Academic Senate Meeting Minutes 3/18/2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

SEVEN HILLS CONFERENCE CENTER

NOB HILL ROOM

2:00 – 5:00 p.m.

 

ATTENDANCE:

Absences: Alamilla Boyd, Nan (exc); Alvarenga, Gabriela (exc);  Bartscher, Patricia (exc); Buckley, Linda (abs); Carleton, Troi (abs); Chang, Sandy (abs); Howard, Pamela (exc); Lau, Jenny (exc); McDougal, Serie (abs); Monteiro, Ken (exc); Strong, Robert (exc); Tumbat, Gulnur (abs); Wong, Les (exc); Yee-Melichar Darlene (exc)

 

 

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. -2:15PM

ANNOUNCEMENTS

AGENDA ITEM #1—Approval of the Minutes for March 4, 2014- Minutes approved as submitted.

 

AGENDA ITEM #2—Approval of the Agenda for March 18, 2014- Approved as submitted.

 

AGENDA ITEM #3—Chair’s Report

 

1. Once a month, Executive Committee enjoys an early morning breakfast with the President and Provost, which provides a healthy venue for informal consultation. Tomorrow’s breakfast meeting is at 8AM. To open up the meeting, take the little of sheet of paper provided to indicate one or two topics you’d like us to introduce at breakfast meeting.

 

AGENDA ITEM #4—Report: Standing Committee Chairs

 

1. SAC- Sen. Mendolla. Looking at Student Success Fees, Posthumous Degrees, Transportation, and Residential Life. Will review policies for Senate for later date.

2. SIC- Sen. Carleton- Collecting data on faculty service. Revised qualitative survey on service to distribute to faculty and staff soon.

3. FAC- Sen. Baines- bringing back in first reading Revision of Post Tenure Review Policy.

4. CRAC- Sen. Barranco- met with Interim Undergrad Dean to discuss undergraduate culminating experience requirement for Fall 2015. Dean setting up survey to send to all undergraduate programs and departments to assess their status updates on this, and whatever help they need. CRAC helped review that survey.

5. APC- Sen. Bettinger- bringing two items to Senate today- resolution on Honorary Titles, Change in Academic Calendar Policy. Next meeting, will bring 7^th Cycle Review policy and antiquated policies.

 

AGENDA ITEM #5—Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Proposed Resolution on Honorary Titles, 1^st Reading

 

Sen. Bettinger moved the item; because it comes from a committee, no second is required. FAC and APC found that in Faculty Manual there were honorary titles, but not really policies since they didn’t go through an approval process. It’s useful to have these honorary titles, but no need for cumbersome review in place with these pseudo-policies. Allow departments to use Honorary Titles- Clinical, Adjunct, Resident and Distinguished. Departments awarding such titles should report these to Faculty Affairs and keep them up to date.

Sen. Ginwala- two questions- Will these be listed in the Bulletin? Has committee talked with University Counsel and CFA to get their input? Yes, CFA and Counsel have been consulted, and it has nothing to do with CBA. No it shouldn’t appear in Bulletin since they’re not official policies of the university.

Holzman- there was no stipulation that it wouldn't or couldn’t appear in the Bulletin. Faculty are free to put their adjunct faculty on their website.

 

Recommendation will return in second reading at later date.

 

AGENDA ITEM #6—Recommendation from the Faculty Affairs Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Evaluation of Tenured Faculty for Professional Development & Support, Post Tenure Review Policy#S00-122, 1^st Reading

 

Moved by Sen. Baines, does not require second because it comes from committee. FAC greatly appreciated all comments from two weeks ago, which reflected the necessary balance between flexibility and uniformity that this policy needs. Policy is to facilitate post-tenure faculty development, and focused on revisions related to larger categories: minimum requirements for review materials, clarification of process of summary report and review materials.

Changes: minimum requirements of Review Committee: Chair, one member selected by Chair, one member selected by faculty of same or higher rank.

Include CV, teaching evaluations, one professional activity- Career Development Activity.

Process for Departmental Criteria- how career development activity is chosen, and manner for summarizing results.

Review summary report- Self Statement, identification of needs and resources to support faculty member, and feedback to faculty member.

Dean’s Council- Sen. Carleton for Sen. Monteiro- faculty who are post tenure have proven their ability to be excellent in teaching, scholarship and service. Deans are part of that growth process and should be part of review process. Minimally require CV.

Sen. Hellman- was our local CFA board consulted? Sheila Tully interested in collaborating. Lines 98-102, line 99, are not limited to… Recommend leaving it as outside presentations or strike college/departmental presentations. Note: Line 130- suggest we get the campus to help facilitate career and development; strike AND and just say career development.

Sen. Boyle- this draft looks much better than last iteration. One comment, Line 115, candidate identifies needs and resources to support their goals; improvement from last draft, but if you’re identifying what you need, if there is no place to take this, or no guarantee anyone can act on it, not sure how beneficial it is.

Sen. Li- much improved document. Lines 81-82, process same for Associate and Full Professors? Do you have to do this if you’re going up for Associate and prepare two separate documents?

Sen. Holzman- Line 37, final year of 5 year cycle, should be 6^th year, giving candidate 5 years of review. Lines 83-84 suggests committee consist of chair and other faculty member, Line 107 says department will stipulate process for selecting committee. Contradictory? Who’s responsible for writing the summary report?

Sen. Hackenberg- member of FAC- 5 year cycle language stipulated in CBA. Wanted to stipulate a minimum but department could change that, minimum 3 person committee, leave up to department. Department could also say 5 year span could be evaluated in 6^th year. Summary of report up to department in terms of who would write it. Gets to question of freedom for departments but some structure that we could follow.

Sen. Carleton- question- Line 91- minimum requirements should include- suggestion or requirement? Should suggests that it’s not a requirement.

Sen. Hellman- what incentives are there to comply with this?

Sen. Sigmon- what the policy is and what it isn’t. If it’s about resources and identifying needs, we would have better case for going to admin to ask for additional funding for CTFD for professional development. We did not ask for this policy, this comes from CFA. Not a merit pay discussion, not personal salary step increase discussion, just policy for post tenure review

Sen. Getz- Good to think about what incentives we can provide.

Sen. Rosser- CFA asked for Post Tenure review, administration never asked for this requirement to be considered.

Sen. Trogu- this is in the CBA and an opportunity to do something. Good for everyone in long run, including chairs.

Sen. Mcdougal- minimum requirement listed in the policy. Recognition of faculty’s contribution, continued development, awareness of opportunities and resources of interest.

Sen. Holzman- put caveat that this policy can be rolled in? Many faculty haven’t been reviewed in last five years, so there should be procedure to allow it to roll in so chairs aren’t burdened all at once.

 

Exhausts speaker’s list for first reading. Item will appear before us again in second reading at later date.

 

AGENDA ITEM #7—Recommendation from the Academic Senate Executive Committee—Proposed Academic Senate College Representative Apportionment for Academic Year Fall 2014-2015, 1^st Reading

 

Sen. Stowers- Power Point presentation on apportionment. Ex Comm recommends that there be no changes from last year.

Sen. Getz- Congratulations to Sen. Stowers on hard work and great presentation!

Sen. Robertson- move to second reading, Sen. Collins seconded. Discussion?

Now in second reading- any discussion?

No discussion- Vote- recommendation unanimously passed!

 

AGENDA ITEM #8—Recommendation from the Academic Policies Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Academic Calendar Policy, #S11-242, 1^st Reading

 

APC- Sen. Bettinger moved item. No second needed since it comes from committee. Motion originates from College Deans. Calendar policy changed a few years ago to start semester with beginning of classes. Prior to that, there had been a planning day prior to beginning of classes. Deans found that start of classes followed by planning days was a mess, and wanted a restoration of planning days before beginning of classes. If we start the semester with one planning day and then start the semester, anywhere from the 22^nd to 28^th of Aug, to 20^th to 24^th of Aug. Changes last day Dec 19-22 to being anywhere from 17^th-21^st. Rest of alterations made for clarity.

Sen. Getz- First do no harm! Calendar would have us returning earlier from summer work and research to start semester earlier. Why this is a problem? What did you accomplish? Writing unfinished, research days lost, childcare, put us far out of whack with most school schedules. Lecturers teach during summer, others collect unemployment. Reducing summer break would mean they wouldn’t have a break, and less unemployment. There was no consultation with colleagues, and Deans did not confer with department chairs. No faculty knew about proposed change. If most faculty want to start on last Monday of August, why change this? This is not the prerogative of the College Deans. The process and changes are flawed.

Sen. Bettinger- rebuttal to Sen. Getz’s comments- what happens with this policy is a two day shift, not a six day shift.

Sen. Getz- every point that was brought up were points that faculty brought to him. If APC were to consult with faculty, perhaps in survey, maybe they’d see what faculty feel they might lose by voting with this policy.

Sen. Stowers- disagree with policy, which was put forward by deans because people aren’t coming to their fall semester meetings. Maybe if the structure of those meetings was changed to something more productive, people would be interested in attending.

Sen. Holzman- no opinion one way or other, if it goes through or not. Having finals on 23^rd of December on Saturday is disturbing to faculty and students.

Further discussion?

 

Motion shall return in second reading at future date.

 

AGENDA ITEM #9—Adjournment—no later than 5:00p.m.

 

Motion to Adjourn- 3:07PM

 

Submitted by Eileen Levy, Secretary, Academic Senate