volume 39, number 5
Temple UniversityFaculty Herald

Minutes

University Faculty Senate Minutes, April 16, 2009

University Faculty Senate Meeting

April 16, 2009

 

1. Call to Order: 

The meeting was called to order at 1:56 PM.

 

2. Approval of Minutes: 

The minutes were accepted as amended.

 

3. President’s Report: Karen M. Turner

 

Turner stated that if you want to listen to the proceedings of our last meeting or earlier meetings, go to the Senate website where there is a link to the meetings via Apreso.  This meeting is being video conferenced to Health Sciences and Ambler.

 

4. Guest: Provost Lisa

Provost Lisa provided the following updates.

 

  • With respect to Graduate Education, CST Dean Hai- Lung Dai has been asked to form a task force on research administration and graduate education.  The Faculty Senate Steering Committee (FSSC) made recommendations for the faculty appointment to this committee.  The Provost has received oral reports from the consultants relative to the funding sources of the Graduate School.
  • Relative to the Academic Strategic Compass, the Provost is giving presentations to all of the collegial assemblies.  She is asking for input relative to the plan. There is a website linked from her website, www.temple.edu/provost  and a drop box for faculty to make suggestions.
  • Social Administration will now be the School of Social Work in the College of Health Professions.  In the near future the name of this college will be changed to the College of Health Professions and Social Work. 
  • The Provost is working with a transition team for Ambler.  The School of Environmental Design will be nested in the College of Liberal Arts.
  • With respect to the Federal Stimulus Grants, it is expected that Temple faculty and departments will be submitting about 40M dollars of grant applications.

 

President’s Report, Continued

 

  • Since our last meeting the Steering Committee met with President Hart, the CARE Team, Michelle O’Connor, Assistant Vice Provost for first year and transfer programs, Debbie Hartnett, Vice President, Human Resources, Bernie Newman (SSA) Student Feedback Forms Committee, and Larry Alford, Dean of University Libraries. 
  • Note that the minutes of all of the FSSC meetings are posted on the Senate website.

 

 

5. Vice President’s Report: Paul LaFollette

 

  • The results of the Senate election are in.  The only competitive race was for RPPC.  Marina Angel and Jennifer Crowley were elected.  Only 202 people voted.  There are still vacancies on some of the committees. These vacancies will have to be filled in the fall.

 

6. Old Business: 

None

 

7. New Business:

  • Dieter Forster (CST) requested that the minutes be posted on the web earlier so that faculty can know about issues before the meeting.  Turner replied that the Secretary will take care of this issue.

 

  • Turner presented the following background information relating to a motion that the FSSC is presenting:  The FSSC, over a period of many weeks has talked about what their role should be with respect to the contract negotiations.  The committee walked a fine line because of the senate’s unique role.  The Committee opted to not be public with their discussions and waited to see what would happen with respect to a contract being reached.  Many faculty members have contacted the FSSC on this issue. 

 

  • Turner explained that the Bargaining Units Liaison Committee submitted this motion for the FSSC’s review and approval.  The FSSC made some changes and then approved the following motion at its April 7th meeting: “Status of Contact Negotiations and Involvement of the Presidency”.  Turner explained because the motion is coming from the FSSC to the university senate assembly, the approval by the FSSC is considered a first reading.  There are precedents for this interpretation of Article 5, Section 4 of the senate bylaws.  Therefore, this is a second reading if the motion goes forward with discussion.

 

  • Marge Devinney, CLA, moved the motion which was then seconded.

 

  • Roberta Sloan, SCT, asked for a paper ballot.

 

  • Richard Englert, Deputy Provost said he is opposed to the motion. 
    • He sits on the negotiating team and finds the motion troubling since he feels that it is based on the false premise that the President is not involved with the negotiations.  He said that the President has been involved from the beginning and that she has been responsible for the progress that has been made. He said that the premise could have been resolved if she had been asked about this issue. 

 

    • He feels that the motion is one-sided and that any neutral person would say ‘Let’s get the parties together.’  Englert feels that the motion is about process and that the problems are not about process, but about substantive issues:  The University is against unconditional mandatory agency fee and it wants a prudent salary increase. 

 

  • He feels that the FSSC should be neutral on this issue and speak for the whole faculty.  He said some members of the faculty have said to him that the faculty senate seems to be a stepchild of the union by taking what seems to be a one-sided view of the negotiations by approving this motion.  We are all frustrated, but “ultimately there will be a contract that all will like.”

 

 

  • Paul LaFollette, CST is for the motion.
    • He feels that the resolution deals with process. It is the Senate’s job to advise the administration, not to negotiate.  There is a relation between TAUP and the Faculty Senate.  This is one faculty, one Temple, and one in our commitment to excellence, to shared government, and academic freedom.
    • The two bodies are deeply intertwined.  The TAUP contract establishes the groundwork on which shared government is built and processes and procedures on which tenure and promotion are based.  These processes have an impact on other Schools and Colleges that are not part of the bargaining unit.   He feels that the perception is that President Hart is not engaged in the negotiation or not interested in the faculty.

     

  • Diane Maleson, Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Faculty Affairs and Professor of Law at the Temple University Beasley School of Law. Maleson stated that every one is frustrated.  There are three members of the academic team in the negotiations:  Dick Englert, Diane Maleson and Concetta Stewart.  They have been advocates of all things related to academics.  They have spoken up on matters of tenure and promotion, study leaves, and other academic issues.  In early autumn they met with (Joyce) Lindorff and (Art) Hochner of the TAUP negotiating team.  She mentioned that President Hart is fully engaged in the in the negotiations.
  • Lois Millner, School of Social Work, Member of FSSC, is for the motion.
    She mentioned that there was a lot of discussion before FSSC made the motion.  One outcome is making the issue clear and transparent.
  • Concetta Stewart, Dean of SCT
    The President was very clear that academics be part of the team.  She has been very involved.
    Stewart wanted to know what the next step would be.
  • Turner replied that the President’s involvement had not been fully understood by the faculty.

 

  • Art Hochner, Fox School of Business and Chief negotiator of TAUP.
    • He stated that he didn’t want to negotiate the contract at the meeting.  He appreciates the meetings he had with the academic negotiating team before the negotiating began. 
  • He mentioned that TAUP has charged Temple with unfair labor practices. There have been meetings with John Langel of Ballard Spahr, but the negotiations are not going well.
  • Sam Spadone Podiatric Medicine.
    Spadone asked what would President Hart’s physical presence in the negotiation accomplish.
  • Linda Mauro, Interim Dean of the School of Social Work.
    Mauro is concerned about the issue of process and by the number of faculty who are not at this meeting. She feels that the Union is a strong advocate for the faculty, while the Faculty Senate is more inclusive. Bringing this issue to the Faculty Senate blurs the clarity of the different roles they play for the faculty.
  • Bob Aiken, CST and immediate past President of FSSC.
    Aiken wants to address one underlying theme of respect for faculty in the context of shared governance.  The Union deals with economic issues, and the Faculty Senate deals with academic issues.  But there are overlaps.

 

    • During his tenure as President of FSSC he said it was easy to be president because he had the respect of the President and the Provost.  It was easy to communicate with them.  This was shared governance and it is important to take shared governance seriously.  The administration has also taken shared governance seriously.  It is important to keep the lines of communication open between faculty and administration and exchange views.  He added that the motion is not a sign of disrespect for the administration.

 

  • Deborah Howe, Ambler is against the motion.  It creates problems in the negotiations.  It is one-sided and directed to the President and the University and not to the Union.  It is inappropriate for the Faculty Senate to vote on it.
  • Jim Korsh, CST is for the motion.
    He read article II, paragraph 3 at the top of the motion which stated that the Faculty Senate has the responsibility and right to advise the administration and the Board on all matters of University policy.  The Senate has the responsibility to make this motion.  This is a request for the President to take charge.  It is disrespectful to faculty for the administration to decide the salaries for the faculty.  It shows disrespect for the faculty.
  • Karen Bond, BCMD, announced that at their assembly, the faculty voted to endorse the motion.
  • Elaine Mackowiak, Pharmacy, mentioned her experience on the Handbook Revision Committee composed of representatives of the Schools and Colleges.  The academic members of the negotiating team were members of this committee.  After all of the work of the Committee the administration only agreed on the status of emeritus.  The group was told not to work on any other changes until the new contract was drawn.  The administration did not want feedback from the committee.
  • Greg Urwin, CLA said that we, the faculty are also an important part of the University.  We are part of the team.  We want to get past this and use our potential to succeed.
  • Bill Cutler, CLA said there is a lot of passion involved.  Ann Hart is his friend.  If a problem arises, the buck stops with her.  She also represents the faculty.  She must take on the charge.
  • Phil Yannella, CLA was involved with John Langel three times in the 1980’s In Union negotiations.  Langel is very good at long deadly negotiations.  He is a top anti-union lawyer.
  • Turner said she is disturbed by Dick Englert’s comment that some faculty feel the faculty senate is the stepchild of the union. She explained the FSSC is an independent group that works with both the administration and the union.  She reiterated that the FSSC struggled with whether it should get involved for many weeks.  Turner said at least conversations are now out in the open.  She said many of us are members of the Union, but the senate is not acting for the administration or for the union.

 

  • Linda Mauro, SSA called for a quorum.

 

  • Scott Gratson, SCT Parliamentarian of the Faculty Senate, read the Section on Robert’s Rules.  It was determined there was no quorum.  The meeting was over.

 

  • Turner said that the vote would be made electronically. 

 

8. Adjournment: 

The meeting was adjourned at 2:44 PM.

Bonnie Averbach, Secretary

 

 

 University Faculty Senate Minutes, April 29, 2009

University Faculty Senate Meeting

April 29, 2009

 

1. Call to Order: 

The meeting was called to order at 2:05 PM.

 

2. President’s Report: Karen M. Turner

 

Turner mentioned that the purpose of this special meeting is to vote by paper ballot on the motion made at the April 16, 2009 University Senate meeting.  Since a quorum was called at that meeting and there was not a quorum present, the vote did not take place and that meeting was adjourned.

 

This meeting was called within a two-week period in accordance with the Faculty Senate bylaws, Article 5, Meetings, section 6.  Turner then asked if there was further discussion on the motion.

 

James Ryan, Professor of Physiology, Temple School of Medicine, replied, stating a point of order.  He then called for a quorum since the session was not video conferenced to the Medical School.  As a result, eligible members of six schools and colleges could not be present.

 

The secretary counted the number of faculty who had signed in.  The count was 122 present, not a quorum.

 

Roberta Sloan, Theater, asked to make an amendment to the motion.  However this was not possible since the meeting was over.

 

Turner adjourned the meeting and then asked that there be a general discussion of the issues for those interested in staying.

 

3. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 2:32 PM.

 

Bonnie Averbach, Secretary