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
policy.
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management systems, a resolution which was rescinded and replaced with a resolution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
Teaching
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
committee.
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
committee.
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
concentration.
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
constituencies.
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
sheet.
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
product.
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
process.
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