February 15, 2007
Loyola Marymount University
Faculty Senate Minutes
February 15, 2007, 2007
Collins Center
3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Present: Cynthia Becht, Jeffrey Davis, Charles Erven, Sonny Espinoza, Véronique Flambard-Weisbart, Vicki Graf, Paul Harris, Chun I. Lee, Blake Mellor, Mel Mendelson, Ed Mosteig, Liz Murray, Damon Rago, Nina Reich, James Roe, Rhonda Rosen, Jonathan Rothchild, Sue Scheibler and Seth Thompson
Excused: Najwa Al-Qattan, Gary Kuleck, Yvette Lapayese, Jennifer Offenberg, K. J. Peters and Ralph Quiñones
President Graf called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. She began the meeting with a moment of silence to reflect upon the work we do.
I. Conversation with Robert B. Lawton, S.J., President, Loyola Marymount University
- Fr. Lawton thanked the Faculty Senate for its work. He framed his conversation by elaborating on the image “becoming more ourselves” taken from his convocation address. After deciding it was impossible to identify specifics for the idea of “moving to the next level,” Fr. Lawton said he changed the image to envision LMU not aspiring to become “something else” but instead to become a stronger self. He focused on three dichotomies:
1. Teaching and scholarship. These can be mutually rewarding but also competing demands. LMU has the opportunity to try to find the balance. One of the ways we can become more fully ourselves is by attempting the balance, which includes having conversations such as the current one on workload. By preserving the value of balancing, worked out in the practical arena, LMU can work toward this in an intentional way.
2. Rewarding outstanding achievement and recognizing on-going achievement. LMU also must strike a balance between appreciating the ordinary achievement that keeps the institution running and rewarding extraordinary achievement. The challenge will be to find ways to nurture extraordinary effort without denigrating the achievement of others.
3. Academic Affairs and Student Affairs. At LMU we can have these two areas working well together so that everyone is involved with making a difference, helping LMU students. Constraints always will include the budget, as the primary source of income for LMU is still tuition-driven. Fr. Lawton emphasized the importance of the CAO’s role in balancing the values voiced by the president and the reality of the workings within Academic Affairs.
Q & A
Q. “Becoming more ourselves” feels much trickier now. From a faculty standpoint, “ourselves” is an ethos of an interpersonally driven, small institution oriented around the mission. “Becoming more ourselves” would be enhancing that culture. On the administration side, however, we have become bigger, using corporate language and now a “learning organization” focus. We acknowledge that we need to grow up and there are growing pains. How does one counter the distancing between faculty and administration versions of “becoming more ourselves”?
A. I begin by thinking of what individuals do. We grow up, become more skilled, more sophisticated. We do not stay at the same level. There are ways we can do that and stay true to ourselves. Incorporating technology and any other support should all go toward supporting the mission and it can work. What is essential is to talk about it and admit one’s mistakes and make changes as needed. It does not need to bifurcate.
Q: I agree it can work, but there have been signs it hasn’t been working.
A. I don’t think it is always possible to head off mistakes before they happen. Example: I am a huge believer in moving more responsibility to the deans because they have a better opportunity to interact with faculty. I think I pushed that change too quickly because deans need to be educated and helped. I was not sensitive enough to how big a cultural change that would be.
Q: You were talking about trying to merge teaching and scholarship as well as rewarding the extraordinary and recognizing the ordinary. We have to think about what is considered to be “extraordinary.” There are achievements that are already rewarded (e.g. external grant funding) so that adding to that existing reward would not be the best use of internal resources. Service has never been recognized here, but we could think about doing that.
A. I agree. This is exactly the kind of conversation we should be having.
Q. In respect to the second dichotomy, I’m reminded about the invitation to distinguished faculty to teach here. Can you describe the systematic thinking behind that, what you are looking for?
A. We just finished filling a new appointment of an outstanding faculty member. It has already energized the department. This type of hire can provide mentors for faculty.
Q: One critical difference is that now there is a smaller proportion of faculty who think they can “become more themselves.” A greater number of my colleagues think this is a conversation that is going on over their heads somewhere else. We need to create a culture at LMU where faculty think this is meaningful to them and that they make a difference.
A. I think it really has to start at the department level to make people feel they are contributing.
Q. Five years ago, you envisioned LMU to be the premier Catholic University in the West. What sort of progress have we made?
A. I have changed my mind; it was a mistake to look at LMU that way. The image was too local. I now think of our goal as being one of the great Catholic institutions in the country. We are the only major Catholic university located in any of the newest cities. I think we are making a lot of progress. We have had four Nobel Prize winners on campus this year and that provides an energy. With Anne Prisco here, we will get much more strategic in recruiting students. I have always said this was a 20-25 year project.
Q. You had a conversation with us about academic rigor. I wonder what has happened since then to improve that. The fact is if it does not come from you, there will be no movement. My department just had a conversation about adding new courses and we are worried that students, thinking these courses too hard, will not take them. So then who really is in charge of academic rigor?
A. It has to come from faculty. As deans are appointed, as hires are made, this message needs to be made.
A. (CAO Rose) This past Tuesday, February 13, deans received a grade distribution list and the high percentage of students earning top grades was “incredible”; an eye-opener to some deans. If this is not acceptable, it has to be changed within the department.
A. (Fr. Lawton) It has to be done at a larger level too because I know there are smaller departments that are afraid of losing majors.
Comment: I went to a conference and they provided a stats list that indicated that it was a myth that student evaluations and grade distribution coincide.
Comment: I don’t believe it is the grading as much as it’s the workload. Coming from a smaller department, I can say that I have seen students turn away from course choice based on how much reading was assigned in the course.
Q. You identified three areas and there’s a qualitative component as well as a quantitative component. Sometimes there are very extraordinary achievements that happen here and enrich us here but are not achievements that get reported externally.
A. I agree.
President Graf thanked Fr. Lawton for the renovation of the Collins Center, for moving decisively to resolve the Children’s Center issues, and for providing greater opportunities for discussion.
II. Pat Oliver Case and Draft of the Core Curriculum Committee’s Learning Outcomes and Procedure Schedules – Matt Dillon
Pat Oliver Case Update. Next week the final documents regarding the Pat Oliver case will be delivered. A decision regarding the case is expected to be reached soon and there should be something to report in mid-March.
Core Curriculum Committee Update. The Core Curriculum review offers us a major opportunity to address issues such as academic rigor and workload. The Core Curriculum Committee is rolling out a plan to hit every possible constituency for participation in its review. Matt asked senators to review the draft document on Learning Outcomes that had been provided to them, pointing out that the document’s mission driven objectives were deliberately unspecific at this point.
It was requested that the Senate engage in a discussion regarding these objectives, perhaps at the next Faculty Senate meeting.
III. LMU Children’s Center and Leave Policy Update - Rebecca Chandler, Assistant Vice President, Human Resources
Children’s Center Update. Effective February 15, Human Resources will oversee the administration of the Children’s Center. HR is committed to working with faculty and the Center to address issues, overcome challenges and enrich its programs. A document providing an update on the Children’s Center was distributed to senators.
- Ms. Chandler requested that HR be allowed a fair amount of “honeymoon” time in order to learn the expectations and environment of the Center and to formulate responses.
-LMU is currently searching for a consultant with broad expertise in children’s centers who can talk about best practices conducted in centers all over California.
-LMU needs to determine what revisions need to be made in order for the Center to be accredited. Accreditation standards were changed in September 2006 and have become more rigorous.
-A parent survey was disseminated and the results of the survey will be shared at the April parents’ meeting.
-An exploration of how the Center could collaborate and benefit from a relationship with the School of Education has begun.
-In recognition and support of the need for work/home balance and an understanding that the LMU Children’s Center may not be suitable for everyone, HR will be establishing a new position. This position will provide the following support to faculty and staff:
• Consultation and support regarding childcare arrangements, concerns and resources.
• Consultation and support regarding eldercare arrangements, concerns and resources.
• Consultation regarding specific benefit concerns and/or issues to include: liaison with insurance carriers to resolve claim issues and assistance with interpreting benefits – how to access and maximize coverage.
-Margaret Halm is stepping down as Benefits Manager and will be assuming this new position in mid-summer 2007.
Q & A
Q. When do you expect the Children’s Center to reapply for accreditation?
A. In February 2008. This is an 18-month process.
Q. Margaret Halm has been such a wonderful Benefits Manager. I am worried that an adequate replacement will be hard to find. Will she be available to assist the new Benefits Manager?
A. Margaret was poised to retire, but she was convinced to stay on at LMU in the new consultant position and yes, she will be available to provide assistance to the new Benefits Manager.
Q. I know staff have some concerns about the Children Center’s rates. Because they do not earn anywhere near faculty salaries, will there be a sliding scale for staff who want and need childcare at LMU?
A. The fee schedule is one of the things that will be looked at. We hope to look at scholarships.
Q. Can you respond to the health and safety requirements that LMU failed in the site visit?
A. Infants are supposed to be checked on every 5 minutes. The site visitors did not feel there was sufficient culture of evidence to support LMU claims that they did indeed meet that requirement.
Comment: As part of the advisory board of the Children’s Center, I just want to say these are positive changes, including the eldercare provisions.
Senators were encouraged to email Rebecca Chandler if they had any further questions.
Leave Policy Update. Ms. Chandler hoped the changes in the Leave Policy would be found to be positive. She cited the Rank and Tenure clock, which can stop without penalty for faculty on maternity leave, as an example.
IV. Faculty Compensation - Ernie Rose, Chief Academic Officer
CAO Rose explained LMU’s philosophy regarding compensation, describing salary compensation as merit-based without a guaranteed percentage in any particular year. This philosophy is formulated by the Trustees and by Fr. Lawton. The practice in recent years has included a small percentage of general increase as part of merit. The expectation was that 60% of faculty would receive a merit 1 increase and 40% would receive merit 2. However, in fact 50-60% of faculty have received merit 2 increases.
- For salaries to be equitable they need to be tied to market values. The current commitment is to keep salary from drifting away from the market so there will be no more periodic catching up.
-The research that was completed last year determined that there needed to be a million dollar equity pool to align LMU salaries with market values. In addition to that amount, $160,000.00 has been added to the pool to step up floor salaries and to adjust salaries of recently hired assistant professors to match incoming salaries.
-CAO Rose shared market comparison graphs for each school. He pointed out that School of Education averages were used for the School of Film & TV because appropriate comparator schools could not be found.
Q & A
Q. You’ve said that 60% of faculty have received merit 2. Is there enough money in the budget just in case everyone deserved top merit? Is there a quota?
A. No, there is not enough money to give everyone a merit 2 increase.
Q. A chunk of money is handed out. Can’t one then adjust what the percentages are for merit 1 and 2?
A. Yes, everyone receives a pool of money. However, I am not sure if someone got merit 2 in one college and someone else got merit 2 in another that it would be exactly the same amount.
Comment: This is a qualitatively different comparator list than we’ve had in previous years. This looks right. Keeping our eyes on the market on a yearly basis and getting the right comparators are huge achievements.
A. We will continue to look at how the market fluctuates on a yearly basis. It is an important commitment. In previous years, promotional increases were taken out of merit increases, which reduced the pool for everyone else. I have argued to have the promotional pool kept separate.
Q. Have any studies been done on gender differences in salary? If there is data, that would be helpful to add.
A. I do not know if that has been done, but as the rollout comes with the campus climate study, I think that is an issue which will be looked at. Nationwide salaries for female faculty and administrators continue to lag.
Q. Who determined the comparator schools?
A. The deans. Comparators can be adjusted. We will continue to have these discussions. You have a right to know this information and a responsibility to share with your deans if you think there are truer comparators than the ones listed here.
Q. Have there been additional administrators positions created at LMU?
A. I can only speak for the re-organization in Academic Affairs. Yes, I have created one new position, which is Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies. In my discussions with administration and faculty, I found that that position was felt to be important to create.
Q. How can we attract the best and brightest candidates if we cannot offer sufficient funds to help with the high cost of living?
A. The next big issue that we will have to look at is the faculty housing policy. The pool of money restricted for the loan programs has not been spent. That tells me we are not figuring out enough options to help faculty use these monies made available to them. This is a primary agenda item for the Cabinet.
Comment: The monies are not being used because they’re are not enough and the policy is one-size-fits all. It does not make a big enough difference for me to use it.
Comment: I am glad to hear that this will be the next big project. It is a critical area.
Q. Would you mind updating the Senate about the equity distribution among the deans and transparency in regard to the compensation process?
A. The equity pool is being discussed in the Deans’ Council. They need to come up with a consistent process across schools and this is being worked on. The transparency rule that went out with FSRs was inherited by me and is not my language. I think it sets up an unnecessarily adversarial position between faculty, department chairs, and deans. I will come back to you with suggestions to change the language and get your responses. I want it to be fair. Additionally there are issues with the Rank and Tenure committee which need to be discussed. Right now a faculty member who serves on Rank and Tenure gets two chances to weigh in on a candidate.
The Senate further discussed with CAO Rose the issue of fairness if chairs discussed recommendations with deans without first informing faculty of the chair’s recommendation.
President Graf thanked CAO Rose for his time and participation.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Submitted by: Cynthia Becht
Prepared by: Rosa Calderon