Minutes of the April 15, 1997 Academic Senate Meeting

The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips
at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present: Eunice Aaron, Paul Barnes,
Patricia Bartscher, Gerrie Baughman, Janet Buchholz, Rosa Casarez-Levison,
Yu-Charn Chen, Michelle Cheng, Robert Cherny, James Collier, Jerry
Duke, Gerald Eisman, Ken Fehrman, Newman Fisher, Will Flowers,
Helen Gillotte, Helen Goldsmith, Peter Haikalis, Ann Hallum, Jennifer
Hammett, Caroline Harnly, Mary Ann Haw, David Hemphill, Marlon
Hom, Bonnie Homan, Rick Houlberg, Todd Imahori, Dane Johnson,
Herb Kaplan, James Kelley, Thomas La Belle, Wanda Lee, Hollis
Matson, Eugene Michaels, Joel Nicholson, Abdiel Oñate,
Raymond Pestrong, Mark Phillips, Elisabeth Prinz, Mario Rivas,
Roberto Rivera, Don Scoble, Peggy Smith, Lee Sprague, Lana Thomson,
Patricia Wade, Mary Ann Warren, Penelope Warren, Nancy Wilkinson,
Alfred Wong, Yim Yu Wong, Darlene Yee.

Senate Members Absent: S. Berlowitz(exc.), D. Terrell(exc.),
S. Banerjee, K. Walsh, T. Usowicz(exc), M. Verhey(exc.), L. Lyles(exc.),
M. Bernstein(exc.), G. Hammerstrom(exc.), R. Corrigan(exc.).

Senate Interns Present: Jaymee Sagisi.

Guests: M. Turitz, G. Whitaker, D. Schafer, M.B.
Love, G. West, M. Mallare, J. Gregory, J. Randolph, V. Thompson,
M. Potepan.

Announcements and Report

Chair's Report

  • Vice Chancellor Molly Broad is leaving to become Chancellor
    of the University of North Carolina.
  • Attached to this meeting's agenda is a draft review of
    the baccalaureate
    . The Educational Policies Council will review
    the draft at its next meeting; the Senate Executive Committee
    will review the draft during the summer; findings will be brought
    to the Senate in the early fall. Input and responses to the
    draft are solicited
  • A draft copy of the Cornerstones report has been received,
    however there are a limited number of copies. Several groups,
    amongst them--CUSP, the Senate, and the Deans Council--will be
    formulating a draft response. Chair Phillips stated that of particular
    interest is the first chapter concerning the Cornerstone principles.
    The SFSU task force, which attended the Monterey Conference, will
    meet May 1 to begin discussing a response to the document. CUSP
    will begin its discussions on April 21. The document will be the
    primary Executive Committee agenda item on April 22 and the Senate
    will include the Cornerstones document on its agenda for the meeting
    of April 29. This is also an agenda item on the Department Chairs
    meeting on April 24. Phillips felt that the focus should be on
    key issues particularly as related to the principles and as related
    to this campus. The identified key issues would be to help facilitate
    discussions. However, other items may be raised by the groups.
    The groups should also try to pose alternative ways of looking
    at the solution of some of these problems.

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for Meeting of April 15,

M/S/P (Hallum, Gillotte) to delete Item 10 and return that
item to the Senate floor after review by CRAC. As there were no
objections, the agenda was approved as amended.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting April 1, 1997

M/S (Matson, Gillotte) to approve the minutes as written.
As there were no objections, the minutes were approved as printed.

Agenda Item #3 - Election of Member to the Academic Council
of International Programs, CSU

Greta Glugoski/Social Work sought re-election and as there
were no additional nominations from the floor, M/S/P (Matson,
to close nominations and elect Greta Glugoski/Social
by acclamation.

Agenda Item #4 - Report from Vice President La Belle

Provost La Belle reported on the changing national and
State scene in the funding of higher education, his personal observations
on the funding in the CSU and for SFSU, and the budget priorities
and requests that Academic Affairs will present to UBC for the
next budget.

Since this campus will probably be capped in enrollment in a few
years, funding increases will most likely have to be from
other methods of financing. La Belle thought that outcomes
will likely become the basis for additional financing, rather
than seat time. This will probably lower the emphasis on student/faculty
ratios as the basis for funding. Performance indicators
are being used in some states for financing public colleges to
make institutions accountable to the state legislature. He thought
that performance factors will become a reality in the CSU. ELM
and EPT policy changes are examples of this because it has been
threatened that funding will be pulled out if campuses do not
comply with the policy. La Belle predicted that the CSU will have
something similar to institutional PSSIs and institutional merit-based
funding. He felt that part of the campus funding will become based
on performance indicators. Some possible performance indicators
for SFSU include achievement scores, graduation rates, numbers
of teachers (K-4) who become certified, the amount of education
that is delivered off campus, certain classes of students who
graduate, or reduction in remediation levels.

La Belle stated that if incentive funding becomes one element
of budgeting, this campus will have to re-allocate funds or become
more entrepreneurial and find new ways to create funding sources.
Faculty retirements are one source for re-allocating funds. Currently
the University waits for students to decide what they want to
study and then the University reacts and allocates dollars. This
necessitates a pool of dollars to cover these needs, so a re-investment
pool may need to be created. Off-campus course offerings through
the College of Extended Learning, the use of technology-mediated
education, partnerships with community colleges in terms of course
offerings, and changing the schedule of course offerings could
be creative ways of generating funds.

La Belle also identified the budget priorities and requests
to the UBC on behalf of Academic Affairs. One request is a permanent
faculty augmentation
of approximately $500,000 to cover the
increase in enrollment next year. A new program has been suggested
to support FERPs, lecturer salary step increases, and the hiring
of tenure track faculty
without a resulting decrease in resources
for instruction. This proposal would be to bring 78-120 new tenure
track faculty to the campus over the next 3-4 years unrelated
to any enrollment increases. Academic Affairs would pay 1/3 of
the cost of the tenure track faculty and the college would pay
2/3, so that instructional resource base would remain constant.
Operating expenditures also need additional funding. The Library
needs additional funding. Based on the deans' requests, additional
funding will be requested for clerical and administrative support
in the colleges. A request will be made for travel funds to be
allocated centrally. Start up costs for new faculty hires will
be requested. At least a portion of the funds for a director for
the new Marion Wright Edleman Institute will be requested. The
new Biomedical Research needs matching funds. Media purchases
need to be funded. A mandatory raise for student assistants will
also be requested. However, La Belle also reported that Vice President
for Business and Finance Don Scoble has indicated that there are
no new dollars for next year. La Belle asked senators to observe
what is going on nationally and within the State and to follow
Cornerstones. He further asked that if senators have reactions
to these issues, to let him know.

Houlberg asked about outcomes assessment. He wondered if
the CSU becomes like trade schools responding to the needs of
the working people in California, will SFSU be training prison
guards since that is where the workers will be? La Belle responded
that the value system underlying Cornerstones is a market driven
approach, however there is no clear consensus on what the performance
indicators and outcomes should be.

Smith requested that if there is an increase in money for
clerical support, that funding should filter down to the departments
rather than staying at the college office level. La Belle
responded that the deans have requested support on a wide level
throughout the college.

Eisman remarked that since technology becomes obsolete
quickly, there should be a system to stagger replacements over
time and take advantage of new technologies as they arise. He
cited all faculty across campus receiving new workstations last
year as an example. La Belle responded that not all faculty
received new workstations, lecturers did not. He agreed that staggering
is important, usage patterns are important, and technology needs
to be provided for new hires. Scoble explained that there
is a development team that is working system-wide on internal,
long term partnerships with businesses. The partnership would
in part focus on building relationships with the private sector.
In part it would also be to fund the infrastructure. These businesses
would help provide the technology base to keep the CSU technologically

Agenda Item #5 - Report from our Statewide Senators

A summary of the meeting was attached to the agenda. Cherny
stated that he has a copy of the minutes if anyone wanted to read
them. He reported that the last session was a question and answer
session with Chancellor Munitz. The Chancellor was asked
how he felt about closing the faculty salary gap and if it was
appropriate to raise the entire salary averages, especially if
he thought that PSSIs were a way to do this rather than cost of
living increases. Munitz responded that he saw PSSIs as "not
a major vehicle for closing the gap." He further said that
the salary gap should be closed by "a rising tide raises
all boats" approach. Munitz also talked about Compact II
and whether we want a higher paid faculty and higher student/faculty
ratios or a poorer paid faculty and lower student/faculty ratios.

Aaron reported that the Chancellor said that President
Corrigan frequently reminds Munitz and his staff that SFSU is
not adequately funded for our students. Munitz said that he believes
that SFSU is fully funded, but not at the rate SFSU would like.
Julian Randolph/Foreign Languages questioned if
the Statewide Senators saw a relationship between Molly Broad
leaving and the early demise of Cornerstones. Cherny replied
that at the time of the meeting, her decision to leave had not
been announced so it was not discussed.

Agenda Item #6 - Resolution Regarding Lecturer Inclusion in
the PSSI Process

Houlberg introduced this item indicating a change that
had been made by the Executive Committee. In the second Whereas
clause, the phrase "not to include a specific group"
was changed to "to exclude a specific group."

Houlberg explained that President Corrigan had made at
least two public pronouncements that led people to believe that
he had a deliberate policy of excluding a large and valuable portion
of the faculty from the PSSI process. Corrigan also said that
there were other ways for lecturers to get changes in salary.
Houlberg stated that there is very little evidence that lecturers
are being successful in these other ways of getting changes in
their salary. This resolution is a deliberate statement of support
of many of the teaching faculty who are incredibly valuable to
this campus yet do not receive enough recommendation, recompense,
and award for their efforts.

Sprague stated his strong support for the resolution and
encouraged its adoption. From his personal experience and observation,
lecturers contribute much to the health of this community. He
felt that for one segment of the community to be disadvantaged
by not being able to participate in an equitable process of compensation
demoralized lecturers, students, and all of the community. He
felt that a strong, clear message should be made in support of
lecturers in the PSSI process.

M/S (Cherny, Aaron) to amend the Resolved clause to read,
"strongly objects to, and urges the President to reconsider."
The Executive Committee considered this to be a friendly amendment.

Kelley responded to Houlberg's statement by questioning
the evidence. He said that in the College of Science and Engineering
lecturers move up the salary schedule after completing 12 units
with essentially no review. He felt that lecturers can move all
the way up the salary schedule without the peer review that tenure/tenure
track faculty endure. He questioned how the data was gathered.
Houlberg responded that data didn't have to be gathered.
The data came to the Executive Committee through comments in the
open faculty meeting with the President, in writing from lecturers
and tenured track faculty, and there was an overwhelming response
in letter form, oral form, and e-mail form, from lecturers and
tenure/tenure track faculty. Kelley urged the Senate not to vote
on the resolution, which would censure the President, until the
Senate could see the evidence.

Aaron responded to Kelley that the limit for a lecturer
to receive a salary step increase is 24 units, not 12. She explained
that for some lecturers who teach only 2 classes a semester, it
takes a long time to accrue 24 units and become eligible. Additionally,
she said that some lecturers have openly been told that their
salary increase would result in not funding other sections or
some other lecturer would have to be released from employment.
These statements have come from department chairs and at least
one dean.

Matson stated that regardless of who has what evidence,
lecturers are part of Unit 3. All Unit 3 members are eligible
for PSSIs and the President has said that lecturers are not eligible.
All this resolution does is make a statement that lecturers are
part of Unit 3 and ought to be eligible for PSSIs.

Jan Gregory/English said that the CSU as well as the CFA
agreed to the principle that lecturers should be eligible to apply
for and to receive performance-based pay. Lecturers should not
be removed from the process as a class and no single administrator
can re-write the collective bargaining agreement. This senate
has appointed an ad hoc committee to work towards amelioration
of some of the on-going issues related to lecturers on this campus.
Based on these previous decisions, she felt that it would seem
perverse for the Senate not to adopt this resolution. She further
stated that the absence of peer review is a sore point for many
lecturers. She proposed that the units that do not have peer review
in place should not use that as an excuse to not award performance-based
pay to lecturers.

Phillips said that the resolution is not a censure of the
President. It is an on-going effort to persuade the President
that it is extremely important that lecturers not be discriminated
against in this process. Lecturers should be considered in terms
of the quality of their work. This is an effort to try to persuade
the President to provide a just way to respond to lecturers and
their PSSI applications. The ad hoc committee to revise the PSSI
policy returned language to the policy which asks each college
to have a separate list of lecturer recommendations as a clear
way of recognition for lecturers. Phillips said he hoped that
the President will not strike out that language as he did the
last time. He hopes that in his actions, the President will demonstrate
a respect for the position of lecturers. The goal of the solution
is not to punish the President, but to accomplish something that
is important.

Randolph stated that lecturers are highly evaluated and
carefully considered every time they are up for re-appointment.
He said that in this process lecturers are exposed in ways that
he finds appalling.

M/S/P (Fisher, Matson) to move to second reading. Cherny
responded to Kelley that until recently there have been two methods
to increase base salary, the seniority process and across the
board cost of living increases. Now there is a third method, merit
pay. He felt that lecturers deserve to be covered by all three
methods and for the Senate to say so is appropriate. Cherny said
that he hopes no one thinks of this as a resolution of censure
because it is not, it is an effort to persuade the President to
reconsider his position.

P. Warren said that the contractual provisions for the
PSSIs suggests that the CSU decision-makers think that rewarding
merit among lecturers is provided for in that policy. She voiced
her concern that over and above the basic question of fairness,
if we operate on different assumptions on this campus, it puts
one whole segment of the bargaining unit at a disadvantage. She
said she would like to see consistency between the assumptions
that are implied in the contract and the assumptions that are
operative on this campus. She said that many people on this campus
lamented the destructive potential for merit pay systems when
this system was first introduced. She hoped that the Senate would
not stay silent when they could object to at least one manifestation
of this kind of divisiveness.

Casarez-Levison said that lecturers form a core part of
the labor force of the University. Tenured faculty rely on this
and it is very important to think of lecturers in terms of their
quality. Some lecturers need incentives to stay at the University
since they could make more money in business. PSSIs are also another
way to assess the merit of a lecturer in terms of competence,
quality, and performance. She felt that if the University is moving
towards performance evaluations and indicators, then maintaining
a system that is comparable amongst faculty is a good idea. She
stated her support for the resolution.

Homan said that a lot of people feel the PSSI process itself
is divisive among the faculty. By excluding any portion of Unit
3 personnel, it becomes more divisive, is inappropriate in this
environment, and is demoralizing for a whole group of people.
She felt that this policy can bring the faculty together rather
than dividing the faculty. M/S/P (Smith, Gillotte) to close
debate. The vote was taken and the resolution passed.

Agenda Item #7 - Masters of Public Health in Community Health

CRAC Chair Ann Hallum introduced this item and introduced
Chair of Health Education Mary Beth Love as a resource.
After being passed by the Graduate Council, CRAC asked for further
consultation by Nursing, Education, and Ethnic Studies. Following
second review, this new curriculum comes forward as a consent

Cherny asked whether this would require additional faculty
positions since graduate programs of this sort would ordinarily
have a low student/faculty ratio. Love responded that the
intention is to discontinue the current M.S. if this item is approved,
so she sees a steady state. M/S/P (Kelley, Smith) to second
reading. M/S/P (Barnes, Fehrman) to close debate. The vote
was taken and the item passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #8 - Discontinuance of Concentration in Applied

EPC Chair Peggy Smith introduced this item and introduced
Chair of Economics Michael Potepan as a resource. She stated
that this is part of a larger package in which a new degree is
proposed. The attached material explains that the degree in Applied
Economics is redundant in the Department and would become more
redundant if their new degree is approved. The Economics Department
has assured EPC that no current students or faculty will be adversely
affected by this discontinuance.

M/S/P (Matson, Gillotte) to second reading. As there was
no one seeking further debate on this item M/S/P (Kaplan, Fehrman)
to close debate. The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #9 - Revision to M.A. in Economics

CRAC Chair Ann Hallum introduced this item and Michael
Potepan was once again introduced as a resource. Following the
discontinuance of the degree in Applied Economics, this item responds
to the professional demands for preparation in the field of Economics.
M.A. Warren asked whether page 3 should read "proscribed
list" as written, or "prescribed." Potepan
replied that it should be "prescribed." M/S/P (Aaron,
to second reading. M/S/P (Fehrman, Aaron)
to close debate. The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Bonnie Homan
Secretary to the Faculty