Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Present: Karen M. Turner (Pres.), Paul S. LaFollette (V. Pres.), Joan P. Shapiro (Secy.), Robert M. Aiken (Past-Pres.), Joan Delalic (Engr.), Adam Davey (CHPSW), Margaret Devinney (CLA), Frank Friedman (CST), Michael W. Jackson (STHM), Tricia S. Jones, (Educ.), Charles Jungreis (Med.), Luke Kahlich (BCMD), Laurie MacPhail (Dent.), Mark C. Rahdert (Law), Jay Sinha (FSBM), Roberta Sloan (SCT), , Cheryl Mack (Coord.)
Absent: Stephanie Knopp (Tyl.), Charles Ruchalski (Pharm.), David Waldstreicher (Fac. Herald)
Call to Order: The meeting began at 1:05 P.M.
Approval of the Minutes:
The Minutes from October 20, 2009, were approved with one abstention. A few amendments were suggested.
President’s Report: Karen M. Turner
Karen Turner reported that the President’s Dysfunctional Rules Committee met yesterday and that there will be three more meetings. The committee received hundreds of suggestions. Turner hoped that the Faculty Senate Steering Committee could use the suggestion box, when President Hart is through with it, to ask the faculty about their lack of interest in service and what could be done to remedy this problem.
Roberta Sloan believes that tenure and promotion criteria have to change for service to be perceived more positively.
Cheryl Mack indicated that we can use the suggestion box when it is no longer in use.
Michael Jackson brought up the case of the unwillingness of a seasoned professor to ask a salient question when he is concerned about his anonymity.
Adam Davey brought up the problem that once a faculty member has signed in through the TU Portal, he or she will be known. A click box was suggested where someone could indicate if they wanted their comment to be anonymous.
Vice President’s Report: Paul S. LaFollette
Paul LaFollette said that he now has two faculty members who will run for the Personnel Committee and one who will be on the ticket for the Study Leave (Sabbatical) Committee. The ballot will be out in a day or so.
LaFollette said that he was working on the data base that will provide names of those who want to take part in generic tasks as well as names of those who want to be placed on a waiting list for a certain committee.
LaFollette met with Diane Maleson, Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Faculty Affairs, about the Handbook Committee. She suggested that a faculty member chair the committee. LaFollette knows of an ideal candidate whom he will ask.
Old Business:
There was a discussion of the Quorum issue. Some highlights of the conversation included:
Karen Turner said that she and Paul LaFollette had met with Scott Gratson (SCT) about the quorum. That meeting focused on how to define a quorum.
Cheryl Mack provided the numbers of Senators who attended Representative and University Faculty Senate Meetings from the last three academic years.
There was a discussion of Robert’s Rules of Order in which it was pointed out that there was no need of a percentage for a quorum. A number could be used.
There were some remarks about whether there was a need for all the layers that currently exist in the University Faculty Senate. Mark Rahdert explained the rationale by saying that we should think of the University Faculty Senate as a New England Town Meeting or direct democracy and the Representative Faculty Senate as indirect democracy and finally the Steering Committee as a place for greater participation as well as for some confidentiality when appropriate.
The concept of the electronic ballot was discussed in some detail. Paul LaFollette explained that if we turn to the electronic vote it means that everything is put on hold. This kind of voting is good for some issues but should not be used all the time.
Laurie MacPhail was concerned that not everyone would know when the Representative Faculty Senate will be dealing with an important issue. It was pointed out that one or two readings were required and that issues are announced on the listserv before a meeting.
Numbers for quorums were mentioned and will be discussed further at the next Steering Committee Meeting.
Guest: Richard M. Englert, Deputy Provost and Dean of University College
Richard Englert visited to provide an update on graduate education. He wanted to provide the Steering Committee with a substantive discussion. He used an outline of Robert Zemsky’s Report of the Learning Alliance on the Support for Graduate Education to offer a focus for the discussion.
As he went through the handout, Englert highlighted certain areas of the report concerning graduate education at Temple. They were:
- Overall lack of coherence and lack of consistency;
- Main areas of confusion included designation and distribution of assistantships, tuition remission for research assistants on externally-funded projects, and tracking the funding support for graduate students;
- Major recommendations focused on developing a system to track funding support, redefining teaching assistants, changing policies and incentives for tuition remission for RA’s, devolving some financial responsibilities of Graduate School to the schools and colleges, and redefining the role of the Graduate School.
A number of comments from the Steering Committee were made about the redefining of teaching assistants. They included:
- Concern about masters and undergraduate students who have roles comparable to teaching assistants;
- Reclassification concerns, especially where GA’s, Externs and Interns fit;
- Consideration about whether TA’s and RA’s should be instructors of record;
- Confusion of terminology.
Englert discussed briefly an incremental approach to teaching from Novice through to Instructor of Record that the Teaching and Learning Center is developing.
Englert also explained that the redefining of the Graduate School may be turned over to Associate Deans and Deans rather than to the Graduate Board itself. A constrained role may be given to the Graduate School. Comments followed:
- The Graduate Board should step back and have a say on centralization and decentralization;
- Although two students should serve on the graduate board, they have not done so in years and this omission should be rectified;
Key questions from the handout were then discussed:
- #1 How best to provide a rational basis for the distribution of resources for assistantships and fellowships? According to Richard Englert, this problem will be handled by the new Vice Provost of Research Administration and Graduate Education;
- #2 How best to provide adequate support for PhD students? Englert felt that assistantships must be competitive to attract outstanding students. A discussion followed about how to make certain graduate students are prepared well. Training programs were not considered to be enough. Poster sessions, for example, were often not part of the curriculum.
Current activities were mentioned, such as the need to streamline policies in the Graduate School, the redefining of tuition for doctoral students, and there was also mention of postdoctoral students who must be paid following NIH established schedules.
After Richard Englert left, it was mentioned that the Temple University Graduate Student Association (TUGSA) should be considered in regards to rethinking graduate student assistantships. It was also suggested that representatives from TUGSA be invited to a steering committee meeting.
Old Business:
There was none.
New Business:
There was none.
Adjournment:
The meeting ended at 2:50 p.m.
Joan P. Shapiro
Secretary
