Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Present:
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.), Charles Jungreis (Med.), Luke Kahlich (BCMD), Stephanie Knopp (Tyl.), Laurie MacPhail (Dent.), Mark C. Rahdert (Law), Charles Ruchalski (Pharm.), Jay Sinha (FSBM), Roberta Sloan (SCT), Cheryl Mack (Coord.)
Absent: Charles Ruchalski (Pharm), Karen M. Turner (Pres.),
David Waldstreicher (Fac. Herald)
Call to Order:
The meeting began at 1:05 p.m.
Approval of the Minutes:
The Minutes from September 1, 2009, were approved with three amendments.
President’s Report: Karen M. Turner
Paul LaFollette presented President Turner’s written report. It included the following points:
- The CARE Team representation was discussed. Bob Aiken and Luke Kahlich felt that there was a need for a faculty member to be part of the CARE Team. Mark Rahdert believed it was a matter of principle to have a faculty member and that frequently this person is in the first line of attention to students’ needs. Thinking of a precedent, Joan Shapiro spoke of the Sexual Assault Taskforce at Temple and the requirement of a faculty member on that team. However, Roberta Sloan stressed that requesting a faculty member should not be conceived of as an insult to Betsy Leebron Tutleman who has been doing a fine job on the team. After more discussion, it was decided that Paul LaFollette will bring back the sense of the committee to Karen Turner, and he will ask her to convey a strong sentiment that there should be a representative from the faculty on this team. He will also convey to the Steering Committee that this suggestion should not negatively reflect on Betsy Leebron Tutelman.
- LaFollette mentioned that Karen Turner was concerned about the process for choosing a representative for the Athletic Committee. She wants it to be open and suggested that there be a call for self-nominations. Roberta Sloan suggested that we ask for volunteers again. LaFollette suggested that there would be no formal action, but he will follow up on Sloan’s suggestion.
- LaFollette asked that the point regarding the bylaws be put off until Item 5 in the Agenda.
Vice President’s Report: Paul LaFollette
- LaFollette requested that we approach colleagues we think appropriate for certain committees and encourage them to volunteer. In particular, he was concerned about the Study Leave Committee and the Personnel Committee. Two faculty members are needed on each committee. LaFollette has one person who might be interested in the Personnel Committee.
- Frank Friedman (CST) has decided to step down from chairing the Faculty Senate Editorial Board. He is also stepping down from CATA (Committee on Administrative and Trustee Appointments). Friedman’s complaint is that CATA is not used by the administration.
- Roberta Sloan served on CATA and said that Provost Lisa and President Hart did use the committee when she was a member of this committee;
- Bob Aiken said that this committee was used by the administration in the past, but during a time of restructuring this might not be occurring;
It was decided that Karen Turner and Paul LaFollette should chat with Tony Ranere, Chair of CATA, about searches and the role of his committee. It was also determined that the committee needs more visibility. Paul LaFollette indicated that the data base being developed for willing faculty volunteers might be shared with CATA in the future.
- Paul LaFollette went over the response he received from Terry Halbert about the process related to the selection of members of GEEC (General Education Executive Committee). Trish Jones and Roberta Sloan were still not pleased with the process. Mark Rahdert did not feel that Halbert was responsive to our question regarding process. Luke Kahlich pointed out that initially faculty did not want to be involved in General Education; however, now there was broader interest and the process needs to be reconsidered. Marge Devinney felt that Halbert should be allowed to carry on this year and that we need to learn from her about the process in the future. Bob Aiken agreed with Devinney and also felt that we should invite Halbert in to discuss the issue of making the process more open. Trish Jones asked if there was a reason that GEEC could not be enlarged.
- Paul LaFollette reminded us to keep an eye on Blackboard for more volunteer dossiers.
- LaFollette then turned to the changes in Article VI, Section 4 of the bylaws. A great deal of discussion took place. The terms, written ballot and vote, were deconstructed. Eventually, it was determined that the motion would read:
The Steering Committee, either in preparing the agenda or in the meeting, may at its discretion determine that a written ballot, a mail ballot or an electronic ballot shall be taken on any matter. For any vote taken on any matter during a meeting, a written ballot must be taken if required by any senator.
- An amendment was suggested by Trish Jones. It reads: In the event of a mail or electronic ballot, a short statement summarizing critical arguments for and against the matter shall ordinarily be included.
- Both the amendment and revision of Article VI, Section 4, of the bylaw passed.
- Thus, the current version of Article VI, Section 4, that will come before the Representative Senate from the Faculty Senate Steering Committee, should read (Language proposed to be added to the current bylaws is underlined. Language proposed for removal from the current bylaws is shown with strike marks through them.)
The Steering Committee, either in preparing the agenda or in the meeting, may at its discretion determine that a written ballot, a mail ballot, or an electronic ballot shall be taken on any question matter. For any vote taken on any matter during a meeting, a A written ballot must be taken if requested by any senator. In the event of a mail or electronic ballot, a short statement summarizing critical arguments for and against the matter shall ordinarily be included.
- LaFollette then focused on changes to Article V – Meetings, Section 1; unanimously, the Faculty Senate Steering Committee agreed on the following changes:
The Secretary shall send notification to every member through the University post office at least one week before the prescribed day. The December and May meetings shall be meetings of the University Faculty Senate. The Representative Faculty Senate shall meet monthly in between those sessions.
- It was decided that the next step, if the changes were accepted by the Representative Faculty Senate, would be a review of the other bylaws in order to update them.
Unfinished Business:
Chairs and Deans’ Reviews were discussed. A major question that was raised was: Is there a policy about chairs and deans’ reviews? Luke Kahlich was told, when he was chair of his department that he would be reviewed every three years, but the process was not consistently applied. He was also told that a dean’s review occurred last year, but he knew nothing about it. Mark Rahdert said there has never been a review in the law school. It was stated that Diane Maleson did not know of a review policy. Roberta Sloan felt that if there was a review, faculty were not involved. It was decided to ask Provost Lisa about this when she comes to visit the steering committee. Joan Delalic said that two years ago Drexel and Villanova had good dean’s reviews. Michael Jackson raised the point that deans are appointed for an indefinite period of time at the pleasure of the president.
New Business:
Topics for next Tuesday’s Representative Faculty Senate Meeting were discussed. They included:
- Graduate programs – Ask Provost and/or President what is happening?
- Zemsky’s report – What recommendations will be followed?
- Academic Compass – What is happening currently? Mark Rahdert raised the problem of how to balance conflicting goals. Joan Shapiro talked of the paradoxes that existed with conflicting goals and suggested that this might be a fine topic for discussion, not necessarily to change the concept, but to dialogue about how to learn to live with paradoxes. Roberta Sloan indicated that there really should not be a discussion as the compass was now a brand for Temple and could not be revised.
- Enabling Bureaucracy to Serve the Academic Mission from the Academic Plan -- which recommendations have been followed?
- Decentralization of the Research Office – Trish Jones asked how this can be done when some colleges and schools are more prepared to carry out the research process than others.
- Bob Aiken was concerned about who the new person to replace Larry Lemanski might be.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
Joan P. Shapiro
Secretary
