Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Present:
Paul S. LaFollette (Pres.), Roberta Sloan (Secy.), Karen M. Turner (Immed. Past Pres.), Joan Delalic (Engr.), Margaret Devinney (CLA), Deborah Howe (SED), Tricia S. Jones, (Educ.), Charles Jungreis (Med.), Jim Korsh (CST), Laurie MacPhail (Dent.), Mark C. Rahdert (Law), Charles Ruchalski (Pharm), Jeffrey Solow (BCMD), Adam Davey (CHPSW) Jay Sinha (FSBM), David Waldstreicher (Fac. Herald), Cheryl Mack (Coord.)
Absent:
Nora Alter (SCT), Michael Jackson (STHM), Luke Kahlich (BCMD – on leave), Stephanie Knopp (Tyl), Charles Ruchalski (Pharm), Joan Shapiro (V. Pres)
Call to Order:
The meeting began at 1:05 p.m.
Approval of Minutes from 9-14-10:
The minutes were accepted, with changes suggested by Laurie MacPhail, Mark Rahdhert, and Charles Jungreis
President’s Report:
President LaFollette contacted Senior VP and Secretary of the Board of Trustees, George Moore, regarding the lack of faculty participation last year on the Board of Trustees Development Committee. Mr. Moore told the president that since almost all the meetings are of a confidential nature that is why faculty had not been invited last year. He suggested that faculty not be appointed to this particular committee this year or in the future.
Dean of Students, Stephanie Ives will be a guest at the FSSC Meeting on October 5th, Vice President of the Graduate Studies and Research, Kenneth Blank, will be a guest later in the semester, as will Senior Vice Provost of Strategic Initiatives and Communications, Betsy Leebron Tutelman.
President LaFollette shared that the FSSC would like to invite a representative from the Human Resources Division. They responded by asking whom to send. President LaFollette will share with them that the FSSC is most interested in policies and procedures, and ask HR to choose the person most appropriate to respond to those questions and concerns.
President LaFollette said that he feels that Senior VP of Undergraduate Studies, Peter Jones, should be invited to speak with the FSSC, and everyone agreed. He will extend the invitation.
President LaFollette shared his concern upon hearing that now and in the future, the university has decided to adhere more closely to the course scheduling grid. He has some real concerns about this particularly as applicable to science courses. Under this scenario, three-hour courses would only be able to be offered at night. President LaFollette shared that additionally, his concern is that there has been no discussion of this new enforcement of this policy without first discussing the issue with faculty. President LaFollette has heard that now, there will be more adherences to the grid and that this is particularly difficult for science courses. What disturbs Paul is that there has been no discussion of this with faculty.
He also shared that he has heard a rumor that the university is planning on doing placement tests in Mathematics and English, online. Again, in addition to obvious concerns with this type of plan, President LaFollette expressed his concern that this issue has not been discussed with any faculty body.
Past President Karen Turner mentioned that the faculty is not being consulted on many issues.
Deborah Howe expressed her concern that although we have faculty who teach environmental design, they are not being consulted on the planning of new buildings, their design and the resultant environmental impact.
Jeffrey Solow shared his feeling that he does not think that the faculty is being intentionally “snubbed,” but that the culture at the university seems to be that the faculty does not have useful skills and information to share.
David Waldstreicher mentioned that the faculty is asked to engage with the community and globally, but we are not asked to be engaged in campus issues.
An opinion was expressed that ignoring faculty input is intentional. It was mentioned that often, when faculty are finally asked to be involved, “the train is already out of the station.”
The question was posed as to “How do we get across what shared governance really is and the fact that we don’t have it on campus?”
President LaFollette said that he feels that there is no shared governance because the faculty does not demand it. He suggested that we must be adamant about this issue.
Deborah Howe suggested that perhaps the administration does not wish to have input because some in the administration might feel that faculty input might be “messy or difficult. She feels that there is great expertise on campus which is simply not being used. She further said that some people have a narrow view of shared governance. She suggested that it might be a good idea to prepare a one-page position paper about shared governance, inclusivity and what colleagueship really entails. Both Deborah and David Waldstreicher will work on this paper together and present it to the FSSC.
Trisha Jones stated that she feels that we might be too diffuse in our areas of interest and that if we had three or four issues to present as talking points, that would be helpful in identifying the most important areas where the faculty wish to have input in decision-making. She suggested that these be discussed at collegial assemblies. Another FSSC member mentioned that it is difficult to discuss various issues at collegial assemblies when the dean of a particular school or college is the person chairing the collegial assembly.
Jim Korsh said that he feels that the issues are the bylaws, the environment, the grid and master planning.
Mark Rahdert said that he feels that these are priority items, but that these do not preclude discussing the very important issue of shared governance. These are priority items (Mark) but not exclusive of other areas of shared governance.
A faculty member mentioned that he feels it is “reclaiming our rights.”
Trish Jones suggested that the FSSC should look at the items that emerged from the FSSC/Dean’s Retreat and review the main issues. She added that many collegial assemblies don’t really feel connected with the Faculty Senate.
Deborah Howe shared that she heard that the Facilities Usage is driving the grid situation on campus. Another faculty member agreed and said that he feels this is particularly the case at TUCC.
It was suggested that members of the FSSC draft a general statement that has specific points and that this paper be sent to the collegial assemblies.
President LaFollette suggested devoting the next Senate Meeting to these kinds of issues. He suggested that one or more position papers be prepared beforehand and then presented to the Faculty Senate as drafts, thereby soliciting faculty input.
Mark Rahdert suggested contacting the EPPC, to see if they had been consulted on any of the issues mentioned.
It was generally felt that this is an excellent way to get the faculty involved.
President LaFollette feels that the transcendent issue is, “are we involved?”
President LaFollette mentioned that CATA has not yet begun work selecting candidates to be suggested to President Hart for the dean search committees. He will contact Tony Ranere again and ask him to begin work on this, and also mention that it must be accomplished speedily. Right now there are six openings on CATA. President LaFollette stated that he feels there is little interest in this committee because the members have a sense of futility because they have been consulted so infrequently.
Old Business:
President LaFollette discussed faculty volunteers for committees in Joan’s absence, suggested discussing the faculty who have volunteered for committees.
A discussion of the applicants ensued.
The question of term limits was discussed. It was suggested that the reason for term limits is so that people do not stay in the same positions indefinitely.
It was stated the Senate bylaws committee should discuss this issue. Mark Rahdert stated that he feels that term limits should be explicitly described in the bylaws. He mentioned that if it is not in the bylaws, then it’s not really enforceable. He also mentioned that occasionally exceptions are necessary.
It was decided to accept the volunteers for all the committees where there were enough vacancies. Thus, Shenid Bhayroo was appointed to the Library Committee. Elizabeth Groff, Donna Snow and Sandra Suarez were appointed to the Student Awards Selection Committee. Sandra Suarez was appointed to the University Disciplinary Committee.
There were three applicants for the General Education Executive Committee and it was decided that Cynthia Folio and Rickie Sanders be appointed to the GEEC.
Since there were three applicants for the Committee on the Status of Women, it was decided that it would be best to wait until VP Shapiro returns from Sweden before deciding which candidate should be selected.
It was moved and seconded that the above named faculty be appointed to the committees as written. The motion carried.
New Business:
Mark Rahdert mentioned that President Hart had called a Town Meeting and Reception to discuss athletics at the university. He feels that adequate publicity should be given for this meeting because it might be the only opportunity at which the faculty can have input. He further suggested that after the meeting, the Faculty Senate should have a direct follow-up to the issues raised, and that a senate meeting might be devoted to discussion of the university’s relationship to our scholar/athletes. It was suggested to invite someone from the Athletic Department to give a presentation. President LaFollette encouraged everyone on the FSSC, who is able, should attend this Town Hall.
Jay Sinha (FSBM) raised the question of having the eye clinic reopened on campus. Various FSSC members shared their experiences with having difficulty getting appointments at the hospital ophthalmology clinic, and when they do have appointments, having to wait a long time to be seen.
It was suggested that the closing of the eye clinic on campus was probably an economic decision. Professor Sinha felt that there should be a push to have the eye clinic reopened on campus. Charles Jungreis mentioned that the economics of an eye clinic would be very dependent upon how many hours it is open per week and whether or not an optometrist or ophthalmologist is examining patients. Jay Sinha suggested that having it open even one day a week would alleviate a lot of difficulty that current faculty and faculty dependents are now having in getting eye exams.
Karen Turner commented upon how much she liked the addition of the Adirondack Chairs around campus.
Karen Turner thanked Charles Jungreis, Mark Rahdert and Laurie McPhail for facilitating the appointments to the Bargaining Units Liaison Committee.
The topic of using other technology in addition to Blackboard as a way for the Faculty to communicate privately would be an excellent move.
President LaFollette was authorized to organize a committee and staff it to study this option. In the interim, FSSC members will share their private email addresses.
The discussion of the fact that there has been the opening of the question of whether or not the Theater Department should move from SCT to join with Boyer in a College of Performing Arts was discussed. One opinion voiced was that this discussion should not take place when there is an Interim Dean. Others felt that this discussion should not involve just SCT and Boyer, but should involve the entire university community. There was also commentary that a meaningful discussion, involving all possible configurations and options, could not take place in such a short time, and that the EPPC should have been involved in the discussion. It was mentioned that Performing Arts Colleges are definitely a part of the 20th rather than the 21st century, and developing one at the university would be looking backwards rather than forwards, as well as ignoring the impact that digital formats have had on the entertainment industries.
A faculty member remarked that Temple University is becoming Tweedledee University in that it is beginning to look like every other university. Many agreed that part of what makes a university worthwhile is that it is unique and has its own individual characteristics. It was felt that each university should be “deliberately different.” There was a comment made that it seems as if the administration at Temple University wants it to be derivative of other universities, and the discussion of moving of Theater and creating a College of Performing Arts, without adequate time for discussion and reflection, with public input, is indicative of what is happening at Temple. Everyone agreed that this discussion and the decision-making are too rushed. One faculty member felt that it is “a tempest in a teapot” and will never happen. Another faculty member voiced the opinion that the decision has already been made to create a College of Performing Arts, and asking the faculty their opinion, is just pro-forma.
Adjournment:
The meeting ended 2:31 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Roberta R. Sloan, Ph.D.
Faculty Senate Secretary
