothering her

for a long, long time: our administration should be fending for us rather than

laying the problems on us; they should be out there trying to tell what a wonderful

place this is rather than trying to squeeze us.

James Edwards pointed to some things that stood out in the document,

for example, the amount of expenditures at the CSU office in Long Beach, which

is a truly vulgar amount of money when we consider what we get on this campus

and what we need, when we consider that students are struggling to get the courses

they need and departments are struggling to offer the courses to support the

curriculum. On CRAC, we see many proposals that need more faculty support to

be effective. There is a tendency on the administration to add another central

administrator whenever there is a new directive but no tendency to add new faculty

or staff. I agree there is a crisis, but it has been going on so long that most

of us are pretty numb to it. He would like to support this document.

Abdiel Oñate commented that this is an important document, pointing

out the question of governance, what this university is, what learning and teaching

is. It is clear that in the past year and a half or so we have been in turmoil

about these questions. We must sit down in a cooperative dialogue that can lead

to a better university, but I am not sure what is going to come out of this


Swanson added that her question to everyone is what are our options, our alternatives.

Let's think about what we want to accomplish.

Terrell addressed a number of earlier statements, stating first that we brought

it to the senate to see if there was a sense of the senate. We can do nothing,

or we can endorse it enthusiastically; or we can do something in between. For

Terrell, there are issues around governance that do need to be addressed, but

she also has concerns with some of the specific solutions in the white paper.

She would not feel comfortable endorsing the white paper but would feel comfortable

endorsing the effort, which would make a task force a particularly worthy vehicle

for collaboratively addressing principles and recommendations for governance

in the CSU.

Jerry Duke echoed Terrell's statements, adding that we must respond

to this or be seen as saying that everything is fine. From the viewpoint of

a department chair, looking at the list of problems, if they added more there

would be a crisis of department chairs. He strongly suggests some sort of response

that says we are in favor of the fact that if we are not in crisis now, we are

headed there.

Swanson concurred with Duke that we must respond but returned to the question

of what a productive response would be. She wondered if we could enthusiastically

endorse the statement of the problem and then in our own response talk about

our concerns and some tentative proposals on how a task force might be shaped.

Jeanne Wick raised two questions: is there a sense of what the Trustees

and Chancellor are thinking about this document? what sort of meat could there

be to this? Terrell replied that there has already been some movement with the

Vice Chancellor meeting with the drafters and a Board of Trustees meeting in

San José in March.

Ken Fehrman endorsed the concept, but suggested that we take a step

back and move it outside this room, getting more input from across our campus,

which would lend support to it.

Gregory drew our attention to page one, the sense of senate resolution, noting

that with just a few changes to the first resolve we could endorse the spirit

of the white paper, thank them for raising the issues for the larger CSU community,

support the desire to formalize the conversation, to find out if management

practices are as efficient as it might be. The language is here.

Terrell concluded that the sense of the senate is that we take some action

to support: we endorse raising the issue of governance. She proposed that the

Executive Committee draft a resolution for the next senate meeting, following

Fehrman's suggestion in the meantime to make sure there is wide input.

Agenda Item #6 -- Proposed Revisions to the Bachelor of Arts in Family and

Consumer Sciences: Clothing and Textiles Concentration

Alfred Wong, Chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee (CRAC),

introduced the proposed revisions to the Bachelor of Arts in Family and

Consumer Sciences: Clothing and Textiles Concentration.

M/S/P (Edwards, Goldsmith) to second reading.

M/S/P (Edwards, Hom) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.

Agenda Item #7 -- Proposed Revisions to the Bachelor of Arts Degree in Family

and Consumer Sciences: Interior Design and Housing Concentration

Wong introduced the proposed revisions to the Bachelor of Arts Degree

in Family and Consumer Sciences: Interior Design and Housing Concentration.

Duke asked Nancy Rabolt to speak further about the two proposals.

Rabolt described them as a little housekeeping in both programs. These prerequisites

will help our students with the quality of the work in the advanced classes.

M/S/P (Edwards, Fehrman) to second reading.

M/S/P (Fehrman, Hom) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved.

The Senate was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty