Faculty Senate Meeting
October 17, 2003
Minutes
Senate President Leon Giles called the meeting to order at 12:14, and welcomed Trustee John Lowe.
The minutes were accepted as presented with any corrections to be submitted to the executive secretary.
Highlights: Provost Coombe encouraged faculty to attend the Provosts conference because it is an important and much needed event. There will be several members of the board in attendance. Coombe reported that he just met with the finance committee of the board of trustees. The very positive report he previously gave yet holds. Persistence rates are in. We are having a solid year budget-wise. We have a few continuing issues, among them salaries. The merit process has begun. The budget and finance committee recommended going ahead with at 3% merit pool. He will make an effort to get the individual units and deans to enhance that pool. Other issues on which he is working include health insurance and stipends for graduate students.
Discussion: Helga Watt asked if future provost conferences could be on Fridays. Coombe explained that the schedule was established to encourage participation of BOT members who were in town for their meeting.
Andy Divine asked whether the faculty research fund would receive monies? Coombe responded that the question is on the table. Coombe added that he would like to put at least a couple of hundred thousand dollars into the fund, but you have to find the money. He hopes to make the faculty research fund a part of the base budget. Watt asked for clarification regarding salary raises. She had heard 3 4% but the provost reported 3%. Coombe reiterated that the increase is set at 3% this year. In doing the multiple-year model, typical increases will be in the 3-4% range. We need to find a way to address salary issues in ways that wont be taken care of by the salary poolDU is looking at ways to fix the structural problem. Watt said that if we look atsalaries at associate level, we are below average. Coombe explained that the problem is that we are tuition driven. We have to think about continual increases.
Giles announced that Lisa Conant has joined the executive committee by special election of the executive committee to balance membership by gender.
He invited new senators to introduce themselves.
Highlights: Giles explained that the name Group of Six reflects the membership of the committee: Cathy Potter, Leon Giles, Dean Saitta, Joy Burns, John Lowe, and Phil Hogue. Senate secretary Julia Chan distributed copies of the recommendations. Giles recognized an oversight that staff was left out of the discussion. He provided an overview of the first recommendation to establish a process regarding the selection and appointment of a new chancellorwhen that time comesand emphasized that the intent was to allow the faculty to make a recommendation but that the decision remained with the BOT. He asked John Lowe if the comments represented fairly the intent of the recommendation. Lowe responded affirmatively.
Discussion: Arthur Best said the document was great and thanked the committee. Giles acknowledged the enthusiasm of the members of the board who served on the G-6 committee.
Dennis Barret expressed concerned that the chancellor is president of the faculty and asked when that occurred. In the senate constitution, the provost is dean of the faculty. Giles and Lowe said the language is in the by-laws of the university. Divine asked if a motion is needed to accept the recommendations. Giles said yes.
Motion: Divine moved that the senate approve the packet of recommendations from the Group of 6. The motion was seconded, and Giles continued his report on the recommendations. The second recommendation regards the establishment of a trustee/faculty discussion group. It has a sunset clauseto be reviewed in 2006-2007 to ensure its continued necessity and viability. The group believes that there are several issues trustees and faculty should be able to sit down informally to discuss. Business meetings are not conducive for such conversations. Trustees have a concern that discussions do not become negotiations on behalf of the faculty or complaint discussions. Faculty G-6 members agreed that the focus of such discussions should be how to move the university forward. Giles spoke with Provost Coombe, and he is willing to be a part of such committee, actually chairing it. Faculty will be appointed from discussions with the provost and the senate president. The board will appoint its representatives. The group will set its own meeting schedule and agenda. Giles sees it as a viable means of opening lines of communication between faculty and trustees. Shannon Hill expressed concern that the board is not willing to listen to faculty whining and asked whether that statement accurately represented their response. Giles said he did not wish to misrepresent the board response. He clarified that they do not want to get into the management of the university, e.g. complaints about how one dean administers the merit pool. There is a very fine line, a gray area between what the BOT should be concerned about and what they delegate to university administrators to manage. The board sets policy, establishes the general direction of the university, and garners resources but moves away from day-to-day management concerns. Dean Saitta added that the committee could have useful conversations about the universitys mission as well as external national issues such as the academic bill of rights or corporate vs. academic culture and how they collide. The G-6 group also talked around the edges of UPAC. Perhaps this committee could talk about the efficacy of certain standing committees and their philosophies. Ved Nanda stated that the committees agenda cant beought not be--very specific. Various issues come up. Whats really important is that such a committee meets, that there are conversations.
Giles reported on the third piece: recommendations having to do with improving communications between faculty and board.
Potter noted a fifth recommendation that is not numbered but is contained in the documents distributed to the senators. Giles explained that the recommendation is to appoint the president of the senate as ex officio member of the finance committee of the BOT. He/she would hold a non-voting membership. The chair of financial planning sits as a voting member. The intent is not to diminish that role. Rather, it is important to have the president there to hear discussions. Gordon Von Stroh said it might be useful to review and summarize the extent to which other senators are involved in other committees. Giles noted that there are several and directed senators to the senate roster on the website.
Vote: Motion Carries.
An agenda for the conference was provided. Giles described the conference as the first step in continuing talks about shared governance at the university and how we want to get to be a tier one school and in the short term at the top of the tier two school ranking.
Divine observed that many faculty are teaching at the time of the conference and asked whether the presenters were going to deliver papers that we could be read. Potter and Giles both thought that the scenarios and many of the speeches have been written. The conference organizers will do their best to put together the proceedings. Bill Anderson asked whether it would be taped. Giles thought taping might hinder open exchange. Barrett moved to adjourn the meeting. Von Stroh asked to make a quick comment regarding the graduate council. He reported that the council is encouraging that graduate policies be unified. They have developed a document that is ready for review.
Anderson announced that the Academic Planning committee wants feed back from the senate at large regarding responding to the academic bill of rights.
Intellectual Property Rights Infringement
University Names and Insignia
Giles called for a motion to initiate discussion of the Intellectual Property and University Names and Insignia policies. He reported that John Coombe met with senate committees to go over the provisions.
Motion: Bill Anderson moved that the committee bring the policies before the senate for discussion. The motion was seconded and discussion ensued.
Giles explained that the copy right infringement policy is viewed as an interim policy developed in response to a national crisis regarding unauthorized copying of digital recordings. Recording companies are becoming increasingly aggressive in pursing people who are copying copyrighted music from the Internet. The movie industry will follow. The university is required to have a policy with regard to this growing concern. The language on Intellectual Property Rights is taken out of the US code. The code requires what the university must do. Potter commented that the issue was referred to a joint meeting of the Personnel and Academic Planning committees and asked whether the meeting had taken place. Giles reported that the joint meeting occurred roughly three weeks ago. J. Coombe was present, and they had a very thorough discussion. Divine interpreted Giless comments essentially what we are saying is that we will obey the law. David Christophel added that one thing that disturbed him. J.Coombes policy primarily addresses punitive measures and does not clearly explain what is considered a violation. Students need to know what an infringement is. Giles said that Coombe is aware of this issue and has indicated that students will be educated on both matters.
With regard to the insignia policy, Giles explained that the document establishes when and how those associated with the university can use the name and addresses the economic aspects of such use. J. Coombe says university has taken a very liberal view regarding this. The only time that the university is concerned is when substantial university resources are used, establishing a university claim. Divine added that using the university name as an endorsement of some product also is prohibited.
Potter asked if the policies could be posted on the website or distributed before we vote on them. Chan distributed copies.
Highlights: The student relations committee is working on a survey. The committee is interested in current practices in evaluating faculty and ensuring equity in that process. They expect to present further information at the next senate meeting. The executive committee is working on how to make the administrator evaluation more effective. DeLyser distributed The Plan for determining how the administrator evaluation tool might be changed to the senators for review. DeLyser would like members of the senate to ask their constituents what they value and what theyd like to get out of the process and why they havent participated in the past. Faculty participation has traditionally been about 30%. DeLyser said that the senate wants to make this process work or get rid of it.
Discussion: Barrett says that the senators must do the work. DeLyser agreed.
Divine suggested that one reason for such low participation may be, in smaller units, confidentiality. Respondents may fee that if they cannot evaluate their supervisors confidentially, why should they complete the rest of the evaluations. DeLyser said one of the issues that we have to explore is whether there are steps that can be taken to raise the level of participation. Barrett said if colleagues trust you, the senator, you might invite private comments as well. Watt asked whether there is evidence that participation in these evaluations have been better in the past, and whether the results seem to have any effect on the administration. Giles said there is no direct evidence, but he knows of a couple of incidents in which they have been a part of a discussion within the hierarch of the university. The evaluation does not seem to be a useful tool as it is used today. He commended the folks who put it together but recognized that it isnt doing what we want it to do. Von Stroh observed that there were a number of administrators who had their positions impacted as a result of the evaluations. He described the effect as more subtle than direct and exact. Barrett asked where should he go to find a copy of the survey as well as the report? DeLyser said the current survey is attached to The Plan. Giles said the report is on-line. Senators may contact the faculty senate office for the password.
Provost Conference on Governance and University Culture: Thursday, October 23, 2003
Adjournment: President Giles adjourned the meeting at 1:38.
Appendix A: G-6
Committee Recommendations
G-6 COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION RE: GUIDELINES
FOR SEARCH FOR CHANCELLOR
OF UNIVERSITY OF DENVER
DISCUSSION
It is quite likely that the methods and procedures utilized by the University of Denver in choosing a chancellor (the University) have varied with the selection of each of the Universitys sixteen chancellors. The purpose of this document is to set out some guidelines to be used in the selection of chancellors of the University.
The bylaws of the University, as amended and reenacted on October 7, 1988, with amendments through November 12, 2001, provide in pertinent part:
The Chancellor shall be selected and appointed by the Board of Trustees for such term and upon such conditions as it may authorize and approve. He shall be the chief executive and administrative officer of the University, President of the Faculties and their medium of communication with the Board of Trustees.
This provision vests the Board of Trustees with the authority to select and appoint the chancellor of the University. It is consistent with the general responsibilities of governing boards and the provisions of the Colorado Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act.[1] The recommended guidelines are intended to enhance the search process, not usurp in any way the authority vested in the Board of Trustees by the bylaws.
The Constitution of the Faculty Senate (Constitution) does not contain any provision dealing directly with the selection of, or search for, a chancellor. As stated in Article I, Purpose, [t]he Faculty Senate shall determine its own agenda, which will be particularly concerned with policies affecting educational activities and academic personnel related to the University as a whole, and the relation of the various academic units to those policies and to one another.
Section A4 of Article IV of the Constitution provides that the Senates purview shall include, but shall not be restricted to:
To designate between one-quarter and one-half of the members (fraction to be determined in consultation with the Provost) any all - University committee which deals with formulating policies or plans, recruiting key personnel, or like manner; and to receive interim, preliminary and final reports from such committees, so that standing Senate committees can contribute suggestions to their deliberations.
In most instances, it has been the practice of the University to include members of the faculty on various search committees for senior academic and administrative positions. It is believed that most of the search committees that have been established in the last decade have included members of the faculty and that the faculty members have represented one-fourth to one-half of the membership of each committee.
The structure and process for the selection and appointment of the most senior officers of an educational institution vary greatly. Some public institutions are constrained by statutory or regulatory requirements.[2] Others spell out in their constitution and bylaws the requirements for and constituency of the search committee.[3] Some universities are utilizing a headhunter to either assist the search committee or submit candidates directly to the appointing authority, usually the governing board.[4] The size of search committees varies greatly. Public institutions tend to establish larger committees, since frequently members of the general public are included on the committee roster.
RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES
It is recommended that the Board of Trustees approve the following guidelines to be used when selecting a chancellor for the University.
1. The Board of Trustees shall establish a search committee of not fewer than eight nor more than sixteen to assist in identifying, evaluating and recommending highly qualified candidates. The committee shall work under the guidance of, and submit its recommendation(s) to, the Board of Trustees.
2. The search committee shall include one or more representatives from the major constituencies of the University, including, without limitation,
(a) trustees
(b) members of the faculty selected by the Faculty Senate in consultation with the Provost,
(c) administration,
(d) staff,
(e) students, and
(f) alumni.
3. The number of representatives of the various constituencies on the search committee shall be determined by the Board of Trustees, except that members of the faculty shall represent not less than 25% of the membership of the committee.
4. It is expected that in carrying out its responsibilities, the search committee will
(a) develop and recommend to the Board of Trustees an outline of the qualifications desired in the candidates, and
(b) define and recommend to the Board of Trustees a process by which input from the broader University community will be sought by the committee.
5. The Board of Trustees may authorize the use of a personnel search firm (headhunter) to assist the search committee.
6. The deliberations of the search committee and its final report will be held in confidence.
September 10, 2003 G-6 Committee
Joy Burns
Leon Giles
Phillip Hogue
John Low
Cathryn Potter
Dean Saitta
H:\CLIENT\JLOW\UNIV DENV\Chancellor
Guidelines-Revised.doc
G-6 COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION RE:
TRUSTEE-FACULTY DISCUSSION GROUP
BACKGROUND
Several opportunities currently exist for faculty and trustees to discuss issues of mutual interest. These are afforded by shared participation in formal and informal activities at the unit and University levels, and by the presence of faculty on several trustee committees. However, additional opportunities for in-depth, informal communications are desirable because (a) faculty interest in matters before the Board sometimes transcends the agenda of a single Board committee, and (b) Board of Trustee meetings tend to be business meetings characterized by extensive agendas, presentations by administrative units, and voting on recommendations formulated elsewhere. A mechanism that can broaden the opportunity and enhance the ability for faculty and trustees to discuss in a meaningful and confidential way issues of mutual concern would better integrate campus constituencies and benefit University governance.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend establishing a nine member University committee
for the purpose of continuing constructive, substantive discussions between
trustees and faculty on issues of mutual interest. The committee should be composed of the Provost serving as chair,
the President of the Faculty Senate, three faculty to be selected and appointed
jointly by the Provost and the President of the Faculty Senate, and four
members from the Board of Trustees to be identified by the Chair of the Board
of Trustees. Faculty should serve
staggered, two-year terms, with the Senate Presidents term running
concurrently with his/her two-year term of office. Trustee appointments will be determined by the Chair of the
Board. It is anticipated that the
group would meet three times each academic year, although it may vary from this
frequency at its initiative. The
existence and purpose of this committee will be reviewed by the Board and
Senate during the 2006-07 academic year.
G-6 COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECITALS
A. The Board of Trustees and the Faculty Senate desire to enhance the opportunities for communication and understanding between members of the Board of Trustees and members of the faculty.
B. The Board of Trustees and the Faculty Senate believe that the following will be beneficial in increasing communication and understanding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Trustee Affairs Committee will seek to include on the Board of Trustees at least one individual with strong academic experience and a national or regional academic reputation. The President of the Faculty Senate may, from time to time, submit to the Chair of the Trustee Affairs Committee the names of potential candidates with academic experience and reputation.
2. The Faculty Senate, in collaboration with the Provosts Office, shall provide to the Trustee Affairs Committee a set of orientation documents focusing on academic roles and decision processes, including the roles and responsibilities of the Faculty Senate and the major academic decision-making groups at the University. As part of the orientation of new members of the Board of Trustees, the Trustee Affairs Committee shall distribute to each new trustee and other trustees who may be interested, copies of the orientation materials provided by the Faculty Senate.
3. The President of the Faculty Senate may invite each new trustee to meet with the President of the Faculty Senate during the trustees first year of service.
4. The President of the Faculty Senate may invite each new trustee to attend a meeting of the Faculty Senate during the trustees first year of service.
5. The President of the Faculty Senate will be appointed as an ex officio member of the Finance Committee of the Board of Trustees.
[1] The University was not organized under this Act, but it reflects the general understanding of the duties of a Board of Directors or Trustees. Section 7-128-301 C.R.S. provides: Officers may be appointed by the Board of Directors or in such other manner as the Board of Directors or bylaws may provide.
[2] Title 133 of the West Virginia statutes sets out in detail the requirements applicable to the search for a president of various West Virginia state colleges.
[3] See Constitution and Bylaws of Northern Illinois University.
[4] On May 23, 2000 Harvard Crimson in describing the search process for the 27th president of Harvard University reported: The responsibility for the search, and the final decision, lies with the Harvard Corporation, the Universitys six-member governing board. The University will likely employ an academic head hunting firm to narrow the field of candidates. The search will take at least six to eight months, says a member of one such firm in Boston.