SFSU Academic Senate
Minutes of October 19, 1999
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Terrell
at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Aaron, Eunice; Alvarez, Alvin; Avila, Guadalupe; Bartscher,
Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Boyle, Andrea; Cancino, Herlinda; Collier, James;
Concolino, Christopher; Consoli, Andres; Craig, JoAnn; Cullers, Susan; Duke,
Jerry; Edwards, James; Eisman, Gerald; Fehrman, Ken; Ganji, Vijay; Goldsmith,
Helen; Graham, Michael; Gregory, Jan; Harnly, Caroline; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung;
Jerris, Scott; Johnson, Dane; Johnson, Sharon; Kelley, James; La Belle, Thomas;
Langbort, Carol; McKeon, Midori; Moallem, Minoo; OÃ±ate, Abdiel; Raggio,
Marcia; Sagisi, Jaymee; Scoble, Don; Shapiro, Jerald; Smith, Miriam; Swanson,
Deborah; Tarakji, Ghassan; Terrell, M. Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Vaughn, Pamela;
Wick, Jeanne; Wolfe, Bruce; Wong, Alfred.
Senate Members Absent: Ferretti, Charlotte;
Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan(exc.); Zoloth, Laurie; Strong, Rob(exc.); Gonzales, Angela(exc.);
Elia, John(exc.); Gillotte, Helen; Hubler, Barbara; Yee, Darlene(exc.); Corrigan,
Senate Interns Present:
Guests: G. West, M. Rivas, D. Schafer, J.
Kassiola, S. Meisenhelder, G. Whitaker, G. Glugoski, D. Rice, D. Scott, H. Matson,
E. McQuown, K. Grove, J. Monteverdi, N. Robbins, R. DeLeon, S. Cortes, E. Pasaporte,
Announcements and Report
- Terrell introduced several guests: Susan Meisenhelder,
the CFA President, and student guests, members of the Student Affairs committee,
Susana Cortes and Erin Pasaporte.
- Terrell summarized the Senate Executive Committee's meeting
with CSU Board of Trustees' member Martha Fallgatter, where accountability,
trustee/faculty relations, and housing costs were among the issues discussed.
- Terrell also mentioned Susan Meisenhelder's participation
in the Senate Executive Committee meeting around developing an FMI policy.
Meisenhelder was particularly useful in providing a point of view from other
campuses and as a member of the bargaining team.
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of the Agenda for October 19,
As there were no additions or corrections, the agenda was
approved as printed.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of the Minutes for October
As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were
approved as printed.
Agenda Item #3 - Report from Vice President La Belle
Provost La Belle reported on remediation and enrollment
management. La Belle provided a worksheet that provides a snapshot of the remediation
situation at SFSU. He added that there was a structural constraint in responding
to the mandate to remediate all students in one year, given that we had a three
term sequence for math. He summarized that 27 students have been disenrolled
in Fall 1998 with 274 students in need of remediation enrolled and making progress.
There will be some who are not able to complete remediation
this spring, and we expect to disenroll these students, who will have to pick
up courses elsewhere.
Turning to enrollment management, La Belle addressed student
inability to secure the classes they need to reach their academic goals, which
is probably the major concern of students. Resources are an issue, but La Belle
has asked deans to look at other variables and questions: 1) curriculum (for
example, does the program have so many requirements in its core that it cannot
do justice to its regular offerings? does the current resource base support
the curriculum as it's designed?); 2) offerings (for example, are the required
courses offered regularly and systematically? Are the courses scheduled to meet
student or faculty needs? Do deans actively participate with chairs in establishing
the schedule of courses?); 3) advising/mentoring (for example, are students
adequately advised as to the sequence and prerequisites of courses they need
to fulfill their educational goals? Do students have adequate access to faculty
outside of the classroom?); 4) faculty (for example, as workload changes, are
student access to courses taken into consideration? Do both part-time and tenure-track
faculty teach at all levels?); 5) students (for example, do programs manage
their student enrollment by anticipating and shaping or controlling student
demand? Are students successfully tracked through the program so that they do
not find themselves in bottlenecks?).
La Belle summarized: our enrollments are going to increase,
Tidal Wave II is here, so we have to guarantee that students are being thought
of and considered.
Bruce Wolfe asked how many students are targeted
for disenrollment for spring. La Belle answered that it depends on what the
students do this fall but it's likely that some will be disenrolled.
Agenda Item #4 - Dialogue with CFA President Susan Meisenhelder
Susan Meisenhelder summarized some of her broad goals as
president of CFA. One was to do a better job of fostering cooperation between
the CFA and Academic Senates. Another is trying very hard to be active and conscientious
about monitoring the implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The FMI policy is a big part of that, and we have to look at how well and not
well that has worked on the campuses. Each CFA chapter will develop a monitoring
committee that will provide a consistent set of information. Two other areas,
both of which will be more important and possible with Fair Share, are the goal
that CFA become an organization that has more active involvement on the part
of faculty and that CFA be more explicit and more coherent in talking to legislators
and the public about what motivates bargaining proposals. Many of the issues
are not just narrow self-interest union issues, but really issues that speak
to a bigger set of concerns and are ultimately tied to our concern that the
CSU remain a quality institution that provides a quality education for students.
Along those lines, at the weekend CFA delegate assembly, a motion was passed
to have a series of hearings on campuses this spring to allow us to start talking
about some of the needs of faculty and some of the issues that have ramifications
for the nature of the university and the direction that it goes. The Fair Share
legislation will provide resources for some of those things that were recognized
as good in the past but just not possible.
James Edwards encouraged Meisenhelder to keep working
on the domestic partner work in the contract. Meisenhelder commented that we
have followed up on this; the legislation is permissive language, and we asked
the Chancellor about the possibility of implementing that legislation through
executive order. There is encouraging movement.
Midori McKeon asked for a ballpark figure on budget
size before and after the Fair Share bill. Meisenhelder said that the budget
without Fair Share is around 4 million with the projected Fair Share budget
much less than has been reported. If the agency fee were 100%, which it will
not be, the budget would about double. It will be significant, which will greatly
increase the ability to do public relations work and research.
Neville Robbins asked her to clarify how the agency
fee will be defined and her position on the methodology, an issue that came
up at the CFA delegate assembly.
Meisenhelder replied that the agency fee is rigorously,
legally defined, and there are two ways to implement it. Most unions do it the
following way: 100% of dues are deducted from paycheck, and people are given
an option of getting a rebate on that. The other way would be to deduct only
the agency fee, which is much more complicated from an accounting standpoint.
Meisenhelder added that her inclination is to make it an accounting nightmare
and simply deduct the calculated agency fee.
Gerald Eisman asked for clarification on two issues
that came up at the faculty colloquium on the FMI process: 1) the statement
by Margo Kasdan who said that the union position is that this is not a merit
award but something more related to satisfactory performance; 2) the union position
on merit pay for the next bargaining agreement. Meisenhelder quibbled about
the term "merit," reminding us that it does not mean only a handful of people
can be rewarded, even if the PSSI legacy suggests the sense that merit means
outstanding or better. Some of the language that has been incorporated does
not use the term "merit" but looks at a standard of demonstrated performance.
The goal was to try to get a system of rewards that would recognize what most
faculty feel, which is that the majority of faculty are doing more with less
and doing it amazingly well. In our review of literature on merit pay, a consistent
requirement is that large numbers of people who are doing good work not feel
penalized. Meisenhelder added that there is no CFA position on scrapping the
whole process; it's too early. We have been labeled as being against merit,
but our position has been that any merit program has to be fair, understandable,
and consistent in its application.
Ghassan Tarakji asked Meisenhelder if, given that
Fair Share might increase revenues by two, would she double the budget or reduce
dues by half? Meisenhelder answered that she is against just slashing the budget,
which would make it impossible to do the things that a stronger union can do.
All faculty will receive a survey on directions for the CFA. The delegate assembly
did discuss the possibility of reducing dues, and the assembly voted to take
off a surcharge on the dues while also setting up a dues commission.
McKeon wondered if there is a likelihood of Fair Share legislation
being overturned. Meisenhelder answered that this type of bill has already been
legislated and tested legally.
Eunice Aaron commented, as a long-term dues paying
member of CFA, that what we want is strong organization representing us, reminding
us that the history of higher education is that management/administration concedes
nothing without a demand. Even the most well-intentioned senior administrator
sometimes faces pressures. Faculty need good, strong, reasonable representation;
a good start has been made, but special scrutiny is in order.
Meisenhelder responded that scrutiny comes with the territory
and rightly so. She added that over the years it has become very clear how hamstrung
CFA has been by the lack of resources. It takes more than exhortation and tongue-lashing
to create a strong union.
Agenda Item # 5 - Report on Year Round Operations
Gail Whitaker, Associate Vice President for Academic
Program Development, reported on Year Round Operations (YRO). She summarized
that campuses have been asked to look into YRO but that it is unclear whether
the legislature is completely committed, so we are proceeding with caution.
At SFSU, we have been funded for a task force for planning purposes, and we
are doing some of the following things: exploring what courses/programs lend
themselves best to YRO, that is, a state-supported summer session--programs
that meet the needs of students in special ways and that work best pedagogically
(e.g., teacher preparation). Such programs tend to be tightly constructed, have
cohorts, jobs after available, and the need to expedite time to degree. Another
cluster would be programs like Creative Arts that are facilities and equipment-heavy,
and near impaction with a potential summer market. The fieldwork in sciences
would lend itself well to a state-supported summer session. We do not want to
this unless students are paying comparable fees to fall and spring and have
the benefits of financial aid. We are surveying students to verify interest,
exploring particular issues that might make or break the deal for students.
We are also working with deans and department chairs to identify key faculty
who are already in YRO programs or potentially might be in, asking detailed
questions. Staff members are also being surveyed in order to explore infrastructure
and support issues. The size of commitment for next summer is modest: 60 annualized
FTE, which translates to 20-30 sections. Another major item is the conversion
of administrative systems, which is a big, complex task. In sum, we are treading
fairly carefully until there are better signals from the Chancellor's Office.
Wolfe asked why the task force membership isn't more
diverse in constituency. Whitaker responded that it's actually quite diverse
if you look across campus, but the intent was to use senior administrators to
show the Chancellor's Office that we are taking this seriously. She added that
surveys have reached 800-1000 students, and the process will become even more
broadly participatory for long-range.
Helen Goldsmith asked about proposed programs, especially
remediation. Whitaker commented that next summer is a shotgun approach where
we are trying a variety of things.
Neville Robbins asked about the relation between
summer session and retirement. Whitaker responded that the chancellor is looking
at this very big issue. In the short run, we have been assured that it will
be seen as a segment of what you're actually making. In the longer run, there
are exciting possibilities for flexibility in getting times off; the nightmare
is faculty governance.
Agenda Item #6 - Report from Interim Director for International
Programs Greta Glugoski
Interim Director for International Programs Greta Glugoski
outlined the work of the CSU Academic Council on International Programs, where
she is our representative. The CSU Academic Council on International Programs
is an advisory board that oversees system-wide international academic programs,
and it consists of three main committees: academic and fiscal affairs, faculty
affairs, and student affairs. The focus has been mainly on study abroad but
they also look at internationalizing the curriculum. The Council has also looked
at issues surrounding the CSU Office of International Programs, which lost its
director. There was discussion at various levels on whether to disband that
office in order to decentralize, but it was shown to be effective and efficient
in maintaining opportunities for studies abroad. The council also evaluates
CSU study abroad sites for a safe environment, high quality of academics, and
a rich cultural experience, paying attention, too, that fees are
equal to that on the campuses. They are developing a schedule to review every
program on a regular cycle. Glugoski reported that enrollment has grown bigger
than ever with 474 students abroad, 97 from SFSU, the highest from any CSU campus.
Neville Robbins commented that it seems like resident directors
are always department chairs. Glugoski responded that many have not been department
Agenda Item #7 - Proposal for the Bachelor of Science
in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Alfred Wong, Chair of the Curriculum and Approval Committee,
introduced this consent item.
Goldsmith asked whether the BA will remain a possibility
for students. Karen Grove answered that we want to keep the BA at this
point, but most of the students take the units for the BS, so we are considering
discontinuing the BA in the long run. Dean James Kelley asked that we
please note that it is a BA in science.
Ken Fehrman asked how many students are currently
in the program. John Monteverdi answered that there are 15 majors.
Marlon Hom asked about whether the emphasis of the
program is environmental protection or environmental exploitation. Monteverdi
replied that the purpose is to train atmospheric and oceanic scientists. There
is a common core and then several emphases tied to job potential in meteorology
M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to second reading.
Wolfe noted that previously meteorology was alone
and now they are forced to combine. Monteverdi responded that these are complementary
Abdiel OÃ±ate asked about the job market. Monteverdi
replied that it will be the same employers as now but with a repackaged major:
for example, the National Weather Service, the air quality management board,
the Environmental Protection Agency.
M/S/P (Fehrman, Edwards) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposed revision passed.
Agenda Item #8 - Proposed Changes to the Bachelor of
Arts Program in Political Science and the Minor Program in Political Science
Wong introduced this consent item from the Curriculum
Review and Approval Committee.
Jaymee Sagisi asked about how the status of classes
was determined, that is, how was core vs. elective status determined. Richard
De Leon, Chair of Political Science, explained that this is a continuing
process in consultation with related departments like International Relations.
M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to second reading.
Sagisi added that as a political science major she supported
the changes overall but she wanted to delay the process to involve students
since she was told that students were not part of the process. De Leon commended
the point but added that students were involved early on in developing this
proposal: the department surveyed students, worked with the political science
student association, and even had voting student membership on departmental
committees. Thus it would not serve the purpose of student involvement to delay
M/S/P (Sagisi, Wolfe) motion to refer proposal
back to committee.
Wolfe spoke on behalf of the motion stressing the importance
of student involvement, suggesting that it is worth revisiting in order to make
sure students have had time to discuss it.
Goldsmith commented that it seems as if what we would
be approving is not the specific courses but rather the skeleton framework.
Sagisi responded that there are a couple of things worth clarifying. Terrell
added that there the proposal is time-sensitive for bulletin copy.
Wong stated that there are students on CRAC, but both had
recently resigned because they had been re-assigned.
The vote on the motion to refer back to committee was taken
and the motion was not approved.
M/S/P (Duke, Hom) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposal passed.
Agenda Item #9 - Proposed Revisions to A.S. Policy #S89-160
University Policy on Temporary Faculty
Marlon Hom, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee,
introduced this discussion item. He summarized the state of university policy
on temporary faculty: the current policy was adopted in 1989. In 1997, there
was an adjunct committee on lecturers that made a report and a list of recommendations;
there are also new conditions on lecturer appointments in the current Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA). It is imperative that the Senate bring the policy
up to date, acknowledging the groundwork laid by the adjunct committee and the
work of Gerald West. Hom then summarized the major changes in the policy. FAC
deleted language or policies that are no longer in practice. The major change
is in defining different categories of lecturers based on time on campus. The
new policy also tries to spell out related issues of compensation.
Jan Gregory made the point that the language that
FAC has included in this policy about the two year contract does not mean that
long-term lecturers have anything that is like tenure. This language is only
as good as long as the current agreement lasts, and it does not provide the
security of employment that tenure does.
Sung Hu asked about the counting of one semester
as one year service, wondering if this means two semesters will count as two
years. Hom said no. Hu also asked if a two year appointment can be one semester
each year. Hom replied that his understanding is that some lecturers might be
hired for just one semester each year.
McKeon asked about the budget implications. If this
is approved, will the administration honor the program and department needs
to have the budget to implement this? Hom responded that there is no commitment
in terms of security of employment; it is all based on budget. The issue here
is that you cannot remove a lecturer and replace him/her with a new one at less
Carol Langbort asked about lecturers who are hired
as part of a grant. Hom said that he has not had the chance to raise this issue.
Langbort added that just last semester OSRP changed their procedures, changes
that have implications that need to be addressed.
Gregory commented that in essence the language is taken
directly from the CBA, which determines this as a policy issue. For us to pass
this is a reaffirmation. Were we to defeat the language here, they would still
be in effect because this is part of the CBA.
McKeon commented that as a coordinator she has to face the
problem of getting sued for not honoring lecture courses to be offered. She
would like a clear passage put in that this is something that we try to do but
may not due to budgetary problems, so coordinators are not subject to litigation.
Hom responded that FAC and the Executive Committee have discussed this issue,
which is the nightmare of all department chairs because tenure-track faculty
are a line item in operational expenditures with a salary per person whereas
for lecturers, chairs are given position money at the base level which does
not correspond to the actual salary. He added that the issue here is not the
policy, but it is for us to press upon the management to look at the budget
allocation for lecturers to resolve this perpetual problem.
The Senate was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Secretary to the Faculty