Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting

of March 5, 2002


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

Senate Members








Blomberg, Judith












































Belle, Thomas














Wen Shen






















Mary Anne







Senate Members


Boyle, Andrea (exc), Corrigan, Robert A. (exc), Oñate, Abdiel (exc),

Avila, Guadalupe (exc), Ganji, Vijay (exc), Gillotte, Helen (exc), Rob

Strong (exc), AdisaThomas, Karima (abs), Newt-Scott, Ronda (abs), Bishop,

Anna (abs)

Guests:  Mabel Chan, Beverly Voloshin,

Gail Whitaker, Paul Barnes, Dan Buttlaire, Julian Randolph, Lisa Jordan




Turitz, CFA representative announced

that a tentative agreement between the CFA ad the CSU will be put to a vote

of the CSU faculty between March 17th and 21st.

  • Chair’s Report


Vaughn reminded all faculty that there

are three important items that the faculty will be voting on in the next few

weeks. First, as indicated by Mitch Turitz, faculty will be voting on the

tentative agreement between the CFA and the CSU. Second, faculty will be voting

on important constitutional changes to the statewide academic senate constitution.

Vaughn reminded senators that last semester we failed to get a quorum when

voting on SFSU constitution revisions. The SFSU constitutional revisions have

been mailed to all faculty. Please vote and encourage your colleagues to vote.


Turitz moved to amend the agenda to

change item 7 from a proposed resolution on Chancellor Reed to a new resolution

on the tentative agreement.


(Turitz, Terrell) to approve the agenda as amended

Agenda Item #2:  Approval of Minutes for

Meeting of Minutes for February 19, 2002

m/s/p (Gregory, Oswaldo Garcia) to approve

the minutes

Agenda Item #3: report from Coordinators

of Office of Academic Honors and Scholarship.


Voloshin and Mabel

Chan provided the senate with a printed copy of their report. Beverly

Voloshin reported that the university has expanded the resources available

to continuing students seeking scholarships, fellowships, and honors. The

office of Academic Honors and Scholarship has been established through the

Financial Aid office. The Office needs and welcomes the assistance of academic

advisors, graduate coordinators, other faculty member, deans, and student

organizations in identifying outstanding students and helping them prepare

for national competitions. A web site has been created and can be found at

www.sfsu.edu/~honors, also www.sfsu.edu/~finaid.


Wolfe expressed his appreciation for

the fine work that has been accomplished and asked how students who do not

have Internet access can find information on the honors and scholarship program?

Beverly Voloshin indicated that articles in the campus newspaper were

being worked on and that Student Services has a large notebook with all the

information in hard copy that can be found on the web site. Robert Cherny

indicated that he is pleased at the beginning of getting this important information

on the web site. He recommended that a permanent staff and office for academic

honors and scholarships at SFSU would be very helpful to our students. He

noted that other CSU campuses have such an office and they are very effective.

Pamela Vaughn indicated that several of her students attended the information

meeting and found it very helpful. Provost La Belle acknowledged

the work that Voloshin and Chan have done and indicated the Gail Whitaker,

office of Academic Affairs, has additionally spent many long hours of work

in support of their work. Gail has been involved with the President’s scholarship

program working with and mentoring students. He indicated that this is only

the beginning and that we need to keep moving and developing our outreach

to students in this area. Beverly Voloshin indicated that SFSU student

demographics indicated that our students seem to be in greater need of financial

help than those at other campuses. We need to reach out and identify academically

qualified students and recommend them for academic honors and scholarships.

Jan Gregory proposed that this information be included on the new campus

web site, that a copy of this information is placed in admission packets,

and that an announcement of the availability of academic honors and scholarships

be placed in the class schedule.

Agenda Item #4: Report from Sheldon Axler

and Gail Whitaker.


Axler and Gail Whitaker, Co-Chairs of the Ad Hoc Committee

on Summer Semester Review and Assessment, provided the senate with an extensive

report on their Fall 2001 report to the President. Sheldon Axler reported that after an extensive survey

the committee recommended that the calendar for Summer 2002 be a 10-week semester

that would include one eight-week session and two five-week sessions. The

committee recommended that departments ensure that their classes are offered

in time blocks appropriate for their subjects. He reported that the committee

found that a university task force should be established to study the feasibility

of moving to a trimester system. Additionally, that the touch-tone registration

procedure that was used last summer remains the same for Summer 2001 with

matriculated students having two weeks to exercise their registration priorities

before classes are open to others. The committee also recommends that the

university continue to monitor the need for transportation including the initiation

of shuttle service.  Gail Whitaker indicated that we are working on ways

to identify the unmet demands of non-native students and to formalize the

gathering of that information into the data-gathering process. Additionally,

she will be looking at course that are in high demand through touch-tone and

assess the needs early on to add new section of high demand courses. Academic

Senate Chair Pamela


thanked Axler, Whitaker, and the members of the ad hoc committee for their

fine work on this important task.

Agenda Item #5: Proposed

Resolution on the Hiring of Graduate Teaching Associates (GTAs).

m/s (Gregory, Steier) to accept the resolution

Jan Gregory outlined the

importance of the resolution which indicated that it recommends that department

programs implement immediately the criteria and standards for hiring of GTAs

(Graduate Teaching Associates) as specified in the revised CSU Classification

and Qualification Standards issued on February 19, 2002. Copies of the revised

CSU standards were provided to each senator. The resolution also recommends

that departments restrict hiring of GTAs to those students who have completed

9 units of post-graduate study in the discipline with a GPA of 3.0. Additionally,

the GTA must have taken prior to date of hire at least one course that equips

them with pedagogical strategies for offering competent instruction or can

demonstrate professional experience that qualifies them to teach in the post-secondary

classroom. Rick Houlberg objected to the resolution since his department

hires qualified graduate students in their first semester. Many of these hires

have special technical expertise and extensive professional training that

goes beyond what can be found in one academic class on pedagogical strategies.

Susan Higgins voiced several concerns about the requirement of 9 units

in graduate study. Many of their hires have specialized expertise and their

focus is just a single class that they are very well qualified to teach. Midori

McKeon indicated that graduate students typically take 6 units each semester.

A requirement of 9 units completed would not allow graduate students to teach

until the second semester just prior to their graduation. The requirement

of 9 units completed will cause a serious problem and ask that it be reconsidered.

Lutfus Sayeed indicated that in many cases a students work experience

and undergraduate education make them more suitable than 9 units of graduate

study. Robert Cherny pointed out that the resolve clause allows for

either a teaching course or professional experience. There is a concern that

students with only a bachelor degree would be teaching students who are seeking

the same degree. Normally, a bachelor degree is not appropriate for teaching

classes; however, it may be that they have the appropriate qualification.

The resolution is focused to alert departments to appropriate qualification.

Provost La Belle pointed out three concerns and emphasized that our

concern is good teaching. Jan Gregory pointed out that the resolution

uses language developed in the Chancellor’s office. If you use GTAs they are

going to be supervised by appropriate faculty members. She pointed out that

many people can do something very well, however, teaching is another activity

altogether. Bruce Wolfe asked for a clarification between teaching

assistance and graduate teaching assistance. It was pointed out that the two

are very different. A teaching assistant help a faculty member assigned to

a particular class. The graduate teaching assistant is assigned the class

as the responsible teacher with evaluation responsibilities under the supervision

of a faculty member. Midori McKeon asked if an internship could be

used as a way of qualification? Pamela Vaughn pointed out that the

resolution attempts to implement CSU criteria for the hiring of GTA. The resolution

is a recommendation to departments and it is not policy but can lead to the

development of policy. Mary Ann Warren suggested a friendly amendment

of replacing professional experience with experience teaching in the classroom.

Pamela Vaughn indicated that the amendment is acceptable. Jan Gregory

said that a great many of the problems in the second resolve clause are normally

resolved at the department level. Susan Higgins pointed out that if

we only hire GRA with nine units completed then we would be limiting ourselves

to second year graduate students. Higgins has a great concern that this might

be overly restrictive on departments. Dawn Terrell recommended a friendly

amendment that would change the 9-unit requirement. Saul Steier indicated

that he sees the 9-unit requirement as a problem that would restrict the hiring

of GTAs who are otherwise qualified. Jan Gregory indicated that we

must distinguish between teaching assistant sand graduate teaching associates.

The GTA act like faculty while graduate assistance work with a faculty member.

Pamela Vaughn noted that this has been a very healthy discussion. She

wondered that maybe we are so obsessed hire GTA instead of lecturer faculty

because of the ease with which we can hire GTA? Susan Higgins indicated

that some programs use the position of GTA as a recruitment tool to attract

highly qualified professionals. She recommends that we should leave the hiring

of GTAs to our professional judgment and not use a blanket restriction of

completing 9 units. Provost La Belle indicated that CET took the initiative

last year to encourage departments to have GTAs enroll in a CET instruction

preparation course. He was surprised to find that several departments did

not take advantage of this program. Might want to refer this issue to the

faculty affairs committee and have them come back with suggestions. Miriam

Smith recommends that we refer this issue to faculty affairs. Marlon

Hom recommended a friendly amendment to the second resolve clause to read

a GPA of 3.0 and on full semester of graduate studies. Mitch Turitz

indicated that we have a university policy on the hiring and recruitment of

temporary faculty, why not GTAs? Mitch asked if GTAs were being hired because

it is cheaper than hiring a temporary faculty? This may be another way to

reduce the number of both lecturer and tenure-track positions. He recommends

that GTAs should be hired when it is required to do so by their major. Robert

Cherny suggested that we may be misreading the second resolve clause,

and the first resolve clause only encourages the criteria and does not require

them. Susan Higgins noted that the resolution would most likely be

interpreted at the department level as university policy. She recommended

that the word “suggestion” be inserted to clarify the intent of the resolution.

Jan Gregory indicated that she has strong feelings that GTAs are being

used to replace lecturer faculty. Senate Chair Pamela Vaughn asked

for a vote on the resolution if the second resolve clause were removed and

the issue were sent, as indicated in the final resolve clause, to the faculty

affairs committee.

(Remains in first reading)

Agenda Item #6: Proposed Resolution on Inclusion

of First-Term Foreign Language Courses for General Education.

Senators Midori

McKeon and Christopher Concolino introduced the resolution

to the senate. Midori indicated that the resolution is a response to a CSU

academic senate resolution that is being proposed that would eliminate first-term

foreign language courses in meeting general education requirements. She indicated

that Executive Order 595, General Education-Breadth Requirements (November

20, 1992), states: “Foreign language courses may

be included in this requirement because of their implications for cultures

both in their linguistic structures and in their use in literature, but foreign

language courses which are approved to meet a portion of this requirement

are to contain a cultural component and not be solely skills acquisition courses.”


from the resolution Midori indicated that first-term

foreign language courses have been recognized as having a cultural component

and have met the standards for General Education-Breadth at San Francisco

State University since 1982. Further, that many

students come to San Francisco State University as transfer students, after

studying foreign languages at community colleges; therefore be it. She and

senator Concolino recommend that the Academic Senate, San Francisco

State University, strongly recommend that CSU foreign language departments

work with community college foreign language departments to ensure that first-term

foreign language courses contain a cultural component. That first-term foreign

language courses taken in community colleges continue to be evaluated on a

course-by-course basis to determine if such courses contain a cultural component

and are therefore acceptable as satisfying part of a student's General Education-Breadth

requirements. Dean Kassiola recommended that it might be a better

idea to work with the community colleges to assure that the foreign language

courses meet CSU requirements. Robert Cherny pointed out that many

of the first and second year languages in the CSU are part of the articulation

number system and that many of the community college are equivalent to CSU

courses. On our campus our courses are acceptable and therefore cannot eliminate

the articulated CC courses. Pamela Vaughn restated that the resolution

is addressed to the academic senate of the CSU. Julian Randolph, retired

language professor, recommended that it is important to work with the CC and

that many the CC language courses use the same textbooks that we use. Additionally,

entering freshman are required to have two years of high school foreign language

course work while transfer students from CC are not required to have a language

course. Marlon Hom urged all senators to adopt the resolution.

m/s/p (Terrell, Steier) to second reading

Provost La Belle indicated that

it is worthwhile that we follow up on Dean Kassiola’s recommendation that

we work closely with Community College Foreign Language Department to assure

that their courses have a cultural component.

m/s/p (Steier, Mary Ann Warren) to close


Voting on the resolution as amended -


Agenda Item #7:

Proposed Resolution on Tentative Agreement. 


Vaughn introduced the proposed resolution

from the Executive Committee, which recommends its approval.


in the California State University (CSU), have now been working without a

contract for nearly a year. The CFA and the CSU’s bargaining for a successor

contract has been dangerously adversarial even through the final stages of

the fact-finding process. The California Faculty Association (CFA) and the

CSU have now, after these long and arduous discussions, developed a tentative

agreement for a successor contract for teaching faculty, librarians, and counselors

in the CSU. The Academic Senate of San Francisco State University applaud

the Parties for addressing the numerous and complex issues in language that

will produce more equitable and dignified treatment of all faculty. The Academic

Senate of San Francisco State University thanks those individuals who committed

themselves for many months to the cause of faculty in the CSU and to the larger

goals of higher education in general; and further be it.


(Turitz, Gregory) to second reading

Mitch Turitz, academic senator and SFSU CFA President provided

the senate with a summary of the CFA-CSU tentative agreement.

In the areas of compensation:  A 2% general salary

increase (GSI) effective on April 1, 2002. A second 2% GSI effective July

1, 2002. A 2.65% salary step increase (SSI) for eligible effective on June

30, 2002. A second SSI of 2.65% for eligible faculty effective June 30, 2002.

A third SSI increase of 2.65% for eligible faculty effective June 30, 2004.

CSU counselor salaries will gain parity with faculty effective on June 30,

2002. Lecturers without health coverage will receive it effective June 30,

2002. However, all lecturers will receive health insurance effective June

30, 2003. Department chairs that are eligible will receive a stipend increase

depending on their assignment effective June 30, 2002. 


other areas: Effective July 1, 2003, if the negotiated compensation increase

settlement equals or exceeds three and one-half percent (3.5%), then a joint

committee shall be convened to determine the specific provisions of a merit

pay program with an understanding that 25% of the compensation settlement

costs shall be dedicated to merit pay in any year when the trigger is met.

The parties agree that any merit pay program developed by the committee shall

have binding appeals of final awards to a committee composed of faculty members.

A pool of money shall be set aside for appeals so that the total amount of

awards including appeals does not exceed the 25% of allocated funds. In the

areas of year-round operations, by the end of 2004, compensation and workload

will be the same for summer as for fall and winter. There is also a “family-friendly”

provision that expands the definition of “immediate family,” “stops the tenure

clock” for one year for those taking a year leave of absence for pregnancy/birth

or adoption of child and paid parental leave increased from current 20 to

30 days, while retaining option of using additional 10 days of sick leave


contract also includes important improvements for lecturer faculty. All temporary

faculty with 6 years of service receive a 3-year contract and no up-front

evaluation. At the end of the 3-year contract, there is improved “careful

consideration” for reappointment. The specific contract language notes:

“Temporary faculty (excluding coaches)

holding three-year appointments shall have the expectation of appointment

to subsequent 3-year appointments except in instance of documented unsatisfactory

performance or serious conduct problems. These temporary faculty will be re-appointed

after a three-year appointment unless there is insufficient work for which

the faculty member is qualified. In the event there is insufficient work to

support the re-appointment at the previous time base, the time base of his/her

successor’s three-year appointment may be reduced to reflect available work

for which the temporary faculty member is qualified.”

Mitch Turitz asked that all faculty

review the summary of the agreement. A copy of the summary was handed out

to all senators. Rick Houlberg recommended against voting for the resolution.

He believes that the CSU administration did not bargain in good faith.

Scott Jerris recommended approval of the resolution and asked why this

year’s 2% GSI is not retroactive to the beginning of the year, July 1, 2001? 

Mitch Turitz indicated that CFA had many things to negotiate in order

to achieve an overall equitable resolution. We will get a total of 4% GSI

this year, 2% April 1 and 2% on July 1 of this year. He indicated that he

believes that the CFA faculty and student demonstration were very effective.

Bruce Wolfe indicated that there was good work by the CFA and that

students were actively supporting faculty. He urged all to vote for the agreement.

Marlon Hom asked for a clarification on the section that addresses

the chair GSI. Does it mean that chairs get both a 2% and 7% GSI? Margaret

Henry pointed out that many students participated with us in the demonstrations

held downtown at the Marriott.


(Terrell, Mary Ann Warren) to second reading


(Terrell, Gregory) to close to debate

Voting on the resolution, passed


Adjourned at: 3:50






to the Faculty