Minutes

Faculty Senate

October 13, 2000

12:00 - 1:30 pm

Following the welcome by President Sadler, Professor Ved Nanda was asked to give his perspective on Senate history. Dr. Nanda is a past president of the former University Senate. Dr. Nanda noted that during his tenure the Board of Trustees of the University first invited the Senate President to attend meetings of the Trustees. During that time, the Chancellor was not supportive of faculty governance. Dr. Nanda praised Chancellor Ritchie for his support for shared governance.

At the September meeting it was requested that the Senate be provided with information on the structure of the Board of Trustees (BOT). President Sadler provided a chart summarizing the BOT subcommittees and discussed the Senate and faculty representation on each committee.

The Faculty Athletic Representative (Dr. Nancy Sampson) serves on the Athletic Affairs committee. The NCAA requires such a representative, who is charged with ensuring the academic integrity of the athletic program.

The Chair of the Senate Finance Committee (Dr. Leon Giles) serves on the BOT Finance and Budget Committee.

The BOT Faculty and Educational Affairs Committee (FEAC) has several faculty members. The Faculty Senate President (Dr. Susan Sadler) and the Faculty Athletic Representative (Dr. Sampson) serve on the committee by virtue of their positions. There are three elected faculty representatives ( Dr. Herschel Neumann, Dr. Barbara Wilcots and Dr. Dean Saitta).

The remaining BOT committees (Building and Grounds, Audit, Investment and Institutional Advancement) have no faculty representation.

President Sadler encouraged members of the Senate to actively support the University's Giving Campaign.

Nancy Sampson reported on the upcoming Faculty Load Module of the Banner System. While the Banner System has been little impact on the faculty as yet, the Faculty Load Module will give the administration more information about faculty deployment and can be used in a planning capacity. Dr. Sheila Summers-Thompson is convening a group to examine the issues that emerge. There is room for faculty to join this group.

Chip Reichardt and Gerry Chapman were involved a few years ago with Linda Cobb Reilly and Barry Hughes in a revision of the APT document. This revised document will now come to the Senate, the Faculty and Administration for discussion. The draft will come to the Personnel and Executive Committees of the Senate for initial review. Dr. Chapman noted that the Senate must take consideration of the document very seriously. New faculty series are proposed as are some changes in pre-tenure review. Common understanding between faculty and administrators regarding the number and/or percentage of non-tenure-track faculty members is a critical issue.

A draft of the new Intellectual Property Policy of the University was provided to all Senators. This draft emerges from John Coombe's committee on this subject and involves a new understanding of both copyright and "course-ware" ownership. The draft is to be discussed at the upcoming FEAC meeting. Several things have happened since the draft was first circulated, and the draft will certainly change in some respects. John Coombe made some changes including additional exclusions from the faculty share of income from use of faculty-developed materials. Arthur Best reported these changes at Mr. Coombe's request, and noted his grave concerns about both the process and the final document. Specifically, Dr. Best is concerned about the low level of faculty membership on the committee and the lack of general faculty examination of the draft. He is also concerned about revisions with negative faculty consequences having been made following publishing of the draft and without faculty input.

The Executive Committee of the Senate has also offered suggestions for revisions. Faculty members of FEAC will raise the concerns at the FEAC meeting.

Provost Zaranka was asked if the entire faculty would have a chance to review the draft before final consideration by the Board. He assured Senators that faculty would have this opportunity. It was decided that Senators were free to share the draft with their colleagues, with the caveat that the draft is for internal University discussion only. Comments may be sent to Mr. Coombe or to President Sadler and Provost Zaranka. President Sadler and Provost Zaranka would appreciate receiving copies of all comments. Discussion was tabled to the November Senate meeting when Mr. Coombe will attend to discuss the daft.

Provost Zaranka presented a copy of a proposal for a University Planning Process that would include faculty and administrators in a joint leadership group focused on long-range planning. Many constituencies have asked for a "seat at the table" related to the development of the University budget. As we emerge from the NCA accreditation process, it will be important to use the information gathered for planning. The proposed leadership group would include representation from senior staff, deans, Senate and faculty at large. Four key questions emerged from the recent senior administration retreat and set the stage for this group:

Can we craft a new vision that builds on the NCA report?

Can such a vision be crafted and presented to the BOT by June, 2000?

Can we improve the way we use planning processes for decision making?

Can we establish an inclusive planning group?

Provost Zaranka encouraged Senate members to offer comments to him. He is also asking for nominations of faculty members to serve on such a committee. A question arose over the Senate's right to appoint members to the committee. Provost Zaranka responded that the Senate is most likely to be asked to approve members appointed by the Provost.

Quote of the Day:

Dr. Jack Donnelly "I think it is wonderful, and I thank you."

The Academic Planning Committee chair (Dr. Dean Saitta) reported on the committee's primary focus for the coming year: A faculty for the future. Given the current focus on a new vision and mission and given the many new initiatives relating to extended learning and distance education, the committee feels that consideration of faculty composition is critical.

A subcommittee will look at distance education. This group will examine other universities' efforts to develop guiding principles for distance education initiatives, including principles focusing on the ratio of tenured and non-tenured faculty involved, technical support and intellectual property. Federique Chevillot and Roger Salters will head this group. It was noted that Dean Griesemer has proposed an advisory committee for DU-XL that will be established at some time in the future. The Senate will encourage development of the group in the near future, and will insist on the requisite 25% faculty membership.

Senate members were asked to promote discussion in their academic units about a "minimum permanent faculty size".

Fourteen proposals were submitted to the Faculty Research Fund. The Vice-Provost for Research (Dr. Sarah Nelson) has made some changes in these awards. Faculty recipients now have 18 months to expend the funds. Both transportation and per diem costs may be covered and retroactive proposals will be considered. All faculty may apply for these funds, although priority will continue to be given to junior faculty and faculty from departments without access to flow-back funds. The Office of Sponsored Programs will publish this information on its web-site.

Finance Committee chair, Dr. Leon Giles reported that the Finance Committee met recently with Gil Brown, the Interim budget Director, Janet Allis and Craig Woody. These administrators appear to be seeking a broader communication with the Senate. A calendar of meeting dates has been set for both the Finance Committee and The Executive committee. Current modeling for next year's budget anticipates a merit pool of 4.5%. Undergraduate enrollment is up, whereas graduate enrollment presents a mixed picture. The BOT is considering a tuition increase of 6 - 7%. Parking spaces will increase 81% following the completion of current construction. Modeling of the athletic budget now assumes an ongoing University contribution of 2.3% of net tuition. Jack Donnelly noted that all earlier business plans and projections modeled athletics as self-sustaining.

The Student Relations Committee chair, Joe Kraus, reported a recent meeting between the committee student representatives. Students report that they are primarily concerned with the University's decision-making processes and feel that more consensus building is needed. Student leaders feel that the BOT is not composed of educators and tends to treat students as products rather than students. Students remain concerned about parking, about timely transfers of credits, and about Ph.D. student access to the Ritchie Center. Student leaders are very pleased with the Honor Code and encourage faculty members to discuss it in each class.

Respectfully Submitted 10/24/00

Cathryn C. Potter

Secretary, Faculty Senate