Log on

DRAFT MINUTES Sixth Meeting Academic Year 1997-1998 of the

Faculty Senate of Villanova University in the

St. Davids and Radnor Room, Connelly Center, Tuesday, February 10, 1998, at 4:00 PM.

PRESENT: Professors John D. Caputo, Walter E. Conn, Linda Copel, Treasurer and Acting Executive Secretary; Lowell Gustafson, Chair; Masako Hamada, Kenneth Kroos, Howard Lurie, Robert Styer, and Margaret King, Recording Secretary.

ABSENT: Professors Cheryl Asher, William J. Barnhurst, Victor Brooks, Rick Eckstein, William Fitzpatrick, Trudi Graves, Karyn Hollis, Michael Hones, Edward Kresch, Michael Levitan, Harry Strack, Robert West, Joyce Willens, and Virginia Powers.

Professor Gustafson called the meeting to order at 4:10 pm. He thanked Dr. John Johannes, Vice-President for Academic Affairs, and Gary Fenner, Vice President, Financial Affairs, for taking time out to attend the meeting to answer questions received from the faculty regarding the Academic Strategic Plan and other university matters.

1. The CAT Survey

Dr. Johannes talked to J. Kelly, who informed him that in spite of considerable problems, all data have been entered. Four pieces of information will be sent out: 1) individual faculty results; 2) statistical picture of the department, college, and university; 3) the actual raw forms, and 4) the waiver about putting the results on the Web. As department heads are anxious to get the information in time for evaluations, the critical statistical analysis will be sent out first to department heads and individual faculty, with the rest of the materials following in about a week

2. Budget Item of $9.6 million surplus

Mr. Fenner led the group through a reading of the Villanova University 1997 Financial Statement. A comparison of the operating revenue for the year ending May 31, 1997 ($173.4 million) and operating expense for the same period, ($163.8 million) resulted in the $9.6 million figure mentioned in the query. Mr. Fenner pointed out that the $9.6 million does not represent surplus funds; rather it reflects monies needed to fund operating expenses, such as physical plant projects, investments, endowment, and Planned Savings, a program crucial for the long-term survival of the university. The excess revenue over expenditures was actually $930,000. This money was used for subsidizing a laptop computer program in C&F, cabling of dormitories, upgrading the internet, financing additional plant projects, and marketing and advertising.

The Planning and Budget Committee debates the merits of spending limited funds, as there are many demands for the limited resources. Dr. Johannes remarked that a clearer picture of where the money is going can be seen from the budget rather than the financial statement.

The Budgeting Committee set aside dollars for strategic initiatives next year. The debate is whether to take money to meet current needs, or to invest in the future by consulting a marketing expert to ascertain the current market for part-time, continuing and summer students. which could pay off very substantially down the road.

There was discussion of the freeze on capital expenditures.

By freezing the operating budget some money will be generated to contribute to the new debt service to cover physical plant projects such as Bartley, the Mendel Hall expansion, work on the dorms on West campus, some new science equipment, and the addition of a level on the parking garage.

3.) The Benefits Plan

Professor Gustafson summarized the presentation by Jim Kane's group at the January 19th meeting of the Faculty Senate. It will cost approximately $700,000 to redesign a staff retirement package and $500,000 to upgrade existing plans to the 10% level. Marginal costs for medical programs, dental coverage, and small changes in disabilities insurance were noted.

4.) The 10% charge - tuition remission

Dr. Gustafson questioned the fairness of the 10% charge levied on students on tuition remission who live at home. Although makes sense to charge a small tuition fee for a tuition remission student living on campus, since that denies a paying customer the space, a student living at home does not cause such displacement. He asked whether there are any real costs to the University in terms of administrative overhead for students who live at home. Dr. Johannes replied that for every 15 additional freshmen we take in, there are costs from having to hire a person to teach an additional core humanities seminar for each group of 15 students, as well as other costs. Dr. Gustafson asked if these costs were significant.

Mr. Fenner mentioned that Villanova does not require faculty or staff members to file for financial aid to be turned over to the school, which is done at some schools. The approximately $2,000 financial aid grant available to most recipients would more than cover the 10%, with money left over for other expenses.

There was virtually unanimous resistance to restricting all tuition remission students from living in the dorms. Dr. Gustafson said that many think living on campus is an important part of the undergraduate experience.

Professor Conn and Professor Styer brought up the question of equity. Dr. Johannes replied that no present member will be hit with the charge, and someone coming in would know what to expect. Assuming an ever-rising tuition level, the benefits to the faculty member increase each year and the equity issue is a relatively minor one that will recede over time.

5) Junior sabbatical plan

Professor Caputo asked if the junior sabbatical program, which provides for a 4th year sabbatical for a non-tenured professor, is still being considered. Dr. Johannes replied that it is still in the strategic budget plan and he is 80% sure that it will be adopted. It would affect the first class of incoming faculty after the new rank and tenure plan goes into effect.

6) Tuition Exchange program.

The question was raised whether data are available regarding balance of exports vs. imports in the tuition exchange program after liberalizing the service years. Dr. Johannes stated that the figures are not yet available.

7.) General Reaction to the Rank and Tenure document

Dr. Johannes remarked that responses to the rank and tenure document have been disappointingly low. Although there may have been discussions within the department, this information has not been forwarded to him. About 50%-60% of the objections have been taken care of. Some cannot be resolved, for example, the phrase regarding Villanova's being a Catholic and Augustinian university. The part reaffirming "respectful attitudes" seemed to be misunderstood; it is being rewritten to take the ambiguity out of it.

Dr. Johannes wants to be sure that the rank and tenure document has been read. He plans to send it out electronically to everyone, and to have a forum, made up of 3 faculty from each department - a non-tenured, recently tenured, and an "old hand" - to come to the meeting as a way of forcing people to at least review it and react to it. He doesn't want to run the risk of pushing it through until there is some sort of consensus.

8.) Capital Campaign:

Professor Caputo asked if there is going to be a new capital campaign. Dr. Johannes replied that a new capital campaign is definitely in the works and it will be strategically driven from the academic side. (There are 43 top priorities.) The quiet phase is scheduled to begin in the year 2000, going public in 2002-2003. He remarked that Facultas correctly reported that the last campaign was really about making contacts and getting the system in place for a much bigger drive.

9.) Electronic Newsletter

Dr. Johannes will be putting out an electronic newsletter to keep people posted on what's going on and to provide ample time for faculty to contact the faculty senate or the relevant committee with their concerns.

10.) In response to a question that had been submitted, Dr. Johannes reported in writing as follows:

The answer is complicated and requires a more nuanced presentation, but:

1. In a sense, we are accommodating people who don't want to leave immediately via option B. Folks can decide to retire but not leave immediately. (We looked at longer stretch-outs, but they simply were too complicated to spend time and effort on). Admitteedly, however, that does not help those who want more time to think about the decision itself..

2. We believed when we developed the plan that the Faculty Council was asking us to present a plan to be in effect immediately, and we wanted to respond; and we believed that because of all the publicity and rumors, virtually everyone knew that a plan was forthcoming and thus would have time to think about it over the summer. Certainly the flood of inquiries I received beginning in spring suggested that the word was already well out on the street, even though we could not formally confirm that there would be a plan. We also believed that giving people over three months was a reasonable time. If someone at age 58 - 75 had not given thought to retirement and could not then make a decision in three months, they probably could not do so in ten or thirteen months.

3. For budgetary reasons, we had to come up with a plan that wouldn't cost the University a lot of money, or any money over a four or five year period, and whose financial implications could be clearly predicted. (This distinguishes this year's plan from those in the early nineties, when the goal was to downsize and there was no doubt about dollar savings. This time we fully intend to replace faculty one-for-one, albeit not necessarily in the same departmnets or even colleges. It is not at all clear that the University would recoup the severance pay money in three, four, or even five years -- it would depend on who chose retirement and what the replacement costs would be). Given uncertainty about FUTURE budgetary considerations, we chose to work with what was at hand, namely, a relatively simple, short-term retirement plan. When we then received Trustees' approval, it was locked in, and we announced it. Only thereafter did we begin to get questions about postponing the effective date another year or two -- as was done in the early nineties in a different environment and different circumstances.

4. Would it have been better to introduce a one or two year lag time, to enable folks to think about it more? Probably yes, from the faculty's perspective, but that isn't at all clear for all faculty. At any rate, it was too late to do so when the issue was raised for us. Before that time, we didn't see the need.

5. Could we make ad hoc exceptions for faculty who request an additional year? No, because under federal regulations, once a class of eligible faculty has been identified, all must be offered the same plan, lest there be grounds for discrimination complaints. If we offered everyone the one or two year delay, we would be changing the terms that were approved by the trustees, and it would create great confusion at this late date.

6. We must remember: the purpose of this plan is PRIMARILY to assist the University in its efforts to refresh the faculty with new faculty hirings. The primary goal is NOT to provide extra money for faculty who would retire (sooner or later) anyway -- even though the University is very pleased to be able to assist such faculty by means of this plan. Although it was judged that at THIS TIME it will be useful to the University to encourage some faculty to retire, it is NOT clear that the same judgment will be reached at any particular time (or any time) in the future: the need to encourage a measure of faculty turnover may simply be less clear. Absent any such need, there would be no NEED to encourage retirement. Thus the one-time approach makes strategic sense from the Unviersity's perspective. Whether it will be repeated at any time in the future is an open question. Absolutely no decisions have been made, and, indeed, there have been only the most cursory discussion of the issue.

Dr. Gustafson thanked Dr. Johannes and Gary Fenner for their candid responses to faculty queries.

Old Business:

1. Professor Conn moved that the Minutes of November 11 and December 15 be approved. The motion was seconded by Professor Kroos and carried unanimously.

2. Professor Hamada outlined plans for the Faculty Social to be held on May 1st.

3. Professor Lurie asked if the description of the Faculty Senate for the new faculty handbook has been approved. Professor Kroos reported that it is still being reviewed by the Faculty Affairs Committee.

Professor Lurie moved for adjournment at 5:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Copel

Acting Executive Secretary