Faculty Senate Minutes: January 1999

Log on

DRAFT MINUTES

Fourth Meeting Academic Year 1998-1999 of the Faculty Senate of Villanova University in the Cinema, Connelly Center, Tuesday, January 19, 1999, at 4:00 PM.

Present: Professors William J. Barnhurst, John D. Caputo, Walter E. Conn, Rick Eckstein, Vice-Chairman; Trudi Graves, Lowell Gustafson, Chairman; Karyn Hollis, Michael Hones, Michael Levitan, Treasurer; Howard Lurie, Masako Hamada, Robert Styer, and Joyce Willens.

1) Approval of Minutes from November Meeting

2) Notebook Initiative

Invited Guests: Staff Representatives, SGA Representatives

3) SGA Instructor Questionnaire

Invited Guests: SGA Representatives

4) Proposal for Protocol for the Periodic Evaluation of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs

The Faculty Senate, aware of the helpful service provided through the "Protocol for the Periodic Evaluation Full-Time Faculty Evaluation of Academic Deans" respectfully suggests the initiation of a "Protocol for the Periodic Evaluation of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs."

The composition of the VPAA Evaluation Committee should consist of one Dean, one Chairperson/Program Director, and five faculty. All committee members will be elected by their peers. The Office of the University Vice-President shall conduct the elections for the dean, one chair/program director, and one at-large faculty seat. The deans of each of the four colleges shall conduct the election for their collegiate faculty representative. All faculty representatives shall be from the rank of full professor, except in the Nursing College which may choose to have an associate professor as it sees fit. Only full professors shall elect the at-large representative, but all full time faculty in each college may vote for their college's representative.

The Committee should be formed as soon as possible and should be operational before the end of the spring 1999 term, and should conclude its review before the end of the fall 1999 term.

5) Snow Closure Policy Options

A. Simply eliminate the first two classes on Mon-Wed-Fri and started with the 10:30 am classes; on Tue-Thur, eliminate the first class and started at 10:00 am.. Get the word out by both KYW radio and campus phone mail by 6:30 am, with a follow-up message by 9:00 am if the situation were to change.

B. Go to a "snow schedule" whereby the original 8:30 class starts at the later time but all classes are shortened by 10 or 15 minutes. That way the problem of always losing the first two classes is avoided. Notification would be the same, but with the caveat that the previously promulgated "snow schedule" is in effect.

6) Rank and Tenure Policy, Draft #20.

1) Professor Gustafson called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.. Professor Hollis moved and Professor Hones seconded that the minutes be approved. The vote in favor was unanimous.

2) Professor Gustafson welcomed Ms. Mary Quilter, Non-Exempt Staff Representative, Ms. Nicole Douglas, President of the SGA, and Ms. Susan Hill, Exempt Staff Representative and thanked them for having agreed to discuss student and staff views of the notebook initiative.

Ms. Quilter made the following report:
After mailing STAFF via Oracle, I received almost 50 replies through ORACLE as well as many verbal replies.

Who is "professional" staff? Is this another University designation to further divide Exempt and Non-Exempt employees?

a. ORACLE does not reach almost ½ of the University staff; Dining Services, Facilities Management and other departments do not have access to ORACLE even though they have e-mail addresses.

More than ½ of the respondents were negative about receiving and using notebook computers for a variety of reasons.

a. Ergonomics

i. The trend toward ergonomically configured keyboard and mouse as well as pads for both are being used to prevent orthopedic problems caused by extensive use of PCs.

ii. If eyesight and eye strain come under the heading of Ergonomics, many people have complained regarding the notebook screens - the size of the screen and the resolution are not conducive to an all day work environment.

b. Security

i. Most academic offices are "open" to facilitate students and faculty. Security would be a major problem in these offices.

ii. Who is responsible if a notebook is stolen from the users' automobile or home?

iii. Security of information available on the notebook? Student Ids, etc.

c. Upkeep/Upgrades

i. One of the factors in the Notebook Initiative is to lower the cost of repairs and replacements to the current desktop PCs. Why would the repairs of the notebook or replacement be less costly than desktop repairs? Would all notebooks be able to accept all of the BANNER upgrades we have seen in the last year?

Printers

i. Concerns about printer connectivity were raised. Some offices have individual printers for each person and also a network printer.

Connectivity

i. Many concerns were raised about connectivity and most felt that they could plug into a console with a larger monitor at their desk.

f. Other concerns

i. Would this mean a shorter work week by using the notebook at home?

ii. How would work taken home be compensated?

The positive responses were received from offices where the personnel travels off campus for part of their work day or schedule. These offices include but are not inclusive, Career Planning, Alumni, Development, Athletics, and Admissions. Most of the positive responses were very enthusiastic about the project. Some of their concerns were the same as above.

•Connectivity
•Ergonomics
•Upgrades

Standing out in the responses was the monetary cost of the switch from desktop PCs to notebooks, as well as the costs for upgrades and replacements. Although the proposal was felt to be a positive upgrade for the University on the way to the technology of the 21^st Century, many felt that they should be given a choice of notebook or desktop computers.

From a student's point of view, Nicole Douglas, who as a C&F student is in the mandatory laptop program, stated that all the students loved the idea but obviously each college needs a specialized laptop program. The Engineering students were a bit more hesitant. They were concerned about the power of the laptop computer. Cost is another issue that always comes up. A subsidy is given to C&F students at present. Ms. Douglas' comment was that a student cannot attend college without a computer today and with the laptop initiative as it is presently envisioned, a student would receive a new computer after two years. That was a big selling point for students. Just being able to implement new technology is a big advantage. It would also enhance communication among organizations.

A discussion period followed. Assuming a student came to Villanova without a computer hoping to access the available resources on campus, it may be necessary to stand in line for an hour or two in order to use a computer to write a paper. Printing is not a problem on campus, but waiting for a terminal to write a paper can be. Ms. Douglas said that she hoped part of the proposal is for the university to provide the additional upgrading to support a school-wide system. It will be necessary to increase the power of the network considerably to make the desktop initiative work.

3) Professor Gustafson referred to faculty complaints that the recent SGA course survey had been given sometimes without faculty permission, disrupting some classes, and that there were soem criticisms of the questions asked on the form. Ms. Douglas referred to the history of the course survey issue. That history can be found at

http://www.villanova.edu/~sgaweb/voice/history.htm

As that document states:

"In 1981 the Villanova University Senate adopted a motion regarding the Course Teacher Evaluation Policy which stated that evaluations would be available in Falvey Library for review by members of the Villanova Community. In 1996, it was brought to the attention of the Student Government Association (SGA) that these evaluations were not being provided. On February 17

1997, the SGA brought a proposal to the University Senate to reaffirm the policy stated above. This motion was remanded to the Academic Policy Committee (APC) until the different constituencies could agree on a standard form and a way to deliver the forms to the Library, the Intranet or some such other accessible medium.

On April 25, 1997, Dr. Johannes reported to the Senate, that the APC had been looking at two different issues. The first was to look into the feasibility of a campus-wide system for student evaluation of teachers. The second was to discuss the student initiative to produce a written student "guide" to courses.

The APC came to a conclusion that a tool could be developed that incorporated these two issues. We now know this tool as the Course And Teacher Survey (CATS). Currently, this survey has three main purposes: (1) to be used for faculty development (2) to be used as evaluation for faculty promotion, tenure and salary, and (3) to be used by students during course selection.

On October 24, 1997, the SGA brought another motion to the Senate that focused on the accessibility of CATS. The proposal is as follows:

(f) the results of the customized college, department, and personal survey questions, be made publicly and readily available to only the students, faculty, and administration of Villanova University by internal, secured access to a world wide web page to be deleted immediately following the conclusion of undergraduate course registration. This motion was tabled until the next Senate meeting.

On October 31, 1997, the Faculty Affairs Committee passed an informational resolution that stated:

BE IT RESOLVED: The Faculty Affairs Committee urges, as a matter of the highest priority, that the University Senate adopt the position of the Academic Policy Committee that: (1) CATS results will be made available in Falvey Library only for courses in which 50 percent or more of the enrolled students responded and only if the course instructor gives his or her consent in writing to such dissemination. (2) Under no circumstances will the CATS results be made available to the Villanova University community (or any other community) on electronic media (including the "web").

Finally the issue was discussed in detail at the November 1997 meeting of the University Senate. The APC brought a resolution in regards to CATS to the Senate floor. Items (a) through (e) were agreed upon. Item (f), however, was put under serious discussion. After an intense debate the following motion was accepted.

(f) the CATS results will be made publicly and readily available to only students, faculty, and administration of Villanova University by internal, secured electronic means to be accessible prior to the next undergraduate course registration. (i) only for courses in which 50 percent or more of the enrolled students responded and (ii) if the course instructor gives his or her consent to such dissemination.

Students were under the assumption that CATS would still be available to students in the Library as the 1981 policy mandated. After this meeting, however, the students were informed that the above policy replaced the existing policy. Due to this, students realized that evaluations would only be available to students on the web, only if the instructor gave his or her consent.

For the last time, the issue was re-opened for discussion at the February 20, 1998 meeting of the Senate. The final resolution is as follows:

(f) the CATS results are to be made accessible to the University community through the following options: a) on the web by secured means and in the library in hard copy; b) just reported on the web by secured means; c) just reported in the library in hard copy; d) not made available either on the web or in hard copy format in the library, with all options based on the discretion of the faculty member. This procedure would be effective starting with this Fall Semester '98 for the Spring 1998 results.

As both the administration and the faculty know, the students were not happy with this final resolution. SGA decided to wait until the first results were published in hopes that the majority of faculty would chose to have their results published. Unfortunately, less than one-third of the faculty chose to have their course results available in one form or another. Through agreat deal of frustration, SGA continued to investigate alternatives in regards to accessibility of course evaluations."

Ms. Douglas mentioned that the VOICE Survey (http://www.villanova.edu/~sgaweb/voice/survey.htm) and Instructor Questionnaire (http://www.villanova.edu/~sgaweb/voice/instruct.htm) were developed by the SGA alone, although the SGA had consulted with Dr. Johannes on the Survey Process (http://www.villanova.edu/~sgaweb/voice/process.htm). He had advised them to develop a way to administer the survey without disrupting classes.

The SGA chose 380 courses to survey, informing the professors of those courses of this decision through a letter sent on November 9, 1998 and inviting them to return an "Instructor Questionnaire." No permission to survey the students in the courses was requested. About one hundred student volunteers administered the surveys after having been instructed on the Survey Process. Ms. Douglas apologized for those cases when volunteers did not follow the Survey Process and disrupted classes. She said that the SGA was reviewing how to improve the process.

She noted that 125 professors had returned the Instructor Questionnaire and that enough student responses were returned to post results from 246 courses. There were just over 2,000 courses offered in the fall semester. The SGA is using Microsoft Excel to calculate and graph the results. This data will be used by students in future course selection, beginning with the spring 1999 pre-registration for 99F.

She noted that the SGA had considered placing the Survey on the web and asking students to fill out the form and return it over the web, so as to not disrupt classes. However, the technical problems in setting that up last semester and the concern about response rates had dissuaded them from doing this.

She explained that faculty had not been consulted during the development of the survey due to many of the factors discussed in the above history of the issue. The VPAA had been consulted only regarding the survey process. They also wanted to get the survey out and not discussed endlessly.

Professor Gustafson thanked Ms. Douglas for discussing the survey with the Faculty Senate.

4) It was decided to postpone action on the Proposal for Protocol for the Periodic Evaluation of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs until the next meeting.

5) Since option A has been adopted, discussion of this item was considered moot.

6) There was not time to discuss adequately Draft 20 of the proposed Rank and Tenure Policy. However, the Faculty Senate does have questions about what III.A.1.a means. That section states under "Mission and Community" that "Villanova faculty are expected to:

a. Exhibit professionally appropriate, respectful behavior toward one's colleagues, students, and staff." That should be defined or deleted.

7) The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m.. The next meeting will be on Monday, Feb. 8 in the Radnor/St. Davids Room of the Connelly Center at 4:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Lowell Gustafson

Chairman