March 10, 2000
Guests: John Coombe, Vice-Chancellor of Intellectual Property and Events.
Susan Sadler called the meeting to order in the absence of Arthur Best who is travelling. She explained that the meeting would be a working meeting, hence the arrangement of the tables.
Minutes from the February 11 meeting were approved without corrections or additions.
John Coombe introduced himself and defined intellectual property as "property that you cant touch" like trademarks, patents, copyright, and performance. He calls himself a "performance lawyer" and deals with "elite human performance and the economic and legal issues that arise as a result of it. He deals specifically with contracts, arrangements, and transactions that pertain to performance. His office is concerned with events on campus ranging from concerts to sporting events to significant speakers and collections of speakers. His range of responsibility covers:
He is also deeply involved with the campus community. New intellectual property policy for the university is being developed. Except for the recently revised patent policy, existing policies have not been revised in many years. The need to protect the ownership rights of the university and its employees is growing, especially in the face of Web-based technology which creates entirely new opportunities for piracy and theft of intellectual property.
Question: Is there a timeline for development of the policy?
Answer: Within the next two months. The Intellectual Property Committee has been working on it for the last six months. (NB: The Committee consists of 25 members and is in compliance with the Senate's constitutionally defined 25% participation by faculty members). The Committee has a number of good models to work from. The policy recently developed by Harvard is a good example. The Committee's charge is to develop a policy that matches the DU culture.
Question (Dalila Megherbi): Re: the revised patent policy. How soon can faculty expect to publish following the filing of a patent application?
Answer: As soon as you file. Faculty do not yet need permission to publish, although this is an issue currently under discussion. The question is whether faculty publication gives away university intellectual property. According to Coombe, "work for hire" has been traditionally waived in higher education, except in the sciences. All universities are currently rethinking this issue, given the explosion of Web technology, and the rise of new competitive issues attending the rise of the cyber-university. Coombe may be reached at email@example.com.
Reports from standing committees:
Academic Planning Committee. There are currently 2 working groups in the APC dealing with the Honor code and the Core curriculum.
Honor Code (Jack Donnelly).This group is working with the Student Relations Committee to develop procedures for implementing the Honor Code for students. Its focus is on broad philosophical questions. Details will be developed. The goal is to finish before the end of this academic year. In order to proceduralize implementation of the honor code, the Faculty Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure (APT) Guidelines must also be amended. Sadler asked Provost Zaranka if he would clarify the procedures for updating the APT document. Zaranka answered that Barry Hughes and Linda Cobb-Reiley recently made revisions to the document, but that there were several issues needing to be resolved, including "What percent of faculty should be without tenure?" What needs to be done in terms of the Honor Code is to integrate wording in appropriate places. In speaking of a timeline, Zaranka observed that APT revisions move glacially. The Honor Code working group is currently waiting for the student initiative to take shape, then will use it as a guideline. The ad hoc working group will work with the Personnel Committee to ascertain what wording needs to be integrated. Documents pertaining to staff and trustees will also need to be amended. The Honor Code initiative will be ongoing throughout the summer.
Core Curriculum: Notice of Motion (Dean Saitta):
This Notice of Motion addressed the process for ratifying proposals for broad curricular change, including the upcoming revisions to the CORE. The Core Curriculum Committee is just finishing up, getting input from administrators and faculty. It hopes to have its proposed revisions ready for discussion after spring break in April. The Executive Committee of the Senate proposes in the attached NOM that Senators collect departmental votes from the Three faculties and the two professional schools. These votes will be reported in to the Nominations, Credentials, and Rules (NCR) Committee, and to the Senate. The Motion consists of two parts: a reporting, procedural piece, and an implementation piece. Discussion will follow point by point. Traditionally the Senate has published a NOM on month before it is voted upon. In response to a question from Gerald Chapman, Sadler indicated that discussion and consideration may begin immediately, that the opportunity for amendment exists, and that a vote will be taken at the April 7 meeting.
Les Goodchild (College of Education) asked why the Senate would not be voting on proposed revisions to the CORE since broad curricular reform is the concern of all faculty members, and the Faculty Senate represents them. Donnelly responded that this matter had been discussed, and that a Senate vote was considered to be redundant, once concerned faculties had already voted. He pointed to past history in which the Senate voted one way and the teaching faculty voted another. Goodchild reiterated that the Senate speaks for faculty as a whole. That this is a matter of academic governance. Jennifer Pap pointed out that the issue at hand is a curricular one, not a governance or process issue. She indicated that she would prefer that the vote to be more focused on teaching. Goodchild insisted that process of a Senate vote is symbolic and should not be ignored. Robert Urquhart suggested that perhaps the real issue is the fact that, if the NOM is passed, not all faculty members will be eligible to vote. In that case, a Senate vote would represent views of the non-voting. Goodchild reiterated that all faculty should be involved with major curricular change, not just major stakeholders. Urquhart argued for inclusion of only relevant faculty members. (re: Points 3-4)
Sadler asked that the discussion return to Point 1, which addresses the function of the Senate as collecting the vote of the faculty. She pointed out that this provision does not preclude a vote of the Senate. Donnelly suggested that Pointe 1-2 be approved and that a sixth point be added to stipulate the necessity of a Senate vote on Core revisions. Goodchild pointed out that the Senate already represents all faculty members. Kathryn Potter asked if there were anyone who would argue that such a vote should be made only be Senate? Goodchild indicated that "that would be cleaner."
Part 2 of the NOM defines balloting process and constituencies. Donnelly questioned the efficacy of a procedure requiring a number of individuals to collect votes. He pointed out the potential for problems if individual senators don't meet their obligations, and asked if NCR might be a more appropriate body to collect the votes? Sadler explained that the NCR has oversight only over the activities of the Senate. Donnelly also questioned the "full-time" designation, which he said would disenfranchise administrators. Ved Nanda suggested the use of the words "continuing appointments as professors" as a friendly amendment to the wording. Donnelly asked what such wording would mean for the lecturers and instructors actively engaged in teaching the Core. There was no vote.
The question was also raised about implications for clinical (non-tenure track) faculty. Zaranka explained that long standing appointments, of highly valued, non-tenure track faculty members had come to be categorized as clinical. The designation is irrelevant for this vote. It was suggested that the NOM be returned to the Executive Committee so that the list for inclusion might be amended. Nanda asked that this not preclude a vote at the next meeting. He proposed that it be the Sense of Senate that we should go ahead and vote, trusting the Executive Committee to clean up the wording.
Paula Rhodes, Chair of NCR returned to the earlier question of NCR involvement, saying that the Committees role does not include the function of collecting and tallying votes of the entire faculty.She pointed out that no provision is made in the Senate's Constitution for this function which would be time consuming and burdensome. Rather the burden should be shared by the entire Senate, and the Senate Office. Goodchild observed that NCR had conducted such duties in the past. Donnelly asked again how the Senate should deal with units whose vote is not provided? If senators fail to do their job, a unit is disenfranchised. He believes there is a definite need for a backup procedure. George Potts requested clarification of the definition of "constituencies," explaining that it would appear they are defined not as individual departments, but as divisional units. He observed that there would be, therefore, only five constituencies (Three Faculties; two professional schools), and therefore only five senators would be collecting votes.
Sadler requested that discussion stay in order. It was pointed out that there are not individual senators from the constituencies as currently defined, and the question was raised, "How do we pick five?" Megherbi asked for a definition of "broad curricular change." Goodchild answered, "Beyond the major." He went on to explain that in the past, any matter that affects more than one unit on campus is a matter for the entire Senate. Donnelly and Potts observed that the current NOM pertains to broad change, not to inter-departmental cooperative efforts; the upcoming revisions may result in broad curricular changes that will affect a majority of units on campus. Zaranka concurred, urging care lest the senate be considering every joint major, etc. Undergraduate and Graduate Councils are forums for this level of curriculum-related change. He urged that the Senate avoid minutia. Donnelly suggested striking Part 1 altogether and ordering a faculty referendum, thus avoiding a statement of general principles altogether. Leon Giles asked that it be retained, so as to keep the Senate involved.
Discussion of Lines 2-3 followed. re: proposals that redefine curricular requirements. Zaranka asked if restrict ourselves to such specific wording? Nanda suggested that appropriate language should carefully define the role of the Senate. He also proposed that the Executive Committee should revise the NOM, bringing back a statement of broad principle that could then be redirected to the Core Proposal. Donnelly stated a motion to restructure the first part of the NOM, which was seconded by Ved Nanda. Sadler suggested tabling the NOM for the time being, and invited senators to email suggestions to her firstname.lastname@example.org and to Dean Saitta email@example.com so that the Executive Committee can do a rewrite.
Discussion continued. A Sense of the Senate was proposed on the last three parts. A proposal is coming that will reshape existing governance structure that will necessitate changes in the Constitution of the Faculty Senate. It is desirable to separate curriculum matters from those pertaining to governance. Pieces will need to be separated. Traci Ehlers asked what would happen if the faculty were to vote down the Core. Sadler responded that it would then go to the Provost: Zaranka: explained that if the voting constituencies are those defined in Part 4 of the NOM, there will be no problem. It is his hope that only units actively involved in teaching the Core will be involved in the vote. He fears that a vote of the full faculty might be a "terrible mistake." In such a case, the Core could conceivably be voted down. Potts pointed out that it is very important to determine who are and to verify how votes are being collected: by department, division, school, etc. He will help Sadler rewrite Part 4. Andy(?) indicated that he would like this discussion serve as the official NOM so that, if the motion comes back in an acceptable form, it can be voted upon. Goodchild pointed out that once again that faculty members in the College of Education are being disenfranchised; that they will be unable to vote on major, undergraduate curricular reform, and made a plea for a majority vote of the senate. Zaranka observed that Education has no undergraduate majors, as much as it is concerned. Modifications and changes in the motion will be published prior to next Senate meeting (4/7/00), hopefully a vote can be held at that time. Nanda pointed out that it is both symbolic and appropriate that the Senate express its view to augment the vote of participating faculty. The Conversation was tabled until the next meeting.
Nominations, Credentials, and Rules (Paula Rhodes). Rhodes presented an update to procedures and timeline for Senate voting. She also announced that two at-large positions will be available during the elections in May. A secretary needs to be elected. According to the Constitution, this position to to held for a single term only, and the incumbent is ineligible for a consecutive term. She suggested that this guideline has not been held to in the past, and is this has not been held to. And is open to interpretation.
Personnel Committee (Deborah Howard). Howard reported that the potential exists for a reciprocal tuition exchange for children of faculty and staff. There is a national association which coordinates and advertises opportunities. DU can join this association. No money will be involved, except the fee required to join the association. Details can be negotiated. Caps can be put in place, scholarships and benefits can be adjusted. She explained that each year 40-50 tuition waivers are used at DU. Perhaps half of these could be used reciprocally. Participating institutions include universities like Washington University, and the University of Puget Sound. Such a program could be good advertising for the university. The magazines that rank DU send out surveys to academics. Name recognition could be enhanced by reciprocity. Howard would like to help in organizing such an initiative.
Student Relations Committee (Jennifer Pap). Pap announced that she had met with students of the AUSA Senate to solicit their input on possible Core revisions. She explained that she understood the touchiness of the issue -- that curriculum is a faculty prerogative, There is, however, an Academic Affairs Committee in the AUSA. This might be venue for collaboration.
Faculty Athletic Committee (Luc Beaudoin). Tabled for the time being.
Faculty Review Committee. Notice of Motion. (Gerald Chapman). Chapman explained that in Section 1.c. of the Constitution of the Faculty Senate, the Faculty Review Committee is charged with considering (for review, investigation, evaluation, and report) grievances by faculty respecting reappointment, promotion, tenure, or dismissal. This is the traditional duty of the Faculty Review Committee. It is a venue of last resort. A problem now exists because the Senate amended the charge, by adding 1.a. and 1.b. which vastly enlarge the Committees mandate without providing a set of procedures or guidelines. FRC is asking for help in interpreting and implementing the expanded charge. The Committee has already consulted with the Provost and with University Counsel, Paul Chan. All members concur that faculty with a grievance should be able to turn to fellow faculty members. Other avenues do exist, however, including the AAUP, unions, Human Resources, the ombudsofficer. Faculty Senate is the only unit that is exclusively collegial. That is why it is necessary to have guidelines available and widely publicized. FRC is asking for the authority of the Senate to underweight its charge.
On behalf of Committee, he proposed a motion in 2 parts:
Donnelly amended that the Executive Committee be asked to act as counsel in the interim.Paula Rhodes seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.
Sadler expressed a concern for timing, with the end of the academic year looming. She asked if senators would consider having an extra meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 1:37 p.m.
Deborah S. Grealy,