Mathias A.
Heck Courtroom, Joseph E. Keller Hall,
Presiding: Dr. Brian
Conniff
Senators Present:
Beck, Biers, Castellano, Conniff, Crum, Dandaneau, Doyle, Gauder, Gerla,
Hallinan, Hartley, Ilg, Kearns, Kloppenberg,
Kocoloski, Krabbe, Morel, Pedrotti, Pestello, Pyles, Ruggiero, Saliba, Telfair,
Watras, Yungblut, Youngkin
Guests: Eloe, Grunenwald, Putka, Thompson, Rapp, Rogatto
1.
Opening
Prayer
Brian Conniff began the meeting
with a prayer by Mother Teresa.
2.
Roll Call
Twenty-six of forty-one Senators
were present.
3.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of
4.
Introduction of New Senators
Fred Pestello welcomed the new
senators and thanked the outgoing senators for their service, especially for
their efforts during the presidential search.
The current and incoming senators introduced themselves.
5.
Summary Reports from the Standing Committees
Faculty Affairs Committee: Harry Gerla reported that the committee
addressed three issues this past semester.
a.
First, the committee was asked to comment on a
revised Research Professorship proposal, having supported the original proposal
in the Fall 2001 semester. The committee sent its response in a letter
to Drs. Pestello and McCabe.
b.
The Faculty Affairs Committee also worked on a
proposal to stop the “tenure clock” under particular circumstances; after some
modifications and clarifications, that proposal is ready for a vote.
c.
And finally, the committee began a review of the
maternity/paternity leave policies for the University’s faculty. Harry Gerla is drafting a letter to be sent
to comparable universities inquiring about their maternity/paternity leave
policies.
Student Academic Policies Committee: Megan Telfair noted that scheduling
difficulties and low attendance limited committee work for this semester.
a.
The committee assisted SGA with its presentation on
the 18th credit hour. The
proposal was introduced at the October ELC meeting.
b.
The SAPC also discussed the senior final exam grades
issue and decided that it was of more concern to faculty than to students. It does recommend, however, that students
complete all requirements before participating in the graduation ceremony. Committee members also preferred that the
real diplomas be distributed at graduation, not through the mail.
Academic Policies Committee: Jim
Dunne reported that the APC continues work on several issues.
a.
General Education Program: A
subcommittee, chaired by Dave Biers, is currently revising Section II,
Rationale and Goals, of the 1991 General Education Policy. The proposed revision will likely be brought
before the full Academic Senate early next term.
b.
University Competencies Program:
A subcommittee, chaired by Joe Saliba, has been reviewing the revised
Quantitative Reasoning Competency policy in consultation with others. The revised policy should be ready for
discussion at the January 2003 Academic Senate meeting.
c.
Academic Calendar: The APC
monitored the development of the academic calendar, paying particular attention
to the minimum number of class meetings for all MWF and TTh
classes.
d.
Consultation across academic units:
The APC also monitored the policy requiring consultation across academic
units on any curriculum change that may affect other units. Communication between the Associate Provost
and Associate Deans from each academic unit appears to work effectively.
e.
University Policy on Residency/Minimum UD Credit Hours: The committee is working to develop
consistent wording for these university policies in the Undergraduate Bulletin
and the Graduate Bulletin. This proposal
will probably come to the Academic Senate for approval next term.
6.
Academic Senate Representative for Presidential
Investiture Committee
Pat Palermo, Dick Ferguson and Amy Lopez, chairs of
the Presidential Investiture Committee, are seeking a representative from the
Academic Senate. Roger Crum has agreed
to volunteer. Brian Conniff will forward this recommendation to Pat.
7.
Budget Priorities
The Academic Senate, via ECAS, has the opportunity at
the next ELC meeting to provide input on its priorities for the University
budget. A summary of this year’s
recommendations was presented at the November 15 faculty meeting. The slide show included proposed tuition
increases, possible uses of new revenue and budget options; copies of the
presentation were sent to the Academic Senate.
Brian Conniff recognizes that the Academic Senate is
in the uncomfortable position of determining opinion far along in the budgeting
process and recommends that the Senate find a more effective long-term
solution. To that end, he suggests
forming a standing committee that would engage itself in the budget process
throughout the year.
Q: Is the
technology line under debt funding for what has been done or is it for more
enhancements?
A: This figure
would cover what was already spent.
Q: What is the
state of technology spending?
A: Funding is
flat. There has been no increase except
in soft funding.
Fred Pestello and Dan Curran prefer the first budget
option, which allows for a modest compensation increase and a budget cut of
$600,000 to $900,000. The reality is
that the University cannot afford to fund all of the projects listed under
possible uses of new revenue.
Comment: With
so much new hiring, the issue of compensation becomes more critical. It is difficult to hire new faculty when the
salaries lag behind the competition.
There is also the added problem of salary compression between old and
new faculty hires.
Q: What
percentage of tuition increase goes to faculty salaries and benefits?
A: Not sure,
more than 50 per cent?
Q: What is the
net impact of the 18th credit hour on the budget?
A: Students
pay $450,000 yearly.
Comment: In
the College of Arts & Sciences that part of the cost is greater. More students in Arts & Sciences are
paying for the 18th credit hour; the distribution is not even among
the College and other Schools.
Q: Why are
base housing costs inconsistent in the Tuition plans?
A: The extra
money is capital towards new housing.
Comment: One
strategy is to raise tuition but increase value by including the 18th
credit hour.
Q: Why is
there an increase in tuition and aid?
Why not just more aid?
A: There is
competition for students who have high need or high academic achievement. The competition is better at getting the
students we want.
Q: Is there
any data on why students come to UD?
A: The Art
& Science group researched this issue and made a presentation at last month’s
faculty meeting. The final report is due
in December.
8.
Proposal for “Suspending the ‘Tenure Clock’ for
Tenure Track Faculty Members Eligible for Family or Medical Leave”
Harry Gerla, on behalf of
the Faculty Affairs Committee, presented Senate Document No.
This document was discussed at the October 2002
Academic Senate meeting. There were
concerns about procedures for eligibility, which the committee clarified in the
amended version.
Proposal summary: This document seeks to amend the current
Policy on Academic Freedom and Tenure, Regulations by adding a new Section 2(a)(4). FACAS
recognizes that not all faculty members can afford to take family or medical
leave when such a situation occurs, and that the tenure clock continues running
during that time. In those instances,
FACAS recommends that when a faculty member is eligible for family or medical
leave, but does not actually take such leave, the faculty member is still able
to stop the tenure clock for the time a leave might have been taken.
Additionally, the FACAS
recommends two more changes to the Policy:
that section 2(a)(1) of the document be amended
to recognize foster care as a basis for stopping the tenure clock; and that the
terms “serious medical condition” and “adoption of a child” as well as others
in section 2(a)(1) be defined to be better aligned with the conditions set
forth in the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.
Favor: 26
Oppose: 0
Abstain: 0
Q: Because
this proposal amends the current Policy on Academic Freedom and Tenure,
Regulations will it go before the entire faculty and trustees?
A: There will
be an open hearing, to be determined, followed by a vote of the faculty.
9.
Update on Status of General Competency and Quantitative
Reasoning, and Section II, the Rationale and Goals of the General Education
Program
Joe Saliba provided an update on the Quantitative
Reasoning Competency revision. After
working on the QRC implementation in 2000-2001, the Math Department reported
major problems and developed revisions for the QRC. In September 2002 the APC charged a
subcommittee to evaluate the new revisions.
After consultation with all the Chairs and Deans of every division, the
subcommittee recommends adopting the new revisions.
Timeline: The APC will be meeting next Friday to vote
on forwarding the measure to the entire senate.
It is expected that the revisions will be distributed in January to
senate members and that an open meeting will be held before February so that a
vote may take place at the February senate meeting.
Q: What is the Math Department’s position on the
current revisions? Are they able to
deliver in February?
A: Yes.
There are some implementation issues that the Math Dept. is trying to
iron out before the Academic Senate meeting in February.
Dave Biers summarized the revision efforts for
Section II of the General Education Program.
Since the original document was created in 1996, the language is now
outdated; there is no mention of such things as global issues, diversity, and
social justice. The subcommittee is
working to update the language, not to change the theme. It will consult with other academic units,
with a target completion date of February 2003.
The meeting was adjourned
at
Respectfully submitted: Heidi Gauder,
Secretary of the Academic Senate.