Attachment A Faculty Senate Agenda December 11, 2008
Faculty Senate
Report
|
From:
(committee, individual)
Date: 11/6/08 Faculty Policies
Committee, Chair Wendy Cunningham |
|
Senate
Action Required (check one) __X_ Approve (our authority) ___ Recommend (just recommend, senate has
no say in the MOU) ___ Information (listen) |
|
Senate’s
Formal Role: What’s the senate’s
official responsibility with regard to this? (Constitution,
MOU, Academic issue, etc.) Change
of Faculty Award Program. |
|
Recommendation: (3 or 4 key points or arguments) The
FPC has carefully reviewed the current university awards programs and
recommends:
|
|
Background: (how it got to us, past actions, context) For
a number of years, FPC has examined the efficacy of the current Faculty
Senate Awards Program. Consistent comments about these awards have
highlighted a number of concerns with the awards. These include 1) the fact
that not every college forwards nominees to the Senate in every category; 2)
that often the individual awarded was the only nominee; 3) that some
individuals have received the same award in multiple years; and 4) that given the current budget situation
there is no funding for the awards.
Given these issues FPC felt that the awards program should be
restructured and that an effort be given to raise the prestige of the awards
given each year. It was also felt that
recognition for outstanding teaching, service and scholarship should be
encouraged at all levels of the university. |
|
Related
Materials: (reports, websites, etc.) Attached
report on the background of the awards program and FPC recommendations. |
|
Senate
Action __X_ Approve (our authority) ___ Recommend (just recommend, senate has
no say in the MOU) ___ Information (listen) |
WMC 11/6/08
MEMO
DATE: November 5, 2008
TO: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
FROM: FACULTY
POLICIES COMMITTEE
RE: FACULTY AWARDS PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATIONS
It was
MSC that the FPC recommends
These
motions carried unanimously in FPC. If
there is sufficient interest of the executive committee in this proposal, the
Faculty Policies Committee will address the particulars of how to best
administer the new awards program (e.g. the call for nominations, policies
regarding nomination eligibility, oversight of nomination review and selection,
etc.)
BACKGROUND
For
a number of years, FPC has examined the efficacy of the current Faculty Senate Awards
Program. Consistent comments about these awards have highlighted a number of
concerns with the awards. These include 1) the fact that not every college
forwards nominees to the Senate in every category; 2) that often the individual
awarded was the only nominee; and 3) that some individuals have received the
same award in multiple years.
From
a procedural point of view, another persistent concern about the awards
program, as currently implemented, is the effort it takes to construct the
evidence in support of one’s nomination. Furthermore, critics of the current
awards system have commented on the fact that the award ceremony itself has
historically generally low attendance, and that many on campus do not appear to
even be aware of the program, let alone be attentive to who has received these
awards and why. With 27 different awardees, most granted the awards in one very
long ceremony in the spring semester, many feel that the awards have lost sight
of the original mission to bring attention to the excellent teachers in our
university.
As
noted in the Sacramento State Bulletin on September 25, 2006, “[Current Senate Chair Mike] Fitzgerald
says another priority [for the current year] is better coordination of the
various faculty awards and recognition programs the Faculty Senate administers.
Those annual award programs include the Livingston Lecture as well as the
outstanding faculty teaching awards and the outstanding community service
awards. ‘We need to have a better way of coordinating awards and recognition so
they all get the attention they deserve,’ he says.”
In response to the concerns outlined
above, and in response to the goal as outlined by Chair Fitzgerald, the Faculty
Policies Committee
has developed a proposal that seeks to
1)
Make
the awards more competitive, and hence, increase the stature and value placed
upon an award
2)
Increase
faculty and staff attention to the program; and
3)
Decrease
the amount of work necessary to provide evidence in support of one’s
nomination.
HISTORY OF THE AWARDS
The first of the
faculty awards were the research awards. The Outstanding Scholarship Award was
first granted in 1961-62, with tenured or tenure-track faculty eligible for
nomination. The awards were created for “a
Sacramento State faculty member who has, over many years, made significant
contributions to a discipline through scholarly activity, creative/artistic
endeavors, research and publication. Through the OSA award, the
university bestows honor and recognition upon individuals for their work accomplished
at Sacramento State. [1]
The second research award, the “President’s Award,”
was first implemented in 1989 for the purpose of “honoring a
colleague who has made significant contributions within the previous three
years to a discipline through scholarly activity, creative/artistic endeavors,
or research and publication.” [2] A professional
stipend of $1000 has been traditionally granted with this award.
.
The awards
program administered through the Faculty Senate began in 1992 with AS 92-46/Ex.
Flr., which established the outstanding teaching award. This was passed as a
resolution, with the goal of “the faculty of CSUS to give public commendation
to the outstanding efforts of its members in the area of effective teaching.”[3]
Recipients were limited to “not more than one faculty member from each of the
professional schools and up to four faculty members from the School of Arts and
Sciences,” and all full-time and part-time teaching faculty were eligible to be
nominated for the award.
Nominations were
required to be sent via letter to the nominee’s college dean. Evidence in
support of the nomination were to be provided by the nominee, including a
curriculum vita, and any other “evidence of outstanding performance in teaching
he or she wishes in addition to the nomination letter.” These sources of
evidence may be teaching evaluations, peer review, professional recognition,
among many others. A committee within each college comprised of 5 faculty
members was designated to review the nominees, and forward their nomination to
the Senate Chair. Criterion for selection of the recipient of the award was
based on two criteria; “teaching effectiveness, as established over the most recent five year period; and impact on the lives and
careers of students, as evidenced over the tenure of the nominee at CSUS.”[4]
In 2001-2002,
the Faculty Senate created an Outstanding Service Award, which was designed to
address both university and community service awards. In 2003 with FS
03-22/Ex., this award was renamed Outstanding University Service award, and the
Outstanding Community Service and Lifetime Achievement Awards were created.
This was done with the establishment of a “two-tiered model, similar to the research awards
program. The Outstanding Community
Service Award is the first tier award. This award will recognize eight
recipients per year. The second tier award will recognize one, all-university
recipient per year for lifetime achievement in community service (10 years or
more).
·
The Outstanding Community Service
Award shall be
awarded to a maximum of eight recipients each year – one from each college and
one from the Library, academically related student affairs professionals, and coaches
combined – for outstanding service to the community in the past five years. It
is designed to recognize recent and distinguished service by faculty members
who have made outstanding professional
contributions in the public arena in the past five years.
·
The Lifetime Achievement Award
for Community Service
shall be awarded to one recipient annually, to recognize colleagues who have
engaged in outstanding service to the community as part of their professional
work for a decade or more. This award recognizes
extraordinary commitment over the long term, and a legacy of significant,
enduring contributions to the community at large.[5]”
Both the
Outstanding University Service Award and the Outstanding Community Service
award were administered in the same manner as the Outstanding Teaching Award
(in the colleges). However, the Lifetime achievement award is administered by a
separate committee, comprised of Faculty members from across campus (one from
each college), 2 students (appointed by ASI), 2 external community members, a
designee from the President’s office, a liaison from the Faculty Policies
Committee, and the Director of the Office of Community Collaboration (OCC; Ex
oficio). Faculty are only eligible for one Lifetime Achievement award.
|
Award |
Year began |
Number of “no recipients” since inception |
Number of duplicate winners since inception |
|
Outstanding
Scholarly Achievement |
1961-1962 |
n/a |
n/a |
|
President’s
Award |
1989-1990 |
n/a |
n/a |
|
Outstanding
Teaching Award |
1992-1993 |
3 |
4 |
|
Outstanding
University Service Award (Changed from Outstanding Service Award in 2003) |
2001-2002 |
9 |
0 |
|
Outstanding
Community Service Award |
2003-2004 |
14 |
0 |
|
Lifetime
Achievement Award |
2003-2004 |
0 |
0 |
HISTORY OF FUNDING
One point of confusion regarding the awards has to
do with funding. In recent years, faculty awardees have received checks at an
awards banquet, usually $1000 (minus taxes). This money was never granted with
the awards based on any written policy,[6] and in
fact, was not granted at all until a few years into the program[7]. Reports from former Provost Ric Brown
suggested that the administration under President Gonzalez had a growing
concern with the granting of stipends to faculty members, considering them to be
in violation of university or Unit 3 contract policy. Therefore, in 2005-2006,
the awardees were given $1000, granted from Academic Affairs. However, the
monies were distributed to the faculty via the department, and were designated
for “professional development.” Largely because of the current budget crisis,
the funding for the awards has been placed on hold.[8]
HISTORY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO AWARDS
On September 15, 2005, a Faculty Awards Working
Group was formed at the behest of then-Provost Ric Brown, to address a top-down
request for changes to the awards program. This group convened and discussed
the notion of reducing the 27 awards (8 teaching, 16 service, 2 research, and 1
lifetime) to four
university-level awards, one in each category of a) teaching; b) research and
creative activity; c) university service; and d) community service. It was recommended at that time that such a
proposal was generally viewed as a desirable change by the college deans.
However, requests were made of them that they should continue to grant
college-level teaching awards.
Upon this request, FPC took the issue up, and on
9/21/05, it was MSC that
there
be eight University-level awards, two in each of the categories of teaching,
scholarship, university service and community service. Under each category, one would be a lifetime
award and one would be based on the last five years.
The
motion carried unanimously.
Working groups drafted language and requirements for
both awards within each of the eight categories, and a specific stipend was to
accompany each award. This idea was presented to the Executive committee by
then-FPC Chair Amy Liu on February 28, 2006. This idea was not well-received by
that Executive Committee. The minutes of that meeting on that issue are as
follows:
“Faculty
awards – the Committee discussed the various options discussed in the past
(university-wide awards vs. college-based, cash vs. professional development
money, etc.) and possible directions to give to FPC. Amy advised that FPC is
developing potential policy language changes to address situations where only
one nomination is received. Some college selection committees already have
opted to not name a recipient if they have received minimal nominations or if
they feel nominees have not met the eligibility criteria. After discussion,
there was no support for restructuring the awards to be university-wide. The
Committee would like FPC to strengthen support and participation within the current
structure. Ric stated that Academic Affairs will continue providing financial
support for the reception, but professional development funds vs. cash
honoraria would be awarded.”
When this information reached FPC, the issue was
treated as effectively tabled, if not dissolved, and was not resurrected during
that year.
However, in 2006-2007 the issue has been brought
back up again. First, as a goal laid out by Senate Chair Fitzgerald, that the
Senate would like to increase the recognition and attention to the faculty
awards. Second, Provost Joseph Sheley, appointed in 2006-2007 has specifically
requested a change to the current structure and application of the awards. His concerns specifically echo those that
have been raised for numerous years by members of the Faculty Policies
committee (as detailed in the beginning of this memo,) and of Chair Fitzgerald.
For these reasons, FPC has taken the issue up again, and has come to the
agreement that given the low number of applicants for many of the awards and
the lack of funding for the faculty awards program that it be restructured and
that effort be given to raise the prestige of the awards given each year. The FPC feel one award in each area of
service be offered but that recognition of outstanding teaching, service and
research and creative activities be encouraged by departments, colleges and the
library.
[1] http://www.csus.edu/research/funding/osaa/index.htm
[2] http://www.csus.edu/research/funding/pa/index.htm
[3] Archived minutes of CSUS Academic Senate, May 14, 1992
[4] Archived minutes of CSUS Academic Senate, May 14, 1992
[5] FS -3-13/Ex. March 13, 2003
[6] Cheryl Johnson, personal communication
[7] According to anecdotal records, Former Senate Chair Peter Shattuck first granted a monetary award of his own volition to the awardees. In subsequent years, stipends were provided to awardees in the same amount (usually ~ $1000) from university administration.
[8] Provost Joseph Sheley, personal communication, April 18, 2007