FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE BOARD
March 15, 1995
Faculty Lounge 7:35 P.M.
Bernard Arogyaswamy, William Barnett, Carolyn Bashaw, Susan Behuniak, MaryL. Collins, John Consler, Cliff Donn, Anthony Eppolito, Vincent Hevern S.J.,Mark Karper, Robert Kelly, David Moore, Kathleen Nash, Nancy Ring, Ted Shepard,David Smith, Anthony Vetrano
Mike Miller, Bill Morris, Neil Novelli
MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING: The Minutes of the February meeting of theExecutive Board had been distributed prior to this meeting. There being noobjections or corrections, the minutes were approved.
Academic Vice President: William Barnett
The Academic Vice-President had no comments or report to make at thistime.
Faculty Senate Committee Reports
Elections: Ted Shepard
Three items had been submitted to the Faculty for their judgment. 157eligible voters received ballots and 40 ballots were returned. This was aresponse rate of 44.59% of eligible voters.
Proposition #1 -- Agreeing to procedures for electing members to the newstanding committee of the Senate, Committee on Academic Relations, Policy,& Procedures, which had been established by a vote of the Senate last year.The proposal received 59 ACCEPT and 8 REJECT votes. Since a majority of thefull Senate was required for the adoption of this proposition and this proposalreceived an affirmative vote of 36.3% of the full Senate, it was not agreedto.
Proposition #2 -- Changing the by-laws of the Senate to permit the StudentRepresentative on the Curriculum Committee to cast a vote on this committee.The proposal received 45 ACCEPT and 25 REJECT votes. Since a majority of thefull Senate was required for the adoption of this proposition and this proposalreceived an affirmative vote of 28.7% of the full Senate, it was not agreedto.
Proposition #3 -- Changing the language of the Handbook to require annualcourse evaluations of all faculty. The proposal received 41 ACCEPT and 29REJECT votes. Since this vote was 58.6% of the vote and changes in the Handbookrequire only a simple majority of those voting, the proposal was agreedto.
A discussion of the Executive Board ensued in order to understand why sofew faculty voted, what were the procedures and language followed in thisreferendum, and the possibility of resubmitting Propositions #1 and #2 foranother vote. A quorum of the Senate did not participate in this vote and thelanguage of the Constitutions and By-Laws does not rule out resubmission ofthese matters. A motion to resubmit the first two propositions to the fullSenate was made and received unanimous support. Further discussion elaboratedon ways of encouraging the faculty to participate in these matters.
A report was submitted by the Elections Committee to promote discussionregarding the restructuring of the six divisions of the Senate to improveequity in representation and committee assignments. Three options wereincluded. The matter will be taken up at a later time. However, since anychange will require a 2/3rd vote of the entire faculty, significant efforts tofoster faculty support for a restructuring plan will be called for.
Research & Development: Harjit Arora
No report from the committee. However, S. Behuniak asked for informationregarding the status of the funded one-course load reduction program which wassaid to have been suspended. The AVP indicated that he had communicated todepartment chairs and the R&D Committee that such a reduction would bedone. The AVP noted that the program is "suspended temporarily, that is my wordfor it". The Budget Committee is still looking to see what could be recommended(in terms of restored programs, etc.) if our enrollment figures are higher thancurrently projected. The funded course-reduction program is suspended for boththe Fall and Spring semesters next year. The AVP said "it could change" by nextFall.
Cliff Donn affirmed that the budget committee is considering what wouldhappen if either the projections are better or worse. On the shortage side, if,e.g., we are $100K short (ca. 10 students), there could be a transfer from thePlant Fund. If we are $200K short (ca. 20 students), we are talking abouthalting Plant Fund transfer and funding 3/4 of salary enhancement, and cut inother regular expenses. If we fall short for $300K (30 students or equivalent),we'll have to take all the same actions and probably run a true deficit. Wehope to affirm that the salary enhancement will go through even if there is ashortfall, and, indeed, anything less than a formal statement by the Board ofTrustees of fiscal difficulties. On the good side, if we have $100K more thanprojected, we would like some money to go to the Plant Fund, and some tocontingency funds, e.g., academic and student life budgets.
Asked for the status of admissions, the AVP said that we have over 1600applications right now (10-11 % ahead of last year). We hope to top 1700applications. The quality of the applicant pool is much better, esp. at theupper end of the distribution. The number of current deposits is about thesame. The major problem here is the uncertainty over the status of Federal andState funding. From DC most of the funding has been restored with the exceptionof direct grants to the states cut 25% ($30M in NYS which directly funds TAP).We are uncertain about how many students would be able to afford college at allwith the cuts and that issue affects both new and returning students. CurrentlyTAP averages about $3K per student.
The AVP was asked to comment on steps taken for departmental funding fornext year. Is it going to be 25% down? Cliff Donn spoke about a possible 4%increase. The question was then raised whether what was a one-year reduction at25% is to be made equivalently a permanent 21% loss. The AVP said that "we willnot go below the figure budgeted for next year" and will try to increase it. Heacknowledged that the operating "budgets for departments and offices have nowbeen reduced to dangerously low extent". If we were to continue at a flat rateinto the future, we couldn't operate institutionally. A discussion ensuredabout the Budget Committee working on models of the "macro budget" and not the"micro budget" which has yet to be drawn up.
Curriculum: Carolyn Bashaw
In the past month, changes were approved in the course requirements for onemajor; also, 7 new courses and 7 course changes were approved. There are 7departmental evaluations still to be considered.
Rank & Tenure: Bernard Arogyaswamy
Having already completed the work of the year, there was no newreport.
Faculty Rights & Welfare: Tony Eppolito
A Report on the 1/2% TIAA/CREF Increase. Going back to the files,the situation seems confusing. Wally Elmer told Tony that, about eight yearsago when he was Finance Committee chair, the faculty was promised there wouldbe a 1% increase in 1988-89. Cliff then wrote a letter to Fr. Finlay asking"where is our 1% increase." In reply, Fr. Finlay said "you have it." He took 5%salary base increase and reduced it to 4.25% and added that 3/4% to thatTIAA/CREF component. Wally said the second year was promised, but, due to afinancial crisis, was not paid. Currently, it appears that this increase is "inlimbo". Cliff differs in his recollection from this report. He believes we werepromised 3% in total (1% a year increase for 3 years). We got the first 1%. Bythe second year, Fr. O'Connell declined to honor this commitment. However, itwas agreed we would get a second 1% and we never got the third 1%. Cliffbelieves that there was a clear understanding, however, that understanding wasin the documents of the faculty representatives rather than in a formaldocument from an officer of the college that "you will get your increase." Thismany years down the road and given the state of the budget, it is unclear whatmore can be made of this. However, "gentleperson's agreements" in the futureout to be carefully written out, crafted by lawyers, signed and notarized.President Moore suggested that we should table this matter until the college'sbudget is in better shape. It was noted that we have a different agendavis-a-vis compensation these days, especially on adjusting some of theinequities in the current salary plan. Mark Karper suggested that we simplybury this matter and ask for an adjustment in our retirement plan since it isgoing on 8 or so years since the last change was made. (Anyone desirous ofchecking the Secretary's accuracy in rendering this complicated discussion isinvited to listen to the tape of the interchange.)
At this junction, notice was given that the three candidates for the Deanof Enrollment Management will be coming right after the Spring Break, i.e., onMarch 27, 29, and 31. The faculty can meet in Loyola 100 at 4:30 pm with any ofthe candidates. We need to "woo" them since all have good jobs right now. Wewill only release the names when we get back since some of them have not yettold their institutions of their intentions. Info will be posted on LMCChat.
Finance: Cliff Donn
In addition to his timely and helpful interventions noted above, Cliffsubmitted a formal report which is appended.
(a) Ad hoc Committee on Teaching Loads. Commitments were made by 4faculty (Bernie Arogyaswamy, Paul Blackley, Roger Lund, and David Smith) and afifth will be forthcoming shortly via M. L. Collins. They will look into theissue of faculty teaching loads. Pres. Moore has asked them to look at theequitability of teaching loads across departments and to gather information andsuggestions on enhancing equity, e.g., possible guidelines on reduced loads pernumber of students taught. This is pretty much an "open book" for them todecide on how they should explore and report on this issue. Secretary Hevernnoted that, in light of the studies undertaken by the administration recently,there should be a great deal of information already available for them to lookat. The AVP affirmed that "we will happily share it and that we welcome thisassistance."
(b). Ad hoc Committee on Summer Stipends. John Consler reportedthat, following its report last year, the administration asked for help ingetting feedback vis-a-vis summer school. He asked for the Executive Board'scharge either to continue working on these matter or to desist. The committeewas given a unanimous vote of support in favor of continuing itswork.
(a). Rank and Tenure Procedure Amendments of President Mitchell.President Mitchell has made some recommendations for changes in the procedureshe will submit to the Board of Trustees. Pres. Moore noted that Fr. Mitchell'ssuggestions were germane for a variety of reasons.
Mark Karper moved that we consider the amendments of Fr. Mitchell beconsidered "friendly amendments" to the R & T proposals, that he presentthese to the Trustees for implementation as soon as possible with the oneproviso that implementation of the departmental standards not occur less thanone year after they have been accepted by the Rank and Tenure Committee. Beforethey apply, candidates for tenure should know what their departments considerscholarly work. Mark pointed out that President Mitchell did not appear to beasking departments to define the standards for scholarly activity but to askdepartments to define various types of scholarly activity without assigning anyweights to them at all. The motion was seconded and opened todiscussion.
Pres. Moore emphasized that the R&T Committee must still decide uponstandards of scholarly activity after looking over departmentalrecommendations. Bob Kelly judged it unlikely that departmental chairs can findthe time to formulate any guidelines at all in the near future. Nancy Ringasked what is meant by "departmental standards" -- are there things that theR&T Committee need to know in a discipline which would be helpful to themto make their judgments? Pres. Moore noted that not a lot of new types ofscholarship would be considered--publication in refereed materials stillcounts; what is essential is that the scholarly activity come under review byone's peers. Tony Vetrano believes that there are enough "grey areas" that somedebates can be expected in departments over what constitutes scholarship.
Bernie Arogyaswamy noted that this process could clarify certain mattersso that the R&T Committee might better understand scholarly activity in adiscipline. Mark Karper emphasized how much a department could help its membersby giving them guidelines about expectations; the mentoring of youngerprofessors could be advanced since individuals would know at the departmentallevel what is expected. The AVP supported B. Arogyaswamy's point and said Pres.Mitchell felt it would be helpful if brief lists of appropriate activitiescould be conveyed to the R&T Committee for their guidance; it would beexpected that this would be drawn up before Fr. Mitchell submits the revisionsto the Trustees. Mike Miller asked about equity across departments if onedepartment's standards appear to be much more difficult than another's. B.Arogyaswamy emphasized that "standards" is not about numericalstandards, but standards in a "general sense". The AVP recalled that Fr.Mitchell asks for "specific guidelines for what constitutes scholarship intheir discipline or subdiscipline." Secretary Hevern noted he still heard twodifferent sets of standards being asked for in this discussion. The AVP notedthat the President is explicitly leaving to the judgment of the R&TCommittee what constitutes scholarship. Hevern still asked if we are going toask for departments to make a report, specifying what constitutes scholarshipwithin their department. The AVP said Fr. Mitchell is not concerned with"levels" which is up to R&T but the kind of activity which serves asscholarship. Tony Vetrano believes that the R&T still needs to knowinformation such as acceptance rates among scholarly journals by discipline.Mike Miller is concerned that there are clear differences across the countryabout what constitutes scholarship, e.g., giving a talk to a club versuspublication in a journal. In this case, Pres. Moore, notes, the department mustindicate such to R&T.
Cliff Donn intervened to ask the motion be rejected since he believes itwill create pages and pages of guidelines which R&T might or might notaccept. It seems to make sense to state a generic guideline, e.g., whatever isnot refereed directly must be submitted for outside peer evaluation. Much morethan that is uncalled for. We should not be listing journals, etc. We'll windup with 50 or 60 pages of "mush" which will not be helpful. Rather, we mightopen a dialog between R&T and departments. B. Arogyaswamy countered that weare already dealing with "mush" since departments are already equivalentlygenerating their own criteria when they review a candidate now. This proposalwould make those criteria more explicit. Nancy Ring wonders whether, given thelevel of specialization by each faculty member, we would not better advised todraw up individual guidelines for each candidate. She also believes thatstandards will change over time. B. Arogyaswamy recalled that R&T will makethe determination. Mike Miller suggested that what we are talking about here isreally mentoring; standards will be hard to do. Pres. Moore reiteratedthat each department chair is being asked by Fr. Mitchell to tell R&T whatconstitutes scholarship.
Kathleen Nash noted the different facilities available across departmentswhich promote or do not promote scholarship. Certain departments have very fewfacilities and the notion of scholarship has to be broadened. M. L. Collinsnoted that the Humanities paradigm doesn't apply to her department; her facultymust be "out into the schools". She gave the example of asking if thedevelopment of a program, staff development, and teaching during regular schoolholidays might not be given consideration when scholarship is defined. Hevernsuggested that perhaps this is more the question of what emphases must be puton teaching and it is not rather the high valuation of teaching which needs tobe emphasized. David Smith notes that these issues directly impact uponteaching since decisions must be (are) made, e.g., between directing astudent's lab work and doing one's own research. Faculty are often faced with"trade-offs". Bernie Arogyaswamy pointed out that a cross-institutionalcomparison can be made to how this is handled at other places. Mark Karperfeels that we must decide ourselves what to do on this--it is our collegialintent and decision which is called for. If departments don't tell their folkswhat is considered important and if candidates don't know what the standardsare, how are we being helpful? Pres. Moore doesn't agree; his department hasmade standards quite clear to candidates already. Cliff Donn believes that veryclear expectations have been conveyed before. Carolyn Bashaw is concerned aboutthe increase in litigation if standards are not spelled out. Mike Miller askshow general guidelines can help faculty who need to know more precisely what isvalued and what is not valued.
The motion was voted upon with 9 in support, 2 against, and 3 abstentionsof record.
(b) Course Reductions for Chairs of Rank & Tenure and CurriculumCommittee. Pres. Moore noted that at this point with suspension of courseload reductions this item is moot. If there is a change in the budgetsituation, the proposal could be renewed. The AVP suggested this as appropriatefor the Ad hoc Committee on Teaching Load to take up. This seemed to bewhat the Exec Board wanted to happen.
(c) Restructuring of Divisions. On behalf of the ElectionsCommittee, Ted Shepard handed out a proposal (attached) which would require aconstitutional change. Such would require a 2/3 vote. No action is called forat this point.
(d) Changes to Faculty Leave Policy. Kathleen Nash spoke about theproblem of leaves from a department and their impact upon the academic workloadof a department.(see attachment A). Cliff Donn believes that internalcandidates would be put at a disadvantage since the offer of a tenure positionwould be made to most candidates coming from outside. What we do with outsidersshould be done with insiders. Hence, he disagrees with the first part of this.Mark Karper believes that quality candidates will call for tenure and, in ourneed for quality candidates, we have to be careful not to hurt the College inits recruitment efforts. Kathleen Nash notes that this proposal speaks topeople moving out of our own departments rather than the reverse. Sue Behuniakbelieves that the current policy puts departments in very difficult andreal disadvantages. Because one person is out of the department, others musttake the load, sometime for years. We should take the chance, fill the positionwith a new hire, and welcome back an individual who might "come back" to adepartment. Nancy Ring noted that the Religious Studies Dept. has not one, buttwo tenured faculty not working full-time. Secretary Hevern wondered if acompromise might be found in a department being assured that its academic workwould not be penalized because of an internal appointment; hence, the Collegewould entertain a variety of options to remedy this (e.g., long-term non-tenuretrack) rather than opening a new line. Further, he wondered why departments arenot consulted ahead of time about what impact an internal appointment wouldhave on its program. Cliff Donn noted that internal candidates would be morelikely to return to the faculty rather than external ones who are asking foreconomic security in a grant of tenure. We must also note that, if tenure isgranted to someone, it may have an impact upon non-tenured members. The AVPnoted that he must tell non-tenured members if the needs of the collegeimpacting upon their appointments might be changed. The AVP would not like toclose off debate and asked if this might not be referred to the Academic PolicyCommittee for review. Pres. Moore agreed that this issue seems a lot morecomplex than at first glance. Sue Behuniak asked if there is any connectionbetween Kathleen's proposal and the AVP's which is to be considered next.Hevern moved that, if an Academic Policy committee is not in place by the endof the semester, this matter be taken up by the Rights and Welfare Committee.This proposal was passed unanimously.
Kathleen Nash noted that there were two paragraphs in the proposal. Thesecond paragraph raised a different issue, i.e., consultation with adepartment. Secretary Hevern felt that this is, indeed, a differentmatter--will the college acknowledge the need to address the planning andacademic impact issues of an appointment rather than tenure. Karper objectedfor some reason. Kathleen Nash noted that certain programs seem to be "run onthe back" of certain departments with no terminus stated for the assignment.Pres. Moore. wondered if we might just drop by "three year" mention of theparagraph. In this fashion, the AVP would be required to consult a departmentfrom the beginning of an assignment. The AVP had two (non-hostile) questions:do we want to approve a policy which has fairly broad ramifications (e.g.,director of Honors Program)? Do we feel it is prudent to put this procedureinto the Faculty Handbook? We could have a policy (an agreement) which is notpart of the Handbook. The AVP is unsure how this sort of procedure might workout. Without such experience, it might not best be put in Handbook language.Sue Behuniak is concerned that this is being tabled and will not be handleduntil September. It is not a good idea for us to be pushed to a "rush forjudgment." Would we be able to deal with this in April?
John Consler noted that anything which changes Handbook language should gothrough a committee and not be decided upon directly. Mark Karper has problemwith proposal, viz., if every department expressed a hardship response tocollege service, we would wind up with administrators doing everything. NancyRing noted that is not just a Religious Studies problem; it could be otherdepartments' problem tomorrow. Some sort of terminus needs to be realized.Pres. Moore agreed that this matter would either be referred to an Ad hocCommittee he will appoint soon or to the Academic Policy Committee. This wasagreed to without dissent.
(e) Proposal for Faculty Rank of Lecturer. (Attachment B) Pres.Moore made a comment on behalf of David Lloyd as Chair of the English Dept. whosupports this proposal. This proposal will give his department, at least, theoption of retaining on a long-term basis an individual without a researchinterest who otherwise would have to leave the faculty. The AVP indicates thatthis proposal will affect "about three persons in the College. Our intention isto keep it to about that." There is a major typo on page two [which shouldread: "If the decision is made NOT to retain the individual..." The NOT hadbeen missing. The AVP proposes that the matter be referred to a committee tohash out the pros and cons and would like action on this by the next meeting.Mark Karper does not see this as a minor change and creates a "whole new rank".It must be considered not just in light of the current AVP/Dean but, in thefuture, the potential for having "second class" faculty. We should considertenuring individuals, e.g., Ed Baumgartner who permitted his name to be used asan example of what might be done. This proposal comes perilously close to oractually oversteps the AAUP guidelines that, at some point, all full-timeteachers be tenured with all the rights and privileges of the faculty. TonyVetrano has concern about us being out of step with AAUP on people who mighteven have a number of long-term contracts, e.g., a three and then a subsequentfive year one. Cliff Donn believes we might want to consider that the loss ofsomeone is a price that we might consider paying to forestall temptations tofuture presidents faced with financial problems. Historically, some departmentswithin the College were seen as unable to attract qualified candidates withboth teaching competence and scholarly credentials; yet, good faculty wererecruited with both sets of qualifications (e.g., advances made in staffing theBusiness Administration Dept.). Mark Karper emphasized that we can makeexceptions without adopting this proposal. Sue Behuniak asked if this were aone-year hire or, if more, subject to affirmative action guidelines. Nancy Ringasked what kind of search was undertaken for such a job as covered by thisproposal? National? Local? Might there be individuals who could fill a positionand we simply have not tried to find them? Secretary Hevern intervened with agratuitous and retracted characterization of Cliff's remarks as "disingenuous"(Hevern should have kept his mouth shut); he then suggested that this proposalbe considered in light of the college's need to be flexible or adaptive as itfaced future planning, e.g., in the introduction of professional programsrequiring "clinical" faculty. M. L. Collins supported the last remarks byreference to the Education Dept.'s need to hire clinical faculty who might lasthere for more than a couple of years. Rather than extend the Barnett rule, theExecutive Board agreed to send this matter to the Ad hoc Committee on AcademicAffairs which, if appointed by Pres. Moore, the incoming president, MarkKarper, agreed he would continue in office. This motion to refer to thecommittee was passed unanimously.
President Moore noted that two questions had been raised, not as agendaitems, but as matters which would have to be discussed at some later point: (a)what plans are in place for a Performing Arts Center? (Not incorporated intothe 5 year plan and potentially to be included in a capital campaign), and, (b)what report had been made to the Trustees by the Faculty Senate President?(Ans.: Pres. Moore did not make a report at the last Trustee meeting due to along-standing medical appointment; however, Mark Karper did fill in and made areport. He will answer any questions in the gathering following themeeting.)
The meeting was then adjourned at 9:45 pm.
Vincent W. Hevern, SJ
Secretary, Faculty Senate