[Approved December 1, 2006]
MINUTES
OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE
October
13, 2006
Sear
Auditorium, 3:00 p. m.
Senators Present: A. Abueida, J. Biddle, D. Biers
(presiding), M. Brill, D. Courte, D. Darrow, G. Doyle, C. Duncan, T. Eggemeier,
E. Elam, J. Farrelly, E. Gustafson, R. Hardie, P. Johnson, T. Lasley, W.
Luckett, P. Meyers, J. O'Gorman, D. Parker, R. Penno, F. Pestello, C. Phelps,
D. Poe, J. Saliba, B. Turk , R. Wells
Senators Excused: L. Brislin, C. Chen, A. Crow,
G. DeMarco, A. Fist, B. John, L. Kloppenberg, C. Letavec,
Guests: J. Annin, P. Benson, D.
Bickford, T. Columbus,
1. Opening Prayer: Senator Poe opened the meeting with a Lakota
prayer.
2. Roll Call: Twenty-six of
thirty-nine Senators were present.
3. Minutes:
September
15, 2006: Moved and seconded, minutes
were approved as written.
4. Open Faculty Forum :
Senator Biers introduced the
session, noting that the two documents on the agenda, DOC 06-09 and DOC 06-10,
were both issues that required wide and open participation in providing input
to the Academic Senate. He encourages
all Senators to make special efforts to contact those whom they represent to
actively seek information and input. He
emphasized that the current meeting was an information session and that no
actions would be taken on these issues at this time. He introduced Senator Lasley to provide
introductory remarks on DOC -06-09.
DOC 06-10, University Promotion and Tenure Committee
Senator
Lasley reviewed the process of arriving at the
current document. There was an ad hoc
working group put together at the request of the Provost. This group was composed primarily of faculty
who had experience at multiple institutions.
A committee was then formally constituted through the Provost Office and
in discussion with the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate. In constituting this group, representation
from units was more of a concern. He
emphasized that the committee work was guided by two assumptions. First, the University Committee should be
charged with establishing some measure of consistency across units, but that
each academic unit should develop its own Promotion and Tenure document. He suggested that this would ensure
consistency on procedural issues such as the connection of tenure and
promotion, but allow autonomy on issues of substance such as the evaluation of
the quality of scholarship. Second, the
University Committee should be responsible for due process issues, putting
procedural safeguards in place. For
example, there should be similar processes for handling application
materials. He then opened the session
for questions and discussion.
·
The question was raised as to what would happen if a unit and the University committee disagreed on a
procedural issue. Lasley indicated that
the Senate would need to resolve this in the final document.
·
Certain major issue need to be decided
and included in the document before the Academic Senate votes on the
issue. This need was emphasized with the
example of whether or not to tie tenure and promotion together. There is currently no consistency across
units. Which unit “wins” and when and
how is this decided? Questions like this
need to be answered before approving a document.
·
It was pointed out that certain issues may need to be
“grandfathered.” For example, if the
decision is made to tie tenure and promotion, then faculty who have been
tenured at the assistant professor level may need to receive automatic
promotion to the associate level.
·
The question was raised as to whether or not this document is
modeled after another institution.
Lasley indicated that while many other institutions were consulted, this
is not modeled after any particular institution. What the consultation process did do is
highlight the inconsistency at UD.
·
It was suggested that the September 1 deadline for the submission
of materials was too early. Lasley
indicated that the date had been determined by working backwards from the date
needed for a final decision. In addition, the assumption was that candidates
would know the previous Spring that materials were due in the Fall.
·
It was noted that the document seems to go beyond the original
charge of the Committee to develop consistent standards across units. The document seems to give to the new
Committee responsibilities that now belong to the current Faculty Hearing
Committees (Academic Freedom and Tenure, Grievances). Lasley indicated that the Committee had
considered this and believed that a University Committee would be
better-informed than the Hearing Committees on the processes and so would not
require the information-gathering time to act on appeals. In response, it was suggested that this would
seem to put the Committee in a position of conflict of interest and in the
position of policing itself. It was
agreed that this issue would need to be resolved in a final document and that
other committee structures and responsibilities might need to be reshaped as
part of this process.
·
The question was raised as to whether, if promotion and tenure
become linked, the unit committees and the University committee would still
need to look at both processes separately.
·
It was pointed out that the proposed timeline limits the
productivity period for tenure to five years.
Because lag-time for review and publication varies greatly by
discipline, this could jeopardize faculty.
D.
Biers closed the discussion thanking Senator Lasley for his work and asking
that further comments be sent to Carolyn Roecker Phelps, who is chairperson of
the Faculty affairs Committee of the Academic Senate, or to him.
Senator
Biers noted that this document is to be considered in two stages, a review of
the goals, and if the goals are affirmed, a process of developing recommendations. The current discussion is part of the first
stage. The Academic Senate has been asked to determine whether or not the
document captures the ideals of a Catholic and Marianist university education.
The Academic Policies Committee of the Academic Senate has been given primary
responsibility for implementing discussion to inform this decision. They have, in turn, appointed a sub-committee
composed of Chris Duncan, David Darrow, Jack O’Gorman, and Rob Penno. Biers introduced C, Duncan to give an introduction
to the first part of the document. He
made use of a PowerPoint presentation to review the basic orienting educational
aims and core learning outcomes. R. Penno noted that the sub-committee believed
that this was a process of validation, that Nov. 30 was the date set for
returning a report to the academic Policies Committee, and that the
anticipation was that the request would be for an up-or-down vote. Discussion
followed.
·
The question was raised as to whether or not other learning
outcomes had been considered. Duncan and
P. Benson both indicated that while other models had been explored, the unique
nature of UD required that learning outcomes be more closely tied to our
particular mission.
·
The question was raised as to whether or not the articulated
outcomes also imply specific pedagogies such as engaged pedagogy.
·
The question was raised as to the language of “create, expand,
develop” used in the latter part of the document. Duncan and Biddle both noted that the
Academic Senate must approve the first stage of the document before any of
those considerations would be taken up.
Biddle indicated that the Academic Policies Committee was beginning to
look at a possible process for stage two.
The expectation is that it could take several years.
·
It was asked if this document should be considered a living
document or “locked in stone.” Would
revisions be part of this process?
·
A question was raised about the use of the word “sacramental. This word seems to be a “red flag” for some
members of the University community. While the word first appeared in the
1996-97 Bulletin, it seems a leap
from the usage there to the meaning as outlined in the current document. It was
suggested that it is important that the University community should understand
this term and how it is being used. It
was suggested that open dialogue with theologians from the Catholic tradition
invited to share scholarship on the concept might be productive. It was further
suggested that individuals might take responsibility for doing their own
research on the term. In addition, it
was suggested that these open hearings should make it a point to determine if
there is concern about this term.
·
It was suggested that the same problems exists with the term
“vocation.”
·
A question was raised about the recommendation to require a
capstone course or project in each major.
It was suggested that a public presentation was a very ambitious goal
for every student in every major. This
question precipitated questions and discussion about some of the
recommendations in the second part of the document. It was noted that the main point of the
recommendations is to set high and uniform expectations and that decisions
would need to be made on what that would mean in terms of curricular requirements.
D.
Biers thanked C. Duncan and others for their work.
5. Committee Reports:
Senator
Biddle reported for the Academic Policies committee of the Academic
Senate. They hope to receive a final
report on DOC-06-09 by November 30 and move the issue to the Senate agenda for
the January meeting. They have also
asked that the Committee of General Education and Competencies compile a report
of the status and assessment of the general competencies.
Senator
Phelps reported for the Faculty Affairs Committee of the Academic Senate. They are working with J. Untener to arrive at
a final version of the background check policy for faculty. This should be ready for the December meeting
of the Academic Senate. They will be holding open sessions on the Promotion and
Tenure document.
Senator
Courte reported for the Student Academic Policies Committee of the Academic
Senate. They are reviewing both
DOC-06-09 and DOC-06-10. In addition,
work on the Honor Code is progressing.
They anticipate receiving the document on the evaluation of teaching
once it is sent to the Academic Senate.
Senator
Gustafson reported for the Calendar Committee.
They are reviewing recommendations for the Fall 2007 academic
calendar. Their recommendations are due
to the Provost Council November 28.
Since there is not a meeting of the full Academic Senate prior to that
date, recommendations will need to be reviewed by the Executive Committee. They are also looking at an examination
schedule document.
6. Adjournment: Moved and seconded, the meeting adjourned at
4:57 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia A. Johnson