University Faculty Senate Minutes, December 9, 2011

Attendance:
Representative Senators and Officers: 59
Ex officio: 1
Faculty, Administrators and Guests: 24
Total Attendance: 84

1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 1:52 PM.

2. Approval of the Minutes:
The minutes of the May 4, 2011 University Faculty Senate meeting were presented for approval. Prior to approval, President LaFollette explained one matter. The minutes presented for approval say that after the vote on the proposed amendment concerning adding librarians to the membership of the Senate, one faculty member said the voting lists for the electronic ballot on constitutional changes should be revised to include librarians. President LaFollette said in the meeting that would be done. That is an accurate report of what transpired at the meeting. However, LaFollette later realized that his statement at the meeting was incorrect, since the change to add librarians had yet to be approved. As a consequence, the voting list was not revised.

With that clarification, the minutes were approved.

3. Presentation by Student Government Officers:
Colin Saltry and Elliot Griffin, the President and Vice President for External Affairs of the Student Government Association, spoke to the Faculty Senate regarding two important student initiatives to occur during the spring term. The first will happen on January 31, 2012, when students from Temple will join students from other state-related universities in Harrisburg to speak with state legislators regarding the importance of Commonwealth support for state-related institutions of higher education. The second event will be a “Cherry and White” day in Harrisburg, set for March 27, 2012, when Temple students will meet with legislators to speak specifically about the importance of state support for Temple. Students participating in these events will be contacting their professors to request excused absence from classes on those days. The SGA expressed the hope that faculty members will be flexible and supportive of these student efforts on the University’s behalf.

4. Provost’s Report – White Paper on University Reorganization.
Provost Richard Englert began his report by thanking all for a good semester and wishing all a good semester break. There is no additional news out of Harrisburg regarding state appropriations, except that state revenues continue to fall short of projections, enhancing the likelihood of a mid-year cut in appropriations. As reported at the last Representative Senate meeting, the annual capital appropriation has already been reduced by 50%.

Englert expressed condolences to the family to the family of Trevor Sewell (COE emeritus), former Dean of the College of Education, whose son passed away recently.

Englert announced that he will be releasing a White Paper on the general subject of school or college reorganization within the coming week. The White Paper has been in formative stages for some time. Originally it was projected to be released in August, but at the request of the Faculty Senate Steering Committee (FSSC), the Provost delayed its release until after he was able to meet with the FSSC in a retreat. That occurred in October, and the Provost has also met during the fall with the University Deans. The paper he will release contains ideas he has gathered from many sources. The Provost met with the FSSC during the past week to discuss a semi-final draft of the White Paper, and he has invited them to submit written comments to him as well. The final version will be distributed to all faculty electronically, and there will be many avenues for faculty response both during the winter break and next semester.

Englert stressed that the Paper contains many ideas and has many parts. Some of the ideas are already being implemented; others can be accomplished relatively quickly. For those changes that would require approval by the Board of Trustees there is a timeline that calls for formulation of proposals by the end of February, in advance of spring break. Englert will attempt to establish a website address where faculty members may register comments, both signed and anonymous.

One recommendation that need not wait is to commence a search for a new Director of Libraries. That will begin in January. Another that is already under way is to strengthen interconnections between the Library IT staff and facilities and Computer and Information Services. The White Paper also mentions an ongoing project regarding faculty workload, which is being studied by a Presidential task force, and the distribution of teaching assis-tants, which is being addressed by Senior Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Education Ken Blank. These are sure to be controversial topics.

The White Paper is built on three main guiding principles: 1) improving the quality of the student experience; 2) streamlining administrative processes and services; and 3) positioning the curriculum for the future. The White Paper also discusses some options for possible realignment of schools and colleges, and it considers some revenue enhancement strategies.

The Provost indicated that he is open to meeting with faculty members as individuals or in groups as we go forward with the White Paper’s recommendations.

In the Q&A session that followed, the following matters were among those raised:

•The Provost was asked about the timing of reorganization, given that there is an active search for a new President. Many faculty members expressed concern that we should not rush to judgment, especially on the more fundamental changes being considered. Englert replied that we need to keep moving forward and cannot wait until new senior leadership is in place.

•There were questions about the decision timeline. Englert replied that the timeline for decision necessarily varies depending on the type of decision and what levels of approval are required. Some can be implemented this semester, while others will take longer to develop. It is necessary to strike an appropriate balance between moving too fast and moving too slowly.

•Englert was asked whether he could distinguish between primary options that are most likely to go forward and secondary options that are less likely or less urgent. He responded that it may be premature to do so at this point.

•Some representatives noted that most faculty members have not been part of the discussions to date and hence have no context for evaluating the White Paper. It would be helpful to include specific motivations for specific options, along with specific information about their practical effect on faculty. It would also be helpful to know whether any of the options contemplate reductions in force, increases in workload, consolidation or elimination of academic programs, or other substantial changes affecting faculty. Englert responded that those sorts of implications cannot be fully identified in advance but will emerge as we move forward. He reiterated his intention to meet with the most directly affected faculty members to discuss practical implications as plans develop over the semester.

5. President’s Report
President LaFollette reported on several matters (in addition to consul-tation regarding the Provost’s White Paper) that have occupied the attention of the FSSC over the fall semester and/or are likely to come before the Senate during the spring. These include the following matters:

•The FSSC has been meeting with the Provost, Senior Vice Provost Peter Jones, and the Student Feedback Forms (SFF) Committee to discuss the proposal the Committee has developed to move to university-wide online administration of SFFs. The FSSC has raised a number of questions and concerns about this proposal. Further consultation is likely during the spring semester, and the matter is likely to require further discussion by the Senate.

•The FSSC has been discussing the issue of Collegial Assembly bylaws, which are supposed to be undergoing revision by each school and college. There has been little progress on this issue, and the FSSC would like to begin moving the process forward.

•There have also been meetings between the FSSC and the General Education Executive Committee (GEEC). This is the year that GenEd is due for a thorough evaluation. The FSSC has authorized the formation of a joint liaison committee with GEEC to ensure that the Senate is involved in and apprised of the process.

President LaFollette invited Senate members to contact him directly if they are aware of other important issues that will need Senate attention during the spring term.

6. Vice President’s Report
Vice President Shapiro reported that her work focuses on the activities of the Senate’s 30+ committees. Several committees, both elected and appointed, have vacancies, and Shapiro is constantly searching for potential new members. One committee that is of particular concern is the Committee on the Status of Women, which is an important committee but is in need of substantial repopulation. The Committee has a new acting chair but needs new members, both female and male.

With David Waldstreicher, Editor of the Faculty Herald, Shapiro is working on a letter that will soon go out to all committee chairs asking for reports on committee activities during the year. Rather than waiting until the end of the year, the Herald will be publishing committee reports as they come in. The aim is to develop a more streamlined and useful committee reporting process.

Shapiro also noted that the Herald plans to put out a special issue devoted to discussion of the Provost’s White Paper. For that purpose, the Herald is soliciting written faculty responses to White Paper suitable for publication in that issue. The hope is that the issue will help to focus faculty discussion and response.

Shapiro concluded her remarks by thanking all faculty members who have volunteered to serve on Senate committees this year. She noted that thanks to the efforts of FSSC member Michael Jackson (STHM) we have begun what we hope will become a tradition of honoring individuals for university service. We need to continue building that tradition of service this spring.

7. Old Business
There was a question on the status of Senate efforts to engage with University administration over the University budget. LaFollette responded that efforts of the Budget Review Committee have been frustrated by difficulty in obtaining detailed information on the current budget. He noted that there are proposals before the Commonwealth General Assembly to make state related universities subject to the Pennsylvania Right to Know Act. In LaFollette’s opinion faculty members should support those measures.

One member raised concerns about the increase in teaching by contingent faculty, coupled with a decrease in teaching by tenured and tenure-track faculty. This is a matter the Senate will need to address.

Other members raised further concerns about on-line administration of SFFs, ob-serving that there do not seem to be adequate plans in place to ensure an acceptably high level of student response, or to develop other means for evaluating teaching. It seems as though we ought not to go forward with university-wide on-line administration until those plans are firmly in place. Senior Vice Provost Jones responded that he and the SFF committee will be scheduling an open meeting concerning the SFF proposal in January, at which committee members will be present to answer faculty questions and concerns. Jones also noted a recent item in the student newspaper stating that students presently feel “disenfranchised” if they happen to be absent during the class in which SFFs are administered. Many students do not take the present system seriously, so there is the possibility that we may actually get better responses with an on-line system. We may also get more insightful written comments if students can compose them on-line.

8. New Business
A member registered concern about difficulties that students are encountering in traveling between the Main Campus and the Health Sciences campus. LaFollette stated that he would follow up on this issue with appropriate administrative staff.

9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Mark C. Rahdert
Secretary

University Faculty Senate Special Meeting, February 8, 2012

Attendance:
Representative Senators and Officers – 37
Ex-officio – 0
Faculty, Administrators and Guests – 47
Total attendance – 84

1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 11:35 a.m.

2. President’s Statement
President LaFollette began the meeting by reading the following statement:

The FSSC has been in conversation with the Provost about this White Paper for many months. Throughout that time, we have asked for concrete proposals to solve concrete problems accompanied by careful, fact filled analyses of these proposals.

It is the position of most of us that without a thorough understanding of the short and long term costs and benefits, and the intended and unintended consequences to our mission, our students, and the health of our institution, we cannot choose between nor support any of the proposals in this paper, including the restructuring of schools and colleges.

Most of us would not remodel our kitchens without first evaluating the usefulness of the new design, the cost of the project, and the effect on the market value of our house. We believe that the same principles should apply to any redesign of Temple. Without this kind of analysis, we are simply discussing the rearrangement of the department chairs and ignoring the iceberg.

We are here today to discuss the question as to whether, beyond failing to support, we should actively oppose, the specific proposal to create a new school for the arts.

This question is complex, and in order to consider it in detail, today's conversation needs to be a focused discussion. I am, therefore, going to present some fine-structuring for the agenda, and adhere to the timelines therein, and generally conduct the meeting more formally than I usually do.

3. Discussion Agenda
President LaFollette outlined the following agenda for the meeting, set in consultation with the Faculty Senate Steering Committee (FSSC):

11:30-11:45 Introductory remarks

11:45-12:15 Reports from Boyer, SCT, Tyler, and Education

12:15-12:45 Discussion of the proposal to create a combined school for the arts

12:45-1:15 Discussion of the proposals involving the College of Education

1:15-1:45 Discussion of other aspects of the White Paper

1:45-2:30 Formulating a response and possible action

4. Presentations

Boyer
Jeffrey Solow spoke regarding Boyer’s response to the White Paper. The collegial assembly of the Boyer College of Music & Dance held a special meeting on February 1, 2012 to discuss the White Paper. At the meeting two motions were passed unanimously, and their contents were transmitted to the Provost, along with a request to meet with him on the issue. He has responded and a meeting has been scheduled for February 26.

The essential content of the motions was the following:

•In the first motion, the collegial assembly expressed that the Boyer faculty do not agree that the benefits suggested in the White Paper would be achieved through reorganization, nor do they understand the timeline outlined in the Paper. Additionally, the faculty does not understand the reason for such a timeline given the ongoing search for a new president. They want to be sure that any reorganization, if undertaken, does not occur in an untimely way, nor undermine the prerogatives of the new president.

•In the second motion, the collegial assembly concluded that because (1) questions raised by the Paper have yet to be answered, (2) the timeline appears to be recklessly hurried, (3) Boyer faculty concerns expressed to the Provost about two years ago appear to have been forgotten or ignored, and (4) those concerns appear not to have been considered or answered in the White Paper, the Boyer faculty is opposed to the ideas promulgated in in the White Paper regarding a reorganization of programs at Temple University, particularly those centered on the arts.

Additionally, the minutes of the Boyer collegial assembly noted that faculty at Boyer expressed “grave concern” that a group of Boyer faculty had met with the Provost about two years ago “and raised virtually every one of the concerns raised today, yet not one of these concerns has been acknowledged in the White Paper."

Solow also observed that the Boyer faculty are concerned about what they perceive to be a lack of attention to academic quality issues in the White Paper, an equal lack of attention to potential impact on faculty experience, a lack of inquiry into the current impact of having one Dean serve as head of two distinct arts schools (Boyer and Tyler), and a failure to identify what additional cost savings (if any) could be realized by further consolidation of arts programs.

SCT
Andrew Mendelson presented on behalf of SCT. He observed that chairs of 6 SCT departments met with Dean and Associate Provost Stroker to present a unified set of reasons why those departments believe they should remain united in a distinct school or college, rather than being merged into a larger unit. A letter to that effect has been sent to the Provost. The SCT departments are not opposed to change but believe it can be better accomplished in the existing structure than in a model that involves incorporation into CLA. Since the White Paper gives no financial information, the SCT letter focuses on programmatic concerns. Most SCT programs have characteristics that would make them a poor fit in an integrated arts college, but they would risk a loss of impact if merged into CLA. Their educational models are different from those in nearly all CLA departments, and the disciplinary standards for tenure and promotion also do not fit well with CLA practices. Linkage with Education would make no sense, because of the lack of any disciplinary connection. Rather than merger with another unit, the best option would be to expand SCT programs into a freestanding College of Communications.

Mendelson noted that two SCT departments, Theater and Film and Media Arts, have signified in a separate letter to the Provost that they are interested in exploring closer integration with other arts programs in the University.

Tyler
Stephanie Knopp gave a presentation on behalf of Tyler. Tyler’s faculty has not yet had an opportunity to meet collectively on this issue, either as a collegial assembly or with the Dean. Knopp’s comments are therefore based on conversations she has had with other faculty members at the school.

Tyler welcomes greater collaboration with other arts programs in the University, but it sees collaboration and merger as two entirely separate enterprises. The faculty at Tyler have expressed a strong desire to retain the school’s separate name and identity. That identity has been a major factor in attracting highly qualified students to the school and in earning the school’s national reputation. It is critical to the school’s membership in the National Portfolio Day Association, an organization of prestige art schools. Tyler was originally a free-standing school of art long before it joined Temple, so the singular identity of the school has deep roots. This distinct character has contributed to the school’s high national ranking in U.S. News & World Reports and elsewhere. It has also been emphasized as a source of strength by accrediting agencies. The school’s small size has been a big factor in its reputation, since it facilitates individualized advising and the development of strong mentoring relationships with students. Faculty at the school fear that merger into a much larger unit would jeopardize these unique school assets.

The faculty are also concerned about the lack of detail in White Paper on many important factors that would bear on the success or failure of a merger. Issues of administration, allocation of space, funding for undergraduate and graduate programs, and myriad other issues that would arise in restructuring have not been addressed. Without knowing the specific financial implications, programmatic implications, and criteria for success or failure, it is difficult to argue either for or against any of the various possibilities that the White Paper outlines.

Education
Ken Thurman, chair of the College of Education’s (COE) collegial assembly, reported that the COE has drafted a response to the White Paper that was unanimously endorsed by the collegial assembly. The COE faculty have scheduled a meeting with the Provost that will take place in the coming week. The COE fails to see how combination with another unit would result in any significant budgetary savings or accomplish any of the other goals set out in the White Paper. The COE currently operates with financial surpluses, and it is in the process of developing and implementing new pro-grams to increase enrollment and enhance efficiency. Consequently, it is not clear what value would be added to the current undertakings by combination with another unit.

As with Tyler, COE programs enjoy strong national reputations and rankings, and it is clear from a review of peer institutions that nearly all of the highly ranked programs nationally are freestanding schools or colleges. Other universities have experimented with combining education with other schools or colleges, and many institutions that have done so have since reverted to freestanding administrative structures. Temple should investigate the experiences of these other institutions before it goes down that same road. Additionally, the COE faculty believe that any decision to undertake fundamental restructuring should be preceded by careful, thorough, and data-supported analysis of the potential costs and benefits. The White Paper does not include that kind of content.

5. Discussion of Art Reorganization
In the discussion of the arts reorganization proposals in the White Paper, the following observations were among those made:

•The White Paper rightly emphasizes the importance of student experience, but it offers no positive arguments for reorganization on that score. Instead it relies almost entirely on an assertion of potential gains in efficiency that are not particularized or quantified.

•There are numerous arts programs at other institutions in the Philadelphia area, and some of them have been combined. For the most part, the experience has not been successful. The best programs in the city are those that have retained an individual identity.

•It is a mistake to view the arts programs at Temple as interchangeable, fungible, and moveable units – as so much “chum” that can be indiscriminately “spread on a Temple sea.”

•Temple should be studying the results of recent program mergers, such as the recent merger of Social Work into the College of Allied Health Programs. In many ways that merger has worked out, but there were some real costs, such as Social Work’s loss of an individual academic identity, loss of dedicated representation in university matters, loss of a unique faculty listserv, and the like. Before we embark on new reorganization ventures we should take time to learn from our own past experience.

•The positions taken at Boyer represent the views of some, but not necessarily all faculty members. There are other Boyer faculty who hold an opposing view, some of whom were unable to attend the meeting at which the Boyer motions were discussed.

• The issue of merger was considered and discussed at length by SCT faculty a year ago, and the faculty came up with detailed responses supporting the view that it was not a good idea. The issue seemed to disappear after that. It is surprising the White Paper neither mentions nor responds to the matters that were raised in that earlier discussion.

•Theater, as well as Film and Media Arts, are in a different posture from other SCT departments. Their needs would support a bottom-up, rather than top-down discussion of what form of organization would best serve their programs. One good possibility would be to form a separate new school of Theater, Film, and Media Arts. Faculty in those departments share many of the concerns that have been raised about the White Paper’s lack of supporting detail, but current arrangements have created significant barriers for successful development of these programs.

•Tyler was also approached about merger in the past, approximately 3 years ago, and it gave a detailed response at that time. Tyler faculty were interested in developing some type of umbrella structure to coordinate arts programs at the university and enhance their visibility, but they were opposed to merger. As with SCT, there was neither a re-sponse from the central administration nor any further discussion.

•There should be careful consideration of the nature of the arts. Artistic expression has many different definitions and venues, so it would be a mistake to assume that all programs can be lumped into a single model. Diversity is critically important in the arts, and it is supported by allowing diversity in programs, method, and instruction.

•The White Paper sets out an extremely tight timeline for decisions that fails to allow adequate opportunity for deliberation and planning. The danger is that we will embark on major change without knowing what we are doing or why we are doing it, and without any measures to determine success or failure. That approach risks a reshuffling of “academic chum” that produces few discernible benefits but risks sustained loss in educational quality.

•The White Paper has an appendix listing schools that have merged arts programs. The implication is that they represent a positive model. But there has been no inquiry to determine why those programs have been structured that way or whether the structure is a success. Faculty at Boyer who have served in other schools organized on those lines report that Deans always tend to emphasize one set of arts programs (usually the one the Dean hails from) to the detriment of all the others.

•Several years ago the Dance department was merged into Boyer. No one seems to have studied that merger to see what worked and what didn’t. We should examine our own experience with reorganization before acting on the current proposals.

•Almost any merger of programs is likely to bring about some administrative savings, if only in the elimination of a Dean’s salary. Also, almost any merger is likely to generate some interdisciplinary opportunities. Merger can break down faculty communications “silos.”

•Presently, Tyler and Boyer have a single Dean and have combined some administrative functions. The Dean (whose background is in music) raises more money for Boyer than for Tyler, which is a huge problem for Tyler given the debt on its new facilities. The Dean has also stated that any possible administrative savings from merger have been fully realized.

•Reorganizations require careful planning. When Tyler was moved from its own campus to main campus, for example, there was no provision made for Art History, which has a different set of physical space needs from the other arts disciplines. Another effect of the move was that budgets were not adjusted to reflect the higher operating costs in the new facility. The point is that reorganization, if it is to work, requires very careful planning and input from a diverse range of sources, including (and especially) directly affected faculty members. “The devil is in the details and the details are not there” in the White Paper.

•Reorganization of the arts will feed the university’s tendency to multiply layers of administration and create distance between faculty and executive decision makers. There is a danger that any efficiencies realized at one level will be offset (or more than offset) by new costs at another.

•There are departments at the University that have been “reorganized” multiple times, with various successive college affiliations. With rare exceptions, the changes have been harmful. They usually entail a loss of identity and a “loss of way” for the affected programs and faculty. If mergers occur, someone should commit to protecting the merged departments, whose resources are at risk of being plundered by their assigned merger partner(s), and whose needs are at risk of being ignored. Temple almost never puts those kinds of protection in place.

•It’s a mistake to think that organizational structures produce collaboration or interdisciplinary exchange. That happens at a personal faculty-to-faculty or faculty-to-student level. It also cannot be “planned.” It depends on the development of a personal connection.

•The White Paper view of arts leaves some things out – e.g., poetry and creative writing. The point is that any administrative structuring scheme will necessarily be artificial and incomplete.

•The merger of Dance with Boyer illustrates the kind of merger mistake that can be made. In terms of facilities, what dancers need most is positive dance space, but in the merger their space needs were neglected. Music, on the other hand, needs rehearsal space, but this too was shortchanged. The problem is that to an administrator a few square feet here or there seems of minor moment, when to the student and instructor it can prove to be critical. Opera and Theater need space for sets. These things all cost money. If merger came with an infusion of new funds, everyone would be in favor of it. But if it is done on a financial shoestring aimed at budgetary reduction there are bound to be educational losses.

6. Discussion of Education Reorganization
The meeting turned to discussion of the White Paper proposals regarding reorganization of education. The following observations were among those submitted:

•To the extent the White Paper offers criteria for reorganization, it identifies three categories: excellence, efficiency, and economy. Every specific proposal should be tested against those criteria. But the White Paper does not do that. Instead, the sole mover seems to be economy. The administration should be obliged to justify any move on the basis of all three factors. In turn, those factors should be measured in terms of impact on both schools or departments being moved, and schools and departments that receive them. There is no indication that is being done. For example, most faculty in CLA seem entirely unaware that merger with COE is being contemplated.

•The White Paper fails to consider many issues in CLA that could pose barriers to a successful merger with COE. CLA is very big and spread out as it is. Its administration is already stretched too thin. It has financial issues, concerns with the number of NTT appointments, battles over tenure-track appointments, and a range of other knotty internal issues. Adding new layers of complexity through merger would compound the existing challenges.

•The Department of Environmental Design, housed at Ambler, was merged into CLA 2 years ago. The experience has been unsatisfactory on several fronts. The main problem is that Environmental Design’s needs get very little attention from the CLA administration, yet the program lacks autonomy to attend to them on its own. In fact, administrative staff at CLA are often unaware that they have any responsibility for the program. The move has also cut the department off from its prior connections to other faculty and programs at Ambler. It is another internal lesson on the difficulties of accomplishing a successful merger.

•Reorganizations tend to enervate the faculty and staff on the front lines, interfering with their sense of connection, their desire for high performance, and their sense of empowerment. Centralization of authority inevitably leads to centralization of resources, diverting them from the base to the administrative center. Reallocating centralized resources to individual schools, with the autonomy to set their own destinies, could produce fascinating possibilities. The White Paper seems to be pushing things in the wrong direction.

•The White Paper focus on restructuring is reminiscent of moving deck chairs on the Titanic. Any cost savings will be minimal in relation to our existing budgetary gaps. What is really needed is to devote our energies to creative development of new revenue generation possibilities. Instead of triggering resistance and impairing morale, such an approach could generate true excitement and a new sense of energy.

7. Discussion of White Paper in General
The meeting turned to a more general discussion of the White Paper, during which the following observations were offered:

•One source of legislative resistance to funding state-related universities appears to be tied to their exemptions from state laws regarding disclosure. Nondisclosure of salaries is a particular source of irritation. If disclosure rules were changed, the university might meet less resistance to its requests for financial support.

•To the extent the White Paper is motivated by funding issues, it is difficult to assess because of the lack of transparency at the University regarding the contents of its budget. It is impossible to draw connections between budgetary strains and what is being proposed.

•Presumably, the Board of Trustees has access to detailed budget information that we cannot access. Our lack of information makes it difficult to respond to the White Paper in any way that has a chance of being heard.

•We should not assume that the White Paper is driven by budget constraints. Rather, we should take it at its word that academic excellence and student experience matter as well.

•It is unclear who is the prime mover behind the White Paper – the University administration or the Board of Trustees. It may be that the Board is really pushing this discussion.

•Reorganization is likely to have an impact on the reaccreditation of academic programs, yet the White Paper does not consider this issue.

•The reorganization issue has been under discussion in the FSSC since last summer. The FSSC has repeatedly asked for criteria and has stressed that the case for reorganization should be made in terms of academic progress, not just money. The FSSC has also maintained that any monetary savings are unlikely to be substantial. The FSSC was repeatedly assured that the push toward reorganization is motivated by a desire for academic excellence, not just monetary savings. Yet there has been no effort to demonstrate any academic advantages to the proposals. This has produced suspicion that the real driving force behind the proposals is not being disclosed.

•The timing of this proposal seems very odd given the vacuum of academic leadership at present. It seems as though whoever will be leading the University next year ought to have a voice in the process. The fact that the decision is being pushed now makes it feel as though the decision has already been taken, despite assurances to the contrary from the Provost.

•The Board of Trustees is likely to be more influenced by students and alumni than by faculty. The most directly affected schools should mobilize their students and alumni to weigh in on the reorganization proposals.

•In light of actual and pending cuts in state appropriation, devoting so much attention to reorganization seems to be a huge mistake. The administration either has plans for budget cuts in the works or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t that is a sad commentary on our leadership. If it does, it should be sharing the particulars with the faculty. If it resists doing so, the Faculty Senate should be making a strong statement about it. We should also support making explicit budget information public.

8. Proposals for Senate Action
At this point in the meeting, President LaFollette asked whether any Senate members wished to offer any motions or resolutions. There was discussion about whether the Senate should press for greater attention to revenue generation opportunities, perhaps through the creation of a Senate task force to develop ideas. It was ultimately agreed that the full Senate could defer to the FSSC for further action on exploring revenue generation opportunities.

Discussion turned to whether the Senate should make a formal statement regarding the White Paper proposals on reorganization. After considerable discussion, the following resolution was moved and seconded:

Resolved: The Faculty Senate of Temple University cannot support the proposals involving the restructuring of existing schools or colleges, or the creation of new schools or colleges, which appear in the Provost’s recently presented White Paper, without a cost-benefit analysis and an analysis of the effects of any proposed restructuring on Temple’s mission, our students, our faculty, our reputation, and the impact on the University in general.

After further discussion and a call of the question, the resolution was approved unanimously.

9. Old and New Business
Since this was a special Faculty Senate meeting, there was no consideration of old or new business.

10. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Mark C. Rahdert
Secretary

Representative Faculty Senate Meeting, March 16, 2012

Attendance:
Representative Senators and Officers: 50
Ex officio: 1
Faculty, Administrators and Guests: 17
Total Attendance: 68

1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 1:47 p.m.

2. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the February 21, 2012 Representative Faculty Senate meeting were approved.

3. President’s Report
President LaFollette reported that shortly before Spring Break, members of the Faculty Senate Steering Committee (FSSC) and the Budget Review Committee met with various University administrators and Deans on the University budget and state appropriations issues. LaFollette noted that the Provost has sent an announcement to all faculty regarding on-line administration of Student Feedback Forms (SFFs), the President has released a draft faculty workload policy, and the Provost has released a memorandum detailing further developments emanating from the White Paper on reorganization. To maximize opportunity for discussion, after a brief report from the Vice President, the bulk of the meeting will be devoted to exchange with Provost Englert regarding these developments. Since the SFF matter has been previously discussed at some length, LaFollette recommended that exchange with the Provost concentrate on the workload and reorganization issues.

4. Vice President’s Report
Vice President Shapiro began by stressing the need, especially during times of transition and rapid change, for faculty members to have a meaningful voice in setting the direction of the University. Temple’s recent history has involved faculty ceding many matters to the University administration, probably because of increasing demands for teaching and scholarship. The effect has been to create a void that has been filled by administrators. To reverse this trend, we need to work, among other things, on repopulating and reactivating Faculty Senate committees. To do this effectively, Representative Senators need to identify and personally contact individuals in their schools and colleges whose talents and interests make them well suited to serve on particular University committees. We also need to approach less experienced colleagues and convince them of the personal and institutional value of University service. An updated list of committee vacancies has been distributed with the agenda. It has also been sent out by email. Shapiro urged Representative Senators to place the list on their faculty listserves, and to do whatever they can personally to encourage volunteers. For elected committees, there is a tight timeline, since statements of interest and CV’s or biographical statements must be submitted by March 20 in order to be in time for placement on the ballot. Faculty should bear in mind that participation on these committees both supports the University’s mission and contributes to achieving its strategic plan

Shapiro asked Karen Turner (SCT), chair of the Nominating Committee, to report on officer elections. Turner reported that the Nominating Committee’s slate of officer nominations [Joan Shapiro (COE) – for President; Mark Rahdert (Law) – for Vice President; Tricia Jones (COE) – for Secretary] was previously distributed. No other nominations were submitted by the dead-line set for officer nominations, so the Nominating Committee’s nominees will be the candidates that appear on the ballot.

5. Provost’s Report
Budget and Appropriations
Provost Richard Englert began his report with an update on the University budget and state appropriations. The Governor has proposed a 30% reduction in appropriations, which amounts to a $42 million cut. This is on top of a projected gap of $38 million between revenues and expenditures, producing an overall revenue gap, if the Governor’s recommendation is adopted, of approximately $80 million. Filling that gap will require striking a balance between tuition increases and reductions in expenditures. The University is actively pressing the state legislature to restore some of the proposed cuts in funding. University representatives have met with House and Senate appropriation committees, and the sessions were essentially sympathetic to the needs of higher education. In his testimony, Englert stressed several items recommended by the FSSC, including 1) that Temple has a high number of first-generation college students, 2) that the University has been a model for cost containment among institutions of higher education, and 3) that our principal concern in asking for support is not for ourselves but for our students. Englert reported that appropriations committee members, while sympathetic to higher education, made it clear they think it is important that faculty members “share the pain” of budget cuts; he assured them that is the case.

Englert observed that the budget process is a long one, and he urged faculty members to continue to use TALON and any personal contacts they may have to urge legislative support for higher education funding. Englert also noted that the Governor has formed a commission on post-secondary education. It will look not only at higher education, but at other forms of post-secondary training. The commission report is expected sometime this spring.

Englert will be meeting with Deans of each school and college to discuss specific implications of the budget cuts for each academic unit.

Faculty Workload
The President has circulated a proposed statement on faculty workload. The document has been distributed to all faculty members. It is also available on the website of the Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs. A is link has been created to receive faculty comments, which can be either signed or anonymous. Responses are due by April 8.

SFFs
Englert has accepted the recommendation of the SFF Committee to move to university-wide on-line administration of SFF forms. However, he has decided to delay implementation until Summer 2012. Having the first administration occur during the summer will allow the university to work out any bugs in the process before the fall semester. Englert thanked the Committee for its excellent work.

White Paper on Reorganization
Englert has distributed a “progress report” on matters discussed in the White Paper to all faculty members and professional librarians. The Provost has also sent three documents detailing specific proposals to faculty and admin-istrators at Boyer, COE, SCT, and Tyler. The document sent to Boyer and Tyler concerns the creation of a new Center for Fine and Performing Arts. The document sent to COE concerns a proposal to change COE’s designation from “college” to “school,” and to merge all Education departments into a single unit. The document sent to SCT concerns moving the Departments of Theater and Film and Media Arts into the Center for Fine and Performing Arts, and to create a new School of Communications to house the remaining SCT departments. There is a feedback link (http://www.temple.edu/provost/feedback.html) that has been created on the Provost’s website for faculty responses to these proposals.

Questions and Comments
The remainder of the meeting was occupied with faculty questions and comments on the various matters presented in the Provost’s report.

•The Provost was asked whether comments submitted to his office will be available for inspection by others. He responded that they will not, because the aim is to permit individuals wishing to submit anonymous responses to do so. He will, however, give further consideration to whether the comments should be made available to others.

•Speakers commented that faculty members’ expressed concerns and reservations about restructuring do not seem to have been reflected in the report, which makes it feel as though decisions on restructuring were already “on the track” so that it was impossible to change course. Englert responded that in fact his proposals take into account various faculty ideas and concerns.

•Englert was asked about his choice of name for the center, particularly the use of the term “Fine Arts,” which is inconsistent with the broad range of creative activities in contemporary schools of art. Englert replied that he was not wedded to any particular name for the Center.

•Members commented that the arts programs involved in the restructuring are spread throughout the university, and that the present experience of having one Dean for both Tyler and Boyer has made his leadership at Boyer less effective. Englert responded that he has been satisfied with the experience of having a single Dean heading both Boyer and Tyler.

•Englert was asked about the process for selection of Directors for the various schools to be included in the Center for the Arts. He responded that his present thinking is that the Directors will be appointed by the Dean, not chosen by the faculty. They might be appointed from within the University rather than as a product of an external search. Englert stated that the Center will not be so large that it will prevent the Dean from being able to know and interact with the faculty of the various Schools.

•He was asked about implications of the Center for funding opportunities. Englert expressed the conviction that merger of arts programs into a single center will enhance opportunities to attract external funding. He indicated that he has met with staff from Institutional Advancement and they are very excited about the prospects for development that a new Center of the Arts would create.

•Englert was asked about the statement near the end of the Report calling for streamlining faculty governance. Did he have any specific changes in mind? Englert replied that he did not have a specific set of proposals, but rather wanted a careful evaluation of the best use of faculty time and energy. Noting that faculty time spent on governance is not being spent on other matters, he raised the possibility that we might have fewer FSSC members, a more streamlined committee structure. Similar attention to streamlining governance ought to be occurring within schools and colleges. The report formally asks the FSSC to look into these issues.

•One member suggested that a way to streamline governance would be to have fewer faculty “town meetings.” Another noted that faculty time devoted to governance is over and above the time we all give to teaching, research and scholarship.

•It was observed that the creation of a new administrative superstructure for the arts will probably lead to a proliferation of administrative positions, given Temple’s past practices, and that this will eat into any potential savings from reorganization.

•It was also observed that people tend to support particular arts programs, not the arts in general. Englert responded that the information he has received from Institutional Advancement suggests that the opposite is true.

•Englert was asked how tenure decisions and processes will be handled during the reorganization, especially for faculty who are currently in the tenure pipeline. Englert responded that these are among the most important issues that will have to be addressed, and he agreed that it is important to safeguard the legitimate expectations of current tenure-track faculty.

•It was observed that NTT faculty have not been participants in discussions, regarding either workload issues or SFFs, and that their views need to be incorporated into the process. Several faculty members noted that some of the workload guidelines applicable to NTTs seem inconsistent with the actual reality of what NTTs actually do at Temple. Englert replied that the proposed guidelines substantially track the TAUP contract, and that Deans will continue to have discretion over faculty workload matters. Regarding workload, some faculty observed that it would be helpful to faculty to know the range of issues that were considered by the task force. Englert responded that it was up to the task force to decide what information to share about its deliberations.

•Englert was asked why specific proposals regarding reorganization had been sent only to particular schools and colleges. Englert replied that he has no objection to other faculty seeing those documents. He sent them to the faculties he thought were most directly interested.

•Asked for particulars about cost savings from reorganization, Englert replied that the issue is covered in the specific proposals that went out to particular schools and colleges.

•It was noted that some of the changes contemplated by the proposed reorganizations may require bargaining with TAUP. Englert replied that this might be the case, but we are still a “long way” from reaching any such issues.

•Some faculty members expressed concern that the statement in the Provost’s report regarding service could be read to downgrade the importance of faculty service to the University. Englert responded that we should all affirm the value of shared governance, but that is not inconsistent with a desire to do things better. We need to be more efficient and strategic. Englert stressed that in his view nothing in any of the documents should be interpreted to say that faculty do not work hard, or that they should be working harder. The question is rather how best to direct faculty energies and how to get the most benefit from them. He also noted that the workload guidelines have been posted for comment, and that individual faculty members may comment on them up to April 13.

6. Old Business
Frank Friedman (CST) reminded the Senate that the Faculty Herald review board is still looking for a new editor.

7. New Business
None.

8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Mark C. Rahdert
Secretary