Minutes of the May 13, 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, Sally Berlowitz, Marian Bernstein,
Janet Buchholz, Yu-Charn Chen, Robert Cherny, Jerry Duke, Gerald
Eisman, Ken Fehrman, Helen Gillotte, Helen Goldsmith, Peter Haikalis,
Ann Hallum, Jennifer Hammett, Caroline Harnly, Mary Ann Haw, Marlon
Hom, Bonnie Homan, Rick Houlberg, Todd Imahori, Herb Kaplan, James
Kelley, Thomas La Belle, Wanda Lee, Lois Lyles, Hollis Matson,
Eugene Michaels, Joel Nicholson, Abdiel Oñate, Raymond
Pestrong, Mark Phillips, Elisabeth Prinz, Mario Rivas, Roberto
Rivera, Don Scoble, Peggy Smith, Dawn Terrell, Lana Thomson, Thaddeus
Usowicz, Marilyn Verhey, Mary Ann Warren, Penelope Warren, Nancy
Wilkinson, Alfred Wong, Yim Yu Wong, Darlene Yee.
Senate Members Absent: Patricia Wade, Sanjoy Banerjee,
Kenneth Walsh, Rosa Casarez-Levison(exc.), David Hemphill(exc.),
Dane Johnson(exc.), Newman Fisher(exc.), Will Flowers(exc.), Gary
Hammerstrom(exc.), Robert Corrigan(exc.), Lee Sprague, James Collier(exc.).
Senate Interns Present:
Guests: G. Whitaker, G. West, S. Higgins, W. Hopkins,
F. McLaughlin, S. Perry, A. Wallace, D. Schafer, E. Seibel, J.
Messina, M. Kasdan, V. Thompson, A. Kuhn, P. Baj, R. McClaine.
Announcements and Report
Chair's Report
- Please submit Standing Committee Preference sheets
as standing committees will be formed this week and committee
chairs elected at the next meeting on May 20. - Those senators who will be serving on the Senate next year
were reminded to complete and return the Summer Address Questionnaire. - The Senate meeting schedule for Spring and Fall 1997/98
was attached to the agenda. - A memo was also attached to the agenda concerning the CSU
Academic Senate Merit Pay Task Force. Specific thoughts about
alternative merit pay systems can be communicated to the task
force via e-mail at majordomo@lists.sdsu.edu. The campus
response to Cornerstones is due May 20.
Agenda Item #1 -Approval of Agenda for Meeting of May 13, 1997
M/S/P (Matson, P. Warren) to amend the agenda, inserting
Agenda Item #3a - Resolution Condemning Pan Afrikan Student
Union Representatives' Interference with Free Speech as a
consent item from the Executive Committee and change Agenda Item
#3 to #3b. The vote was taken and the agenda was approved as
amended.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meetings of April
29, 1997
As there were no objections, the minutes were approved as printed.
Agenda Item #3a -- Resolution Condemning Pan Afrikan Student
Union Representatives' Interference with Free Speech
Houlberg introduced this item stating that on May 8, 1997,
many of the copies of the Golden Gater were confiscated
and destroyed. Several members of the Pan Afrikan Student Union
(PASU) admitted responsibility. This resolution is in response
to that action. Houlberg said that as faculty, the Executive Committee
felt that the campus community should be representative of the
most open discussion that is possible amongst all the diverse
voices on campus. M.A. Warren asked about the content of
the Golden Gater article in question. Houlberg responded
that it was reported that the Golden Gater was unfavorable
in it's editorial stance and coverage of PASU. It was reported
that individuals confronted the editors of the student newspaper
and gave the editors a list of what they thought they might do
in reaction to the negative editorial and coverage.
Lee asked how it was known that the students who destroyed
the papers represented PASU. Houlberg replied that it was
reported that several members of PASU admitted responsibility
to the editors of the Golden Gater. Aaron stated that the
Executive Committee felt that such outrageous conduct has to be
immediately called outrageous and that the resolution should be
brought forward for the Senate's attention and approval.
M/S/P (Matson, M.A. Warren) to close debate. The vote was
taken and the resolution passed with 2 nays and 1 abstention.
Agenda Item #3b - Report from Vice President La Belle
La Belle reported on post-tenure review and challenges
to tenure across the country. Cornerstones calls for a strategy
for faculty renewal within the CSU. The CSU claims that by the
year 2010, half of the current faculty will retire. More than
one half of the tenure/tenure-track faculty at SFSU are over 50
years old, so SFSU can expect considerable turnover. Cornerstones
calls on a savings of dollars based on replacing those retiring
faculty with lower paid newer faculty with those dollars being
re-invested into a comprehensive faculty renewal plan. Cornerstones
identifies general skills and specific skills that it is felt
faculty will need to keep up with technology and knowledge-based
changes. He felt that SFSU will need to form a base-line to know
what is being invested in.
In the press, there is a lot of pressure on tenure across the
country. La Belle felt that some of the reasons for this pressure
on tenure is shrinking and down-sizing of budgets; more flexibility
in coping with changing curriculum; demographics which resulted
in a large population of long-term permanent faculty with a resulting
cadre of often less-than-satisfied tenure-track faculty and part-time
lecturers who seek tenure track positions; and public skepticism
of higher education. He also felt that all of this links to productivity
and accountability which Cornerstones addresses.
A common way to address this issue is to look at post-tenure review.
A recent paper from the American Association of Higher Education
identified several options for post-tenure review including an
annual or periodic review of all tenured faculty; a comprehensive
review of selected tenured faculty based on unsatisfactory performance;
and formative review of all tenured faculty for professional development
and support of long term career goals. The policy that is in place
calls for post-tenure review at least every 5 years by peer review
to include teaching evaluations and other criteria to be used
by the department. Some of the questions that La Belle felt have
been raised in relationship to post-tenure review include whether
or not post-tenure review is taken seriously? Is it a useful process?
Is it viewed as punitive or developmental as a way to create a
support system to enable faculty to move to the next higher level
of their achievement? He felt that SFSU needs an assessment tool
to demonstrate our commitment to accountability and to find out
how to invest in ourselves over the next few years. He saw these
issues as challenges for FAC, the Senate and his office over the
next year.
He also expressed appreciation for the Senate's welcome and collegiality
during this, his first year at SFSU.
Agenda Item #4 - Report from APRC Chair Jerry Duke
Duke reported that APRC has had a very productive year.
The committee members represented a broad range of campus community
disciplines. He thanked all the committee members (Banerjee, Gillotte,
Verhey, Wilkinson, Wong, Oñate, Woo, Nasser-Tavakolian),
James Bebee, Faculty Coordinator for Program Review, and Associate
VP for Academic Programs Gail Whitaker for their assistance and
support this year.
Preliminary meetings have been held with Health and Human Services,
Science & Engineering, Technical and Professional Writing,
Women Studies, Journalism, NEXA, and Labor Studies. External reviewers
have visited our campus for Design and Industry, the Inter-Arts
Center, Chemistry & Biochemistry, and Dance. APRC has completed
reports for Foreign Languages, Asian American Studies, the Inter-Arts
Center, Design & Industry, and Recreation & Leisure Studies.
Agenda Item #5 - Proposal for a Certificate in Entrepreneurial
Leadership in Health Care
CRAC Chair Ann Hallum reintroduced this item and introduced
Nursing Chair Shannon Perry as a resource. Hallum said that the
program addresses the needs of academically prepared registered
nurses who seek health-care-specific training in budgeting and
fiscal planning to adapt to changes in managed care. This program
utilizes existing courses from the M.S. curriculum but is offered
through Open University. No additional faculty or resources are
necessary.
Matson asked if the current administration management emphasis
is simply being revised. Perry replied that currently there
is an Entrepreneurial Leadership in Health Care track or emphasis
in the graduate program. The certificate program is open to nurses
in the community and will not be part of the graduate program.
The certificate program uses existing graduate courses, so Perry
felt that this is a good use of resources. Matson then asked if
there is any potential danger if individuals leave with a certificate
that the community may believe that person now has a M.S.N. with
that concentration? Perry replied that those with an M.S. will
have a diploma from SFSU stating they have a M.S.N. and the Certificate
Program graduates will have a certificate from Extended Education.
However, Perry said that the School of Nursing cannot control
how people perceive the certificates.
Oñate requested clarification about how entrepreneurial
risk-taking and profit-making relates to community based nursing
services. Perry's reply was affirmative. She said that one of
the reasons that this is being offered has to do with down-sizing
and restructuring of health care which resulted in the loss of
jobs for many middle and upper level nurse managers. In one case,
a maternity nurse opened a Bed and Breakfast to provide hotel
services and needed nursing care for new mothers who must leave
the hospital after 24 hours.
M/S/P (Michaels, Gillotte) to move to second reading. Gillotte
wondered how long the Masters in Entrepreneurial Leadership had
been around. Perry replied that there has been an emphasis
in Administration and Management since 1984. Gillotte said that
since that emphasis has been around that long, she felt that we
did not need to worry about the emphasis. She asked about the
implementation date of Spring 1997. Perry replied that they wanted
to implement the certificate by that date, but it was not possible.
M/S/P (Homan, Gillotte) to close debate. The vote was taken
and the item passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #6 - Proposal for a Consortium MBA Degree for Managing
Technology and Innovation
CRAC Chair Ann Hallum introduced this item and introduced
Joe Messina, Finance Department Chair, as a resource. She said
that this 27-month program is very innovative in its use of distance
education to provide an intensive business program to working
managers at off-shore corporations. The program has further incorporated
ethical concepts throughout the corporation.
Eisman mentioned that this looked like an exciting venture
in distance education and that two-way video conferencing appeared
to be the primary form of distance education but there are other
forms of electronic material that would need to be provided. He
asked who owned the material for the course and whether the faculty
will own their own course material. Messina replied that
while the issues have not been formally resolved, they will conform
to CSU procedures for Pay for Hire Out Rules. He felt that the
content would reside with the faculty but the tapes would not
belong to the faculty. Faculty could bring their own medium into
the presentation.
Cherny asked if students will be admitted as regular students
or will they be admitted through Extension and where will those
students receive their degrees. Messina replied that SJSU
will be managing the records and bookkeeping and that the Consortium
program will be managed by the SJSU MBA program since they have
an identical program delivered on-site in Silicon Valley. The
Consortium plans to have the names of all five schools on the
degree. Cherny further asked about the statement in Section H
that students must meet admission criteria similar to regular
MBA students in the Consortium members' programs. He felt that
it indicated that the program exists outside of any campus. He
questioned if there are provisions for CSU degrees that exist
outside of any campus. Messina responded that the SJSU program
is delivered through the Open University forum and the degree
is done through special sessions. The idea of having the names
of all five campuses on the diploma is still being discussed between
the Deans and the Chancellor's Office.
Michaels asked about the anticipated enrollment, tuition
costs for students, and how the faculty are to be reimbursed,
if the Consortium courses will be part of the regular teaching
load or will other provisions be made. Messina responded
that enrollment is a minimum of 25 students together with an approximate
maximum of 50-60 for the lock-step program. The cost of the program
is tentatively $25,000 per student, but that is negotiable as
the marketing process continues and it is determined what the
market will bear. The faculty will be reimbursed as an overload
so it will probably be equivalent to what they make for a course
on their own campus or a little more. He said that the program
will be self supporting.
Haikalis questioned the library resources. Students will
have remote access to over 60 electronic databases and since some
of those databases are bibliographic in nature, how will the students
have access to the articles? Have provisions been made for student
consultation with Library faculty? And if there is a provision
for library consultation, is there overload payment for library
faculty? Messina responded that the Consortium does not
intend to use the resources of any campus. If the Library thought
that this was costing the Library money, the Library would be
reimbursed by the Consortium. He said that there is no formal
provision for students to consult Library staff. Haikalis then
asked how the Consortium proposed for the students to get the
Library resources that are needed to do their work. Messina replied
that the students could access the Library at any of the five
campuses. For business employees who come to school full time,
supplemental packages of articles and other materials will be
provided to the students. The databases are statistical and financial,
not bibliographical. He felt that the additional demands on the
Library would probably not be as intensive as some other disciplines,
however, Messina said that he understood that the students could
request documents to be faxed to them if they did need additional
documents.
M/S/P (Kelley, Smith) to move to second reading. Cherny
asked whether the admissions process will go through Extended
Education on all the campuses. Messina responded that SJSU
processes admissions and will use the same admission standards
as for their regular MBA students. Since the standards for the
five campuses are similar, but not exactly the same, basically
the Consortium will use the highest standards. Extended Education
is used to get the money back into the system and to process some
documents. Cherny also asked if the degree will be issued by SJSU
or the Consortium. Messina responded that the issue is still being
debated. Cherny then asked about the last sentence in Section
M on page 4 questioning who the "Consortium partner under
our direct supervision" is, who will arrange for access to
English-language resources. Messina replied that the firm that
is sponsoring the candidate for the MBA program is the partner.
Since the Consortium is delivering the program to companies in
the Pacific Rim if there is a problem, the firm's on-site liaison/coordinator
will have to make the arrangements.
M/S/P (Aaron, Gillotte) to close debate. The vote was taken
and the item passed (26-9-5)
Agenda Item #7 - New Concentration in Athletic Training
CRAC Chair Ann Hallum introduced this item and introduced
Susan Higgins as a resource. She said that the Department of Kinesiology
proposes a fourth concentration within their current B.S. The
concentration will prepare the students to provide on-field and
follow-up care to athletes in high schools, colleges, on professional
sports teams, and in clinics. Unique to the program are the 9
units offered through distance learning to additional campuses
at Chico and Humbolt State. This would allow additional resources
and sharing of faculty that could not be provided individually.
M/S/P (Kelley, Smith) to move to second reading. Cherny
asked whether the resource implications were WTUs or FTEFs and
whether by approving the curriculum the Senate would be approving
changes in resource allocation. Higgins replied that it
is WTUs and that the program is already really in place and is
essentially already funded.
M/S/P (Michaels, Gillotte) to close debate. The vote was
taken and the item passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #8 - Revision to Academic Senate Policy #F96-194
-- Performance Salary Step Increases (PSSI)
Phillips stated that this item was introduced at the last
meeting and is still in first reading. He stated that there is
an amendment on the floor, moved by Kelley and seconded by Michaels,
to change the word 'shall' back to the original word 'may' in
the second paragraph of section IV on page 2. As there were no
speakers on the Speaker's List, the vote was taken on the amendment
and the Kelley amendment passed.
M/S/P (Aaron, Gillotte) to move to second reading.
M/S (Usowicz, Cherny) to amend Section III on page 2 to
change from 'three years' back to 'five years'. Usowicz
stated that he hasn't heard any convincing arguments to support
reducing the number of years. He felt that different faculty members
have different styles of achieving and contributing and sometimes
these particular contributions are not apparent for a few years,
so some faculty may need the longer time period to demonstrate
their performance. Cherny felt that after the contract
is re-negotiated, there may be a new process for merit pay, so
he felt that the rules should not be changed mid-process.
M/S/P (Terrell, Gillotte) to close debate on the amendment.
The vote was taken and the Usowicz amendment passed (25-17-0).
M/S (Cherny, Wilkinson) to amend the second paragraph of
Section II on page 1 by replacing all of the deleted language
concerning demonstrating teaching performance. Cherny felt
that the awards should be encouraged based on teaching excellence
and to remove this language is contradictory. He felt that this
kind of information should be encouraged, since it can clearly
demonstrate teaching performance.
Lee spoke against the amendment as a member of FAC. She
felt that it was really unclear to applicants what to include
and the administration of the process was cumbersome. Imahori
spoke for the amendment. He felt that a good idea should not be
killed for poor implementation. He felt that the statement "no
other materials may be submitted" was part of the problem
since applicants then included everything possible within the
guidelines. He was concerned for lecturers, whose primary assignment
is teaching, that lecturers are not evaluated on how many classes
they teach and what they accomplish. If someone is doing research
and service, quantity and where they are published is evaluated,
but teaching quality is evaluated by how, not quantity. He felt
that if teaching quality is being evaluated, then student comments
must be included.
Gillotte asked what information an applicant should include
to evaluate teaching effectiveness if that language is excluded.
Phillips replied that you do the best concise representation
of norms and averages in summary. Gillotte then asked to have
the statement re-written to state that the applicants provide
a statistical summary of this data. She felt that the policy should
state some idea of how to evaluate teaching effectiveness.
M/S/P (Houlberg, Smith) to close debate. The vote was taken
and the Cherny amendment was defeated (15-22,-3).
Chen questioned the review procedures in Section V on page
2 that has five copies of the application going to the Department
Chair when the Department Chair does not have a role or function
in the review process. He suggested that in Section VI on page
3 that the second sentence be re-written to read, "These
reports will accompany the committee's and the Chair's recommendations."
Phillips replied that the surveys that have been done and
the feedback from the campus has been split almost 50/50 as to
whether the Chair should be heavily involved in the process. The
committee that revised the procedure felt that this divisive issue
should not be included in this version of the policy. He felt
that when there is a new collective bargaining agreement, this
issue may be revisited.
M/S (Pestrong, Lee) to amend the second paragraph of Section
II on page 1 to replace the sentence "This may include work
done at other institutions." with "This shall only include
work done subsequent to employment at SFSU." Pestrong felt
that this would provide a level playing ground for the PSSI competition.
If someone comes from another institution where they may have
had lighter teaching loads and/or more equipment and support,
they would be competing under different circumstances. Lee felt
that the PSSI should reward the work of people who do the work
while they are employed at SFSU, since the money for the PSSIs
comes out of the SFSU budget. West stated that he felt
excluding work done at other institutions would be contrary to
the collective bargaining agreement and to the Academic Senate
policy since faculty who receive prior academic credit can use
that for the RTP process. He felt that prior academic credit should
also apply to PSSIs.
Haikalis spoke in support of the amendment because he felt
that when people are hired, their previous performance is considered
when their salary step and rank are established. He agreed with
Lee that since the money for PSSIs is coming out of the SFSU pool
of resources, the awards should only consider work done while
employed at SFSU. Imahori spoke against the amendment saying
that it could have a negative effect on recruiting and hiring.
M/S/P (Michaels, Gillotte) to close debate. The vote was
taken on the Pestrong amendment and it was defeated (16-26-2).
Michaels proposed an amendment to remove the word 'other'
from the last sentence on page 1. This was accepted as a friendly
amendment.
M/S/P (Kelley, Smith) to close debate. The vote was taken
and the item passed.
Respectfully submitted,
Bonnie Homan
Secretary to the Faculty