University of Denver

Faculty Senate

Minutes

April 4, 2003

 

President Leon Giles opened the meeting at 12:06

 

Agenda

  1. Review and approval of Minutes for March 7, 2003
  2. Proposed criminal background checksDon Stedman (Dick Gartrell)
  3. Provosts report
  4. Proposed sabbatical policy change
  5. Electronic course evaluations
  6. Committee reports
  7. New business
  8. Announcements and reminders
  9. Adjournment

 

Review and Approval of minutes for February 7, 2003

The minutes were approved.

 

Proposed Criminal Background ChecksDon Stedman

Dick Gartrell and Shannon Winckel attended as resources. Stedman provided the first reading of the motion to support criminal background checks for new faculty. The Personnel Committee had an opportunity to discuss the policy with director of Human Resources, Dick Gartrell. Arthur Best, a member of that committee, prefaced his assessment of the discussion by making the distinction between his responding as a faculty member rather than offering a legal perspective. His discussion with Gartrell offered him a degree of both comfort and discomfort with the policy, but he felt comfortable enough to support the motion. He felt it important that the minutes reflect Gartrells willingness as director of HR to answer important questions about the policy. Best was concerned about the process in the event that a background check raises concerns for HR. He wanted to know what steps are then taken. If HR and the dean or highest divisional official cannot work through the problem, the provost will become involved. This is an important step because the provost, as the chief academic officer, might have a point of view not necessarily shared from a risk management perspective. Best believes the process strikes an acceptable balance between academic and corporate approaches. Stedman explained that HR conducts nearly 1,000 checks annually with only about four resulting in reports of felony or violent misdemeanors convictions. HR first goes directly to the individual involved to ensure accuracy. Andy Divine offered a friendly amendment that the language of the motion include other faculty and staff. Stedman accepted the friendly amendment. Catherine Potter asked whether almost any felony conviction could be explained to HRs satisfaction. Gartrell acknowledged that many convictions can be explained satisfactorily; however, there are certain kinds of felons that HR would not want on campus under any circumstances. He said that HR looks not only at the kind of felony, but also how long ago it was committed, what position the person will hold, and what the impact of the felony would be on the job. Divine asked whether the process that Arthur Best outlined should be written to ensure that faculty remain a part of the process. Gartrell said a fixed process could be ensured that way, but HR would prefer to have the flexibility to take each case individually. He wanted to make it clear that HR does not impose its view over that of the hiring authority. Best raised a related point, noting that in committee he asked whether the policy applies to current faculty or to new members of the board of trustees. The answer, in both cases, is no. John Holcomb (also making the distinction between his roles as faculty member and lawyer) asked if HR might conduct checks on faculty and staff after they have been hired. Gartrell said they might do a check after someone is hired only in relation to drunk driving when HR has reason to believe that someone whose job requires them to drive a University vehicle might have a conviction. HR will likely develop a new policy to require an annual drivers license check for employees whose jobs require them to drive for the university. Holcolmb noted other university policies address post- employment behavior. Gartrell reiterated that HR is not interested in conducting post-employment checks for behavior unrelated to the job. He agreed with Holcomb that there are adequate checks in place to address any concerns. Following a call for further questions, Stedman re-read the motion (Appendix A), and Giles tabled the motion for voting at the next senate meeting.

 

Provosts Report

The provost was not present at the senate meeting due to a conflict. The DU Womens Conference was scheduled for the same time.

 

Proposed sabbatical policy changesLeon Giles and Don Stedman

Highlights: Giles offered introductory comments as a status report of the on-going discussion. He commented that at the FEAC meeting held April 2, 2003, he presented the essence of the sabbatical policy motion scheduled for a reading in the April senate meeting. He characterized the tenor of the meeting as what might be expected. There were a few favorable comments about the general direction the senate is taking and one trustee who stated that he will not be on board with the proposed enhancement unless he is convinced that it will increase faculty productivity, the quality of faculty scholarship, and the reputation of the university. Giles was surprised by the lack of comment by other trustees. He took from the meeting that then proposed policy will not be an easy sell. The trustees do not object to the general direction of the proposed policy, but they seem to think that it does not go far enough. Their primary concerns seem to be about accountability and incremental cost. The role of the chairs and the deans in managing the process must be clarified. There is no language in the policy to address this concern. There is a requirement in the guidelines that faculty must file a report following the sabbatical. The problem in the minds of some of the board members is that there does not seem to be effective after-the-fact accountability. How is the sabbatical productivity factored into the faculty members annual review process? Is there a penalty for non-performance? Giles does not see this as a senate concern but rather a line-management concern; however, the senate needs to discuss it. Another concern, not directly one of the senate, is the budget impact. What are the cost implications?

Discussion: Dean Saitta expressed concern that the senate has been charged with sorting out budget issues when it should not be the senates responsibility. Giles said the senate would have to work with the provosts office on the issue. He has an appointment with the provost to talk about how the budget issues will be managed. The budget is complex because one-quarter absences are often manageable by the department by simply reducing the scheduled offerings or other faculty agreeing to cover an additional section. Eliminating courses for two quarters or expecting other full-time faculty in the department to cover the uncovered courses doesnt seem to be a reasonable expectation. Consequently, additional adjuncts will likely need to be hired in the event that we move to two quarters at full pay. Another aspect, breakage, is more difficult to manageit is common practice that deans budget with the concept that they will be able to use the breakage for the operating budget. Faculty who take a full year sabbatical get half of their pay and the rest remains in the deans budget. Giles is not certain what the impact of the change will be on the budget. Incentive for taking a full year sabbatical is lessened by the two-quarter enhancement, so the breakage in unit budgets may disappears.

 

Giles called for a brief break so that lunch could be served. Before calling the meeting back to order, he acknowledged Alton Barbours university lecture presented on April 3, 2003.

 

Stedman offered the second reading of the motion submitted at the March 7, 2003 senate meeting (see Appendix A). He then gave a first reading of an additional motion regarding the proposed changes to the sabbatical policy. Giles opened discussion by explaining that the executive committee had three models of how the sabbatical could be enhanced. The initial model, brought to the senate by Bob Coombe from UPAC, was one of enhancement from one quarter to two quarters at full pay. The next iteration of the discussion was that there might not be enough funds for all applications to be funded for two quarters. An alternative was offered that would fund one-half of the applicants for a one-quarter sabbatical, while the other half of the applications would be funded on a meritorious basis for two quarters. The executive committee thought it might be morally debilitating to have to make decisions about the merit of applications. The executive committee agreed to reject that option. The other option was to keep the sabbatical at one quarter at full pay and to offer the opportunity for additional funds to support travel or other aspects of research. The executive committee opted to support the proposal that came out of the UPAC process as the best opportunity to increase productivity and to link faculty research to the discussions of increasing academic quality on campus. Stedman added that senators should read the upcoming issue of the Faculty Forum to see Susan Sadlers proposal. Catherine Potter commented that she understands why the executive committee supported the proposal to get two quarters for everyone; however, she wonders whether what we are about to vote on is sellable to FEAC. She asked if the senate should vote on the stated proposal or develop one that is sellable to the board. Helga Watt suggested that the proposal is sound but does not go far enough. She said that the senate should articulate how to improve accountability. Potter asked for clarity regarding the boards concerns: are they interested in accountability, increased productivity or improved reputation? Further, is it true that it might not be financially feasible to provide enhancements for everyone? Giles said that the accountability is important but needs to be addressed with deans and chairs. The board expressed concern regarding productivity both in terms of quality and quantitywhich they see as related to an improved reputation. The senate can work with the office of assessment to establish appropriate benchmarks for quantity and quality of research. The problem is trying to assess the output of one faculty member compared to another. He further explained that he tried to get FEAC to understand that a little faith in the process in crucial because measuring its effectiveness will take time. He thinks many of the FEAC members understand this. Dennis Barrett added that in his view, exploring cheaper options is of little value to FEAC as they are interested in quality and, unfortunately, productivity. The focus on productivity bothers him. He suggested that the senate invite a few board members to a meeting in order to help them see the issue from other than a corporate perspective. Saitta also was bothered by the corporate view, particularly one board members equation of sabbaticals to training and development for employees. He fears that the senate might may be capitulating a little too quickly to that notion. He suggested that there are be better models to consider. Holcolmb raised two issues. First he asked if sabbaticals have been considered in terms of a recruitment advantage rather than simply as an issue of productivity. Secondly, he pointed out the difficulties inherent in trying to assess outcomesthat is, comparing one years outputin terms of quantity and publication qualitywith that of another year. It seemed to him more effective to address accountability through the application process by strengthening the submissions. Wouldnt it be easier for the sabbatical committee if they could be assured of the quality of the application? Stedman responded that no discussion of recruitment was offered but he does recall a discussion, at which the provost was present, regarding the disadvantage of not having the policy we now have. Barrett recalled that the trustees responded to the senates intent to determine what other universities do. Giles said the senate is looking into that using the lists of schools that came out of the UPAC process. Cathy Reed supported the idea of determining what other schools are doing. Maybe there is no assessment process at other schools. She noted that DU has lost 25% of our faculty due to a lack of resources. We are competing from an impoverished point of view. One of the best ways to improve productivity is to bring in really good people. Another issue is fairness. Inherent unevenness in the attempt to quantify product might result in uneven meritorious awards. Stedman added that he is very worried about this assessment business. He stated that he does not believe the senate has the right to assess that. The senate is not qualified to do so. Sandy Dixon questioned attempts to make a business model fit academic concerns. She finds the line management concept problematic as it assumes that those above faculty know more about our specialties than we do; they dont. They do not know each faculty members area of specialization well enough to assess everyone effectively. The line management model does not fit. It might be wise to find another more creative model to bring to the trustees. Another point with which Dixon took issue is assumption that DU is getting the most for its money with the current policy; that is not really measurable. Finally, we might try the language of ramp up (please note that she hates that phrase). Maybe what faculty need sabbaticals for is innovation rather than quantitative production. It is innovation that makes us leaders in our fields. The accountability issue is problematic. She cited several ways that accountability demands might be counter-productive. At times in our career we are about productivity but at other times we are about letting things lie and ferment. Have we shown the board any of the studies about the phases of academic careers? Stedman pointed out the one-page self-assessment and stated that it has real life behind it. It asks what you have done in the past seven years. Alton Barbour noted the lack of success with the corporate model for assessmentthe performance appraisal. Literature says it is really poorly done. What you remember is how it affects your salary. He also has examined literature on motivation, getting people to work. What it says is that sanctions dont work. People are willing to do a good job not because some threatens them but because someone is willing to reward them. The way to get around this is to work more closely with chairs/deans to set achievable goals. Stedman observed that Barbours comment gets right back to idea that the senate should not be involved in assessment, but rather, it is the responsibility of chairs and deans. Giles closed discussion by asking whether the body wished to vote on the motion at hand. Nancy Sampson moved that the discussion be tabled until the senate has developed a comprehensive, coherent policy. Barrett seconded the motion. The body agreed to table discussion.

 

Electronic Course EvaluationsHelga Watt

Watt offered a second reading of the motion first read at the March 7, 2003 meeting. (See Appendix B). Catherine Potter seconded the motion. Giles called for discussion. John Holcolmb asked for clarificationDoes the motion refer to the university assessment office or to individual unit assessment? Does the motion bind individual units to share their assessments with faculty at the same time that chairs receive them? Watt said that if the office of assessment collects and distributes the evaluations, they would do so simultaneously. Holcolmb asked if the office of assessment provided that function for DCB. Giles thought that the office of assessment might offer assistance, but that DCB handles its own. He recalled that university assessment arose out of the need to evaluate core courses that really dont fall under a division. Andy Divine observed that we are not in compliance with items 1- 4 of the originals document, and we are adding #5 that we will not be in accordance with either. It is clear that if this is a policy, we are just adding #5 to something we are already not doing. Watt explained that the motion is just a practical issue. She is aware that the policy is not being followed but thinks that other issues should be addressed at a different time. Holcomb asked if the committee had offered a recommendation or a policy? Watt said it is policy. Dennis Barrett called for the question. The senators requested that Giles explore further with the administration why the previous motion has yet to be implemented. The motion passed.

 

Committee Reports

Dennis Barrett distributed a senate membership spreadsheet that indicated which terms are up in preparation for the upcoming elections. He noted that the senate will need a president-elect. Giles stated that the senate elects the chair of financial planning while all other chairs are appointed. Stedman acknowledged Arthur Best and his committee for their work on the awards sub-committee.

 

New Business: None was offered.

 

Announcements:

o        Arthur Best asked Giles invite faculty to participate in ways to develop relationships between the law school and other academic units once the school moves to the main campus.

o        Giles reported that in the executive committee meeting it was suggested that the senate president write a letter to the appropriate people to thank the grounds staff for their exemplary work during the recent blizzard. Dennis Barret moved that Giles do so; Gordon Von Stroh seconded. The motion passed.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 1:42.

Direct Edit