Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting

of October 9, 2001

The Academic Senate was called

to order by Chair Vaughn at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present



Alvarez, Alvin

Avila, Guadalupe

Bartscher, Patricia

Bishop, Anna

Blomberg, Judith

Boyle, Andrea

Cherny, Robert

Collier, James

Colvin, Caran

Concolino, Christopher

Consoli, Andres

Corrigan, Robert



Daniels, Robert

Duke, Jerry

Edwards, James

Fung, Robert

Gerson, Deborah

Gregory, Jan

Harnly, Caroline

Henry, Margaret

Higgins, Susan

Hom, Marlon



Hubler, Barbara

Jerris, Scott

Kassiola, Joel

La Belle, Thomas

Langbort, Carol

Levine, Josh

Luft, Sandra

McKeon, Midori

Moallem, Minoo

Nichols, Amy

Raggio, Marcia



Scoble, Don

Shrivastava, Vinay

Smith, Miriam

Steier, Saul

Su, Yuli

Terrell, Dawn

Turitz, Mitch

Vaughn, Pamela

Warren, Mary Anne

Warren, Penelope

Yip, Yewmun


Members Absent:

Oswaldo Garcia

(exc.); Abdiel Oñate (exc.); Rob Strong (exc.); Thomas LaBelle (exc.);

Karima Adisa-Thomas (abs) Ronda Newt (abs) James Collier (abs); Marv

Friedman (abs); Velia Garcia (abs), Bruce Wolfe (abs).

Guests: Debbie Masters, LaVonne Jacobsen, Paul Barnes, Gail Whitaker,

Jerry Combs,  Ron Compesi, Shannon Perry

Announcements and Reports


Chair Vaughn, reminded all senators to speak clearly into the microphone. Additionally, if

a senator wishes to be recognized please raise your nameplate high so the

Vice Chair can easily see it. Once the Vice Chair sees your nameplate then

your name will be placed on the speakers list.

Vaughn reminded the campus community that during

this stressful time to keep in mind maintaining open communication, protection

of freedom speech and maintain respect for one another. If that means giving

one another a little space now and then we will need to do that too.  Professor

Davis, current director of Inter Arts Center, is out of the country at a conference

and he has requested that the discussion of discontinue of IAC be moved to

the senate meeting of the 23rd. There were no objections.

Chair’s Report

  • There was no Chair’s Report, as the

    Chair wanted to launch into business as quickly as possible.

Agenda Item #1 - approval

of the Agenda for October 9, 2001

Professor Marsha Melnick, immediate

past Chair of the University Sabbatical Committee, was called away to a conference

and will not be here today to present the committees’ report. The agenda amended

to remove item 5. .

M/S/P (Duke, Shrivastava) to

amend the agenda

Agenda Item

#2 - Approval of Minutes for September 25, 20001

Mary Anne Warren

requested that when senators have duplicate last names that their first name

initial be used to distinguished between the two.

The minutes were approved and the suggestion accepted.

Agenda Item

#3 - Report from Debbie Masters, University Librarian, and LaVonne Jacobsen,

Acting Head of Collection Management Services

Debbie Masters spoke from and provided each senate member

a two-page summary of the space and collection management issues at the J.

Paul Leonard Library. Masters addressed the three issues of (1) library

renovation project, (2) library collection strategies, and (3) faculty role

in collection development policy. Masters announced that there is a

plan to expand and renovate the library building, which will allow for 50%

more space, add an advanced Automated Retrieval System (ARS), and provide

additional space to bring on campus the Sutro Library and the Labor Archives

and Research Center.  Masters outlined that the present library does

not have sufficient space for the growing collections, which means the need

to relocate or remove 30,000 to 34,000 volumes annually, or the equivalent

number of volumes to what we add. She announced that contingent on the successful

passing of a bond measure to fund the project, a  library addition should

be completed by July 2006 and renovation of the existing building by September

2007. Masters indicated that the big problem facing the library is

the need to manage existing space for the next five to six years while still

improving and updating the collection. Masters announced that in the

past the library has added more stacks to accommodate the increases in our

collection; however, we have run out of load-bearing space without further

diminishing the already inadequate space for students to study. Masters

discussed the increased use of selected electronic format for many publications,

which provides simultaneous, remote, 24x7 delivery of full text without requiring

on-site shelf space. The library staff is also pruning our collection, to

eliminate materials that are obsolete, outdated or materials that may be misleading.

She outlined two other options, use of off-site storage and off-site shelving.

Masters indicated that the library is storing bound volumes of periodicals

that are available in electronic format or through Document Delivery Services.

A new project is off site shelving, not storage. There is excess capacity

in the ARS at the new library facility at Sonoma State University. SFSU can

use this space as off-site shelving using the electronic retrieval process

called “Link +”. With this electronic retrieval system a person can request

a book from off-site collections and have it delivered within a couple of

days. A library faculty member is assigned to each department. The library

has been and will continue to work very closely with the Academic Senate Library

Advisory Committee. The committee meets monthly and is chaired by James Smith

from the department of Mathematics. Lastly, senators Mitch Turitz and Caroline

Harnly represent the library on the Senate.  Masters ended her presentation

and asked faculty to stay in touch with their library liaisons, and keep informed

by reading the library Web site.

LaVonne Jacobsen, acting Head of Collection Management Services,

reported on the anticipated schedule for the library building expansion and

renovation; the collection management projects and strategies to enable management

of collections within the current building until we have additional space;

and the role of faculty in collaboration with library faculty liaisons in

reviewing and updating collection development policies that will guide selection

of collections for these projects. Jacobsen spoke from and provided

each senate member a two-page summary titled: the J. Paul Leonard Library,

Moving Beyond the Walls: Your Library Collections. Her report included information

about materials in electronic format or the “The Digital Library”. Jacobsen

emphasized that the library still considers subscriptions to new print journals.

She reported that document delivery requests or materials not owned at JPLL

are very fast now; most requests for documents are delivered in just a couple

of days. Jacobsen and library faculty liaisons will involve faculty

in the selection of materials that will be transferred to Sonoma State. She

has begun discussion of pruning and off-site transfer of the collection with

faculty liaisons in a few departments and will continue to add departments

until all have been consulted. The underlying principle in the selection process

is to determine what the curriculum requires, and what materials provide information

that is necessary for students, including graduate students. Jacobsen

also noted that the prediction for future direction of the curriculum and

the establishment of new curriculum all require new library acquisitions and

these needs must be communicated to the library. In this regard Jacobsen

has initiated closer library work with those departments who are in the process

of program review. She outlined that when the library prunes its collection,

criteria include materials that might be obsolete, little used, and in poor

condition.  No one factor has priority, and some criteria vary by discipline. 

Jacobsen outlined that in the process of pruning, that the library

will rely heavily on the library liaison to faculty and the faculty in particular

departments and disciplines. She outlined that the process will take 3-5 years

and not all departments will be participating at the same time. There will

be several stages to this process.

Helen Gillotte thanked Masters and Jacobsen for taking

the time to provide us with information on this process. Gillotte asked

if any items had been moved to Sonoma this past summer and if items were moved

were departments informed about the transfer? Masters indicated that

the library looked at a pilot project this summer to test how well it would

work to send volumes to Sonoma. They identified a group of older MA theses

that had not circulated in ten years to use in the pilot to send to Sonoma.

However, we were not able to send these because of technical difficulties.

Masters assured all senators that anything that goes to Sonoma is retrievable

in a couple of days. Masters asserted that SFSU retains ownership of

everything we send to Sonoma and can bring it back when we want. Jacobsen

added that if a department requested that a particular MA theses remain on

the shelf then we will do that.  Anna Bishop asked how is the library

going to control the use of digital journals and will students be included

in the library review of the collection? Masters indicated that our

electronic journals are governed by contracts signed between the library or

the CSU and the journal or provider. Students are part of the SFSU community

and authenticated to access the electronic journals under the contract. What

individual users choose to abstract and use is up to the individual students

and faculty members.  Jacobsen reported that the library has access

in electronic form to over 4000 journals. Masters responded that while

the library relies on faculty for review of the collection, she sees a much

larger role for students in the development of plans in the expanded and renovated

library. Masters stated that the library planning process is open to

students’ ideas and the she looks forward to working with the Academic Senate’s

Student Affairs Committee. Midori McKeon indicated that from her experience

there has not been enough consultation between faculty and the library. McKeon

asked how the selection process for pruning the library collection is targeted?

Masters encouraged all faculty to work more closely with their library

liaisons. She stated that the library does not target a number of items to

be removed, but looks at each department and the totality of the volumes in

relations to the curriculum needs. The library has a responsibility to remove

obsolete titles that can give inaccurate or even dangerous information. We

have many approaches to keep collections current. Master stated that

the library faculty are pruning the collection in a continuous and systematic

way. McKeon restated her concern that faculty who are specialists in

their field need to be consulted on any change in the library collection.

Masters responded and outlined the important role that the library

department liaisons play in the development and maintenance of the library

collection and encouraged faculty to develop a close relationship with their

library liaison. Rick Houlberg asked if the library was adding more

faculty/staff to help students who need assistance with electronic retrieval.

Masters indicated that the library faculty and staff welcome any suggestions

from faculty and students on how we can serve them better. The library’s reference

desk is staffed whenever the library is open; there is a search help laboratory

on the fourth floor, and the library sponsors drop in workshops on electronic

resources for students and faculty. Masters reported that all library

faculty have office hours that are open to students and faculty. Mitch

Turitz reported that there is also email reference available to faculty

and students. Masters indicated that during this time period it is

especially important that all members of the academic community share their

ideas with the library faculty and staff.

Agenda Item #4 - Report from the University Promotions


Ron Compesi, Chair of the 2001-2002 University Promotions

Committee presented the report from last year’s committee. A copy of the report

was provided to all senators. Compesi was standing in for Larry

Medcalf who was chair of last years UPC but could not make the report

due to a class conflict. Compesi speaking from the report indicated

that of the 51 files received by UPC, 20 of 24 were recommended for promotion

to associate professor and 17 of 27 were recommend for promotion to Professor.

UPC and the Provost were in agreement on with 46 out of 51. Compesi

reported that the departments and deans supported not all the cases that came

up. He reported that UPC is concerned with the large size of the promotion

files received, and that candidates should be encourage to focus on relevant

materials and work to weed out documents that do not add support to the promotion

profile. Compesi indicated that UPC was pleased to find that all levels

of the review were using the language, as found in the promotion policy. Compesi

reported that UPC has several areas of concern. First, the data that was

reported under student evaluation of teaching often is not put into context,

and balanced with other measures such as peer review. Second, peer review

of faculty teaching, especially those candidates for the rank of professor,

is often not being documented in the years leading up to the year of promotion.

Third, there appears to be less rigor in the peer review process for associate

to professor than for assistant to associate. Compesi recommend that

this third item needs some discussion. Fourth, UPC is concerned that department

evaluation of research and creative is not being put into context that describes,

interprets, and evaluates the work that is being done. Fifth, electronic media,

(World Wide Web, internet activities), and electronic publications need to

be explained and evaluated by the department. Compesi reported that

the members of UPC were very impressed with the quality of work that is being

done here at SFSU.

Rick Houlberg asks how many of those who were eligible

for promotion actually applied? Compesi stated that the data was not

available to the committee. Mitch Turitz said about twenty five percent

were not promoted and asked how that percentage compared to previous years?

Compesi reported that he did not know if that number was high in comparison

with previous years and indicated that not all candidates came to UPC with

a positive recommendation from their department and deans. Houlberg

offered that the high percentage might have to do with the larger number that

went up for promotion this year in comparison with previous years. Scott

Jerris asked why faculty who were denied promotion did not receive information

on why they were denied beyond statements of insufficient evidence to support

promotion? Compesi indicated that UPC recognizes the diversity on the

campus and the differences between colleges and within a college. It is up

to the departments to include an argument on what they expect from promotion

to that rank. Beyond that there needs to be a convergence between the argument

and the data that supports it. The arguments that a candidate is superior

in teaching and then little evidence is provided to support that judgment

makes it difficulty for a higher level of review to agree with the department

committee.  Caroline Harnly ask that if the language in the UPC report

that states “experts in the field” is the committee asking for off campus

people to get involved in the evaluation? Compesi responded that off

campus experts in the field are used by some departments to the extent that

their evaluation is helpful and their credible and reliable source is also

helpful in the promotion process. Jan Gregory suggested that information

that might be helpful is for departments to include peer evaluations or observations

into some sort of university wide conceptualization and thus adding greater

clarity for department committee on how to use evaluations, external reviews,

and how they are done. Compesi recommended more discussion on the most

effective way or ways of systematically collection and evaluating evaluations.

Robert Cherny asked what was the final outcome at the president level?

Compesi reported that he did not have that data. Alvin Alvarez

asked if UPC had different criteria for evaluation than that which was established

by the department committees. Compesi reported that in the majority

of the cases UPC was consistent with departments’ evaluations. The UPC evaluation

process starts with the working personnel action file (WPAF). He reminded

the senate that there is a great range between departments in explaining each

category. UPC weights all the information and looks at things in the context

of the entire campus. Alvarez recommended that a discussion that outlines

the level of specificity that UPC want to see from departments needs to take

place. Compesi indicated that campus discussion on the promotion process

is worth having. Houlberg recommends that UPC does not have the time

to promote and organize campus wide discussion. Vinay Shrivastava asked

how many applicants were not supported by UPC and supported by all other levels.

Compesi responded that he did not know. Shrivastava asked if

we have a uniform policy that requires pier review? Compesi recommend

that the promotion policy is well defined in the faculty handbook. Chair

Vaughn interjected that peer review is one of the ways to evaluate effective

teaching but not required. Dawn Terrell is concerned that peer review

needs to be put into context to meet college and department concerns and that

maybe UPC and Faculty Affairs should look at getting the information out. 

Compesi indicated that he knew of many promotion workshops planned

by Faculty Affairs and recommends them for any one who is up for promotion.

Agenda Item #5 - Proposed

Resolution on Responding to the Tragic Events of September 11,2001

Chair Vaughn brought to the senate a revised resolution

title: Responding to the Tragic Events of September 11, 2001. This

resolution was revised from the previous one sent to all senators as part

of the senate agenda. The resolution was formulated by the Executive Committee

and is brought to the senate for discussion and action.

M/S/P (Vaughn, P Warren) resolution

in first reading

Chair Vaughn spoke from the resolution pointing out

that it acknowledges the consultation between the federal officials and institution

of higher education regarding a proposed moratorium on the grating of international

student visas. The resolution urges federal and state officials not to propose

any moratorium on internationals students’ visas. Mary Anne Warren

suggested that in the sixth paragraph after the word federal that the words

“and state” be added. This would include both levels of government in the

resolution. M Warren continued and acknowledged that the resolution

was well written and appropriate. Vaughn, on behalf of the Executive

Committee, accepted the addition of the two-word addition in the sixth paragraph.

Sandra Luft asked if the resolution had been discussed previous to

this reading. Vaughn indicated that the resolution is in first reading.

Luft indicated that she would like to see a stronger statement than

the one presented in the resolution. Jan Gregory indicated that the

resolution as presented speaks softly but makes our point very well. Vaughn

indicated that it’s not the intent to single out any individuals, but to reserve

the last paragraph of the resolution for a list of those individuals who should

receive a copy of the resolution. Eunice Aaron pointed out that the

fourth paragraph outlines the central intent of the resolution. The resolution

states that the Academic Senate joins with the university administration in

a strong statement that harassment or intimidation of any one from our campus

community shall not be tolerated.

M/S/P (Houlberg, Aaron) to

second reading

Saul Steier suggested that in the sixth paragraph that

the word “encourage” in the first sentence be replaced with the word “urge”

to make the statement stronger. The suggestion was accepted.  Robert Cherny

pointed out that the chair of the state wide academic senate sent a comprehensive

letter to Senator Feinstein outlining the extensive problems that would occur

if a moratorium is imposed on international student visas.

M/S/P (Houlberg, Steier) the

resolution was accepted unanimously

Agenda Item #6 - Proposed change to the Bachelor of

Arts in Child and Adolescent Development

Amy Nichols, Chair Curriculum Review and Approval committee

presented minor changes to the Child and Adolescent Development (CAD) Program

as a consent item. Nichols indicated that the faculty of the department

is recommending two changes to the Bachelor of Arts Degree based on their

experience, formal course evaluations at the end of each semester, informal

student feedback, and consultation with several departments.  Nichols

reported that the minor changes are: adding JS 340 American Jewish Identity

and Family, and changing the courses meeting the requirements for Fieldwork

from a variety of selections from several departments to CAD 600 Child and

Adolescent Development Internship.

M/S/P (Duke, Houlberg) to second


M/S/P (Duke, Steier) proposed

changes accepted unanimously

Agenda Item #7 - Report

from Statewide Senators

Robert Cherny reported

on the September meeting of the State-Wide Academic Senate.  Richard West,

Chief Fiscal Officer, indicated that reports coming out of Sacramento are

that the state budget does not look good and that most state agencies being

asked draw to draw up budgeting projection for a 3, 5, and 10 percent cut

in funding.  West announced that, at that time, the CSU was not planning

to do these reduction exercises.  West also reported that the CSU ended

up with more lottery money than expected, and that it will be used to replace

some of the funds for restoring CSU library collections that were cut out

of the Trustees' budget. David Spence, the CSU Chief Academic Officer,

reported that major changes would be taking place in credential programs. 

The State Wide Academic Senate has created a task force to keep close tabs

on the work of the Joint Committee that is creating a master plan for kindergarten

through university.  A preliminary report from the joint committee addresses

mostly K-12 issues and says little about higher education.  Cherny

summarized the resolutions introduced at the September meeting. The Senate

unanimously approved the report, The CSU at the Beginning of the 21st Century,

on which Cherny reported to the senate during the previous academic

year.  The senate heard, on first reading, a proposal to amend its constitution

and bylaws.  Finally, the senate resolved to develop a policy on review of

CSU administrators. Cherny also summarized significant changes to the

state K-12 teacher credential program resulting from assembly bill 2042. Cherny

reported that the changes to subject matter preparation programs are so extensive

and significant that a special system wide conference is being proposed by

the senate's committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations.  The conference

would include faculty and administrators from every campus to learn what is

new and what is needed in regards to teacher preparation on our campuses.

Chair Vaughn indicated that former senate vice chair

Helen Goldsmith has been actively involved in the hearing and the process

regarding 2042 and teacher credentialing. She is working with Dean Jacob Perea

and faculty of College of Education on the implication of 2042. Helen and

Dean Perea will be making a report to the Executive Committee and the Academic

Senate in the near future. Jan Gregory reported that the faculty affairs

committee of the state wide academic senate met and is proposing two new resolutions.

The first is a proposal for the training of new campus senate chairs.  The

second proposal if for CSU academic senates to articulate to the department

chairs the evaluation procedures for temporary faculty. Midori McKeon

asked about information on the single subject teaching credential. Cherny

indicated that guidelines are being prepared.

The Academic Senate was adjourned

at 3:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Jim Edwards

Secretary to the Faculty