Thursday, April 21, 2005
1. Call to Order:
Jane Evans called the Representative Senate meeting to order at 1:50 PM.
2. Approval of Minutes:
The minutes of the March 23, 2005 meeting were approved.
3. President’s Report:
J. Evans reported on the following senate business:
a) Faculty Senate Website: In advance of this year’s faculty senate elections, all are invited to visit the website to review the candidates’ statements of interest, CVs and/or biographies as posted under elections. Elections will still need to be conducted by paper ballot, until security issues are resolved.
b) University Study Leaves Advisory Committee: The faculty has elected this committee, as mandated by the TAUP contract; it will only meet twice through the end of this academic year. Five candidates will be sought to serve on this committee next year to advise the Provost in Study Leaves; she asked the professional schools faculty to refrain from running for this committee, since they are not eligible for study leaves. The former University Research and Study Leaves Committee will remain in place but will advise the Provost only on Summer Research Fellowships and Grants in Aid. Faculty from the professional schools are encouraged to serve on this committee since their colleagues will seek such leaves. To a question from S. Gratson (SCT), W. Cutler (TAUP) responded that faculty eligible for study leaves include tenured and tenure track (4-5th yrs) as well as full-time non-tenured faculty who have accumulated 10 consecutive years to Temple. Faculty who were awarded a study leave will have to wait another six years to be re-eligible for same.
c) General Education Executive Committee: This committee has held an initial meeting to seek a director and some additional area coordinators. Peter Jones (VP for Undergraduate Studies) will form groups of faculty to meet this summer to create the broad outlines for the general educations areas. Faculty will be able to use these outlines in the fall to develop course syllabi. To effectively communicate this committee’s actions, a Blackboard site will be developed. To a question by S. Harrison (Tyler), it was announced that the GedEd committee will be meeting biweekly over the summer months to consider the specific issues about the implementation of the General Education Program.
d) Student or Academic Bill of Rights (HR 177): Legislation similar to HR 177 is being considered in 15 states, and as a resolution by the Higher Education Committee of the PA House of Representatives. E-mails have been sent out by Jane Evans and the TAUP incorporating the AAUP “legislative alert”. On behalf of the Senate, the FSSC sent emails and faxes to each member of the Higher Education Committee to express their opposition to this limit on academic freedom. Larry Curry, the ranking Democrat on this committee has spoken with B. Cutler (TAUP) and Evans expressing a concern that this resolution will be voted through committee. Evans contacted the faculty senate presidents (or their equivalents) at Penn State, Lincoln and University of Pittsburgh, all of whom declined to take united action. She urged the faculty to personally write to the representatives on this committee, and asked that discussion about the Senate’s next step be considered under New Business.
4. Guest Presentation:
Larry Alford, Vice Provost of Libraries, identified his commitment to have the libraries foster learning and research, to contribute to the intellectual atmosphere of the university and to preserve the record of human culture and achievement. He observed that the libraries have previously been under-resourced but that the President is committed to provide new monies for the coming years, including funds for off-site storage, to renovate the Paley library and for the new Health Sciences library. His priorities include increase of printed and electronic collections, developing the library to provide easy access to research and cultural records and to advance the service and information access by disciplines and specialties, eg. GIS. He looks forward to meetings with the faculties at all collegial faculty assemblies To a question by E. Galinski (CST) regarding the science satellite libraries being filled to capacity, he noted that physical space may be less of an issue since science journals are being published on-line, even though Temple has not yet subscribed to some crucial journals. Gretchen Sneff (Engineering and Science Library) noted a new research prize for undergraduates, which had had a very good response; they received 60 submissions from eleven colleges. She asked for faculty suggestions on how to make the contest more widely known.
5. Vice President’s Report:
Lois Millner related that the ballot for the elected faculty committees and officers is being finalized; she read the ballot to the faculty. Biographies or statements of interest are requested for candidates for inclusion on the faculty senate listserv. Faculty expressed some concern that the administration was not rewarding nor acknowledging faculty service. A. Hochner (TAUP) noted that per the new TAUP contract, service considered important to the university are still eligible for consideration of tenure, promotion and merit. P. LaFollette (CST) questioned the deadline and selection process for the Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committee and was informed by Millner that the process was still being discussed within the FSSC, but that the committee would not be formed until the fall semester.
6. Old Business:
W. Nathan (CST) asked if there was a process of appeal of any of the decisions of the General Education Curriculum Committee, especially as it develops the guidelines for various courses. Evans responded that there was indeed no mention of an appeals process in the goverance document for GenEd, and this is why the FSSC worked so hard to get a good GenEd Executive Committee in place.
7. New Business:
a) House Resolution 177: R. Winokur (Tyler) observed that Temple might not support faculty who are subpoenaed to testify at under HR177. W. Cutler (TAUP) noted the Higher Education Committee of the House of Representatives is scheduled to meet in two weeks with two amendments proposed to be introduced to the resolution: (a) to turn over hearings to the Higher Education Committee, not an unspecified select committee and (b) expand the membership of the Higher Education Committee by four people, including Rep. Armstrong, sponsor of this resolution. This Committee will have the power of subpoena to have individuals testify at meetings scheduled by any member of the Committee. Therefore, it would be prudent for the faculty to write letters or call the state representatives and indicate that this proposed resolution is not an endorsement of academic freedom but rather a threat that can lead to legislative oversight of our curriculum and faculty. In addition, he called for support of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act before the US Senate. A. Hochner (TAUP) added that the community colleges are affected by HR177 and are being mobilized. E. Galinski (CST) proposed that Temple should seek the support of our colleagues who are not in state-related institutions. S. Gratson (SCT) suggested that these issues be addressed to the Temple Student Government and various student organizations.
b) Faculty Governance: J. Korsh (CST) related that he and A. Ranere (CLA) met with the FSSC and posted a communication on the Senate listserv relating to the structure of the Graduate School. He noted the Graduate Faculty Meeting, scheduled for May 4, 2005, to discuss the standards for graduate faculty. Korsh then presented the following motion:
The Faculty Senate supports the role of faculty governance as defined by the1975 document, "Structure of the Graduate School", and urges the Graduate Faculty to reject the proposed changes approved by the Graduate Board inFebruary 2004. Ranere noted that the new guidelines allow the Graduate Dean to choose graduate faculty without collegial committee input. Evans reminded the Senate that the Graduate Board is a separate entity from the Senate, that reports directly to the Board of Trustees; this motion could only be considered advisory to the Graduate Board. This motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 3:32 P.M.
