Minutes of Academic Senate Meeting
March 10, 1998
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present: Aaron, Eunice; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein,
Marian; Blank, Mark; Chen, Yu-Charn; Cherny, Robert; Collier, James; Consoli,
Andres; Corrigan, Robert; Craig, JoAnn; Duke, Jerry; Eisman, Gerald; Fehrman,
Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte; Gillotte, Helen; Graham, Michael; Hammerstrom, Gary;
Hammett, Jennifer; Harnly, Caroline; Hom, Marlon; Homan, Bonnie; Houlberg, Rick;
Hu, Sung; Kelley, James; La Belle, Thomas; Lee, Wanda; Leitao, David; Lyles,
Lois; Monteiro, Ken; Nicholson, Joel; OÃ±ate, Abdiel; Phillips, Mark;
Raggio, Marcia; Rivas, Mario; Schweitzer, Newby; Scoble, Don; Smith, Nina Jo;
Swanson, Deborah; Thomson, Lana; Turitz, Mitch; Verhey, Marilyn; Warren, Mary
Ann; Warren, Penelope; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Wong, Alfred; Wong, Yim Yu; Woo,
George; Yee, Darlene; Zoloth-Dorfman, Laurie.
Senate Members Absent: Wade, Patricia(exc.); Goldsmith, Helen(exc.);
Choo, Freddie; Cancino, Herlinda; Graham, Minnie; Haw, Mary Ann(exc.); Johnson,
Dane(exc.); Tarakji, Ghassan; Barnes, Paul(exc.); Flowers, Will(exc.); Chang,
Paul(exc.); Mallare, Marie.
Senate Interns Present: Jaymee Sagisi, Regina Serafino.
Guests: H. Matson, J. Randolph, R. Giardina, G. West, S. Taylor,
D. Schafer, J. Kassiola, G. Whitaker, I. Grewal, K. Kodani.
Announcements and Report
- Phillips welcomed back Senator Ken Monteiro, Chair of Psychology,
replacing Dawn Terrell for this semester and Newby Schweitzer, replacing
Nancy Wilkinson, also through Spring 1998.
- Announced the representatives to the Search Committee for the Dean of
Human Relations - Beatrix Salih, College of Extended Education; Paul Chang,
Associated Students President; Penny Saffold, VP Student Affairs/Dean of Students;
Jake Perea, Dean, College of Education; Morris Head, Director of EOP; Amy
Hittner, Department of Counseling; Marlon Hom, Chair of Asian American Studies;
Mark Phillips, Chair of the Academic Senate; and Penny Warren, Counseling
and Psychological Services.
- The Executive Committee is working on several items including the operationalizing
of the recommendations concerning the Implementation of Multicultural Perspectives
in the Curriculum. Provost La Belle and the Office of Academic Affairs
are also involved in this effort.
- Another Executive Committee priority is working on making sense out of extended
notes from the faculty leadership retreat, Collegiality '98. The Executive
Committee is attempting to take out specific items that can be acted on rather
than amorphous suggestions. One of these recommendations specifically involves
the RTP calendar and expectations on RTP. The leadership role played by Department
Chairs is also under discussion, including the relationship between Department
Chairs and the Senate. A Department Chairs retreat is being planned
for early May. Members of the Executive Committee who are also Department
Chairs are working with Gerald West on this retreat. Another recommendation
involves the role of Senators in representing their constituency. It is hoped
that mechanisms can be put in place to close the feedback loop.
- Discussion continues in the Executive Committee concerning the review
of tenured faculty (item #7 on the agenda).
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for Meeting of March 10, 1998
As there were no objections, the agenda was approved as printed.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting of February 10, 1998
Robert Cherny said that while the minutes were accurate as recorded,
he wanted to respond to statements made by Jack Curtin. He asked for a point
of personal privilege to note that, contrary to Curtin's statement, what Cherny
had said at the Senate meeting was true.
As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as
Agenda Item #3 - Report from Vice President for Academic Affairs Tom La
La Belle reported on a number of items on which Academic Affairs continues
to work. By April, they hope to have closure on assessment of Segment 1 Basic
Skills through experimentation using a standardized test for graduating seniors.
Remediation is another issue. Freshmen must be tested between the time of admission
and the time of enrollment. If they need remediation in math and English, ways
to attempt to increase their skills must be provided. To try to reduce the pipeline,
about 15 sections of each course in those subjects have been added to the schedule
this semester. For the fall semester, Academic Affairs will try to guarantee
access to courses needed. He said that there appears to be a threat from the
system to not fund classes if, after one year, students are not "remediated".
Several alternatives to remediation are being considered.
A Graduate Diversity Forum, co-sponsored by USF, will be offered April 18 for
ethnically diverse students who are interested in graduate school. The Graduate
Recognition Ceremony and Undergraduate Honors Convocation will be held Thursday,
May 28. The Graduate Office is also evaluating data from a survey, conducted
by PRI, of exiting graduate students concerning and their attitudes toward graduate
The College Of Business Deans search is moving to closure. The sixth
candidate will be on campus Friday, March 13. Subsequently, the committee will
file their report and one or more candidates will be invited back to the campus.
The search for the Director of the Edelman Institute is also proceeding. That
committee is looking at five candidates.
Academic Affairs is reviewing 40 promotion cases and 27 tenure cases. There
were 199 PSSI applications. 57 applications have been submitted for travel support
grants. Gerald West is working with a committee to plan a workshop for Department
Chairs on May 1.
A Celebration of Service, probably using a format similar to this year's Celebration
of Teaching, is being planned. There will be Teaching Showcase on April 29.
Harvey Childs is working with both Ethnic Studies and International Studies
on an Undergraduate Multicultural degree involving both International Area Studies
and Domestic Ethnic Studies. They have gone through the first round of the FIPSE
process with success. A new curricular initiative for faculty interested in
international curricula and six faculty have been funded under that program.
They are also moving forward on ways to increase the probability that international
students will succeed, primarily in English language and study skills.
A number of proposals in Academic Programs have come forward including baccalaureates
in Child and Adolescent Development, Criminal Justice, and Environmental Studies.
The Academic Program Review process is ongoing. La Belle said that they are
aware they are behind in Memos Of Understanding to a number of departments and
they are trying to play catch-up while going forward with reviews.
Gail Whitaker is spearheading a program of undergraduate exit surveys to assess
student perceptions and attitudes towards the undergraduate program. Also, the
Presidential Scholars program sent out 300 applications. Richard Giardina
is involved in the implementation structure for accreditation by WASC, which
is an extension of the CUSP process.
An task force on assessment is developing a proposal to set up a small resource
office that would help departments and colleges create the "culture of evidence"
that WASC wants established before the accreditation process takes place.
The colleges have received preliminary faculty allocations for 1998/99 and
will soon receive non-faculty budgets. La Belle will then meet with Deans to
set budget priorities for the future.
The enrollment target for Fall is 20,015 FTES and La Belle said that it is
not clear if it will be reached. He felt that an important role for faculty
is to increase the "take rate", the relationship between those admitted and
those that actually enroll. He said that it is quite clear that communication
from faculty to those students who have been admitted plays an important role
in encouraging students to actually enroll. Only 25% of freshmen who were admitted
actually enrolled in Fall 1997 and about 40% of transfers who were admitted
actually enrolled. He felt that faculty can play an important role in trying
to encourage those students to enroll and maintain some stability in enrollment.
He announced several moves in the Administration Building. His office has moved
to the fourth floor joining Academic Affairs colleagues and the Academic Senate
has taken over his former office on the fifth floor.
La Belle also offered some thoughts on Faculty Renewal. The Cornerstones Report
talks about a reinvestment plan to retool the faculty into a professoriate of
the future. He said that it is not clear how much campuses, versus the system,
will be responsible. He felt that one reason to support a strong post tenure
review at the campus level is to take responsibility, as professional colleagues,
for our own professional growth and to establish baselines for a support system
that will move faculty to higher levels of accomplishment. A second reason is
that the general public view is that academics should not be granted "security
of employment for life" without periodic review. The larger society evidently
feels that faculty should be reviewing themselves similar to the ways that the
medical and legal professions review themselves.
He said that recent articles indicate that a number of colleges and universities
are themselves examining the issue of tenure. Last summer, Harvard raised the
issue that if higher education does not tackle the issue of tenure, then outside
forces such as local legislatures or the general public may insist on them.
At Florida Gulf Coast University, tenure is out and multi-year contracts are
in. He said that contracting may be the wave of future. One experimental branch
of the University of Arizona, without tenure, is now know as "Fire At Will U".
La Belle felt that the potential benefits of post tenure review outweigh the
cost. He said that there can be a high cost associated with doing nothing, including
the possible loss of tenure. He felt that there can be great gains from taking
the high road. He felt that faculty should be less concerned with the social
pressures and the public and more concerned about what faculty owe each other.
Faculty should be concerned with how to invest in each other for their collective
future and to try to encourage and promote the success of colleagues.
He said that he was pleased with the material for Agenda Item #7 - Performance
Review of Tenured Faculty for Professional Development and Support. He particularly
liked the bias toward collegial support and assistance and the linking of the
review process to merit recognition. He felt that the Senate should think about
whether we have in place a post tenure review process that will be useful, supportive,
and more developmental than punitive. He felt that the emphasis should be on
something that is meaningful rather than bureaucratic.
Agenda Item #4 - Report from Statewide Senators
Gary Hammerstrom reported that the fourth Plenary Session was held and
that each Senator would report on the committee on which they serve. Eunice
Aaron serves on Faculty Affairs, Robert Cherny serves on Academic
Affairs, and Hammerstrom serves on Fiscal and Governmental Affairs. He also
said that the session provided the first opportunity to meet and interact with
the new Chancellor, Charles Reed.
Aaron reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee discussed and sent to the
Plenary Session their support to keep Department Chairs in the bargaining unit,
and there was no opposition. They also submitted a resolution titled "Concern
about Tenured and Tenure Track Faculty Positions". That resolution had met with
considerable resistance in its earlier forms because of its tone, but that was
cleared up and it was sent to the plenary session.
FAC also discussed human resources. The committee was informed that Chancellor
Reed had just hired a new Director of Human Resources, Art Flores. Aaron said
that he is known as an excellent person who is very capable. He was previously
the Director of Business at Los Angeles State. She said that the point being
was that he was not hired for human resources for the system, but for human
resources for the Chancellors office.
She said that one concern was that, with the wonderful benefits of the technology
explosion, more and more human resource tasks are being delegated to the departments
but without the matching resources. For example, leave statements and hiring
documents now are being done by departments. She said that human resource people
in the system seemed to want faculty to understand that although information
can be retrieved faster, the dollars that are spent at the Chancellors
office level do not support its human resource requirements. One human resource
staff member said that, "they seem to delegate the tedium and retain the highest
Bill Hawk, Chair of the Board of Trustees, made a presentation and Aaron felt
that he was impressive. He is a San Jose State University graduate and said
that he felt that his achievement was premised on his almost no-cost four-year
college education. He is a good friend of Governor Wilson and said that being
on the Board is the only favor he has asked of him. The Governor had asked him
to be a UC Regent, but Hawk said that that was not what he wanted. However,
he also said that things will change dramatically in the way we do business.
Aaron reported that Hawk said that the Board of Trustees need more interaction
with faculty other than CFA reps and he asked Jim Highsmith to invite board
members to meetings when their presence is important.
Aaron reported that Chancellor Reed was interesting. She said that he was very
careful to make them understand that PSSIs are here to stay. He is also very
excited about summertime and evening course offerings, and distance learning
is high on his list. Reed said that Florida has lead campuses and that he hopes
that will work at the CSU.
Cherny reported that the Academic Affairs Committee made three recommendations
for action, all in first reading. He forwarded e-mail summarizing those items
to SFSU Academic Senators. One item concerned admissions requirements for upper
division transfer students. It would require the student to have a total of
30 units, including the four Basic Subject courses, in order to be eligible
for transfer as an upper division student. The second item concerned a new law
on violation of copyright, which makes important changes in the definition of
the violation of copyright and establishes criminal penalties. For now, he said,
dont put anything that is copyrighted on a website unless you own copyright
or have explicit permission to do so. The third item concerned information competence
and its role in general education and in majors.
He said that there are several items on the committee's agenda for future action.
One item is the California Virtual University (CVU) and campus participation.
He said that there is legislation pending to appropriate $3 million ($1 million
for each Segment of General Education) for the conversion of existing courses
to distance learning courses, through the Internet, video, or some combination
of those two, in order for them to be offered through the CVU. He said that
the CVU exists in the form a of web page. SFSU has nothing on the web page yet,
but other campuses do. He said that there will be funds for the CVU because
the governor seems to want to make it happen.
Another item on the committee's agenda is admissions. He said that last time
he reported on a change in admission requirements for first time freshman, which
was scheduled to start next fall. However, the time line was too short and consequently
the revisions were held until Fall 1999.
He said that important changes may be proposed at the system wide level for
International Programs. He said that the committee is hoping that the fee structure
in CSU International Programs will change to make it easier for students to
participate. He also reported that the Baccalaureate Study is finally in printed
form and he displayed a copy of it.
The search is underway for the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs. The position
combines two previous positions - Executive Vice Chancellor, the position previously
held by Molly Broad, and Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, the position previously
held by Peter Hoff. There are apparently two finalists, one visiting from the
University of Florida. He said that there was some skepticism voiced that it
was a done deal, but that it was probably only cynical people responding to
He referred to a copy of an article from the San Jose Mercury News concerning
Chancellor Reed. Cherny said that Chancellor Reed said similar things to the
Statewide Academic Senate including the fact that we need to be more productive.
However, he said that some Statewide Senators who met with Reed are more optimistic
and felt that faculty can work with the Chancellor.
Aaron reported that she hadnt spoken about the resolution concerning
health benefits for domestic partners, which was a first reading item. The Faculty
Affairs Committee knows that Governor Wilson, et al., are vehemently opposed
to the concept, but brought the item forward because they believe in its merit.
When asked about his vision of Department Chairs out of the bargaining unit
as MPPs, he said that he felt Chairs absolutely should be in the management
structure, but that he did not want to waste a lot of energy trying to make
it happen. She assumed he meant that it was a fight for another time.
Hammerstrom reminded Senators that at the previous meeting the Statewide Academic
Senate passed a resolution, which the SFSU Academic Senate supported through
its own resolution, urging the Chancellor to submit an augmentation to the budget
to close the salary gap. The administration has put forward an augmentation
package of $35-39 million, about half of which would go for a 1% augmentation
for faculty salaries. However, the administration would like to see the money
used for merit pay. The attitude apparently was that this was about the best
the Office of Finance would support. However, he said that the governor had
not yet expressed his intent.
The Statewide Academic Senate passed unanimously a resolution in support of
SB 1990, the bill that would establish the higher education bond act to be placed
on the ballot in November. If supported, it would put aside $1 billion for new
facilities bonding in higher education and the CSU would get 1/3 of those monies.
Another first reading item concerned AB 2554, which would allow any student
who has completed an Associate of Arts degree or an Associate of Science degree
to automatically transfer to the CSU. He said that while it sounds good, there
is already a code that allows students who meet the admissions requirement at
the upper division level to transfer to the CSU system. This bill would create
a loophole allowing students who have completed an AA or AS which either do
not require 56 units or do not meet CSU General Education to transfer to the
CSU. The committee therefore is opposed to the bill.
Another first reading item concerned SB 1472, which would allow any student
transferring from a community college who has started the Intersegmental General
Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) to finish that curriculum once they have
transferred to the CSU. Currently, any student who has not completed that General
Education curriculum is required to complete the CSU curriculum. The committee
is opposed to this bill since it would badly break the kind of General Education
experience the student would have.
The Statewide Academic Senate is holding Legislative Days in Sacramento on
March 22 and 23. They hope to convince legislators that these would not be wise
Hammerstrom felt that Chancellor Reed was quite candid. While he did not agree
with everything that the Chancellor said, it was obvious where the lines were
drawn. Hammerstrom had high hopes to be able to work effectively with the new
Reed also felt that the chances of CETI being approved were about 50/50. He
felt that the problems relate to the Chief Executive Officers and the Boards
of Directors of the corporations involved. Microsoft and Hughes are virtually
out. That leaves GTE and Fujitsu and the corporate offices are becoming increasingly
concerned about assuming $300 million in debt that is built into the proposal.
While there is no risk for the CSU, there is lots of risk for the corporations.
Hammerstrom felt that we should know very soon if the corporations still want
to be involved in CETI.
Julian Randolph said that this year IGETC will go through its first
five year review. He felt everyone who has been involved with the program feels
that the review will show overwhelming, astonishing success. He felt that it
makes no sense to sabotage that kind of a program that was carefully worked
out between the three post-secondary segments. Randolph expressed concern over
the origin of the proposed legislation. It was proposed by a staff person in
one of the Legislator's office who had a bad personal experience with IGETC,
so one person could attempt to sabotage an academically sound program.
Phillips asked to what extent has there been dialogue between the Statewide
Senate leadership and the Chancellor concerning the disposition of the proposed
1% budget augmentation. He said that if PSSIs or some variation of them are
here to stay, then in terms of Chancellor Reeds stated commitment to closing
the salary gap and in terms of entry behavior as a new chancellor, more of the
money should go toward salaries than merit pay. He asked if dialogues have taken
place concerning that. Hammerstrom replied that he agreed and was disappointed
that Chancellor Reed could not see his way to go farther about closing the salary
gap this year. He said that Chair Highsmith, Chancellor Reed, and Terry Jones
of CFA have had discussions on this issue. It appears to be a political problem
to ask for more than 1%. Concerning merit pay, the faculty position has been
presented by both the Senate leadership and CFA leadership.
Darlene Yee thanked the Statewide Senators for keeping the SFSU Senators
up to date. She said that in e-mail concerning the Statewide Senate minutes
and in the Senators report, there was mention of centralization and decentralization
as well as lead campuses. She asked what was the thinking behind these items.
Hammerstrom responded that those were listed as possible topics that might be
taken up at a conference next fall. Related issues pertain to the diversity
of the campuses. Should individual campuses in the system primarily be thought
of as regional campuses that offer essentially broad, comprehensive programs
to students who are largely place-bound or should campuses be allowed to pursue
their comparative advantages, charge different fees, adopt different admission
standards, or become specialized in what they do.
Aaron replied that Chancellor Reed also made the statement that he provides
the resources. The topic was Cornerstones and he could see it implemented over
a 5-10 year period. He said that faculty will decide outcome assessments. The
Chancellor also said that he represents the CSUs best interest to the
external communities and tries for funding stability. Since teacher education
will be on the agenda of all of CSU campus presidents, it will also be on the
agenda of all candidates for local and state office, school boards, etc. His
concern is that the CSU shift from a teaching centered to a learning centered
Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Revision to M.A. in Women Studies
CRAC Chair Darlene Yee introduced this item to revise the core in this
graduate degree. Two existing courses would be combined into a single course
since recent developments in the field have made it clear that the terms "non-Western"
and "Western" are often confused by the presence of ethnic and third world populations
in the US. The second proposed change would add an existing methodology class
to the core since that is an important requirement for an M.A. She introduced
Inderpal Grewal, Chair of Women Studies, as a resource.
Nina Jo Smith said that she had three questions. She asked what some
of the recent developments are in order to have a sound conceptual frame to
address the proposed changes. She felt that 700 was a methodology course and
asked what was included in 820 that would fulfill something that was not done
in 700. She asked if the curricula in 710 and 711 are being combined or is 711
being eliminated? Grewal responded that recent developments in the field as
well as the conceptual focus of the program, have prompted the program to combine
710 and 711 into a single course. The program focuses on immigrant and ethnic
populations in the United States, so that when teaching issues of Western cultures,
they have to deal with non-West in the West. Also, given the way in which the
faculty conceptualizes the field, there is a focus on margins of dominant cultures,
so they combined the two to address cross-cultures. Due to faculty interest
and faculty diversity and the new focus of the M.A. on International and Transnational
as well as issues of race and ethnicity in the U.S., they have to focus more
on Third World issues. In response to the second question about the Introduction
to Women Studies, the course does not cover methodology to the extent that students
need and desire. In the methodologies course, the students work on their research
projects in a hands on way that could not happen at the introductory level.
Smith asked for more clarification on the 710/711 course. She asked how they
decide which cultures are included or excluded. For example, she asked if the
former Yugoslavia is a region the program would focus some analysis on? Grewal
replied that they do not focus as much on regions as on differences in equalities,
the impact of colonization, or how divisions can be interrogated. They try not
to demark regions, but would talk about Yugoslavia and other current issues.
M/S/P (Kelley, Fehrman) to move to second reading.
M/S/P (Fehrman, Gillotte) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #6 - Report from Interim Director of Strategic Planning
Richard Giardina reported that he is not a member of CUSP (Commission
on University Strategic Planning), but he is staff to the commission and has
been working closely with them. Beginning early 1995, President Corrigan, in
close consultation with the Academic Senate, created CUSP. The committee is
composed of 24 persons and is highly representative of members of the institution.
That group worked for two years developing a set of recommendations on their
views on the future of this campus. They created six planning groups dealing
with combating discrimination, internationalizing the University, promoting
community responsibility, fostering a user friendly campus, achieving academic
excellence, and fostering and achieving success in the teaching and learning
The draft strategic plan, which was approved by CUSP and disseminated in May
1997, contained 156 recommendations. CUSP, in effect, said we need assistance
in thinking about what kinds of implementation activities would translate these
recommendations into action plans. The President then created a committee of
administrators, staff, and managers that is now known as CRISP. CRISP worked
over the summer and into the fall to put together action plans. The group realized
that separate plans for 156 recommendations would not work and aggregated the
recommendations into areas of similarity. CRISP gave these action plans back
to CUSP in December 1997.
CUSP is reviewing the 50 action plans to determine if they are reasonable.
It is unclear whether CUSP will actually approve these recommendations as the
official road, but these plans would be the basis for moving forward. Review
of the CRISP recommendations will take place throughout this semester and it
is assumed that CUSP will finish its deliberations by late April or early May.
President Corrigan, as chair of CUSP, has been very involved in the weekly
deliberations. The committee has been working in a very collegial, collaborative,
consensual way to try to reach agreement on things that will move this campus
into its second century. The need to attain consensus has been an ongoing unifying
principle during the deliberations.
Giardina said that the implementation process will begin at some point next
year. It is clear to everyone that a number of the plans have policy implications
and those will come to the Senate. He envisioned that a very interactive relationship
is needed to implement those recommendations related to policy.
Each of the action plans also attempts to indicate the indices of success.
A decision was made to tie re-accreditation to the success of the implementation
of the strategic plan. SFSU asked WASC to accredit us on the basis of things
that we say are important to us. WASC has allowed flexibility of self-studies
on the basis of what is important to an individual campus. SFSU requested an
extra year, from spring 2000 until spring 2001, to allow for implementation
of the strategic plan. WASC agreed but wants to see actual data showing the
type of evaluation undertaken to determine success.
JoAnn Craig asked how many aggregate categories there are now. Giardina
replied that there are about 50 or 52 plans of action.
Susan Fox-Wolfgramm asked who will be in charge of tying the evaluation
and control to the policies, how will these actions be evaluated, and who will
be in charge of developing the measurements. Giardina replied that in each of
the plans that were created by CRISP, there are a set of activities to measure
success. Some carefully indicate the kinds of criteria or indices of success,
while others are not as detailed. There will be a structure to oversee the implementation
process which will be presented to the Executive Committee. It will involve
oversight by joint faculty and administrative committees. The structure will
supervise whatever implementation the university decides on and will also write
the self study for accreditation.
Fox-Wolfgramm asked if CRISP came up with assessment measures. Giardina replied
that CRISP came up with some ideas for the kind of assessment that should be
undertaken, but a lot more work has to be done to turn them into assessment
Agenda Item #7 - Performance Review of Tenured Faculty for Professional
Development and Support
Phillips said that the usual procedure when an item comes to the Executive
Committee as a policy recommendation, either the Executive Committee will give
it back to the originating committee or take it to the Senate for action. However,
this item is a discussion item only, and is not an action item as yet. The Executive
Committee wants feedback from the Senate floor before it reviews the proposed
Marlon Hom, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, said that the Senators
all know what the political, administrative, management, and faculty issues
are in terms of what is called Post Tenure Review. He asked FAC to look at Post
Tenure Review, and they decided it is not an appropriate term. They revised
it to the Performance Review of Tenured Faculty for Professional Development
and Support. He felt that this is more proactive and involves more positive
Hom said that there are three major changes. This is a performance review,
not just an evaluation. The old policy, in his opinion, is just for record keeping
and has no effect on faculty development in the future. The revised policy emphasizes
incentives to acknowledge and encourage professional growth and outstanding
performance with the intention parallel to faculty performance review policy
such as promotion and tenure. FAC tried to remove all the negative references
evident in the old policy and to emphasize continuous support of professional
development thorough periodic peer review. The revised policy also has a clear
position statement to dispel the notion of the emphasis of tenure and the so-called
undue encroachment of academic freedom and intellectual liberty endowed to the
tenured faculty. This revision is to protect faculty and to honor the tenure
reference to faculty development.
Hom said that the current Post Tenure Review only effects senior full professors.
He showed the salary schedule saying that in the old days the top step was 20,
but in the new agreement the top step is 9. Full professors are stopped at step
9 or 10 without going through the PSSI, so in effect there is a glass ceiling
without review. The policy revisions are about breaking the glass ceiling for
full professors who have reached the top step of the salary schedule.
He said that the PSSI process presents a moral problem for many senior faculty.
Tenured faculty do not want to compete against junior faculty when they have
to mentor junior faculty. He hopes that the revision will eliminate division
and that tenured faculty will be recognized, acknowledged, and encouraged to
continue with their professional development. This would eliminate collegial
conflict inherent in the competitive PSSI process. He hoped that with the revised
process, full professors would not feel disenfranchised by being stopped on
the salary schedule.
Phillips said that he wanted to frame the issue. Some of the policy needed
technical updating, which was the easy part. In context, the whole issue is
challenging and fraught with value and politically laden issues. He said that
the attack on tenure is very real. University faculty have been categorized
externally as using tenure to protect incompetence, which may be largely untrue,
but is not totally untrue. The new Chancellor is showing encouraging signs of
protecting tenure for those who have it, but is also promoting alternatives
which could encourage phasing out tenure. The Chancellor does not talk about
it, but talks about hiring new faculty on contracts and the implications could
be the phasing out of tenure. The proposal to include a reward component in
the Post Tenure Review has engendered some strong feelings dealing with the
issues of merit pay.
He felt that FAC has taken an admirable and creative first step in searching
for a solution. He liked the redefinition of the name. The problem is to develop
a policy which is substantively sound, promotes collegiality which includes
constructive feedback and faculty development, and is street smart by being
cognizant of the external pressures yet sensitive to the campus values. Not
all faculty on the campus feel the same way about the process.
Phillips said that the purpose of the discussion was to help provide the Executive
Committee with constructive feedback to strengthen the proposed policy before
it comes back to the Senate for action. If there are parts which contradict
the collective bargaining agreement, then we may want to have input into collective
bargaining at this point and see where we are at the end of the collective bargaining
process. He said that he hoped the spirit of the discussion was to build on
Randolph said that was pleased that the committee has done a good job
of removing the negative aspects. Being a linguistic conservative, he suggested
going back to a term that was used because it represented a collective bargaining
distinction between a performance review and a periodic evaluation. A performance
review is for specific changes in category and a periodic review is for other
things. He suggested that in the evaluation of tenured faculty, retain the title
and try to get used to using those terms. In higher education, post tenure review
means you can be kicked out if the review is unfavorable. If that is what people
want, then they should use that title.
Referring to the comments made by the Provost, Randolph said that he did not
like the turns of phrase "retooling for the future" and "moving into the future."
He said to let us remember that we have certain traditions and that we have
certain reasons for those traditions. He said that we should remember that tenure
is not meant to be a guarantee against firing for incompetence, but is meant
to be the bulwark of academic freedom. He felt that if we use business terms
to describe ourselves, then we have lost half the battle. The university is
not selling products but trying to improve minds.
Randolph strongly suggested that Senators pay close attention to the language
in the collective bargaining agreement that governs how salaries and wages and
other terms and conditions of employment interface with the establishment of
criteria and standards. The latter is the domain of the Senate while the former
is the domain of the bargaining unit. He felt that, in his opinion, any attempt
to introduce another divide into the faculty is not only inappropriate but could
not be tolerated under the collective bargaining agreement.
Cherny stated that what is called post tenure review is actually evaluation
of tenured faculty. He felt that the most serious problem with the old policy
was that faculty were expected to carry out the evaluation, but no one was required
to read them. The revision requires that someone must read and pay attention
to the review.
He expressed concerns about the revision, feeling that it may violate contract
procedures. The current contract has no connection between evaluation and merit
pay. Those people that he knows who have been involved in the contract negotiations
have been opposed to linking evaluation and merit pay. He said that he was not
sure that the Senate would want to put a lot of time and energy into writing
policy that may be overridden by the contract. He suggested to hold in abeyance
the part of the policy in the last paragraph that deals with merit pay.
Cherny said that there needs to be clarification of the review to be considered
for a plan. He also thought that the policy could be preempting the work of
the Professional Research and Development Allocation Committee (PRDAC) which
allocates for development. He felt that the connection to professional development
needs to be clarified.
He was concerned that the policy might be read that a peer committee conducts
a review but it is up to the Department Chair and the Dean to draw up recommendations.
He felt that that ought to be clarified, especially if Department Chairs become
management. The current draft is ambiguous.
Cherny also questioned the relationship between this policy and department
response to annual evaluations and faculty plans. He asked if these were in
any way related. Hom replied that he had never heard of it.
La Belle responded that to clarify his presentation, he was paraphrasing
the Cornerstones Report when he spoke of retooling. He felt that the significance
of that was that at one point there was discussion of the system taking dollars
being recouped from the difference between pay for a retiring faculty member
and a new hire and the system using that money for faculty development rather
than returning the money to the campus. He felt that if campuses are strong
in doing peer review, the system has less fuel to make the argument that campuses
are not doing well in reviewing, supporting, and investing in the faculty for
Phillips said that one of the concepts in the policy is the potential for reward
coming out of the process. What can and cannot be done legally in the collective
bargaining agreement? He felt that the first issue is whether there should be
reward in the policy. He also felt that to have a process of periodic evaluation
that doesnt have built into it a positive component for faculty development
Jim Kelley asked for some consideration for those colleges that are
doing more than what is being called for. The College Of Business has annual
reviews for all faculty. The College of Science & Engineering is developing
a policy for annual administrative reviews where faculty are requested to provide
an updated vitae. There will be a meeting with the Department Chair or the Dean
every year to ensure that the faculty is receiving the support needed. He felt
that five years is too infrequent. He asked that colleges that have more frequent
and/or more thorough review schedules be excused from this particular policy.
Laurie Zoloth-Dorfman said that what was being debated was whether to
use the carrot or the stick is a real problem, and she felt the Senate would
be wise to pay attention to it. She suggested using a relationship model rather
than a legal contractual model.
Jennifer Hammett pointed out that the suggestions for merit pay in the
revised policy arose out of a divisiveness that the PSSI system introduced into
collegial relationships. This policy is an attempt to get around that divisiveness
by placing senior faculty in a different category so that there is no direct
head-to-head competition with junior faculty.
Phillips encouraged the Senators to provide additional feedback via e-mail
to either him or Hom.
The Senate was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Secretary to the Faculty