Minutes of Academic Senate Meeting
March 24, 1998
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Barnes, Paul; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Chen, Yu-Charn; Cherny,
Robert; Choo, Freddie; Consoli, Andres; Corrigan, Robert; Duke, Jerry; Eisman,
Gerald; Flowers, Will; Gillotte, Helen; Graham, Michael; Graham, Minnie; Hammett,
Jennifer; Harnly, Caroline; Haw, Mary Ann; Hom, Marlon; Homan, Bonnie; Houlberg,
Rick; Hu, Sung; Johnson, Dane; Kelley, James; Lee, Wanda; Leitao, David; Lyles,
Lois; Mallare, Marie; Monteiro, Ken; Nicholson, Joel; Phillips, Mark; Raggio,
Marcia; Schweitzer, Newby; Scoble, Don; Tarakji, Ghassan; Thomson, Lana; Turitz,
Mitch; Verhey, Marilyn; Wade, Patricia; Warren, Mary Ann; Warren, Penelope;
Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Wong, Alfred; Wong, Yim Yu; Woo, George; Yee, Darlene;
Senate Members Absent: Swanson, Deborah(exc.); Fehrman, Ken(exc.);
Goldsmith, Helen(exc.); Craig, JoAnn; OÃ±ate, Abdiel(exc.); Blank, Mark;
Cancino, Herlinda; Smith, Nina Jo; Hammerstrom, Gary(exc.); Aaron, Eunice(exc.);
La Belle, Thomas(exc.); Collier, James(exc.); Chang, Paul(exc.); Rivas, Mario;
Senate Interns Present: Regina Sarafino
Guests: S. Lamb, J. Van Keulen, D. Schafer, B. Luzardi, S. Taylor,
H. Matson, P. Vaughn, V. Lane, G. Whitaker, L. Head, P. McGee, J. Okutsu, R.
Waksler, J. Gregory, J. Randolph, M. Kasdan.
Announcements and Report
- Phillips reported that the search for the Dean of Human Relations
has commenced and the position description will be released soon. The closing
date for applications is Monday, April 13, 1998.
- The Executive Committee continues to work on the Academic Senate initiatives
on the Implementation of Multicultural Perspectives in the Curriculum.
Recommendations will go to departments and colleges, the General Education
Council, and the Council of Academic Deans. The recommendation to form a task
force to deal with specific issues will go to the Council of Academic Deans
- It is likely that the latest iteration of the SIP/CETI proposal will
be available in mid-April, although it is still in negotiation and bargaining.
The campus will have one month to respond to the proposal after it is received.
If the proposal arrives on campus after April 13, it may come to the Senate
for discussion at the April 28 meeting or the Executive Committee may need
to call for a separate meeting or forum at the beginning of May. There are
only three more Senate meetings this semester - the two in April and the May
meeting, which is for elections, clean-up, and seating of new senators. So
a SIP/CETI proposal, if one is available, could not be dealt with at the regular
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for Meeting of March 24, 1998
Paul Barnes asked about the Academic Calendar for 1998/1999 since the
proposed Academic Calendar for 1999/2000 is on the agenda. Phillips replied
that it was passed about a year ago. As there were no objections, the agenda
was approved as printed.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting of March 10, 1998
As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as
Agenda Item #3 - University Budget Committee Election
There was one opening for a three-year term. Relda Robertson Beckley (Nursing),
Paul Barnes (Biology), Charlotte Ferretti (Nursing), Anatole Anton (Philosophy),
Bill Bonds (History), Gerianne Krause (Mathematics), David Tabb (Political Science),
Judy Ganson (Library), and Susan Stark (Consumer & Family Studies/Dietetics)
agreed to stand for election.
As there were no additional nominations, several votes were taken and Bill
Bonds was elected.
Agenda Item #4 - Proposed 1999-2000 Academic Calendar
Phillips introduced Barbara Luzardi, Academic Scheduling Coordinator,
as a resource. Sung Hu, APC member, introduced this item.
George Woo asked if APC checked on the date of the Asian Lunar New Year
since this semester the first day of instruction fell on that holiday. Hu
replied that no specific holidays were looked at. APC followed the Senate policy
which specifies when the fall semester should start.
M/S/P (Kelley, Gillotte) to move to second reading.
M/S/P (Houlberg, Gillotte) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed with one abstention.
Agenda Item #5 - Proposal for a Master of Science Degree Program for Speech-Language
Pathology on Guam
CRAC Chair Darlene Yee introduced this item which was in response to
a request from the Affiliated Program on Developmental Disabilities at the University
of Guam to prepare ten competent, culturally sensitive individuals to meet the
certification requirements of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
Such certification requires the completion of a Master's Degree in Communicative
Disorders. The costs of this off-campus program will be met largely by the Guam
Department of Education with student participants paying for any differences
between what the Guam Department of Education provides and the actual program
expenses. The academic course work on Guam will be offered by senior full-time
and part-time SFSU faculty during summer sessions when substantially fewer demands
are made on them. Clinical supervision will be coordinated by the full-time
staff Communicative Disorders Coordinator with the Certificate of Clinical Competence
Supervisors on Guam. During the Fall and Spring semesters, the Communicative
Disorders Coordinator will conduct supervision and evaluation meetings. Academic
course work, similar to on-campus course work, will be offered in an accelerated
time frame. Two 3-week sessions will be offered each summer. Student participants
will take two academic courses per 3-week session. Clinical practica will be
completed during the traditional 15-week semester time frame. Ongoing process
evaluations will be completed by student participants at the completion of each
course and following each semester of clinical supervision. The proposal would
be implemented and completed within a 5-semester time frame. Yee introduced
Stanford Lamb, Communicative Disorders, Jean van Keulen, Special
Education Chair, and Vera Lane, Associate Dean, College of Education,
Robert Cherny asked which college would be responsible for the program.
Yee replied the College of Education would be responsible for the program
since the proposal comes out of Special Education.
Woo said that according to the University Bulletin, graduate programs
have no residency requirement. He questioned if two courses in a 3-week session
follows the Extended Education guidelines for the number of units taken in a
specific amount of time. He also asked how much is being paid for each student,
including both the student's portion and the portion paid by the Guam Department
of Education. Is it the normal Extended Education fee or is it more? Lamb
replied that for the first Summer and Fall semesters, students will enroll through
the College of Extended Learning. Beginning in Spring 1999, students must be
admitted as regular classified graduate students and pay non-resident fees.
Woo asked if the number of units in Summer fall within the guidelines.
Lamb replied that he understood the number of units is within the current
guidelines for Summer.
M/S/P (Kelley, Duke) to move to second reading.
M/S/P (Gillotte, Kelley) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #6 - Revision to Master of Arts in Ethnic Studies
CRAC Chair Yee introduced this item which attempted to address the need
for equal and sufficient breadth and depth of exposure to four distinct subject
areas within the multi-disciplinary field of Ethnic Studies. The proposal would
add four new courses to the core and reduce two courses from the core. The content
information in the two reduced courses would be subsumed within the added courses.
Additional resources required for the increased courses would be absorbed from
within the existing budget of the College of Ethnic Studies. Yee introduced
Jim Okutsu, Associate Dean of Ethnic Studies, as a resource.
Laura Head, Black Studies, requested that the item be returned to committee.
The Ethnic Studies master's program is near finishing their five-year internal
review and the external review was just conducted, but no report is available
yet. She felt that the discussion on the proposal was premature. She said that
she had a note from Jose Cuellar, La Raza Studies Chair, who was unable to attend
the Senate meeting, expressing concern over the effect of the proposal on La
Raza Studies faculty. Cuellar also requested that the whole discussion be postponed.
Cherny said that if no one moved the item to second reading, it would
have the same effect as requested.
M/S/P (Woo, M.A. Warren) to move the agenda.
Agenda Item #7 - Revision to Master of Arts in Comparative Literature
CRAC Chair Yee introduced this proposal which attempted to address APRC
recommendations by raising the GPA required for admission, revising a current
course and removing it from the core, and adding two new courses. The reduction
in program electives would accommodate the proposed changes without the need
for additional resources. Yee introduced Pamela Vaughn, Classics, as
M/S/P (Houlberg, Lyles) to move to second reading.
M/S/P (Houlberg, Gillotte) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #8 - Revision to Master of Arts in English: Concentration in
CRAC Chair Yee introduced this proposal which attempted to better meet
the needs of graduate students by adding two new courses to the core and reducing
the number of electives by two courses. This proposal did not affect the number
of units in the program. She introduced Rachelle Waksler, Linguistics
Coordinator, as a resource.
M/S/P (Houlberg, Gillotte) to move to second reading.
M/S/P (Gillotte, Barnes) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #9 - Proposed Policy on Faculty Graduation Marshals
Rick Houlberg introduced this item which seeks to put some codification
behind the current practice. Every year ad-hoc volunteer faculty members coordinate
the processional and work to get volunteer faculty from the colleges to lead
students into the stadium and move students around on the stadium floor. Houlberg
has been doing the job for 14 years. The proposed policy would create specific
positions, which would be accountable to the Academic Senate, so that there
would be a specific link between the Academic Senate, as representatives of
the faculty, and the Commencement Committees and other bodies that deal with
this issue. Since the entire University community is represented in the graduation
process, the policy would make the process more formal, develop better lines
of communication and control, and allow for succession.
M/S/P (Kelley, M.A. Warren) to move to second reading.
M/S/P (Gillotte, Lyles) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #10 - Performance Review of Tenured Faculty for Professional
Development and Support
FAC Chair Marlon Hom introduced this proposal saying that FAC was charged
to review the current policy governing the review of faculty with tenure. FAC
spent last semester discussing the issues and concerns, including the recent
attacks on tenure at the national level, and they solicited through consultation.
Hom emphatically said that FAC consciously tried to revise the policy considering
only the voice of the faculty, not management or the union. They did consider
the concerns raised by both management and the union, but revised the policy
to represent the tenured faculty. Hom said that tenured faculty professional
interests currently are being impacted negatively because the existing policy
only generates paperwork and the existing faculty salary schedule is unfair
to full professors at the top step. The revised policy on the Review of Faculty
with Tenure is an honest attempt to address those two issues together and he
hoped that the voice of tenured faculty regarding their professional and financial
concerns will be heard.
Phillips said that this was both an extremely important discussion and
an extremely important issue. It takes place in a context that is challenging
in terms of external pressures concerning the threat to tenure itself and there
are significant value laden issues when dealing with merit pay in any form.
He said that the faculty needs to step out of the paradigm that is currently
in place and see if there is another way to work with this in a way that will
be productive for tenured faculty but not divisive. He asked how do we develop
a post tenure policy which is substantively sound, promotes collegiality and
faculty development, does not divide faculty and is also within the limits set
by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). He felt that the Senate needs
to work toward consensus. He urged the Senate to recognize that there is not
a great time pressure, so the need was to do it right however long it might
take. He felt that the purpose was to work cooperatively to come up with the
best policy possible given all the issues.
Cherny said that he agreed with everything that Phillips said and much
of what Hom said. He felt that it was important to take the issues seriously.
The attacks that have come on tenure around the country focus on, among other
things, problems of "dead wood". By taking very seriously the need to periodically
evaluate tenured faculty, it would address that issue in a meaningful way if
there are provisions to address problems. As part of the Statewide Academic
Senate Merit Pay Task Force, he went to many campuses to hear a wide range of
concerns. There was no clear consensus among the faculty to link existing personnel
processes to merit pay, but he felt that there was a predominance of opinion
to do that and reduce the amount of paperwork and the number of committees.
In the abstract, he would approve of what is being recommended in the final
paragraph, but in the concrete, he thought it was premature to take this action.
He recommended to not move the proposal to second reading. He strongly recommended
that Senators tell the committee what they think and let the committee review
those opinions before the next meeting. He recommended the removal of the central
sentence in the final paragraph that says, "Nominations for awards for professional
achievement/development ". His overriding reason was that it may conflict
with the version of the contract that is currently being bargained and it may
have to be taken out. He felt that there was no reason to back the Senate into
a corner when some variation of the sentence could be put back in next semester.
If the contract specifies some version of merit pay which conflicts with that
sentence, the policy would have to be revised. He felt that the other revisions
could stand alone without that sentence. His second reason was that as merit
pay now stands a faculty member might be eligible for consideration for merit
pay every year. He felt that the proposed policy might conceivably be interpreted
as a faculty member could only be eligible for merit pay every five years. If
the committee wanted to make faculty eligible only every five years, it needs
to be made explicit and it might be in violation of the contract. His final
reason was that he was concerned about a lack of clarity in that sentence. In
the current process, faculty members may apply or may be nominated, however
the content of the new policy is not known. He felt that to speak of nominations
was premature. He also felt that achievement/development needs to be clarified.
An award for professional achievement might be merit pay, but an award for professional
development might be a research grant so those terms need to be clarified.
Jan Gregory spoke as Chair of the Faculty Rights Panel and as a member
of the CFA Executive Board. She handed out copies of four pages of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement to discuss the language of the agreement. She directed
the Senators' attention to Article 15, the Evaluation Section, specifically
the section labeled Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty Unit Employees and
a separate section on Performance Review. She pointed out what she felt were
significant differences between the two in process, what shall be reviewed and
what the outcomes shall be. The three possible outcomes of a performance review
are retention, tenure, and promotion. She felt that when this was bargained,
it was the clear intent of the parties that evaluation of tenured faculty did
not include the same rewards that were clearly specified for performance review.
She suggested that the proposed policy represented a major revision of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement and that cannot be done by a committee. She questioned
where the money would come from for these awards, whether there would be enough
money in the pool and how that might impact money available for Merit Pay for
other faculty. She felt that the proposed policy would divide the people in
the post tenure review category into two groups those who are seen as
doing their jobs so well they get an automatic recommendation and those who
are not. She said that the Public Relations Office of the CSU and the CFA have
made joint public presentations concerning post tenure review. She said that
it is the expressed public understanding of both that the language as framed
is the language that should govern it. This is a review to identify strengths
and weaknesses, to identify areas that should be improved, and that it should
be divorced from reward or punishment.
Barnes said that Gregory did a nice job on her presentation and that
she partially answered several of his questions. He questioned the legality
of the proposed policy and whether it would cover all faculty or just the new
faculty coming on board. In the PSSI process, faculty are invited to compete
in the process if so desired and there is no penalty if a faculty member chooses
not to compete. He asked what happens if a faculty member chooses not to participate
under the proposed policy.
Patricia Bartscher said that, in her opinion, the answer to Barnes'
question was that all tenured faculty are required to be evaluated every five
years according to the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Because of the
CBA, she would be recommending to FAC that they change the language of the proposed
policy. Under the CBA, only performance reviews apply to those three
specified areas and it has some grievance ramifications. If there is a denial
or a dispute over a performance review, then it is a faculty status grievance.
If there is a denial or a dispute over any other type of evaluation, then that
is a faculty contract grievance. The rights and limitations for both are different,
so there is a significant impact on how you apply your rights and how you go
after your rights whether it is a performance review or a periodic evaluation.
She felt that that language could probably be handled by FAC. Another recommendation
she had concerned material placed in the Personnel Action File. The proposed
policy calls for materials to be returned to faculty, but the CBA requires that
any materials used for making a decision or evaluation must be placed in the
Personnel Action File. She said that she felt the Senate was a good place to
start the substantive discussion about issues that faculty believe are out there.
Jim Kelley asked FAC to consider some additional language applying to
those colleges that have more frequent reviews than called for in the proposed
policy. He suggested that at the end of the first page at the last part of Frequency
of Review, language could be added similar to "In those colleges which have
more frequent performance reviews than called for in this policy, the department
Peer Review Committee will be convened every five years to evaluate the college
review procedure to be sure that it is consistent with this policy." The Peer
Review Committee would not redo all the reviews that have been done, but would
review the results of the reviews to be sure that they are consistent with the
Phillips asked about CFA and its activities in the Collective Bargaining
process - is it wrestling with this area or is it being left untouched? Margo
Kasdan replied that the CFA and the bargaining is wrestling with the question
of merit pay. However, the particular issue on review of tenure faculty is one
of the few articles that is accepted the way it is and not being argued. This
applies only to tenured faculty who have attained top step and have remained
there at least five years, so it is not on the bargaining table. Phillips
clarified that he was asking whether this is an issue that CFA is considering
being proactive on in terms of what would serve the faculty or should it not
be gotten into. Kasdan answered that the idea of extending the language
of the contract is a kind of dangerous position for the faculty in general.
She felt that the substance of the bargaining was in the discussions of merit
pay and in the attempts to protect the salary schedule. She felt that Hom's
concern about capping full professor's salary is understandable, but the issue
is about dealing with the salary schedule and merit pay. The periodic evaluation
of the full professor who has been tenured a long time ago, as far as she could
tell, was not being put out at all.
Bartscher said that the section dealing with periodic evaluation of
tenured faculty applies to all tenured faculty who have not been reviewed for
five years. As far as she knew, while this section may not be one of those being
bargained, in light of the discussions of merit pay, all of these evaluations
and reviews are being looked at as a means of not duplicating work effort. In
other parts of the contract it might be stipulated to allow the use of some
of those evaluations in a variety of ways.
Gregory said that it makes sense to not duplicate review processes.
If Sam Strafachi from the Chancellor's Office and the CFA bargaining team cannot
reach consensus on contract language by mid-May, then there will not be an agreement
sent to the faculty until Fall semester. If the current contract expires, then
the language of the present contract would remain in force. What is now described
as a performance review will remain separate from other evaluations. She felt
that, in that sense, it would be useful for FAC to take another look at the
Ken Monteiro asked where can the discussion between CFA and FAC occur
between now and second reading since there seem to be some substantive issues
that need to be discussed.
M/S/P (Bartscher, Gillotte) to move the agenda.
Phillips said that the proposal will come back in first reading. Since
there is no strict time line, he said that he would personally like to see the
proposed policy revised into a shape that all can live with and that is not
in conflict with the CBA.
M/S/P (Houlberg, Barnes) to adjourn the meeting.
The Senate was adjourned at 3:12 p.m.
Secretary to the Faculty