Faculty
Temple has the good fortune to have a dedicated, effective faculty and staff. They know Temple's mission and are committed to it. Many faculty and staff have served the University for a long time. They have been a source of stability during some very difficult periods in the University's history. Any discussion of the role and performance of Temple's people begins with a recognition of their commitment and effective performance on behalf of the University.

One of Temple's greatest challenges over the next decade will be to replace faculty who will retire. Twenty-two percent of the faculty are age 61 or over and about 21 percent are between ages 56 and 60. It is inevitable that over the next decade there will be a large number of retirements among the faculty. Many institutions have initiated early retirement programs to encourage faculty departure. Temple should certainly not do so: its challenge will be too many departures, not too few.

Although American universities are now producing more doctoral graduates than there are academic positions, there is fierce competition for the relatively small number of exceptional young faculty. Recruiting them to Temple will require strong salary offers and suitable support packages, including laboratory and equipment start-up funds, opportunities for professional development, and other assistance. It will also require early authorization of searches, early offers of appointment to the very best candidates nationally, and reasonable assurance that searches can be renewed in the next year when a superior candidate cannot be recruited in the current year. Among all the priorities that will be identified for Temple in the decade ahead, none will be as important as those associated with recruiting superb new faculty.

As Temple recruits, we ought to be recruiting at all ranks to avoid the concentration of faculty in a narrow age bracket that will create the possibility for the kind of large-scale generational turnover in the future that we now face.

A further challenge we will face in making many appointments to the Temple faculty is to pass along to a new generation of teachers the deep commitment to Temple and to Temple's students that characterizes the faculty who will be retiring. The socialization of new faculty is a special challenge in an urban environment, where many faculty live away from campus and commute to the University for limited periods of teaching and professional endeavor.

As we recruit many new faculty, we must give heightened attention to assuring that all searches are inclusive. The participation of women and minorities in the Temple faculty is good, but not yet excellent. Of all the matters we will consider in the coming years, strengthening diversity within our faculty seems to me among the most important. Here there is little room for temporizing. We cannot and we should not refuse to appoint highly qualified white males in order to strengthen diversity in the faculty, of course. And the University administration should not initiate faculty appointments, except under the rarest circumstances. Instead, the faculty prerogative to recommend appointments must be balanced with the faculty responsibility to assure that the University's commitment to diversity is fulfilled. In academic units where prerogative and responsibility are not exercised together, we should simply not make presidential appointments until we can formulate recruiting plans that will promote diversity in the faculty.

A second challenge is to provide a full program of opportunities for renewal and improvement for those faculty who seek such programs. Elsewhere in this statement I have suggested a number of steps to be considered, including opportunities for faculty to strengthen teaching, technology, and research skills.

Third, we should review our methods for periodic evaluation of performance. I have previously mentioned the benefits that might occur from a comprehensive program for the evaluation of teaching. Temple's policies also provide a role for the president to evaluate candidates for tenure and promotion. This responsibility has not been exercised comprehensively in recent years, except in cases where committees or administrators in departments or colleges have disagreed about a candidate's credentials. This has sometimes led to inconsistency in expectations and standards from college to college.

To make standards more explicit and uniform across the University, it is my intention to issue a detailed set of procedures that I will follow in reviewing all promotion and tenure decisions. These procedures will be based on the standards established in the Faculty Guide Handbook and are incorporated by reference into our collective bargaining contract. Each application for promotion and tenure will be evaluated according to these procedures. I would like to have the benefit of the advice of a faculty committee in evaluating promotion and tenure cases. Neither our collective bargaining contract nor our Faculty Guide Handbook provides for such a committee. I will seek the concurrence of TAUP for the creation of a faculty consultative committee to assist in evaluating tenure and promotion cases. Absent such a committee, however, the Provost and I will undertake these evaluations ourselves.

Fourth, during my discussions with individual faculty members and with collegial assemblies, questions about teaching loads have sometimes arisen. Our collective bargaining contract sets a baseline for teaching loads, and it allows reductions in teaching responsibilities based on scholarship (including creative work in the arts) and service activities and some other considerations. There is concern that overall professional duties are sometimes assigned inconsistently in and between departments and colleges. It is my intention to work with the Council of Deans to develop guidelines for the setting of teaching loads across the University. These guidelines will recognize that teaching and scholarship are the central work of the University, and they will secondarily take into account service and other considerations that extend the teaching and scholarly missions of the University.

Over the next two or three years the professional assignments of all faculty should be systematically reviewed. Adjustments in teaching responsibilities should turn on demonstrated sustained scholarly or creative activities or, to a lesser extent, demonstrated performance in service activities.

Fifth, as I have mentioned elsewhere in these comments, we should strengthen our review of appointments and reappointments to the graduate faculty. The most important criterion for these decisions must be the active scholarly or creative programs of faculty who are authorized to supervise the doctoral work of graduate students.

Sixth, in conversations with faculty, concerns have been expressed about the University's policies about study leaves. There may well be some disparity between the study leave policies at Temple and at other research universities. My own approach is not to pull at one thread or another of our personnel policies. This is most likely to result in a tit-for-tat analysis in which each assertion that Temple's policies are less favorable than those at other institutions is countered by arguments that other Temple policies are more favorable. I believe it would be very useful for us to form a committee of faculty and administrative representatives to gather information about all personnel policies at Temple and other research universities. This could include compensation, study leaves, professional duties, merit pay, and other elements of faculty professional status. Such a committee would have no authority to act, of course. Some faculty are represented by unions that have a legal right to speak for them. What might come out of such a study would be a comprehensive understanding of how Temple compares to other research universities. As we review our personnel policies in collective bargaining or otherwise, we would have a good basis for discussing all aspects of the professional status of faculty at Temple.

Seventh, in light of the impressive performance of so many faculty at Temple, we ought to develop additional ways to recognize excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service. Some methods of recognition common at other universities, such as significant merit pay, are limited by the terms of collective bargaining contracts. However there is an array of opportunities for identifying and appreciating the exceptional service of many Temple faculty. The Senate, the deans, and the University administration should carefully consider how we can develop methods for recognizing outstanding performance.

Eighth, some department chairs and faculty have expressed concern about the University's proportion of tenure-track and tenured faculty. This is an exceedingly complex issue. Institutions with a large number of professional programs, such as Temple, can effectively use adjunct faculty from the world of professional practice. And those located in metropolitan areas have a substantial opportunity to do so, because of the size and quality of the professions in their communities. Adjunct faculty often cover highly specialized areas of the curriculum, which would not justify appointment of a full-time faculty member. And, of course, adjunct faculty are often appointed to cover additional sections of courses that are especially subject to fluctuations in student body enrollment. Similarly, in a university with large numbers of health science students and programs, we would expect to appoint a large number of full-time clinical faculty. Temple's present tenured and tenure-track faculty number approximately 1,200. My previous experience at a similar institution suggests to me that a tenured and tenure-track faculty of that size can effectively provide the core functions of faculty. I would not expect the number to rise substantially, but I would expect some additional appointments to the presidential faculty to meet carefully justified curricular needs.

Staff and Administrators
Temple is notable for the dedication and enthusiasm of its staff and administration. Yet, oddly, Temple makes less commitment to the professional development of its staff and administrators than many other institutions. Conversely, some personnel practices have developed over the years that fall below normal expectations in other work places.

To begin, Temple should streamline and accelerate its system for recruiting new staff. Not only do delays in recruitment hinder academic and administrative units, they are disrespectful to those under consideration for employment. Enthusiasm must certainly be diminished if a potential employer dallies in making employment decisions.

Temple should also greatly expand its staff and professional development programs. Many institutions have a rich curriculum of professional and staff development courses, so that the institution's people can constantly improve their performance and can prepare themselves for promotional opportunities. Commitment to staff and professional development is not only a responsibility of the Human Resources office; each major unit in the University should have a program for staff professional development.

A related concern is the University's policies toward the use of its generous tuition benefit program for employees. Discussions ought to occur with collective bargaining organizations, staff, and administrators about how the University's people can better advance their own educations.

Temple could also consider how it recognizes excellent service. Many institutions have recognition programs that identify innovation, special efforts, or efforts beyond normal responsibilities. While some recognition programs might require consultation with collective bargaining organizations, many do not. Temple appears to lag behind many others in its recognition of the effective efforts of its staff and administrators.

There is also a need for a more effective, systematic, and understandable program of performance evaluation for all staff and administrators. Evaluation programs need not be menacing or punitive and should not be. Annual evaluation and open discussion between supervisors and those with whom they work increases understanding, promotes better performance, sets appropriate goals, and reduces both uncertainty and discomfort in the workplace. Many private and public institutions have well-developed evaluation processes that improve the working environment and increase the institution's effectiveness. Temple can learn those lessons.

We should be cognizant of appropriate employment expectations. In some parts of the University there appears to be casual use of illness days and other absence policies. Responsible commitments to Temple by all of its people go with Temple's commitment to its staff and administrators.

Finally, Temple should build on its already strong record of diversity in the workplace. Temple's people come from many backgrounds and the University can take pride in the easy and open manner with which its students, faculty, staff, and administrators from diverse backgrounds work together. Respectfulness and cordiality are hallmarks of Temple's life. But this cannot be taken for granted. In recruiting new faculty, staff and administrators, in recognizing performance, and in career advancement, Temple should continue its efforts to be entirely inclusive by giving people from every background opportunities to be recruited and evaluated on their credentials and performance.