The
Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Vaughn at
Senate Members Present:
|
Aaron,
Eunice Alvarez,
Bartscher,
Patricia Boyle,
Andrea Cherny,
Robert Colvin,
Caran Concolino,
Christopher Consoli,
Andres Daniels,
Robert Duke,
Jerry |
Edwards,
James Fung, Robert Garcia,
Oswaldo Garcia,
Gerson, Deborah Gregory,
Jan Harnly,
Caroline Hom, Marlon Houlberg,
Rick Hubler, Barbara Jerris, Scott Kassiola, Joel |
La
Belle, Thomas Langbort,
Carol Levine,
Josh Luft,
Sandra McKeon,
Midori Moallem,
Minoo Nichols,
Amy Ońate, Abdiel Pong,
Wen Shen Raggio,
Marcia Shrivastava,
Vinay Smith,
Miriam |
Steier, Saul Su,
Yuli Turitz,
Mitch Vaughn,
Pamela Warren,
Penelope Yip,
Yewmun |
|
Senate Members Absent: Warren, Mary Anne (exc),
Strong, Rob (exc), Terrell, Dawn (exc), Sayeed, Lutfus (abs), Adisa-Thomas, Karima (abs), Ganji, Vijay (exc),
Higgins, Susan (abs), Gillotte, Helen (exc), Henry, Margaret (exc), Scoble, Don (exc), Collier,
James (exc), Corrigan, Robert A. (exc), Newt-Scott, Ronda (abs), Wolfe, Bruce (exc), Bishop, Anna (abs). |
|
Guests: Paul Barnes, John Gemello, Dan Buttlaire, Gail
Whitaker, Roy Conboy, Lisa Jordon, Mary Beth Love. |
Announcements
Robert Cherny, CSU Academic Senator, encourage all Senators to
contact their colleagues and to vote on changes to the statewide CSU Academic
Senate Constitution.
Chair’s Report
Chair Pamela Vaughn encouraged all Senators who haven’t voted on the SFSU
constitution and the CSU constitution to do so as soon as possible. Of
particular concern is the voting on changes to the SFSU constitution. We are
required to have a quorum of all voting faculty. If faculty need additional
ballots please contact the Senate office. Additionally, Senators should encourage
their colleagues to vote. She reminded all Senators that balloting on campus-wide
elections, college elections, and nominations for membership of the Provost search committee are also taking place.
m/s/p (Onate, Consoli) to
approve the agenda
m/s/p (Houlberg, Mary Anne
Warren) to approve the minutes as corrected
Election of the Senate’s representative to the Graduate
Council.
Marlon
Hom was elected as the Senate’s representative to the Graduate Council by
acclamation.
A small
committee from the Senate Executive Committee and Academic Affairs consisting
of Pamela Vaughn, Caran Colvin, Barbara Hubler
representing the Senate, and Gail Whitaker and Richard Giardina
representing Academic Affairs, have
been working on principles and procedures for temporary suspension of academic
programs. The goal of the principles and procedures is to bring some structure
to an informal and previously “unapproved” process of temporary suspension of
academic programs. The principles and procedures will allow programs to have
some flexibility in their curricular planning and revision without unduly
disadvantaging students and other university programs. The Executive Committee
feels that the attached draft would benefit greatly from comments and
suggestions from the members of the Academic Senate. A copy of the draft was
provided to all senators.
Chair
Pamela Vaughn
introduced the draft to the senate and indicated that its development was the
result of discussion that came out of the IAC discontinuous process. The
Provost has completed extensive research on program “banking” and subsequent to
that the committee was formed to develop and approve the process of program
suspension. The principles and procedures agreed to by the committee and
endorsed by the Senate Executive Committee are not before the Senate for debate
and discussion. Jan Gregory asked
if it might be more useful to look at enrollment in the programs over a period
of time (a few years) rather that just looking at current enrollment. Pamela
Vaughn, speaking for the committee, indicated that they were concerned with
the students who are impacted with the decision and the time of suspension and
not that concerned with the history. However, the committee is open to
including consideration of changes in enrollment patterns over a period of
time. Jan Gregory indicated that she would like to see all the points
about enrollment (past trends) to be included as part of the procedures for
suspension of a program. Rick Houlberg suggested that consultation with
students currently enrolled in the program was important and should be required
in the process. He also indicated that a recommendation for suspension should
start with the faculty in the program and not from administration. He also
indicated that it isn’t clear what happens to the program at the end of the
three-year period of suspension. Are we required to resume the program. Pamela Vaughn said all of these suggestions
will be included in the new draft. It is assumed that at the end of the
three-year suspension the program would be revisited and the faculty would
consider recommendation for resumption or discontinuance. Robert Daniels
asked for an explanation of the difference between the suspension of a program
and the discontinuance of a program? Pamela Vaughn pointed out that
there exists a policy on the discontinuance of a
program but no policy for the suspension of a program. Gail Whitaker
indicated that the goal is to improve the situation so that the process is not
abused. She indicated that Mary Beth Love, chair of Health Education,
and Roy Conboy, chair of Theater Arts, have both used the program
suspension process in the past and were present to indicate their experience. Mary
Beth Love indicated that the department has found it very useful to be able
to suspend a program while working on other curriculum items. Generally, it has
been a resource issue; we just didn’t have enough faculty members to work on
all programs at once. The suspension has allowed us to look at other ways of
offering the program such as extended learning or other options. The MA in
Psychology: Concentration in
Physiological Psychology has been “suspended” out of the Bulletin since
1994. That was also when the department
discussed reviewing the MA as an outcome of their last program review. In the department's self study for the
current program review cycle, we indicate that we have not completed the review
of the MA but intend to complete it and provide recommendations in 2001-02. The department has developed a proposal--for
either revision or discontinuance--regarding the MA. The department's external review is scheduled
for
Agenda Item #5: Draft
routing Sheet for First-Year Review of Tenure-Track Teaching Faculty
Caran
Colvin,
chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee introduced the proposed first year
retention routing form. She indicated that it is proposed that the new form
would replace the current form. The Faculty Affairs committee has developed the
proposed routing form to simplify the first-year review of tenure-track
teaching faculty. The first year faculty member will no longer be required to
produce a WPAF in his/her first year. The first year faculty member would
receive vital information about department evaluation criteria and procedures
through the use of the proposed routing form. The intention of the new form is
to facilitate and assure that conversations between the first year hire and the department retention committee and the
department chair take place. The form attempts to clarify the expectations of
the department for the retentions and tenure of probationary faculty in their
first year. The Faculty Affairs Committee has attempted to make the form as
simple and self-explanatory as possible. The back of the form has a place to
address these areas of retention and tenure as outlined in the Faculty Handbook.
Departments are encouraged to apply to this areas their own criteria for the
various categories as found in the Faculty Handbook. The goal of the form is to
clarify the first year experience for the new hire and make it clear to the new
hire the department performance expectations.
The first year hire would still attach their curriculum vita to the
form, as has been the practice in the past. This draft form has been sent to
department chairs and program directors for their comments and suggestions. The
proposed draft is before the Senate today for discussion, comments, and
suggestions.
Rick
Houlberg
asserted that it is important to get department criteria for first year hires
in writing and signed off by all levels of the review process. He indicated
that the backside of the form was too restrictive and needed to be more
flexible as to the amount of space allocated to the different areas of
retention as specified in the Faculty Handbook. Scott Jerris stated that
he is strongly in favor of getting the specification and expectation for new
faculty hires in writing. Additionally, he saw the form as a healthy activity
for departments in getting them to write down exactly what they wanted in the
performance activities of new hires. Dean Kassiola, as a member of FAC,
elaborated on the presentation of the chair of FAC. The intention is to drop a
lot of the paperwork and replace with the forum that would be more specific. He
agreed with Rick Houlberg that a signature page is important. The goal is to
use the first year’s review to bring the candidate and department together to
clarify how they are going to judge the candidate’s performance. Pamela
Vaughn indicated that the intention of the proposed new form is to get
departments to be very clear about their criteria for retention review. Mitch
Turitz, a member of FAC, supports the new form. He indicated that he would
like to see the notation about the terminal years removed since this is in the
first few weeks of work performance and a judgment concerning termination could
not be made. He also believes that the department can change the second page as
long as they address the areas of retention as covered in the collective
bargaining agreement. Midori McKeon
strongly objected to the introduction of the new form. She felt that the criteria as established in the Faculty Handbook was flexible
enough to allow for each department and each new faculty member to express the
criteria to reflect their own need and expectation. She believes that it is
dangerous for a department to use a form that would limit flexibility in the
process of review of faculty. The process of evaluation of new faculty must
remain flexible to allow the faculty member to grow and the department to grow
as situations change. Pamela Vaughn indicated that the new form does not
limit department flexibility. The form provides a guideline for what is
expected. This new form can be very helpful for every department and new
faculty. Marlon Hom suggested that this form is long over due. We need
to give our new hires a sense of belonging here at SFSU and what is expected of
them. Some departments do not have guidelines or established criteria for the
review of first year hires. The departments that do have guidelines and
established criteria can attach their guidelines as a replacement for the
second page. Robert Cherny agreed with Marlon Hom and suggested that the
second page is important only for those departments that do not have a
department expectation. Caran Colvin, chair of FAC, indicated that it is
the intention of the committee to make the second page as flexible as possible.
The intent of the form is not to tell the departments what they should or
should not do. In regard to the issue
about the second or the terminal years, it was never our intention that the
review occurs after two months. It could occur later. Miriam Smith
indicated that she remains confused with the difference between campus and
university non-teaching activities. Andres Consoli asserted that the
document is much needed because is supports both the faculty member and the
department in the development of expectations and criteria for the evaluation
of job performance. Tom La Belle: A couple of comments, the document and
the way it is written and the four “check all that apply” tend to shift the responsibility and the
criteria to the department level. But the fact of the matter is the President
makes the decision upon the advice of numerous people. I think it is important
that we not bring a new faculty member here and have him or her believe that if
he or she satisfies all of the criteria at the department level that it means
that everything will be fine. Let me tell you how different departments are.
First: You may be all thinking that there is general agreement on how to
interpret criteria. But in fact it varies widely. Just some examples: I often
see that departments say that the individual teaching is above the department
mean and I can imagine a department expectation would be that the individual
student ratings are above the mean. But the department mean may be based upon
three faculty members, or five faculty members or whatever. It may be based on
certain kinds of courses and so on. Second: another is accreditation tends to
influence – for example in business – accreditation influences a lot – of
faculty expectations and they tend to have a particular formula of the way in
which they count publications and the points system and so on, which is unique
to business and that accreditation process. So in order to avoid a collusion course
here and to – the collusion is setting up the department in which this
basically implies - if not – if you go through it – and the last one says for
example, “Department expectations for retention, tenure, and promotion agreed
upon by the candidate and the department are attached to this document.” It gives
the impression that this is a contract and once the contract is fulfilled the
individual is home free and clear. Here is a statement that if I saw in front
of this “Check all that apply” I could live with for the most part the four
things under check all that apply. Something like this – “I understand that the
decision to promote and tenure is that of the president of the university upon
the advise of faculty colleagues and administrators at department and college
level, university level faculty committees as appropriate, and the office of
academic affairs and the provost.” To that end then you can go along – I have
met with – I have met with and so on. But it tells the candidate that the
department basically is a major component in this but alone does not set all of
the criteria. The second page I have the same problem that Miriam had –
expectation for university non-teaching activities – the further we get away
from senate policy on expectation for faculty promotion and tenure. We are
setting ourselves up for revising that policy, I think,
if you go this direction. One of the things, for example, I see in the
personnel records is that a faculty member will come forward and say “I have
been very much involved in my local church, I coached the local little league
team, and so on.” Sometimes that falls under community service – one of the
test I use is whether or not the kind of activity in the community, or
non-teaching, and I am not sure that I understand the difference between
university non-teaching and community service in this listing. One of the ways
that I believe that credit should be given is if the nature of the service is
linked to the professional role and responsibility of the faculty member in the
institution. So it should in some way be arguably an extension of the faculty
member’s or expertise knowledge in a field and not simply seeking credit for
things that as a citizen of the United States, or a citizen of the community,
or a citizen of the city, one might expect particular behavior. What I think
the major point here is that I would stick as much as possible to the three
categories of expectations and maybe break those out into more finite
subcategories. Another one that might be problematic is personal collegial
relationships. That is essentially an old black ball system. There are some
signals here that you want to be careful here – not trying to pin down too
closely. Chair Pamela Vaughn asserted that FAC can correct me but I
think this list found it way here because they are all in the contract. FAC
correction they are all in the senate policy. Tom La Belle asked:
University Non-Teaching I don’t believe is spelled out in the policy. Pamela
Vaughn asserted that it is a category in the university policy. Rick Houlberg indicated that
department and university retention criteria should be in writing. He is
concerned about protecting the work and performance of the faculty member and
not protecting the criteria that the institution might develop. Alvin
Alvarez spoke in support of the development of the new form and indicated
the importance of clarifying the expectation we have of new faculty. He
believes it is healthy for a department to begin early to have a discussion
with the new faculty member about their mutual expectations. Eunice Aaron
thanked the senate for placing these items on the agenda and appreciates the
active and involved discussion of may senators. She
pointed out that the form had also been sent out to department chairs to get their
input. It is true that the president does have the final approval for tenure of
faculty; however, he does not have the time to review each individual faculty
criteria but relies on his staff for input. We must all seek to make sure that
people are treated fairly. Jan Gregory indicated that she strongly
supports the comments made by Rick Houlberg. She suggested that some of
the points of the confusion on the forum can be very easily taken care of with
a cover letter that will address the concerns of the difference interpretation
of the form and how it is applied. Lastly, there is a very long established
academic principle that it is the faculty who bear the primary responsibility
for faculty evaluations for retention, promotion, and curriculum development.
That principle is supported by this document. Mitch Turitz drew strong
exception to some who have indicated that the department criteria are not as
important at the higher levels of this institution. He suggested that if there
is no consultation between the higher level of the institution and the
department faculty on the criteria of evaluation for retention, tenure, and
promotion, then how are the candidates to know by what criteria they are to be
evaluated? Chair Pamela Vaughn
indicated that we had reached a time certain, but would extend time to complete
the speaker’s list. Remaining on the speaker list are:
Cherny, Hom, and Harnly. Robert
Cherny, in response to those who have raised the issue of university
policy. The policy for retention, tenure and promotion specifies that the
departments draft the criteria for expectation of review. There is every
opportunity for all levels of review to review the department’s stated criteria
and make comments. The departments draft their statements so all are clear
regarding the criteria for evaluation. It does not preclude that other times
and levels can vary, in which case it would be part of our discussion that
there be a variation. Marlon Hom asserted that
in the review process that the department is more important than the higher
level because the departments have the expertise to create the most effective
evaluation criteria. It does not undermine the higher levels of review. Caroline
Harnly indicted that the form is not clear on who fills out the second page,
whether it is the department chair, faculty committee or the faculty member. Chair
Pamela Vaughn thanked all senators for the active and informative
discussion. She reminded senators that the proposed form is a draft and will
undergo many changes. The new routing sheet is proposed to replace the existing
first year form. The intention of the new routing sheet is to encourage
departments and first year faculty to establish mutual shared expectations for
the retention process. A copy of the proposed first year routing sheet may be
found on the Senate website at: www.sfsu.edu/~senate.
Comments regarding the new routing sheet can be sent to the chair of FAC Caran
Colvin at ccolvin@sfsu.edu
Chair
Pamela Vaughn
reminded Senators that a copy of the FAQs was provided with their packet of
information for today’s meeting. She introduced Jan Gregory who is responsible
for putting the FAQs together. Jan Gregory indicated that the list of
frequently asked questions with answers regarding the tentative agreement
covers a range of issue. The document is a work in process and it is hoped that
it will help explain items in the tentative agreement document. Additional
questions can be addressed to Jan Gregory at jgregory@sfsu.edu.
A copy of the list of frequently asked questions may be found on the Senate
website at: www.sfsu.edu/~senate. The
entire text of the new contract can be found on the CFA website: www.calfac.org. Marlon Hom asked since
the departments then do not make lecturer appointments how can the department play
a role in their evaluation and selection? Jan Gregory indicated that the
language of the agreement replaces any arrangement prior to the agreement. It
would seem that the department would hire and evaluate lectures. Mitch
Turitz suggested that the contract is new and that speculation on what may
or may not happen upon implementation is not helpful. He recommended that we
focus on real case scenarios and stay away from the “what if” situations.
The
Senate adjourned at
Respectfully
submitted,
James
Edwards
Secretary
to the Faculty