University of Denver
President Leon Giles opened the meeting at 12:09.
Approval of Senate minutes for October 17, 2003
The minutes were approved.
Giles extended Provost Coombes regrets that he could not attend the senate meeting today due to a scheduling conflict. Provost Coombe asked Giles to report that he has built into the budget process for the next fiscal year (05) a line item of $200,000 for the faculty research fund. Provost Coombe views this as a first step in enhancing the research fund. The senate needs to work with the provost to develop a plan for managing the funds. Provost Coombe also asked Giles to respond to rumors regarding the vice provost for graduate studies and research position. Jim Moran was appointed as interim vice provost for three years. While no time line has been established, there will be a national search to fill the position. Provost Coombe has asked the deans to comment on how we might conduct more effective national searches.
Discussion/vote on University policiesJohn Coombe
Intellectual Property Right Infringement
University Names and Insignia
Highlights: In addition to the two aforementioned policies, J. Coombe also talked about the university patent agreement. He reported on the nation-wide move on the part of the music and film industries to protect their copyrighted materials. A wave of lawsuits against students resulted from these efforts. DU has not been sued, but it is important to become aware of the trend toward litigation and to inform our students regarding what constitutes copyright infringement. A group was convened during the past summer to determine what must be done to provide sufficient notice to the university community, alerting them to the liability risks. The policy primarily reflects the law but includes one significant DU-specific paragraph regarding the universitys responsibility to turn over the name of users who violate copyright law. For the sake of due process, the university sent out an interim policy, with the understanding that it would need senate review and approval. J. Coombe holds the position that the university has no choice but to disclose information regarding those who violate the law. The university has the freedom to determine its legal responsibility to disclose on a case-by-case basis. The policy was posted on the web, distributed electronically to everyone with a DU e-mail account, and reported in The Clarion. Additionally, paper copies were distributed to all in-coming first year students. J. Coombe reported on a few interesting national developmentsamnesty has been offered by the recording industry, which requires a confession of guilt and promise not to infringe further. Almost no one that he has talked to finds this to have validity. The development that seems more promising comes out of Penn State--the president of Penn State entered into a contract that provided a license offering the university community access to thousands of recordings.
Discussion: Buie Seawell, asked how DUs policy compared to those of other institutions. J. Coombe said that our policy was well considered and is mostly akin to Stanford and North Carolinas policies. Seawell commented on the outstanding nature of DUs discussions with students regarding the matter. J. Coombe agreed. He was pleased with the responses he received from students and noted that none were negative. David Christophel asked what was done to educate students as to what constitutes an infringement. J. Coombe noted that Christophels question had prompted a concerted effort to contact students and properly educate them. Donald Hughes asked whether authorities would have access to the e-mail of those charged with infringements. Coombe said that DU generally protects the privacy of our users; however, if we get a subpoena asking for access, we must comply. This is the law. Jack Donally asked why the language of other lawful request is in the policy. J. Coombe said that there are several ways, in addition to the subpoena, that the university could be compelled to turn over information, and the wording is intended to reflect as much.
Highlights: Names, Insignia, Symbols, and Seal of the University. DU needed a policy regarding how the name can be used because a few problems arose last year. J. Coombe explored how other universities handled such problems. The goal of the policy is to prevent misrepresentation. Basically, the policy says it is unacceptable to use the name and symbols of the university in such a way as to imply that the university is involved in something in which it is not. Those affiliated with the university must go through an approval process to use the DU name, insignia, symbols, or seal. Problems in the past have included faculty contracting with outside entities to do seminars at DU but implying that DU is sponsoring the program. Evoking laughter, J. Coombe described the DU policy as 50% Harvard and 50% common sense.
J. Coombe also reported that the Employee Patent Policy has been updated and brought in line with the Intellectual Property Policy. He described the dated version as more oppressive than the new Intellectual Property Policy. The updated language comes from Princetons patent policy. The new policy limits university rights to only those products made with substantial university involvement. An important value of the revision, according to J. Coombe is that it provides a protocol or formal statement of what happens when a faculty member makes a disclosure. All new employees will sign the agreement; however, existing faculty are not required to do so.
J. Coombe also reported that DU is trying to establish a tech transfer department or function. The purpose of such a function or department would be to evaluate the technology that comes out of our research and to investigate possibilities for exploitation. He would like to see us partner with other universities.
Discussion: Catherine Potter asked whether it is appropriate to call the question. Giles clarified the point of order: because the patent policy is already a policy of the university, there is no need for a vote. J. Coombes information on that issue required no further action. Giles noted that old faculty members who have not signed the policy may but are not required to do so. Giles explained that the reports on the intellectual property and names and insignia policies required a senate vote.
Motion: Giles called for a vote on the intellectual property policy: Motion is passed.
Motion: Giles called for a vote on the names and insignia policy: Motion is passed.
Formal Recognition of Julia ChanLeon Giles
Giles took a moment of personal privilege to acknowledge senate secretary Julia Chan for her work with the senate during the past 1 years. On behalf of the senate, he thanked her, awarded her a gift, and wished her well in her life beyond DU. A new assistant will be announced in January
Provost Conference ReportLeon Giles
Giles reported that while 150 persons registered for the conference, many more participated. He acknowledged that the timing was not great, resulting in a less than impressive turnout. The date was set so that BOT members could attend. Three members attended for the full day; one other joined in the afternoon. Giles expressed disappointment in the in the faculty turnout. He understands the impact of the scheduling problem; however, he found faculty attendance embarrassing. He encouraged senators to keep in mind the importance of faculty participation in effectively working with the BOT. He reported that the senate will post the primary speeches to the website. They also will be printed in a series in the Faculty Forum. He assessed the conference, overall, as favorably received and successful and reported positive responses from the BOT and the provost. Giles specifically acknowledge the hard work of Catherine Potter, Dean Saitta, Sandy Dixon, Joe Szyliowicz, and Arthur Best.
Report on Trustee action on G-6 recommendationsLeon Giles
Giles reported that the BOT approved all of the G-6 recommendations. He already has talked with B. Coombe and Joy Burns regarding implementation. All of the recommendations may be implemented at this time. The first to be implemented will be the G-9 committee. Giles requested input for a more effective name for the committee. The goal is to institute the committee as early as January. The BOT was extremely interest and excited about this recommendation. Joy Burns is in the process of drawing names together for BOT representations. Giles will have discussions with the provost regarding faculty representations. Giles reported that Provost Coombe feels very strongly regarding improving the influence of the senate and believes all representatives should come from the senate. Giles concurs. Nominations may be sent to Giles. The Executive Committee will work with Giles on putting together orientation documentation for the BOTs new members. Giles views the APT document as the most important contract that the faculty has with the BOT and expressed surprise that they do not customarily receive a copy of that document. He reiterated that the BOT approved the recommendations unanimously. (Note: The recommendations are available on the Faculty Senate website as Appendix A of the October 17, 2003 minutes.)
Report/discussion concerning academic bill of rightsBill Anderson
Highlights: Anderson reported that Dean Saitta provided a draft response to the academic bill of rights and invited reactions from the faculty. The draft will be on the website shortly. If you have suggestions regarding what the faculty should to do with the response, please direct them to Anderson. Notice of Motion: The committee offered a motion that the senate adopt the position outlined in the response.
Discussion: Dennis Barrett asked if the draft would be posted and comments received prior to a vote at the next meeting. Giles and Potter said yes. Andy Divine noted that the draft includes a preamble stating that the purpose of the document is to reiterate principles already in place at the university. Helga Watt stated that she is bothered by the whole notion that anyone should look at the political affiliations of faculty. Divine said that the drafted statement is our answer to that concern. Shannon Hill requested a change in language from research to scholarly and creative activity to ensure inclusiveness. Divine pointed out that such language is in the statement. Anderson said there is no harm in adding such language wherever appropriate. Giles said the draft is a great starting point in responding to the academic bill of rights in a positive way.
Highlights: Giles reported that the executive committee is concerned that the faculty be assertive in communicating to faculty and administration the rights and responsibilities of faculty in university searches. The executive committee wishes to consider how we might become more effective in such processes.
Discussion: Rick Leaman asked who selects university-wide search committees. Giles reported that when responsibility for the search lies with the provosts office, the provost comes to either the chair of the NCR committee or the president of the senate for nominees. The senate president, in consultation with the executive committee makes recommendations to the provost. Leaman asked specifically about the vice chancellor for enrollment search. Giles responded that responsibilities lie with the chancellors office. Margaret Whitt and Potter noted that there are 19 total members of that search committee, and 6 are faculty members. Potter reported that Dean Gregg Kvistad consulted with Provost Coombe for faculty appointees. Giles reported that 25-50% faculty representation on university wide committees is required. Problems arise when committees that require very broad constituencies result in committees of 20-25 people and become dysfunctional. He suggested that the senate might need a new process for nominating faculty. Potter observed that we have a large number of failed searches in which no candidate is chosen and someone subsequently is appointed and sham searches in which the outcome is a foregone conclusion. The issue for her is not so much who is on committees but how we ensure a democratic process for searches. She wondered whether some committee could work with the provost to develop a statement of commitment to search process. Divine suggested that such a commitment should be applied to both academic and administrative leadership. Giles suggested that the president-elect take the leadership on moving the discussion forward and coming to the senate with recommendations about what we might do next. Barrett commented that the AAUP has a protocol on how to conduct searches. He proposed that it might be time to look again to see if those guidelines might be useful. Anderson asked for a copy the AAUP guidelines. Potter agreed to spearhead the discussion.
NCR: Dennis Barrett reported that a Faculty Athletic Committee member resigned, creating the need to fill the seat for a six-month interim. He proposed to the executive committee that the runner-up from the last election be asked to serve. The executive committee approved the proposal, and Brian Peko agreed to serve.
Financial Planning: David Longbrake reported that financial planning was charged with seeking more involvement in the university budget planning process. He met with the provost several times this summer and found him willing to provide materials relative to the FY 05 budget, marking the first time that the senate will have an opportunity to offer input during this phase of budget planning. Longbrake also reported that the financial planning committee agreed to take on a cost of living studynot only for the Denver metropolitan area but also in regard to the metro areas of identified peer institutions as indicated by the sustainability committee of UPAC.
Academic Planning: Bill Anderson reported that the main business of the committee recently has been the distribution of faculty research funds. The committee has worked in connection with Jim Morans office. They received proposals totaling $65,000 and had only $45,000 for distribution. The committee distributed only half of that amount, reserving the rest for the spring round. Anderson said he would be happy to talk with those who were not awarded. Shannon Hill suggested that the committee follow-up the awards by announcing who the recipients are and making their proposals available for review. Anderson responded that the committee would need to understand the purpose of such a request before agreeing to that kind of follow-up. Discussion regarding the relationship between the Faculty Research Fund and the proposed enhanced sabbatical was raised. Potter clarified that the provost expressed a willingness to direct more money to faculty research but not necessarily a commitment to dump it into the existing Faculty Research Fund. Giles added that senate needs to take several models to Provost Coombe for an effective means of distributing those funds and addressing the issue of accountability. The enhanced sabbatical is not off the table but must be presented in a manner different from last years model. Divine added that Susan Sadlers proposal a few years ago might be a starting point for considering revisions to the process. The direction we ought to go is to return responsibility for accountability back to the departments. David Christophel asked if a joint committee will be established to address this issue. Giles reported that it is under way.
Personnel: Arthur Best reported that Susan Lee, director or diversity and equal opportunity approached the senate to request approval of interim rules in order to handle existing sexual harassment and discrimination cases. The current rules are outdated, and some process needs to be in place as the rules are revised. He encouraged senators to make their colleagues aware that some aspects of the printed guidelines might not be in practice. Best also reported that the committee had received sabbatical applications and planned to review them following the senate meeting.
New business: Diane Waldman expressed concern that the AHSS division seems to be instituting dramatic changes in the use of student evaluations that will impact greatly tenure and promotion. She asked where the senate stood on the matter. Helga Watt reported that the issue was tabled at chairs meeting until January but she shares Dianes concerns. Catherine Freeman reported that the economics department was informed of the changes as if they were a done deal and suggested that the senate step in quickly. Giles said he could not respond definitively. The university has a requirement that courses will be evaluated by students. It is left up to the individual divisions as to how they will be used. He will talk with Provost Coombe and will raise the issue that there are concerns. Giles referred the concern to student affairs. Jack Donnelly said that the issue ultimately is about promotion and tenure. Watt said that a joint committee is necessary. Giles said the issue will be referred to a joint committee
Adjournment: President Giles adjourned the meeting at 1:45.