Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Attendance: Jane Evans (Chair), Lois Millner (Vice Chair), Bob Aiken (CST), Bonnie Averbach (FSBM), David Baron (Med), Judith Goode (CLA), Joyce A. Joyce (Herald), Diane Maleson (Law), Ira Shapiro (STHM), Jeff Solow (BCMD), Alan Stark (Dent) and Karen Turner (SCT). Guest: Bonnie Brennan (Vice Provost for Faculty).
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 12:50; the FSSC briefly discussed the possibility of pushing the start time back to 1:00
2. Approval of Minutes:
No minutes for 20 September 2005 were available.
3. President’s Report:
a) Evans briefly reported on the Trustees’ Business and Finance, and Academic Affairs committee meetings which she attended.
b) EPPC requested clarification about their relationship to both the FSSC and the Senate, especially in terms of their responsibilities towards the Honors Proposal, which they have been discussing for a month. Evans reminded the FSSC of the charge of the committee (which she will also read to the EPPC), which has no specific instructions about supervision. It was decided after some discussion that since the Honors Proposal extends an existing undergraduate program, and since the information has been widely disseminated to, and commented upon, the University community through Deans, chairs, Collegial Assemblies, and the Honors Oversight Committee, the EPPC will report on the recommended program to the Senate. It was noted that the EPPC asked for, and got, several changes to the program that was initially proposed by Peter Jones (Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies). The FSSC also noted that there are still issues that will need to be addressed in the implementation of the Program, including hidden costs (teaching loads, developing an attractive proposal), and the implementation, which may be difficult for some units.
c) General Education: Evans reported that the search for a Director of General Education was progressing slowly.
d) Evans then asked the FSSC what our response should be to the recent meeting with David Adamany, especially in relation to the issue of service. Solow and Millner stressed that service does not simply include service to the University, but that faculty are often faced with heavy commitments to service in the profession, and service to the community, both of which are necessary for Temple’s regional, national, and international reputation. Very little, if any, of this service is rendered for monetary compensation. Goode noted that faculty have always been asked to judge the quality of service in a faculty’s application for merit. Baron suggested that the FSSC develop a position paper on the deleterious effects of the lack of reward for service in the University. Evans agreed to begin the process.
4. Guest:
Bonnie Brennan, Vice-Provost for Faculty introduced herself to the FSSC and noted what she had been able to accomplish in the few weeks that she has occupied the position. She has reorganized the office of the Vice Provost to streamline processes, and she restructured the workload of her staff, so that deadlines will be more effectively met. She stressed that she has an open-door policy, and she would like to see her office be able to disseminate more information on the processes of, and guidance for, the tenure and promotion processes.
Members of the FSSC then began to question her about the issue of service, especially since she had noted that she was involved in a committee on workload, a committee that had no faculty on it. She reported that her primary goal was to protect the junior (untenured) faculty from severe service, but that she expected to see service, including serviced to the profession, as a necessary part of promotion to full professor. She noted that the committee is now working on the problem of how to count dissertations, theses, and independent studies as part of the workload, and she hoped the committee would factor in other service.
Members of the FSSC pressed Brennan on several issues: why were no faculty on the workload committee; why is it necessary to have one rule that fits the entire University community; what does ‘valuing service’ mean to the Provost and President? Her response was that the FSSC had not done enough education to the faculty to explain why committee work was needed; that perhaps we needed to come up with new solutions, such as approaching the Deans; and that quantifying service hours (hours spent per week) can be misleading, since it tells the administration nothing about the quality of service rendered. She reiterated that at Research One institutions, junior faculty are not expected to render much, if any, service to the university. She also noted that she had attended a conference on the problem of lack of institutional loyalty that she had attended this summer, one of the main by-products of not expecting service from faculty.
The members of the FSSC noted that service problems are especially acute in some departments that have no full professors, that all faculty are being told to stay away from service, and that the effects are just now being felt on every level, where basic work to enhance the University’s reputation is not being done. Since there were no faculty members to be on the workload committee, the FSSC agreed to give Brennan a document on the service commitment asked of faculty on each university committee.
Discussion then briefly switched to CATE forms, which are being used in an inappropriate way and the problem of warning junior faculty of deficiencies without permanently staining their record. Brennan noted for the FSSC President Adamany’s interest in raising the levels, in terms of rigor, for grades.
5. Vice-President’s Report:
The ballot for the election was finalized.
6. Old Business:
none
7. New Business:
Since the majority of the FSSC will not be present next Tuesday, due to a religious holiday, we will not meet.
8. Adjournment:
Adjourned at 3:05
Respectfully submitted, J. Evans
