[Approved April 28, 2006]
Minutes of the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate
March 31, 2006
St. Mary’s 113 B;
Present: J. Biddle, D. Biers (presiding), D. Courte, D. Gudaitis, P. Johnson, J. O’Gorman, R. Penno, F. Pestello, A. Seielstad, R. Wells.
Excused:
Guest: M. Mullins (Faculty Board)
Opening Prayer:
Donna Gudaitis opened with a prayer emphasizing the importance of acts
of kindness for daily life.
Roll Call: Ten of the twelve members of the Committee were present.
Approval of Minutes:
March 24, 2006: Moved and seconded, minutes were approved with two minor corrections.
Announcements:
· D. Biers announced that the Provost’s Council had considered the scheduling of Fall Convocation and had decided to schedule the Convocation for 9:00 AM on August 21, the first day of classes. 8:00 AM classes will meet as scheduled that day. 9:00 AM classes will be moved to 3:00 PM on Friday, August 25. P. Johnson objected, saying that this will still be disruptive to the beginning of classes for faculty and students and that there had been many possible options that would have scheduled Convocation within the four-day orientation period. F. Pestello said that he had made the final decision.
· D. Biers announced that other universities in the region, including WSU and SCC, are looking at ways to host web based course evaluations as means of moderating use of national sites that contain uncivil and unrepresentative evaluations of faculty. F. Pestello has been in communication with both WSU and SCC. This may be something that UD will want to address.
Old Business:
The Committee continued its discussion from the previous meeting (March 24, 2006) concerning where to go with the reports from the various Provost’s Council Subcommittees on Foundational Issues. The main issue for the Executive Committee is to determine the Senate’s responsibility and authority in relationship to the various issues. The Provost’s Office had compiled a summary from the minutes of the Provost Council since January 2005, the minutes of the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate since January 2005, and the minutes of the Academic Senate since March 2005. This summary provided background information on the purpose and evolution of the various subcommittees and on the times at which the Academic Senate had had any involvement with the work of these subcommittees up to this point. F. Pestello indicated that he had had the report prepared because he was concerned that faculty believed that some of these issues were coming forward very quickly. He reviewed the work of each subcommittee.
· The subcommittee on the Catholic and Marianist Mission and Identity of the University has placed its work on hold pending the results of similar work being conducted by the President’s Office.
· The subcommittee on Summer Returns has completed its work as was reported at the January meeting of the Academic Senate. There is an operating policy in place that will ensure that all units return 50% of their summer returns to the departments generating that income.
· The subcommittee on Faculty Grants and Sponsored Research is working with UDRI to develop strategies that will be more supportive of faculty efforts to obtain funding for their research.
· The subcommittee on Grade Migration and Rigor has identified a great deal of data, beginning in the 1970s and is working to compile data from some periods where the information is currently missing. They are also conducting a study that correlates scores on student evaluations with grades given in the class. Once the research work of this subcommittee is completed, it will be shared with the Academic Senate.
· The Executive Committee has received an initial report from the subcommittee working on the Evaluation of Faculty Teaching and it is currently on the agenda for new business. F. Pestello indicated his concern about the use of scores on teaching evaluations without considering other measures of teaching.
· The subcommittee on International Strategy and the subcommittee on Nontraditional Students are both addressing issues involving lingering concerns for good policies and consistent practices in these areas.
· The subcommittee on Post-Tenure Review has submitted a report and needs a decision about how to move forward. F. Pestello wants each unit to begin developing implementation plans. The role of the Senate on this issue needs to be determined (see the summary of the discussion which follows below).
· The subcommittee on Teaching Loads, Workload, and Faculty Mix has not yet brought a report to the Academic Senate. F. Pestello indicated that his concern is to ensure that there are departmental workload policies so that the rules do not change with a change of chairperson. He indicated that workload policies may not be uniform between units, departments, or even for faculty within departments. One important part of the workload strategy is to increase the proportion of first-year students taught by fulltime faculty. R. Wells asked how he thought the work of this subcommittee relates to the one on tenure and promotion. Pestello indicated that he believe that they were not unrelated, but neither are they intimately tied.
· The subcommittee on University-Wide Tenure and Promotion Policy and Process is still working. F. Pestello indicated that he had initiated this discussion with the Board of Trustees, and that the Board believes it makes sense for them to be less directly involved in the final approval of tenure. They have reviewed information that indicates that Boards at other universities are taking this direction. However, they want to be sure that there is a faculty review of the final decisions, not simply administrative review. They have also linked this process with the post-tenure review process.
D. Biers indicated that the issue before the Executive Committee was to consider when and how the Senate should weigh in, particularly on the issues of tenure and promotion, post-tenure review, workload, and the evaluation of teaching. F. Pestello said that from the perspective of the Board, the tenure and promotion and post-tenure review issues had already taken considerable time. P. Johnson suggested that from the perspective of the faculty, many were just learning about the work of these subcommittees. R. Wells suggested that a discussion with the Board about faculty governance and the need for healthy discussion might help members understand why such things take time in an academic institution. J. Biddle said that he believed it was important for the four issues of workload, teaching evaluation, promotion and tenure, and post-tenure review to be looked at together. The subcommittees have been working independently of each other and issues of overlap need to be identified and reconciled in order to prevent a compounding of unintended consequences. The Committee discussed the various stages of progress of the subcommittees and how best to facilitate the movement of these proposals through appropriate channels so that appropriate reconciliation of documents could take place as permitted by time and concerted judgement without seeing the issues as tied together for one final action. In particular, the Committee discussed how to act on the issue of post-tenure review. It would be procedurally possible for the Provost to send the current document to the units as guidelines for implementation without further Senate consultation or action. However, it would be better for the health of the University to conduct further consultation. It was decided that a group with membership from both FACAS and APCAS should be established. This group and its charge will be discussed at the next meeting of the Executive Committee.
New Business:
New business was held over for the next meeting.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 3:08 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Patricia A. Johnson
Secretary