University of Denver
President Leon Giles opened the meeting at 12:10.
Review and approval of minutes for November 8, 2002
Faculty support of Athleticsevent participation
Report/discussion on status/initiatives of Multicultural Affairs
Announcements and reminders:
Winter Quarter Senate Office Hours
Senate tour of Performing Arts ComplexJanuary 17, 1:30 p.m.
Chancellors RoundtableFebruary 28, 12:301:30 p.m.
Intellectual Property Issues ColloquiumFebruary 4, 3:004:30 p.m.
(Registration required through Human Resources website.)
Faculty honors nominationsdeadline is March 3, 2002
Minutes were approved pending further review by senators.
Questions for Jesus Trevino:
Nick Cuthforth asked about the OMA staff and plans for the MLK celebration.
Deborah Barton is executive director, Stephanie Rivale is multicultural student services coordinator, and Tracy Drayton is the administrative assistant. Samuel Betances is the keynote speaker for the MLK celebration. His presentation will be held at the Cable Center, January 15, 2003, 7:00. Trevino encouraged faculty to reward students for attending the event. Sandy Dixon asked Trevino to distinguish between his and Bartons roles. Barton manages specific programs, does programming, and handles the budget. Additionally, Barton serves on university committees in Trevinos absence. Leon Giles asked what good news Trevino could report. Trevino responded that while the overall campus climate is positive, students of color have reported that they receive horrendously offensive questions and comments from majority students and faculty. Trevino sees the problem as a lack of contact and experience that sometimes results in insensitivity. The answer to the problem is education.
Arthur Best asked whether workload is an important issue with regard to a shift to semesters. Is that what this financial group is considering? Coombe responded that workload is not a central consideration for the committee. That is a quasi-curricular issue. The committee is considering mostly administrative operation issues.
Helga Watt asked about the Hyde interviews and whether there will be more efforts to get faculty on board. Coombe explained that faculty participation was good this year and that John Dolan said there were a few last-minute withdrawals from alumni. Watt noted that interviewing the entire application poolas is the goalwill be a very tiring task. Who is going to do it? Coombe responded that interviewing early decision applicants still is in the experimental phase. We will need more faculty involvement if interviews are broadened to the entire applicant pool. Margaret Whitt commented that during Hyde interview training Dolan indicated that it is definite that we will interview the entire applicant pool. Coombe described the goal as the chancellors desire but explained that we will have to see how things go this year before we expand the interview process. Catherine Potter asked if there might also be budgetary concerns related to expanding the interviews. Coombe stated that we have put the dollars into the budget model for expanding. The greater concern is the one Helga Watt raisedwho is going to conduct the interviews?
Nancy Sampson noted that the provost spoke only of undergraduate numbers in his presentation and asked whether graduate applications were doing well. She also asked if a cap for undergraduate enrollment is planned. Coombe said that in some cases it is too early to know about graduate applications; however, there is no cause for alarm. With regard to the size of the undergraduate classin our five-year budget model, we have targeted a class of 1,000 each year. Our target four years out is 4,250. The real answer to the question has to do not only with size of the class, but also with what it takes to sustain fiscal accountability. The strategy is to try to hold the undergraduate class to that size and grow in some graduate areas. The fundamental issue we face has to do with the fact that our compensation base is a very large proportion of our tuition. We will need a tuition increase to meet that need. Well need to determine other revenue streams so as to minimize tuition increases.
Leon Giles returned to the semester issue. He raised the concern that the study of economic factors leaves unanswered questions regarding the cost of making curricular changes. Citing scheduling issues, teaching loads, and the like, Giles noted that it is difficult to separate out the emotional issues relative to the academic integrity issues and the costs. He asked when such issues will be factored into the analysis. How is it going to be done, what will be the timing? Coombe reiterated that although there is pressure to move to semesters, no decision has been made nor will be made soon. He expects that a decision will have to be made in the future. Andy Divine asked if a study was planned to consider converting the law school to the quarter system. Coombe commented that the law school had made their decision about semesters long ago. Ved Nanda summarized the many institutions in the country have moved from quarters to semesters successfully. We can look to those institutions to see how they have done it.
Continuing businessLeon Giles
A question came from the floor regarding the resolution of the pay stub/notification concern. Don Stedman reported that a decision had been made to continue paper notification. However, employees can request to stop paper notification, as the information also will be available on myweb.
Tuesday: 9-5. Thursday: 3-5. Friday: 10-3
Giles called for a headcount of people who wish to tour to arrange for hard hats. Twelve senators plan to attend. Giles will arrange for 20 hard hats.
Registration required through Human Resources website. It is being offered through HR through their series of initiatives, so you need to register on line through the HR site. Sandy Dixon asked if the colloquium will cover course materials on the web and that sort of thing. Giles said it should cover such issues. He also noted that faculty representatives sit on the Intellectual Properties Committee as well as the appeals committee.
Giles reported that a discussion regarding sabbatical policy came up at FEAC committee meeting. Provost Coombe brought up a proposal to change the sabbatical policy in two ways, 1) change the period for a fully paid sabbatical, and 2) enhance application and outcomes expectations for eligibility and accountability. The provosts proposal was to tie the changes into his initiative to increase faculty productivity and enhance the reputation of the University and its faculty. Coombe proposes to extend normal sabbatical from one quarter to two quarters with full pay. The conversation did not address what it means to take a full yearwhich is currently at half pay. The goal is to give faculty more time for scholarly work. The quid pro quo is that there would be more accountability with regard to the results of the sabbatical, particularly outcomes/assessmenthow, when, what you report; how it gets structured into the normal management of facultypromotions, pay raises, and the like. We currently have a requirement that a report be submitted following the sabbatical leave. Some reports are brief; some are extensive; and a few arent submitted. There are no penalties for not submitting or submitting an ineffective report. Coombe charged the senate with reevaluating the policy.
Catherine Potter asked whether the proposal considered limiting, for budgetary reasons, the number of leaves granted. Giles responded that there are no plans for limiting the number of leaves for budgetary concerns; however, there was some discussion of whether leave is an entitlement or a privilege. He said Don Stedmans interpretation is a good one: leave should be an entitlement but with strings attached. The board doesnt want it to be seen as a faculty entitlement that will be awarded regardless of the quality of the submission or expected outcomes.
Dennis Barrett added that the boards perspective is that if we are thinking of doubling the money, we should ensure that we make it as useful as possible. Giles added that there was no discussion of how costs will be managed relative to the deans and how they will manage scheduling for two quarters rather than one. Arthur Best commented that more time doesnt seem to be controversial. The second part of the proposalaccountability--seems much too vague for any faculty member to determine what he or she thinks about it. To what extent will the change maintain the balance of responsibility with regard to the board of trustees? Best would find it problematic if sabbatical output were to be evaluated by the board of trustees. To what extent did the provost seek faculty input for developing this proposal? Giles reiterated that Coombe came to the faculty, specifically to the faculty senate, and charged the body with investigating changes. Best asked what role the board will play. Ved Nanda interjected that the Senate ought not to get involved in the evaluation of sabbatical leave output. That needs to remain with the department and the deans.
Motion: Susan Sadler moved to refer the subject to a joint meeting of the personnel and financial planning committees to consider two things: 1) a five year retrospective of sabbatical leave and 2) an examination of our present process. Dennis Barrett asked why not academics? Sadler explained that such issues traditionally are considered through personnel. Don Stedman interjected with a point of order: the body should not be discussing the motion when it has not been seconded. Sandy Dixon seconded the motion.
Stedman asked if there were a significant number of sabbaticals taken at half pay. Margaret Whitt asked if the numbers had been broken down by division and wondered whether the sciences might have more full-year sabbaticals because they can get external funding. She further asked how soon the change might be made. Giles said that the study will be made immediately for potential action by the end of this year. Any new policy put into place will not affect leaves awarded for next year. Stedman added that sabbatical leave is an important part of our hiring packages. Sabbatical with strings is appropriate; however, our salaries are not such that faculty do not need leave. He explained that the current policy is not greatly flawed. Deans and chairs should be trusted to evaluate the proposals and reports. A more useful topic of discussion might be whether we should go for two quarters at full pay or should we ask for a different approachperhaps we could request airfare for international travel to internationalize our scholarship. Giles concluded that is clear that the board sees revamping the sabbatical leave policy as an important step to take in improving the quality and reputation of the university, but they will not do it unless it can be expected to result in higher levels of accomplishments. FEAC wants to see the proposal before it goes to the full board. Catherine Potter asked if the question could be called. Susan Sadler explained that the motion was a referral. Giles stated that the motion calls for personnel and financial planning for an analysis of the recommendation. He asked if the senate wanted to amend the motion to include academic planning. Dean Saiita suggested that someone from academic planning be included because a concern of the trustees was raising academic quality. Sadler accepted the suggestion as friendly amendment. Arthur Best suggested an ad hoc committee. Giles concluded that the proposed committee could figure it out. Vote: unanimous.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:40.
Barbara J. Wilcots