Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting


2, 2002


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


Senate Members Present: 





Avila, Guadalupe



Blomberg, Judith

















Fung, Robert





Gerson, Deborah





Hom, Marlon



Hubler, Barbara

Jerris, Scott

Kassiola, Joel


Belle, Thomas













Oñate, Abdiel


Wen Shen







Steier, Saul











Senate Members Absent:  Warren, Mary Anne (exc),

Strong, Rob (exc), Terrell, Dawn (exc), Sayeed, Lutfus (abs), Adisa-Thomas, Karima (abs), Ganji, Vijay (exc),

Higgins, Susan (abs), Gillotte, Helen (exc), Henry, Margaret (exc), Scoble, Don (exc), Collier,

James (exc), Corrigan, Robert A. (exc), Newt-Scott, Ronda (abs), Wolfe, Bruce (exc), Bishop, Anna (abs).

Guests:  Paul Barnes, John Gemello, Dan Buttlaire, Gail

Whitaker, Roy Conboy, Lisa Jordon, Mary Beth Love.


Robert Cherny, CSU Academic Senator, encourage all Senators to

contact their colleagues and to vote on changes to the statewide CSU Academic

Senate Constitution.

Chair’s Report

Chair Pamela Vaughn encouraged all Senators who haven’t voted on the SFSU

constitution and the CSU constitution to do so as soon as possible. Of

particular concern is the voting on changes to the SFSU constitution. We are

required to have a quorum of all voting faculty. If faculty need additional

ballots please contact the Senate office. Additionally, Senators should encourage

their colleagues to vote. She reminded all Senators that balloting on campus-wide

elections, college elections, and nominations for membership of the Provost search committee are also taking place. 

Agenda Item #1:  Approval of Agenda for Meeting of April 2, 2002

m/s/p (Onate, Consoli) to

approve the agenda

Agenda Item #2:  Approval of Minutes for Meeting of March 19, 2002

m/s/p (Houlberg, Mary Anne

Warren) to approve the minutes as corrected

Agenda Item #3: Elections

Election of the Senate’s representative to the Graduate



Hom was elected as the Senate’s representative to the Graduate Council by


Agenda Item #4: Draft Principles and

Procedures for Temporary Suspension of Academic Programs

A small

committee from the Senate Executive Committee and Academic Affairs consisting

of Pamela Vaughn, Caran Colvin, Barbara Hubler

representing the Senate, and Gail Whitaker and Richard Giardina

representing Academic Affairs, have

been working on principles and procedures for temporary suspension of academic

programs. The goal of the principles and procedures is to bring some structure

to an informal and previously “unapproved” process of temporary suspension of

academic programs. The principles and procedures will allow programs to have

some flexibility in their curricular planning and revision without unduly

disadvantaging students and other university programs. The Executive Committee

feels that the attached draft would benefit greatly from comments and

suggestions from the members of the Academic Senate. A copy of the draft was

provided to all senators.


Pamela Vaughn

introduced the draft to the senate and indicated that its development was the

result of discussion that came out of the IAC discontinuous process. The

Provost has completed extensive research on program “banking” and subsequent to

that the committee was formed to develop and approve the process of program

suspension. The principles and procedures agreed to by the committee and

endorsed by the Senate Executive Committee are not before the Senate for debate

and discussion.  Jan Gregory asked

if it might be more useful to look at enrollment in the programs over a period

of time (a few years) rather that just looking at current enrollment. Pamela

Vaughn, speaking for the committee, indicated that they were concerned with

the students who are impacted with the decision and the time of suspension and

not that concerned with the history. However, the committee is open to

including consideration of changes in enrollment patterns over a period of

time. Jan Gregory indicated that she would like to see all the points

about enrollment (past trends) to be included as part of the procedures for

suspension of a program. Rick Houlberg suggested that consultation with

students currently enrolled in the program was important and should be required

in the process. He also indicated that a recommendation for suspension should

start with the faculty in the program and not from administration. He also

indicated that it isn’t clear what happens to the program at the end of the

three-year period of suspension. Are we required to resume the program. Pamela Vaughn said all of these suggestions

will be included in the new draft. It is assumed that at the end of the

three-year suspension the program would be revisited and the faculty would

consider recommendation for resumption or discontinuance. Robert Daniels

asked for an explanation of the difference between the suspension of a program

and the discontinuance of a program? Pamela Vaughn pointed out that

there exists a policy on the discontinuance of a

program but no policy for the suspension of a program. Gail Whitaker

indicated that the goal is to improve the situation so that the process is not

abused. She indicated that Mary Beth Love, chair of Health Education,

and Roy Conboy, chair of Theater Arts, have both used the program

suspension process in the past and were present to indicate their experience. Mary

Beth Love indicated that the department has found it very useful to be able

to suspend a program while working on other curriculum items. Generally, it has

been a resource issue; we just didn’t have enough faculty members to work on

all programs at once. The suspension has allowed us to look at other ways of

offering the program such as extended learning or other options. The MA in

Psychology:  Concentration in

Physiological Psychology has been “suspended” out of the Bulletin since

1994.  That was also when the department

discussed reviewing the MA as an outcome of their last program review.  In the department's self study for the

current program review cycle, we indicate that we have not completed the review

of the MA but intend to complete it and provide recommendations in 2001-02.  The department has developed a proposal--for

either revision or discontinuance--regarding the MA.  The department's external review is scheduled

for April 29-30, 2002. Pamela Vaughn

restated that SFSU does not have a policy on the suspension of programs. If we

find suspension valuable then we should have a policy to establish procedures

so that other programs on campus that may be impacted from the suspension can

have an opportunity for input. Program suspension should not be left up to a

phone call to the bulletin editor and then the program is gone.  Roy Conboy indicated that the MFA in

Theatre Arts:  Concentration in

Performance has been “suspended” since 1994. 

We revisited the program during the fourth cycle of program review, and

the MOU signed in May 2001 states that the College of Creative Arts and

Department of Theatre Arts will "Explore possible options and

opportunities to reactivate the MFA: 

Concentration in Performance." 

We are still working on that. Andres Consoli commended the

committee on their work and indicated that a policy on the suspension of

programs should be useful. He indicated that it would be very helpful to

consider the program’s enrollment trends for the last few years. Robert

Cherny suggested that the policy says that a program is being suspended is

not clear, since what is being suspended is enrollment in the program. We

should think of this as suspending new admissions in the program. It is

important that faculty be the primary force in all curriculum discussions. Miriam

Smith indicated that it is not clear from the draft as to who initiates the

recommendation for suspension of the program. Penelope Warren asked Mary

Beth Love if in her experience would the proposed draft

assist in the suspension of programs. Mary Beth Love asserted that she

had not looked closely at the proposed draft, but her general feeling is that

an additional policy may be a burden to the process. She hopes that the new

policy would just be another hoop to jump through. Pamela Vaughn

indicated that the committee would look closely at the middle ground and seek

to maintain department autonomy in program suspension.  Jan Gregory asserted that most of the

issues that senators have would be resolved prior to the program being

considered for suspension. Saul Steier asked how would a course be

continued if the program were suspended? Rick

Houlberg pointed out that student consultation must be central to programs

suspension. He indicated that one of the reasons that suspension of IAC’s

program was such a controversy was that the students were not consulted prior to

the decision to suspend the program. Chair Pamela Vaughn indicated that

we had arrived at our time certain and we would extend to complete the

speaker’s list. Any Senators can email additional suggestion to members of the

committee. Remaining on the speaker’s list are Levine and Duke. Josh

Levine asked for a clarification in the policy that it would be faculty who

initiate the suspension process. He could see a problem when someone other than

faculty would recommend the suspension without faculty approval. Pamela

Vaughn indicated that the draft policy specifically states in the second

sentence that no one factor can unilaterally suspend a program. Jerry Duke

thanked the committee on a fine job. He asked how the three-year suspension

time period was chosen. Pamela Vaughn indicated that the committee felt

that three years was an appropriate length of time for a program to remain in

suspension. She thanked the senators for a lively discussion and reminded all

that the proposed draft is still in development and suggestions from senators

or others are welcomed. A copy of the

proposed principles and procedures may be found on the Senate website at: www.sfsu.edu/~senate. Comments or questions on the proposed

principles and procedures may be directed to members of the committee.

Agenda Item #5: Draft

routing Sheet for First-Year Review of Tenure-Track Teaching Faculty



chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee introduced the proposed first year

retention routing form. She indicated that it is proposed that the new form

would replace the current form. The Faculty Affairs committee has developed the

proposed routing form to simplify the first-year review of tenure-track

teaching faculty. The first year faculty member will no longer be required to

produce a WPAF in his/her first year. The first year faculty member would

receive vital information about department evaluation criteria and procedures

through the use of the proposed routing form. The intention of the new form is

to facilitate and assure that conversations between the first year hire and the department retention committee and the

department chair take place. The form attempts to clarify the expectations of

the department for the retentions and tenure of probationary faculty in their

first year. The Faculty Affairs Committee has attempted to make the form as

simple and self-explanatory as possible. The back of the form has a place to

address these areas of retention and tenure as outlined in the Faculty Handbook.

Departments are encouraged to apply to this areas their own criteria for the

various categories as found in the Faculty Handbook. The goal of the form is to

clarify the first year experience for the new hire and make it clear to the new

hire the department performance expectations. 

The first year hire would still attach their curriculum vita to the

form, as has been the practice in the past. This draft form has been sent to

department chairs and program directors for their comments and suggestions. The

proposed draft is before the Senate today for discussion, comments, and




asserted that it is important to get department criteria for first year hires

in writing and signed off by all levels of the review process. He indicated

that the backside of the form was too restrictive and needed to be more

flexible as to the amount of space allocated to the different areas of

retention as specified in the Faculty Handbook. Scott Jerris stated that

he is strongly in favor of getting the specification and expectation for new

faculty hires in writing. Additionally, he saw the form as a healthy activity

for departments in getting them to write down exactly what they wanted in the

performance activities of new hires. Dean Kassiola, as a member of FAC,

elaborated on the presentation of the chair of FAC. The intention is to drop a

lot of the paperwork and replace with the forum that would be more specific. He

agreed with Rick Houlberg that a signature page is important. The goal is to

use the first year’s review to bring the candidate and department together to

clarify how they are going to judge the candidate’s performance. Pamela

Vaughn indicated that the intention of the proposed new form is to get

departments to be very clear about their criteria for retention review. Mitch

Turitz, a member of FAC, supports the new form. He indicated that he would

like to see the notation about the terminal years removed since this is in the

first few weeks of work performance and a judgment concerning termination could

not be made. He also believes that the department can change the second page as

long as they address the areas of retention as covered in the collective

bargaining agreement.  Midori McKeon

strongly objected to the introduction of the new form. She felt that the criteria as established in the Faculty Handbook was flexible

enough to allow for each department and each new faculty member to express the

criteria to reflect their own need and expectation. She believes that it is

dangerous for a department to use a form that would limit flexibility in the

process of review of faculty. The process of evaluation of new faculty must

remain flexible to allow the faculty member to grow and the department to grow

as situations change. Pamela Vaughn indicated that the new form does not

limit department flexibility. The form provides a guideline for what is

expected. This new form can be very helpful for every department and new

faculty. Marlon Hom suggested that this form is long over due. We need

to give our new hires a sense of belonging here at SFSU and what is expected of

them. Some departments do not have guidelines or established criteria for the

review of first year hires. The departments that do have guidelines and

established criteria can attach their guidelines as a replacement for the

second page. Robert Cherny agreed with Marlon Hom and suggested that the

second page is important only for those departments that do not have a

department expectation. Caran Colvin, chair of FAC, indicated that it is

the intention of the committee to make the second page as flexible as possible.

The intent of the form is not to tell the departments what they should or

should not do.  In regard to the issue

about the second or the terminal years, it was never our intention that the

review occurs after two months. It could occur later. Miriam Smith

indicated that she remains confused with the difference between campus and

university non-teaching activities. Andres Consoli asserted that the

document is much needed because is supports both the faculty member and the

department in the development of expectations and criteria for the evaluation

of job performance. Tom La Belle: A couple of comments, the document and

the way it is written and the four “check all that apply”  tend to shift the responsibility and the

criteria to the department level. But the fact of the matter is the President

makes the decision upon the advice of numerous people. I think it is important

that we not bring a new faculty member here and have him or her believe that if

he or she satisfies all of the criteria at the department level that it means

that everything will be fine. Let me tell you how different departments are.

First: You may be all thinking that there is general agreement on how to

interpret criteria. But in fact it varies widely. Just some examples: I often

see that departments say that the individual teaching is above the department

mean and I can imagine a department expectation would be that the individual

student ratings are above the mean. But the department mean may be based upon

three faculty members, or five faculty members or whatever. It may be based on

certain kinds of courses and so on. Second: another is accreditation tends to

influence - for example in business - accreditation influences a lot - of

faculty expectations and they tend to have a particular formula of the way in

which they count publications and the points system and so on, which is unique

to business and that accreditation process. So in order to avoid a collusion course

here and to - the collusion is setting up the department in which this

basically implies - if not - if you go through it - and the last one says for

example, “Department expectations for retention, tenure, and promotion agreed

upon by the candidate and the department are attached to this document.” It gives

the impression that this is a contract and once the contract is fulfilled the

individual is home free and clear. Here is a statement that if I saw in front

of this “Check all that apply” I could live with for the most part the four

things under check all that apply. Something like this - “I understand that the

decision to promote and tenure is that of the president of the university upon

the advise of faculty colleagues and administrators at department and college

level, university level faculty committees as appropriate, and the office of

academic affairs and the provost.” To that end then you can go along - I have

met with - I have met with and so on. But it tells the candidate that the

department basically is a major component in this but alone does not set all of

the criteria. The second page I have the same problem that Miriam had -

expectation for university non-teaching activities - the further we get away

from senate policy on expectation for faculty promotion and tenure. We are

setting ourselves up for revising that policy, I think,

if you go this direction. One of the things, for example, I see in the

personnel records is that a faculty member will come forward and say “I have

been very much involved in my local church, I coached the local little league

team, and so on.” Sometimes that falls under community service - one of the

test I use is whether or not the kind of activity in the community, or

non-teaching, and I am not sure that I understand the difference between

university non-teaching and community service in this listing. One of the ways

that I believe that credit should be given is if the nature of the service is

linked to the professional role and responsibility of the faculty member in the

institution. So it should in some way be arguably an extension of the faculty

member’s or expertise knowledge in a field and not simply seeking credit for

things that as a citizen of the United States, or a citizen of the community,

or a citizen of the city, one might expect particular behavior. What I think

the major point here is that I would stick as much as possible to the three

categories of expectations and maybe break those out into more finite

subcategories. Another one that might be problematic is personal collegial

relationships. That is essentially an old black ball system. There are some

signals here that you want to be careful here - not trying to pin down too

closely. Chair Pamela Vaughn asserted that FAC can correct me but I

think this list found it way here because they are all in the contract. FAC

correction they are all in the senate policy. Tom La Belle asked:

University Non-Teaching I don’t believe is spelled out in the policy. Pamela

Vaughn asserted that it is a category in the university policy.  Rick Houlberg indicated that

department and university retention criteria should be in writing. He is

concerned about protecting the work and performance of the faculty member and

not protecting the criteria that the institution might develop. Alvin

Alvarez spoke in support of the development of the new form and indicated

the importance of clarifying the expectation we have of new faculty. He

believes it is healthy for a department to begin early to have a discussion

with the new faculty member about their mutual expectations. Eunice Aaron

thanked the senate for placing these items on the agenda and appreciates the

active and involved discussion of may senators. She

pointed out that the form had also been sent out to department chairs to get their

input. It is true that the president does have the final approval for tenure of

faculty; however, he does not have the time to review each individual faculty

criteria but relies on his staff for input. We must all seek to make sure that

people are treated fairly. Jan Gregory indicated that she strongly

supports the comments made by Rick Houlberg. She suggested that some of

the points of the confusion on the forum can be very easily taken care of with

a cover letter that will address the concerns of the difference interpretation

of the form and how it is applied. Lastly, there is a very long established

academic principle that it is the faculty who bear the primary responsibility

for faculty evaluations for retention, promotion, and curriculum development.

That principle is supported by this document. Mitch Turitz drew strong

exception to some who have indicated that the department criteria are not as

important at the higher levels of this institution. He suggested that if there

is no consultation between the higher level of the institution and the

department faculty on the criteria of evaluation for retention, tenure, and

promotion, then how are the candidates to know by what criteria they are to be

evaluated?  Chair Pamela Vaughn

indicated that we had reached a time certain, but would extend time to complete

the speaker’s list. Remaining on the speaker list are:

Cherny, Hom, and Harnly.  Robert

Cherny, in response to those who have raised the issue of university

policy. The policy for retention, tenure and promotion specifies that the

departments draft the criteria for expectation of review. There is every

opportunity for all levels of review to review the department’s stated criteria

and make comments. The departments draft their statements so all are clear

regarding the criteria for evaluation. It does not preclude that other times

and levels can vary, in which case it would be part of our discussion that

there be a variation. Marlon Hom asserted that

in the review process that the department is more important than the higher

level because the departments have the expertise to create the most effective

evaluation criteria. It does not undermine the higher levels of review. Caroline

Harnly indicted that the form is not clear on who fills out the second page,

whether it is the department chair, faculty committee or the faculty member. Chair

Pamela Vaughn thanked all senators for the active and informative

discussion. She reminded senators that the proposed form is a draft and will

undergo many changes. The new routing sheet is proposed to replace the existing

first year form. The intention of the new routing sheet is to encourage

departments and first year faculty to establish mutual shared expectations for

the retention process. A copy of the proposed first year routing sheet may be

found on the Senate website at: www.sfsu.edu/~senate.

Comments regarding the new routing sheet can be sent to the chair of FAC Caran

Colvin at ccolvin@sfsu.edu


Item #6: Review of FAQs Regarding the Tentative Agreements- A discussion Item.


Pamela Vaughn

reminded Senators that a copy of the FAQs was provided with their packet of

information for today’s meeting. She introduced Jan Gregory who is responsible

for putting the FAQs together. Jan Gregory indicated that the list of

frequently asked questions with answers regarding the tentative agreement

covers a range of issue. The document is a work in process and it is hoped that

it will help explain items in the tentative agreement document. Additional

questions can be addressed to Jan Gregory at jgregory@sfsu.edu.

A copy of the list of frequently asked questions may be found on the Senate

website at: www.sfsu.edu/~senate. The

entire text of the new contract can be found on the CFA website: www.calfac.org. Marlon Hom asked since

the departments then do not make lecturer appointments how can the department play

a role in their evaluation and selection? Jan Gregory indicated that the

language of the agreement replaces any arrangement prior to the agreement. It

would seem that the department would hire and evaluate lectures. Mitch

Turitz suggested that the contract is new and that speculation on what may

or may not happen upon implementation is not helpful. He recommended that we

focus on real case scenarios and stay away from the “what if” situations.


Senate adjourned at 3:37 PM






to the Faculty