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; Oñate, 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,

J. Valladares.

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.

Chair's Report

  • 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

5, 1999

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

and oceanology.

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 Oñate 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.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty