Log on

DRAFT MINUTES

Second Meeting Academic Year 1998-1999 of the

Faculty Senate of Villanova University

in the Cinema, Connelly Center, Monday, October 5, 1998, at 4:00 PM.

Present: Professors William J. Barnhurst, John D. Caputo, Walter E. Conn, Linda Copel, Secretary; Rick Eckstein, Vice-Chairman; Trudi Graves, Karyn Hollis, Edward Kresch, Kenneth Kroos, Michael Levitan, Treasurer; Howard Lurie, Masako Hamada, Robert Styer, Robert West, Joyce Willens, Roger Van Allen, audience participant; and Margaret King (clerk).

AGENDA:

1. Announcements.

2. Approval of Minutes from September meeting (attached).

3. Suggested Changes in Draft #16 of Rank and Tenure document (attached).

4. Salary and Benefits Committee Report.

5. New Business

Professor Eckstein, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order in the absence of Lowell Gustafson.

1. Announcements. There were no announcements.

2. Approval of September minutes.

Professor Kroos noted that Dr. Tom Baker was a member of the Mechanical Engineering Department. The minutes were approved with corrections.

3. Rank and Tenure document

A discussion focused on the recent draft of the Rank and Tenure document. Professor Van Allen stated that the completed document is due in the Spring of 1999, and the committee is now working on Draft 19. He expects one more draft will be sent to the faculty, probably around November 15. Professor Conn asked if the drafts coming back to the faculty mean that the Faculty Senate would have a chance to look at it and comment on it again. Professor Levitan stated that, given the way the revisions are coming through, the response of the Faculty Senate is extremely limited.

Professor Eckstein asked if a motion should be passed to expand the charge of the present subcommittee to be kept apprised of any new material in the draft document. The Faculty Senate subcommittee made up of Jim Bergquist, Howard Lurie and Ed Mathis was formed to request that the Washington office of AAUP review the document to determine its compliance with national professional standards. (The suggested changes in the tenure document are attached.) Professor Van Allen stated that the support and endorsement of AAUP provided strong credence to the faculty's recommendations and that the time spent on the project was very worthwhile. Professor Lurie said he could not speak for other members of the subcommittee as to their willingness to expand their role but that he was certainly willing to do whatever was necessary. Professor Styer suggested making a formal request to see the most recent drafts.

The following motion was made by Professor Hollis and seconded by Professor Kresch:

RESOLVED:

The Faculty Senate endorses increasing the scope of the Faculty Senate rank and tenure subcommittee, formerly limited to the AAUP faculty concerns, and to request that the Vice President of Academic Affairs send the most recent Rank and Tenure changes to the Chair of the Faculty Senate to be forwarded to members of the respective subcommittee in order to address whatever changes have been made.

The vote on the Motion: In Favor: 14 Opposed: None Abstained: One

Regarding the suggested changes in the attached document, Professor Styer raised a question about the fourth item which stated "The appointment letter will indicate that 'if you wish to request that the University alter the amount of tenure credit from that in the stated policy, you must do so in writing to the Dean before your initial appointment begins. The Dean may recommend to the VPAA that this change be made.' "

Professor Lurie stated that he couldn't respond to that. Professor Levitan asked why the faculty member was deprived of a degree of flexibility. Professor Styer said that he didn't know why the faculty member couldn't notify the University on the last day, but that the AAUP must have a reason for the change.

Professor Conn asked if there was any purpose for us to 1) accept the subcommittee report, or 2) to endorse it. Professor Van Allen inquired if his point is that it would have more strength if endorsed by the faculty. He anticipates that it will be endorsed, and as a member of the committee, he regards it as a good document. He agreed with Professor Styer about the problem of the changes noted above and that he would like to hear the rationale for it.

4. Salary and Benefits Committee

Professor Eckstein said the committee, made up of Karyn Hollis, Edward Kresch, Bob Styer, and Roger Van Allen as informational liaison, met last week. It was decided to gather as much information as possible through official channels. The Vice President of Academic Affairs plans to provide the committee with all the data requested.

Discussion on developing benchmarks to establish a set of policies and procedures that could be used to decide salaries and benefits every year is ongoing. This information would be passed on to the consulting group. Professor Eckstein said that benchmarks will be taken up at the next meeting and acknowledged the difficulty of making comparisons between colleges. Professor Levitan said that the only way to get comparisons might be through national or professional organizations associated with the various colleges and departments as there is no clear means that he is aware of that comparable schools will release data to us. Professor Hollis stated that she is bothered by the comparison mode and feels that the faculty and the university have lost a lot of ground when compared with other professional groups.

Professor Eckstein noted that the committee was attempting to be both reactive and proactive. Although the general strategies have always been based on benchmark comparisons, it may not necessarily be something we would choose to do. We may want to put together whatever we think is the proper request for salary and benefits increases.

Regarding benchmark comparisons, Professor Conn stated that as he understands it, the list of schools that are being used for comparison purposes is determined by student acceptances. He asked how we could come up with a list that is appropriate for each college and on what basis will that be done. Prof. Eckstein stated that the VPAA employs a kind of universal criteria, not just based on students that we are recruiting, but on schools that we compete with for faculty, schools similar in terms of prestige and workload; or schools we already are equal to in terms of reputation.

Professor Eckstein noted that we will have to deal again with the cost of living increase vs merit increases and asked the members to share any thoughts and suggestions that could direct the committee.

5. New Business

Professor Eckstein discussed outcomes assessment and stated that it may be something the Faculty Senate will want to explore in the future. He feels it is a very important issue. It seems to be part of a recent strategy to corporatize the university and to rate our performance. It is mandated at certain state universities, but Middle States does not require it. Professor Kresch mentioned that many professional programs are required to do outcomes assessment. Professor Eckstein stated that the departments required to do outcomes assessment may have important things to say, and that the group could learn from their experience.

There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4:55 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Copel

Secretary