[Approved March 10, 2006]
MINUTES
OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE
KU
West Ballroom,
Senators Present: Abueida, Biddle, Biers, Brill, Chen,
Conniff, Courte, Doyle, C. Duncan, Eggemeier, Gudaitis, Gustafson, Hardie, Hileman,
Johnson, Lasley, Meyers, Morton, Simmons, O'Gorman, Penno, Pestello, Poe, Phelps,
Thimmes, R. Wells,
Senators Excused: Bullinger, DeMarco, Desmond, Doenges,
Hausmann, Kloppenberg, Letavec, Mullins, J. Saliba, Seielstad, Singer, Turk,
Wolff
Guests: A. Anderson, Bickford, B.
Duncan, Farrelly, Pair, Patterson, Peñas-Bermejo, Untener, Westendorf
1. Opening Prayer: Senator Poe opened the meeting with a prayer
sent by Monalisa Mullins who could not be present. The Senate contemplated the role of servant
leadership.
2. Roll Call: Twenty-six of
thirty-nine Senators were present.
3. Minutes:
4. Announcements:
·
Senator Biers announced that Senator Seielstad has agreed to serve
as parliamentarian for the Academic Senate.
·
The Senate welcomed Brad Duncan as a guest from Leadership UD.
·
Senator Johnson announced a process for distribution of
information about the work of the Senate.
Academic Senate minutes will be posted to the website <http://academic.udayton.edu/senate>
in unapproved form as soon as they are ready.
They will be replaced by approved minutes as they become available. This will be clearly indicated. Approved and unapproved minutes will be
widely distributed to the University community as required by the Constitution
of the Academic Senate. Approved
sub-committee minutes will be posted and distributed to the members of the
Senate. Unapproved minutes of
sub-committees should be sent to the members of that sub-committee and to
Senators Johnson and Biers.
5. Approval of Standing Committee Membership:
Moved and seconded, the
membership on the standing committees was approved as follows:
Academic
Policies: Dr.
James Biddle (Chairperson), Dr. Brian Conniff (WI06) for Dr. David Darrow, Dr.
Christopher Duncan, Ms. Donna Gudaitis, Dean Patricia Meyers, Dean Mary Morton,
Mr. Jack O'Gorman, Dr. Robert P. Penno, Dr. Joseph Saliba, Dr. Andrea Seielstad,
Dr. Llewellyn Simmons, Dr. Sanford Singer, Dr. Rebecca Wells, Mr. Dean Wolff, Dr.
Deborah Bickford (ex officio)
Faculty
Affairs: Dr.
Atif Abueida, Dr. David Biers, Dr. George Doyle, Dr. Elizabeth Gustafson, Ms.
Lauren Hausmann, Dr. Patricia Johnson, Dean Lisa Kloppenberg, Dean Tom Lasley, Dr.
Monalisa Mullins, Dr. Carolyn Roecker Phelps (Chairperson), Dr. Pamela Thimmes,
Mr. Brian Turk, Prof. Joe Untener (ex officio)
Student
Academic Policies: Dr. Mark Brill, Mr. Kevin Bullinger,
Dr. Carl Chen, Dr. Dale Courte (Co-Chairperson), Dr. George DeMarco, Mr. Josh
Desmond, Mr. Michael Doenges, Dean F. Thomas Eggemeier, Dr. Russell Hardie, Mr.
Steven Hileman (Co-Chairperson), Mr. Craig Letavec, Dr. Danielle Poe, Dr. Tom
Skill (ex officio)
Senator
Biers introduced the discussion, indicating that the Senate would be doing a
number of “Sense of the Senate” discussions this semester in order to provide
opportunity for discussion about issues before they come to the Senate for
decision. He reviewed the rational
statement provided in the document under discussion at this meeting. The question is whether or not to change the
timing of the election of faculty members to the Academic Senate so that their
terms follow the academic year rather than the calendar year. The current process of electing faculty
Senators in the Fall term to begin service in the Winter term began in order to
allow continuity of Senate members in the budget discussions.
Senator
Wells began the discussion by articulating the two issues that need to be
balanced in the course of making this decision.
The terms should facilitate the business of the Senate itself so that
the Senate can be effective. The terms
should not preclude faculty from taking a responsible and influential role, as
partners in the governance of the institution, in the budgeting process.
A
number of Senators spoke to both of these issues. Senator Doyle noted that student terms are
currently for the academic year, and that having students and faculty on the
same calendar might facilitate the work of the Senate. Senator Biers suggested
that the current structure results in a mid-year lull in the work of the Senate
as it reorganizes with new members. The
Senate might be more effective with the continuity of the academic year. On the issue of the impact of the Senate on
the budgetary process, Senator Doyle indicated that he believed that the Senate
had had little impact in the 1990s, but Senator Wells indicated that in the
1980s the Senate had a strong voice in deliberations through participation of
the Executive Committee on the ELC (Educational Leadership Council). Senator Gustafson asked about the current
process of involvement of Senate officers in the budgetary process. Senator Biers said that in his capacity as
President of the Senate he attends the meetings of the Provost Council. He
indicated that the budget cycle is now on a summer-Fall-winter rotation. The vision and goals are discussed in the
summer; in the Fall, each unit presents “wish list;”
and in the Winter, budget decisions are finalized and announced. He indicated that he believed that he had
little ability to influence the process.
Senator Pestello, Provost, summarized the operation of the ELC and
indicated that the budget presentations that used to take place there now take
place in the Provost Council. Senator
Biers remarked that the Provost was open to discussions about how the Executive
Committee could be more fully included in these discussions. Given the current budget cycle and the
benefits of continuity of the Senate members over the academic year, Senator
Wells suggested that the change would be a “win-win” situation.
Senator
Biers asked for a “sense of the Senate.”
Twenty-three members indicated that they favored moving the elections to
the Winter term. No Senators opposed
this.
The
Senate then discussed whether the terms of current Senators should be extended
or shortened to facilitate this transition.
Senator Lasley suggested that for the sake of continuity and the
understanding of the issues by the faculty members, lengthening terms seemed
best. Senator O’Gorman suggested that half of the terms could be extended and
half shortened. Senator Brill replied
that shortening terms might be unconstitutional. Senator Duncan noted that it is difficult to
find faculty willing to commit the time to serve on the Senate, so lengthening
terms of those who are willing would be well-advised.
Senator
Biers asked for a “sense of the Senate.”
Twenty-three Senators indicated support for lengthening terms and no
Senators indicated support for shortening terms.
The
Senate then discussed when the new members of the Senate should take office and
when the officers should be elected. Senator
Hileman reported that the student elections take place such that the new
members are in place April 1. Senator
Biers noted that there is often much important business at the April meeting of
the Senate, so new Senators should not take office until that work is
completed. Senator O’Gorman suggested
that there could be an early May meeting to convene the new Senate. Senator Duncan suggested that this meeting be
convened immediately after the close of the final April meeting of the current
Senate. Senator Biddle suggested that
however this meeting was timed, it should be at the end of the Winter term and
not at the beginning of the Fall term.
Senator Hileman suggested that this could be an electronic vote. Senator Duncan noted that several ballots
could be necessary for each office, so that an electronic process could be very
drawn out. He also suggested that
individuals might want to speak to their candidacy.
Senator
Biers called for a “sense of the Senate.”
Twenty-four Senators indicated that they preferred the new Senate
convene immediately after the April meeting or at an additional meeting shortly
thereafter. New officers should be
elected at that meeting. No Senators
opposed this process.
This
issue is returned to the Faculty Affairs Committee for formulation for a vote
of the Senate. Any proposal affirmed by
the Senate will have to go to a vote of the faculty.
7.
Standing Committee Reports:
Academic
Policies
Senator
Biddle reported that the Committee has met with ARSIC (Advising Report and
Student Information Committee) and will be bringing forward a proposal for the
vote of the Senate at the March meeting to change the late withdrawal policy
for non-academic reasons. The change
would delete the option of “change of career objectives” as an accepted reason
and add the notation that documentation may be required. ARSIC has also asked that the Committee
consider a proposal to not use academic rank for students. The Committee will consider this at its next
meeting. They are also discussing the
proposed University-wide promotion and tenure committee and may receive a
proposal from the Calendar Committee about a change in the study day schedule.
Faculty
Affairs
Senator
Phelps reported that the Committee had discussed the election of faculty to the
Senate and requested the “Sense of the Senate” discussion at today’s
meeting. They are continuing to review
the proposal concerning background checks for faculty hires. They will discuss a new draft of the proposed
policy soon and may bring something to the March meeting of the full
Senate. They are also continuing to
review other possible constitutional changes and are currently reviewing
section II... B., which deals with the three types of authority of the
Senate. These are legislative, legislative
concurrence, and consultation.
Student
Academic Policies
Senator
Hileman reported that the Committee is working on an honor pledge that they
hope to bring to the Senate in March.
They will then begin work on updating the academic dishonestly policy,
which has not been revised since 1978, and so does not address issues of the
use of electronic technologies.
8.
Provost Committee Reports:
Senator
Pestello reviewed the rationale for the constitution of these committees. He identified a number of foundational issues
that had been unaddressed for some time and appointed a series of committees to
look at these issues. Each committee is
chaired by a member of the Provost Council and each has a Senator as a member. The committees that are addressing promotion
and tenure and peer review were requested by the Board of Trustees.
Catholic
and Marianist
Senator
Morton reported that the purpose of this Committee is to review the various
committees, topics, and programs that address this topic and to identify what
is lacking and where there is overlap.
The Rector’s Council is currently completing a Marianist Interest
Inventory. She is working with Kathleen
Norman on this. This Committee met last
year, but has not met this year. It was
noted that the work of this Committee is completely separate from the Marianist
Education working Group.
Department
Finances—Summer Returns
Associate
Provost Untener reported that the work of this Committee has been completed. The purpose of the Committee was to design a
process for tracking Summer income and for reimbursing
the various constituencies. The Committee
recommended that income and expenses be tracked by department and College or
School. Excess revenue after expenses
and overhead will be returned with 50% going to the department generating the
returns and 50% going to the dean of that unit.
This will begin with the closeout that will take place in Fall 06.
Faculty
Grants and Sponsored Research
Senator
Biers reported for Mickey McCabe. The
charge of the Committee is five-fold:
·
Address appropriate goals for faculty research
·
Discuss incentives and infrastructure to support these goals
·
Sustain current collaborations in the sciences and engineering
·
Promote research collaborations and increase research/scholarship
in the arts, humanities, social sciences, business and law,
·
The
work of this Committee is subordinate to that of others and so has not moved
very quickly. Senator Pestello noted
that because of changes at the State level, there is now aggressive movement on
some of these issues.
Evaluation
of Faculty Teaching
Senator
Biers reported for Steve Wilhoit. The
Senate approved the policy that student evaluations may not be used as the sole
means of evaluating teaching. The charge
to this Committee was to review research on evaluation of faculty teaching and
to develop an evaluation policy which does not solely rely on student
evaluation of teaching (assumption: reliance on student evaluations affects
academic rigor). The Committee has
recommended separate sub-committees for the revision of student course
evaluation and policy and to develop a set of guidelines governing faculty
teaching for developmental purposes.
They have redefined their charge to develop a University policy on
evaluating faculty teaching for administrative Purposes (promotions, tenure, and
merit). For Promotion and tenure they
recommend:
·
Student course evaluations for every class
·
At least two peer reviews of classroom teaching and course
materials
·
At least one (1) chair or administrator evaluation
·
At least one (1) self-evaluation
·
Faculty-provided evidence of the quality of student learning
Guidelines
for merit are more difficult. This
discussion is on-going.
Grade
Migration and Rigor
Senator
Biers reported that the charge of the Committee was to review the literature on
grade migration, examine UD historical data on grade migration, and engage in
conversations on how to best address the issue of academic rigor. The Committee has developed a preliminary
conceptual model and reviewed literature on the issue. They have examined the UD data that is
available which is from 1972-1989 and since 2004. They note that the data in 1972-89 period was
fairly consistent with A grades accounting for 30-35% of all grades. In the 2004 data, A grades account for over
40% of all grades. They are also looking
at data about the change in average GPA in each unit over time. In addition to examining this data they will
look at information on this year’s graduating class who are the first cohort
with +/- system throughout their four years.
They also will be conducting a study to link grades to student
evaluations of faculty.
International
Strategy
Associate
Provost Bickford reported that the International Strategy Team was formed in
January of 2005 and charged to develop a comprehensive plan for
internationalization that has the support of faculty, staff, students, and
administrators and that the University is able to support. The Committee has given priority to three
goals: Increasing the recruitment of
international students, faculty, and post-docs; increasing the number of
faculty and students who have a transformative educational experience abroad;
and internationalizing the curriculum.
Three working groups have been formed to focus on internationalizing the
curriculum, recruitment, and education abroad.
A draft plan should be complete to share with the Academic Senate in the
Fall of 2006.
Post-Tenure
Review
Senator
Meyers reported that the Committee has been meeting for a year and has
representation from all of the schools and the Academic Senate. The immediate need for the Committee is that
there is a policy that requires a post-tenure review every six years. This policy has not been widely
implemented. The Committee is looking at
other institutions and identifying best practices. They have developed a document that has been
reviewed by the Provost Council and that should be sent to the Executive
Committee of the Academic Senate by
Teaching
Loads, Workload, and Faculty Mix
Senator
Biers reported that the background for this Committee includes the fact that
there is no clear articulation of strategic rationale for use of faculty time
by department or unit. In planning for
future allocation of resources, the University needs explicit agreements for
each department and unit’s faculty workload, including course and student loads. In addition tenure-track faculty need to be
provided with clear expectations for tenure and promotion. The charge to the
Committee is to review the workload policies developed at other universities; develop
university-wide policy on faculty teaching loads and workload; oversee the development of Unit and Department
guidelines and expectations for standards of teaching, research, and service; and
to examine the mix of full- and part-time faculty. Senator Wells asked if the Committee
anticipated a single, University-wide process or if the policy would allow for
differences between disciplines and units.
Senator Biers indicated that the Committee expected to develop a general
framework that would then be used to further develop specific policies that
recognize justified differences.
University-Wide
Tenure and Promotion Policy
Senator
Lasley reported that this Committee began as a very small group in the Fall of
2005. That group developed an initial
draft document. The working group has
now been expanded and has developed thirteen questions that need to be
addressed. He is hopeful that there will
be a draft for Senate review before the end of this semester. Senator Pestello noted that this Committee and
the Committee considering post-tenure review were formed at the request of the
Board of Trustees. The Board has the
responsibility of approving each tenure and promotion decision. They would like to delegate this authority,
and retain the authority to hear appeals.
They want to be assured, before delegating this authority, that there
are consistent and rigorous standards across the College and the Schools.
Academic
Identity
Senator
O’Gorman reported for Associate Provost Skill.
The charge of the Committee is to develop recommendations for how best
to communicate what we do to a wide range of constituents. He used the example of the Princeton Review. While they note that UD has an alcohol issue,
they also present UD in some very positive ways.
9. Adjournment: Moved and seconded, the meeting adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia A. Johnson
Secretary