of
Chair Robert Cherny called the
Academic Senate to order at
Senate Members Present:
|
Bartscher, Patricia Bernstein, Marian Bernard-Powers, Jane Blando, John Cherny, Robert Colvin, Caran Consoli, Andres |
Corrigan,
Robert A. Daniels, Robert Edwards, James Fung, Robert Garcia, Oswaldo Garcia, Gemello, John Gill, Sam Gregory, Jan Houlberg, Rick Jerris, Scott Johnson-Brennan, Karen |
Kassiola, Joel Klironomos, Martha Luft, Sandra McKeon, Midori Meredith, David Morishita, Leroy Nichols, Amy Noble, Nancy Pong, Wenshen Raggio, Marcia Short, Larry Smith, Brett |
Smith,
Miriam Steier, Saul Stowers, Genie Strong, Rob Su, Yuli Terrell, Dawn Turitz, Mitch Vaughn, Pamela Warren, Penelope Whalen, Maureen Williams, Robert Wolfe, Bruce Yang, Nini |
| Senate Members Absent: Newt-Scott,
Ronda (abs), Weinstraub, Aram (abs), Gerson, Deborah (exc), Gill, Sam (exc), Gonzales,
Dan (exc), Fielden,
Ned (exc), Collier, James (exc), |
| Guests: Marilyn Verhey, Jim Orenberg, Lily Berry, Ron Compesi,
Jaih McReynolds, |
Senator Mitch Turitz announced that ballots for the
CalPERS Board Elections Office were mailed to each eligible member's home
address beginning
Senator Rick Houlberg reminded all faculty and staff to sign up for the University Asilomar Retreat and that they are still accepting applications for “talent of any kind” to participate in the “Cabaret Night” at the retreat. Contact Rick at houlberg@sfsu.edu.
The senate chair did not give a report in order for the senate to have more time for debate.
m/s/p (Houlberg, Terrell)
to approve the agenda, passed unanimously
AGENDA ITEM #2 – Approval of the
Minutes for
m/s/p
(Houlberg, Gregory) to accept the minutes as amended, passed unanimously
AGENDA ITEM #3 –Elections
The senate elected Singkin Yu, Counseling and
Psychological services to fill out the three-year term (2001-2003) on the
Center for the Enhancement of Teaching Advisory Board.
m/s/p (Turitz, Colvin) to close nomination, elected by
acclamation.
AGENDA
ITEM #4 –Report from Professor Ronal Compesi, Chair of the University Promotions
Committee for 2001-2002
Ron Compesi, chair of the 2001-2002
University Promotion Committee reported on a very successful year for UPC
and acknowledged the well-organized and impressive quality of the candidates’
work as supported by their Working Personnel Action
files. He announced that 34 faculty had been promoted from Assistant Professor
to Associate and that 19 of 21 were promoted from Associate to Professor.
He stressed the importance of department committee’s role in establishing
and certifying the candidates’ qualifications for promotion. Compesi indicated
some concern that in some cases department
committees were not formulated the students teaching evaluations in context
with their expectation for the job performance of the candidate. He asserted
that department promotion committees need to do more than just report the
student teacher evaluations. He pointed to the two areas of joint appointments
and credit for campus and community service as problems areas that both Faculty
Affairs and the Senate Faculty Affairs committee need to review. Senator Jan Gregory expressed her appreciation for the through job and
hard work that the committee is required to make. She was also pleased to
hear that the Working Personnel Action files are looking better. She asked
Compesi to comment on the overall evaluation of the service category. Compesi
pointed out that in his review of all the files he found that a not significant
evaluation for service areas was more common for department level reviews.
Senator Bruce Wolfe asked the extent to which students opinions are used
in promotion considerations. Compesi indicated that the minimum
level of acceptance for promotion is a significant rating in teaching effectiveness.
Wolfe asked what was the meaning of a rating of significant?
Compesi indicated that in order to be promoted to the rank
of professor an individual is evaluated in three categories of promotion.
These three categories must be rated by all levels of the review as to not
significant, significant, and superior. In the category of Teaching Effectiveness
the candidate must receive a rating of significant to be promoted to the rank
of professor. The criteria that are evaluated under Teaching Effectiveness
are: the student evaluation scores, pier reviews, syllabi, and letters of
evaluation. Wolfe asked if evaluation letters that are requested by
the departments are reviewed for promotion? Compesi indicated that if they are
included in the file the committee reviews them. Senator Yu-Charn Chen indicated that nothing is perfect but suggested more
time be devoted to more objective measures for evaluations. Senator Marcia Raggio commented on the problems of putting together a file
when the candidate is both being reviewed for tenure and promotion at the
same time. The two areas of review require a different number of criteria
for tenure than is required for promotion. Compesi indicated that Faculty Affairs
had conducted a number of meetings for candidates to explain the different
between the two sets of criteria. He indicated that it would be helpful is
some process could be used to trim down the volume of materials that are submitted.
Senator Maureen Whalen
asked if UPC was looking at the issue that some faculty that were hired at
the assistant professor level were actually at the rank of professor before
they were hired. Compesi
indicated that UPC had asked Faculty Affairs to look at the problem. Senator Caran Colvin, chair of FAC, responded to many of the comments made
by the senators and encouraged departments to consult with Faculty Affairs
when they have problems or issues concerning the hiring and promotion process.
Senator Pamela Vaughn asked if the criteria for evaluation are clear enough
for UPC to make a judgment. Compesi indicated that it is sometimes
difficulty to weight different criteria for the department since there are
60-70 departments on campus. It is important that department committees articulate
their expectation of candidate in their evaluations. Senator Turitz, in answer to Senator
Wolfe, regarding student input that
students’ evaluations are the only materials that can be put into a person
Working Personal Action file anonymously. Student letters must be signed.
He also indicated that CFA holds regular information meeting on tenure and
promotion. A general invitation is sent out to all faculty who are interested
to attend one or more of these meeting. CFA highly recommends these meeting
since they explain the RTP process and does make the process a little smoother
for the candidates. The problem that CFA has experienced is getting people
to the meetings. Senator Sandra
Luft asked about the reference to
objective criteria, and warned against any effort to reduce qualitative evaluations
to quantitative. Senator Consoli
indicated that it might be helpful to video tape the information meetings
so that those who could not attend because of teaching requirements could
still take advantage of the meeting. Senator
Houlberg recommended against video
taping of the meetings would present a chilling effect on candidates and not
allow them to speak freely about issues surrounding retention, tenure, and
promotion. He recommended more meetings scheduled at different times. Senator Raggio asked about attendance at these meetings? Compesi
indicated that last year’s attendance was pretty good. Dean Marilyn Verhey indicated that the office of Faculty Affairs is working
with the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching to improve the RTP process.
She indicated that Senator and VP John Gemello along with Lilly Berry, chair of this years UPC are in collaboration to schedule meetings and
working on the elucidation of the two sets of criteria between retention/tenure
and promotion process. Senator
Bernard-Powers asked about the problem
of the changing nature of department RTP committees and the need to educate
new committees each year. She was concerned that one meeting was not enough.
Compesi
indicted that one of the problems is that he reporting deadline for RTP process
come up very early in the fall semester just after the departments hold their
election for their RTP committees. He recommended that a spring semester information
meeting might be helpful. He also noted that some departments meet as a committee
of the whole rather than electing a smaller RTP committee. Lilly Berry, 2002-2003, chair of the UP recommends that both the department committee
and the candidate thoroughly understand the retention/tenure and promotion
policy. Senator Consoli asked how many departments in this year’s cycle had spelled out criteria.
Compesi indicted that it is important for departments to spell
out any special criteria that they have for their candidate prior to the start
of the evaluation process. In answer to the senator question he felt that
the information was not available. Senator Wen Shen Pong asked if research
and professional development was given more weight by UPC than the service
areas. Compesi indicated that UPC follows university policy in the
evaluation of the candidate WPAF for promotion. He indicated that often candidates
that put a lot of effort into research have little time for service. Dean
Marilyn Verhey indicated that community service is an important area
in the retention/tenure and promotion evaluation. Her office invites department
to set up workshops to address the problems of the evaluation process. Senate
Chair Robert Cherny indicated that
the statewide academic senate has asked campus senate chair to collect information
how department and the university evaluate community service in the retention/tenure,
and promotion cycle. He has requested the information from department chairs
and encourages all to send the requested information to him as soon as possible.
AGENDA ITEM #5 —report from Professor James Orenberg, Chair
of the Senate’s Ad Hoc Committee on Summer Session 2002
James Orenberg announced that a random survey of 3,457
of the 8,300 students enrolled in summer session 2002 indicated that 65% were
in favor of the current configuration of sessions. He announced that, due to campus building repairs
that have restricted the number of classrooms available during the 2003 summer;
the committee recommended that he 2003 summer session calendar remain the
same as the 2002. Senator Wolfe asked how the survey was distributed and how many students
were involved? Orenberg indicated that 3457-survey instrument was distributed to
a random sample of classes. The total number of students enrolled in summer
2002 was 8300. Senator Robert Williams asked the committee to look at the funding for summer session
and to seek to learn if the funding was being drawn from other areas of instruction.
Orenberg indicated that this is a question for the VP John Gemello. Senator and VP John Gemello indicated that summer funding is based upon FTE target requested
from colleges. Other funding to department can come from Open University money
that is shared with the colleges. Senator Williams indicated that it
was his understanding that summer funding was some how tied in with new hires
and asked the committee to monitor how summer sessions funds are being spent.
Senator Genie Stowers
asked for clarification of summer funding for department programs. Gemello indicated that colleges
get the money and how they distribute that money to their departments is up
to them. However, in the past the total amount of summer money that came into
the university was less that what was need to support summer programs. In
the past we have used general fund money to maintain college programs. Senator Christopher Carrington asked if the summer session was moving toward being equivalent
in size and scope with the fall and spring semester? Additionally, is the
committee looking at mechanism to determine if students learning during the
summer are the same as the regular semester? Orenberg indicated the committee is open
to different measure of assessment of the summer session program. Senator Rick Houlberg
asserted that the standard student evaluation that is used in the summer session
classes is a good indicator of student learning. Senator Karen Johnson Brennan thanked the committee for their hard work and their flexibility
in support of the summer nursing programs request for a flexible 10-week course.
Senator Dean Kassiola acknowledged the committee and APC for the important work
they are dong for the university. He is hopeful that once the building problems
on campus are taken care of and more lecture classrooms become available,
an additional 10 week summer session would be available.
AGENDA ITEM #6 – Recommendation
from the Academic Policies Committee: Calendar for Summer 2003, 2nd
reading
Senator Midori McKeon, chair of the Academic Policies introduced, in second reading, the Calendar for Summer 2003. She indicated that the Academic Policies Committee unanimously presents for deliberation the Summer 2003 academic calendar. A copy of the calendar was provided to all members of the Senate. McKeon emphasized that the proposed summer 2003 calendar is identical to the calendar that we had for summer 2002. She outlined strong support from students enrolled in the summer 2002 session.
m/s/p (Terrell,
Steier) passed unanimously
AGENDA ITEM #7 – Recommendation
form the Executive Committee: Resolution on Pretax parking Payroll Deduction,
1st reading.
Senate Chair Robert Cherny introduced the resolution
and indicated that the resolution was identical to on passed by the statewide
academic senate.
ms (Houlberg,
Daniels) to open for discussion
Senator Houlberg indicated that he supported the resolution
and urged other senators to vote. Senator Daniels indicted that as
a result of recent tax law changes CSU employees, except faculty, have been
able to move their parking fee to a non-taxable category. He saw no reason
for not implementing the resolution. Senator Dean Kassiola
asked if the resolution would include administration? Senator Corrigan indicated that his
parking fees were in a non-tax category. Senator Morishita indicated that administrator
have been paying parking fees in a non-taxable category since 2001. Senator Turitz indicated that CFA at its fall assembly did approve a resolution
similar to the one before the senate
m/s/p (Houlberg,
Terrell) to 2nd reading, passed unanimously
Voting on the resolution, passed unanimously
Respectfully submitted,
James Edwards
Secretary to the Faculty