SFSU Academic Senate Meeting

Minutes for September 22, 1998

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

Senate Members Present:

Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Cancino, Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn;

Cherny, Robert; Consoli, Andres; Contreras, Rey; Craig, JoAnn; Cullers, Susan;

Duke, Jerry; Elia, John; Fehrman, Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte; Fielden, Ned; Flowers,

Will; Ganji, Vijay; Goldsmith, Helen; Graham, Michael; Graham, Minnie; Hammett,

Jennifer; Harnly, Caroline; Haro, Roberto; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung; Jenkins, Lee;

Jerris, Scott; Johnson, Dane; Kelley, James; Montenegro, Ricardo; Oñate,

Abdiel; Phillips, Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Scoble, Don; Shapiro, Jerald; Strong,

Rob; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Valledares, Juan; Vega, Sandra; Vaughn, Pamela;

Verhey, Marilyn; Wade, Patricia; Warren, Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope; Wong,

Alfred; Zieff, Susan.

Senate Members Absent: Aaron, Eunice; Barnes, Paul(exc.); Blank,

Mark(exc.); Choo, Freddie(exc.); Collier, James(exc.); Corrigan, Robert(exc.);

Eisman, Gerald; La Belle, Thomas(exc.); Moss, Joanna; Nicholson, Joel; Shrivastava,

Vinay(exc.); Swanson, Deborah(exc.); Tarakji, Ghassan; Zoloth-Dorfman, Laurie.

Senate Interns Present: Marvin Dumon, Happy Dayleg.

Guests: D. Schafer, L. Berry, T. Sampson, T. Jones, G. West,

G. Whitaker, M. Kasdan, A. Barnes, J. Sagisi, G. Dalpe.

Announcements and Report

Chair’s Report

  • Chair Phillips announced that there will be a New Senator Orientation

    immediately following today's meeting and a reception for Gary Hammerstrom

    following the October 6 Academic Senate Meeting.

  • Jan Gregory (English) has been elected Statewide Senator,

    joining Eunice Aaron (Black Studies) and Robert Cherny (History) as SFSU representatives

    to the CSU Academic Senate.

  • There will be a joint meeting of the Academic Senate Executive Committee

    and the CFA Executive Committee on September 29, 1998, to discuss collective

    bargaining, update contract negotiations, and maintain a united faculty.

  • Phillips introduced the two new Senate interns for Fall 1998 -- Happy

    Dayleg and Marvin Dumon.

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for Meeting of September 22, 1998

M/S/P (Warren, Duke) to amend the agenda to change Agenda Item #5 to

#5a and add Agenda Item #5b, Resolution on Collective Bargaining.

The agenda was approved as amended.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting of September 8, 1998

As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as


Agenda Item #3 - Report from Statewide Senators

Robert Cherny reported on the work of the Statewide Senate and our SFSU

Statewide Senate representatives. He provided background on the Statewide Senate,

which has 1-3 senators from each campus and deals at the state level with concerns

like those in the SFSU Academic Senate, including curriculum and criteria and

standards on faculty hiring and tenure.

Eunice Aaron is on the Fiscal and Governmental Affairs committee, which

develops faculty recommendations on the budget and on legislation. There are

two committees for which we have no representative from our campus - Teacher

Education and Faculty Affairs. The newly elected SFSU Statewide Senator will

probably serve on one of these. Cherny is on the Academic Affairs committee,

which is responsible for admissions requirements, general education requirements,

and curriculum in general. Each Senator is on other committees as well. Cherny

sits on the following, among others: the Admissions Advisory committee, the

Academic Advisory committee on the California Virtual University, and the Board

of Trustees sub-commitee on Honorary Degrees.

Cherny reported that the Statewide Senate passed two resolutions during their

first meeting of the year on September 9-11. The first is a resolution of

support for the report from the task force on library collections and restoration

of funding for library collections. This resolution recommended that the

$10 million one time supplemental funds included in the CSU budget actually

be used for that purpose. It also recommended that this money be added to future

baselines for libraries. The second resolution concerned the program the

CSU has contracted with the British Open University to develop a system for

speeding up the credentialing process for teachers on emergency waivers.

The resolution specified that the Academic Senate adhere to traditional principles

of faculty control of curriculum and campus responsibility for recommending

students for credentials.

The Statewide Senate heard from Chancellor Reed, Executive Chancellor Spence,

and the team at work on a new technology initiative in the wake of CETI.

There is now a plan to use state funds to accomplish the purpose of renewing

technology infrastructure of the university.

Reed reported to the Statewide Senate that negotiations are underway for a

Compact II to guarantee a stable level of funding for CSU over the next couple

of years.

The Chancellor made a commitment that CSU will produce 3,000 more teachers

(from 12,000 to 15,000) by the end of the year 2000 and do a better job of it.

The Chancellor raised questions about the baccalaureate curriculum. Cherny suggested

that it is likely we will see a strong push to reduce the total number of units

from 124 to 120 for a BA.

Cherny reported on the push to find ways to make the higher education process

in California more "seamless". This will involve having a general education

curriculum that makes it very easy for students to move from any community college

to any CSU campus and having lower division classes for majors that will meet

requirements at more than one campus.

The Chancellor assured the Statewide Academic Senate that our Board of Trustees

is not interested in the document on the Association of Governing Board's web

site that is critical of faculty governance.

Agenda Item #4 - Report from the University Promotions Committee

1997-1998 University Promotions Committee Chair Lilly Berry presented

an oral report on the deliberations of the promotions committee, highlighting

items from the 1997-98 annual report. The UPC is a five member, university-wide,

peer review committee that provides a level of review independent of the Vice-President

of Academic Affairs with recommendations made directly to the President.

UPC processed 40 applications for promotion, recommending 10 of 11 for promotion

to associate professor and 20 of 29 for promotion to full professor. The President

promoted 8 of 11 candidates for associate professor and 20 for full professor.

The UPC met 2-4 hours in committee each week during the spring semester plus

homework to review the candidates. The initial review was exchanged with the

Vice President, followed by a meeting to discuss cases where there was disagreement.

A meeting then followed with the President and the Vice President in which the

President took cases where disagreement remained and made the final decisions.

The UPC and the Vice President agreed on 29 of 40 cases initially and 34 of

40 after their meeting. The President followed 33 of the 34 cases where agreement

had been reached. Of the 6 unresolved cases, he followed the UPC's recommendation

on 3 and the Vice President's recommendation on 3.

Berry summarized the UPC's recommendations about the various bodies involved

in the promotions process. The UPC recommended that the Senate address the

following items: 1) normal eligibility (the policy has language for

normal eligibility that mentions MSA's, which we no longer have; UPC has considered

normal eligibility as 4 years in rank and asks that the Senate take into account

what has happened since the policy was passed); 2) the terms "significance"

and "superior" (the policy says that it is the responsibility of the departments

to define the terms "significance" and "superior," but not all departments have

been able to do this. The Senate could provide some assistance in helping departments

define what these terms mean for the discipline, addressing, for example, what

average and minimally satisfactory performance have to do with significance);

3) student evaluation of teaching effectiveness system (there has been

improvement in moving toward a more unified grading scale with more departments

using the same instrument, at least in a single college. The Senate could address

narrowing the variety of quantitative analysis); and 4) confidentiality

(this report did not include detailed tables because this could violate confidentiality

of process).

UPC recommended that people at all different levels of review make an effort

to locate, study, and understand the policy and then apply it. It is in the

faculty manual as an appendix.

UPC saw some improvement last year in the review letters, but there is still

need for more improvement. Departments and Colleges need to understand the promotional

profiles as described in the policy and make better attempts to use the evaluation

terminology. Close attention needs to be paid to standards (these are higher

for full professor than associate) and candidates should be evaluated against

others within rank, not by length of time served. Review should be restricted

to in-rank activities. Berry also stressed that the candidate must be actively

involved in the promotions process.

Mitch Turitz asked about the original reasoning for 4 MSA's versus 4

years. Berry replied that it was a carryover from the earlier promotion policy.

Turitz added that Patricia Bartscher told him that the MSA language is in the

collective bargaining agreement and wondered if we can change the faculty manual

if it's not in the CBA. Gerald West said that the practice of the university

has been to consider it as 4 years.

Robert Cherny suggested that we owe a great debt to the UPC, which put

in enormous amounts of time and makes sure that the faculty role in the process

is maintained. Cherny commented on the summary of results, noting that of 95

faculty members who were automatically eligible, only 25 requested performance

review, which means 74% did not request promotion. He added that we know little

about why they did not seek promotion, but it should be clear from this that

anyone who says that promotion is automatic at SFSU is absolutely wrong, as

that is a very large number of people not seeking promotion.

Cherny emphasized another point from the report - the importance of departments

specifying the expectations of the discipline. He explained that one of most

basic assumptions of faculty governance is that it is the specialized knowledge

of the faculty that allows them to undertake the writing of curriculum and the

determination of the qualifications of those teaching that curriculum. Departments

are closest to the expectations of the discipline, and departments are best

qualified to determine what the expectations of the discipline are for promotion;

therefore, it is important that departments take that responsibility seriously

and that administrators respect what departments have said.

Cherny asked about a couple of ambiguous sentences from the section of the

report on recommendations for all levels of review: "personally disagreeing

with the policy is not a good reason for failing to apply it" and "it is only

right and fair to the candidates that all who are involved in the decisions

commit themselves to the standards defined in the policy." He wondered if the

committee was trying to say that someone who disagrees with the policy is not

applying the policy but other standards. Berry replied that the committee felt

that was true to some extent. Some candidates were being held to some standard

that was not what was defined in the policy itself, which might be a way of

discounting the policy. Berry stressed that what we really need to do is make

sure that everyone involved in the review process be very clear what the policy

requires of us, which does not give us leeway to make up our own standards.

Jim Kelley commented on the 70 who did not apply: it is a cumulative

70, and some have declined for twenty years, so it has to be compared to the

800 or so tenure-track faculty and not the 95. Berry added that one of the reasons

that people don't ask for consideration is that some think they might not meet

the standards. Another disturbing thing is that some people decline because

of the amount of work to put the dossier together.

Jerry Duke commented that in the promotions process at the department

level, it was not always clear what the responsibilities of candidates are with

regard to the committee. Duke suggested that this be spelled out somewhere.

West explained that departments have the option or responsibility of meeting

with faculty who will be considered for RTP in the spring semester preceding

the semester in which they will be evaluated, but faculty constantly call to

say no one has spoken to them. West added that it is the responsibility of the

department to meet with that faculty member and inform them of the procedure,

allowing them ample time to assemble materials for RTP. It is also the responsibility

of the department to gather those pertinent materials to include in the working

personnel action file. West concluded that most departments do a very good job;

there are a handful of departments that do a very poor job, which must be addressed

by the colleges. Berry added that the UPC conducts a series of meetings with

colleges and also does its own informational meetings for the benefit of candidates,

which were fairly well attended.

Phillips seconded Cherny's comment on the importance of UPC. He commented on

the image that has been created that the volume of the file has some influence

on the outcome in promotions. He stressed the important role of the committee

in dialogues with the President and Vice President in terms of policy interpretation.

Phillips suggested two areas that could use further research: 1) faculty who

could but do not apply for promotion; and 2) what takes place in the dialogues

among the President, Vice President, and UPC. He added that knowing where the

areas of tension exist between this interpretation of the policy and that interpretation

tells us a lot about some of the issues in terms of the award system of campus.

He concluded that it speaks well to the process that there is ultimately 90%


Phillips also addressed the question of how much has to do with revisions needed

in the policy and how much has to do with procedure. Too specific a policy can

be rigid with harmful side effects; if too vague, it is very easy for people

all along the line to have different interpretations. FAC is wrestling with

the question of how much of the policy needs to be changed. Last time it took

almost 4 years from opening up to rewriting the policy. Phillips added that

our leaning has been to address clear problems without revising the whole policy.

Turitz raised a question about RTP committee membership where, according to

the faculty manual, faculty being considered for promotion are ineligible to

serve on tenure committees. He asked about changes for departments where HRT

committee and promotion committee are separate such as the library. Phillips

responded that an ad hoc committee is dealing with the library aspect and that

the larger question will be referred back to FAC.

Agenda Item #5A - Report from California Faculty Association Chapter President

SFSU CFA Chapter President Margo Kasdan introduced Terry Jones, President

of the CFA. Terry Jones urged faculty to come together in the spirit of

unity and work through this moment of impasse to bargain for a fair contract.

Tim Sampson, CFA Statewide Contract Campaign Chair, reported on the

current bargaining situation. He provided historical background on Chancellor

Reed's actions prior to impasse. Reed sought a 1% augmentation in compensation

funds from the Governor without asking for CFA consultation. He then asked for

CFA support but said that he would tell the governor that CFA accepted this

money for the merit pay pool, which was not the case. Sampson added that Reed

met with key legislators and said that he would find an extra 1% to make 6%

total to settle contract, but Reed never made that proposal at the table. The

chief management bargainer gave a take it or leave it offer of 5%, which has

persisted to this day.

Sampson stated that management maintains the position that since there was

no contract on July 1, they will not pay retroactively. The union will fight


Sampson addressed current non-financial issues of the bargaining. On workload,

management wishes to remove even limited restraints and standards. Management

continues to wish to remove department chairs from the unit and the bargaining

agreement. On lecturers, CFA is seeking progress on step increases, multi-year

contracts, and benefits for more lecturers, and management has not been willing

to move on those issues. Sampson added that CFA maintains that counselors be

treated as faculty. On family leave and domestic partner benefits, the university

has been intransigent, but there has been some informal progress on a decent

maternity and paternity leave. On the Faculty Early Retirement Program, the

management wishes to cut it from 5 years to 2.

Sampson also explained the current merit pay situation. In extending the current

contract, parties agreed that the current PSSI program was dead and would not

be implemented, and that merit pay will have to be agreed upon in bargaining

for this year; however, management's present proposal is that everyone would

have to be considered with no constraint or appeal process and then the president

would decide with double the money for these awards.

Sampson outlined the current proposals on salary. The CFA has a 6% package

on the table, which is very reasonable given CSU's financial situation. This

would amount to 3.9% across the board. The management offer is 2.5% for a general

increase. The CFA is pushing for at least a 1 step increase for all eligible

for SSI, a 2.4% step. The management offer is a little more than half a step.

The balance of the money, after some addition to chair stipends and bringing

counselors to parity, would go to merit pay with management insisting on 40%

of the package to merit pay. This is the pattern that CSU is pressing on all

employees. The CFA proposal breaks new ground in linking merit pay to the RTP

process with its protections of due process and with expectations that the president

will ordinarily follow faculty in these decisions. The CFA proposal also has

the feature of "shares" where all of those judged worthy of merit increase would

be divided into the money available for merit increases, which would spread

merit pay more fairly among more people. The Chancellor's counter is to spread

it to more by increasing the money to merit pay, 40% versus the CFA's 22% of

the total package, and management has not agreed to linkage with RTP.

Sampson concluded with some reminders on the impasse process. It is a statutory

process, working with a mediator, and bargaining continues. Details cannot be

disclosed unless specifically agreed upon. If mediation fails, the mediator

certifies the impasse to fact-finding, where a recommendation is made, but the

management can impose their last formal offer, which seems to be their current

goal. Sampson asked the Senate to consider and pass the resolution, write the

Chancellor, pass around petitions, and get involved with politics.

Agenda Item #5B - Resolution on Collective Bargaining

Dawn Terrell introduced this consent item from the Senate Executive

Committee, which was developed in part in response to several Senates bringing

forth similar resolutions. Phillips commented that there were four from CFA

and the Executive Committee was involved in coming up with a resolution that

was not personalized, not accusatory, but that could help in the process of

representing us as a unified faculty. There is an impression in Long Beach that

the low number of faculty in CFA reflects a significant schism in the faculty,

and that image of a split faculty is part of what drives the power of the administration

in the collective bargaining process. This resolution is introduced not as a

CFA resolution but as an effort to represent a unified faculty on issues that

we think are critically important.

Scott Jerris asked for clarification in the second resolve of the clause

"including a guarantee of the maximum increase." Margo Kasdan replied

that this refers back to the promise of 6%.

M/S/P (Cherny, Fehrman) to move to second reading.

M/S/P (Cherny, Duke) to amend the resolution as follows:

Add a first whereas that reads as follows: "Whereas the quality of education

available in the CSU rests in major part on the ability to attract and retain

high quality faculty members and to maintain a positive sense of morale among

the faculty" and change the third whereas clause to read as follows: "Whereas

the existence of this salary gap has a negative impact on the hiring and retention

of a high quality faculty and on faculty morale more generally, therefore be

it ". Strike the next four whereas clauses and go directly to the resolved clause:

"Resolved that the San Francisco State University Academic Senate call on CSU

management and CFA to 1) commit in writing to the faculty a plan to fully address

the faculty salary gap over the next three years; 2) provide at least one full

step (2.4%) for an SSI for all eligible faculty," striking the old #1 and #3

and striking the entire second resolved clause.

Cherny explained that he is trying to clarify with his amendments why we as

an Academic Senate are involved in this. As our bargaining agent, it's up to

CFA to determine what the faculty position is in bargaining. Our Senate role

is protection of the curriculum and protection of the quality of faculty, and

salary is related to that. However, to make clear why we as a Senate are involved

in the collective bargaining process, we have to tie it to our role as a Senate,

which the first amended whereas's are meant to accomplish. We leave the details

to the CFA. It is appropriate for us as a Senate to endorse both sides that

they get together and do something. Kasdan asked if adding to the first resolved

that Senate calls on CSU management and CFA to commit in writing to a salary

gap plan and to provide a step increase doesn't ask of CFA things that are not

part of its role.

Sampson saluted Cherny's additions in the initial whereas's but spoke against

taking out the details in the whereas clauses and against the position that

the Senate does not have business entering this fray. He added that it must

be made clear that faculty speaks in one voice on these matters, that we insist

on 6%, and that we will not put up with putting it all in merit pay. The CFA

needs the support of this and other Senates, and Cherny goes too far in his

separation of roles.

Phillips urged a vote against the amendment, but suggested that someone

reintroduce the amendment with regard to the whereas clauses. He added that

there is an on-going dialogue about the Senate and CFA roles, but this is one

of those cases where it is important to send a message of unity.

Penelope Warren concurred with Phillips and stressed the importance

that this resolution make it clear that we understand the position that CFA

is taking and our endorsing that because the initial motivation on this is to

counter the notion that the faculty is somehow significantly divided on these

issues. Warren added that she wanted this to be a resolution that comes down

strongly that we are together on these issues, and she hoped that Cherny would

reintroduce his amendments on the whereas's and that we would defeat this as

a whole.

M/S/P (Ferhman, M. A. Warren) to close debate.

The amendment was defeated.

M/S/P (P. Warren, Terrell) to amend the resolution with the additions

suggested by Cherny in the whereas clauses.

M/S/P to close debate.

The amendment passed.

M/S/P (Oñate, Craig) to amend the resolution as follows:

Change the first clause of the first resolved to read as follows: "Resolved

that the Academic Senate of the SFSU endorses the CFA proposal and calls on

management . . . [the rest as written]."

Marlon Hom asked how this affects the second resolved.

Patricia Bartscher commented that this kind of action by the SFSU Academic

Senate, which includes students and administrators as members, puts us in a

difficult situation.

Cherny agreed with Bartscher on this point. He added that Phillips and others

have said that there is a widespread perception that the faculty is divided

and we need to show unity. Cherny has heard the message wondering why the Senate

and CFA always speak with the same voice, which suggests that the closer the

Senate is to CFA, the more likely we are to be ignored. Cherny underscored different

responsibilities for the Senate and the CFA roles. He endorsed faculty unity

and support but questioned whether a Senate resolution was the best form.

Phillips commented that the amendment is unnecessary and may divide us; he

asked that we vote against the amendment.

M/S/P (P. Warren, Duke) to close debate on second amendment.

The amendment was defeated.

M/S/P (P. Warren, Vaughn) to close debate on the resolution.

The resolution on collective bargaining passed without dissent. (To

view this resolution, click here.)

Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Revisions to Academic Senate Policy #S93-184 - University

Development Priorities Committee Statement of Responsibilities

Deferred to October 6, 1998, meeting.

Agenda Item #7 - Report from the Student Center Governing Board

Aimeé Barnes, chair of the Cesar Chavez Student Center Governing

Board, Jaymee Sagisi, Renovations chair for the Student Center, and Guy Dalpe

updated the Senate on plans to renovate and expand the Cesar Chavez Student


Barnes reported that the Board of Trustees approved the project and that it

is moving forward even though bids came in over the estimate. She sought support,

advice, and input about how to better communicate with students during the next

18 months of construction. She added that the contract will be signed in early

November with construction beginning in early January. The building will be

open, but it will not be open like it is now.

Sagisi emphasized the need for cooperation and added that the expansion committee

is now addressing concerns that the campus will have during the next 18 months.

Guy Dalpe outlined the work that would be going on, which will definitely impact

the campus: putting a new story on the building, and renovating interior areas

for safety to meet ADA requirements and general earthquake upgrades. The staging

will be primarily on the north side of the building with some done in Lot 4

between the Library and the Franciscan building with a new road to connect these

areas. The goal is to have maximum access with the center open. Dalpe added

that any suggestions would be appreciated.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty