Minutes of the Assembly

February 17, 1999
 

     The meeting was called to order by Louis Raymon at 3:00 P.M.  There were 43
faculty members who signed the attendance sheet.

Executive Committee Report

     Nina Hillman has been appointed to the Teaching Academy to represent the
College.  The Teaching Academy is the equivalent at the search level to ATTIC

     The Dean has proposed that the College should offer annual research and
teaching awards.  In each category there will be one award for a faculty member, and
one award for a graduate student.

     Nominations for Senate Committees have been solicited for the Executive
Committee, and the deadline has expired.  No nominations have been received.
Volunteers are needed: please contact the departmental representative to the
Executive Committee.

Dean's Report

     Several faculty searches are now underway, in neuroscience, CIS, applied
mathematics, environmental science.

     We have previously been approved to search for 24 positions.  Upon
presentation of another strategic plan, we will be authorized for two more.

     Nina Hillman has been appointed Director of the Center for Science Education.

     The College has received $23,000 in Research Incentive Awards, and
departments have received a total of $46,000.  These amounts represent 5% and 10%
of the total overhead on CST grants, respectively.  To benefit significantly from
Research Incentive Awards, we must increase the level of funding.

     A search is underway for a Director of the Center for Student Professional
Development.  The position should be filled within 6 to 8 weeks.  The Center will be
located temporarily in the College of Engineering.  The Center will serve the needs of
CST and Engineering students.

     Applications for CST have increased 37% as compared to the statistics for the
same time last year.  In the College of Engineering, an increase of 24% is reported.
Reports of Standing Committees

     Graduate Committee: Bob Aiken

     The Committee is reviewing proposals for:
                              M.A Degree in Integrative Applied Mathematics
                              Ph.D. Degree in Neuroscience
     A procedure for appealing results of the SPEAK Test is being tested.
               A request for money for Research Assistants in the College of Science and
           Technology is being formulated.

     Undergraduate Committee: Don Neville

               Annette McMenamin, the Undergraduate Advising Coordinator, and Jack
            Devinney, the Director of Graduate Studies, were introduced.

     There were first readings of:

               Undergraduate Advising Policies regarding students attempting to
               earn a second Bachelor's Degree.

               Proposal for the Undergraduate Neuroscience Concentration.

A copy of each of the documents is appended to these minutes.

Debate Concerning the By-Laws

George Myer proposed the following amendment, which was seconded and passed by
voice vote.  There was no significant debate.

     The first sentence of Section 7A shall continued with

                    "for the purpose of conferring degrees and carrying out other necessary
                     business of the college."

A question was raised regarding the definition of a quorum.  Except for a vote on
passage of the By-Laws, the procedure for which has already been adopted, a quorum
of 1/3 is required by the proposed By-Laws.  To adopt the By-Laws, a quorum of 30%
will be necessary.  There was consensus that no amendment was needed.

Daniel Szyld introduced a set of four proposed amendments to the By-laws, all
regarding the Promotion and Tenure Committees.  A copy of these proposed
amendments is attached to these minutes.  Dr. Szyld moved that all four amendments
be debated and voted upon together and announced that should the amendments be
defeated, they would be introduced ad seriatim.

Len Garrett spoke against the amendments claiming that promotion and tenure could
be placed in the hands of a four member majority of the Executive Committee, thus
disenfranchising the faculty.  Dr. Garrett recounted the experience of another college, in
which the dean opposed a tenure that was supported by the department chair, and both
the department and college committees.  The dean was reversed by the Council of
Deans.  He also referred to unspecified unfortunate practices of the CAS Merit and Promotion
Committees.

Seymour Lipschutz responded that the proposed amendments were intended to
preserve and strengthen the faculty of the College.

Jim Korsh expressed surprise that the Assembly was considering amendments that
were contrary to the consensus of the December 15th meeting.  He also said that the
TAUP contract gives the Faculty a voice in personnel decisions, and that the
amendments give away that right.

Daniel Szyld said that by electing representatives from each department, no one is
considering the entire slate.  The Executive Committee would be in a position to
assemble a committee that would be broadly representative of the College's Faculty
and its aspirations.

Nina Hillman said that she is on the Executive Committee, and doesn't know everyone
well enough to make appointments outside her department.

Shif Berhanu said that legitimate concerns had been expressed by both sides.
However, not every department has had problems such as those cited by CIS.

Marvin Knopp recalled that during his service on the CAS Promotions Committee -
which was appointed by the Dean - the procedure was fair.

It was pointed out that combining the tenure and promotion decisions in one committee
disenfranchises associate professors who cannot participate in the promotion of others
of their rank.

Daniel Szyld responded that we should have consistent criteria for tenure and
promotion, and that these can best be established if there is a single committee.

Bob Stafford said that it makes no sense to assume that an elected promotion or tenure
committee would be political.  He would vote for "political" candidates for the Executive
Committee; he would vote for scholars to serve on the tenure or promotion committees.
He pointed out that because members of those committees are recused from
participation on cases involving their own departments, there would be not incentive to
do otherwise.
 
 

Seymour Lipschutz said that the Dean does not appoint the committees according to
the amendments; the Executive Committee does.  While it does so in consultation with
the Dean, the Dean does not have veto power.

Leonard Garrett said that consultation with the Dean threatens independence of the
faculty voice.  He restated that the composition of the Promotion and Tenure
Committee would be determined by four members of the Executive Committee.  A
compromise might have six representatives to be elected by the departments and three
at-large representatives to be appointed by the Executive Committee.

Jack Schiller asked if we make the by-laws Dean-proof who would want to lead the
College?  This would guarantee a weak dean, who would be ineffective in promoting
the interests of the College.

Frank Friedman called the question on the amendments. The vote was 15 in favor, 23
against.

Seymour Lipschutz moved a new amendment.  There would be one Promotion and
Tenure Committee, with six members elected by departments, and, three at-large
members, appointed by the Executive committee in consultation with the Dean.

This motion was not seconded.

Daniel Szyld placed motion 1 on the floor.  It was seconded.

Leonard Garrett said that this motion had already been voted down.  The Chair pointed out that it is
permissible under Robert’s Rules to consider components of a rejected motion.

A motion to table and adjourn failed by a vote of 17 in favor, 19 opposed.  This motion, which
would have placed the By-Laws on the table until removal by a 2/3 vote, would have required a 2/3
vote to pass.

Dan Reich said that the by-laws needed to be considered more deliberately.  There is
no consensus at this time.  He therefore moved the meeting be adjourned to another
meeting at a date to be scheduled by the Executive Committee.

The motion to adjourn passed by voice vote, and the meeting adjourned at 4:35 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,
 
 

Bruce Conrad