March 1998 Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

Log on

MINUTES
Seventh Meeting Academic Year 1997-1998 of the Faculty Senate of Villanova University in the
St. Davids and Radnor Room, Connelly Center, Monday, March 9, 1998, at 4:00 PM.

PRESENT: Professors William J. Barnhurst, John D. Caputo, Rick Eckstein, Vice-Chairman; Lowell Gustafson, Chairman; Michael Hones, Edward Kresch, Howard Lurie, Masako Hamada, Harry Strack, Robert Styer, Julia Paparella, and Margaret King, Recording Secretary.

ABSENT: Professors Cheryl Asher, Victor Brooks, Walter E. Conn, Linda Copel, William Fitzpatrick, Trudi Graves, Karyn Hollis, Kenneth Kroos, Michael Levitan (sabbatical), Robert West, and Joyce Willens.

AGENDA

1. Approval of minutes
2. Announcements
3. Faculty Governance Proposal

In order to achieve appropriate faculty influence and provide a more unified faculty voice on University issues that extend beyond the boundaries of any single college, while (a) maintaining the benefits of close interaction with academic administration on academic matters, (b) maintaining a tradition and reality of community governance, (c) involving more faculty actively in governance matters, and (d) recognizing the reality that, ultimately, all structures and individuals and committees are advisory to the President, we propose a plan that includes:

* The simultaneous election of 50 faculty members to serve in formal governance positions on four University bodies.

* Merger of the existing Faculty Council/Senate and Faculty Affairs Committee to form a "Committee on Faculty" to provide a mechanism whereby faculty can express to the University administration its concerns on various issues of concern to the faculty.

* Enhancement of the existing Academic Policy Committee to bring about a clear and substantial faculty voice on academic matters that extend beyond any single college.

* Creation of a Faculty Nominations and Elections Committee.

* A slight increase in the number of faculty on the University Senate.

* Providing for an assembly of all such elected faculty members for purposes of deliberation, coordination, and other appropriate action.

1. Every three years, the faculty of the Colleges of Liberal Arts & Sciences, Commerce & Finance, Engineering, and Nursing will elect from among their number fifty faculty for the following specific positions. Faculty are eligible for re-election. If possible, no one faculty member should hold more than one of these positions.

a. Eighteen faculty will be elected as the faculty representatives on the Academic Policy Committee. Along with nine administrators (VPAA, AVPAA, neither of whom vote, six deans, and the Library Director) and five students (4 under-graduate), the APC has jurisdiction over academic matters (policy, process) that extend beyond any single college, and it makes recommendations on academic policy to the VPAA. The APC may also provide advice to the VPAA on academic budget matters. The APC has 32 members, and is chaired by the VPAA. It may invite guests on a regular or ad hoc basis. Faculty members would be elected according to their proportions in the overall University: 11 from Arts and Sciences (4 science, 4 humanities, 3 social science); 2 from Engineering; 3 from C&F; 1 from Nursing; and 1 who rotates among A&S, Nursing, and C&F every three years. No two faculty members may be from the same academic department. [The rotation suggestion stems from the fact that the proportions of full-time faculty at Villanova, when applied to the number of available seats, do not yield whole numbers.]

b. Fourteen of the elected faculty constitute the Committee on Faculty, whose jurisdiction extends over issues of faculty welfare, conditions of faculty service, and faculty participation in college and university governance when such issues do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Academic Policy Committee. The COF is chaired by a faculty member elected by the COF faculty membership. The VPAA serves ex officio without a vote. The COF may make recommendations concerning matters under its jurisdiction to the President, via the VPAA, with the expectation of a timely response. Faculty are distributed as follows: 8 from Liberal Arts and Sciences (3 each from humanities and science, 2 from social sciences); 1 from Nursing; 2 from C&F; 1from Engineering; 1 Part-Time faculty member, 1 that rotates between C&F and Engineering every three years. No two faculty may be from the same academic department.

c. Sixteen faculty members will be elected to serve on the University Senate, thus enlarging the Senate to 46 overall. The Senate must be chaired by faculty member. The distribution would be: 10 from LA&S (4 each from humanities and science; 2 from social science); 3 from C&F; 2 from Engineering; and 1 from Nursing. No two senators may come from the same academic department.

2. From time to time, but not less frequently than three times per year, these elected faculty will convene as an assembly of the whole for purposes of discussion, deliberation, coordination, and information sharing. Guests may be invited. This assembly may send recommendations on matters of faculty concerns to the administration, with the expectation of a timely response.

[It could serve, often with co-sponsorship, as a natural venue for a "Faculty Forum" series devoted to both topics of intellectual interest, administrative interest, and policy and budgetary interest to the faculty and community.]

a. Three of the fifty faculty will be elected expressly to convene and preside over this assembly, one serving as chair, one as vice chair, and one as secretary. No more than two of the three may be from the same college. They convene meetings, take and distribute minutes (if any), and, along with one member chosen by vote of the assembly from each of the University Senate, APC, and COF, serve as the Committee on Faculty Nominations and Elections.

3. The Committee on Faculty Nominations and Elections solicits from the faculty at large nominations for faculty positions on various University committees, conducts the triennial election of faculty members, and arranges for a neutral ballot counting. [This will require a change in University Senate terms from two to three years.] This committee maintains an updated file of faculty volunteers for various committees. The VPAA would request names from this file before making appointments to ad hoc committees.

4. At a separate election at a different time, the faculty elect seven of the eleven members of the Rank and Tenure Committee, which judges cases and can recommend to APC changes in R&T policy. The Rank and Tenure Committee is chaired by VPAA who does not vote. A member of the R&T Committee may also be a member of any of the above bodies.

5. Both COF and APC have dual reporting channels. On academic matters for the APC, and purely faculty matters for the COF, at the President's total discretion, they report through the VPAA to the President who may delegate his authority on certain matters to the VPAA. When they deal with matters that extend beyond "purely" academic or faculty concerns, they serve as standing committees of the University Senate and make their recommendations to the Senate. Normally, before making such recommendations to the University Senate, the COF and APC would consult with the entire membership of the assembly of elected faculty to insure a broad-based perspective.

6. The APC, COF, or Senate may create standing or ad hoc subcommittees that include their own members and/or of other faculty. Suggestions for the latter appointments would be made by the "Faculty Nominating and Elections" committee.

7. All Senate and other University statutory language will be modified to indicate the important role of the above groups in recommending policy to the University administration (or to the Senate) on behalf of the faculty as part of a collegial and cooperative University governance system. Language indicating or suggesting that these bodies pass any form of binding legislation is to be deleted or altered. [Note: It is recommended that the University Senate's committee structure should be modified to eliminate committees with no clear or effective jurisdiction, which overlap existing University policy-making bodies, and/or whose tasks could be handled on an ad hoc basis.]

8. This plan must have concurrent approval of the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC), the Faculty Council / Senate, the Rules and Review Committee, the University Senate, and a majority of those voting in a faculty referendum jointly administered by the Faculty Senate / Council and the FAC before it is implemented.

[NOTE: If "Faculty Assembly," "Faculty Forum," or "Faculty Conclave" isn't immediately acceptable, the University Senate's Rules and Review Committee may recommend to the University Senate how an appropriate name for the assembly of the fifty faculty can be chosen.]

The meeting was called to order at 4:05 pm.

I. Approval of February 10 Minutes

Approval of the February 10 minutes was postponed until the April meeting.

II Announcements

Professor Gustafson distributed to the members a letter from Dr. Stephen Weinrach regarding a benefits issue.

Professor Hamada has prepared the invitation to the Spring Social to be sent out to the faculty.

As a matter of information, an informal count indicates that faculty members are responding 2 to 1 against posting CATS results on the web. Also, two departments have passed resolutions against placing the CATS results on the web.

III. Discussion of Faculty Governance Proposal

In response to the Board of Trustees' charge of December 10, 1996, the Rules and Review Committee of the University Senate has been considering various ideas, including those in "For a Unified Faculty Voice in University Governance," for reforming university governance. The VPAA, in consultation with the current and past chairs of the Faculty Senate, the chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, and the two authors of "For a Unified Faculty Voice in University Governance", has written the following document, "Faculty Governance Proposal." The FAC and Faculty Senate have been asked to review the document. The Rules and Review Committee will begin its discussion of the document on March 13. That committee is to submit a report to the Executive Committee of the University Senate; the University Senate ultimately will vote on the proposal.

Professor Hones began the discussion with reference to #8 dealing with the ultimate approval of the document. Professor Gustafson stated that the University Senate has to approve it, but that Dr. Johannes wanted to have as broad a consensus as possible.The concern that the Rules and Review Committee will compromise most of what we want out of the document is held in check in three ways - the Faculty Senate and the Faculty Affairs Committee have to approve it, and ultimately the results still have to be approved in a referendum administered by the Faculty Senate. As he understands it, any one of the groups has the right of veto. It was also mentioned that the faculty body will need an explanation as to why the plan which they approved so overwhelmingly last year is being abandoned.

Professor Hones asked Professor Strack if the proposal as it now reads reflects that written by him and Professor Langran.

Professor Strack said he would endorse it as a complete package on the premise that Dr. Johannes will work hard to see that it is approved. He referred specifically to two positive things. Regarding the realignment of committee membership, the notion that there is equality of status in governance between students and faculty is broken, as faculty representation in the University Senate will increase from 30.2% to 34.8%. The second point is that it also gives the faculty absolute majority on academic policy, which is both symbolically and politically important.

He also mentioned two troublesome parts. One is the problem of finding 50 faculty members to serve on the various committees. The second is the use of the word "purely" in #5: "purely faculty matters," and the difficulty of identifying a "purely" faculty concern.

Professor Lurie said that if this faculty governance proposal is approved, the faculty will be written out of existence an independent faculty voice. He was also concerned that no mention was made of the law school, or were any members of the law school faculty asked for input on the proposal. Dr. Strack agreed with him on this issue. However, he disagreed with Professor Lurie's first point that the present proposal no longer gives the faculty senate an independent voice. Presently there are no formal ties to the administration, but as Professor Gustafson pointed out, the link that exists in the proposed document as outlined in #2, with the Faculty Senate going through the Vice President to the President, would be a lot better than what it is now.

In the course of the discussion, Professor Lurie suggested that incorporated into the document be a clause that, with respect to any recommendation of the committee to the President that is not approved, the President and Vice President shall provide a timely response with reasons and explanations. Professor Gustafson agreed.

Professor Lurie reiterated that the most important thing the Faculty Senate has at present is independence from the administration, but the price of that independence is no direct authority or power. Professor Eckstein tended to agree, and stated that this proposal will jeopardize this autonomy and will reinforce the current model of decision making.

Professor Gustafson stated that although we can't expect the Board to agree that we have actual governing power, recommendations are not meaningless. Some of the positive achievements of the Faculty Senate were mentioned. Professor Eckstein noted that the faculty was very much impressed with the position taken by the Faculty Senate on the CATS issue. Other ideas that came out of this group were the early retirement package and the tuition exchange program. The "serious and drangerous drift" document submitted to the administration (1986) was basically ignored, but there was some effect after it was forwarded to the Board of Trustees. Professor Hones noted that this group had some input on linking promotion with associate status and tenure. The public forum precipitated by proposed changes in health benefits shot it down. If the faculty continues to believe that we are the voice of the faculty there might be several hundred faculty members that will stand together on certain important issues. Professor Kresch added that we may not be able to force the administration to do anything but we do have a tremendous amount of influence.

Professor Strack noted the question of the new faculty body needing a newsletter. Through Facultas the constituency is mobilized better than merely sending out minutes of the meetings.

Much discussion centered on the establishment of committees and committee membership under the new proposal. Professor Hones raised a question on 1b: "Fourteen of the elected faculty will constitute the Committee on Faculty." Professor Gustafson said that the 14 will constitute a Salary and Benefits Committee, a committee dealing with material self-interests. It would replace the Faculty Affairs Committee. The Faculty Senate would be replaced by that spelled out in #2. This group would consist of the 50 faculty members elected to serve in formal governance positions; in essence such a large group may reduce its effectiveness. Professor Kresch added that having the Faculty Senate meet only three times a year reduces our voice.

Regarding the problem of getting 50 faculty members to serve on committees, Professor Gustafson pointed out that at present there are close to 50 faculty members serving on various committees.

Professor Strack stated that a point in this plan's favor is the establishment of the Committee on Faculty Nominations and Elections, (#3). In the same paragraph it states that the Faculty Nominations and Elections committee maintains an updated file of faculty volunteers from which the VPAA would request names for ad hoc committee appointments.

With further reference to 2a, Professor Styer put forth the idea of strengthening the leadership of the faculty body. The current plan seems to limit their role to administering the mechanics of the faculty body, rather than providing direction and leadership. The proposed Committee on Elections should instead constitute an Executive Board, perhaps expanding its membership to 9 members. The Executive Board description should spell out explicit leadership duties, similar to those listed in the present constitution of the Faculty Assembly/Council/Senate.

Professor Gustafson mentioned that he received email expressing concern that the proposed plan calls for only one part-time faculty member. In the ensuing discussion it was also pointed out that the plan would not provide for any representation by retired faculty members.

In sum, Professor Gustafson cited the following to bring up to the Rules and Review Committee:

- 1a: that 2 members of the law school be elected as faculty representatives;

- #5 that the term "purely" be changed to "primarily"

- #1b: a clause be added requesting a timely response with reasons and explanation when a recommendation is not approved.

- #2 and #3: that the Committee on Faculty Nominations and Elections be reconstituted into an Executive Committee (perhaps with 9 members) with explicit leadership functions.

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Lowell Gustafson
Chairman