Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting
of October 9, 2001
The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Vaughn at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
| Aaron, Eunice Alvarez, Alvin Avila, Guadalupe Bartscher, Patricia Bishop, Anna Boyle, Andrea Cherny, Robert Collier, James Colvin, Caran Concolino, Christopher Consoli, Andres Corrigan, Robert |
Cullers, Susan Daniels, Robert Duke, Jerry Edwards, James Fung, Robert Gerson, Deborah Gregory, Jan Harnly, Caroline Henry, Margaret Higgins, Susan 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 Raggio, Marcia |
Sayeed, Lutfus Scoble, Don Shrivastava, Vinay Smith, Miriam Steier, Saul Su, Yuli Terrell, Dawn Turitz, Mitch Vaughn, Pamela Warren, Mary Anne Warren, Penelope Yip, Yewmun |
| Senate Members Absent: Oswaldo Garcia (exc.); Abdiel Oñate (exc.); Rob Strong (exc.); Thomas LaBelle (exc.); Karima Adisa-Thomas (abs) Ronda Newt (abs) James Collier (abs); Marv Friedman (abs); Velia Garcia (abs), Bruce Wolfe (abs). |
Guests: Debbie Masters, LaVonne Jacobsen, Paul Barnes, Gail Whitaker, Jerry Combs, Ron Compesi, Shannon Perry
Chair’s Report
Professor Marsha Melnick, immediate past Chair of the University Sabbatical Committee, was called away to a conference and will not be here today to present the committees’ report. The agenda amended to remove item 5. .
Agenda Item #2 – Approval of Minutes for September 25, 20001
Mary Anne Warren requested that when senators have duplicate last names that their first name initial be used to distinguished between the two.
The minutes were approved and the suggestion accepted.
Agenda Item #3 – Report from Debbie Masters, University Librarian, and LaVonne Jacobsen, Acting Head of Collection Management Services
Debbie Masters spoke from and provided each senate member a two-page summary of the space and collection management issues at the J. Paul Leonard Library. Masters addressed the three issues of (1) library renovation project, (2) library collection strategies, and (3) faculty role in collection development policy. Masters announced that there is a plan to expand and renovate the library building, which will allow for 50% more space, add an advanced Automated Retrieval System (ARS), and provide additional space to bring on campus the Sutro Library and the Labor Archives and Research Center. Masters outlined that the present library does not have sufficient space for the growing collections, which means the need to relocate or remove 30,000 to 34,000 volumes annually, or the equivalent number of volumes to what we add. She announced that contingent on the successful passing of a bond measure to fund the project, a library addition should be completed by July 2006 and renovation of the existing building by September 2007. Masters indicated that the big problem facing the library is the need to manage existing space for the next five to six years while still improving and updating the collection. Masters announced that in the past the library has added more stacks to accommodate the increases in our collection; however, we have run out of load-bearing space without further diminishing the already inadequate space for students to study. Masters discussed the increased use of selected electronic format for many publications, which provides simultaneous, remote, 24x7 delivery of full text without requiring on-site shelf space. The library staff is also pruning our collection, to eliminate materials that are obsolete, outdated or materials that may be misleading. She outlined two other options, use of off-site storage and off-site shelving. Masters indicated that the library is storing bound volumes of periodicals that are available in electronic format or through Document Delivery Services. A new project is off site shelving, not storage. There is excess capacity in the ARS at the new library facility at Sonoma State University. SFSU can use this space as off-site shelving using the electronic retrieval process called “Link +”. With this electronic retrieval system a person can request a book from off-site collections and have it delivered within a couple of days. A library faculty member is assigned to each department. The library has been and will continue to work very closely with the Academic Senate Library Advisory Committee. The committee meets monthly and is chaired by James Smith from the department of Mathematics. Lastly, senators Mitch Turitz and Caroline Harnly represent the library on the Senate. Masters ended her presentation and asked faculty to stay in touch with their library liaisons, and keep informed by reading the library Web site.
LaVonne Jacobsen, acting Head of Collection Management Services, reported on the anticipated schedule for the library building expansion and renovation; the collection management projects and strategies to enable management of collections within the current building until we have additional space; and the role of faculty in collaboration with library faculty liaisons in reviewing and updating collection development policies that will guide selection of collections for these projects. Jacobsen spoke from and provided each senate member a two-page summary titled: the J. Paul Leonard Library, Moving Beyond the Walls: Your Library Collections. Her report included information about materials in electronic format or the “The Digital Library”. Jacobsen emphasized that the library still considers subscriptions to new print journals. She reported that document delivery requests or materials not owned at JPLL are very fast now; most requests for documents are delivered in just a couple of days. Jacobsen and library faculty liaisons will involve faculty in the selection of materials that will be transferred to Sonoma State. She has begun discussion of pruning and off-site transfer of the collection with faculty liaisons in a few departments and will continue to add departments until all have been consulted. The underlying principle in the selection process is to determine what the curriculum requires, and what materials provide information that is necessary for students, including graduate students. Jacobsen also noted that the prediction for future direction of the curriculum and the establishment of new curriculum all require new library acquisitions and these needs must be communicated to the library. In this regard Jacobsen has initiated closer library work with those departments who are in the process of program review. She outlined that when the library prunes its collection, criteria include materials that might be obsolete, little used, and in poor condition. No one factor has priority, and some criteria vary by discipline. Jacobsen outlined that in the process of pruning, that the library will rely heavily on the library liaison to faculty and the faculty in particular departments and disciplines. She outlined that the process will take 3-5 years and not all departments will be participating at the same time. There will be several stages to this process.
Helen Gillotte thanked Masters and Jacobsen for taking the time to provide us with information on this process. Gillotte asked if any items had been moved to Sonoma this past summer and if items were moved were departments informed about the transfer? Masters indicated that the library looked at a pilot project this summer to test how well it would work to send volumes to Sonoma. They identified a group of older MA theses that had not circulated in ten years to use in the pilot to send to Sonoma. However, we were not able to send these because of technical difficulties. Masters assured all senators that anything that goes to Sonoma is retrievable in a couple of days. Masters asserted that SFSU retains ownership of everything we send to Sonoma and can bring it back when we want. Jacobsen added that if a department requested that a particular MA theses remain on the shelf then we will do that. Anna Bishop asked how is the library going to control the use of digital journals and will students be included in the library review of the collection? Masters indicated that our electronic journals are governed by contracts signed between the library or the CSU and the journal or provider. Students are part of the SFSU community and authenticated to access the electronic journals under the contract. What individual users choose to abstract and use is up to the individual students and faculty members. Jacobsen reported that the library has access in electronic form to over 4000 journals. Masters responded that while the library relies on faculty for review of the collection, she sees a much larger role for students in the development of plans in the expanded and renovated library. Masters stated that the library planning process is open to students’ ideas and the she looks forward to working with the Academic Senate’s Student Affairs Committee. Midori McKeon indicated that from her experience there has not been enough consultation between faculty and the library. McKeon asked how the selection process for pruning the library collection is targeted? Masters encouraged all faculty to work more closely with their library liaisons. She stated that the library does not target a number of items to be removed, but looks at each department and the totality of the volumes in relations to the curriculum needs. The library has a responsibility to remove obsolete titles that can give inaccurate or even dangerous information. We have many approaches to keep collections current. Master stated that the library faculty are pruning the collection in a continuous and systematic way. McKeon restated her concern that faculty who are specialists in their field need to be consulted on any change in the library collection. Masters responded and outlined the important role that the library department liaisons play in the development and maintenance of the library collection and encouraged faculty to develop a close relationship with their library liaison. Rick Houlberg asked if the library was adding more faculty/staff to help students who need assistance with electronic retrieval. Masters indicated that the library faculty and staff welcome any suggestions from faculty and students on how we can serve them better. The library’s reference desk is staffed whenever the library is open; there is a search help laboratory on the fourth floor, and the library sponsors drop in workshops on electronic resources for students and faculty. Masters reported that all library faculty have office hours that are open to students and faculty. Mitch Turitz reported that there is also email reference available to faculty and students. Masters indicated that during this time period it is especially important that all members of the academic community share their ideas with the library faculty and staff.
Agenda Item #4 – Report from the University Promotions Committee
Ron Compesi, Chair of the 2001-2002 University Promotions Committee presented the report from last year’s committee. A copy of the report was provided to all senators. Compesi was standing in for Larry Medcalf who was chair of last years UPC but could not make the report due to a class conflict. Compesi speaking from the report indicated that of the 51 files received by UPC, 20 of 24 were recommended for promotion to associate professor and 17 of 27 were recommend for promotion to Professor. UPC and the Provost were in agreement on with 46 out of 51. Compesi reported that the departments and deans supported not all the cases that came up. He reported that UPC is concerned with the large size of the promotion files received, and that candidates should be encourage to focus on relevant materials and work to weed out documents that do not add support to the promotion profile. Compesi indicated that UPC was pleased to find that all levels of the review were using the language, as found in the promotion policy. Compesi reported that UPC has several areas of concern. First, the data that was reported under student evaluation of teaching often is not put into context, and balanced with other measures such as peer review. Second, peer review of faculty teaching, especially those candidates for the rank of professor, is often not being documented in the years leading up to the year of promotion. Third, there appears to be less rigor in the peer review process for associate to professor than for assistant to associate. Compesi recommend that this third item needs some discussion. Fourth, UPC is concerned that department evaluation of research and creative is not being put into context that describes, interprets, and evaluates the work that is being done. Fifth, electronic media, (World Wide Web, internet activities), and electronic publications need to be explained and evaluated by the department. Compesi reported that the members of UPC were very impressed with the quality of work that is being done here at SFSU.
Rick Houlberg asks how many of those who were eligible for promotion actually applied? Compesi stated that the data was not available to the committee. Mitch Turitz said about twenty five percent were not promoted and asked how that percentage compared to previous years? Compesi reported that he did not know if that number was high in comparison with previous years and indicated that not all candidates came to UPC with a positive recommendation from their department and deans. Houlberg offered that the high percentage might have to do with the larger number that went up for promotion this year in comparison with previous years. Scott Jerris asked why faculty who were denied promotion did not receive information on why they were denied beyond statements of insufficient evidence to support promotion? Compesi indicated that UPC recognizes the diversity on the campus and the differences between colleges and within a college. It is up to the departments to include an argument on what they expect from promotion to that rank. Beyond that there needs to be a convergence between the argument and the data that supports it. The arguments that a candidate is superior in teaching and then little evidence is provided to support that judgment makes it difficulty for a higher level of review to agree with the department committee. Caroline Harnly ask that if the language in the UPC report that states “experts in the field” is the committee asking for off campus people to get involved in the evaluation? Compesi responded that off campus experts in the field are used by some departments to the extent that their evaluation is helpful and their credible and reliable source is also helpful in the promotion process. Jan Gregory suggested that information that might be helpful is for departments to include peer evaluations or observations into some sort of university wide conceptualization and thus adding greater clarity for department committee on how to use evaluations, external reviews, and how they are done. Compesi recommended more discussion on the most effective way or ways of systematically collection and evaluating evaluations. Robert Cherny asked what was the final outcome at the president level? Compesi reported that he did not have that data. Alvin Alvarez asked if UPC had different criteria for evaluation than that which was established by the department committees. Compesi reported that in the majority of the cases UPC was consistent with departments’ evaluations. The UPC evaluation process starts with the working personnel action file (WPAF). He reminded the senate that there is a great range between departments in explaining each category. UPC weights all the information and looks at things in the context of the entire campus. Alvarez recommended that a discussion that outlines the level of specificity that UPC want to see from departments needs to take place. Compesi indicated that campus discussion on the promotion process is worth having. Houlberg recommends that UPC does not have the time to promote and organize campus wide discussion. Vinay Shrivastava asked how many applicants were not supported by UPC and supported by all other levels. Compesi responded that he did not know. Shrivastava asked if we have a uniform policy that requires pier review? Compesi recommend that the promotion policy is well defined in the faculty handbook. Chair Vaughn interjected that peer review is one of the ways to evaluate effective teaching but not required. Dawn Terrell is concerned that peer review needs to be put into context to meet college and department concerns and that maybe UPC and Faculty Affairs should look at getting the information out. Compesi indicated that he knew of many promotion workshops planned by Faculty Affairs and recommends them for any one who is up for promotion.
Agenda Item #5 – Proposed Resolution on Responding to the Tragic Events of September 11,2001
Chair Vaughn brought to the senate a revised resolution title: Responding to the Tragic Events of September 11, 2001. This resolution was revised from the previous one sent to all senators as part of the senate agenda. The resolution was formulated by the Executive Committee and is brought to the senate for discussion and action.
Chair Vaughn spoke from the resolution pointing out that it acknowledges the consultation between the federal officials and institution of higher education regarding a proposed moratorium on the grating of international student visas. The resolution urges federal and state officials not to propose any moratorium on internationals students’ visas. Mary Anne Warren suggested that in the sixth paragraph after the word federal that the words “and state” be added. This would include both levels of government in the resolution. M Warren continued and acknowledged that the resolution was well written and appropriate. Vaughn, on behalf of the Executive Committee, accepted the addition of the two-word addition in the sixth paragraph. Sandra Luft asked if the resolution had been discussed previous to this reading. Vaughn indicated that the resolution is in first reading. Luft indicated that she would like to see a stronger statement than the one presented in the resolution. Jan Gregory indicated that the resolution as presented speaks softly but makes our point very well. Vaughn indicated that it’s not the intent to single out any individuals, but to reserve the last paragraph of the resolution for a list of those individuals who should receive a copy of the resolution. Eunice Aaron pointed out that the fourth paragraph outlines the central intent of the resolution. The resolution states that the Academic Senate joins with the university administration in a strong statement that harassment or intimidation of any one from our campus community shall not be tolerated.
Saul Steier suggested that in the sixth paragraph that the word “encourage” in the first sentence be replaced with the word “urge” to make the statement stronger. The suggestion was accepted. Robert Cherny pointed out that the chair of the state wide academic senate sent a comprehensive letter to Senator Feinstein outlining the extensive problems that would occur if a moratorium is imposed on international student visas.
Agenda Item #6 – Proposed change to the Bachelor of Arts in Child and Adolescent Development
Amy Nichols, Chair Curriculum Review and Approval committee presented minor changes to the Child and Adolescent Development (CAD) Program as a consent item. Nichols indicated that the faculty of the department is recommending two changes to the Bachelor of Arts Degree based on their experience, formal course evaluations at the end of each semester, informal student feedback, and consultation with several departments. Nichols reported that the minor changes are: adding JS 340 American Jewish Identity and Family, and changing the courses meeting the requirements for Fieldwork from a variety of selections from several departments to CAD 600 Child and Adolescent Development Internship.
Robert Cherny reported on the September meeting of the State-Wide Academic Senate. Richard West, Chief Fiscal Officer, indicated that reports coming out of Sacramento are that the state budget does not look good and that most state agencies being asked draw to draw up budgeting projection for a 3, 5, and 10 percent cut in funding. West announced that, at that time, the CSU was not planning to do these reduction exercises. West also reported that the CSU ended up with more lottery money than expected, and that it will be used to replace some of the funds for restoring CSU library collections that were cut out of the Trustees' budget. David Spence, the CSU Chief Academic Officer, reported that major changes would be taking place in credential programs. The State Wide Academic Senate has created a task force to keep close tabs on the work of the Joint Committee that is creating a master plan for kindergarten through university. A preliminary report from the joint committee addresses mostly K-12 issues and says little about higher education. Cherny summarized the resolutions introduced at the September meeting. The Senate unanimously approved the report, The CSU at the Beginning of the 21st Century, on which Cherny reported to the senate during the previous academic year. The senate heard, on first reading, a proposal to amend its constitution and bylaws. Finally, the senate resolved to develop a policy on review of CSU administrators. Cherny also summarized significant changes to the state K-12 teacher credential program resulting from assembly bill 2042. Cherny reported that the changes to subject matter preparation programs are so extensive and significant that a special system wide conference is being proposed by the senate's committee on Teacher Education and K-12 Relations. The conference would include faculty and administrators from every campus to learn what is new and what is needed in regards to teacher preparation on our campuses.
Chair Vaughn indicated that former senate vice chair Helen Goldsmith has been actively involved in the hearing and the process regarding 2042 and teacher credentialing. She is working with Dean Jacob Perea and faculty of College of Education on the implication of 2042. Helen and Dean Perea will be making a report to the Executive Committee and the Academic Senate in the near future. Jan Gregory reported that the faculty affairs committee of the state wide academic senate met and is proposing two new resolutions. The first is a proposal for the training of new campus senate chairs. The second proposal if for CSU academic senates to articulate to the department chairs the evaluation procedures for temporary faculty. Midori McKeon asked about information on the single subject teaching credential. Cherny indicated that guidelines are being prepared.
The Academic Senate was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Edwards
Secretary to the Faculty