EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The Committee on Committees (COC) met on 27 June, 29
September, 17 October, and 24 October to review annual reports from 30
committees as specified in the Faculty Manual (see the appendix for a complete
list of the committees) and shared their discussion with the Executive
Committee on 25 October. The full
committee reports are available for review in the Academic Senate Office.
The COC evaluated each committee report in light of its
charge as set out in the Faculty Manual. Many of the committees faced
challenging issues to which they have developed creative responses. As
evidenced by the majority of committee reports, many members of the academic
community are actively engaged in the process of shared governance—resulting in
a more vital University. The COC extends its appreciation to committee
chairs and members for the countless number of hours and the significant
efforts they each dedicated to the betterment of
The COC recommends that each 2005-2006, committee review previous COC reports and appropriate committee reports. The COC implores authors of future annual reports to conform to the format outlined by the Academic Senate, including signatures by a majority of committee members. The COC also appreciates reports that are submitted to the Office of the Academic Senate in both hard copy and electronic formats.
Below, the COC delineates its recommendations for each committee.
Upon reflection the COC is moved to comment on a few reoccurring themes. First, the role of affirmative action in general continues to be unclear when it comes to the business of campus committees, policies and procedures. The COC is concerned about the inactivity of the Academic Affirmative Action Committee as well as the proposal of the Professional Development Council to collapse the affirmative action awards into a generic paid leave awards program. The COC strongly urges the Academic Senate and campus administration to actively engage in a critical conversation around the role of affirmative action in an institution that holds multiculturalism and social justice as core values.
Second, as the campus considers reports from the task forces on writing and on facilitating graduation, the COC reminds the Academic Senate, deans, college councils, and other responsible parties of the original reasons for charging these groups. Challenges in the areas of writing pedagogy along with barriers to timely graduation caused the academic community to commit significant resources to the study of these problems. Now it is imperative that we come together—marshalling additional campus resources—to effect the recommended improvements in order to realize a more complete and rich academic experience for all students, faculty, and staff.
Finally, the 2005-2006 academic year finds the University planning for the next generations of students, faculty, and staff. As the academic community envisions a master plan for the future, the COC prompts all members of the University community to continue the practice of actualizing our institutional values. The consistent use of broad consultation and shared governance structures, as demonstrated throughout this report, will only serve to make our future stronger and brighter.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Academic Affirmative Action
Committee (AAAC)
The COC recommends, for the second year in a row, that
the Executive Committee work with the campus community to assess the current
status of the committee and its charge.
2. Academic Freedom Committee
(AFC)
Recognizing the widespread need for deeper
understanding of academic freedom, the COC applauds the AFC for its plans to
develop a lecture series that might produce a broader and deeper understanding
of these principles.
Despite its generally favorable response to the work of the committee, the COC wonders about the amount of white space on the signature page.
3. Academic Policies Committee
(APC)
The COC applauds the APC for its productivity in
2004-2005, especially given the majority of the committee’s time being consumed
by the business of the EPC. The COC
concurs with the APC’s goals for 2005-2006 –responding to the reports generated
by the writing and facilitating graduation taskforces. The COC also supports the APC playing a
leadership role in the review of graduation requirements; and proposing “new
thinking” to the campus with regard to effective advising structures.
The COC respectfully reminds the APC of one of its
primary charges, as quoted in Senate bylaws: “The review of and suggested
modifications in the academic master plan based on the continuing analysis of
the educational objectives of the University and the needs of its students.” This charge will prove to be particularly
relevant as the campus begins to review its master plan possibly increasing
FTES by 5,000.
4. Academic Program Review
Committee (APRC)
The COC commends members of the APRC for diligent work
throughout 2004-2005. The COC also
thanks the members of the Graduate Program Review Taskforce for their
additional work in recommending changes for the next cycle of academic program
review. The COC looks forward to the
completion of the 5th cycle of academic program review and to the
finalization of the handbook for the 6th cycle.
5. All-University Committee on
International Programs (AUCIP)
The COC congratulates the AUCIP for its vigorous
pursuit of the goals of bringing international concerns to the curriculum,
providing international education experiences to domestic students and bringing
more international students to campus.
The COC is particularly impressed with the quality of the committee’s
work and the resulting report. The COC
looks forward to another productive year in furthering international education
at SFSU.
6. All-University Committee on
Students, Faculty and Staff with Disabilities (AUCSFSD)
The COC concurs with the 2005-2006 goals identified in
the AUCSFSD report. The COC appreciates
the 100% signature rate on the report.
It is sympathetic to the committee’s view that broader and more
inclusive representation on the committee is needed, and looks forward to the
plan that the AUCSFSD says it is devising to bring about that result. It also recognizes the larger issue, that
the committee alone cannot meet the challenge of realizing the intent of the
federal and state laws affecting persons with disabilities. For this reason, it unequivocally urges
AUCSFSD to identify and, with the appropriate help from campus entities, inform
the campus about how each segment of the university community -- faculty,
staff, administrators, and students respectively—can play a role in making SFSU
fully accessible.
7. All-University Enrollment Management
Committee (AUEMC)
The COC commends the AUEMC for their diligent work
during the past year and for the submission of the comprehensive report. The COC congratulates the committee for
their proactive approach to this work as outlined in their agenda for the coming
year. The COC also suggests that the
AUEMC will be an important forum for discussing proposed revisions of SFSU’s
master plan.
8. All-University Teacher
Education Committee (AUTEC)
The COC concurs with the goals identified by the
committee for the next year—continue to “review programs that come up for
approval by the State” and “begin the process for the NCATE review.” The COC hopes in addition that next year the
Committee will prepare a report that more fully describes the context of its
activities and defines acronyms for the uninitiated.
9. Athletic Advisory Board
(AAB)
The COC recommends that the Executive Committee via
the Student Affairs Committee review the committee’s charge and work to
reconcile it with the implications of athletics being fully funded by student
fees.
10. Board of Appeals and Review
(BOAR)
While the COC appreciates the efforts of the BOAR and concurs with its objectives for 2005-2006, it reminds the board of the importance of submitting reports with the signatures of its members. The COC encourages all academic units to work together with the BOAR to ensure accurate dissemination of University withdrawal/waiver petition procedures.
11. Center for the Enhancement
of Teaching Advisory Board (CETAB)
The COC commends the members of the CETAB for another
year of important work. In addition to
its ongoing activities, the COC encourages the CETAB to further consider its
charge in light of the planned changes (e.g., moving the CET to the Office of
Faculty Affairs and Professional Development and moving the technology
component to the Office of Academic Technology).
12. Committee for the
Protection of Human Subjects (CPHS)
The COC commends the CPHS for enhancing communication
with faculty and student researchers, reducing protocol review and approval
times, and increasing committee membership.
The COC acknowledges concerns regarding the interim appointment of the Chair/Coordinator
position and the challenges associated with recruitment of non-scientists to
the committee membership. Suggestions to
ask the Academic Senate for assistance in recruitment efforts are worthy of
consideration.
13. Curriculum Review and
Approval Committee (CRAC)
The COC commends the CRAC membership for its
outstanding work this year in the very hard task of reviewing and deciding upon
discontinuance and suspension recommendations and numerous curriculum
proposals. The COC also recommends that
the Executive Committee consider increasing the membership of the CRAC in order
to better accomplish their important tasks.
14. Educational Policies Council
(EPC)
The COC knows that no summary can fully acknowledge
the nature of the challenge presented to the EPC, nor convey the importance of
the work so thoughtfully done. It
extends special thanks to the committee members for engaging so carefully with
the demanding, organizationally complex, and often-fractious issues it had to
work with, and to the chair for coordinating this most difficult exercise in
shared governance. It also knows that
the separate committees were forced to put aside some of their other agenda
items and will have heavy schedules during 2005-2006 and looks forward to a
year in which they can turn their attention to more routine tasks.
15. Faculty Affairs Committee
(FAC)
The COC is appreciative of the work the FAC did in
seeking nominees to the University Research Council, addressing questions that
had been raised about the process of applying for sabbaticals, and developing
and bringing forward the proposal for a committee on faculty awards and honors. The COC looks forward to the realization of
this potentially positive means of recognizing the work done by faculty on this
campus.
The COC also encourages the FAC to do wide
consultation before making any recommendations for substantive change in the
retention, tenure, and promotion policies.
16. General Education Council
(GEC)
In addition to their ongoing policy activities and
oversight responsibilities, the COC encourages GEC’s participation in preparing
the campus community for an external review of graduation requirements. The GEC will be asked to comment on plans
for: preparing a self-study of graduation requirements for external review;
identifying nationally recognized experts in general education; and conducting
the external review.
17. Graduate Council
The COC commends the Graduate
Council for their excellent, proactive work this year on behalf of graduate
programs and students. The COC looks
forward to the Graduate Council’s implementation of recommendations from the Writing
Taskforce. The COC encourages the
council to continue playing an active role in advancing the quality of graduate
studies at SFSU—including the ongoing provision of input on the 6th
Cycle of Academic Program Review.
18. Honorary Degree Committee
The COC is appreciative of the efforts of the
committee and is hopeful that a campus nominee will be conferred, and available
to receive, an honorary degree in 2005-2006.
19. Liberal Studies Council
(LSC)
The COC commends the LSC for
their continued work on the Liberal Studies degree programs and hopes that its
continued efforts result in the program attracting the highest caliber of
degree candidates possible.
20. Library Advisory Committee
(LAC)
The COC congratulates the LAC
on a productive year and strongly encourages its active involvement in
developing/implementing specific procedures for timely consultation and
notification of faculty and students about library planning and
management—especially during the upcoming library construction project.
21. Professional
Development Council (PDC)
The COC commends the PDC for
another year of impressive work in advancing the professional development of
SFSU faculty. The COC supports the
council’s efforts in continuing the standardization of the application and
review processes—especially with regard to the increasing uniformity amongst
the subcommittee review process.
However, the COC is concerned about the proposed recommendation to merge
the affirmative action awards with the VP’s Assigned Time Awards. While the COC
appreciates the proposal to prioritize the funding of underrepresented faculty
in all competitions for assigned time awards, it is not as confident as the
council seems to be when it comes to ensuring continued support of
underrepresented faculty if the affirmative action award is collapsed into a
generic pool. The COC recommends that
the PDC consult with the Faculty Affairs Committee and to consider the
Provost’s plans for further enhancing diversity within the ranks of faculty
prior to changing the affirmative action awards.
22. Student Affairs Committee
(SAC)
The COC is encouraged by steps taken during the spring
to change the direction of the committee’s work to a more productive
approach. The COC hopes that these
projects will become concrete and that the Committee will take a proactive role
in the review of important policies and in developing sound projects (such as
the review of the Athletic Advisory Board policy). It also points out that the best way to
increase committees’ visibility is consistent, positive action on behalf of its
constituents.
23. Teacher Credential
Committee (TCC)
The COC compliments the TCC for the number of new
programs reviewed and policies considered and for the clarity and thoroughness
of its report. The COC endorses the
committee’s stated agenda for 2005-2006.
24. University Academic
Assessment Advisory Committee (UAAAC)
The COC recognizes that efficient, credible assessment
of academic programs is essential for periodic accreditation reviews, whether
by WASC or by professional societies, and for demonstrating the University’s
value to the public that funds it. The
COC asks if SFSU’s assessment efforts might be better served by a smaller
committee, all of whose members are fully dedicated to its task, working with
an administrator whose primary responsibility is program assessment and
review. Last year’s committee did
excellent work, but they were perhaps distracted by the absence of so many
members. A committee the size of last
year’s working group could be more effective.
25. University
Advancement Activities Advisory Committee
The COC is dismayed to be without a report from the
university Advancement Activities Advisory Committee. The absence of a report leads the COC to
wonder about the committee’s role and function in 2004-2005. The COC is hopeful that, with the new
leadership in University Advancement, the Committee will be better utilized in
future years.
26. University Committee on
Written English Proficiency (CWEP)
The COC endorses the CWEP agenda proposed for
2005-2006. The COC encourages all
members of the campus community to support The CWEP’s efforts to implement the
recommendations proposed in the CUSP-II goals and the Writing Taskforce report.
27. University
Interdisciplinary Council (UIC)
The COC applauds the work of the UIC during the past
academic year and recognizes the challenges faced by the council with resource
constraints and interdisciplinary program discontinuances. The COC encourages the council to engage in
serious reflection on the importance of interdisciplinarity and its role in
shaping curricula for the 21st century.
28. University Promotions Committee (UPC)
Many of the concerns raised by the UPC reflect
department and college practices that are not consistent with university
policy. Therefore, the COC recommends an
emphasis on the following promotion practices in the UPC’s meetings with
candidates, promotion committee chairs, department chairs, and college deans:
conduct annual peer classroom observations and evaluations for a department’s
assistant and associate professors; monitor the quality of promotion files; and
inform the one department whose promotion criteria are inconsistent with
University policy that they are in breach of Academic Senate policy F04-28.
The UPC is strongly advised to deliver accurate
information based on the collective bargaining agreement and senate
policy. The creation of new practices by
UPC from year-to-year limits candidates’ understanding of the promotions
process.
The UPC made recommendations for increased resources
that deserve careful consideration. They
recommended an additional .2 release time for the UPC Chair if the number of
promotion cases is exceptionally high.
Also, the UPC expressed concern about the lack of space and security in
the Academic Senate office. Given the
resource limitations on campus, the UPC is encouraged to consider the use of
electronic portfolios--maintaining security and accessibility--as one strategy
for minimizing the workload and space needs of the committee.
29. University
Research Council (URC)
The COC supports the URC’s proposed agenda for
2005-2006. The COC is especially
interested in the council’s deliberations on the following: definition of
professional development to include research and creative activities; differential
compensation for “research” faculty and teaching faculty; the need for more
training and mentoring of faculty in the pursuit of external funding, grant
administration and grant-related personnel concerns; review and development of
campus practice/policy on intellectual property rights; and the role of
professional development/research in the RTP process. An additional item, recommended by the COC,
to the 2005-2006 agenda is the development of a University-wide research
mission statement that would describe the role of research in scholarly
activities. The URC is also encouraged
to add the Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development as an ex oficio
member to the council.
30. University
Sabbatical Committee (USC)
The COC commends the USC for its thorough report of
committee activities and applauds their recommendations for improving the
evaluation process. Many of the concerns
raised by the USC reflect college practices that are not consistent with
university policy. Therefore, the COC
recommends that the Faculty Affairs Committee, in partnership with the USC,
develop an information session for Deans Council and Department Chairs’
meetings that addresses the following issues: colleges that review extraneous
criteria produce inconsistency at the level of USC review; clarify the review
process so that candidates know what documentation to forward; and request that
Deans provide a written rationale for their rankings.
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
1. Academic
Affirmative Action Committee (AAAC)
The COC is dismayed to, again, be without a report
from the AAAC. The absence of a report
leads the COC to wonder about the committee’s function. The COC recommends, for the second year in a
row, that the Executive Committee work with the campus community to assess the
current status of the committee and its charge.
2. Academic
Freedom Committee (AFC)
Although the AFC reports that it received no new
claims that faculty academic freedom had been threatened at SFSU in
2004-2005, it met a dozen times during
the year to discuss and work on issues as varied as the following: two
nationally-noted cases in the domain of academic freedom (those of Tariq
Ramadan and Ward Churchill); a campus forum at which a well-known conservative
columnist was the featured speaker; a variety of websites focused on issues
relevant to its charge; and the progress of legislation that might affect
academic freedom (notably California’s SB 5 and the USA PATRIOT Act). It began planning an academic freedom lecture
series at SFSU; it also addressed issues of student academic freedom. To get information for that discussion, it
took an informal poll of deans and department chairs about existing policies
and procedures and worked with the Student Affairs Committee on how best to
simplify and/or clarify existing campus procedures, and participated at the
invitation of the presidents office in the creation of a new Web site informing
students about their academic freedom rights and responsibilities. The AFC report notes the concerns of the
committee about the process that led to selective disciplining of students
involved in a campus protest of military recruiting on the campus.
In response to those concerns, the AFC’s first agenda
item for 2005-2006 is a review of the policies and procedures of the Student
Organization Hearing Panel. Other issues
it will pursue are the lecture series; a grading problem in the
Recognizing the complexity of the issues that have
engaged the AFC in the past year, the COC commends the committee for its
attention to the academic freedom rights of all subsets of the University
community. And, recognizing the
widespread need for deeper understanding of academic freedom, the COC applauds
the AFC for its plans to develop a lecture series that might produce a broader
and deeper understanding of these principles.
Despite its generally favorable response to the work
of the committee, the COC wonders about the amount of white space on the
signature page.
3. Academic Policies Committee
(APC)
The APC is charged with the study and evaluation of
existing educational policies and plans and the initiation of recommendations
for making changes in said policies and plans.
The COC commends the membership of the APC for their
extraordinary service in 2004-2005. It
notes that despite spending most of fall semester and part of spring involved
in the work of the Educational Policies Council, the Committee made three major
policy proposals to the Academic Senate (see the EPC summary for a more
complete discussion of APC’s work on program discontinuance). The issues covered by the policies presented
to the Senate included: the 2006-2007 academic calendar, General Education
course registration restrictions and the differentiation of MA and MS degree
programs. In addition revision of the
policy regarding the Board of Appeals and Review (BOAR) was considered and
returned to BOAR for clarification.
The COC applauds the APC for the innovation suggested
by the proposed changes to the 2006-2007 academic calendar. It
encourages the APC to ensure that all future calendar proposals are supportive
of the academic endeavor.
The COC also appreciates the efforts of the APC in
clarifying Senate policy in the matter of departments being unable to restrict
General Education courses to majors.
The APC anticipates that it will spend much of
2005-2006 responding to the reports generated by the writing and facilitating
graduation taskforces. The COC also
strongly supports the APC playing a leadership role in the review of graduation
requirements to begin in 2005-2006. The
COC also encourages the APC to propose “new thinking” to the campus with regard
to effective advising structures.
Finally, the COC respectfully reminds the APC of one
of its primary charges, as quoted in Senate bylaws: “The review of and
suggested modifications in the academic master plan based on the continuing
analysis of the educational objectives of the University and the needs of its
students.” This charge will prove to be
particularly relevant in 2005-2006 as the campus begins to review its master
plan possibly increasing FTES by 5,000.
4. Academic Program Review
Committee (APRC)
The 10 members of the APRC were charged to review and
synthesize all levels of program review, outline recommendations made by
reviewers, and make program review recommendations in a report used by the
Academic Program Development Office in the creation of program Memoranda of
Understanding. Members of this committee
reviewed programs in six departments (following Fifth Cycle Academic Program
Review guidelines) during 2004-2005.
Additionally, three committee members participated in the Graduate
Program Review Taskforce. This taskforce
was charged by the President, Provost, and Academic Senate Chair to recommend
guidelines governing SFSU sixth cycle of academic program review. Work on this taskforce began in 2004 and
included discussions with members of the Academic Policies Committee and
members of the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee to suggest changes in
program review policies.
The APRC’s agenda for 2005-2006 includes completion of
the fifth cycle of academic program review and continued discussions with the
Academic Senate at large regarding sixth cycle implementation. The proposed handbook for sixth cycle review
would greatly benefit members of the SFSU academic community.
The COC commends members of the APRC for diligent work
throughout 2004-2005. The COC recognizes
the workload for this committee is heavy requiring comprehensive reading and
writing assignments. As noted in the
report, 3 reports were completed; an additional 3 reports were expected to be
completed by the end of June, 2005. The
COC also thanks the members of the Graduate Program Review Taskforce for their
additional work in recommending changes for the sixth cycle of academic program
review. This work will be of benefit to
many individuals at SFSU in 2005-2006 and beyond.
5. All-University Committee on
International Programs (AUCIP)
Last year the COC criticized the AUCIP for not
submitting a report. It is pleased to
note this year that a comprehensive, seven page report was received. It is an informative document describing the
broad range of activities of the AUCIP and its five subcommittees supporting
international education at SFSU.
The AUCIP is a fourteen-member committee with a broad
charge to advise the Director of International programs, formulate policy for
the Academic Senate, and develop, coordinate and publicize many projects and
programs related to international education.
The AUCIP report divides its activities into five
areas:
·
Planning for
implementation of CUSP II Goal 4: “SFSU will provide its students, faculty and
staff with international experiences, perspectives, and competencies.
·
Awarding four
Faculty International Development Grants;
·
Approving
exchange programs and cooperative agreements with universities and institutes
throughout the world;
·
Developing a
database of faculty international expertise called GlobalStars; and
·
Supporting the
work of the Office of International Programs.
This last activity includes a major focus on problems faced by
international students and the decline in their numbers at SFSU.
Next year the AUCIP will continue the five activities
listed above, emphasizing the implementation of CUSP II, Goal 4, and seeking to
eliminate some of the roadblocks to the enrollment of international students at
SFSU.
The COC congratulates the AUCIP for its vigorous
pursuit of the goals of bringing international concerns to the curriculum,
providing international education experiences to domestic students and bringing
more international students to campus.
6. All-University Committee on Students,
Faculty and Staff with Disabilities (AUCSFSD)
Again in 2005, the COC is impressed by the number and
variety of tasks completed by the AUCSFSD at its monthly meetings. The committee’s activities included:
·
Advising the
director of the Disability Programs and
·
Monitoring the
progress of implementing the
·
Endorsing a
report of its Information Access Subcommittee on a university-wide access inventory
of computing facilities.
·
Discussing the
findings of the Physical Access Subcommittee.
·
Discussing how to
develop faculty competencies regarding disability related issues.
·
Reviewing its
charge and membership.
It is clear that again the AUCSFSD has made good use
of a subcommittee system that permits the whole group to function more
efficiently. The COC particularly
appreciates the implications of this system: time spent by (sub) committee
members between regularly scheduled meetings on very complicated and difficult
issues. In this respect, it is
particularly heartening that the committee sees progress in the University’s
efforts to comply with the provisions of the
In this respect, it is pleased to see that the
committee is looking at how the campus can ensure that the disability community
has full access to computing facilities at SFSU, and that it is holding focused
discussions on how to enable faculty to work more effectively with students
with disabilities. COC believes that the
committee might enhance its success in this effort by providing realistic
information to faculty about whether or how its recommendations might affect
faculty in their everyday activities, how they can most effectively communicate
with and ensure access to students with disabilities, and the tasks on which it
would be realistic to expect help from campus technology (and other) experts. In this sense, the COC is suggesting that the
committee develop and disseminate -- or cause to be disseminated -- practical
information about how faculty can increase their collective level of competency
in dealing with disability issues.
The AUCSFSD report identifies 4 issues for the
2005-2006 agenda:
·
improving
professional development opportunities so faculty can teach disabled students
more effectively;
·
increasing the
number of students on the committee;
·
seeking active oversight of major construction
projects and the temporary barriers that may accompany them;
·
And the revision
of the Academic Senate policy that shapes the work of the committee
The COC appreciates the 100% signature rate on the
report. It is sympathetic to the
committee’s view that broader and more inclusive representation on the
committee is needed, and looks forward to the plan that the AUCSFSD says it is
devising to bring about that result. It
also recognizes the larger issue, that the committee alone cannot meet the
challenge of realizing the intent of the federal and state laws affecting
persons with disabilities. For this
reason, it unequivocally urges the AUCSFSD to identify and, with the
appropriate help from campus entities, inform the campus about how each segment
of the university community -- faculty, staff, administrators, and students
respectively -- can play a role in making SFSU fully accessible.
7. All-University Enrollment
Management Committee (AUEMC)
The AUEMC was formed in 2003 to address the enrollment
management policy proposed by the SFSU Academic Senate and approved by
President Corrigan in 2002. The 10
member committee met bi-weekly during the academic year to address a number of
enrollment management issues including CSU and SFSU enrollment policies and
practices, SFSU student enrollment targets for 2004-2006, development of a SFSU
enrollment plan that was presented to the Academic Senate Chair, members of the
Academic Senate, Provost, and Presidential Enrollment Management Advisory
Group.
As noted in their comprehensive report, members of the
AUEMC spent time developing a 2006-2007 SFSU Enrollment Management Plan. This plan identified categories of students,
plans to address student demand projections, plans to coordinate use of
instructional resources and physical facilities as well as creative ways to
address student demand such as the use of CEL, flexible course scheduling,
distance learning, and state-support summer sessions. Additionally, this plan addressed enrollment
strategies to monitor applicants at all student levels with special attention
to those who are underrepresented in
The AUEMC provided an agenda for the upcoming academic
year including having delegates from the committee meet with: members of the
Presidents Cabinet, Academic Deans, members of the Academic Senate Executive
Committee, members of the Academic Senate, and members of the Presidential
Enrollment Management Advisory Group regarding 2006-2007 SFSU Enrollment
Management Plan recommendations.
The COC commends the AUEMC for their diligent work
during the past year and for the submission of the comprehensive report. The COC congratulates this committee for
their proactive approach to this work as outlined in their agenda for the
coming year. The COC also suggests that
the AUEMC will be an important forum for discussing proposed revisions of
SFSU’s master plan.
8. All-University
Teacher Education Committee (AUTEC)
This report should be read with the report on the
Teacher Credential Committee.
The charge of the AUTEC is to promote collaboration
among all elements of the university community involved in teacher education
and the K-12 public-private school community.
The Committee supports activities that foster teacher education.
AUTEC is a committee of 21 individuals who met twice
last year. Five activities are listed:
·
College of
Education (COE) worked with other COEs across the system to begin the
development of a uniform PACT procedure;
·
TPE/TPA planning
was discussed at each meeting;
·
NCATE/CCTC
program reviews have been scheduled for 2007;
·
Heard a report on
the No Child Left Behind Act; and
·
The standards for
language arts other than English, music, and physical education have been
approved.
Next year AUTEC will continue to “review programs that
come up for approval by the State” and “begin the process for the NCATE
review”. COC hopes in addition that next
year the Committee will prepare a report that more fully describes the context
of its activities and defines acronyms for the uninitiated.
9. Athletic Advisory Board
(AAB)
The COC is dismayed to, again, be without a report
from the AAB. The absence of a report
leads the COC to wonder about the committee’s role and function. The COC recommends that the Executive
Committee via the Student Affairs Committee review the committee’s charge and
work to reconcile it with the implications of athletics being fully funded by
student fees.
10. Board of Appeals and Review
(BOAR)
The COC commends the members of the BOAR for their efforts in 2004-2005. The board met monthly during the academic year, considering a total of 79 petitions (72 petitions for retroactive withdrawal and 7 petitions for waver of college regulations). Of these petitions, 52 were approved, 12 were approved with conditions and 15 were denied. The board also drafted revisions to the Academic Senate policy containing the BOAR's charge which have been forwarded to the Executive Committee for action.
The COC concurs with the BOAR's objectives for 2005-2006, including: review of practices and standards for considering petitions; development of consistent withdrawal/waver language for use across the University; revision of Academic Senate policy in order to reflect board changes; and clarification and publication of time-limits for submission of retroactive withdrawals. The COC reminds the BOAR of the importance of submitting reports with the signatures of its members. Finally, the COC encourages all academic units to work together with the BOAR to ensure accurate dissemination of University withdrawal/waver petition procedures.
11. Center for the Enhancement
of Teaching Advisory Board (CETAB)
The Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional
Development assumed responsibility for the CET in summer 2004, and she provided
a clear vision for achieving the goals established by the CETAB for
2004-2005. Great strides were made in
enhancing the following areas: the usefulness of New Faculty Orientation,
communication with faculty, students, and staff about how CET can best meet
their needs, outreach to faculty encouraging them to use technology in the
classroom, and strengthening the tie between the CET and the Professional
Development Council. The COC appreciates
the emphasis on communication with faculty, students, and staff, and the
CETAB’s efforts to expand the CET activities beyond technology to emphasize
strategies for attaining and preserving excellence in the teaching/ learning
process.
The report from the CETAB acknowledged 2004-2005 as a
year of transition and introspection for the CET. Some of the topics the Board discussed were
significant changes to the CET staffing, a CETAB reading group, new faculty
orientation, internal audit of the CET, the roles of pedagogy and technology
within the CET’s mission, and organizational change within Academic Affairs and
its effect on the CET.
In the year ahead, the CETAB will likely shift its
focus to advising the Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development
about the creation of a center for teaching and professional development, with
less emphasis on technology. In addition
to its ongoing activities, the COC encourages the CETAB to consider its charge
in light of the planned changes (e.g., moving the CET to the Office of Faculty
Affairs and Professional Development and moving the technology component to the
Office of Academic Technology).
12. Committee for the
Protection of Human Subjects (CPHS)
The CPHS is charged with the responsibility to review
all human subjects research activities conducted at SFSU. The 20-member committee met for a total of 24
meetings during 2004-2005. A total of
143 non-exempt protocols were reviewed by the committee during this time frame;
graduate assistants and office staff pre-reviewed a total of 450 protocols. The COC congratulates CPHS staff for
obtaining CIP (certified IRB professional) certification during 2004-2005,
providing the committee with qualified staff to handle CPHS concerns.
In 2004-2005, the CPHS modified their Web site, held
over 30 informational meetings with students and faculty in a number of departments
and colleges, developed procedures for notifying faculty and non-exempt
research investigators when protocols are due to expire, and offered
conditional enrollment in culminating experience courses for graduate students
with non-approved human subjects protocols.
The committee added eleven new members and subdivided the committee into
two working groups. The COC needs
additional information to clarify the purpose of the two working groups; and
whether the committee is subdivided based on discipline or workload. The CPHS has presented an ambitious agenda
for the coming Academic Year including comprehensive review of human subjects
policies, adding information to the Web site to enhance transparency of the
human subjects review process, host a conference related to human subjects
protection in behavioral and social science research, streamlining of joint
research review processes, and development of guidelines and policies for
international research projects.
The COC commends the CPHS for enhancing communication
with faculty and student researchers, reducing protocol review and approval
times, and increasing committee membership.
The COC acknowledges concerns regarding the interim appointment of the Chair/Coordinator
position and the challenges associated with recruitment of non-scientists to
the committee membership. Suggestions to
ask the Academic Senate for assistance in recruitment efforts are worthy of
consideration. The COC lauds the CPHS
for their on-going work in the very significant area of protecting the rights
of human research subjects.
13. Curriculum Review and
Approval Committee (CRAC)
The COC commends the membership of the CRAC for their
extraordinary service in 2004-2005. It
notes that despite spending most of fall semester and part of spring involved
in the work of the Educational Policies Council, the committee reviewed 10
curriculum proposals (see the EPC summary for a more complete discussion of
CRAC’s work on program discontinuance).
These reviews sometimes involved more than one review and several
meetings. The proposals were revisions
of the:
·
BA in Dance
·
Minor in Dance
·
Masters of Public
Administration
·
BS in Statistics
·
BA in Women’s
Studies
·
Minor in Women’s
Studies
·
Graduate
Certificate in Guide Dog Mobility
·
CEL Digital Media
Production Certificate
·
Clinical
Laboratory Science Internship Graduate Certificate Program
·
Title Change in
the MA in Biology
Finally, the committee completed guidelines for
departments preparing proposals to CRAC.
The COC commends the CRAC membership for its
outstanding work this year in the very hard task of reviewing and deciding upon
discontinuance and suspension recommendations and numerous curriculum
proposals. The COC also recommends that the
Executive Committee consider increasing the membership of the CRAC in order to
accomplish their important tasks.
14. Educational Policies
Council (EPC)
Convened only under circumstances specified in its
charge, EPC -- comprised of the membership of the Academic Policies Committee
and the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee -- can go for years at a time
without meeting at all. In 2004-2005,
faced with a campus mandate to opt for deep and narrow rather than broad and
shallow cuts in response to the budget crisis (resulting in the perceived
necessity to undertake program discontinuance and/or suspension), it met
frequently and at length to review proposals for suspension or discontinuance
of academic programs.
The first of EPC’s ten meetings, devoted to planning
for the process, took place in May 2004, the remaining nine between September
2004 and February 2005. Despite the
intensity of feeling generated by the process, EPC succeeded in its mission,
preparing recommendations for the full Academic Senate about degrees or
certificates in eight programs: BA in Kinesiology; MA in Gerontology; two
undergraduate programs in DAI; BA in Social Science; certificate in Clinical
Lab Sciences (CLS); BA and MA in Russian; the Liberal Studies Concentration and
the Minor in NEXA; the Minor in California Studies.
At its final meeting, in addition to reflecting about
the many concerns that had arisen during the discontinuance process, the EPC
was joined by members of the Academic Program Review Committee to discuss a
point that had been raised in several instances: that some programs had been
identified for discontinuance although they had recently received positive
program reviews, thereby generating some of the difficulty and dissonance for
the EPC in its decision-making. Some
of the proposals made at this meeting have already been incorporated into the
guidelines for the sixth cycle of academic program review on this campus.
The COC knows that no summary can fully acknowledge
the nature of the challenge presented to the EPC, nor convey the importance of
the work so thoughtfully done. It
extends special thanks to the committee members for engaging so carefully with
the demanding, organizationally complex, and often-fractious issues it had to
work with, and to the chair for coordinating this most difficult exercise in
shared governance. It also knows that
the separate committees were forced to put aside some of their other agenda
items and will have heavy schedules during 2005-2006 and looks forward to a
year in which they can turn their attention to more routine tasks.
15. Faculty
Affairs Committee (FAC)
The FAC reports a busy year in which the committee
worked on a varied list of subjects: the
draft of a policy on graduate teaching associates; development of a list of
nominees for the new University Research Council; response to issues raised by
the 2004 COC report (about the University Promotion, Sabbatical, and
Professional Development Committees); a proposal for a Faculty Honors and
Awards Committee; study of the existing Academic Senate policies on retention,
tenure, and promotion. Additionally, it
invited six guests for discussion of different agenda items.
The committee developed a draft policy on GTAs that it
then forwarded to the Executive Committee for review. Concurrent with this process, however, and
with little public knowledge, came the news that all graduate students employed
by the CSU now have a collective bargaining agent (the United Auto
Workers). The COC suggests that before
further discussion of the proposed policy the FAC will need to consult that
document to ensure that the policy is consistent with its terms.
The COC appreciates the time and effort the FAC has
invested in reviewing the RTP policy language.
The committee identifies four areas in which it is interested: criteria;
levels of review; content and format of working personnel action files; the RTP
calendar. Any change in campus policy
will, again, need to be fully consistent with the collective bargaining
agreement between CFA and CSU. The COC
urges consultation with faculty familiar with the personnel processes in order
to achieve the best possible outcome.
The FAC appears to have had good results from doing very limited and
highly focused revisions on personnel policy (for instance, in looking at the
Promotion Policy it noted and corrected language discrepant with the Agreement,
and received unanimous approval from the full Senate); changes involving more
than such cosmetic revision will require close reading and understanding of the
relevant language of the Agreement and of subsequent case law resulting from
arbitration decisions.
On the other hand, the COC is appreciative of the work
the FAC did in seeking nominees to the University Research Council, addressing
questions that had been raised about the process of applying for sabbaticals,
and developing and bringing forward the proposal for a committee on faculty
awards and honors. The COC looks forward
to the realization of this potentially positive means of recognizing the work
done by faculty on this campus.
The COC also encourages the FAC to do wide
consultation before making any recommendations for substantive change in the
retention, tenure, or promotion policies.
16. General Education Council
(GEC)
The GEC achieved all of the general education goals
for 2004-2005 outlined in the 2003-2004 COC report. The council submitted recommendations to the
Writing Taskforce, collected and analyzed data to determine if budget cuts had
any adverse impact on GE offerings, proceeded with ongoing evaluations,
submitted an assessment plan to the Chancellors office, and initiated an
evaluation of the GE committee structure.
The COC commends the GEC for their outstanding accomplishments.
Their activities in 2004-2005 focused on policy
changes, oversight responsibilities, and consultation with various campus
entities on issues that had potential implications for general education.
The GEC completed a massive and impressive
consolidation of twelve separate general education policies and amendments into
one coherent and consistent document that was approved by the Academic Senate
(#F04-64) in fall 2004. The Academic
Senate asked GEC to review the paragraph on enrollment, and the GEC submitted a
recommendation for a new policy (#S05-64), which the Senate approved in spring
2005. Ongoing policy activities include
submitting for Academic Senate consideration draft documents for potential
policy changes regarding the once-a-year rule and the composition of the GE
committees.
A notable accomplishment of its oversight
responsibilities was implementing GE offering policies and cluster review
compliance. Other activities focused on
responding to reports from GEC subcommittees.
The GEC was asked to consult on several campus
initiatives. The committee responded to
the Writing Taskforce regarding writing on campus; they consulted on the
potential impact of discontinuing the NEXA program on general education course
offerings in Segment III clusters in which NEXA courses play a significant
role; and the GEC chair met with the Chair of the Academic Senate and a
representative from the Facilitating Graduation Taskforce to discuss a review
of graduation requirements proposed for 2005-2006.
In addition to their ongoing policy activities and
oversight responsibilities, the COC encourages GEC’s participation in preparing
the campus community for an external review of graduation requirements. The GEC will be asked to comment on plans
for: preparing a self-study of graduation requirements for external review;
identifying nationally recognized experts in general education; and conducting
the external review.
17. Graduate
Council
The Graduate Council was quite active during this past
year, moving ahead in several critical areas as well as carrying out their
normal activities.
The council moved ahead proactively in four important
areas: creating financial scholarships
for graduate students, working on recommendations on faculty workload in
graduate programs, writing proficiency, and on the assessment of graduate
programs. Among their activities in
these areas this year was the awarding of two scholarships based on
fund-raising by the council and participation in writing the graduate section
of the Writing Program Taskforce report.
A council subcommittee prepared a report on workload practices around
the campus, finding that many departments still have a 4-course teaching
load. Several members of the council
also participated on the Graduate Program Review Taskforce in preparation for
the 6th Cycle of academic program review, which has proposed
focusing on graduate programs.
Among the council’s regular activities are
facilitating two Graduate Coordinator meetings for the campus each year and the
review of graduate curriculum proposals.
This past year, members reviewed six proposals:
·
Transition of the
MA in Biology to the MS in Biology
·
Master of Public
Administration curriculum revision
·
MS in Recreation
curriculum revision
·
Guide Dog
Mobility Certificate
·
Clinical
Laboratory Science Internship Certificate (move to
·
MBA curriculum
offered in
In addition, the council selected the recipient for
the Graduate Hood, a difficult choice as always.
The council also moved forward with work with the Dean
of Graduate Studies on issues of paired courses, unclassified student
admissions and the differences between the MA and the MS degrees. After further work on this issue, the council
then forwarded a recommendation to the Academic Senate.
The Chair of the Graduate Council also represented the
Council on a Special Admit Committee and provided feedback on Post-Tenure
Review for a key student services faculty member.
The COC commends the Graduate Council for their
excellent, proactive work this year on behalf of graduate programs and
students. The COC looks forward to the
Graduate Council’s implementation of recommendations from the Writing
Taskforce. The COC encourages the
council to continue playing an active role in advancing the quality of graduate
studies at SFSU -- including the ongoing provision of input on the 6th
Cycle of Academic Program Review.
18. Honorary Degree Committee
The COC is appreciative of the efforts made by
committee members in 2004-2005. The
committee met several times—making recommendations to the Office of the
President for consideration. The Office
of the President submitted a nominee to the CSU Board of Trustees and received
approval for honorary degree conferral. Unfortunately,
the candidate was unable to attend commencement ceremonies. The COC is hopeful that a campus nominee will
be conferred, and available to receive, an honorary degree in 2005-2006.
19. Liberal
Studies Council (LSC)
The LSC focused this year on reviewing the impact of
the discontinuance of the Social Science and NEXA programs on Liberal Studies
and on enhancing the existing program.
They worked on learning objectives for Area III Core courses (in
consultation with the
The COC commends the LSC for their continued work on
the Liberal Studies degree programs and hopes that its continued efforts result
in the program attracting the highest caliber of degree candidates possible.
20. Library
Advisory Committee (LAC)
The LAC is charged with
advising the University library on its operation while maintaining balanced
services to the campus community. The LAC met eight times over the course of
2004-2005. These meetings were primarily
devoted to the following issues.
·
Library expansion
and renovation project,
·
CSU libraries
strategic plans (preliminary planning themes),
·
CSU involvement
in the Educational Testing Services-Information Communication Technology
(ETS-ITC) literacy assessment,
·
Redesign of the
Library’s Website, and
·
Sentient Discover
product review.
Members offered feedback and informal recommendations
in these meetings and raised questions of concern to their colleagues on these
important items.
All agenda items for 2004-2005 were completed. For the upcoming academic year, the Library
Renovation and Expansion Project and redesign of the library’s webpage will
continue to be the primary issues.
The COC congratulates the LAC on a productive year and
strongly encourages its active involvement in developing/implementing specific
procedures for timely consultation and notification of faculty and students
about library planning and management—especially during the upcoming library
construction project.
21. Professional
Development Council (PDC)
In 2004-2005, the PDC focused its efforts on the
review and evaluation of the applications for the annual Research, Scholarship
and Creative Activity awards. With the
help of the Office of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development, the award process again proceeded smoothly and
efficiently. During the review process,
the council identified a number of issues regarding both the application and
review process. The council drafted
several recommendations to address these issues. The areas for which recommendations were made
include: application and review processes; priority, equity, and
eligibility; funding; and feedback for denials.
The PDC delineated two important goals for 2005-2006:
to address the acknowledged lack of uniformity in the review processes by the
PDC sub-committees, the PDC’s policy for subcommittee review should be
examined; and the PDC should also work with the Dean of Faculty Affairs and
Professional Development in shaping the future of faculty professional development
at SFSU.
The COC commends the PDC for another year of
impressive work in advancing the professional development of SFSU faculty. The COC supports the council’s efforts in
continuing the standardization of the application and review processes -- especially
with regard to the increasing uniformity amongst the subcommittee review
process. However, the COC is concerned
about the proposed recommendation to merge the affirmative action awards with
the VP’s Assigned Time Awards. While the
COC appreciates the proposal to prioritize the funding of underrepresented
faculty in all competitions for assigned time awards, it is not as confident as
the council seems to be when it comes to ensuring continued support of
underrepresented faculty if the affirmative action award is collapsed into a
generic pool. The COC recommends that
the PDC consult with the Faculty Affairs Committee and to consider the
Provost’s plans for further enhancing diversity within the ranks of faculty
prior to changing the affirmative action awards.
22. Student
Affairs Committee (SAC)
The COC was disappointed to see the SAC not include fall
2004 activities in its report.
However, during the spring semester, the Committee
reviewed student grievance policies and made recommendations to make these
policies more clear and accessible to students.
The Committee also recommended the policies should be revised by legal
counsel and reviewed by all interested parties.
The Committee also reviewed the
The COC is encouraged by steps taken during the spring
to change the direction of the committee’s work into a more productive
position. COC hopes that these projects
will become concrete and that the Committee will take a proactive role in the
review of important policies and in developing sound projects (such as the
review of the Athletic Advisory Board policy).
It also points out that the best way to increase committees’ visibility
is consistent, positive action on behalf of its constituents.
23. Teacher
Credential Committee (TCC)
This report should be read with the report on the
All-University Teacher Education Committee.
The TCC consists of one representative from each
College. It recommends action on
existing and proposed teacher credential programs to the Dean of the
The committee accomplished a great deal last year
related to important technical issues of teacher education and related program
approvals. Five new waiver programs
(undergraduate programs qualifying students for admission to post-graduate
credential programs) were approved and a number of other complex legal and
policy issues arising out of the No Child Left Behind law were discussed.
There is one slight discrepancy in the report. The executive summary says that the committee
met twice a month, but the body of the report says that nine meetings were held
during the year.
The TCC plans an ambitious agenda for next year,
beginning with the review of five more waiver programs. They will consider a number of issues related
to waiver program in general, including assessment and community
involvement. Integration of methods for
working with second-language learners into credential programs will continue to
be studied, as well as the infusion of reading throughout the school curriculum.
The COC compliments the TCC for the number of new
programs reviewed and policies considered and for the clarity and thoroughness
of its report. The COC endorses the
committee’s stated agenda for 2005-2006.
The TCC provides a valuable conduit for communication between university
faculty and the programs that prepare teachers for local schools.
The UAAAC is charged with oversight of the academic
assessment process at SFSU, including liaison between Academic Affairs, the
Academic Senate and the faculty. The
Committee is not responsible for the assessments themselves, and last year they
decided not to review or evaluate the various departmental assessment plans on
campus.
The Committee is very large to the point of being
unwieldy (there are 20 names on the signature page including four
representatives of other Senate committees), and last year many positions
remained unfilled. In addition to
missing members, the Committee was hampered by the lack of an Assessment
Coordinator as a point of contact with the Administration. Nevertheless there were active members on the
Committee who advanced its work. They
began a Web site of assessment resources which will be valuable for faculty
when completed, and they contributed to the discussion of the 6th
cycle of Academic Program Review.
Next year the Committee plans to survey all faculties
regarding the effectiveness of SFSU assessment activities, to continue
developing the assessment resources Web site, to review Academic Senate
policies concerning assessment and to review the handbook for the 6th
cycle of Academic Program Review.
The COC recognizes that efficient, credible assessment
of academic programs is essential for periodic accreditation reviews, whether
by WASC or by professional societies, and for demonstrating the University’s
value to the public that funds it. The
COC asks if SFSU’s assessment efforts might be better served by a smaller
committee, all of whose members are fully dedicated to its task, working with
an administrator whose primary responsibility is program assessment and
review. Last year’s committee did
excellent work, but they were perhaps distracted by the absence of so many
members. A committee the size of last
year’s working group could be more effective.
The COC is dismayed to be without a report from the
university Advancement Activities Advisory Committee. The absence of a report leads the COC to
wonder about the committee’s role and function in 2004-2005. The COC is hopeful that, with the new
leadership in University Advancement, the Committee will be better utilized in
future years.
The CWEP met twice monthly in 2004-2005 for a very
busy and productive year. The committee
responded to the University Writing Task Force campus survey on the external
evaluators recommendations for changes to the writing program at SFSU. They described the committee’s conception of
their role in implementing the strategic plan for writing at SFSU in their
written response to the University Writing Task Force. The CWEP planned an Articulation Conference
to be held on October 21, 2005 for local community colleges. The CWEP membership was strengthened by
replacing at-large members and successfully recruiting a community college
representative and a graduate student representative. Finally, the committee recommended that the
International English Language Test (IELTS) be approved as a language test
option for international students applying to SFSU.
The CWEP proposed the following agenda for 2005-2006:
organize and hold an Articulation Conference on October 21, 2005; consider
changes to CWEP’s charge and representation in light of the University Writing Task
Force Strategic Plan; invite a SFSU articulation officer to explain changes to
the California Articulation Number System (CAN); address the change in CSU
English transfer requirement as it affects City College of San Francisco
transfers to the SFSU English as a second language program; and explore issues
of graduate-level literacy, including the future of the Graduate Essay Test.
The COC endorses the CWEP agenda proposed for
2005-2006. The COC encourages all
members of the campus community to support the CWEP’s efforts to implement the
recommendations proposed in the CUSP-II goals and the Writing Taskforce report.
27. University
Interdisciplinary Council (UIC)
The ten members of the UIC met twice monthly during
2004-2005. Charged with developing and
promoting interdisciplinary academic programs as well as supporting existing
interdisciplinary programs, the council concluded a number of activities. These activities included: publication and
distribution of a council newsletter (also posted on the UIC Web site);
consultation and comments regarding the proposed interdisciplinary minor in
Greek studies as well as comments on the suspended Gerontology Program and 4
discontinued interdisciplinary programs; submissions regarding writing across
the curriculum to the Writing Task Force; reports to President Corrigan on
student and faculty interdisciplinary activities; review of a number of free
standing minors in a Free Standing Minors Report to the President and Provost
recommending strategies to enhance student consideration of this educational
opportunity in a number of colleges; participation in the Segment III
Committee; and sponsoring a session on interdisciplinary opportunities at the
Asilomar Faculty Retreat.
The council identifies a number of activities for
2005-2006. These activities include
strategies to facilitate funding of interdisciplinary research, increase the
numbers of students taking minors, and strategies designed to protect
interdisciplinary programs when resources are limited.
The COC applauds the work of the UIC during the past
academic year and recognizes the challenges faced by the council with resource
constraints and interdisciplinary program discontinuances. The COC encourages the council to engage in
serious reflection on the importance of interdisciplinarity and its role in
shaping curricula for the 21st century.
2004-2005 was a busy year for the UPC, which reviewed
forty-six candidates for promotion. In
collaboration with the Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development,
the UPC chair held eight informational meetings with individual colleges and
the Library, and conducted two campus-wide RTP workshops in Fall 2004.
The Academic Senate resolved the inconsistency between
senate policy and the collective bargaining agreement regarding eligibility for
promotion. The policy revision
(F04-028) was approved by the Academic Senate and President Corrigan on
November 2, 2004. On another matter, the
Academic Senate, Provost, and President supported the UPC in their efforts to
minimize the late submission of promotion files, which resulted in late files
submitted by only one college. Finally,
the UPC was pleased to report that President Corrigan complied with their
request to copy the UPC regarding his decision about promotion cases.
The UPC identified several issues in its annual report
for consideration by the 2005-2006 committee.
First, the UPC received several promotion files with missing pages
and/or that contained tenure material.
Second, one college was negligent in their submission of material. For four of the promotion files, the UPC
members each received different dossiers for the same faculty. Third, the UPC was very concerned about one
department whose promotion criteria were inconsistent with the University’s
promotion policy. Finally, the UPC noted
that not all RTP committees conduct annual peer classroom observations and
evaluations for their departments assistant and associate professors.
The COC recognizes that one of the most treasured
rights of faculty is participation in the RTP process and that this process
deserves greater attention to the detail of established policy and process than
it appears to be given in many cases.
Many of the concerns raised by the UPC reflect
department and college practices that are not consistent with university
policy. Therefore, the COC recommends an
emphasis on the following promotion practices in the UPC’s meetings with
candidates, promotion committee chairs, department chairs, and college deans.
·
Conduct annual
peer classroom observations and evaluations for a department’s assistant and
associate professors.
·
Monitor the
quality of promotion files: eliminate tenure material, replace missing pages,
and correctly duplicate files.
·
Inform the one
department whose promotion criteria are inconsistent with University policy
that they are in breach of Academic Senate policy F04-28.
The UPC is strongly advised to deliver accurate
information based on the collective bargaining agreement and senate
policy. The creation of new practices by
UPC from year-to-year limits candidates’ understanding of the promotions
process.
The UPC made recommendations for increased resources
that deserve careful consideration. They
recommended an additional .2 release time for the UPC Chair if the number of
promotion cases is exceptionally high.
Also, the UPC expressed concern about the lack of space and security in
the Academic Senate office. Given the
resource limitations on campus, the UPC is encouraged to consider the use of
electronic portfolios—maintaining security and accessibility--as one strategy
for minimizing the workload and space needs of the committee.
The URC’s charge is to ensure an active faculty role
in recommending policies and providing avenues for discussion of issues related
to research at the University. The
council also takes an active role in advocating and celebrating excellence in
research.
The COC congratulates the members of the URC for an
excellent first year of service to the University. Issues addressed in its inaugural year
include the following: changes in administrative infrastructure related to the
CMS/FMS conversion; the needs of new faculty in the area of research support;
clarification of the rates of indirect costs and how the dollars are allocated
on campus; and strategies for the facilitation of faculty research.
The COC supports the URC’s proposed agenda for
2005-2006. The COC is especially
interested in the council’s deliberations on the following: definition of
professional development to include research and creative activities;
differential compensation for “research” faculty and teaching faculty; the need
for more training and mentoring of faculty in the pursuit of external funding,
grant administration and grant-related personnel concerns; review and
development of campus practice/policy on intellectual property rights; and the
role of professional development/research in the RTP process. An additional item, recommended by the COC,
to the 2005-2006 agenda is the development of a University-wide research
mission statement that would describe the role of research in scholarly
activities. The URC is also encouraged
to add the Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development as an ex oficio
member to the council.
The USC reviewed 30 proposals for leave with pay. The committee met three times to review
proposals and generate recommendations for sabbatical awards. The USC also met with the Provost and the
Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professional Development to discuss the review
process and to report their recommendations.
The USC and the Provost disagreed about leave with pay awards for two
faculty members. The President awarded
27 sabbatical awards for 2005-2006, which is consistent with the numbers of
awards designated for SFSU.
In its annual report, the committee identified several
issues for consideration. The USC
expressed concern about the ambiguity of the term sabbatical. The term sabbatical is consistent with
language in the collective bargaining, and therefore, the COC encourages the
USC to retain the original name of the committee. The USC also expressed concern about the
purpose of the committee and whether it has contributed to the leave-with-pay
award process. The USC is also concerned
that in addition to the three criteria contained in the policy, additional
criteria have been added to the evaluation process at various levels of
review. The USC noted that each
application differed significantly regarding the amount of documentation
forwarded to the committee. Finally,
some deans and committees provided a written rationale for their rank ordering
of applications, and other deans were less diligent.
The COC commends the USC for its thorough report of
committee activities and applauds their recommendations for improving the
evaluation process. Many of the concerns
raised by the USC reflect college practices that are not consistent with
university policy. Therefore, the COC
recommends that the Faculty Affairs Committee, in partnership with the USC,
develop an information session for Deans
Council and Department Chairs’ meetings that addresses
the following issues:
·
Colleges that
review extraneous criteria produce inconsistency at the level of USC review.
·
Clarify the
review process so that candidates know what documentation to forward.
·
Request that
Deans provide a written rationale for their rankings.
Respectfully submitted,
Gene Chelberg, Chair
9 November 2005
APPENDIX
The following committees are charged with submitting
annual reports to the Academic Senate:
1. Academic Affirmative Action Committee (AAAC)
2. Academic Freedom Committee (AFC)
3. Academic Policies Committee (APC)
4. Academic Program Review Committee (APRC)
5. All-University Committee on International Programs (AUCIP)
6. All-University Committee on Students,
Faculty and Staff with Disabilities (AUCSFSD)
7. All-University Enrollment Management
Committee (AUEMC)
8. All-University Teacher Education Committee
(AUTEC)
9. Athletic Advisory Board (AAB)
10. Board of Appeals and Review (BOAR)
12. Committee for the Protection of Human
Subjects (CPHS)
13. Curriculum Review and Approval Committee
(CRAC)
14. Educational Policies Council (EPC)
15. Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC)
16. General Education Council (GEC)
17. Graduate Council
18. Honorary Degree Committee
19. Liberal Studies Council (LSC)
20. Library Advisory Committee (LAC)
21. Professional Development Council (PDC)
22. Student Affairs Committee (SAC)
23. Teacher Credential Committee (TCC)
24. University Academic Assessment Advisory
Committee (UAAAC)
25. University Advancement Activities Advisory Committee
26. University Committee on Written English Proficiency (CWEP)
27. University Interdisciplinary Council (UIC)
29. University Research Council (URC)
30. University Sabbatical Committee (USC)