Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Present: Karen M. Turner (Pres.), Paul S. LaFollette (V. Pres.), Joan P. Shapiro (Secy.), Robert M. Aiken (Past-Pres.), Adam Davey (CHPSW), Joan Delalic (Engr.), Margaret Devinney (CLA), Michael W. Jackson (STHM), Tricia S. Jones, (Educ.), Luke Kahlich (BCMD), Laurie MacPhail (Dent.), Mark C. Rahdert (Law), Roberta Sloan (SCT), David Waldstreicher (Fac. Herald), Cheryl Mack (Coord.)
Absent: Charles Jungreis (Med.), Stephanie Knopp (Tyl.), Charles Ruchalski (Pharm.), Jay Sinha (FSBM)
Call to Order:
The meeting began at 1:05 p.m.
Approval of the Minutes:
The Minutes from September 8, 2009, were approved with a few amendments.
President’s Report: Karen M. Turner
Karen Turner discussed the following:
She spoke with Diane Maleson, Vice Provost for Faculty, about visiting with the Steering Committee. Maleson will let us know when the time is appropriate. She is waiting for the Board’s approval of the contract and she then wants to review it to interpret any new language (e.g., study leave to sabbatical). After that she will speak with us.
Turner stated that each of the college and school’s bylaws are supposed to be online, and she mentioned that each representative is responsible to see that this is the case.
Regarding the chair and deans’ evaluations, Turner thought Debbie Hartnett, Vice President of Human Resources, might be helpful. In particular, the Performance Development Plan (PDP) might be useful for goal setting. A discussion followed and there was some criticism of PDP.
There will be some follow-up on the concept of mentoring associate professors. It was suggested that CLA was doing a good job in this area. Turner will discuss the mentoring process with Theresa Soufas, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts (CLA).
Turner mentioned that she thought Virginia (Ginny) Lederman, Associate University Council, might be a good resource person for discussing work life/family balance in the contract.
She intends to invite Peter Jones, Vice Provost of Undergraduate Studies, to speak with us about the Honors Program, the student feedback forms and Enterprise.
Turner is also trying to set up a meeting for Paul LaFollette, Joan Shapiro and herself with the Provost.
The President’s Office has asked that we provide more names for the president’s receptions. However, Turner wants to ask Vicki McGarvey, Associate Vice President for Academic and Faculty Affairs, if the names that the steering committee have sent forward in the past will still be used.
The issue of CATA’s lack of involvement in decision making was mentioned. However, Tony Ranere’s recent memo asking for faculty to serve on the advisory committee to assist the Provost in selecting the next Senior Vice Provost for Research Administration and Graduate Education does show some role for this committee. Paul LaFollette talked with Tony Ranere and asked that he give explicit examples of where faculty involvement could be utilized.
Turner followed-up on the request that a faculty member should be part of the CARE team.
Guest: Jodi Levine Laufgraben, Associate Vice Provost
Levine-Laufgraben said that the draft of the Middle States Self-Study had made the September 15, 2009, deadline and that the final report will be sent in on December 15th. By the end of the week, the document should be available online for the university. There will be a feedback mechanism for suggestions from the university community. The review will be from February 28 through March 3, 2010. Laufgraben hopes that a preview of the Theater Department’s production of Rent will available when the team visits and Roberta Sloan thought this was possible.
The Chair of the Peer Evaluators is Dr. David P. Roselle, President Emeritus of the University of Delaware. Other members of the team are not yet known. Temple has submitted possible names and Dr. Roselle did as well. Once the team is known, their biographies will be posted as well as the schedule for the visit.
A discussion followed Laufgraben’s presentation. One issue that was raised had to do with the difference between a Program Review and Accreditation. Laufgraben stated that the Program Review is an internal process while Accreditation is a public process. Hence, the sharing of the documents for these two processes is very different.
Old Business: Karen M. Turner
There was some discussion related to the Representative Faculty Senate meeting that occurred yesterday.
Turner raised a concern from James Korsh (CST) that the main business of the Faculty Senate is the faculty and that guests should be secondary. He asked why faculty business could not be addressed early on in the meeting while all of the representatives were present. A discussion followed. It was determined that the president and provost should be considered as special guests and that other guests could be invited to speak after the faculty business was carried out.
Concerns were raised that faculty and graduate students were not involved sufficiently in the Graduate Education review process. The issue of the Master Plan was also discussed in light of academic planning. There was concern that faculty did not play a major part in the design of the Master Plan. There seemed to be the feeling that Destination Temple and Enhancing Bureaucracy, which were working groups in the academic plan, were not really part of the Master Plan. It was determined that we need to follow-up on these concerns of lack of faculty input with President Hart and Provost Lisa.
Vice President’s Report: Paul S. LaFollette
LaFollette passed out a chart entitled, Applicants for Senate Committees. Some of the applicants had provided vitae and others had not. However, it was determined that all of the applicants looked very good and that since committees were beginning to meet, all deliberate speed was needed to select new members. Thus, Mark Rahdert put forth the motion to approve all of the applicants for membership on the different committees. The motion was unanimously passed.
LaFollette also emphasized the need for faculty candidates for the elected committees, which are the Study Leave Committee and the Promotion and Tenure Committee. Through discussions, it was determined that the new sabbatical leave, which is part of the new contract, will be broader than the study leave. For example, professional development could be part of a sabbatical leave. The Promotion and Tenure Committee was noted for being a busy committee. A concern was raised that faculty who were not on other committees might consider becoming a member, and that there was a need to reach out to faculty who have not been involved in committees. However, a point was raised that sometimes it is hard to get off of a committee.
Guest: Terry Halbert, Director of the General Education Program
Paul LaFollette immediately addressed the issue that the Faculty Senate Steering Committee considered to be important. He asked: How were members chosen for the GEEC Committee and how could the process be more widely disseminated? Terry Halbert said that it was time to work on this. She pointed out that in the past, there had to be arm twisting to get faculty involved, but now the situation was reversed. She presented a chart that showed the percentages of General Education course involvement in the various schools and colleges. Currently, the 8 representatives were selected based on the proportion of school/college involvement. She also spoke of the one representative the GEEC who is the Chair of EPPC and who serves ex-officio. In addition, she spoke of the Area Coordinators, and the powerful nature of these coordinators who represent different schools and colleges as well. Halbert asked that the steering committee members let her know if anyone wants to serve. Trish Jones asked if the committee was constrained by the current number of members. Apparently, this is not the case. Mark Rahdert asked if the Provost might agree to having one representative from each college or school, with undergraduate students, sit on the GEEC Committee. While Halbert was a bit concerned about trying to find a meeting date with three more members, she said she would bring back this idea to her colleagues in General Education. Halbert also shared with us the Temple University General Education Passport enabling students to have free admissions to many activities and organizations throughout the city and beyond.
New Business:
Marge Devinney and Trish Jones shared with us the meeting they had just attended of the
Student Affairs Committee of the Board. They spoke of the change in the Student Code of Conduct. Interestingly enough, students asked for an increase in the fine for alcohol use. Paul LaFollette suggested that we have someone from the University Disciplinary Committee (UDC) speak to us as there is a reticence to go to formal proceedings. The steering committee should also hear about mediation and coaching as a first time response. The representative could talk to us about the informal process. It was also suggested that Rachel Brown, Director of the Career Center, should be invited to a steering committee meeting. In addition, Bill Bergman, Vice President of Operations, who is working on the H1N1 preparation was mentioned. Apparently, it will be hard to get our hands on the reserves from the city health service. We may not have enough H1N1 flu injections available, but we will have regular flu injections available.
Paul LaFollette mentioned that currently when we vote at a Representative Faculty Senate Meeting, faculty are on the honor system. In the past, representatives were given a piece of colored paper at the beginning of the meeting. Then they would hold up this paper to vote. Apparently, it worked very effectively. He suggested that we might consider returning to this approach. The only thing we need to consider is to make certain that we recycle the paper.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Joan P. Shapiro
Secretary
