of September 9, 1997

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

Senate Members Present:

Aaron, Eunice

Barnes, Paul

Bartscher, Patricia

Bernstein, Marian

Cancino, Herlinda

Chen, Yu-Charn

Cherny, Robert

Consoli, Andres

Craig, JoAnn

Eisman, Gerald

Fehrman, Ken

Flowers, Will

Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan

Gillotte, Helen

Goldsmith, Helen

Graham, Michael

Hammerstrom, Gary

Harnly, Caroline

Haw, Mary Ann

Hom, Marlon

Homan, Bonnie

Houlberg, Rick

Hu, Sung

La Belle, Thomas

Lee, Wanda

Oñate, Abdiel

Pestrong, Raymond

Phillips, Mark

Rivas, Mario

Shouse, Amy

Swanson, Deborah

Terrell, Dawn

Thomson, Lana

Turitz, Mitch

Verhey, Marilyn

Wade, Patricia

Warren, Mary Ann

Warren, Penelope

Wong, Alfred

Wong, Yim Yu

Woo, George

Yee, Darlene

Zoloth-Dorfman, Laurie

Senate Members Absent: Wilkinson, Nancy(exc.); Choo, Freddie;

Blank, Mark; Duke, Jerry(exc.); Hammett, Jennifer; Gonzales, Angela; Smith,

Erna; Lyles, Lois; Kelley, James(exc.); Scoble, Don(exc.); Corrigan, Robert(exc.);

Chang, Paul(exc.); Nicholson, Joel; Collier, James(exc.); Mallare, Marie.

Senate Interns Present: Avant, Anna.

Guests: H. Matson, S. Shimanoff, G. Whitaker, D. Schafer, J.

Kassiola, P. Mendez.

Announcements and Report

Chair's Report

  • Chair Phillips felt that some of the most important items for the Senate

    to focus on are the Baccalaureate Review, Cornerstones, the

    CUSP process, revising the PSSI policy, the improvement

    of assessment processes, and efforts to improve human/cross-cultural

    relations on campus.

  • Members of the 1997-98 Executive Committee - Rick Houlberg, Vice

    Chair; Bonnie Homan, Secretary; Penelope Warren and Helen

    Gillotte, members at-large; Helen Goldsmith, Academic Policies

    Committee Chair; Jerry Duke, Academic Program Review Committee Chair;

    Darlene Yee, Curriculum Review and Approval Committee Chair; Marlon

    Hom, Faculty Affairs Committee Chair; and Dawn Terrell, Student

    Affairs Committee Chair.

  • Amy Shouse is the Associated Students Undergraduate representative

    to the Senate.

  • Thank you to the SFSU Handbell Choir, under the direction

    of Caroline Harnly, for their performance prior to the Opening Faculty


  • The PSSI policy which was distributed should have been labeled

    Academic Senate Policy as amended by the President. Some of the changes

    were done in consultation with the Executive Committee and others were made

    at the President's discretion.

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for September 9, 1997

M/S/P (Gillotte, Yee) to amend the agenda to change Agenda Item #3

to #3a and add Agenda Item #3b - Resolution Regarding Academic Qualifications

for the New CSU Chancellor.

The agenda was approved as amended.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting of May 13, 1997

Two sets of minutes were considered (one for the 'old' Senate and one for

the 'new' Senate). Both sets of minutes were approved as printed.

Agenda Item #3a - Resolution Calling on CSU Trustees to Provide Broader

Faculty Representation on the Search Committee for Chancellor

Houlberg explained that other campuses are also passing resolutions

to address this issue. He felt that while the one faculty member, Bernie Goldstein,

will represent the faculty well, the issues are larger than one faculty member

can effectively represent.

As there was no one seeking debate, M/S/P (Homan, Cherny) to move to

second reading.

Hammerstrom explained that in the past Chancellor search processes

there have been at least two faculty members to represent the approximately

30,000 faculty members in the CSU. He felt that it is important that the Statewide

Senate have strong support on this issue from the campuses. He hoped that the

SFSU would strongly support this resolution.

M/S/P (Houlberg, Gillotte) to close debate. The vote was taken and

the resolution passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #3b - Resolution Regarding Academic Qualifications for the

New CSU Chancellor

Houlberg said that the connection between the person who will be successful

in this search and a person's academic experience and background has been lessened

in favor of a business background. While acknowledging that the CSU is a business,

it is a unique business and the Chancellor should be able to understand an academic


Phillips felt that this resolution, in conjunction with resolutions

from other CSU campus senates and the Statewide Academic Senate could place

productive pressure on the search committee so that these issues are addressed

when the selection of a Chancellor is made. Phillips also felt that the academic

and professional backgrounds of the candidates should play a significant role

in the selection process.

Hammerstrom stated that when Munitz was selected Chancellor, the language

used in the position description included that the successful candidate should

have academic credentials sufficient to obtain tenure and promotion on a CSU

campus. That language has been removed and replaced with the language in the

second whereas clause in the resolution. He felt that the resolution addresses

this issue.

M/S/P (Bernstein, Fehrman) to move to second reading. As there was

no one seeking debate, M/S/P (Woo, Gillotte) to close debate. The vote

was taken and the resolution passed unanimously.

Phillips stated that copies of both resolutions will be forwarded to

the Statewide Academic Senate and the Board of Trustees.

Agenda Item #4 - Elections

All University Teacher Education Committee

Susan Fox-Wolfgramm/Management submitted her name for consideration. As there

were no nominations from the floor, M/S/P(P. Warren/Houlberg) to close

nominations and elect Susan Fox-Wolfgramm by acclamation.

Graduate Council

Darlene Yee/Gerontology submitted her name for consideration. As there were

no nominations from the floor, M/S/P(Barnes/M.A. Warren) to close nominations

and elect Darlene Yee by acclamation.

Board of Appeals and Review

Herb Kaplan/BECA, Paul Mendez/E.O.P., and Wolf Stadler/Engineering submitted

their names for consideration.. M/S/P(Houlberg/Fehrman) to close nominations.

The vote was taken and Herb Kaplan and Paul Mendez were elected

to serve.

Agenda Item #5 - Report from Vice President La Belle

La Belle reported on the challenges and constraints that he felt SFSU

is facing. He felt that one external pressure is the remediation issue of selecting

students into the institution. The ELM and EPT are in place now and next fall

the critical thinking and speech communication pieces will be in place. The

campus has been getting the word out to high schools and community colleges

that the policy has been implemented. He felt that it does effect access, and

it will be studied to determine if it differentially effects ethnic groups.

La Belle felt that the Chancellor's replacement will have a major effect on

the system. He agreed with the quote in the newspaper by Pat Callan that Munitz

was very good as an external person, good on the political side, with the Trustees

and on economic negotiations, but that Munitz missed the academic piece with

a lack of concern or interest in the role of faculty, curricula, and academic

programs. La Belle said that his preference would be for the next Chancellor

to have a better balance and to sell the Legislature and the Trustees on the

importance of academic programs and the integrity of what the university is


He also felt that some dimensions of Cornerstones could have potential impact

on SFSU and used the potential linking of academic program outcomes to budget

as an example.

WASC reaccreditation should occur at the turn of the century. Since several

years of data on the effectiveness of programs are needed for the accreditation

process, this is being worked on now. He felt that an inadequate budget will

continue to be a major constraint. Technology was another constraint. Some of

the issues that La Belle identified included the Virtual University, distance

education, and the use of technology in the classroom. He felt that SFSU is

trying to get some experience, to experiment, and to take some initiative in

the use of technology for instruction. He also felt that this campus is very

far ahead in the infrastructure, up-dating the technology in classrooms, and

preparing faculty on the use of technology in the more traditional mode. However,

distance learning will need to have continuing investment on this campus. CUSP

will become a challenge again, he said, as the implementation plan for CUSP,

now called CRISP, moves forward.

Enrollment was a challenge this fall. Last year, if ELM and EPT were implemented,

about 850 students would not have been permitted to enter the university. This

fall, about 1600 students originally would not have been admitted if they had

not taken care of the requirement. He gave a great deal of credit to Executive

Direct of Enrollment Planning & Management Tom Rudder, Vice President for

Student Affairs Penny Saffold, and their colleagues who dealt with this situation

very appropriately. He felt that enrollment this fall is now relatively stable.

Another enrollment issue is the Master Plan enrollment cap at 20,000 FTEs.

If this goes forward as currently planned, there will be no new income streams

from enrollment growth. That means, that we would be in a reallocation mode,

moving money between colleges and programs, to meet student demand. La Belle

felt that SFSU needs to be looking at how to develop new income streams. These

new income streams may involve Extended Learning and Community Colleges to find

new markets.

La Belle also felt that SFSU has some opportunities such as capital

investment. Several firms have approached the University about investing in

buildings downtown, particularly South of Market Street. Public/private partnerships

are also being explored.

In the Curricular and Program area, the need to work on program outcomes and

assessment is a priority. He felt that each program will need to have faculty

talk about outcomes and select from an array of tools to collect information

from students about what they've learned. The results of these assessments will

be used to enhance and improve programs. He felt that CUSP, Cornerstones, and

WASC all address this issue.

One experiment on alternative income streams is called the Weekend College.

It will be offered through the College of Extended Learning starting in the

spring and it will offer classes on Friday evenings, Saturdays and potentially

on Sundays. This year, the College of Business offers courses on Saturdays and

the demand is very high. He felt that expanding the program and sharing that

income stream back through the colleges offers new opportunities.

La Belle identified what he calls Academic Juggernauts, some of which

will need to be worked on by the Academic Senate. Some of those issues include

passing of JEPET as a graduation requirement, how long a student can be on academic

probation, repeating courses, the maximum number of units a student may complete,

standardizing withdrawals, when the declaration of a major should occur and

who should be involved, and the uses of the GET retest. CUSP implementation

was the final program/curricular issue he discussed. He felt that 99% of the

CUSP recommendations fall into the academic arena. One budget priority is to

prepare for the eventuality for cap of enrollment in the master plan. This involves

finding alternatives for new markets while maintaining the integrity of programs

and residency requirement.

The President's initiative to convert some lecturer positions to tenure-track

positions will go forward, La Belle felt. Currently, if you convert a lecturer

FTE (10 or 11 courses) to tenure-track, approximately 1/3 of the instructional

resources would be lost to the department. The plan is to keep instructional

resources constant by taking 2/3 of the resources from the college and 1/3 from

the centralized administration. He felt that the university would be hiring

about 100 tenure-track faculty over the next 5 years and 78 will be associated

with the conversion plan. La Belle said that 18 such hires will be effective

next fall and the President has agreed to make the dollars available to make

this happen. The budget discussion about this plan includes how the moneys will

be allocated, for example for shoring up programs or to build program strength.

One faculty issue is the evaluation of teaching effectiveness. BSS is experimenting

with a new evaluation instrument. There are currently many instruments used

on campus, however there has been no report on the validity or reliability of

these instruments. An All-Campus committee is working to see if each college

can reduce the number of instruments used this year and to eventually move to

a flexible instrument that could be used across colleges.

Concerning post tenure review, La Belle presented graphs showing current SFSU

tenure/tenure-track faculty by rank. The graph showed that 66% of full professors

are at the top step and 85-90% of faculty on this campus are tenured. These

numbers are fairly consistent across colleges. He felt that this is not a good

model for the institution of the future. One reason may be that positions are

advertised as a range from assistant to full professor and assistant professor

salaries are not always high enough to be competitive. If the candidates include

people qualified for full professor, it is often difficult for search committees

to choose the less experienced person and/or the person with fewer publications.

To help deal with this, the assistant professor salary range is now open and

therefore more competitive and the need for post tenure review is being explored.

The CSU system is suggesting that they may want to manage money system-wide

for faculty development, so that as faculty retire, some of the money is swept

back into the system for faculty development. La Belle has asked the deans to

restrict hiring to the assistant professor level unless there is a substantive

reason to hire at a higher level. This year, the campus will be celebrating

teaching. The effort is to bring more attention to teaching both symbolically

and substantially.

Barnes asked about the statistics on full professors and whether any

analysis was done on how many will be around 5 years from now. La Belle replied

that there will be turnover, but there will be more turnover system-wide than

on this campus. Retirement age on this campus is slightly higher than the national

average and there are no incentive packages to manipulate retirement, so it

is not known how much turnover will occur. The system is looking at turnover

in terms of dollar reinvestment.

Hammerstrom felt that access is also likely to become a problem. Several

other campuses are dealing with impaction and Hammerstrom wondered if there

had been any discussion about impaction on this campus so that the debate might

begin before the need becomes too excessive. La Belle replied that it

has been talked about at the graduate level since that is likely to be the area

of most growth. At the undergraduate level, a number of departments have instituted

restricted registration, using touch tone to channel students. One problem with

that is equity. More academic prerequisites are being included as another means

to shape enrollment patterns. Nursing, Social Work, and BECA have for some time

selected students based on specific criteria.

Harnly stated that support services should be considered when weekend

courses are considered since this effects the Library, AV, Academic Computing

and other support services. La Belle agreed that those student services

need to be available and the issues should be looked at. La Belle appreciated

the issues being raised.

Agenda Item #6 - Report from Statewide Senators

Phillips introduced Statewide Senators Eunice Aaron, Robert

Cherny, and Gary Hammerstrom. Hammerstrom reported that Aaron

serves on the Faculty Affairs Committee, Cherny on the Academic Affairs Committee,

and Hammerstrom on the Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Cherny reported on the May meeting of the Statewide Academic Senate.

He stated that policy changes were approved concerning new degree program review

and approval. A resolution on setting Senate priorities on funding was approved.

Aaron, Cherny and Hammerstrom introduced an amendment to add as a priority reducing

the differences that exist among the large campuses for per-student funding.

This resolution was not approved but they hope to deal with it again during

the coming year.

A resolution dealing with an extension of an experimental program at Sonoma

State concerning an experimental admissions policy will return for more discussion.

Cherny reported that Sonoma had not declared impaction but had embarked

on an experiment to "make themselves into a public ivy" and select

students based on "vaguely defined criteria." He felt that CSU campuses

have an obligation to accept students based on common criteria and if one campus

can alter the criteria, it can impact the rest of the system. He said, as an

example, that if one campus finds that they no longer need to offer remediation,

the other campuses may have to offer more remediation. Cherny stated that if

a campus can restrict enrollment, that campus can have more dollars per student,

so controlling enrollment is one way of increasing income. The Academic Affairs

Committee asked the Chancellor not to approve the continuation of the experiment

until results of the experiment are available to justify continuing.

Aaron reported that she is on the Faculty Affairs Committee, the CPEC

Educational Equity Advisory Committee, and the Pre-Doctoral Advisory Committee.

She reported on the FAC work plan for the year, which is always subject to revision.

Dan Whitney (SDSU) is the new chair of this committee. The committee attempted

to represent the faculty's position concerning faculty representation on the

CSU Chancellor Search Committee. FAC plans to continue in this effort. An announcement

may be made October 1 concerning the "short list" of Chancellor candidates.

FAC is also concerned with faculty flow, the ratio of full-time to part-time

faculty including full-time lecturers. Since many faculty recognize that the

strength of the system is not based on a weakened lecturer faculty, FAC is working

on revised language concerning faculty flow. The ratio of courses taught by

the two groups of instructors will also be discussed. Aaron reported that, according

to the committee chair, the discussion will begin with providing a fair assessment

of the role and value of lecturers to the CSU, pointing out that the CSU cannot

survive without them. Aaron felt that without lecturers, the lives of tenure/tenure-track

faculty would be dramatically different and not for the better.

Cornerstones will be discussed this year. Since there is a growing concern

and dissatisfaction at the Statewide Academic Senate over merit pay and PSSIs,

FAC is approaching the issue assuming that they can effect change. Concerning

faculty development, FAC fought taking money from retirement and putting it

into a centralized technology fund. Faculty web site charges will be discussed.

Academic productivity is being discussed and FAC will bring a faculty perspective

to this discussion. Aaron said that many campuses feel similarly about these


Attached to a letter to campus presidents about technology issues, from the

business partners, was a report on whether or not to consolidate data collection

centers in the system. Aaron questioned what happens to the people working in

the data centers if they are consolidated.

Cherny reported on the Academic Affairs Committee agenda for the year.

The California Virtual University is on the agenda. International Programs will

have a new director and the Center on Globalization will report to AAC. The

Teacher Preparation Report, Cornerstones and the Baccalaureate Review will also

be agendized. Cherny further reported that he also serves on the Academic Council

for International Programs and the Merit Pay Task Force. On October 7, he will

report to the SFSU Academic Senate concerning the Merit Pay Task Force.

Hammerstrom reported that he is on the Fiscal and Governmental Affairs

Committee, the Admissions Advisory Council and the Advisory Board for the Institute

for Teaching and Learning. A resolution was presented in first reading concerning

changes in the high school preparatory pattern for entering freshmen. The proposal

was to add a second course in the Social Sciences (which is currently a high

school graduation requirement) and to add a second course in laboratory sciences.

He felt that this was an attempt to get UC to recognize CSU visual and performing

arts requirements and to make some similarity between two admissions requirements.

If UC adopts the visual and performing arts requirement and CSU adds the above

2 courses, the requirements would then be the same for both systems.

The Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee monitors the budget preparation

process and legislation affecting the CSU. On his personal agenda, Hammerstrom

reported that attempts to make equity in campus funding is a priority. If new

students are funded at the marginal cost rather than the average cost, then

the average funding per student decreases. At present, SFSU has the lowest allocation

of dollars per FTE in the system and there is about a $2000 gap between the

highest average and the lowest average. He also felt that if the perception

within the CSU is that you lose money through growth, that is counter productive

since the system has to grow.

M.A. Warren asked which campus had the highest funding per student.

Hammerstrom replied that probably Monterey Bay since they are newest. Maritime

Academy is next highest. If you compare the larger campuses, SDSU is highest

and is over $1000 higher than SFSU which is the lowest.

Agenda Item #7 - The Cornerstones Report

Chair Phillips introduced this item by stating that this is part of

the CSU system-wide strategic planning effort. He felt that differentiating

between the text and the subtext is important. He felt that it is politically

driven by the populace and the legislature and it is substantively driven by

changes socially and technologically. A campus response to the first Cornerstones

report was sent in May. Based on responses from all campuses, revisions were

made in the Principles of Cornerstones, but not the larger document.

The SFSU Cornerstones task force will meet in early October. SFSU has requested

an ambassadorial Cornerstones group to visit campus and the October 21 Senate

meeting. Our campus representative to Cornerstones include Tom Ehrlich,

Brian Murphy, Gary Hammerstrom, Peter Dewees, and Bernie Goldstein. Another

response to the Cornerstones Report is due in November.

Phillips identified what he considered to be the key issues: allocation

of funds and what it is tied to; funding between large and small campuses and

centralized versus decentralized decision-making; graduate fee differential

and whether it is uniform or programmatic. He felt that learning assessment,

and means of assessment other than course work, could diminish the faculty role

or faculty numbers. However, alternative means of assessment are needed. The

relationship between extended learning and the "regular university"

is another key issue as well as graduate programs funding and support versus

undergraduate funding and support.

Hammerstrom, as the only member of the Cornerstones group who was present,

felt that the real problem right now is difference between text and subtext.

He said that some people wondered whether the agenda was well established before

this began and the process was going in that direction whether we want it or

not. He felt that some Cornerstones members feel that they might have been used.

As an example, his task force originally suggested that as faculty retire, some

part of funds get left with the department so that departments might have incentive

to hire junior faculty and use any left over money for travel or faculty development.

That money may now be swept up centrally. To further illustrate his point, he

discussed the use of learning assessment as a way to improve programs. His task

force suggested that assessment should be used to improve programs, but now

assessment might be tied to funding and accountability. He urged the Senate

to read the text as if reading it for the first time as there have been substantial

changes in the document since last fall.

Barnes asked Phillips to explain faculty renewal. Phillips deferred

to Hammerstrom who explained that throughout the CSU there is a large number

of top step full professors who will be retiring in the next 5-10 years. If

those faculty are replaced by assistant or associate professors, there could

be some cost savings. Simply put, that funding could be used to promote faculty

professional development.

Houlberg explained that if there is a dollar savings, one plan was

to use the money for technology to reduce instructional costs. Two of the problems

that were pointed out were that there was no budget for new hires and that the

technology costs have not been identified. He felt that there is no indication

that technology will save money because no one has done the studies yet.

Haw asked to whom the feedback should go. Phillips responded to direct

the feedback to him and he will feed it into the process. Phillips stated that

we can attempt to impact the process through written responses. Also, informally

working with the campus representatives to Cornerstones, it may be possible

to differentiate the text and subtext.

The Senate was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Bonnie Homan

Secretary to the Faculty