20 November 2003
Loyola Marymount University
Faculty Senate Minutes
November 20, 2003
McIntosh
2:45 p.m.-5:00 p.m.
Present: Matt Dillon, Omar Es-Said, Victoria Graf, Chun
Lee, Edmundo Litton, Marc Lony, Suzanne O’Brien, Edward Park,
K.J. Peters, Damon Rago, James Roe, Susan Scheibler, Leland
Swenson, Walter Walker, Thomas Zachariah
Excused: Marta Baltodano, Jok Madut Jok, Lily Khadjavi, Patricia
Oliver, and Patricia Walsh
President Roe called the meeting to order at 2:50 p.m.
President Roe read a commemoration of the anniversary of the death
of the Jesuit martyrs in El Salvador. This was followed by a moment
of silence.
I. Report from Suzanne O’Brien on the Over
Enrollment Windfall
-There may or may not be an over enrollment windfall given the
varying perspectives on the admissions process. It is
estimated that about 450 fewer students will finish the academic
year.
-The biggest problem that Admissions faces is the unpredictable
behavior of the applicants. In previous years, the University has
worked very hard to admit enough students. This year 2 to 3% more
applicants were accepted and 10% more attended than last year.
-The fact that LMU has a better reputation and is more competitive
may not stabilize this process because LMU will be competing for
the top students who have also applied and been accepted to other
universities.
-There is also concern about the lack of clarity regarding the cap
of the number of students who are admitted. Currently,
Admissions is told not to admit more than 1200 students and 200
transfer students, but by the end of the year the Administration
wants the equivalent of 1400 tuition paying students since tuition
covers 85% of the operating budget. Admissions has to determine the
exact number of students to admit to meet this goal. The number of
students who drop out, study abroad or graduate in December also
affect the targeted goal. This year there was a front loaded number
of students, but it is too early to tell what will happen in the
spring.
-The concern of the faculty relates to the increased number of
papers and exams and other assignments due to the larger number of
students.
II. Discussion with Fr. Robert B. Lawton, SJ, President of
LMU
-Fr. Lawton discussed the power that LMU professors have in
terms of touching their students. He thanked the members of
the Faculty Senate for the ways they touch the students and for
their role on the Senate.
-Fr. Lawton talked about the future of LMU. In his first
four years, he focused on the corporate aspects of the University
in terms of fundraising, the administrative structure of the
University, and putting the right people in the right
positions. In the next couple of years, he would like to work
with the Senate on establishing the non-corporate aspects of the
University. He wants to look at how as faculty we can better
educate the students including how to challenge them more in their
classes. Fr. Lawton also wants to determine how the University can
help the faculty regarding scholarship including having sufficient
space and time for creativity. Finally, he would like to see how
the activities on campus serve the greater LMU community. Fr.
Lawton looks forward to working with the Faculty Senate on these
issues.
Q. What is the status of the evaluations of the
Administration?
A. Fr. Lawton apologized for not acting right away regarding the
Administration evaluations. Given that his initial attention was
given to restructuring the Administration, he felt that it would be
premature to conduct the evaluations any earlier. Since the
restructuring is almost completed, he will now address the issue of
the evaluations.
Q. The message from some of the Administration is that there is
more emphasis placed on research and less on teaching. What
is the most important aspect to concentrate on and should teaching
be the emphasis?
A. Teaching, scholarship, and service are all important. From
year to year or at different times of one’s life or career,
the emphasis might change. It is up to the departments to look at
this balance. It is important to work with the Deans to look at
this tension among the various elements.
Q. Can we ask for the President’s support in making
something happen with creating a better system for assessing
teaching?
A. He wants to know what he can do to be more helpful.
Q. Why doesn’t LMU offer acceptance to another
College/Department to those top students who are denied admission
to their original request? Instead of denying them admission to
LMU, could there be a better way of capturing these students?
A. If a student is interested in getting into a particular
College, they should go to a university that accepted them into
that College instead of settling for something different.
There are also caps to class sizes, space concerns, etc. There are
strengths in the way that LMU accepts students into the colleges
and it seems to be the fairest for the students.
Q. This is a philosophical discussion regarding the value of an
undergraduate degree. Are Bachelor’s degrees professional
degrees or are they designed to provide a broad liberal
education?
A. Fr. Lawton said that these are deep and important
questions that he would be very willing to talk about at a later
time.
Q. Where does LMU stand in terms of giving benefits for domestic
partners?
A. Fr. Lawton has been looking into the bills in the Legislature
related to mandating benefits to domestic partners to see what the
implications would be for the University. Fr. Lawton is
concerned about the well being of staff and faculty, but being a
Catholic University, it may not be appropriate for LMU to offer
these services. The University would follow the law regarding
providing benefits to legally domicile adults. He recommended that
the Senate speak with Dr. Jabbra, so that everyone could work
together.
Q. What was the general impression from the WASC visit?
A. WASC was very impressed with what they saw. Assessment
and how it is tied into the activities of the University is an area
of ongoing attention. It is important to determine what data should
be collected in order to improve instruction. The University
will be re-accredited, but the length of the accreditation (5 or 10
years) is not known at this time.
Q. How do you envision graduate and/or doctoral programs at
LMU?
A. In the long view (30 years) of the University, there will
probably be some doctoral programs, but he did not see any doctoral
programs in the next 10 years except for the Ed.D. in the School of
Education. It is important to improve and strengthen the
existing master’s programs before developing on any other
doctoral programs.
Fr. Lawton said that he would like to be able to meet with the
Faculty Senate and have more sustained discussions about specific
topics such as the academic future of the University.
III. It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of the
meeting on October 16, 2003. The minutes were approved
unanimously.
IV. Report by the President of the Faculty Senate
-Thomas Zachariah, Chair of the Election Committee, reported
that Charles Erven has been elected to be the Fine Arts
representative on the Senate. There are still two vacancies from
the College of Business Administration and one vacancy representing
History/Philosophy/Theology.
-The Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC) will spell
out the policies regarding what can be put on the University
website. There is a concern about the number of email messages left
on the server and that messages should be deleted especially if
they are larger than 200 megabytes. LMU Announcements will only be
distributed once a week on Mondays. Messages will be 80 words or
less with links. Any messages that are to be emailed on Monday via
LMU Announcements should be sent in the previous Thursday.
V. Report by Dr. Joseph Jabbra, Academic Vice President.
-Two searches are being conducted to fill the positions of Dean
of Communication and Fine Arts (CFA) and Dean of the Bellarmine
College of Liberal Arts. The search for the Dean of CFA is
down to four finalists. Dr. Jabbra is trying to schedule
interviews before the Christmas break. Nine candidates are
being looked at closely for the position of Dean of the Bellarmine
College of Liberal Arts. Dr. Jabbra has asked the consultant
to provide him with more information about the candidates. The
search committee will meet the following week to narrow the
candidates down to three or four. The committees have been
very effective and the searches are going very well.
-Sr. Mary Beth Ingham has been appointed Chair of the committee
that will evaluate the impact of offering four credit
classes. The committee will evaluate from an educational
perspective what offering four credit classes would do to the
students, the programs, the faculty, and the LMU community.
The committee will begin its work after Christmas.
-In terms of the spring enrollment, the University made a
commitment not to increase the intake of students. There was
a significant increase in the fall and LMU now needs to live up to
its commitment to the community and to the University. Dr. Jabbra
looks at the number of students graduating in the fall and how many
students are leaving the university. There will be 200
students graduating in the fall and in past years LMU normally
loses between 150-200 in the Fall for various reasons. Admissions
will admit up to 90 students in the Spring. The President and
Vice Presidents are in full agreement on these numbers.
-Dr. Jabbra received the Intellectual Property document from
University attorneys and he will thoroughly review it. He
will notify the Faculty Senate once he has completed this
review.
- Dr. Jabbra said that the current system of merit evaluation
has outlived its usefulness and the time has come to take a
detailed look at where the University needs to go in the future.
Dr. Jabbra said he stands firm that unless a more acceptable way of
assessing teaching is created he will not accept any new
proposal. The merit evaluation process needs to be fair to
the faculty including the junior faculty. Merit is not based
solely on scholarship and creative work and it is important to
understand that teaching is a serious component at LMU.
-The consultants for the faculty compensation study have been
working hard and listening carefully to the concerns of the
faculty. The focus groups were especially helpful. One
important conclusion from the focus groups was that many faculty
members felt that LMU is a terrific place to be. The
challenge is how to keep it that way.
Q. What is the status of the domestic partner benefits policy
since the Faculty Senate was looking into investigating the policy
on its own?
A. It would be best to address this question to the President
because he has been keeping abreast of new developments in this
area. Dr. Jabbra recommended that before the Senate begins
investigating this matter, the President should be
consulted.
Q. Why is it essential that the new merit evaluation proposal
require a better way of assessing teaching if it is not required
now? Why should the new merit process be held up?
A. Dr. Jabbra wanted the Faculty Senate to know that it would be
unwise to approve one element of the proposal and let the teaching
assessment aspect drag on because this has happened before.
He and President Roe will look into the status of the committee
that was looking at alternative ways of evaluating teaching.
Q. The Mechanical Engineering Department does not want a
three-year evaluation process. They prefer a yearly
evaluation. Would it be possible to keep the one year process
for their department?
A. Dr. Jabbra said that the department of Mechanical Engineering
should make its views known through the consultative process.
Q. What is the status of negotiations with Sodexho?
A. In terms of Sodexho food services, Dr. Jabbra is not involved
in Sodexho’s food services. He suggested that the
Senate obtain any information they need in this regard from Tom
Fleming and/or Dan Forgeron.
VI. Report of the Senate President continued.
-The Faculty Compensation Study included 10 focus groups of
approximately 75 faculty members. The consultants will compare data
from LMU to other universities. ESOF and the Faculty Senate
Executive Board were very involved as a working group with the
consultants. Preliminary results indicate that faculty are most
concerned with housing, salary administration, promotion policies,
teaching load and recruitment strategies. Faculty were generally
pleased with the work environment at LMU.
-An additional meeting has been scheduled for December
11th, 2003 where the Sexual Harassment Policy and issues
related to Sodexho will be discussed.
-The first Budget Committee meeting is scheduled for January
12th, 2004. James Roe will be present at the
meeting.
VII. Reports of the Senators
-ESOF Report
The ESOF chairman, Dr. Mills, conducted an exit survey of those
faculty members that left the University. The response rate
was not high, but they did accumulate some data. The number
one reason faculty left was because of the cost of housing. This
was particularly true for faculty who are the sole breadwinners of
families. The second reason for faculty leaving was the cost
of living in Southern California. ESOF has tried to use these
results to increase salaries, but it has not worked. With the
help of the consultants who are gathering information from
comparable institutions, ESOF is collecting all of the available
information to know how much to request for a salary increase.
-Domestic Partner Benefits Report/Legal Adult Cohabitant
Edmundo Litton will have a proposal ready for the January
Faculty Senate meeting.
-Faculty Handbook Report
The Committee section of the Handbook does not include the all
of the current committees. Leland Swenson suggested that the
Faculty Handbook include the website for the Committee Handbook, www.lmu.edu/committees.
VIII. Discussion on the Report on Merit Reform
-President James Roe asked for volunteers to go with him to the
Dean’s Council to present the proposal. James Roe and Scott
Wright will attend the Dean’s Council.
-Section One and Section Two were not discussed since there
weren’t any changes to be made.
-Section Three: Recommendation regarding the 4-4-2 system for
faculty merit evaluation.
• The scoring
system was adjusted allowing for more flexibility. It was
proposed that the faculty be evaluated on a scale from 0 to 3 with
the potential to earn up to 30 points.
• The proposal
changed subsection d. so that the Deans would not compare the merit
scores of one department with those of a different
department. Each department will be responsible for their own
merit criteria.
• The proposal
changed subsection g. allowing for a faculty member to request not
to be evaluated by the 4-4-2 system, giving the merit process more
flexibility.
Questions:
-
How does this point scale reflect merit? Is it possible to add
more than three levels of evaluation?
-
What constitutes as top merit?
Discussion:
It was suggested to keep the merit evaluation at three levels
because more levels might be divisive. The division of money
would also stay the same
-Section Four was not discussed.
-Section Five: Recommendation regarding the time period during
which faculty are evaluated
• There is a need
for conversation in terms of subsection a., which says that the
entire tenured faculty of the University will be evaluated in the
same year. The Faculty Senate is concerned that evaluating
everyone at the same time would put too much pressure on the Deans
and the Chairs of the departments, especially large
departments.
• Not evaluating
all tenured faculty during the same year though might lead to a
lack of uniformity in terms of scoring.
Questions:
-
The College of Science and Engineering prefer to be evaluated
every year, so is there a way to allow the Colleges or Departments
to choose how they want to be evaluated?
Discussion:
It was suggested that the University have a transitional period
where the departments could opt in if they wanted to try the system
out for three years.
-The larger departments might not opt in though because it would
be too difficult given their size.
-It might be difficult politically to phase in the merit process
because it is set up to help faculty plan long-term and to improve
the quality of scholarly productivity and research. If the
merit process were only implemented on a trial basis it would
create more busy work then necessary. There needs to be a
systematic change to the institution, almost like a mini WASC to
evaluate the process.
-Section Six did not change therefore was not discussed.
-Section Seven: Recommendation regarding evaluation of committee
work by committee chairs
• This
recommendation presumes that all committee work is equal.
Also some members could sign up for a committee and never attend
the committee meetings.
• Evaluating
service has always been difficult to do
Questions:
-
How do we do evaluate service?
-
How do we evaluate committee work especially if some committees
are more demanding than others?
-By the December Faculty Senate meeting, James Roe along with
Scott Wright will have met with the Dean’s Council. The
problem of how to evaluate teaching must be resolved before voting
on the proposal. James Roe will meet with Dr. Jabbra to
discuss this concern. The Faculty Senate suggests that
President Lawton mandate that the process to evaluate teaching be
moved along.
IX. Sexual Harassment Policy
-The updated Sexual Harassment Policy was distributed.
James Roe asked the Faculty Senate to read the policy and be
prepared to discuss it at the next meeting.
-Every year LMU makes a tally of the number of sexual harassment
referrals. For 2002-2003, 12 sexual harassment referrals were
made regarding students and faculty or students and staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Next meeting: December 11, 2003
2:45
p.m.-5:00 pm
McIntosh
Submitted by: Victoria Graf
Prepared by: Amber Hager