Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Present: Karen M. Turner (Pres.), Paul S. LaFollette (V. Pres.), Robert M. Aiken (Past-Pres.), David Baron (Med), Z. Joan Delalic (Engr.), Marge Devinney (CLA), Pauline Hurley-Kurtz (Ambl),
Michael Jackson (STHM), Luke Kahlich (BCMD), Lois Millner (SSA), Mark C. Rahdert (Law), Joan P. Shapiro (Educ.), Joel B. Sheffield (CST), Jay Sinha (FSBM), Roberta Sloan (SCT), Roy Stevens (Dent.), David Waldstreicher (Fac. Herald), Cheryl Mack (Coord)
Absent: Bonnie Averbach (Secy.), Stephanie Knopp (Tyl), Charles Ruchalski (Pharm)
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 PM
2. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the last meeting were tabled.
3. President’s Report: Karen M. Turner
- Larry Lemanski has not yet been in touch.
- A discussion of a Resolution, drafted by the Faculty Senate Bargaining Units Liaison Committee, on March 26, 2009, and brought to the Faculty Senate Steering Committee was begun.
The Committee who drafted the Resolution consisted of the following members: Senate: Paul LaFollette, (Chair), Bernie Newman, Judy Goode; TAUP: James Korsh, Bill Cutler, Elaine Mackowiak; and Law School: William Woodward.
Considerable discussion took place about the language of the draft. Faculty Senate representatives spoke of the need for a “reasonable, responsible” tone and for a “respectful document” in a “collegial spirit.” Some faculty asked for a “less accusatory tone” and that it be “less aggressive.”
After a reasonable amount of discussion, Turner asked, “Are we going forward?”
Rahdert put forth a motion. “The FSSC agrees in principle that it is appropriate for the Faculty Senate Steering Committee to present for consideration by the Faculty Senate a resolution addressing the present status of the negotiations between the University and the TAUP.” The motion was seconded and approved.
Rahdert asked for the development of an ad hoc committee to modify the language of the resolution, taking into account the suggestions made by members of the Steering Committee.
Turner thought that the Steering Committee and Bargaining Units Liaison Committee were not far apart. Hence, it was suggested that a subcommittee consisting of LaFollette and Rahdert work on the language during the remainder of the meeting and report back to the Steering Committee towards the end of today’s session with a revised version of the resolution.
4. Guest: Michele O’Connor, Assistant Vice Provost for First-Year and Transfer Programs
O’Connor provided a handout that served as an outline of the work she was doing with First year and Transfer Students.
She went over the University Seminar Series for First Year, Sophomore and Transfer students. She explained:
The EPPC plays a vital role in approving the curriculum and instruction in the series.
There is a focus on transition and not skills.
For sophomores and transfer students, the focus moves to development of careers, and choices and opportunities at Temple.
O’Connor turned to Learning Communities:
She described the interdisciplinary nature of these communities; the sharing of books across the disciplines; and the pairing of IH with General Education.
She also talked of the problems with ISIS and the awareness that Banner would make it much easier to set up Learning Communities for Upper Division courses.
O’Connor discussed Orientation and the importance of meeting with all students and many parents to make them aware of the range of activities offered
Summer Academies for outstanding public school students were mentioned. There had been much success with the Academies. Unfortunately, because of budgetary reasons, they are on hiatus this summer.
Dual Enrollment was also discussed. In particular, the partnering with the Carver School of Engineering and Science and CST was highlighted.
Questions were raised by Steering Committee members about the need to address study skills, the importance of advising and physical fitness. O’Connor took these issues seriously and tried to address them.
Transfer Policies were part of the presentation. Not only are there articulations agreements, but there are all sorts of credits that might be accepted including portfolios, life experiences, etc. O’Connor explained how complicated the transferring of courses and experiences can be and the importance of training all advisors. A number of problems were raised by steering committee members; they included the difficulties of no articulation agreement with some students’ colleges, out-dated courses that should not be accepted despite agreements and other courses that are just not acceptable to Temple.
O’Connor enlightened us regarding the data on transfers. Generally, this group makes up about 50% of our new students. There is a myth that these students all come from community colleges, but this is not so. Penn State is our fifth largest feeder school. She provided us with a new term, “swirling students.”
O’Connor also spoke with us about dual admissions and core to core agreements.
5. Guest: Deborah Hartnett, Vice Provost for Human Resources
Hartnett spoke with us briefly about health benefits and the information that HR sent out to each of us, regarding our benefits.
She then focused on Transition to Retirement. She mentioned the possibility of one semester teaching and one semester off at age 62. There was also a possibility of one-half time work for a year for those employees working on a calendar year basis, i.e., Medical School faculty. Faculty members must talk with their chairs and/or deans about this. The plan can be for 1-3 years. There has been an attempt to lower the age to 59 years of age, but this has not gone through yet.
Sloan did not realize that there was a Post Retirement Medical Program. Harnett explained it was for faculty who were hired before 2000.
Hartnett explained that faculty cannot withdraw pension money from their pension plan until they leave Temple, no matter what their age may be.
Kahlich asked about personal loans from faculty’s pension plans. Hartnett indicated that faculty can borrow up to 50% of their vested balance to a maximum of $50,000 and make arrangements through TIAA/CREF or Fidelity to pay it back.
Hartnett talked of labor and employee relations. She has been working with employees and management. However, there are many collective bargaining agreements and they are all different. But above all, she wants her area to treat everyone respectfully, equitably and consistently.
Millner expressed concern about any employees who might suffer from layoffs because of the merger affecting her college. Hartnett explained that there will be assistance with transitions within Temple and beyond.
A question was raised about merit. Hartnett mentioned that her office is involved with merit with TAUP schools. The Law School is 100% merit. Her office does the calculations of merit units that are available.
While not responsible for faculty hiring, Hartnett’s office does work with the Provost on issues of diversity. She has a good person in her office, Harry Young, and they work as well with the Multicultural Affairs Office. There is also a Higher Education Research Consortium from Cornell that is exceedingly helpful in training search committee members on issues of diversity.
Sheffield raised the issue of immigration and the need to help faculty from different countries who work at Temple. Hartnett’s office helps with visa problems.
Hartnett also mentioned that females tend to be paid less than males, some of which has to do with the negotiation’s process.
An issue that was discussed in some detail was compensation. Salary analysis has been carried out in Hartnett’s area. She pointed out the many variables that had to be considered, e.g., disciplines, ranks, degrees. Of late, to create the appropriate analysis, starting salaries were omitted from consideration. Regression analysis was carried out. Outliers were taken into account. $852,000 is the amount that needs to be available for proper salary adjustments to occur. Nothing will be done with this amount until the TAUP contract is finalized.
President: Karen M. Turner
- Towards the end of the meeting, there was a return to the Resolution. Rahdert and LaFollette presented the revised Resolution. There was continued discussion about the revised document. For example, Aiken pointed out that “whereas” made the document very formal.
Turner explained that, if adopted, the revised version would be presented at the meeting of the full Faculty Senate next week. The first read would be today and the second would be at that meeting.
Finally, after continued discussion, a motion was put forward by LaFollette: “That the Steering Committee present the following Resolution to the University Faculty Senate with a recommendation that it be approved.”
“Whereas
Article 2 paragraph 3 of the University Senate Constitution states:
The Faculty Senate shall have the responsibility and right, by the exercise of one or more of its powers, to advise the administration and the Board of Trustees on all matters of University policy, on all matters affecting the relations of the faculty of the University, and on all other matters of policy and administrative decision–making in which the faculty claims a reasonable advisement either through consultation or review and either at the initiation of the administration or at its own recognizance. The Senate, through the process of recommendation, may initiate advice to the administration and Board of Trustees on any matter of policy, decision and program.
And whereas
The current situation, in which Temple University and TAUP have been unable to agree to a contract since negotiations began in June 2008, is having increasingly serious negative consequences, such as:
- a depressing sense of uncertainty and concern among our students.
- a similarly debilitating sense of futility among the faculty which has evidenced itself, for instance, in the difficulty in finding faculty from TAUP schools and colleges willing to undertake necessary university service.
- the appearance to the outside world of an institution that is unable to settle a contract with its faculty nearly six months after the previous contract expired.
- the potential to seriously damage the University’s capital and other fund raising campaigns.
And whereas
A sound and current contract is necessary for establishing and maintaining the rights of faculty with respect to such vital issues as workload, study leaves, and disciplinary procedures and also for the establishment and maintenance of policies and procedures for tenure and shared governance – the essential underpinnings of academic freedom.
And whereas
President Hart has thus chosen to entrust the leadership of the negotiating team to others, some of whom may not fully understand the historic practices and principles important to scholars at this academic institution.
And whereas
The continuing lack of progress threatens to undermine the faculty's confidence in the President and the faculty's support of her plans for Temple.
Be it therefore resolved
That the Faculty Senate exercises its responsibilities, as outlined above, to urge President Hart that she take immediate steps to move the negotiations forward. We further advise and suggest that President Hart begin to take a role of greater visibility and leadership in the negotiating process, that she become actively involved in the negotiations, and that she take positive steps to ensure that the negotiations proceed in an atmosphere of respect for the ideas of collegiality, shared governance, academic freedom, and other issues critical to a community of scholars and artists.”
- This above motion was seconded and accepted unanimously by all those present at the meeting.
6. Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
Joan P. Shapiro, Substitute Secretary
