Academic Senate Meeting Minutes 12/9/2014



Tuesday, December 9, 2014



2:00 – 5:00 p.m.



OPEN FLOOR PERIOD:  2:00 - 2:10 p.m.

The Open Floor Period provides an informal opportunity for faculty members to raise questions or make comments directed to Senate officers or to university administrators.  Please arrive promptly at 2:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER: 2:10 p.m.


AGENDA ITEM #1—Approval of the Minutes for November 18 2014


Minutes approved.


AGENDA ITEM #2—Approval of the Agenda for December 9, 2014


Agenda approved.


AGENDA ITEM #3—Chair’s Report


  • Welcome back to Angela Sposito!
  • Update on Events

    • 2015 Teach to Learn, Thursday January 22, 2015, 9-5:30. Further announcements forthcoming. Thanks Sacha Bunge and Jennifer Summit for putting this together.
  • Basketball- Faculty and Staff Appreciation, 5PM, Don Nasser Family Plaza, Friday, Dec. 12th. Get your Purple ON!
  • Strategic Plan will be distributed in mid-December.
  • Faculty Trustee Stepanek will be here February 3-4, 2015.
  • Appreciate the work the Senate has done this fall, and today’s agenda is reflection of all of our hard work.


AGENDA ITEM #4—Report: Provost Rosser—Annual Update on Results of Faculty Hiring for 2014-2015


  • Great news about the $17M grant from Leticia Marquez and her co-PI’s! Signifies the best of SFSU, outstanding research and encouraging underrepresented groups to the Biosciences. UCSF our partner in this; this time, they have the subcontract, and we’re the lead!
  • Began the academic year welcoming 36 new colleagues. We avoided layoffs by not filling positions, management by attrition, not the best way to go. Fewer faculty and more students= more lecturers. 906 lecturers, increasing by more than 100 people since 2011, and almost 300 more from 2009. Total number of faculty 1,677, from low of 1,506 in 2009. Lecturers represent a headcount and not FTE.
  • Hired no TT in 2009, 21 in 2011, 27 in 2012, 31 in 2013, and 36 in 2014. We are falling behind in TTT faculty, from 784 in 2013; 17 resignations, 29 FERPS or retirements, and 2 in terminal year. Hired 36 but lost 48, net loss of 12 this year. Continuing to count the 15 who entered FERP in 2014.
  • 2009-10, and 2010-11, still had 8 colleges, last three years down to 6 colleges.
  • Chancellor White has made hiring TT faculty as his number one priority last January. Let’s see if it still holds this year. Our tenure density is just above that of the CSU. Still constrained budget situation. Left the money from retirements, resignations and deaths within the colleges; let 42 searches go, and in addition, using the IDC money for the first two years, allowed two cluster hires with 5 TT faculty. Hopefully this will yield 47 new TT faculty. We are committee to doing strategic hires rather than replacement hires. Hoping the 42 searches plus the cluster hires plus new Dean of COSE search will result in new colleagues.
  • Tenure and Promotions Data

    • Not on iLearn. [Let’s take questions while we wait for next presentation]:

      • Sen. Yee-Melichar- reviewed figures in PowerPoint, shows that all campuses not meeting recommendation from ACR 73, calling for 75% full time to 25% part time faculty. Will there be opportunities to speak to academic sustainability?

        • Multiple year hiring pattern important to sustaining our curriculum. Ron Cortez wanted to do a five-year plan, what’s our ideal to get back on track and improve? Asked for additional 150 net TT hires over five years. 30 net positive per year for five years. Budget has not been there to let more searches. Missed enrollment target this year, over $300M penalty to us. Structural deficit also out there. Haven’t wanted to go further in deficit or layoffs. Do need to hire, and ask Strategic Planning folks to consider that in the final plan, balancing that with other needs of the university.
      • Sen. Hanley- question about the numbers and the tenure density. Also, pattern of new hires since 2011, how does that compare to rest of CSU?

        • SLO gets $3K per student a year in SSF’s. If we had that, we’d be able to hire a lot more TT faculty. Other campuses getting $300 per student in fees, and would make a large difference to us if we had that. We get less than other campuses for marginal costs, which is problematic. We are not able to deliver the kinds of services we need to be giving our students.
      • Sen. Wilczak- elaborate on strategic hires?

        • Most of our loss is through retirements. Suggests that person received their training and degree a long time ago and the field may have moved in different direction. You may not want to replace that person or go in a new direction or new interdisciplinary area. Not possible to talk about replacement hires!
      • Sen. Boyd- strategic hiring, relation to slides on attrition. Does data on attrition by college help you think about hiring?

        • If you just look at the numbers, you won’t understand how colleges have been differentially impacted. Ask Deans to come up with their prioritized lists by asking college chairs and faculty; college comes up with list, Provost and President look at lists and pay attention to where losses are, but it’s not a one to one match.
      • Sen. Bettinger- these statistics are depressing. One glimmer of hope is cluster hires. Are there more creative efforts? What about the 100 game changers? Those were supposed to be on top of regular hiring.

        • This is the President’s question to answer.
      • Sen. Davila- where does diversity and outreach enter the process?

        • Officially, HR keeps those numbers, but Provost talks to deans about diversity, and Sacha Bunge and Ann Sherman have been more proactive with search committees to ensure diversity. Went to almost all departments that are hiring this year to talk about diversity, and developing a good pool, etc. Asked all the deans to stop searches if there’s not a sufficiently diverse pool of applicants or interviewees.
      • Sen. Ganji- research impact on teaching?

        • Some people buy out a course or year or semester, and then hire lecturers with those funds. Jaylan Turkkan has noted that there is a decrease in research funding that correlates with decrease in numbers of TT faculty. No curriculum development, service to the university, grant funded research has to do with reduction in TT faculty.
      • Sen. Hanley- are coaches and counselors included?

        • No. Librarians are counted in the numbers. Haven’t hired librarian since Provost has been here.
  • Tenure and Promotion Review 2013-2014

    • These data don’t include faculty from the library. Slide shows highlight consistency in UTPC, Provost and President. Last year, 64 cases were reviewed at upper level; fewer than previous years. Only two individuals in the process where UTPC made different recommendation than administration. One case, positive, one case negative! Of the 64, 30 considered for tenure at normal time, 29 recommended, 28 yes. Three early tenure, UTPC recommended yes for one of the three. 26 considered for promotion to associate professor, yes for 21 on UTPC, yes for 22 from President and Provost. 5 early promotions to associate rank, yes for 4 unanimously. 27 applicants for full professor, yes for 26 on that. 3 early promotions for full, yes on two of the three.
    • Questions? None.



AGENDA ITEM #5—Report: CSU Senators- Collins and Yee-Melichar


  • Six resolutions passed at last ASCSU meeting. See Power Point presentation on Senate iLearn site for details on the resolutions.


AGENDA ITEM #6—Recommendation from the Curriculum Review & Approval Committee: Proposed Graduate Certificate in Ethnic Studies, 1st Reading—no later than 3:00p.m. - Sen. Wilczak


  • Unanimously approved moving this to Senate floor. Doesn’t entail changes in curricula, relies on courses already there, no additional resources, provides options for community to go into certificate program without going into full master’s degree.

    • Sen. Watanabe- Signed letter from Education Dean, wanted to make sure there was no language on educator education in the proposal.
    • Amendment- Motion to insert sentence Line 82, after “For their current teachers”, to not include language on training of teachers. Graduate college of education needs to be involved if you’re talking about training teachers. “This certificate is not intended for teacher training”; add to line 82. Motion carries!
    • Vote- Proposal carries.



AGENDA ITEM #7—Recommendation from the Curriculum Review & Approval Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Minor in Sexuality Studies, consent item (3:20p.m.)- Sen. Wilczak


Consent item, accepted without objection.


AGENDA ITEM #8—Recommendation from the Curriculum Review & Approval Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Minor in LGBT Studies, consent item (3:30p.m.)- Sen Wilczak


Consent item, accepted without objection.


AGENDA ITEM #9—Recommendation from the Educational Policies Council: Proposed Indicators and Standards of Program Success for the 7th Cycle of Academic Program Review, 2nd Reading- Sen. Gerber


  • Moved to second reading. EPC met last week to revise standards incorporating comments received from Senate floor.
  • No discussion- move to vote.
  • Proposal approved unanimously.


AGENDA ITEM #10—Recommendation from the Strategic Issues Committee: Proposed Revisions to the University Mission Statement, 1st Reading- Sen. Vasche


  • Moved to first reading again.
  • Use of quotations around first paragraph should have been stricken, it’s an oversight that they’re in there.
  • Sen. Robertson- concerned that of the entire three paragraphs in the mission statement, the first part in quotations will be the one that’s picked up.
  • Sen. Hackenberg- suggestion that we change the beginning preposition from “from” to “at”.
  • Sen. Collins- question on last paragraph, why say “workplace” and not “society”?
  • Sen. Trogu- spell out SFSU in first paragraph.
  • Sen. Carleton- “to break down traditional boundaries”, use barriers and not boundaries?
  • Mission statement will go back to committee, and brought back to Senate in second reading later in the year.


AGENDA ITEM #11—Recommendation from the Student Affairs Committee: Title IX addition to the University Syllabus Policy, 1st Reading- Sen. Mendolla


  • Moved for first reading. Statement to educate students on Title IX policy, and classroom resources.
  • Sen. Hanley- concerned that the language seems like a warning.
  • Sen. Levy- move to second reading. Motion does not pass. Further discussion.
  • Sen. Pafford- The way it’s worded, if student doesn’t read syllabus and tells you about sexual misconduct, and you tell them you have to go to the dean, we should talk about procedure so faculty know what to do before we put it on the syllabus.
  • Sen. Ginwala- following line 32, all syllabi should contain these policies
  • Sen. Chelberg- here on behalf of VP Hong; reporting requirements in Title IX are very clear. We are required as university employees to report sexual violence.
  • Sen. Pafford- the way it’s worded might panic students.
  • Sen. Robertson- add language, “We don’t like sexual violence”… to the beginning of the statement.
  • Sen. Lewis- understand from previous Senate meeting that we need to report, encouraging students to come forth.
  • Sen. Boyd- WGS adopted some language for their syllabi related to Title IX, and would be good language to add.
  • Sen. Howard- if we move it further, we wouldn’t know what we were voting on. Would like to see something in official document prior to anything going to second reading.
  • Sen. Mendolla- appreciation for your feedback, moving to second reading not haste to ignore comments.
  • Sen. Stowers- Motion to move to second reading. Sen. Hanley opposes the motion, why is there a rush? This is a significant policy change and SAC deserves more time.
  • Sen. Clavier- against the motion; should be in another place than the syllabus. Students don’t always read it, they all go on iLearn, so maybe it should be there.
  • Sen. Stowers- there are required statements in syllabi on other items that are not just drop and withdrawal deadlines, e.g. disability program. Clearly a precedent. Putting it on syllabus doesn’t preclude having it on iLearn as well. Need to make a strong statement about this, follow through on AVP Hong’s work. It is very timely issue, and we need to come out with a clear and direct statement about what’s supposed to happen on this campus. There should be something next semester about what they need to do, and what the repercussions are if they are involved in sexual situation.
  • Sen. Hockster- agrees about syllabus. but there are other items that need to go on syllabi. Loading up syllabi with incredible amount of boilerplate has less impact on students if there’s too much in the syllabus. Final comment- in voting for second reading, voting for acceptance of that wording on the syllabus. Don’t think it should be on the course syllabus.
  • Sen. Bettinger- having this conversation makes me glad to be at SFSU. Should we have it on the syllabus, or somewhere else more effective?
  • Sen. Collins- still in first reading, yield time to offer perspective of student assistant.
  • Student assistant- put it as collaborative website on iLearn. Agree they’ve seen it on iLearn, bottom corner as permanent link.
  • Sen. Gerber- what ought to be on syllabus is what should be related to a course.
  • Sen. Hanley- necessary that this statement should go on the syllabus. On other hand, as it is in revision now, more like a disclaimer for faculty member rather than making students aware of their rights.
  • Sen. Boyd- two students made disclosures this week, it’s happening right now!
  • Sen. Wilczak- would like to say shorten it more, information and that we have to disclose. Like the student’s suggestion to use alternative ways to inform students about resources on campus.
  • Item moves back to SAC committee for further discussion.





AGENDA ITEM #12—Adjournment—no later than 5:00p.m.


Meeting adjourned at 4:15PM.



Respectfully submitted by Eileen Levy, Secretary, Academic Senat

Meeting Date (Archive)