San Francisco State University Academic Senate
Minutes of April 13, 1999
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Alvarez, Alvin; Barnes, Paul; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Cancino,
Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn; Consoli, Andres; Contreras, Rey; Corrigan, Robert;
Cullers, Susan; Duke, Jerry; Eisman, Gerald; Fehrman, Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte;
Flowers, Will; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan; Goldsmith, Helen; Graham, Michael; Graham,
Minnie; Gregory, Jan; Harnly, Caroline; Haw, Mary Ann; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung;
Jenkins, Lee; Jerris, Scott; Johnson, Dane; Kelley, James; Moss, Joanna; Phillips,
Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Shrivastava, Vinay; Simeon, Roblyn; Smith, Miriam; Strong,
Rob; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Vaughn, Pamela; Verhey, Marilyn; Warren,
Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope; Wong, Alfred; Yee, Darlene.
Senate Members Absent: Swanson, Deborah(exc.); Wade, Patricia(exc.);
Craig, JoAnn; OÃ±ate, Abdiel; Choo, Freddie; Bhat, Subodh; Gonzales, Angela;
Shapiro, Jerald(exc.); Elia, John(exc.); Tarakji, Ghassan; Aaron, Eunice(exc.);
Cherny, Robert(exc.); La Belle, Thomas; Scoble, Don(exc.); Collier, James; Montenegro,
Ricardo; Valledares, Juan; Vega, Sandra.
Senate Interns Present:
Guests: R. Houlberg, J. Kassiola, J. Randolph, M. Kasdan, G.
West, P. McGee.
Announcements and Report
- Chair Phillips announced that ballots have gone out for the Academic
Senate university-wide elections.
- Rick Houlberg reported on improvements for the Centennial Graduation
ceremony, encouraging all faculty to attend. He asked that any questions or
comments be directed to him or Darlene Yee, the Senate appointed representatives
for the graduation ceremony.
- Phillips reported on the April 8, 1999, meeting of the CSU Academic Senate
Chairs. A lot of time was spent discussing various responses to the dispute
going on with the Board of Trustees and different ways that different administrations
are responding. Several asked faculty trustee Harold Goldwhite his perspective
on what can be done to heal the breach, build bridges, or effectively pressure
the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor. Goldwhite said that the Chancellor
is held in high repute by the Trustees; he has their support and respect,
and the Board perceives him as successful with regard to Sacramento and other
aspects of his job. The Chancellor's one year evaluation said that there were
few dissenting voices in the chorus of praise. If the Board changes in makeup
and becomes more pro-union there might be a change. The Board perceived the
CFA "no" vote as confusing and erratic. He also said that the Board of Trustees
are not sure where faculty are, so if there could be three or four points
that faculty could agree on across the system that might be effective. Board
of Trustee members do read responses from individual faculty, and he believes
that letters--not e-mail--might be effective.
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for April 13, 1999
M/S/P (Vaughn, P. Warren) to insert new item #3a, Report from President
Corrigan and to make current item #3, item #3b.
The agenda was approved as amended.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for March 23, 1999
The minutes were approved as printed.
Agenda Item #3A - Report from President Corrigan
President Corrigan delivered remarks concerning the proposed resolution to
censure Chancellor Reed.
Corrigan thanked the Senate for the courtesy of appearing, commenting on his
respect, which he believes is mutual, for its dedication, integrity, and seriousness
of purpose, even when on opposite sides of an issue. He added that he believed
it inappropriate for him to engage in or in any way inhibit the debate, so he
would leave at the conclusion of his remarks and any questions.
Corrigan urged us to separate out the issues that confront us, stating that
there is much blame to be shared over the frustrating collective bargaining
process and results. He added that this campus has just awarded 150 merit salary
increases, has also processed GSI and SSI awards, and hopes to offer significant
merit increases to another 450 faculty members come July 1st.
Corrigan spoke against the proposed resolution on the Cornerstones implementation
plan, suggesting that we take to heart the comments made in Bob Cherny's email.
He repeated that his personal goal is to see SFSU become the nation's preeminent
public urban university. He spoke to the obligation to demonstrate to the State
that we hold ourselves accountable and that we are prepared to evaluate and
assess the quality of what we do, and reiterated his belief that this campus
has much more to gain than to lose from participating in the implementation
On the proposed censure of Chancellor Reed, Corrigan first addressed the Chancellor's
comments at the San Luis Obispo Q&A. He remarked that as a full-time faculty
member for 14 years before becoming an academic administrator, he understood
the anger at the reported comments, but added that working on practically a
daily basis with the Chancellor, he has grown to understand the man and to appreciate
his value system, and he has never seen or heard the Chancellor display contempt
for faculty or be discourteous in his assessment of their professional commitment.
Corrigan added that what Reed actually said was the following: "I want to serve
more students. I know that there's about 400,000 net additional students that
want a college degree in the next eight to ten years that are coming out of
the 12th grade, but we'll never be able to serve them if we work abut seven
or eight months a year. You know, I guess, from about 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.,
Monday through Thursday." Corrigan read Reed as asserting that We, the university,
need to be in business 12 months a year. We, the university, need to provide
round-the-clock-service--not the individual faculty member. Corrigan added that
Reed wasn't telling you to get of your duffs and work harder, he was telling
Corrigan went on to say that, though he does not believe the widespread negative
interpretation of Reed's off-the-cuff remarks accurately reflects his attitude
about this faculty, the impact of his comments has reverberated throughout the
system. Reed has apologized for the comments; he has been rebuked by the Statewide
Senate; he has been vilified in various CSU campus senates, and he has been
inundated with vicious and repugnant personal email attacks. The motion today
will simply be added to a long list of similar censures and rebukes, and the
point has been made: "We don't like the contract; we are suspicious of Cornerstones;
we are terribly offended by something the Chancellor seems to believe about
us." Corrigan added that SFSU might be more effective than the rest of the CSU
campuses, using this critical moment to our advantage.
Corrigan provided a historical summary on how SFSU went from the flagship of
the new CSU system under Chancellor Dumke to the campus with the lowest number
of State dollars per FTEs and the highest faculty/student ratio, in part due
to a history of assaults on and confrontations with CSU leaders. He asked if
this situation would change as we join in a systemwide censure of the Chancellor.
He added that, though some believe Reed will not survive the onslaught, he does
not share that belief: this is not a man who is about to turn tail and run;
this is not a Board that is about to fire him. From reading the State's press,
Reed also has the strong support of the public. Corrigan suggested that we suspend
our judgement of Reed and that we allow him to demonstrate in the months ahead
that his is a far different person than heated reports would have us believe.
This will achieve a second goal of sharpening the recognition that this campus
and this faculty have a great capacity to help the system to move ahead. Corrigan
reiterated: "I put my reputation on the line with you when I tell you that most
of what is reported is in error; that this is a man who shares more of the values
that characterize our campus than anyone who has ever served as Chancellor."
Corrigan summarized his witnessing Reed as a supporter of faculty, particularly
when it comes to compensation. He added that it is true that Reed wishes us
to offer state-funded courses 12 months a year, to deliver classes on weekends
and at night, to vary both the length of courses and our delivery systems, things
that Corrigan wishes as well. But neither Corrigan nor Reed has ever said that
our faculty is not working hard at the highest level of professionalism. And
the Chancellor understands the onerous impact of a four-course load, the burden
of oversubscribed classes, the extraordinary strains that an often underprepared
student population places upon us, and the stress that faculty bear as a result
of a desire to continue to be scholars on the cutting edge of their disciplines.
Corrigan added, however, that the State will no longer accept a "business as
usual" attitude on the part of those who would administer the CSU and that we
have to respond with a great sense of urgency to the challenge presented by
hundreds of thousands of tidal wave students. Reed has never suggested that
an individual faculty member's workload should be increased, but he has argued
that each campus had to do more--and called for additional resources to aid
Corrigan asked the Senate to table the resolution until such time as we have
the facts to prove that he was wrong in his assessment and that Reed's critics
have been right. He suggested that we invite Reed back to campus. He added that
we have little to lose by being open and thoughtful and much to gain, including
newfound support of Trustees and repair to the damage done by 30 years of bureaucratic
hostility. Corrigan concluded as follows: "Time will show whether I am right
about Chancellor Reed; in the meantime, San Francisco State University will
have demonstrated its leadership by taking a course of action that can only
do us good, both on and beyond the campus. I believe that both Charles Reed
and San Francisco State University deserve this approach."
Susan Fox-Wolfgramm asked how soon Reed would come if we did invite
him. Corrigan responded that he might be here in several weeks, but we would
have to assure him a reasonable environment.
Paul Barnes asked what President Corrigan's intuitive feeling was about
Reed being reasonable. Corrigan answered that the guy is a linebacker; if you
come after him; he comes after you. When he strays from a prepared text, he
tends not to say things in a way that you would like to hear them.
Agenda Item #3B - University Budget Committee Election
Jerry Duke (Dance) was elected to the University Budget Committee.
Agenda Item #4 - Resolution on Chancellor Charles B. Reed
M/S/P (Vaughn, Fehrman) to change language in the first resolve clause
to read "Resolved that the SFSU Academic Senate rebuke Chancellor Charles B.
Reed; and be it further," changing "censure" to "rebuke."
Pamela Vaughn commented that she had heard from a number of people uncomfortable
with the word "censure," thinking it far stronger than the word "rebuke" from
the Statewide Senate, so she proposes this change in hopes of reaching consensus.
Miriam Smith asked whether we are rebuking on our own or joining in
the rebuke. She added that it is unclear why we are rebuking him.
Vaughn suggested that the above observation be addressed by the original makers
of the resolution.
Jan Gregory said that if you look at the second whereas there is reference
to public insult and disparagement of CSU faculty and a specific example, most
recently at Cal-Poly State University. The record of these remarks and the internal
contradictions of the Chancellor's remarks about institutions and values deeply
important to higher education did not need to be included or it might have gone
on interminably. He has said for the record repeatedly such things as we don't
need tenure, let's experiment and then weeks later saying that he values tenure.
There is a consistent, documented record of other similar comments, including
early on in his administration his belief that California State University faculty
do not really work very hard. We don't need all of these in the resolution.
Darlene Yee suggested that we rephrase the resolve clause to read that
the SFSU Academic Senate endorse the action of the CSU Academic Senate in the
above referenced resolution.
Mitch Turitz quoted from Bob Cherny's comments on this matter as reported
in the minutes from the last senate meeting: "Cherny seconded that this is a
very serious motion. He favored censure at that time and still does, but the
reason for this is not primarily with regard to the contract. Cherny suggested
that we not move this to second reading today. Cherny added that he favored
this motion for actions of our Chancellor for over a year where he has disparaged
the work habits of the faculty. Reed told us at our very first meeting that
we can all work harder. When it was explained to him that we had done so in
the state's financial crisis--we had taken on a higher student-faculty ration;
we had gone without pay increases--on top of what was already the highest work
load of any comparable institution, Reed's response was 'I don't know that there
is data for that,' even though other executives in his administration have done
Paul Barnes commented that last time we met he had said that we were
trying to put fire out with gasoline. He added that he does not support censure,
or confirming what other campuses have said; it's like trying to pick a fight
with your father. We should be more creative and be flagship of the system,
and we are not going to do this by alienating the Chancellor. We are all creatures
of the State Legislature, and we should be getting up to Sacramento and lobbying.
He added that a resolution might be toned down to "deeply offended and disappointed."
M/S/P (Kelley, Fehrman) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the amendment passed 17 to 14 with 8 abstentions.
Phillips spoke against the resolution as amended, stating that he opposed it
less on principle than expediency, seeing no benefit from passing this. He added
that with Reed's tough/fragile personality, if you back him into the corner,
you get nothing.
Jerry Duke spoke against the resolution based on his knowledge of Southern
personalities like Reed's, suggesting that passing this resolution would only
Gregory spoke in favor of the resolution, remarking that the issue has nothing
to do with the Chancellor's character structure. She suggested that we consider
a document that most don't know: Principles and Policies: Papers of the Academic
Senate of the California State University. In a section on collegiality,
for example, it says "the state of mind of participants in collegial decision-making
is an important determinant of the success of the process. Participants should
consider one another as colleagues and should respect each other's individual
expertise and contributions." It also says, "Critics sometimes compare the functioning
of a university to that of private enterprise, but such analogies are misleading.
The basic objectives of a business are to maximize profits, to produce a measurable
commodity at a minimal cost, and to increase market share. A university strives
for alternative and often conflicting achievements. Because of these differences
and because of the special role of faculty and students, decision-making in
a university is a more diverse process than that of private industry. A collegial
approach to decision-making is the means whereby the fundamental values of the
university can be preserved. Its conflicting objectives balanced, and its legal
obligations to the state met." Gregory also suggested that we consider the language
of HEERA, which speaks of "harmonious relations between each higher education
employer and its employees as a necessity." Those relations do not obtain when
the person who we may wish symbolically to view as a father-figure or as a person
with serious character flaws, takes the position about the faculty in the system
he leads that the Chancellor has done publicly; thus, this resolution should
be supported. Gregory addressed Miriam's concern by saying that she would take
it as friendly if someone moved to delete the third whereas clause.
Smith reiterated that this resolution as written is unclear; she added that
she will not propose an amendment to this because she is not in favor of it
Marlon Hom commented that he feels caught in this debate. The rhetoric
is important in order to send a notice about how faculty feel about this whole
situation, but we should keep some distance. We as individual faculty are victims
in the management/union debate. We need to examine the individual faculty welfare
in this process. He added that maybe we should all vote abstention.
Julian Randolph registered his distress and disappointment because the
Senate has decided not to take the high moral ground, remembering the time when
we could have voted against any merit scheme and rolled over and played dead.
He added that the only morally responsible stand, given the Chancellor's history
and given the fact that when he doesn't have a prepared text he is revealing
what he truly feels, is to censure that individual. He is our spokesperson before
the legislature and the business community, and he is supposed to be supporting
and nurturing our values, and he has not done that. Randolph went on to comment
that the delay in moving on this motion for further discussion has been used
only in an attempt to water it down. He added that memory of the history of
what happened to this university in relation to system provisions is radically
different than the President's. It was not the faculty that caused this institution
to become the victim of a redistribution of resources; the administration was
charged with coming up with the devices to provide an improved dollar per FTE,
and the administration did not do it.
Yee stated that common sense tells us that when someone does something that
we don't like, it is smart to let them know so that they don't repeat the behavior,
and the CSU Academic Senate has done this on our behalf. It also makes sense
to let them know what it is that we would like to see them do, which our resolution
does not do, so I would encourage senators to either abstain or vote against
Dane Johnson urged that we vote for this resolution, reiterating the
statements made above by Gregory and those made in the last Senate meeting by
Cherny, reasons based solely on the Chancellor's actions over the past year.
Reed has been a very poor leader of our system, and meetings with him have shown
him to have a value system very different than that shared by our faculty.
James Kelley urged the Senate to vote down this resolution stating that
he doesn't care about the Chancellor's psychology but that it's an ill-conceived
Phillips commented that there are some very different perspectives, and he
urged us to respect those differences. He reiterated that his perspective is
less focused on issues of principle than on principles of pragmatism and his
judgment of human politics, looking for expediency and bridges toward moving
forward. He resented the implication that those of us who oppose this oppose
it because of a flawed perspective as opposed to the fact that we all have different
ways of turning the problem. He urged us to vote against this resolution because
it will not do the problem any good to pass this, and it could do us some good
to say that the message has already been sent.
M/S/P (Turitz, M. Warren) to second reading.
Gerald Eisman felt uncomfortable that the President would speak to the Senate
on this issue, but he spoke against the resolution. He first commended those
speaking for it, but added that he sees an opportunity here to invite the Chancellor
to come here and discuss these issues. He suggested an amendment that retained
the whereas clauses, but does not take the same stance of rebuking the Chancellor
in the resolution, resolving instead to request that Reed come to the Senate,
address us on his views, and stand for a period of questions and answers on
faculty workload in the CSU.
Duke ceded his position on the floor to Eisman.
M/S/P (Eisman, Hom) to amend the resolution so that the first resolve
clause reads as follows: "Resolved that the SFSU Academic Senate request that
Chancellor Charles B. Reed address the Senate and stand for a period of questions
and answers on his views on faculty workload, and related issues; and be it
Vaughn commented that she found the amendment interesting and she likes it.
Gregory remarked that she has had this opportunity here, as we all have, as
well as with the Statewide Senate. The Statewide senators were very clear in
commentary and questions, so if we pass this resolution with this new language,
we need to do more careful homework before he arrives than we did for today.
If we prefer Gerry's language, explore the record, ask hard questions, and leave
open the possibility of later action.
Mary Anne Warren spoke in support of Eisman's motion, seeing it as a
good compromise that notes the disapproval over his comments and puts forward
the suggestion that there can be better communication.
Lee Jenkins stated that she supported the original resolution, but is
open to this new amendment because it is an opportunity to talk to him without
barring us from a future resolution.
Barnes stated that we should have a cooling off period. If he were the Chancellor,
it would sound like an invitation to a lynching.
Smith proposed a friendly amendment that was accepted: to include compensation
in addition to faculty workload.
Hom spoke in support of Gerry's amendment, suggesting that we look at this
with a sense of humor since our Chancellor said that we were a mature campus.
M/S/P (Kelley, M. Warren) to close debate on the amendment.
The amendment was passed.
Joanna Moss remembered that when she was a student here, in philosophy they
talked about the problem between the moralists and the pragmatists; the moralists
would say we should vote for this because we have been insulted consistently
and this is no way to have a relationship; the pragmatists seem to be saying
that this is no way to get a better relationship with the big boss. She added
that she needs more time to talk to her colleagues to know which way to go on
Gregory echoed Joanna's comments, adding that a number of people have said
to me this is to much too soon while many have said that censure is inadequate.
If we are going to do this seriously, this needs to be done right.
Penelope Warren spoke in favor of the resolution as amended. She stated
that the things that need to have been said to the Chancellor have been said
and that a stronger stand would not have made it any clearer. She added that
we haven't exhausted all of the possibilities for establishing a relationship
with the Chancellor, and that, though she appreciates the argument that taking
the stronger stance can be the higher moral ground, this resolution can be seen
as taking the higher moral ground by being the person in the right and continuing
to invite the other person to engage in a respectful relationship.
Marian Bernstein proposed an addition that would give it a more positive
spin: "and to establish a better, respectful relationship."
Eisman did not accept this as a friendly amendment.
Mary Anne Warren echoed Penny's statement, adding that it is good politics
and saves us from looking cowardly.
M/S/P (Duke, Smith) to close debate.
The vote was taken on the resolution as amended, and the resolution passed.
(To view this resolution, click here.)
Chair Phillips commented that he does not believe that (meeting with the Chancellor
in) a large arena is necessarily the best way to improve relations. How the
invitation is extended, the context we establish here, the homework that Jan
spoke of--all this will determine whether it is effective. We also have no guarantee
that the Chancellor will accept this.
Agenda Item #5 - Resolution on the Cornerstones Plan
Jan Gregory spoke on behalf of the resolution. She noted that on page
1 of the Senate Agenda it says, Tuesday, April 13, 1999. When the Statewide
Senate voted to delay further action on the Cornerstones implementation plan,
it did so in the belief that this would be one way it could say clearly this
is an appropriate step for an Academic Senate to take in the face of a chancellor
whose behavior has been insulting and wounding to that senate and other faculty
members. I disagree with some of the statements made by Bob in his e-mail. If
we delay work on Cornerstones for the rest of the semester, we will not set
it back very far, but this is a way of saying that we need to take a break from
those things that we have been doing until someone else stops taking a break
from the things that he should be doing. Another argument is that Cornerstones
has language about compensation and work-load but without reference to the only
organization that is legally designated to address those issues. It would be
a very healthy thing to let Cornerstones rest for awhile while we rest a bit,
grade our papers, and go on about the work we are paid to do.
Duke spoke against this resolution, asking that we look at what the
resolution suggests we refuse to participate in formal discussion of or action
on. He read the 10 principles of Cornerstones and asked which one of these we
shall refuse to do. He added that all of these principles are woven into our
campus strategic plan, the members of the Executive Committee are opposed to
this, and Cornerstones is beneficial to faculty and students.
Bernstein commented that Cornerstones was not initially our document,
but it has become our document, so if we withdraw now, we will lose our chance
to continue to mold it.
Barnes agreed with what has been said and stated his opposition to this
Dawn Terrell spoke against the resolution, commenting in particular
about last week's State Senate Chairs' meeting. Dave Spence presented a draft
of the accountability issues, members began to raise questions and point out
problems and then realized that they could not comment. This draft will go forward,
and if we pass this resolution, we tie our hands, and some of the state senators
have realized what a difficult bind this places them in.
Jenkins spoke in support of the resolution because it is part of a job
action, and we agreed we would not participate in more assessment.
M/S/P (Vaughn, Fehrman) to second reading.
Yee spoke against the resolution, stating that it will negate much
of the valuable work of the CUSP process.
Carolyn Harnly suggested that we delete the part on "refuse to participate
in formal discussion" and just keep "action on." This would preserve the possibility
of participation while also stating that we are working without a contract and
this is an overload.
M/S/P (Gregory, ) moved the above as a friendly amendment for the second
resolved: delete "participate in formal discussion of" and read "shall not take
any action on . . . "
Duke commented that if we pass this then we have to decide what we won't take
M/S/P (Vaughn, Bernstein) to close debate.
The vote was taken on the resolution as amended, and the resolution did
not pass (4 for, 26 opposed, 2 abstentions).
Chair Phillips remarked that this has been hard for all of us and we should
remember that the intent in this room is positive even when we disagree. Please
be respectful and caring in this process.
Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Revision to A.S. Policy #S81-18 - Leaves with Pay
Phillips commented that the reason this is on as a discussion item is
that we think this is extremely important, and we want to get at the issues
apart from positionality, so that maybe we can come up with a proposal which
comes as close to a consensus as possible.
Marlon Hom, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, provided some background.
The current policy on sabbatical leave has fallen apart; it's dysfunctional
at the college level and not being followed at the administration level. We
are trying to come up with a revision that will be agreeable to both sides.
These suggestions have come down to three: 1) maintain the policy as is; 2)
give a percentage to the administration to exercise their discretion; 3) revamp
it in such a way that sabbaticals will be granted only on the basis of merit
of the application. The Faculty Affairs committee found the percentage option
not that desirable, so we are asking the Senate to look at the remaining two
options, while also entertaining the suggestion of whether or not there should
be a university committee to oversee, review, and recommend the sabbatical leaves
in such a way that they will be fair for all, perhaps parallel to the University
Promotions committee, which will provide a faculty voice in this process.
The Senate was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Secretary to the Faculty