Minutes: November 16th, 1999

SFSU Academic Senate

Minutes of November 16, 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; Concolino, Christopher;

Consoli, Andres; Cullers, Susan; Duke, Jerry; Edwards, James; Fehrman, Ken;

Ferretti, Charlotte; Ganji, Vijay; Gillotte, Helen; Goldsmith, Helen; Graham,

Michael; Gregory, Jan; Harnly, Caroline; Hom, Marlon; Hu, Sung; Hubler, Barbara;

Jerris, Scott; Johnson, Dane; Johnson, Sharon; Kelley, James; La Belle, Thomas;

Langbort, Carol; McKeon, Midori; Moallem, Minoo; Oñate, Abdiel; Raggio,

Marcia; Sagisi, Jaymee; Smith, Miriam; Terrell, M. Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Vaughn,

Pamela; Wick, Jeanne; Wolfe, Bruce; Wong, Alfred; Yee, Darlene; Zoloth, Laurie.

Senate Members Absent: Swanson, Deborah(exc.);

Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan(exc.); Craig, JoAnn(exc.); Strong, Rob(exc.); Gonzales,

Angela; Shapiro, Jerald; Elia, John(exc.); Eisman, Gerald; Tarakji, Ghassan(exc.);

Scoble, Don(exc.); Collier, James(exc.); Corrigan, Robert(exc.).

Guests: N. Robbins, R. Maghroori, D. Fendel,

M. Kasdan, M. Rivas, J. Kassiola, E. Pasaporte, P. Barnes, J. Huang, G. Manning,

G. Whitaker, C. Colvin, D. Tong, E. McQuown, J. Combs, J. Ganson.

Announcements and Report

  • During the Open Floor part of the meeting, Dan Fendel

    described CFA's "Asking 2000" campaign to gain new membership in the wake

    of the Fair Shair legislation, emphasizing that current or prospective departmental

    representatives should contact him.

  • Chair Terrell announced that there will be an

    additional Senate meeting on November 30th for one hour to discuss the FMI


Agenda Item #1 - Approval of the Agenda for November

16, 1999

As there were no additions or corrections, the agenda was

approved as printed.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of the Minutes for November

2, 1999

As there were no additions or corrections, the minutes were

approved as printed.

Agenda Item #3 - Report from Statewide Senators

Eunice Aaron spoke about the most recent Statewide

Senate session, summarizing the plenary session and the Fiscal and Government

Affairs Committee. The fullest discussion occurred around CMS, collaborative

management systems, a resolution which was rescinded and replaced with a resolution

on funding of technology, which asks Chancellor Reed to secure adequate funding

for technology needs without reallocating money from academic programs. They

also looked at intellectual property considerations, Channel Islands faculty

senate funding, and the draft library strategic plan.

Darlene Yee addressed the 25th CSU Academic Conference

at Asilomar, which was attended by a delegation from SFSU. CSU Academic Senate

Gene Dinelli addressed the conference theme: Managing Change in the CSU:

Learning from our Success. Breakout sessions included ten issues, and minutes

from this meeting are available: remediation, program transformation, aligning

the preparation for the major within the CSU system, integrating curricula for

teacher education working with K-12, ensuring gender equity under Title IX,

campus budget compacts, service learning and community service, faculty personnel

standards, and using technology for faculty development. Vice-Chancellor David

Spence stressed the following issues in his plenary address on the final day

of the conference: more communication to ensure the early involvement of faculty,

making the transfer process work better, setting the CSU agenda proactively

to be distinct from UC and community colleges, shared goals and understanding

each other. Regarding Cornerstones, Spence said that accountability is important

in terms of marketing and public relations for the CSU, and conveying to legislators

and our Board of Trustees the strengths of the systems.

Jan Gregory talked about the Faculty Affairs Committee

and one of the breakout groups at Asilomar. FAC focused on compensation issues,

especially the subject of changing workload in an atmosphere of tremendous change

in higher education more broadly. There was also a long Q&A session with

CFA President Susan Meisenhelder, which is indicative of a much better dialogue

at this level. Gregory also commented on the articulation session at Asilomar,

reporting that the discussion is not homogeneous, given tension between streamlining

the articulation process and campus autonomy, especially with regard to defining

major programs and preparation for the majors. Gregory also attended a presentation

on a brand new experimental personnel process at one campus.

Aaron added that CSU legislative days will be April 11-12

next year.

Agenda Item #4 - Elections

Graduate Council

The Academic Senate currently has a two-year vacancy (1999-20001)

on the Graduate Council.

The following people expressed interest in serving: Elisabetta

Nelsen (Foreign Languages and Literatures), Bradford Bennett (Kinesiology),

and John Glanville (Philosophy). Inderpal Grewal (Women Studies) was nominated

from the floor. John Glanville was elected.

Board of Directors for the Center for the Enhancement of


The Academic Senate currently has a two-year vacancy (1999-2001)

on the Board of Directors for the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching. Louise

Rehling (Technical and Professional Writing) and James Edwards (Design and Industry)

were nominated from the floor. Louise Rehling was elected.

Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Revisions to A.S. Policy #F93-133

Procedures for Faculty Participation in the Academic Program Review Process

Terrell introduced this consent item from the Academic

Program Review Committee, which is returning in second reading with an amendment

on the floor to add student representation to the committee.

Bruce Wolfe stated that students should sit on this


Dane Johnson proposed a friendly amendment to the

amendment to have the student representative serve in ex oficio capacity. This

amendment to the amendment was accepted by the author of the amendment, Jaymee

Sagisi. Johnson summarized that this amendment strikes a compromise between

the need for student representation and the burdens of report-writing on this


Jerry Duke, Chair of APRC, spoke against this amendment,

suggesting that having one more person on the committee would be a burden since

the committee is currently working very well together. He added that student

participation is already a part of the process. In committee, the process requires

a great deal of study and experience.

Yee spoke in favor of student inclusion as an ex

oficio member, suggesting that provisions be made for both undergraduate and

graduate perspectives.

Aaron spoke in favor of the amendment and student

participation on all committees, suggesting that we look at ways in which we

support shared governance. She commented that she understands the concern about

workload, but just as students handle what we assign them in class, they can

handle this committee work.

Helen Gillotte echoed Yee and Aaron's endorsement

of the recommendation that students be allowed on this committee, adding that

students who are given the needed information will meet that challenge and that

student perspective would be immensely valuable to the committee.

Duke reiterated his plea that senators vote against the

amendment to include students. Students are allowed on the committee in that

they are allowed in the room and to have the student allowed on the committee

as a token member is not full participation. The type of work that is done on

this committee is not work that students are prepared to do. Gillotte begged

to disagree with Duke, contesting that we are wanting a student for show. She

hopes that the student committee member will be a student who wants to serve

on the committee as a learning experience. At the departmental level, students

answer a few questions; we are asking that students be involved in a much more

essential way.

M/S/P (Goldsmith, Kelley) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the amendment that a student serve

on this committee ex oficio was passed 24 to 6 with 8 abstentions.

M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Revisions to A.S. Policy #S89-160

University Policy on Temporary Faculty

Marlon Hom, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC),

introduced this consent item that returns in first reading, commenting that

the Executive Committee and FAC have made changes from previous versions based

on the Senate discussion. He added that this is a very volatile issue not only

involving principle but also dealing with the sections of the Collective Bargaining

Agreement that address temporary faculty.

Terrell addressed comments from last week that dealt

with the philosophy of temporary faculty, pointing out that this policy does

not address such issues. FAC has tried to devise a policy that is current and

that provides for lecturers and all faculty a clear statement of what the rights

and opportunities are for lecturer faculty.

Laurie Zoloth spoke as a member of FAC, echoing the

concern over the large philosophical issues, encouraging people to think about

the larger discourse this campus needs about the mission of lecturers apart

from collective bargaining. The goal of FAC was focused on bringing things up

to date.

Jan Gregory commented that her sense of the revisions

is that they have addressed all of the concerns raised last time. She added

that it is important for the Senate to have its own language, its own framing,

of its understanding of the role of lecturers, and it's now time to take action

on this policy. While certain of the terms are created by CSU and CFA, like

"temporary faculty," that is in fact the term of art. She encouraged members

to pass this policy.

Mitch Turitz pointed to section 3.2 under qualifications,

section B, paragraph 2, on graduate students teaching, suggesting that a further

qualification be added to this that such student appointments will get the same

salary as regular temporary faculty.

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

Pamela Vaughn responded to Turitz's comment that

since this says "lecturer appointments" it addresses his concern since anyone

else would be a graduate teaching associate or GTA. Turitz responded that he

would like it clarified so that there is no ambiguity about it. He foresees

somebody saying that we're not going to hire a lecturer to teach this class

because we don't have the money so we'll hire a graduate student instead, taking

this paragraph to mean that they can hire graduate students but not necessarily

at the same rate of pay. Gregory pointed out that this sentence has been in

the temporary faculty policy for a hundred and ten lifetimes with the italicized

words marking the only changes. Hom commented that Turitz's suggestion is well-intentioned

but unnecessary. If a qualified student is appointed as a lecturer, their appointment

is based on the lecturer pay scale. If they are appointed as a GTA, which is

not a unit 3 faculty, it is beyond the reach of this policy.

M/S/P (Goldsmith, Gregory) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #7 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Three

Concentrations in the Bachelor of Arts Degree in Dance

Helen Goldsmith, Chair of the Educational Policies Council

(EPC), introduced this EPC consent item, first recalling the Senate approved

revisions to the B.A. in Dance from the last meeting, including changes to the

core and the addition of a generic emphasis. The department had been offering

three concentrations. In the MOU that resulted from the dance department's last

program review, it was concluded that a single degree in dance with informal

emphases would better serve students, making it possible to better meet students'

individual needs and to graduate in a more timely fashion. The proposed discontinuance

of specific concentrations will not eliminate any courses or affect students'

career options.

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

M/S/P (Kelley, Fehrman) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #8 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Master

of Science Degree in Accountancy

EPC Chair Goldsmith introduced this consent item,

first noting that the request for discontinuance came out of the program review

process. Although the M.S. in Accountancy was approved in 1995, its implementation

was suspended pending further study, due to the accrediting agency's concern

about the proliferation of degree programs. The plan was originally conceived

to respond to changing CPA requirements that were never adopted in California.

Since no students were ever enrolled in the program, this will not have any

deleterious effect on students.

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

M/S/P (Kelley, Duke) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #9 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Internal

Auditing Concentration in the Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration

EPC Chair Goldsmith introduced this consent item,

first noting that the request for discontinuance came out of the program review

process. The Concentration in Internal Auditing was established in the spring

of 1994 but never attracted enough students to warrant the continuation of the

concentration. The courses will still be offered and students will still be

allowed to study internal auditing as an informal emphasis within the Accounting


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

M/S/P (Jerris, Fehrman) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #10 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Real

Estate Concentration in the Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration

EPC Chair Goldsmith introduced this consent item,

first explaining that the Department of Finance has three concentrations: Finance,

Banking, and Real Estate. The focus of the department has changed in recent

years due to changes in faculty and trends in the field. Currently, virtually

every student double majors in Finance and Real Estate since no additional courses

are required to receive a degree in both. Thus, it makes sense for the department

to continue to offer the concentration in Finance, while students may take the

two courses in Real Estate as electives within the Finance major.

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

M/S/P (Jerris, Gillotte) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #11 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Resource

Specialist Certificate

EPC Chair Goldsmith introduced this consent item,

first noting that under current California Commission on Teacher Credentialing

requirements, all candidates for the Special Education Credential will be eligible

to work as Resource Specialists. Thus, a separate certificate is no longer necessary,

and all students who were enrolled in the program have completed the requirements.

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

M/S/P (Fehrman, Kelley) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #12 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Certificate

in Serious Emotional Disturbance

EPC Chair Goldsmith introduced this consent item,

first noting that the new credential structure in California certifies students

enrolled in the mild/moderate and moderate/severe disabilities education specialist

credentials to teach in settings for which the certificate in Serious Emotional

Disturbance previously trained students. Thus, the need for this certificate

program no longer exists. All the requirements for the certificate have been

integrated into the new credential program. Furthermore, this certificate program

was federally funded, and the funding is no longer available.

M/S/P (Edwards,Kelley) to second reading.

M/S/P (Edwards, Aaron) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #13 - Proposed Discontinuance of the Certificate

in Rehabilitation Teaching for the Blind

EPC Chair Goldsmith introduced this consent item,

first noting that this certificate was federally funded and the funding for

this five-year award has been terminated. Students can work with this population

by pursuing the orientation and mobility or visual impairments specialization

of the education specialist credential.

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

M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to close debate.

The vote was taken and the proposal was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #14 - Proposed Policy on Faculty Merit Increase

Marlon Hom, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC),

introduced this discussion item. The latest version has the same simple objective

as the earlier version: to create a policy so we can execute the Merit Pay Increase

program that is stipulated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that

was passed last May. There is a pot of money for the faculty, and we have to

figure out how to use it. The drafting of the current proposed policy has gone

through extensive consultation, including the CFA, Department Chairs, Deans,

the Administration, and the University Counsel. We are trying to adhere to the

CBA as closely as possible, but there are ambiguities in the agreement. We are

trying to create an FMI process that is conducive to the faculty, so that we

can live with each other over this issue of the distribution of money. We are

trying to establish a "sunshine policy" with the tracking sheet to make sure

that at each level the faculty will have at least the basic information about

what's going on. This is the fifth revision within the last two weeks; we want

constructive comments but please refer to the CBA so that we can work without

any deviation from the CBA.

Chair Terrell outlined the process and highlighted

two of the major changes. The latest version reflects further consultation than

the attached version. On p. 1 of the draft, 85% is now distributed to "departments

and colleges. In the previous paragraph, it states that the Office of Academic

Affairs will provide an "estimate" of the funds available. The changes that

the Executive Committee took into consideration are recommendations from various


Margo Kasdan spoke on behalf of the CFA, stating

their concern that the President comply with the contract on the past FMI process

that we just finished.

Scott Jerris focused on the word "merit," wanting

this document to highlight that this is a merit-based salary adjustment and

not a cost of living adjustment. He added that he is very happy to see teaching

as one of the stressed categories of review.

Provost La Belle made a few comments coming out of

Deans' recommendations, acknowledging that some of their suggestions had already

been incorporated into the current version. He addressed the issue of work assignment

under categories of review, noting that there is a bit of a bind with tenured/tenure-track

faculty in that their work assignment is normally "teaching, scholarship, and

service," but faculty can choose a different category. A second issue under

procedure: it says "Dean's Review" but that probably should be "recommendation."

In the next paragraph it indicates that faculty "may append a standard curriculum

vitae," but he would make it slightly more positive than that. La Belle also

addressed the following sentence: "Where there are non-departmental academic

units in the college, the college dean shall, in full consultation with these

academic units, form a special committee among representatives or heads of these

units to review and make recommendations to the dean." He commented that we

have a number of one person programs, which can cause a problem when you say

"among representatives or heads" so that you may be pulling the only individual

out of that unit to participate in the review process, which may not be possible

or sound. The deans suggested striking "among representatives or heads." La

Belle also addressed the tracking sheet, focusing on where the faculty receive

feedback as to why s/he is not being recommended for an FMI award, suggesting

that using the combinations can be confounding. Even though a faculty member

may apply in teaching, scholarship, & service, it would be better to be

specific about what category or categories led to being not recommended.

Terrell added that the Executive Committee tried to stay

close to contract language, which is why we used "Dean's review" and kept the

tracking sheet with the combinations.

Jan Gregory spoke to the tracking sheet, agreeing

with the Vice President, but suggested adding with "other" "please specify."

To address criteria, she read from the CBA, Article 31.7: "Faculty shall be

eligible for Faculty Merit Increases, pursuant to the provisions of this Article,

for demonstrated performance commensurate with rank, work assignment, and years

of service, for: a. the quality of the unit member's teaching alone; b. the

quality of the unit member's teaching and scholarship; c. the quality of the

unit member's teaching and service to the University and community; or d. the

quality of the unit member's teaching, scholarship, and service to the University

and community." The bargaining history would show that it was the intent of

the parties not to include the category that requires tenured/tenure-track faculty

to be evaluated on teaching, scholarship, and service. We may have to consider

whether in fact for most faculty the work assignment as such really includes

either research or service or whether we are confounding the RTP process with

work assignment.

Jerry Duke suggested under procedure that "standard

cv" needs to be explained. He agreed with La Belle on changes in the tracking


Darlene Yee suggested including a line on work assignment

on the tracking sheet, indicating if people are chairs or have assigned time

for doing other things. We might also include number of years of service. Percentage

rather than "amount" of award might be more helpful. She also suggested that

at college level we might have the option of a committee. Yee raised a question

about how the 85% is split. Hom clarified this, suggesting that there is a misunderstanding

because the President is in control of the total thing. He has the option of

using the 10% to award to whomever, and he will review the 85% and make the

decision on that. Gregory clarified further that the President makes the decision

based on the full 85%, not that he has control of it.

Mitch Turitz first agreed with the Provost on revising

the tracking form, especially on feedback. He added that he would like to see

something even more substantial, looking for something more like a narrative.

When the faculty have to fill out four pages justifying why they feel they are

entitled to an FMI, certainly they deserve more than a check in a box turning

them down.

Terrell commented on tenured/tenure-track review and the

Provost's comments. Some campuses have tried to limit tenured/tenure-track faculty

to category #4; however, contract language precludes limiting tenured/tenure-track

faculty to category #4. Hom added that money really corrupts, and he reminded

us to look at the following sentence: "A FMI shall be awarded to the faculty

on the quality of demonstrated performance commensurate with rank, work assignment(s),

and years of service." All the necessities for the peer review process are there.

Andres Consoli agreed with Turitz that the checklist

is inappropriate. Faculty have to write a narrative; decision should require

same. He added that he was troubled by the lack of mention of the President

on the tracking sheet. Hom explained that when the President gets hold of this,

he makes a decision and notifies the faculty member in writing. Terrell added

that following the departmental review, one will receive a copy of the procedures.

Consoli added that the letter from the President does not spell out the decision

with equal responsibility and an equal degree of specificity.

Duke commented that people who fill out FARs will think

it is an application.

Ken Fehrman raised a question abut rank/work assignment:

if you're full professor, does this mean you do more or less? Hom replied from

a Department Chair's point of view. This is a case where the department must

work together with the peer review process to determine what the department

wants and how to advance the program's needs with this carrot.

Jeanne Wick pointed out that at one point this form

did say application. She also asked if the original intent in using teaching

on all of the lines was to make sure that no one get merit pay without excellent

teaching. Hom said that we cannot do that; in the CBA there is an option for

those whose current work assignment is not in the above categories.

Caroline Harnly urged more detail on the tracking

sheet, adding that the President's letter did not really explain much. She also

suggested that department's/dean's "amount" be "recommended" since they are

not making the award.

Laurie Zoloth spoke as a "random senator" rather

than a program chair, commenting that the FAC goal was to take a relatively

thin account of the CBA and thicken it procedurally. There is much to be done

in terms of substantive justice issues. For procedural justice, let this be

an open process, let your case be as strong as possible, let every step be as

clear as possible with a chance to rebut at each stage. The substantive criteria

are not here, and at FAC we wanted to leave that at the first level of review,

the department. If this whole thing is supposed to work to make us cheerful,

good, meritorious academics, then the criteria have to be clear and open as

well. She added that it is clear that the intent of the bargaining language

is that everybody should be a great teacher but so should being a superb senate

chair or superb planet discoverer. The other problem, but we are limited by

the contract language, is that this is a snapshot of performance, and many of

our most interesting and most meritorious pieces of works are not snapshots

but kind of cinematic efforts that unfold across a longer process, so we need

to think about how we can be meritorious for your process and not just your


Terrell reminded us that we have six people left on the

speaker's list and two minutes, but on November 30th there will be a one hour

Senate meeting entirely devoted to discussion of the FMI draft.

Carol Langbort raised a concern about having the

recommendation from the chair and then dean; just getting figures there does

not mean much unless you know where they came from.

Hom put in his last word: please understand that this is

not a personnel process; try not to parallel the FMI program to the personnel


Terrell added that what will come to floor on the 30th will

be several iterations beyond today, so please check the Senate website for the

latest versions.

Respectfully submitted,

Dane Johnson

Secretary to the Faculty

Meeting Date (Archive)