Thursday, December 15, 2005
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 1:53 PM.
Orin Chein was persuaded, by the promise of a limitless supply of chocolate chip cookies, to take the minutes.
2. Approval of Minutes:
The minutes of the November meeting were accepted without correction.
3. Middle States Periodic Review:
Richard Englert (Deputy Provost and Dean of University College) reported on the Middle States (henceforth, MS) periodic review process. MS does a site review every ten years to determine a university’s accreditation. Our last site review took place in 1999-2000, and we are fully accredited. After five years, a university conducts a self-study (Periodic Review Report) and reports to MS. Last year, a committee chaired by Robert Aiken (CST) conducted such a self-study and submitted a 75-page report to MS. MS sent that report to two academic reviewers and to a financial analyst who, in turn, sent reports to MS. In august, MS sent us a review of our report, and, in September, President Adamany sent a response to MS. MS then reviewed everything and determined to accept our periodic review report and to reaffirm our accreditation. The financial analyst commented that our financial status is the best it has been in recent years and that there is a healthy outlook for the future. One area of concern is that our endowment is small, and we have to work to improve this. One issue of the Temple Times in the spring will be devoted to all of these reports and to this review, and everything, including the 75-pave self-study will appear on a Temple web site.
Englert said that, although it is still five years off, we have to start thinking about how to prepare for the 2009-2010 site visit. MS has been emphasizing outcomes assessment and student learning, and so we have to focus on these issues and on the new General Education curriculum.
Englert thanked Bob Aiken and the committee for its excellent work. Aiken said that a lot of the credit is owed to Jodi Levine-Laufgraben. He also complimented the members of the committee and remarked that members of committees such as this should receive consideration for their work when it comes time to assign workloads, merit increases, etc.
Bonnie Averbach (FSBM) remarked that the success of this committee shows that faculty and administrators can work well together, and she asked Englert for an explanation of why there are no full-time faculty members on the President and Provost’s Workload Committee.
Englert replied that the committee is not aimed at formulating new policies and that there is nothing wrong for an administrative committee to help provide guidelines for the deans. He also announced that the Provost has stated that if anything comes out of this committee that has implications for policy, then the Faculty Senate Steering Committee would be consulted. He also noted that workload is a contractual issue and that the administration should not discuss this with the faculty, only with TAUP.
Orin Chein (CST) noted that to say that this committee will merely provide guidelines to help the deans is misleading and that any report from the committee is sure to impact on faculty. As a case in point, he noted that President Adamany has already reacted to the new TAUP agreement by telling the deans (in one way or another) that workloads have to be increased. As a result, many faculty members (Chein included) have had their teaching loads increased, in many cases in an arbitrary and UNFAIR manner. Chein also noted that the establishment of uniform workload guidelines is foolish – that there are differences between disciplines when it comes to expectations and to market conditions.
Englert replied that there is no attempt to deceive, and he reiterated the Provost’s promise that the Faculty Senate would be consulted about any policy implications that result from this committee.
As Chief Negotiator for the TAUP contract, Arthur Hochner (FSBM) noted that TAUP does not see any obstacle in seeking input on workload issues from the Faculty Senate or from TAUP. He sees the relationship between TAUP and the Administration as one of partnership, and not every issue should automatically be seen as adversarial.
4. President’s Report:
a) Senate President Evans welcomed some new faculty faces to the meeting and reminded us that, as this is a University Senate meeting, all presidential faculty are entitled to vote.
b) She noted that she often hears remarks such as “What is the Senate doing for me?” and she wants the faculty to know that the Faculty Senate Steering Committee works very hard. Here are some of the things that have taken place this semester:
1) Meetings with President Adamany and Provost Schwartz were held, especially over the issue of service and the proposed Workload Committee. The Senate formally petitioned the President and Provost for representation on the Committee. The FSSC also pressed Bonnie Brennan, the new Vice-Provost for Faculty, and Dick Englert, the chair of the Workload Committee, on this issue. Given the Provost’s response, essentially that faculty were excluded from the committee due to TAUP contract restrictions, the FSSC began to work with TAUP to make certain that our replies to the President and Provost came from a united faculty. FSSC issued a position paper on service. Our concerns were forwarded to the Committee, and we were promised that we would be told the results of the Committee deliberations by the end of December.
2) In keeping with the goal of shared governance, the FSSC held a special election this fall for the contract-mandated Promotion and Tenure Committee. Eight representatives were elected in an election that had a fairly high turnout. It is not clear whether this committee has a vote on individual cases of promotion and tenure or if it merely provides advice to the President. In the same election, the faculty voted strongly to more to online voting. The expectation is that the May elections will occur online.
3) The FSSC reviewed the history of merit awards in the last few years to see if practices have significantly changed in the award of merit. They found that almost every School and College had previously valued service very highly in awarding merit.
4) The Representative Senate passed a motion emphasizing that any proposed policy that has an impact on undergraduate education should be brought to EPPC. Since that motion passed, the Acting Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies has kept EPPC in the loop and has consulted EPPC on policy issues that are under consideration by the Administration.
5) The FSSC has been in close touch with the General Education Executive Committee about the implementation of General Education. The FSSC worked hard to nominate people to this committee, and it was very involved in the recruiting of the new Director of General Education, who will begin in earnest this January. The FSSC tries to facilitate communication between the GEEC and the faculty as a whole and they are happy about the level of faculty control within the GEEC.
6) The FSSC has also made sure that university committees are up and working) they appreciate that faculty have been volunteering to help with the work on these committees, and they will be asking for more help this spring). In particular, there will be a new committee that will re-evaluate the CATE forms. Contrary to the original intent, departments and schools and colleges have been using these forms for the evaluation of merit and other awards, promotion and tenure. Since they are having such an impact at these levels, the EPPC has asked the FSSC to form an evaluative committee in the spring. Volunteers to serve on this committee will be needed.
7) In the interests of opening Board of Trustee meetings to faculty who have never attended but who may be interested in seeing the process or meeting with some Trustees, the FSSC has asked for volunteers to attend these meetings. Probably the committee that is most interesting to faculty is the Academic Affairs Committee, which this fall has approved some degree reorganizations, and the development of new degree programs in Criminal Justice, Physical Therapy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Biomedical Science, Environmental Engineering, Dentistry, Russian, and Financial Engineering. These new programs were subsequently passed by the full Board, which also passed the revamped University Honors Program.
8) In order to help understand new developments at Temple, FSSC invited the new VP for Multicultural Affairs, Rhonda Brown, to tell us about her plans.
9) In their continuing efforts to provide a unified faculty voice, FSSC and TAUP co-sponsored a teach-in on HR177, the so-called student bill of rights. (You can read about this well-attended session both in the Faculty Herald and in the TAUP Bulletin.) In the spring, they will also co-sponsor a survey on faculty morale.
10) In keeping with this idea of providing a unified faculty voice, the FSSC has resurrected the Bargaining Units Liaison Committee. This committee has been working for over a month to form a strong unified response from all the Schools and Colleges, concerning the President’s proposed guidelines no tenure and promotion. They have read the proposed guidelines very carefully and hope to have a detailed response by the end of January. If adopted as they were written, these proposed guidelines will substantially change practices of hiring, tenure, and promotion. Faculty are urged to read the guidelines carefully and to make recommendations to the Liaison Committee about specific points they would like to make. [This can be done via e-mail to Jane Evans (jevans@temple.edu) or to your college representative on the FSSC.] The strength of the Bargaining Units Liaison Committee response will be in the broad perspective that comes from input from various Schools and Colleges. There are other groups who are forming a response as well, and these efforts are encouraged. President Adamany has invited our response, but he has told us that he does not see this as an on-going process. He is firmly committed to the timetable of March 15 for revisions. Let’s take his invitation seriously.
11) Our agenda for the spring includes a report from Dick Englert on Periodic Program Review. We also expect continuing discussions on the promotion and tenure guidelines, and we hope to be able to discuss the Workload Committee’s work.
12) Be sure to thank your Faculty Senate Steering Committee representative for the work she or he has done for you this fall.
c) After Evans concluded her report, the floor was opened for questions and comments.
A. Hochner explained what the contract says about the Promotion and Tenure Committee. The committee will make a recommendation to the Provost.
R. Aiken suggested that various committee chairs should make brief reports at future Senate meetings.
S. Gratson (SCT) remarked that Dean’s appointments and Special Appointment Faculty do not currently have the right to include any service on their merit applications. He suggested that this is an issue that should be considered by the committee.
5. Vice-President’s Report:
a) Vice-President Millner reported that most Senate committees have good representation, and she thanked the faculty for their work on these committees. The Committee on the Status of Women is meeting again as is the Bargaining Unit Liaison Committee.
b) We still need a volunteer for the Secretary of the Faculty Senate.
c) Committee chairs will be asked at the end of the spring semester for a detailed report on their committee’s work.
d) A committee is working on designing the survey on faculty morale.
e) There is a new Committee on the Status of Faculty of Color, which will begin meeting this spring.
6. Old Business:
R. Aiken asked how the information about the FSSC’s work will be shared with faculty who are not at this meeting, and he suggested that it be put in the Faculty Herald or on the Senate listserv.
Evans said that she will do the latter.
7. New Business:
J. Lindorff (BCMD) reported on an unconfirmed announced report that the PA House Select Committee will be visiting Temple on January 9 and 10. The selection of these dates is unfortunate because classes won’t be in session and students won’t be around and our University won’t be functioning as it usually does. Attempts are being made to postpone the visit until the last week of January.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 2:43 PM.
