San Francisco State University Academic Senate
Minutes for October 20, 1998
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:00 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
Aaron, Eunice; Bernstein, Marian; Cancino, Herlinda; Cherny, Robert; Collier,
James; Consoli, Andres; Contreras, Rey; Corrigan, Robert; Craig, JoAnn; Cullers,
Susan; Duke, Jerry; Eisman, Gerald; Elia, John; Fehrman, Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte;
Fielden, Ned; Goldsmith, Helen; Graham, Michael; Graham, Minnie; Hammett, Jennifer;
Harnly, Caroline; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung; Jenkins, Lee; Jerris, Scott; Johnson,
Dane; Kelley, James; La Belle, Thomas; Montenegro, Ricardo; Moss, Joanna; OÃ±ate,
Abdiel; Phillips, Mark; Raggio, Marcia; Scoble, Don; Shapiro, Jerald; Shrivastava,
Vinay; Simeon, Roblyn; Strong, Rob; Tarakji, Ghassan; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz,
Mitch; Vaughn, Pamela; Wade, Patricia; Warren, Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope;
Wong, Alfred; Zieff, Susan; Zoloth-Dorfman, Laurie.
Senate Members Absent: Barnes, Paul(exc.); Choo, Freddie(exc.);
Verhey, Marilyn(exc.); Swanson, Deborah(exc.); Bartscher, Patricia; Ganji, Vijay;
Chen, Yu-Charn; Gonzales, Angela; Flowers, Will; Valledares, Juan; Vega, Sandra.
Senate Interns Present: Happy Dayleg, Marvin Dumon
Guests: G. West, P. McGee, C. Reed, R. Dahl, N. Rabolt, G. Whitaker,
J. Andreasen, A. Olivares, D. Masters, P. Saffold, F. McLaughlin, D. Tong, T.
Jones, R. Giardina, J. Randolph, M. Kasdan, T. Sampson, J. McIntyre, I. Goodfield,
E. McQuown, L. Madden, K. Monteiro, D. Schafer, J. Kassiola, L. Head, E. Williams,
B. Bennett, S. Johnson
Announcements and Report
Agenda Item #1 - Dialogue with Chancellor Reed
Chair Phillips introduced the Chancellor of the CSU system, Charles Reed.
Chancellor Reed commented that these campus visits were extremely valuable
to him for getting a sense of each campus. He added that we need to do everything
we can to let people know what a great system we have, and that he wants to
get the resources for us so we can continue that development.
Associated Students President Ricardo Montenegro asked what the plans
are for the CSU system to meet the technology needs of each campus while including
the voice of students and faculty now that CETI is dead.
Reed answered that he will be presenting a plan in the November board meeting,
which will take 3-4 years to implement. It's a more realistic plan than CETI;
it provides that all sectors of CSU will share in the development of the infrastructure
and operating costs of a technology plan. CETI was a plan based upon an assumption
that you can get something for nothing. Reed described the technology plan as
having several parts: 1) a $170 million investment from the capital side of
budget, which is dependent on Proposition 1a passing. If Proposition 1a does
not pass, we do not have a technology plan; 2) going back to the legislature
to request $25 million on a recurring basis to go into our base for technology;
3) ask CSU presidents to tighten their belts and see if $25-30 million can be
reallocated through productivity and savings. Reed added that if we begin the
process and have the infrastructure in place in a year or two, then we can promise
students universal access, 24 hour help desk service, access anytime and anyplace
to the web, digital libraries and electronic services; then, we might be able
to give students a better deal with a group system-wide purchase than what they
may be paying on their America OnLine bill.
Julian Randolph asked the Chancellor what he thinks about tenure.
Reed answered that he is a supporter of tenure, but that we have to explain
to the public from an accountability standpoint the importance of tenure. He
added that we can improve our tenure procedures by asking faculty and institutions
to look at criteria that they are using to award tenure, making sure that those
criteria are supportive of the direction the university wants to go in. Reed
also said that we need to put in place a good post-tenure review program that
includes a financial reward system for going through post-tenure review. He
addressed rumors worrying about his views on tenure, explaining that he tried
an experiment at Florida Gulf Coast University with faculty on three and five
year continuing contracts. He added that the great thing about universities
is that you can experiment, try things out, fail, modify, and make them better.
Jan Gregory whether the Chancellor had any objections to better job
security for temporary faculty.
Reed answered that he has no objections to better job security for other parts
of the faculty, and he outlined an experiment that might give them additional
security: figure out what the right mix is of tenure-earning faculty members
and make these other faculty members ranked faculty members with three or five
year continuing contracts, giving them the same benefits that our other faculty
have and making them a real part of the departments.
Montenegro commented that we cannot experiment with the education of students.
He added that students are here for a higher education, and this is only possible
with a faculty and staff who support the students. Montenegro suggested that
faculty need adequate compensation in order to teach their best. He also expressed
great concern about the possible effects of a strike on students.
Reed responded that he wants to see us provide the students the very best faculty
and programs that we can and that he hopes students will experience some experimentation
as part of the learning process.
Marian Bernstein asked Reed to help us understand why Presidents and
assistants have received very nice pay increases but not faculty.
Reed answered that he wants to see that happen for faculty. He explained that
he inherited two different things when he came here: a gap in Presidential pay
of 33.3% below national average of comparable institutions, with the board deciding
to close that gap over a three year time; and an 11.2% faculty salary gap against
those same institutions. Reed said that he committed to close that gap over
a three year period of time and that he will recommend an amount that will include
a 6% increase in faculty salaries in the next CSU budget to the State Legislature.
Pamela Vaughn asked Reed to comment on the status of the Cornerstones
Reed answered that he is interested in a consulting process with all CSU faculty,
Presidents and Faculty Senates to look at a draft of an implementation program
for Cornerstones. He believes it will take five to seven years to implement
but would like to have a plan in place by this Spring. The Cornerstones draft
plan should be sent to everybody so that all faculty and all institutions can
take a look at it and begin the dialogue so that recommendations can be made
by the middle of January.
Abdiel OÃ±ate expressed concern among faculty about changes in
the university and negotiations on the collective contract and salary increases.
He asked Reed to comment on CFA filing for unfair labor practices over money
appropriated for salaries.
Reed answered that he should not bargain here and that he wants to get a fair
agreement also. Reed explained that he went to Sacramento and asked the Governor
to appropriate additional funds for faculty salaries; in August, the Governor
said that he would veto that if you do not have an agreement, but Reed talked
him out of that, saying that we would get an agreement and it would be fair.
Roberta Bennett commented that she fully supports Reed's notion that
we need to educate the public better on the meaning of tenure. She asked Reed
if next year's proposed 6% faculty salary increase next year is intended as
a pool of salary funds or an across the board raise.
Reed answered that he does not see it as an across the board raise; he sees
it as a pool of funds to be used at the institutional level to provide step
increases, general service increases, and performance pay.
Bennett asked how, given that approach, we will reach 11% parity.
Reed answered that there has been a misunderstanding about the 11% parity.
He explained that the 11% comparison is a down the column to the right bottom
line number: it's the amount of money that we need to put into faculty salaries,
not the amount that we need to put into an individual's salary. If we put in
$58 million that gap would go from 11.2% to a 5-6% gap, and then if we get 6%
total the gap would drop again.
Tim Sampson commented that Reed challenged the CFA to come up with a
merit pay plan, and CFA came up with one and put it on the table, only
to have the Chancellor's negotiators declare a bargaining impasse. He added
that we have not had the benefit of serious negotiations on the CFA plan and
that the Chancellor's plan is worse than the PSSI's but sits there waiting to
be implemented in the case that we do not reach any agreement. Sampson asked
Reed if he is willing to negotiate a fair merit pay plan.
Reed answered that he is willing to negotiate a fair performance merit pay
plan. He explained that one of the problems in the old plan was that not enough
faculty members were rewarded. He wants to award two to three times the number
of faculty members with merit pay. He thinks that the faculty should come up
with the criteria through the Faculty Senates and that we ought to have a peer
review system that begins at the lowest level in the departments with a university
wide committee to keep it open. Reed added that this plan will work over a period
of time and that he wants to make it fair and he wants people to have confidence
Sampson commented that the faculty perception is that Reed wants to add money
to the failed PSSI system because his bargaining team has been unwilling to
negotiate on the details of merit pay, even though Reed has presented interesting
ideas in letters to the faculty. Sampson asked Reed to engage in a process to
work on a decent merit pay proposal that would address the concerns beyond just
the money. He added that the notion of just adding money to the PSSI's is anathema
to this faculty.
Reed answered that he did not disagree, that he wants to see the PSSI's go
away, and that he is willing to do that.
Marlon Hom asked Reed share his vision of multicultural education.
Reed answered that one of the things that attracted him to come to California
was the diversity and mission of CSU. He explained that the mission is to provide
as much access as possible in an affordable way with as high a quality as possible
to an extremely diverse student body. He added that as a majority minority institution
system-wide, CSU has to build on that because that is what America is going
to look like in 2025, so we can provide insights to other institutions across
the country if we maintain our priorities.
Jerry Duke asked Reed about the relationship of merit pay to the
promotion process and how he sees merit pay system relating to lecturers.
Reed answered that he would like to keep the merit pay system separate from
the promotional pay system. He explained that since promotion only happens twice
in a professor's life, you need some significant financial recognition, which
just ought to occur when promotion occurs. He added that there should be some
adjustment with the cost of living and recognition for performance with a person
being promoted possibly getting three pieces of a salary increase at the same
time. Reed said that at the full professor level there is not a way to award
professors the way we do with other promotions, so, those who go through a post-tenure
review process ought to get some financial reward, which would probably happen
every six or seven years.
Reed answered that for lecturers, he would like departments and colleges to
figure out how many tenure-earning faculty members they need and then make adjuncts
and lecturers ranked members and real parts of the departmental family. They
would be awarded when they are promoted and awarded on performance, and they
would get the same benefits as other faculty members. The only difference is
that they would not be in a tenure-earning situation, but would be on a long-term
three to five year continuing contract.
Herlinda Cancino asked Reed what his stand is on the bilingual CLAD
teaching credential program in our state system given the passage of Proposition
Reed commented that in coming to California he was surprised that people think
they can legislate or put into the constitution things that don't belong there.
He answered that Proposition 227 is not the best way to work with children.
He explained that because of the unique language problems that California has,
we need to prepare our teachers to work in a completely different classroom
than what some of these folks thought.
Gerald Eisman addressed faculty intellectual property. He explained
that there was a memorandum of understanding in last year's contract that CSU
does not waive the right to any product of faculty in regard to on-line course
delivery. This year we are being asked to increase the FTF's of the university
using a variety of mechanisms, including on-line courses. Eisman asked Reed
about his stance on intellectual property, wondering if Reed thought that it
was right for faculty to take years of work and put it into an electronic format
and possibly lose control of this.
Reed answered that he does not know a lot about this issue. He added that if
we move toward more distance education and use of technology, then 1) we have
to protect the intellectual property rights of faculty members, and 2) we have
to figure out some fair way of sharing between faculty and the institution based
upon figuring how much time and support was paid for by the state and how much
the faculty member invested on their own and what that might be worth so that
the institution, faculty member, and department all share.
Robert Cherny asked Reed to elaborate on his statement that CSU should
compete with the University of Phoenix. Cherny added that he is anxious about
that because he thinks of Phoenix as just a stage or two above a diploma mill,
and they do not consider themselves a liberal arts university.
Reed answered that he does want to compete with Phoenix because he wants all
of their students coming to CSU. He explained that he does not want there to
be any reason why those students would want to go to National and Phoenix, and
right now there are reasons why those students pay a lot of money to go there.
Reed said that we need to organize when, where, and how we're offering our courses
and degree programs -- the price at CSU is right if we can do the other things.
He added that the quality here is about one hundred times better than there.
Scott Johnson commented that faculty are fighting for a contract, and
we have 50% non-tenured, and then we have a bloated administration with high
salaries who are unwilling to bargain in good faith. Johnson asked Reed if he
would be willing to take a pay freeze or cut along with other administrators
in the CSU system in order to give the faculty the kind of wage raise they need,
get more full-time tenure positions, and give students more classes.
Reed answered that he wants students to get the classes they need when they
need them, and he would like to be able to offer courses when classroom teachers
in the public schools need them so that they would not go to these other institutions.
He added that he did not come here to bargain, that he wants a fair contract,
and that it makes him feel better when faculty are happy and morale is better
and faculty are trying to figure out how to offer all of the sections students
need to graduate.
Penelope Warren asked Reed if he wanted to elaborate on or rephrase
the statement where he recognized the high work load of faculty but also said
that he thought faculty could do more.
Reed answered that he comes from an ethic, a family, where his parents always
said he could do more or work harder, and he thinks everybody could do that.
He explained that he made a statement about the teaching load being very high
in CSU and that we need to look at where we can get the resources and do something
about that, putting in place a faculty development program. He added that if
we are going to ask faculty to implement Cornerstones and use technology in
a different way, his guess is that everybody will end up working harder but
maybe enjoying it more.
Reed closed by saying that he respects our opinions, and he respects the differences
that we have, and he wants it to come out so that we all feel that we have accomplished
something to improve CSU and SFSU specifically.
Agenda Item #2 - Chair's Report
Phillips reported on what had been discussed at the Statewide meeting of Academic
Senate Chairs on October 8-9. They discussed collective bargaining, but not
much that we haven't heard.
Phillips reported that they also spent a lot of time talking about Cornerstones.
They specifically asked for more time for campus discussion, and there will
be more about Cornerstones in the weeks to come.
Phillips summarized two key areas in the Cornerstones implementation plan:
1) assessment, which our campus is already dealing with; and 2) articulation
of requirements across campuses within subject areas. Phillips explained that
the basic question is what happens if somebody transfers from another campus
to SFSU and they have taken courses in their major. There are all sorts of complexities
related to this, and how it can best be done, and how you can balance out having
some minimal requirements and having some articulation without having to have
all programs across the system as exact replicas of each other.
Phillips added that there is also a question regarding the unit requirement
The Chairs also noted that funds for faculty development need to be a primary
area of concern.
The Chairs had a two hour Q&A with CSU Academic Affairs Vice-Chancellor
David Spence. Phillips reported that he was impressed and that Spence was a
very good listener. Phillips is looking into arranging a visit for Spence to
meet with the Senate Executive Committee and the Academic Senate.
Agenda Item #3 - Approval of Agenda for October 20, 1998
As there were no objections, the agenda was approved as printed.
Agenda Item #4 - Approval of Minutes for October 6, 1998
As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as
Agenda Item #5 - Report from Statewide Senators
Robert Cherny reported on behalf of our Statewide Academic Senators.
There was a highly unusual plenary session in October where two political statements
were made: first, to endorse Proposition 1a, which provides a lot of
money to build buildings; and second, to oppose Proposition 8.
Phillips asked Cherny to say a bit more concerning Propositions 1a and 8.
Cherny explained that proposition 1a provides a $9.2 billion bond issue with
$2.5 billion for higher education, which is crucial for the CSU infrastructure.
Proposition 8 is a Governor Wilson initiative that does a lot of things, and
you need to read it very closely. It has icing on top in the form of a reduction
in class size in grades 1-3, but there is a lot of stuff going on beneath, including
the creation of a chief inspector for the public schools, which would usurp
the authority of the elected superintendent of public instruction by creating
this other official. Another thing it does, which seems to go in the opposite
direction of this incredible degree of centralization, is to empower teacher-parent
councils to determine curriculum at each individual school site.
Phillips commented that Proposition 8 is one of the scariest propositions that
he has seen, in part because of the sugar-coating.
Eisman raised concerns about articulation discussions based on his experience
with the California articulation system and seeing how rapidly curriculum changes
throughout the university. He asked Cherny what is being discussed in terms
of a common curriculum.
Cherny explained that the problem is being defined in the following manner:
a student enters community college intending to transfer to a CSU campus; s/he
takes lower division courses and prerequisites for that major and then decides
to transfer to a different CSU campus, discovering that those courses have no
value whatsoever for the major at that other campus. Cherny commented that his
sense is that it's not as big a problem as it's made out to be. Cherny surveyed
his discipline and found that there is a wider range of lower division courses
for history than what he would have anticipated, but in practice people are
accepting what is more or less equivalent. Cherny added that he thinks the Statewide
Academic Senate will probably endorse the as yet unwritten Chancellor's office
proposal to bring together representatives from across the system to discuss
this problem on a discipline by discipline basis and to see if they can arrive
at some way to eliminate any potential student problems of this sort.
Agenda Item #6 - Report from the Committee on Committees
Dane Johnson, Chair of the Committee on Committees (COC), provided background
on the work of COC. COC receives annual reports from each of the committees
that has the charge to respond to the Academic Senate. COC reads, summarizes,
and comments on the work of the committees with recommendations summarized in
the Executive Summary of the report.
Phillips commented that COC's work is extremely important. COC picks
up on trends in committees and tries to take a careful look at each of the reports
and identify areas where we need to say more than just that you did a good job.
Phillips also introduced the members of the committee: the two at-large members
of the Executive Committee, Pamela Vaughn and Penelope Warren, the Vice-Chair
of the Senate, Dawn Terrell, the Chair of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate,
and Robert Cherny.
Randolph raised questions about the on-going unresolved tension between
the Graduate Council and the Academic Senate and about difficulties that the
committee may not have expressed in their review of the University Promotions
Committee (UPC) report.
Johnson explained that he could not speak to the history of the Graduate Council/Senate
tension, but that this year it was more an attempt to summarize and adjudicate
the tension in a way that might be productive rather than just continuing battles
without talking. He asked Randolph to restate the second question.
Randolph explained that he found the review of the UPC report to be a bit curious.
He added that he found the following detail to be of particular interest: the
percentage of people who are eligible for promotion by time in rank but who
did not go up for promotion.
Johnson explained that that point was included in part precisely because it
is not UPC's job to foreground that in their report, but COC felt it was so
important coming out of their data that it was worth highlighting in some fashion.
Phillips added that we wrestled with what was a long, complex report to try
to identify what we perceive as extremely important areas that need to be highlighted.
M/S/P (Vaughn/Fehrman) to accept the report.
Duke asked why this report has to be approved by the Senate.
Phillips answered that given that we are commenting on other people reports
and that there is lots of room to make misinterpretations, people need to be
given the opportunity to accept the report.
Randolph commented that the report ends with recommended actions and that unless
the Senate endorses the report those actions have no more value than the paper
they are printed on.
Dawn Terrell asked that we commend Johnson for shepherding us through this
The vote was taken and the report was accepted unanimously.
Agenda Item #7 - Proposed Revision to Academic Senate Policy #S81-18 Leaves
Phillips reminded the Senate that this was originally an action item, and the
Executive Committee and Faculty Affairs decided to bring this back as a discussion
item because of its complexity.
Marlon Hom, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC), provided background
on the issue of leaves with pay. The current policy was adopted in 1981, and
it has served faculty well for equitable distribution of sabbatical slots for
each college. The original policy was based on a funding formula from the CSU
Chancellor's office with a specific budget earmarked for faculty leave; however,
the current funding formula is no longer the same, with no specified budget
for sabbaticals since the 1990s. At SFSU the minimum number of awards used to
be 27, which used 1991 as the basis, while there are over 200 faculty eligible
annually. Since the funding formula changed, the SFSU President's office has
made available more than 27 slots annually. Since 1991, there has been an average
of 29 awards from an average application pool of 56 with the average success
rate at 52%. Hom added that there has been another change since the mid-1990s:
the distribution of the awards is no longer college-based as stated in the principles
of distribution section in the current faculty manual. Instead, all applicants
are reviewed and then ranked by the college review committee but the distribution
formula to grant sabbatical awards among colleges is based on Presidential action.
Given these changes in both number of awards and the decision-making process,
FAC has been asked to make appropriate revisions to the current policy to address
any discrepancies between actual practice and the stated policy.
Hom explained that the purpose today is for FAC to hear from the faculty at
large and to know specifically how the section on principals of distribution
can be revised to make policy current and responsive to faculty. Hom added that
Provost La Belle and Dean Gerald West are present to answer or
clarify questions that the committee cannot address.
Randolph commented that Hom very nicely resumed what has happened in
falling down the slippery slope of practice impinging on policy. Randolph recalled
that the previous funding system fell apart during budget difficulties but that
as recently as 1995, as evidenced by a memo from Dean West, the university was
following equitable distribution while the funding was being done centrally.
Randolph reminded everybody of something from the contract that this campus
has tried in a moderate degree to observe: it is the intent of both parties
that all individuals who are eligible for sabbaticals and who fulfill the other
requirements and criteria be funded. He added that we've never really looked
at sabbaticals that way, but the intent has been that there be no more than
a year's delay between being recommended for sabbaticals and the taking of a
sabbatical. Randolph commented on the Chancellor mentioning faculty development,
suggesting that it would be interesting to keep the pressure on that level so
that we are able to live up to what both CSU and faulty want to have happen.
He concluded that we should not delude ourselves into believing that it's the
faculty who have the final say when everyone knows that it is the President
who awards leaves with pay, but he urged us to engrave on a metal plate the
following statement from the American Association of University Professors:
"the governing board and President should on questions of faculty status, as
in other matters where the faculty has primary responsibility, concur with the
faculty judgement except in rare instances and for compelling reasons which
should be stated in detail."
Caroline Harnly commented that she hopes we can find a way to continue
equitable distribution across the colleges, which is the only way to ensure
that those from small colleges get fair treatment.
Pamela Vaughn asked why the change in source of funding would automatically
lead to inequitable distribution.
Phillips differentiated two things: the issue of equitable distribution and
the issue of distribution by college. The data looks relatively equitable, but
the process is significantly different than what the policy indicates, and there
is an issue of distribution by colleges that is required as opposed to it working
out that way.
Phillips added a couple of comments to define the problem: it's a zero sum
game in terms of the amount of money that is available. The issue of whether
funds should be available so that we don't have heavy competition for leave
with pay is a collective bargaining issue. We have by definition a competitive
situation because of the limited funds, and with a competitive situation, you
have issues about the basis of competition: do you have competition just within
colleges or do you have one that goes across campus that is not college based,
which is de facto what has taken place the last few years.
Laurie Zoloth-Dorfman commented that she is struggling with what the
aspirational goals should be around sabbaticals and what standards we might
use to measure ourselves. She added that her understanding is that at many places
one gets a sabbatical after a certain amount of time served.
Cherny commented that the issue of equity is an important one for faculty.
He added that the fact that the funding comes from another place might lead
us to revise this section but perhaps not eliminate the principles. He suggested
redrafting this section as follows: each year the University Budget Committee
would establish a number of sabbatical leaves to be granted and then follow
a principle of equitable distribution among colleges, holding a few in reserve
for the vice-president to use in unusual circumstances where there are not enough
allocated to a college but there are some very strong proposals.
Cherny also addressed a minor point, where it says in the policy that under
normal circumstances faculty members going on leave shall vacate their office.
He suggested that this was a relic from the mid 1980s and that it is now time
to reverse this so that under normal circumstances, faculty do not vacate their
Jim Kelley spoke to the history of the policy: this particular section
of the policy was introduced to the deans first, and he argued against it at
the time and will continue to argue against it. Kelley explained that the distance
that we need to go is not from 30 to 70 because there are always a number of
proposals that are deemed unworthy of funding by the committee. He added that
he liked Julian's idea of using faculty development funds to increase the numbers,
and it is probably a reachable goal if we think carefully about how to do it,
but he is opposed to a kind of rote, pro rata system that allocates them irrespective
of a judgement of quality of proposals across colleges.
Lee Jenkins wondered how this policy evolved so that it was changed
without faculty input.
Gerald West answered that the changes are not as capricious as they appear.
He explained that around 1993-94, there were serious problems as to how some
deans misused the process, and faculty would call and say that they were discouraged
in applying for sabbaticals. Within that interim, the process of funding sabbatical
changed to the general budget, and the conversation went something like the
deans wanting Academic Affairs to keep the money but with the deans making the
decision, and it shifted back to Academic Affairs saying that if it kept the
money it would make the decisions. West recalled that he presented this to the
Senate, and it laid dormant for four years, but he would like to spend his energy
on where we go from this day forward, what we are going to do to fix this policy.
Harnly commented that she did not think that distribution has been equitable
and that in the past librarians at SFSU have done better than at other CSU campuses
only because of the policy of equitable distribution. Harnly added that there
is a difference of opinion amongst the colleges about what is an appropriate
sabbatical project and that in the library there is a feeling that applied research
is much more important than original research.
Phillips commented that Cherny's proposal was an interesting one, providing
some guarantee that there is a degree of control that the individual unit has
over the process, but with some flexibility beyond that.
Provost La Belle summarized some of the points. The record indicates that even
though the system was centralized in terms of awards, the following can be observed:
approximately the same applicant/award ratio has remained, and the number of
sabbaticals has increased with distribution remaining relatively the same. Although
practice is not in line with policy, practice has not changed the effect of
what the policy intended.
La Belle also raised a more conceptual issue: research universities treat sabbatical
as a right more than a privilege, which enables the department/college to plan
curricula, student advisement, and enrollment, especially at the doctoral level.
La Belle argued that what really upsets us is that we can't plan, and he finds
that unfortunate, but the truth is that we are getting twice as many applications
as there are opportunities. La Belle also addressed the quality side of the
equation. He estimates that if we're getting 60 and funding 30, we could probably
use funding for 45 but not for 60. La Belle added that his problem with Cherny's
approach is that it leads us back to a guarantee, and Gerry West says there
are some units where they cannot use the guarantee, which suggests a centralized
committee to build more peer review process in. La Belle suggested some language
that would say that we strongly encourage the administration to add additional
opportunities annually, and we strongly encourage that the peer review process
be honored, and we strongly recommend that the distribution across units reflect
the total faculty in those units.
Phillips closed by saying that FAC has certainly received a lot of ideas, and
they now face the task of coming up with a policy that will please us all.
The Senate was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Secretary to the Faculty